Catholics in the United States are currently observing the Fortnight for Freedom, a 14-day period of prayer and political action that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (the sponsor of the Fortnight for Freedom) calls "a great hymn of prayer for our country." It is perhaps the most widespread demonstration of public and political advocacy on behalf of the Catholic Church in the United States in my lifetime, and yet, as much as I hope that the Fortnight for Freedom will lead to (among other things) the end of the Obama administration's contraception mandate, I feel compelled to strike a discordant note.
Far from being our "first freedom"—a phrase drawn from some of America's Founding Fathers and used extensively by Catholics during the Fortnight for Freedom and the debate over the HHS mandate—"religious freedom" may well be our last. Underlying the phrase is the idea that religious freedom or "freedom of conscience" is the liberty upon which all other liberties build. George Washington famously said that there can be no law without morality, and no morality without religion. And yet those who quote Washington in support of religious freedom forget that, in the context of his time, religion meant Christianity, and, indeed, a fairly narrow range of Christian denominations.
In the context of the Catholic Church, the current use of the phrase "religious freedom" is even more problematic. Both traditionalists and the supporters of the "spirit of Vatican II" (as opposed to those who see Vatican II in the light of a "hermeneutic of continuity") claim that Vatican II endorsed a departure from traditional Catholic teaching on the question of religious freedom. They argue that Dignitatis Humanae, the council's declaration on religious freedom, implicitly endorsed the moral freedom to be in error—which is, of course, the current secular understanding of the phrase.
And yet Dignitatis Humanae states clearly that that is not the case:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Dignitatis Humanae did represent a shift for the Catholic Church, but it was a shift in approach. Whereas, throughout much of her history, the Church could demand that the secular authorities recognize her as the repository of the truth "all men are bound to seek" and to grant her a privileged place in society for that reason, in an increasingly secular world that views truth as merely instrumental, such a demand is likely to be met with scorn.
And yet the Church knows that (in the words of Dignitatis Humanae):
- God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness.
- [T]his one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men.
- [A]ll men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.
What is the best way, in the face of an increasingly secular—and even hostile—world, to maintain the Church's right to preach the truth of Christ, to assert her standing as the fullest repository and defender of that truth, and to aid all men and women in their search for that truth? By demanding that all governments, including those openly hostile to religion, recognize the right of religious freedom.
Here in the United States, the common use of the term "religious freedom" in political discourse seemed to dovetail nicely with the council's shift in approach. And yet there was a problem, which should now be clear: Dignitatis Humanae does not see religious freedom as a moral freedom to embrace error, while the same phrase, as used in American political discourse, does.
The danger is that the Catholic understanding of religious freedom expressed in Dignitatis Humanae would get swallowed up by the political and secular understanding. And that, I would contend, is precisely what is happening when Catholic laymen—and even Catholic priests and bishops—discuss religious freedom as our "first freedom"—that is, as a political freedom, which underlies political rights, rather than as a spiritual freedom of both man and the Church, which both precedes and rises above any political freedoms or rights.
Both understandings of religious freedom can be seen at work in the Fortnight for Freedom. It began on the vigil of the Feast of SS. John Fisher and Thomas More, men who gave their lives for the Faith when the English state overstepped its bounds; it ends on July 4, Independence Day, which has become identified with the right of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, however the latter may be defined—even without regard to the truth.
As Catholics in the United States take part in the Fortnight for Freedom, we must keep this distinction clear in our minds. True religious freedom can be found in the example of the great martyrs of the Faith; the political concept of religious freedom, however, is more likely to end in freedom from religion—imposed by force, if necessary.
Excellent column — as always. But one thought: Is the assertion true that “Catholic laymen—and even Catholic priests and bishops—discuss religious freedom as our ‘first freedom’—that is, as a political freedom”? It seems to me that what’s usually invoked (especially by the bishops) is at minimum the same principle used by Mr. Jefferson: that life, liberty, and happiness come from God, not the state; that religious freedom is a natural law not positive law. What makes religious liberty our “first freedom” is that it is essentially eternal and temporally ancient.
It’s true that Saint Thomas More died for the truth of the Catholic faith, but according to the life of More done by his son-in-law, William Roper, he had anticipated a time when Catholics would be in fear of heretics, and he admitted why he would not take the oath of royal supremacy only when he was not even allowed the freedom to remain silent.
One can disagree on the provenance religious freedom–whether it comes from God or from people–but the critical thing is that it is held to be a fundamental human right. After all, who do we authorize to judge whether a worldview is acceptable? Most people, I surmise, think the Westboro Church is “in error.” Yet, they have the right to believe what they believe and practice their faith within the limits of the law.
The “freedom from religion” or “no establishment” side of the equation is often overlooked in the above-mentioned debate. It is interesting to me that those who advocate that position cannot claim rights of conscience, and are generally branded as anti-religion. People need to be reminded that freedom from religion is what makes freedom of religion possible. Madison and Jefferson were intensely aware of that. Of the two prongs of the First Amendment, it is the “no establishment” clause that is the most profound.
On the Catholicism Forum I have started a thread called Freedom And It’s Critics about an intemperate attack on this fortnight in the Guardian newspaper. http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=ab-catholicism&tid=7538
On the subject of freedom from religion I noted that while that is present in US tradition that is not all that is present
” I think that liberalism has always held to the believe that States should concede that the category of conscientious objector should exist and should be protected. Thoreau certainly thought so….Only an extreme Thatcherite libertarian, I think, would argue that the principle of conscientious objection exists only for individuals and not for communities or collectives, such as union members, say, refusing to ship armaments to brutally repressive dictatorships. In that sense then religious freedom represents the principle of collective conscientious objection. The sort of “liberals” who reject it in the case of Christian communities do not do so on a philosophically principled basis but rather on a particular, and often vicious, hatred of Christianity itself.”