Click here to return to Main Entrance
A Catholic traditionalist group has posed the following question: "Which of the quotes below do you consider true, or are both of them true even though one contradicts the other?"
"They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls, an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called insane. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state.... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a "liberty of perdition." - Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical letter: Quanta Cura #3, Dec. 8, 1864
"...the human person has a right to religious freedom...This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right." Vatican Council II: "Declaration on Religious Liberty" (Dignitatis Humanae) #2, Dec. 7, 1965.
The answer to this biased question is as
follows: Both statements are true and they do not contradict each other because they
describe different subjects. The former deals with individual licentiousness while the
latter is about the natural right to religious freedom.
In its teaching on religious liberty, the "Catechism of the
Catholic Church" makes reference to both of these documents. In paragraph 2108 of the
CCC religious liberty is described as a "natural right" that "ought to be
acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil
right." A reference is then made to Dignitatis Humanae #2. Paragraph 2109
continues by stating: "The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither
unlimited nor limited by a public order conceived in a positivist or naturalist
manner." This in turn is accompanied by a reference to Quanta Cura # 3. These
documents, along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in contrast to the question as
worded above, do not confuse individual licentiousness with religious freedom. The same
can be said for the examples given from papal and Church teaching given below:
1. POPE PIUS IX
In Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX clearly distinguishes between individual licentiousness and the rights and liberties proper to the Catholic Church. The entire text of this brief encyclical can be found in "The Papal Encyclicals in their Historical Context", edited by Anne Freemantle, Mentor Books, New York, 1956. The above excerpt from Quanta Cura, without the omissions, reads as follows:
"From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI the insanity (Encyclical of 13 August, 1832): namely, 'that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means'. But whilst these men make these rash assertions, they do not reflect, or consider, that they preach the liberty of perdition. (St. Augustine, Epistle 105 or 166 )."
Not only does Pope Pius IX condemn the above; but he also has the following to say about the holders of the above opinion:
"And these same persons also impiously pretend that citizens should be deprived of the liberty of publicly bestowing on the Church their alms for the sake of Christian charity, and that the law forbidding 'servile labor on account of Divine worship' upon certain fixed days should be abolished, upon the most fallacious pretext that such liberty and such law are contrary to the principles of political economy."
This distinction between individual licentiousness and the religious liberty proper to the Catholic Church is also evident toward the end of the encyclical, where Pope Pius IX exhorts his bishops to:
Teach them 'that kingdoms rest upon the foundation of the Catholic faith (St. Celestine, Epistle 22 ad. Syn. Eph.), and that nothing is so deadly, nothing so certain to engender every ill, nothing so exposed to danger, as for men to believe that they stand in need of nothing else than the free will which we received at birth, if we ask nothing further from the Lord; that is to say, if, forgetting our Author, we abjure His power to show that we are free'. And do not omit to teach, 'that the royal power has been established, not only to exercise the government of the world, but, above all, for the protection of the Church (St. Leo, Epistle 156 or 125); and that there is nothing more profitable and more glorious for the Sovereigns of States, and Kings, than to leave the Catholic Church to exercise her laws, and not to permit any to curtail her liberty'."
2. JOHN HENRY NEWMAN
In 1874, William Gladstone of England strongly criticized the encyclical Quanta Cura, along with the teachings of Vatican Council I. In the following year, 1875, Cardinal John Henry Newman responded to these criticisms in a letter entitled "Letter to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk". The texts of this letter, along with that of the opinions of Mr. Gladstone, can be found in: "Newman and Gladstone: The Vatican Decrees", with an introduction by Alvan Ryan, Notre Dame, 1962. In his letter Newman paraphrases part of Quanta Cura as follows:
"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."
Newman's use of italics in the above paraphrase stressed the sweeping or universal nature of this erroneous proposition; which he sharply contrasted with Gladstone's charge that the Vatican had promulgated a universal prohibition of the exercise of religion. Newman goes on to say that Pope Pius IX condemned the above proposition because it extolled a false liberty of conscience. Newman then calls this false liberty a "liberty of self-will." Cardinal Newman also makes the distinction between individual licentiousness and religious freedom when he commented on the above excerpt from Quanta Cura:
"Both popes certainly scoff at the 'so-called liberty of conscience,' but there is no scoffing of any Pope, in formal documents to the faithful at large, at that most serious doctrine, the right and duty of following that Divine Authority, the voice of conscience, on which in truth the Church herself is built."
3. POPE LEO XIII
Some of the principal encyclicals authored by Pope Leo XIII can be found in "The Church Speaks to the Modern World", edited by Etienne Gilson, Garden City, N.Y., 1954. In 1888 Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical on human liberty, which was entitled Libertas Praestantissimum. In section 30 he contrasts individual licentiousness and religious freedom by stating:
"Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean 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. This, indeed, is a true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong-a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear."
4. POPE PIUS XI
The social encyclicals of Pope Pius XI can be found in "The Church and the Reconstruction of the Modern World", edited by Terence McLaughlin, C.S.B., Garden City, N.Y. 1957. In 1937, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical dealing with the situation in Nazi Germany, which was entitled Mit brennender Sorge. In section 36 religious freedom is defended as follows:
"The believer has an inalienable right to profess his faith and put it into practice in the manner suited to him. Laws that suppress or make this profession and practice difficult contradict the natural law."
5. POPE PIUS XII
In an address to the delegates of the Eighth International Congress on Administrative Science, dated August 5, 1950, Pope Pius XII said:
"Moreover, there are certain rights and freedoms pertaining to individuals-every individual-or the family which the State must always protect, which it cannot violate or sacrifice to some fictitious common good. We have in mind, to quote but a few examples, the right to honor and a good reputation, the right and the freedom to worship the true God...The fact that some recent constitutions have adopted this way of thinking is a happy omen which We hail with joy as the dawn of a renewal of the true rights of man as intended and established by God." (From "Papal Pronouncements on the Political Order", edited by Francis Powers, C.S.V., Westminster, MD, 1952.)
6. VATICAN COUNCIL II
The above-mentioned excerpt from Dignitatis Humanae is repeated below, along with its immediate context. It is taken from the edition of the Council documents that was edited by Walter Abbott, S.J.
(2) "This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The Synod further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself.* This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right." (Note: The asterisk in the second paragraph is accompanied by a footnote that refers to previous Papal teaching on this matter. Two of the sources given are Libertas Praestantissimum by Pope Leo XIII and Mit brennender Sorge by Pope Pius XI. Pertinent excerpts from these two documents have been given above.)
CONCLUSION
The examples supplied above serve to demonstrate that Catholic teaching consistently recognizes the distinction between individual licentiousness and religious freedom. These two concepts should not be confused; as is the case in the above question, with its selective use of excerpts from Quanta Cura and Dignitatis Humanae.
Click here to return to Main Entrance
11-16-1999 / 1-24-2000