Quanta Cura and Freedom of Conscience

[CutlerB]

Hi there everyone!

I have decided to read some Papal Encyclicals. The one I am currently wading through is Bl. Pope Pius IX’s “Quanta Cura”.

In the encyclical he states the following:

And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”

— Quanta Cura 3

Is the Pope really saying that the individual does not have the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and this should not be enshrined in law?

I’d appreciate some help on this.

Thanks!

 

[AgainstHeretics]

He is most certainly not saying that the state should force people to convert. He’s just saying that the state has a duty to suppress anti-Catholic propaganda.

 

[MPat]

Hi there everyone!

I have decided to read some Papal Encyclicals. The one I am currently wading through is Bl. Pope Pius IX’s “Quanta Cura”.

In the encyclical he states the following:

Is the Pope really saying that the individual does not have the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and this should not be enshrined in law?

I’d appreciate some help on this.

Thanks!

Gregory XVI became a Pope just after the French Revolution of 1830… One of the pretexts for it was “Anti-Sacrilege Act” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Sacrilege_Act) - could it have something to do with such matters…?

Also, the Popes seem to be careful to add that they are against “absolute” liberty - perhaps they would have been OK with such liberty, if some constraints were in place…?

I suppose that in that case the 25th Article of Lithuanian Constitution (www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=21892) might be mostly compatible with this teaching:

…]
Freedom to express convictions, as well as to obtain and disseminate information, may not be restricted in any way other than as established by law, when it is necessary for the safeguard of the health, honour and dignity, private life, or morals of a person, or for the protection of constitutional order.
Freedom to express convictions or impart information shall be incompatible with criminal actions - the instigation of national, racial, religious, or social hatred, violence, or discrimination, the dissemination of slander, or misinformation.
…]

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi CutlerB,

When we look at history, especially the 1500s and 1600s we do indeed see the Church restricting the religious freedom of people. See, for example, the heresy trials of that period. It is a sad, but true, fact that the Catholic Church supported the persecution of people such as William Tyndale who were publishing the Bible in English. We must be wary of airbrushing those mistakes out of our past lest we, or others, repeat them. The Church, I believe, was mistaken in the means it chose to support in order to promote the Catholic faith. The Church, however, learned from the mistakes of the past and is now much more charitable to those who differ in their faith. Let us own the mistakes of the past, and not try to ‘spin’ them away. The worst mistake, IMO, would not be to learn from errors of the past.

Our Lord understood the risks of fighting evil people - so often it has just perpetuated andultiplied the evil.

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

 

[ThatCatholic]

Hi CutlerB,

When we look at history, especially the 1500s and 1600s we do indeed see the Church restricting the religious freedom of people. See, for example, the heresy trials of that period. It is a sad, but true, fact that the Catholic Church supported the persecution of people such as William Tyndale who were publishing the Bible in English. We must be wary of airbrushing those mistakes out of our past lest we, or others, repeat them. The Church, I believe, was mistaken in the means it chose to support in order to promote the Catholic faith. The Church, however, learned from the mistakes of the past and is now much more charitable to those who differ in their faith. Let us own the mistakes of the past, and not try to ‘spin’ them away. The worst mistake, IMO, would not be to learn from errors of the past.

Our Lord understood the risks of fighting evil people - so often it has just perpetuated andultiplied the evil.

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

That wasn’t the reason Tyndale was suppressed, but why let facts get in the way of the Black legend.

 

[Genesis315]

For the three errors quoted by the Pope and condemned in that paragraph of Quanta Cura in the OP, it’s best to parse them out and look at what is really being taught.

The one dealing with “freedom of conscience” is the third error quoted:

“liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”

The traditional hermeneutic for condemnations must be applied. Both parts of the quote affirm absolute statements; by condemning them, the Pope merely affirms that a true contradictory exists—he does not therefore affirm a contrary absolute. The first statement is ambiguous, as “liberty of conscience” can mean different things in different contexts. Since the Pope has stated these are the errors of the naturalists, we can assume it is the naturalist version of the freedom of conscience, by which man has no duty at all toward the truth, especially divine truth. If the state affirmed this, it would affirm error. The Catholic Church has always affirmed that divine truth binds all men in conscience. The second part of the error affirms an absolute freedom to act on such a free conscience, that cannot be restrained by God, Church, or civil power. This is the error called “deliramentum”(“insanity” or “absurdity,” depending on the translation) by Gregory XVI. Bl. John Henry Newman explains:
Bl. John Henry Newman:

The condemned proposition speaks as follows:— “Liberty of conscience and worship, is the inherent right of all men. 2. It ought to be proclaimed in every rightly constituted society. 3. It is a right to all sorts of liberty (omnimodam libertatem) such, that it ought not to be restrained by any authority, ecclesiastical or civil, as far as public speaking, printing, or any other public manifestation of opinions is concerned.”

Now, is there any government on earth that could stand the strain of such a doctrine as this? It starts by taking for granted that there are certain Rights of man; Mr. Gladstone so considers, I believe; but other deep thinkers of the day are quite of another opinion; {274} however, if the doctrine of the proposition is true, then the right of conscience, of which it speaks, being inherent in man, is of universal force—that is, all over the world—also, says the proposition, it is a right which must be recognised by all rightly constituted governments. Lastly, what is the right of conscience thus inherent in our nature, thus necessary for all states? The proposition tells us. It is the liberty of every one to give public utterance, in every possible shape, by every possible channel, without any let or hindrance from God or man, to all his notions whatsoever.

Which of the two in this matter is peremptory and sweeping in his utterance, the author of this thesis himself, or the Pope who has condemned what the other has uttered? Which of the two is it who would force upon the world a universal? All that the Pope has done is to deny a universal, and what a universal! a universal liberty to all men to say out whatever doctrines they may hold by preaching, or by the press, uncurbed by church or civil power. Does not this bear out what I said in the foregoing section of the sense in which Pope Gregory denied a “liberty of conscience”? It is a liberty of self-will. What if a man’s conscience embraces the duty of regicide? or infanticide? or free love? You may say that in England the good sense of the nation would stifle and extinguish such atrocities. True, but the proposition says that it is the very right of every one, by nature, in every well constituted society. If so, why have we gagged the Press in Ireland on the ground of its being seditious? Why is not India brought within the British constitution? It seems a light epithet for the Pope to use, when he calls such a doctrine of conscience deliramentum: of all conceivable absurdities it is the wildest and most stupid. Has Mr. Gladstone really no better complaint to make against the Pope’s condemnations than this?

Perhaps he will say, Why should the Pope take the trouble to condemn what is so wild ? But he does: and to say that he condemns something which he does not condemn, and then to inveigh against him on the ground of that something else, is neither just nor logical.

The Church has always affirmed the freedom to act without state restraint on religious beliefs is limited by the objective moral order and the common good (the Church’s power to retrain her own members is actually broader). The CCC affirms it here, citing the very paragraph Quanta Cura:
CCC 2109:

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

39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 § 3.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add to my last post, the other two quoted errors affirm absolute ideals (“the best constitution/condition of civil society…”).

“the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.”

“that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.”

The first condemns that idea that it is best for society to be conducted without reference to religion. The Church still rejects this and affirms the duty of all soceities toward the true religion and our duty of infusing Chrsitianity into our laws, customs, and societal structures (CCC 2105). The true ideal is all men being faithful Catholics and carrying out every aspect of their lives with Christ at the center.

The second error is similar to the third, which I focused on in the previous post. The Church teaches the limits should be based on the common good, not a naturalist or postivist form of “public peace.” The naturalist version did not include th following aspect of the common good:

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)

Furthermore, the Church teaches that the state must protect the Church from anyone who would impede her freedom to carry out her divine mission.

13. Among the things that concern the good of the Church and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-things therefore that are always and everywhere to be kept secure and defended against all injury-this certainly is preeminent, namely, that the Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires.(31) This is a sacred freedom, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. Indeed it is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order.