| Part ofa series on |
| Catholic social teaching |
|---|
 |
| Overview |
 Catholic Church portal |
Dignitatis humanae[a][b] (Of the Dignity of the Human Person) is theSecond Vatican Council'sDeclaration on Religious Freedom.[1] In the context of the council's stated intention "to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society",Dignitatis humanae spells out the church's support for the protection of religious liberty. It set the ground rules by which the church would relate to secular states.
The passage of this measure by a vote of 2,308 to 70 is considered by many to be one of the most significant events of the council.[2] This declaration was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.
Dignitatis humanae became one of the key points of dispute between the Vatican andtraditionalist Catholics such as ArchbishopMarcel Lefebvre who argued that the council document was incompatible with previous authoritatively stated Catholic teaching.
Historically, the ideal of Catholic political organization was a tightly interwoven structure of the Catholic Church and secular rulers generally known asChristendom, with the Catholic Church having a favoured place in the political structure.[3] In 1520,Pope Leo X in the papal bullExsurge Domine hadcensured the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" as one of a number of errors that were "either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds and against Catholic truth".[4][5][6][7]
However, during the same period, the Catholic Church condemned theRegalist,Gallican andCaesaropapist heresies that aspired to a State, under the pretext of its Confessionality, with inherent rights to intervene in religious matters (such as theConversion of people or the repression ofHeresy) that were typically a protest of theecclesiastical Jurisdiction. So, the Church rather defended theAugustinian andThomist doctrine which stated that, only by concession of theSpiritual Power of thePapacy (considered of a higher order according to theDoctrine of the two swords), is that a Christian Government could use its Temporal Power in such matters, so that thecivil Authority then could represses heresy orapostasy (if and only there was ajust cause, something that only the Papacy could determine), but teaching asmagisterial doctrine that it was not an inherent right of the State to be an institution with religious faculties, and therefore, the Church strongly condemned the Christian rulers who, during theEuropean Wars of Religion, abused such concessions of the Church with thePatronato (or usurped the powers of the Catholic ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as in the case of countries that embraced theProtestant Reformation and foundednational Churches controlled by the State, such as theAnglican Church whose head was theKing of England) in order to violate the rights of people who were not attached to the true Church, who according to theHoly See should be treated with compassion and called to correct themselves so that they return toOrthodoxy (not be brutally repressed without respect for aPresumption of innocence) while also condemning rulers who wanted to repress or ignore the rights of non-Christians, such asMuslims orJews, who were not under the jurisdiction of Christians because they were in a different religious communion, and therefore even outside the jurisdiction of theInquisition.[8]
The punishment of crimes belongs to civil magistrates only insofar as those crimes are contrary to political ends, public peace, and human justice; butcoercion with respect to those acts that are opposed to religion and the salvation of the soul is essentially a function of the spiritual power [the power of the Church], so that the authority to make use of temporal penalties for the purposes of such correction must have been assigned in particular to this spiritual power.
— Francisco Suárez, Defensio Fidei Catholicae adversus Anglicanae Sectae Errores
In short, the Church reserved for the Clergy the right to judge the religious conscience of souls to determine who was a Heretic and how to deal with them judicially (reserving the most severe penalties for repeatheretics or those who admitted to beingapostates publicly), while the State did not have such Prerogatives by themselves, but by the grace of the true Church of Christ (theHoly See), which also did not consider it morally acceptable to interfere with the conscience of non-Christians that lacked ofBaptism, these having to be respected in their condition as natural non-Christians (according toJus gentium andNatural law) and to have the freedom to profess their religion among their communities (such as theGhettos) as long as they do notproselytize what the Church understands as false religions whose expansion would endangerSalvation in Christianity (the Church then leaning towards defending Catholic Unity, which involved religious Uniformism at a political level, and so Catholic political supremacy in societies with a Catholic majority).
Following theFrench Revolution, the Papacy had found itself in a bitter clash againstliberalism and revolutionary ideas: harshanti-clerical measures such as theCivil Constitution of the Clergy had drawn harsh condemnation from theHoly See.[9] TheMagisterium was particularly concerned with the rise ofindifferentism andrelativism and the ideas ofreligious pluralism andfreedom of conscience were seen as expression of both and were strongly rejected by several Pontiffs.[10][11][12] Thus, the Catholic Church condemned religious freedom (as how was defined the concept byLiberal philosophy) as a heresy during the Papacy ofPius IX with the encyclicalQuanta cura, and this condemnation was reaffirmed with theSyllabus of Errors (a compendium of heretical propositions condemned by theMagisterium of the Church). Both condemnations were a continuation of a long series of reactionary condemnations against theModernist Heresy andLiberal Theology that had arisen since the end of the 18th Century, in which was relevant the opposition of the Church to the "philosophical innovations" of theEnlightenment (as well as to thesecular States that emerged from theAtlantic Revolutions) under the argument that political Liberalism, through the right toFreedom of worship, encouragedreligious Indifference and forcedSecularization that violated the political duties of Catholic societies to defend religious practice and Christian values in thepublic sphere (reducing religious life to a purely private matter, which was considered to endangerSalvation in Christianity and would only lead to Dechristianization through an increase innon-practicing Catholics), as well as for violating the socio-political rights of the Church in the face of theAnticlerical policies of theSecularists (who also sought to promote religious Minorities and the expansion of Irreligious population, as well as trying to convince the civil power to intervene against the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to increase the power of the state and seize church properties).[8][13]
In this context of hostility between Catholics and Liberals in politics due to irreconcilable differences aboutPhilosophy of Law, the Church would strongly condemn the right toReligious Freedom, but only as was formulated by liberal ideologues such concept (being open a possible aceptance in the future under differentdefinitions), which was understood under the heretical proposition that "all religions (or all Christian confessions) are equally true and valid" on which liberal jurists based their definition of Religious Freedom. However, this never implied that the Church sought to deny the rights of people who were by birth non-Catholic people (because in the eyes ofNatural Law andIus gentium, they had a right to accept or reject Catholic Doctrine according to thegood faith of their hearts), only to affirm that, as a consequence of theCatholic Faith being considered the onlytrue religion, the rest of the religious positions byLogic couldn't have the same rights as the Catholic faith in thepolitical order (if and only if the political society confessed the Catholic faith, so that being ruled by a Catholic ruler), arguing thaterror has no rights, and so the Church sought to call on Catholic Rulers (in a historical context where most governments still wereconfessional States) to not alter thosehistorical relations of Catholic supremacy in the political sphere, because for theHoly See, Rulers with a sincere Catholic faith had a duty to condemn theSeparation of Church and State (as understood by liberals) as a heresy, and not be badly influenced by liberal preaching arguing that the abolition of the privileges of the Catholic Church was necessary to achieve "public peace" (that there would be no political division in the state if the political differences between confessionalities were no longer recognized, aspiring to equalize them all before the law).[8][13]Leo XIII,Pius XI andPius XII, while reiterating traditional Catholic teaching, had also argued that "every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands"[14] and that "laws which impede this profession and practice of Faith are against natural law".[15]John XXIII had made a distinction between "error as such" and the person in error, who preserves his dignity.[16]
The debate on a separate Declaration on Religious Liberty was held on September 23 – September 25, as promised by Pope Paul the year before. However, in October an attempt was made by the Curial party to return this declaration to review by a special commission, which contained many hostile members and was outside the jurisdiction of thePontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.[17] Protest by bishops to Pope Paul resulted in the declaration staying under Unity with a different working commission which reviewed and amended it.[18]
This re-revised text was approved by the council on October 25, with only minor amendments allowed afterward (including some disliked by Murray). The final vote was taken and the declaration was promulgated at the end of council on December 7, 1965. The claim by some that this overwhelming majority was due to intense lobbying by the reformist wing of Council Fathers among thoseprelates who initially had reservations or even objections.[19]
TheSociety of Saint Pius X (SSPX) rejects in particular point 2 of theDignitatis Humanae (taken up again in no. 2108 of theCatechism of the Catholic Church) which states: "The right toreligious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes acivil right."[20][21]
The SSPX's claims its doctrine comes from the teachings ofPius XII andLeo XIII. They claim that Pope Pius IX, in his encyclicalQuanta cura (1864), while admitting the tolerance of error on the part of public authorities, stated that the right to freedom of public expression and dissemination could not be recognized for those religions that did not serve the truth, such as the Catholic religion. They also state that Leo XIII, in his encyclicalLibertas, explained thata false religion has no right to spread.[20]
ArchbishopMarcel Lefebvre citedLibertas as one of the fundamental reasons for his difficulties with the Second Vatican Council. It remains a focus for attacks from Traditionalists in the 21st century.[22]
The Society of St. Pius X criticized howDignitatis humanae approached religious freedom with an argument from history:[23]
The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church – without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized – has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious.
The Vatican's position that the SSPX must acknowledgeDignitatis humanae andNostra aetate as authoritative remained as of April 2017[update] a key point of difference between the two.[24]
The interpretation of the document, according to theHermeneutics of Continuity, is that theSecond Vatican Council's defense ofreligious freedom, along with other concepts commonly associated with theCharter of Human Rights (the latter developed according to liberal ideologies condemned by theMagisterium of the Church), is a defense thatis always given as long as they are subordinated tonatural law and thecommon good, not understanding them assubjective rights that allow a false right to believe in error (maintaining the condemnations inQuanta cura and theSyllabus againstIndifferentism as well as thesocial teaching for Catholic Rulers to protectPolitical catholicism), but as objective rights where there are duties of every State to protect the rights of the human person to believe in the true religion.[13]
Thus, it is inferred thatDignitates Humanae considers implicit that aChristian State has commitments to safeguard the salvation of souls (aspiring to Catholic unity) and to avoid apostasies or the spread ofheresy. Therefore, its emphasis of the document (already assuming the abovea priori in theTradition of the Church) aims to make explicit that asecular Government, to be legitimate in view of theeternal law and thenatural order (even if it were a non-Christian State), should allow the right for all human person to be able to search for the true religion, instead of imposingSecularism orState Atheism on the one hand, as well as imposingForced Conversions or aSacerdotal State on the other hand.[13]
On the contradictions some see betweenDignitatis humanae andPope Pius IX'sSyllabus of Errors, the SSPX has argued that:
the religious freedom condemned in theSyllabus of Errors refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the intellect, or freedom respecting the truth; whereas thefreedom of religion guaranteed and encouraged byDignitatis humanae refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the will in morals. In other words, those who see in these different expressions a change in teaching are committing the fallacy of univocity of terms in logic. The terms "freedom" refer to two very different acts of the soul.[25]
On 21 March 2019,Pope Francis approved the publication of a document produced by theInternational Theological Commission called "Religious freedom for the good of all: Theological approach to contemporary challenges". It attempts to updateDignitatis humanae in the light of the increasing diversity and secularization seen since the Council: "the cultural complexity of today's civil order".[26][27]
The bishops' letter apparently proved effective. In interviews with Bea and Frings, Paul VI agreed that the Christian Unity office would bear the major responsibility for revising the two declarations, said also that the bishops themselves could decide whether a fourth session was necessary.
| Documents | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People |
| ||||||||||
| General | |||||||||||
| Other | |||||||||||
| Criticism | |||||||||||
