Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium

[codefro]

In March, the Diologos Institute published a blog post recapping the discussions that took place at last year’s Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium here. I am excited to read about this. Firstly, because I am a fan of Dr. Thomas Pink, and I feel his hermeneutical discourse on DH is the best the Church has seen today. Secondly, because many prominent theologians have pointed out today that DH, at least in how many interpret it today, constitutes a break from the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. So discourse is needed today in order to come to a correct understanding of the document. It is meetings like this that will get us there.

 

[RPRPsych]

In March, the Diologos Institute published a blog post recapping the discussions that took place at last year’s Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium here. I am excited to read about this. Firstly, because I am a fan of Dr. Thomas Pink, and I feel his hermeneutical discourse on DH is the best the Church has seen today. Secondly, because many prominent theologians have pointed out today that DH, at least in how many interpret it today, constitutes a break from the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. So discourse is needed today in order to come to a correct understanding of the document. It is meetings like this that will get us there.

Very interesting reading! Thanks for sharing this.

 

[Genesis315]

I might just be dumb, but I feel these guys over complicate the issue. Pink even limits the state’s coercive power more than the Catechism with his strict jurisdictional approach (to be fair to Pink, his opinion has had its backers throughout history, but it is not the position ultimately put forth by the Magisterium). From what I can tell, the doctrine is this:

The purpose of public authority is the attainment of the common good. Therefore, it has a right to restrict religious activity that is harmful to the common good. Furthermore, our conception of the common good cannot be positivist or naturalist–ie it must take into account the truth and man’s supernatural end.

Otherwise, since man is responsible and obligated to seek and embrace the truth, he must be free to do so and given a sufficient berth so that he can fulfill this duty in a manner consonant with his nature and dignity. While Dignitatis Humanae certainly focuses more on this part of the doctrine, and 19th century papal documents focus more on the issues in my prior paragraph, there is no contradiction between these two aspects and the Catechism incorporates all of it.

The strictly jurisdictional approach of Pink is similar to what John Courtney Murray argued for and it was ultimately not adopted by the Council (Murray missed the the last sessions with a collapsed lung where his main thesis was cast aside). He argued for a freedom based strictly on a juridical argument without reference to truth saying the state was incompetent in these matters and therefore man must be left free. This approach was opposed during the Council, primarily by Karol Woltyja, the future Pope John Paul II, who said man’s duty to the truth, rather than merely juridical considerations, had to be the foundation for any claim to freedom in that regard. He also opposed an early draft of DH that asserted an absolute freedom, saying:

“No human being or human power has the right to use coercion on a person who has come to an erroneous conclusion, if this conclusion is not itself opposed either to the common good, or to another’s good, or to the good of the person in error. If it is, in fact, opposed to one or more of these, then certainly legitimate superiors, such as parents or those responsible for the common good, can exercise a kind of coercion on the one in error, lest by following his error he cause proportionately grave evil either to others or to himself."

This was incorporated into DH paragraph 7 and more precisely in CCC 2109 (which the usual people at these conferences never seem to address, at least from the info I have seen…).

 

[codefro]

Did any of the speakers take your approach?

 

[Genesis315]

Did any of the speakers take your approach?

Funny you ask. I just came back to make a correction to my post above. The summary in the link in your first post didn’t mention what Fr. Harrison said and so I decided to see what approach he took on the matter (I’ve read him on other topics before)–it turns out that in other articles he takes this same approach (I assume he did at this conference too). As I mentioned, this seems to also be the interpretation the Church has actually taken as found in the CCC, especially given how it incorporates those 19th century papal texts. Harrison also appears to do a good job of not confounding the issue of religious liberty with the issue of the relationship between the Church and State/Social Kingship of Christ. DH only deals with the latter in the brief “…leaves untouched…” sentence and a neutral passing statement about “special civil recognition.”

That being said, I would bolster Harrison’s argument a couple ways (he may do this in his longer books I have not read):

I think it’s important to show how the Church defines the common good and also show that it is the raison d’etre for public authority. The common good is public authority’s special province and determines “the fixed limits within which it is contained.” (Leo XIII, Immortael Dei 13). That’s when and why it can interfere with man’s freedom.

The Church is clear that to serve the common good is why public authority exists:

CCC 1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

Leo XIII, Diuturnum: But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude.

St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris: 54. The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities.

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium: 240. It is the responsibility of the State to safeguard and promote the common good of society.

So what is the common good? Murray, for example, argued that public authority only had competency for what he called the “common peace,” which he said was a subset of the common good–this is the most minimum restraints on activity needed for coexistence. Pink adds natural reason/morality to public authority’s purview (saying it can only go beyond this with the delegation of the Church). The CCC (2109) explicitly rules out such exclusively naturalistic conceptions in the context of religious liberty and cites to two papal documents, from Pius VI and Bl. Pius IX, respectively, which harshly condemned such a naturalistic approach to religious liberty. On the other hand, the common good also includes “the prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society.” (CCC 1925). Notice the inclusion of the spiritual well-being of society. As St. John XXIII taught:

St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 57. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)

1. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)
2. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

Man’s supernatural end and well-being need to be taken into account (see also CCC 2244).

In the 19th century the Popes were fighting against the Liberals/Rationalists/Naturalists who wanted to impose a liberty based on naturalist, indifferentist, and even anti-clerical and anti-Catholic principles for the purpose of diminishing or even destroying the spiritual prosperity of certain countries (since they denied any public value to spiritual things or even argued they caused public harm). This is the exact opposite of a liberty founded on man’s relationship to God and duty to seek the truth, and, because he is a social creature, limited by the needs of the authentic common good of the society to which he belongs, which is what DH and the CCC declare.

Since the measures needed to advance the common good vary by the circumstances (as the CCC notes in 2109), the diversity in how false religious activity has been dealt with across time and place is accounted for without contradiction in principle (even admitting that it may not have always been handled with perfect prudence and justice).

Just to add, the same principles apply to freedom of speech and publication (this is important since the disputed aspect of religious liberty is the public expression of error, which falls under the broader umbrella of speech and publication). See e.g. St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 12.

 

[kdbueno]

Heresies do exist, further, the intelligence of Rome consists in suppressing it to the level of its non-existence.

 

[codefro]

Funny you ask. I just came back to make a correction to my post above. The summary in the link in your first post didn’t mention what Fr. Harrison said and so I decided to see what approach he took on the matter (I’ve read him on other topics before)–it turns out that in other articles he takes this same approach (I assume he did at this conference too). As I mentioned, this seems to also be the interpretation the Church has actually taken as found in the CCC, especially given how it incorporates those 19th century papal texts. Harrison also appears to do a good job of not confounding the issue of religious liberty with the issue of the relationship between the Church and State/Social Kingship of Christ. DH only deals with the latter in the brief “…leaves untouched…” sentence and a neutral passing statement about “special civil recognition.”

That being said, I would bolster Harrison’s argument a couple ways (he may do this in his longer books I have not read):

I think it’s important to show how the Church defines the common good and also show that it is the raison d’etre for public authority. The common good is public authority’s special province and determines “the fixed limits within which it is contained.” (Leo XIII, Immortael Dei 13). That’s when and why it can interfere with man’s freedom.

So what is the common good? Murray, for example, argued that public authority only had competency for what he called the “common peace,” which he said was a subset of the common good–this is the most minimum restraints on activity needed for coexistence. Pink adds natural reason/morality to public authority’s purview (saying it can only go beyond this with the delegation of the Church). The CCC (2109) explicitly rules out such exclusively naturalistic conceptions in the context of religious liberty and cites to two papal documents, from Pius VI and Bl. Pius IX, respectively, which harshly condemned such a naturalistic approach to religious liberty. On the other hand, the common good also includes “the prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society.” (CCC 1925). Notice the inclusion of the spiritual well-being of society. As St. John XXIII taught:

Man’s supernatural end and well-being need to be taken into account (see also CCC 2244).

In the 19th century the Popes were fighting against the Liberals/Rationalists/Naturalists who wanted to impose a liberty based on naturalist, indifferentist, and even anti-clerical and anti-Catholic principles for the purpose of diminishing or even destroying the spiritual prosperity of certain countries (since they denied any public value to spiritual things or even argued they caused public harm). This is the exact opposite of a liberty founded on man’s relationship to God and duty to seek the truth, and, because he is a social creature, limited by the needs of the authentic common good of the society to which he belongs, which is what DH and the CCC declare.

Since the measures needed to advance the common good vary by the circumstances (as the CCC notes in 2109), the diversity in how false religious activity has been dealt with across time and place is accounted for without contradiction in principle (even admitting that it may not have always been handled with perfect prudence and justice).

Just to add, the same principles apply to freedom of speech and publication (this is important since the disputed aspect of religious liberty is the public expression of error, which falls under the broader umbrella of speech and publication). See e.g. St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 12.

I’m trying to understand this, but I am having a hard time tbh.

Firstly: Where did you read Fr. Harrison’s speech at the colloquium? I would love to read it.

Secondly: Let’s see if we can break it down. From my understanding, Dr. Pink’s argument was adopted from the Thomistic principle that the government does not have the right to coerce in Religion, as DH states. Yet, he argues, the Church does. The Church can extend the authority to act as the “arm” of the Church to the government, or can choose not too. While the government once acted in this role, and it was licit, the government does not any longer as the Church no longer wished it. That could change down the road and be licit. If that is wrong, please correct me.

So, what is Fr. Harrison’s argument on this, super-simplified? From what I know of Fr. Harrison, I know he would not fall into the camp that diminishes the teaching authority of the DH document itself, as some other theologians did at the colloquiem. So I assume he is trying to argue for the continuity of the document, but I am having a hard time understanding the continuity- even what is stated in the Catechism.

 

[codefro]

See it is paragraphs like this that seem confusing:

“Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.” Dignitatis Humanae Section 7, Paragraph 2

Shouldn’t a government show partisanship to the Catholic Church? If not, why? It is the true Church, and even though people may not understand that she is the truth, the government still has the objective responsibility to promote her truth whether people realize it or not. Or am I misinterpreting here?

 

[Barricade]

Shouldn’t a government show partisanship to the Catholic Church? If not, why? It is the true Church, and even though people may not understand that she is the truth, the government still has the objective responsibility to promote her truth whether people realize it or not. Or am I misinterpreting here?

This is another confusing part of DH to me that I had not previously considered. When reading it over for context, perhaps it is not partisanship in itself that DH speaks against but “an unfair spirit of partisanship” which is what the document says. So perhaps a government could give the Catholic Church a privileged position and so be partisan but not in a way that treats people of other religions in an arbitrary or unjust way. Just a thought, but I don’t know.

To me however, there is a far more troubling aspect of my reading of DH and it is the following which I don’t see discussed at all in section 6:

It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.

How can it be definitively said that the government is doing wrong by taking measures to prevent someone from joining a particular religious community? If Satanists started gaining real traction, why couldn’t a state, in theory, ban the construction of Satantic temples in the hopes of hindering people from joining such a religion? This seems like it was standard practice of Christian countries prior to Vatican II, many nations prohibited the building of houses of worship of false religions in the hopes of preventing the spread of such religions.

 

[Barricade]

Just to add a separate issue about Dignitatis Humanae that I never see people discuss, I want to know why such a privileged position is given to beliefs classified as “religious” in nature?

The Church recognizes the State’s ability to punish the spreading of falsehood under certain circumstances. We have laws against perjury, against libel, against defamation, etc. I don’t think the Church would say any of these are inherently unjust; they exist to punish liars and promote the truth. These laws exist to prevent people from spreading falsehood in particular circumstances because it is recognized as doing unjust harm to others.

Why then, when it comes to false beliefs that happen to be religious in nature does the State suddenly have a leash on it according to DH? What is it about false beliefs pertaining to supernatural things that give them greater immunity from the power of the state?

It goes without saying that false religious beliefs can cause immense harm, as many have been some of the greatest causes of misery in the history of mankind. So why can’t the state attack the spread of such religious falsehood with the same vigor as going after those who commit perjury?

 

[otjm]

Shouldn’t a government show partisanship to the Catholic Church? If not, why? It is the true Church, and even though people may not understand that she is the truth, the government still has the objective responsibility to promote her truth whether people realize it or not. Or am I misinterpreting here?

One might think, after centuries of involvement with governments, that the Church might have learned that theory and practice are a significant difference apart.

If one wants to set up a theocracy, one needs to find a place where theocracy might work; Islam has found those places and seeks to widen its practice.

In the last 200 years or so, people - not necessarily governments - in Western nations have learned that favoring one religious expression over another. Those who posit a government favoring the Church over other religions may be sitting in ivory towers expounding theory, but it is theory that flies in the face of history.

On the other hand, we have secularism as a new religion, practiced in a number of Western countries, some more than others (France comes to mind here), and we are seeing the results of that. Government needs to be neutral.

And DH needs to be read not only through the history of teh Church, but also through the discussions leading up to the adoption of the document, and the rest of the documents; it does not stand in isolation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As one who taught the Council documents as part of my portfolio in my days as an academic, Dignitatis Humanae is a tremendous gift to the Church – at the time in which it is written as well as in all the years since.

 

[Barricade]

On the other hand, we have secularism as a new religion, practiced in a number of Western countries, some more than others (France comes to mind here), and we are seeing the results of that. Government needs to be neutral.

Government doesn’t need to be neutral. In his Syllabus of Errors Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition:

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

I don’t think there is a government on Earth that is truly neutral on religious matters, if we were neutral in the United States the government would allow polygamy so as to not appear exclusive against the religious practices of certain Muslims. Certain false religions or cults behave in a way that is totally at odds with the demands of public order and the just laws of the state, I don’t see how the state can be neutral towards such people.

As one who taught the Council documents as part of my portfolio in my days as an academic, Dignitatis Humanae is a tremendous gift to the Church – at the time in which it is written as well as in all the years since.

Call me a pessimist, but I fail to see how the Church has been in a better position after 1965 than prior to it as a result of Dignitatis Humanae. Was there any Catholic country in the world at the time that is now in a better position as far as the Church is concerned? I just don’t see it. I feel like many in Western countries especially have just accepted the liberal status quo and liberal values even though they often clearly prove themselves to be damaging to the faith.

 

[Pulvis]

Government doesn’t need to be neutral. In his Syllabus of Errors Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition:

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

I don’t think there is a government on Earth that is truly neutral on religious matters, if we were neutral in the United States the government would allow polygamy so as to not appear exclusive against the religious practices of certain Muslims. Certain false religions or cults behave in a way that is totally at odds with the demands of public order and the just laws of the state, I don’t see how the state can be neutral towards such people.

Call me a pessimist, but I fail to see how the Church has been in a better position after 1965 than prior to it as a result of Dignitatis Humanae. Was there any Catholic country in the world at the time that is now in a better position as far as the Church is concerned? I just don’t see it. I feel like many in Western countries especially have just accepted the liberal status quo and liberal values even though they often clearly prove themselves to be damaging to the faith.

Barricade, you are running into the same wall many of us have. There was, and still is, an element in our theological circles that rejected the post reformation reforms designed to protect the Church. They see them as a closed off ideology that stifled the Church and prevented Her from reaching out to modern society. Read Pope St. John XXIII opening remarks. The proponents of this new theology discount the attempts to fight for the purity and protection of the Church. My personal opinion is that these new measures are inherently destructive. But i defer to the Church and the Magesterium

 

[codefro]

Government doesn’t need to be neutral. In his Syllabus of Errors Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition:

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

I don’t think there is a government on Earth that is truly neutral on religious matters, if we were neutral in the United States the government would allow polygamy so as to not appear exclusive against the religious practices of certain Muslims. Certain false religions or cults behave in a way that is totally at odds with the demands of public order and the just laws of the state, I don’t see how the state can be neutral towards such people.

Call me a pessimist, but I fail to see how the Church has been in a better position after 1965 than prior to it as a result of Dignitatis Humanae. Was there any Catholic country in the world at the time that is now in a better position as far as the Church is concerned? I just don’t see it. I feel like many in Western countries especially have just accepted the liberal status quo and liberal values even though they often clearly prove themselves to be damaging to the faith.

I agree, secularism has failed. Secularism will always fail. No entity can be unbiased. What’s silly is that the document itself doesn’t endorse secularism, so neither should Catholics.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think there is a government on Earth that is truly neutral on religious matters, if we were neutral in the United States the government would allow polygamy so as to not appear exclusive against the religious practices of certain Muslims. Certain false religions or cults behave in a way that is totally at odds with the demands of public order and the just laws of the state, I don’t see how the state can be neutral towards such people.

Polyamory, which is not all that distant from polygamy, will be the next series of court battles in the US.

Call me a pessimist, but I fail to see how the Church has been in a better position after 1965 than prior to it as a result of Dignitatis Humanae. Was there any Catholic country in the world at the time that is now in a better position as far as the Church is concerned? I just don’t see it. I feel like many in Western countries especially have just accepted the liberal status quo and liberal values even though they often clearly prove themselves to be damaging to the faith.

The movement away from Pius IX’s statement has been steady ever since. Perhaps the better question is: “Is the Church worse off since 1965?”

 

[Barricade]

Barricade, you are running into the same wall many of us have. There was, and still is, an element in our theological circles that rejected the post reformation reforms designed to protect the Church. They see them as a closed off ideology that stifled the Church and prevented Her from reaching out to modern society. Read Pope St. John XXIII opening remarks. The proponents of this new theology discount the attempts to fight for the purity and protection of the Church. My personal opinion is that these new measures are inherently destructive. But i defer to the Church and the Magesterium

Well we’ve seen what a lovely job the Church has done in reaching out to modern society now have we? The Church is in retreat in the West on virtually every front. Much like in the case of an actual army in the field, it should be no surprise that confusion among Catholics results in an operational breakdown on the battlefield of evangelization.

And when it comes to Dignitatis Humanae, I think remains so controversial in Catholic circles in large part because it seems to have resulted in more confusion rather than more clarity among Catholics, and this is a major problem.

There are still questions about this document that have not received adequate explanation as to how they fit into the continuity of Church teaching on this subject.

Contrary to the defenses made by some apologists, Dignitatis Humanae does not merely state that people are to be free from forced conversion, the Church has always taught this anyway. Dignitatis Humanae makes many many claims as to the rights people have related to religion and I haven’t seen all of these claims addressed adequately enough when demonstrating the continuity of DH with past teaching of the Church.

For example Dignitatis Humanae says that:

• religious communities have a right to not even be hindered in public teaching of their faiths whether by the spoken or written word (with some limits stated) [section 4]
• religious communities are not to be hindered in the construction of buildings for religious purposes. [section 4] (this includes houses of worship for false religions).
• the state transgresses the limits on its power if it presumes to inhibit acts that are religious. [section 3] (If a profane Black Mass or worship service for Satan himself were taking place within the walls of the Vatican, is the state of the Vatican handcuffed from putting a stop to it because that would be inhibiting a religious act?)
• the state is wrong to hinder people from joining a particular religious community [section 6] (so a Catholic country can’t pursue measures that would try to put obstacles in the way of people converting to false religions?)
• the state is wrong to hinder people from leaving a religious community [section 6] (is this a blanket repudiation of punishing heretics and apostates under the civil laws of Europe’s formerly Christian states? The Church approved the burning of heretics for crying out loud; is burning someone alive for leaving the Catholic faith and not repenting not considered hindering them from leaving a religious community?)

 

[codefro]

Well we’ve seen what a lovely job the Church has done in reaching out to modern society now have we? The Church is in retreat in the West on virtually every front. Much like in the case of an actual army in the field, it should be no surprise that confusion among Catholics results in an operational breakdown on the battlefield of evangelization.

And when it comes to Dignitatis Humanae, I think remains so controversial in Catholic circles in large part because it seems to have resulted in more confusion rather than more clarity among Catholics, and this is a major problem.

There are still questions about this document that have not received adequate explanation as to how they fit into the continuity of Church teaching on this subject.

Contrary to the defenses made by some apologists, Dignitatis Humanae does not merely state that people are to be free from forced conversion, the Church has always taught this anyway. Dignitatis Humanae makes many many claims as to the rights people have related to religion and I haven’t seen all of these claims addressed adequately enough when demonstrating the continuity of DH with past teaching of the Church.

For example Dignitatis Humanae says that:

• religious communities have a right to not even be hindered in public teaching of their faiths whether by the spoken or written word (with some limits stated) [section 4]
• religious communities are not to be hindered in the construction of buildings for religious purposes. [section 4] (this includes houses of worship for false religions).
• the state transgresses the limits on its power if it presumes to inhibit acts that are religious. [section 3] (If a profane Black Mass or worship service for Satan himself were taking place within the walls of the Vatican, is the state of the Vatican handcuffed from putting a stop to it because that would be inhibiting a religious act?)
• the state is wrong to hinder people from joining a particular religious community [section 6] (so a Catholic country can’t pursue measures that would try to put obstacles in the way of people converting to false religions?)
• the state is wrong to hinder people from leaving a religious community [section 6] (is this a blanket repudiation of punishing heretics and apostates under the civil laws of Europe’s formerly Christian states? The Church approved the burning of heretics for crying out loud; is burning someone alive for leaving the Catholic faith and not repenting not considered hindering them from leaving a religious community?)

It would make sense if they changed “religious” to “Catholic”.

 

[Barricade]

It would make sense if they changed “religious” to “Catholic”.

Well that’s one of the peculiar things about the document when I read it, it feels like the writers of the document were thinking only of the Church in references to the rights it describes, but then extended these rights to all other religions with one caveat: the reference to the vague “due limits”.

For example consider the following passage from Dignitatis Humanae (section 4):

"Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties."

This entire passage seems to be written with the aim of preserving the easy functioning of the Church, but applies it to other religions ALSO.

The first part seems to be aimed at preventing the state from presuming to select politically reliable/benign bishops or other clergy members for the Church in their country. This isn’t really an issue in America but in China for example, the government tries to manipulate who lands leadership positions in the Church.

Communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad seems to be aimed at making sure there are open lines of communication and travel for members of the Catholic clergy around the world. (Making sure Cardinals can travel to conclaves, transferral of priests, missionary work, etc.)

And lastly this reference seems to be aimed at making sure the Church always has the opportunity to collect money and acquire buildings for Churches, hospitals, schools, etc.

All of these rights listed seem to have been written for the sake of the Church but were camouflaged by allowing them to be applied to all other religions as well so it doesn’t look like the Church is only trying to stick up for its own functioning.

 

[codefro]

I wish Genesis315 would come back and answer my question.