Good article on Religious Liberty (from 100 years ago)

[Genesis315]

…by the Archbishop of Mainz, who was highly esteemed by Pope Leo XIII. I think this may be helpful for those struggling to understand this doctrine:

opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-religious-freedom-part-i.html

 

[cam100]

Great resource! Thanks for posting this article that sheds light on a topic that is so often misunderstood.

 

[SanJudas]

Yes, Genesis315, thank you for this article. I am left with a few doubts, however. I invite anyone reading this to please clear them up.

In Part IV, Bishop Von Ketteler states:

1. We have to insist upon the limits of religious freedom referred to earlier, whereby it is an abuse of that freedom if the state, under the guise of religious freedom, tolerates sects which deny the existence of a personal God, or which jeopardize morality. Such conduct stands in open contradiction to the obligations of civil authority, first of all by virtue of the origin of civil authority. Ultimately, all authority comes from God, and therefore, there can be no more flagrant abuse of that authority than to tolerate the denial of God.

Which sects would fall under this definition? Satanists? Buddhists? Scientologists? Aztecs? Certainly atheist groups would qualify, but how about the others?

Secondly, the ultimate goal of civil authority sets certain limits. That goal is to preserve peace and justice on earth, and neither of these is possible without morality; and morality is impossible without fear of the Lord.

Truer words were never spoken!

 

[Genesis315]

Yeah, that section confused me a bit too. His main point is that coming to faith must be free, but I think his reasoning is that since knowing of the one true God can be accomplished through reason not necessarilyy faith, it can be coerced. However, in other places he does say such groups can or even should be tolerated if the common good necessitates it (usually when there is no unity of faith in a particular society).

However, even believing in God does come from the drawing of God so I could see a good argument saying that kind of coercion would be the same as forcing someone into faith.

DH from Vatican II doesn’t really address religious activity other than that directed to God so it doesn’t help on this matter–however, I would say the general approach given the make-up of modern society would be to treat them the same as the other non-Catholics mentioned in the article.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Yeah, that section confused me a bit too. His main point is that coming to faith must be free, but I think his reasoning is that since knowing of the one true God can be accomplished through reason not necessarilyy faith, it can be coerced. However, in other places he does say such groups can or even should be tolerated if the common good necessitates it (usually when there is no unity of faith in a particular society).

I haven’t had a chance to read all of the links yet, but there is a distinction that needs to be drawn.

There is a difference between forbidding someone from practicing a false religion and forcing them to convert to the true religion. These are two different things.

While the Church teaches that it is sometimes prudent for the State to tolerate false religions, she also realizes that the State has every right to forbid false religions. But what the State should not do is force the person to convert.

Let’s take an example: Let’s say that a sect of Protestants moved into a Catholic country. The Church could forbid them from practicing their false religion publicly, and from openly defending the errors of their sect. The Church could also attach a penalty to any violations of that law. On the other hand, it would be wrong for the Church to go further by forcing them to convert to the Catholic Church.

Forbidding them from acting on an erroneous beliefs is one thing, but forcing them to act contrary to their conscience is another. That is an important distinction that many people miss.

 

[Genesis315]

I haven’t had a chance to read all of the links yet, but there is a distinction that needs to be drawn.

There is a difference between forbidding someone from practicing a false religion and forcing them to convert to the true religion. These are two different things.

While the Church teaches that it is sometimes prudent for the State to tolerate false religions, she also realizes that the State has every right to forbid false religions. But what the State should not do is force the person to convert.

Let’s take an example: Let’s say that a sect of Protestants moved into a Catholic country. The Church could forbid them from practicing their false religion publicly, and from openly defending the errors of their sect. The Church could also attach a penalty to any violations of that law. On the other hand, it would be wrong for the Church to go further by forcing them to convert to the Catholic Church.

**Forbidding them from acting **on an erroneous beliefs is one thing, but forcing them to act contrary to their conscience is another. That is an important distinction that many people miss.

I think the article addresses these points pretty well (using St. Thomas and Suarez). Overall the key factor for these decisions is the “common good” or the just ordering of society.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I don’t know how we can check this, but I would be willing to bet that the term used in the language in which the article was originally written was religious “toleration”, rather than religious liberty.

Religious toleration is the term that was used in those days. In fact, at Vatican II there was a fight over the use of the term religious liberty. The conservatives, such as Cardinal Ottaviani, argued that religious toleration was the correct term - since the use of the term “religious liberty” implied a right. I find it hard to believe that anyone would have used the term religious liberty in those days.

In the encyclical Libertas of Leo XIII, the Pope condemned the idea of religious liberty as being a false liberty. In the same encyclical, however, he did teach the concept of religious toleration.

I’m only on page two of the link, but so far he is arguing exactly according to the principle of religious toleration, and not based on the idea of religious liberty.

Religious liberty implies that man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

Religious toleration, on the other hand, means that, while man has no *right *to practice a false religion, it is sometime prudent for the State to tolerate it in order to maintain order in society.