Freedom of Religious Belief

[_AnnoDomini]

I’ve heard it said by many Catholics that ideally, people shouldn’t have the right to choose their own religious beliefs. I was directed to the Syllabus of Errors, which listed the following as error #15:

“‘Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.’ —Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.”

While I do believe that Catholic beliefs should be a guiding force in politics, I also believe that we should respect people’s right to choose what they believe, whether they choose correctly or not. Besides, if having different religious beliefs were to be outlawed, what would the punishment be for non-Catholics? Death? Banishment from the country? Neither of those sound very Christlike to me.

I was just wondering what people’s thoughts were on this! I’m fairly new to Catholicism, and I was hoping to gain some clarification on the matter. Thank you!

 

[Justin_Mary]

I also believe that we should respect people’s right to choose what they believe, whether they choose correctly or not.

I think most of us believe in religious freedom. You’re free to believe whatever you wish. But the truth is still the truth & none of us can make something true simply by believing.

 

[StudentMI]

My understanding is that no one has the right to error, but that as a concession to civil law religious liberty is promoted. My understanding comes mainly from Fr. Brian Harrison who has done an outstanding job showing that the pre-Vatican II teaching is reconcilable with the post teaching. Any mistakes in explaining are my own.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The Church tolerates those of different denominations and religions but the Catholic Faith is the one true religion since it was founded by Christ Himself, Who Is True God and True Man. Pope Leo XIII expounded on this in Libertas (c.f. #10 & 21):

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

Excerpts:

1. …From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law.
2. …Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.

 

[ioannes_pius]

In an article entitled, “Religious Liberty: What the Text Demands”, Fr. William G. Most sought to show continuity between Dignitatis Humanæ and previous Magisterial teachings on the subject on religious liberty. He examines the various relevant texts in question, comments on them, and shows how they fit together. Dr. Jeff Mirus conveniently synthesized Fr. Most’s various conclusions about the various texts into clear, concise phrases.

While that isn’t the exact topic of this thread, I think it would be worthwhile to post those phrases here, as they show very clearly what we are to believe:

“1. No one has a right to just any wrong belief or worship. (Gregory XVI)
2. It is wrong to say that one can be saved precisely by false beliefs. (Gregory XVI)
3. It is wrong to say that no authority at all, church or state, has any right to restrain manifestation and publication of errors no matter how gross or immoral they are. (Gregory XVI)
4. It is wrong to say that those who do violence [violatores] to the Catholic religion should not be restrained unless public order demands it. (Pius IX)
5. The state has the obligation to worship God, and to do it in the way God wills. (Leo XIII)
6. But it is necessary, for the common good, to permit some errors, as God Himself does. (Leo XIII)
7. Moreover, God does not give a right to repress certain kinds of errors at all. (Pius XII)”. (Doctrinal Development on Religious Liberty)

Finally, I add an eighth point which was taught at Vatican II:

1. Individuals have a right to be free from coercion on the part of any merely human power in religious matters within due reason.

If you’re interested, I would suggest reading both texts to which I linked in the post for an in-depth explanation of how these points fit together.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

I’ve heard it said by many Catholics that ideally, people shouldn’t have the right to choose their own religious beliefs.

To be honest, I find that belief to be contrary to Catholicism. Catholicism, and really all Christianity, is about choice. Choosing to believe in Jesus Christ. Someone cannot be forced to “believe” anything, it has to be a choice. Christ is knocking on our doors, but we choose whether or not to open that door.

And really, the entire Christian life is a response to this choice. It should never end at “I believe in Jesus, now I can live happily ever after”, it should be a series of discerning God’s will, day after day, moment after moment, and choosing God’s will over my own. God never said it would be an easy life, and all of us choose our own will over God’s from time to time (I.e. sin), but we the choose to go to confession, we choose to try harder next time, even if we fail. The Christian life, in my opinion, is fundamentally about choosing Christ to the best of our abilities, despite our shortcomings, and despite the free-will to do otherwise. So I’d argue that in instances like this, choice, and the freedom to make that choice is an integral part of our faith.

 

[Neithan]

It’s a condemnation of relativism and rationalism. We are not free to embrace any religion by the light of natural reason, because the true religion requires divine faith. We are not pagans who merely philosophize and create rituals to interact with the gods, but God has revealed and given Himself to us.

On the other hand, we have the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae from Vatican II which teaches the “inviolable rights of the human person” which includes freedom of conscience and religion, including freedom from religion or religious coercion.

So while it is not a right that every man can find any religion true by the light of his reason, neither can he be forced to have faith in the true religion.

 

[christismylord]

We certainly have free will, and faith in Christ is a gift from God, not of our own accord.

Now if one were to know the Truth but strayed into a different religion because it seemed “more desirable,” and therefore strayed from the Truth, then that is very bad. To convince oneself that a different religion intellectually makes sense because of bias towards wanting to follow something seeming more “happy,” more “fun,” “easier,” etc, while spiritually knowing the Truth, may be quenching the Spirit or blasphemy of the Spirit.

But those with “invincible ignorance,” who were not properly exposed to the Truth and did not resist God with full consent, may also be saved.

Obviously we should try to welcome and draw as many people as we can to the Church because we can, by God’s grace, play a part in leading them closer to Christ. And one’s chance of salvation may be higher in the Church then if one were “invincibly ignorant” outside the Church. Though we don’t know. And we should want as many people as possible to experience a relationship with Jesus because, well, isn’t it just the best gift ever?

As for having the “right” to believe what one wants, yes we got this when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, and were exposed to the ability to know and do things other than what is good and true. But “should we” believe whatever we want, or allow others to stray when we could help them? No, because Catholicism is objectively true, so if one wants to know the truth, than one must turn to the Church.

 

[Adamek]

the right to choose their own religious beliefs.

The concept of choosing one’s own belief exists in the realm of politics rather than religion. A Christian is a follower of the way of Christ. If that Christian “chooses” to follow Buddha, for example, that person is no longer a Christian.

When Catholics say that they believe a person has a right to choose their religion, they intend to say that you have the right to practice your own religion and that they won’t try to convert you to Catholicism. This has been confirmed by the current pope.

I can’t quite see how a Catholic can believe in the right to shop for religions.

 

[Genesis315]

“‘Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.’ —Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.”

The Syllabus should not be used as a stand alone document. It’s original intent is a summary of past allocutions and documents of Pope Pius IX and they point to the source where the full meaning is found. Here’s a good explanation of the Syllabus from a contemporary at the time it was issued (and later a Cardinal), St. John Henry Newman.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html

See also the old Catholic Encyclopedia here (including a brief explanation of the meaning of this very error):
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

This particular error was from certain documents condemning religious indifferentism–that idea that we have no obligation to God to believe by supernatural faith what He has revealed, but rather are free to reject His revelation and choose our own religion based on natural reason alone.

This has nothing to do with the civil power’s coercive authority. In fact, the Church has always taught that the act of faith itself can never be coerced. As Pius IX’s immediate successor put it, citing St. Augustine: "And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, “Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 36).

However, since man lives in a society, the civil authority can place limits on the public expression of religion when necessary to defend the common good against proportionate harm. Religious liberty cannot be unlimited. From the Catechism of Catholic Church (CCC):

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Note, the conception of public order can’t be “positivist” (it has to be based on the objective truth) and it can’t be “naturalist” (it has to take into account supernatural truth and man’s supernatural end). It also cannot be an excuse for public immorality. It’s also going to vary depending on the circumstances.

As the Church teaches, the common good must include the good of the whole man, spiritual and temporal. Because of this, civil authority should measures its decisions in service of the common good by the true religion which alone recognizes man’s full good (Cf. CCC 2244).

Some circumstances required more strict limits, some a broader freedom for all. Generally, in our current, more pluralistic society, the Church has generally advocated for a broader freedom for all to serve the common good.

 

[EndTimes]

While I do believe that Catholic beliefs should be a guiding force in politics, I also believe that we should respect people’s right to choose what they believe, whether they choose correctly or not. Besides, if having different religious beliefs were to be outlawed, what would the punishment be for non-Catholics? Death? Banishment from the country? Neither of those sound very Christlike to me.

I was just wondering what people’s thoughts were on this! I’m fairly new to Catholicism, and I was hoping to gain some clarification on the matter. Thank you

There’s no truth to those yes rumors.

Catholicism / Catholics occupy very little space in the lordshipping of this world.

The prevalence of Abortion and HomoSexual Unions in almost every nation on Earth - should evidence whom the Prince of this World - is…