About Ignatius Insight
  Who We Are
  Author Pages
  Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger
  Pope John Paul II/ Karol Wojtyla
  Rev. Louis Bouyer
  G.K. Chesterton
  Fr. Thomas Dubay
  Mother Mary Francis
  Fr. Benedict Groeschel
  Thomas Howard
  Karl Keating
  Msgr Ronald Knox
  Peter Kreeft
  Fr. Henri de Lubac, SJ
  Michael O'Brien
  Joseph Pearce
  Josef Pieper
  Richard Purtill
  Steve Ray
  Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, OP
  Fr. James V. Schall, SJ
  Frank Sheed
  Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar
  Adrienne von Speyr
  Louis de Wohl
  Catholic World Report
  H&P Review
Article Archives
  Jan 2006-Present
  July-Dec 2005
  Apr-Jun 2005
  Jan-Mar 2005
  Nov-Dec 2004
  June-Oct 2004
  Press Room
  Sacred Art
  Religious Ed
  Request Catalog
  Web Specials
  Ignatius Press
  Noteworthy News
  Catholic World News
  EWTN News
  Vatican News
  Catholic News Agency
  Catholic News

Vatican II and Religious Liberty | Dr. James Hitchcock |

Print-friendly version

Along with changes in the liturgy, perhaps no act of the Second Vatican Council has been held in more suspicion than the decree Dignitatis Humanae, commonly called the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Some traditionalist Catholics have found in it a repudiation of previous Catholic teaching, and it has been reported that it was this, rather than the vernacular liturgy, which most troubled the late schismatic Archbishop Marcel Lefébvre.

One historical reality which needs to be remembered in approaching Dignitatis Humanae is that Pius IX, in issuing the Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura, was reacting to the bogus promises of Continental Liberalism, which had raised the banner of religious liberty at the time of the French Revolution, then had consistently worked to undermine the Church in every way possible, according to the Continental Enlightenment conviction that true liberty required the elimination of religion as a social force.

Pius IX probably did not have in mind the pattern of religious liberty as it had developed in England and the United States, where actual freedom of worship (including the right to engage in education) did exist. The day may possibly come when liberal intolerance, now still somewhat marginal in American culture, will triumph. But it has not arrived yet.

Critics of Dignitatis Humanae read it as merely a concession to the modern secular state, the Church in effect surrendering to notions of tolerance which are at heart skeptical and relativistic. But the decree, besides emphasizing human dignity as the fundamental basis of freedom, also notes that the Church itself benefits from a regime of freedom, and it is this reality which critics overlook.

They usually do so because they are affected by a familiar kind of idealization of the "ages of faith," an idealization in which the justified claim that earlier centuries honored and promoted religion in ways modernity does not is confused with the unjustified inference that people in past ages must therefore always have lived their faith appropriately.

Thus union of Church and state has an appealing ring for such people, who see it as the state's humble acknowledgment of religion's superiority and the willingness to use the state's authority to inculcate true religion. They are much less likely to notice that historically such unions have required sometimes desperate struggles by the Church to maintain its independence.

Thus the Emperor Constantine meddled in the profound doctrinal questions swirling the Church's understanding of the Trinity, to the point of sometimes pressuring the bishops to favor the Arian side. The Emperor Henry IV, along with other medieval rulers, claimed the right to invest bishops with their spiritual as well as their temporal offices. Thomas Becket was struck down in his cathedral at the behest of a king, Henry II, who had successfully lobbied the pope for Becket's appointment as archbishop and was enraged to find him resistant to royal control. Henry VIII, at a crucial moment in history, persuaded the pope to appoint a royal chaplain, Thomas Cranmer, to the position Becket once held. The Council of Trent was delayed for decades because the leading Catholic monarchs of Europe could not agree about the conditions of its meeting, and for almost half a century the "most Catholic" king of France refused to allow its decrees to be promulgated there. In the next century a number of French sees stood vacant for years because Louis XIV, who flirted with the potentially schismatic doctrines of Gallicanism, wanted tame bishops whom the pope would not confirm in office. As Father Marvin O'Connell has brought to public attention, the Prince of Monaco, almost a century ago, tried hard to get the Modernist heretic Alfred Loisy named a bishop.

During the Constitutional Convention, some of the delegates attended solemn Vespers in a Philadelphia Catholic church, and John Adams recorded his Puritan reactions — gorgeous ceremony designed to play on the ignorance of the people. "How could Luther ever have broken the spell?"

There were many countries in the world at the time where government officials were believing Catholics and deeply respectful of the faith, and where freedom of worship was by no means secure. But when the Holy See inquired of the new American government its views on the establishment of the hierarchy in this country, the papal diplomats were astonished to be told that the American government had no views on that subject, a response never before encountered. A few decades later Alexis DeToqueville could judge that it was this very absence of official support for the churches which accounted for their remarkable vitality in the new country.

In the first years of the twentieth century the Archbishop of Krakow arose in the papal conclave to announce that the Emperor Franz Joseph, in keeping with an old tradition, was vetoing the cardinals' choice as pope. (Possibly the emperor unwittingly acted as an agent of the Holy Spirit, as the conclave went on to elect St. Pius X.) But it is not the least satisfying of the age's many ironies that at century's end a later archbishop of Krakow is the world's most eloquent champion of genuine human freedom.

This column originally appeared in the March/April 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier.

Related Links/Articles:

The Vatican, Ecumenism, and Tolerance | James Hitchcock
Excerpts from Truth and Tolerance | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Is Tolerance Intolerant? | James Hitchcock
Vatican II and the Ecclesiology of Joseph Ratzinger | Fr. Maximilian Heinrich Heim
Are Christians Intolerant? | Thomas Storck
Are Christians Intolerant? | Michael O'Brien
Our Enslavement to "Freedom" | James Hitchcock
Conscience and Chaos | James Hitchcock
Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
What Is Catholic Social Teaching? | Mark Brumley
Personally Opposed--To What? | Dr. James Hitchcock

Dr. James Hitchcock, (e-mail) professor of history at St. Louis University, writes and lectures on contemporary Church matters. His column appears in the diocesan press, in the Adoremus Bulletin, and on the Women for Faith and Family website. He is the author of several books, including The Recovery of the Sacred, What is Secular Humanism?, and Years of Crisis: Collected Essays, 1970-1983.

Princeton University Press just published his two-volume history of the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: The Odyssey of the Religion Clauses (Vol. 1) and From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples" (Vol. 2). He is also a regular contributor to many Catholic periodicals, including Catholic World Report.

If you'd like to receive the FREE e-letter (about every 1 to 2 weeks), which includes regular updates about articles, reviews, excerpts, and author appearances, please click here to sign-up today!

World Wide Web

Place your order toll-free at 1-800-651-1531

Ignatius Press | P.O. Box 1339 | Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Web design under direction of Ignatius Press.
Send your comments or web problems to:

Copyright © 2016 by Ignatius Press catholic blog books insight scoop weblog ignatius