RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
of religious freedom as a human right (personal and coll
RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM
ON NOVEMBER 19, 1963, the first schema ( draft text) on
religious freedom was presented to the conciliar Fathers by
the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. In the course
of two years, five corrected versions of the text appeared in
print, each being the work of many revisions within the
secretariat. Three public debates were held in the Aula, dur­
ing which some one hundred and twenty speeches were made.
Some six hundred written interventions were sent to the
secretariat, many of them signed by groups of bishops. More­
over, critiques of the successive schemas were made, .either
orally or in writing, by a considerable number of bishops and
theologians who were consulted by -the secretariat. Also con­
sulted were a number of the observers at the Council. Before
the final vote was taken, more than two thousand modi ( sug­
gested corrections) were considered (many of them, of course,
were identical).
Thus, the greatest argument on religious freedom in all
history happily broke forth in the Church. The debate was
full and free and vigorous, if at times confused and emo­
tional. Out. of it came the sixth and final text, here presented,
The first text had appeared as Chapter V of the D ecree
on Ecumenism. The second text had appeared as a Deel�:
tion, but in an appendix to the Decree on Ecumenism. Wt
the third text the Declaration assumed independent statuS·
From the outs·et, its intention was pastoral, as was the gen­
eral intention of the Council in all its utterances. This, _bor
ever, does not mean that the Declaration contains s�P Y
practical advice. Its content is properly doctrinal. In partt�Ue­
lar, three doctrinal tenets are declared: the ethical doctrJll
tive); a· political doctrine with regard to the functions a
limits of government in matters religious; and the theologi
doctrine of the freedom of the Church as the fundameIJ
principle in what concerns the relations between the Chw
and the socio-political order.
It can hardly be maintained that the Declaration is a mJ
stone in human history-moral, political, or intellectual. 1
principle of religious freedom has long been recognized
constitutional law, to the point where even Marxist-Lenn
political ideology is obliged to pay lip-service to it. In
honesty it must be admitted that the Church is late in
knowledging the validity of th� principle.
In any event, the document is a significant event in
history of the Church. It was, of course, the most controv
sial document of the whole Council, largely because it rah
with sharp emphasis the issue that lay continually below
surface of all the conciliar debates-the issue of the devel<
ment of doctrine. The notion of development, not the noti
of religious freedom, was the real sticking-point for many
those who opposed the Declaration even to the end. 1
course of the development between the Syllabus of Em
(1864) and Dignitatis Humanae Personae* (1965) still
mains to be explained by theologians. But the Council f,
mally sanctioned the validity of the development itself;
this was a doctrinal event of high importance for theologi;
thought in many other areas.
Moreover, taken in conjunction with the Pastoral Consti
tion on the Church in the Modem World, the Declarati
opens a new era in the relations between the People of G
and the People Temporal. A long-standing ambiguity l
finally been cleared up. The Church does not deal with t
secular order in terms of a double standard-freedom J
the Church when Catholics are a minority, privilege for t
Church and intolerance for others when Catholics are a rr
iority. The Declaration has opened the way toward new cc
fidence in ecumenical relationships, and a new straightf<
\Vardness in relationships between the Church and the wor
. Finally, though the Declaration deals only with the min
1Ssue of religious freedom in the technical secular sense,
rth
'l'b.ese are the opening words, in Latin, of the Declaration on Religious F1
d?ni. The opening words of conciliar documents may be cited as titles (usm
each word capitalized, according to the practice for papal encyclical
Ut the mor� �mmon .title. is. the one that heads the document ,.....Ed.

'EDOM
.1:BER 19, 1963, the first schema (draft text) on
reedom was presented to the conciliar Fathers by
mat for Promoting Christian Unity. In the course
rrs, five corrected versions of the text appeared in
1 being the work of many revisions within the
. Three public debates were held in the Aula, dur­
some one hundred and twenty speeches were made.
hundred written interventions were sent to the
, many of them signed by groups of bishops. More­
ques of the successive schemas were made, . either
n writing, by a considerable number of bishops and
s who were consulted by -the secretariat. Also con­
·e a number of the observers at the Council. Before
·ote was taken, more than two thousand modi ( sug­
rections ) were considered (many of them, of course,
lical).
he greatest argument on religious freedom in all
Lppily broke forth in the Church. The debate was
free and vigorous, if at times confused and · emo-
1t of it came the sixth and final text, here presented.
st text had appeared as Chapter V of the Decree
�nism. The second text had appeared as a Declara­
in an appendix to the Decree on Ecumenism. With
text the Declaration assumed independent status.
; outs·et, its intention was pastoral, as was the gen­
ttion of the Council in all its utterances. This, how­
:s not mean that the Declaration contains simply
advice. Its content is properly doctrinal. In particu­
: doctrinal tenets are declared: the ethical doctrine
llELIGIOUS FREEDOM 673
of religious freedom as a human right (personal an_d collec­
tive); a political doctrine with regard to the funct10ns �nd
limits of government in matters religious; and the theologtcal
doctrine of the freedom of the Church as the fundamental
principle in what concerns the relations between the Church
and the socio-political order. . . .
It can hardly be maintained that the Declarat10n ts a mile­
stone in human history-moral, political, or intellectu�l. �e
principle of religious freedom has long been rec?gmze� _m
constitutional law, to the point where even Marxtst-Lemmst
political ideology is obliged to pay lip-service . to it. !,n all
honesty it must be admitted that the Church IS late m ac­
knowledging the validity of th� principle.
In any event, the document is a significant event in the
history of the Church. It was, of course, the most controver­
sial document of the whole Council, largely because it raised
with sharp emphasis the issue that lay continually below the
surface of all the conciliar debates-the issue of the devel?P·
ment of doctrine. The notion of development, not the notion
of religious freedom, was the real sticking-point for many of
those who opposed the Declaration even to the end. The
course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors
(1864) and Dignitatis Humanae Personae* (1965) s�ill re­
mains to be explained by theologians. But the C�uncil for­
mally sanctioned the validity of the development itself; �nd
this was a doctrinal event of high importance for theological
thought in many other areas.
_ .
Moreover, taken in conjunction with the Pastoral Const�tu­
tion on the Church in the Modem World, the Declaration
opens a new era in the relations between the People of God
and the People Temporal. A long-standing ambiguity has
finally been cleared up. The Church does not deal with the
secular order in terms of a double standard-freedom for
the Church when Catholics are a minority, privilege for the
Church and intolerance for others when Catholics are a ma­
jority. The Declaration has opened the way toward n�w con­
fidence in ecumenical relationships, and a new straightfor­
wardness in relationships between the Church a?d the w�rld.
Finally, though the Declaration deals only with the mm�r
_
issue of religious freedom in the technical secular sense, it
*These are the opening words, in Latin, of the Declaratio_n on R�ligious Free­
dom. The opening words of conciliar documents ma� be cited as titles (�sually
with each word capitalized, according to the practice for papal encyclicals),
but the more. one
�mm.on .titl� is the that heads. � docuroeo1v"""Ed.
674 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
Declaration on
Religious Freedom
does affirm a principle of wider import-that the dignity of
man consists in his responsible use of freedom. Some of the
conciliar Fathers-not least those opposed to the Declara­
tion-perceived that a certain indivisibility attaches to the
notion of freedom. The word and the thing have wrought
wonders in the modem world; they have also wrought havoc.
The conciliar affirmation of the principle of freedom was
narrowly limited-in the text. But the text itself was flung ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON
into a pool whose shores are wide as the universal Church. AND OF COMMUNITIES
The ripples will run far.
Inevitably, a second great argument will be set afoot­ TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM
now on the theological meaning of Christian freedom. The
children of God, who receive this freedom as a gift from IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
their Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit, assert it with­
in the Church as well as within the world, always for the
sake of the world and the Church. The issues are many-the
dignity of the Christian, the foundations of Christian free­
dom, its object or content, its limits and their criterion, the PAUL, BISHOP
measure of its responsible use, its relation to the legitimate
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF Goo
reaches of authority and to the saving counsels of prudence,
the perils that lurk in it, and the forms of corruption TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED Co
to which it is prone. All these issues must be considered in a FoR EVERLASTING MEMORY
spirit of sober and informed reflection.
The issue of religious freedom was in itself minor. But
Pope Paul VI was looking deep and far when he called the
Declaration on Religious Freedom "one of the major texts
of the Council." 1. A sense of the dignity of the human person bas
JoHN COURTNEY MURRAY, SJ. pressing itself more and more deeply on the conscic
contemporary man. 1 And the demand is increasiI
that men should act on their own judgment, enj1
lllaking use of a responsible freedom, not driven b�
hut motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is
that constitutional limits should be set to the powe
ernment, in order that there may be no encroachmi
rightful freedom of the person and of associations.
This demand for freedom in human society chie
the quest for the values proper to the human sp
gards, in the first place, the free exercise of reliB
Ciety,2

1. Cf. John XXlll, encyclical "Pacem in Te"is," Apr. 11, 1

(1963), p. 279; ibid., p. 265; Pius Xll, radio message, Dec. 2,
37 (1945), p. 14.
2. Vatican II has been characterized by a sense of history, an
the concrete world of fact, and a disposition to see in historica
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

tirm a principle of wider import-that the dignity of

insists in his responsible use of freedom. Some of the
r- Fathers-not least those opposed to the Declar a­
erceived that a certain indivisibility attaches to the
of freedom. The word and the thing have wrought
; in the modem world; they have also wrought havoc.
1ciliar affirmation of the principle of freedom was
y limited-in the text. But the text itself was flung
1001 whose shores are wide as the universal Church.
>les will run far.
3.bly, a second great argument will be set afoot­
the theological meaning of Christian freedom. lbe
of God, who receive this freedom as a gift from
her through Christ in the Holy Spirit, assert it with-
hurch as well as within the world, always for the
he world and the Church. The issues are many-the
f the Christian, the foundations of Christian free­
object or content, its limits and their criterion, the
of its responsible use, its relation to the legitimate
f authority and to the saving counsels of prudence,
; that lurk in it, and the forms of corruption
it is prone. All these issues must be considered in a
ober and informed reflection.
ue of religious freedom was in itself minor. But
VI was looking deep and far when he called the
n on Religious Freedom "one of the major texts
1ncil."
JoHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.
Declaration on
Religious Freedom
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON
AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM
JN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF Goo
TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL
FoR EVERLASTING MEMORY
1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been im­
pressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of
contemporary man. 1 And the demand is increasingly made
that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and
making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion
but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is also made
that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of gov­
ernment, in order that there may be no encroachment on the
rightful freedom of the person and of associations.
This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards
the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It re­
gards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in so­
ciety. 2
l. Cf. John XXJII, encyclical "Pacem in Te"is," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS s,
(1963), p. 279; ibid., p. 265,· Pius Xll, radio message, Dec. 24, 1944: AAS
37 (1945), p. 14.
2. Vatican II has been characterized by a sense of history, an awareness of
the concrete world of fact, and a disposition to see in historical facts certain
 FREEDOM
676 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN 11 RELIGIOUS
d the way in whi<
This Vatican Synod takes careful note of these desires in self has made known to mankin d in Christ an
to serve Him, and thus be
save
the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly true religion
in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into blessedness. We believe that this oneto which the
ch,
the catholic and apostolic Chur g it abroad am01
the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury
out of which the Church continually brings forth new things committed the duty of spre�din "Go, therefore,
Thus He spoke to the apostles: them in the n1
that are in harmony with the things that are old. disciples of all nations, baptizing
First,3 this sacred Synod professes its belief that God him- Father, and of the Son, and of the Hold you" (Mt
y Spirit, te�
to observe all that I have comm ande
seek the trutl
"signs of the times." Hence the Declaration begins by noting two facts. The
first is the recent rise of man's personal consciousness, his sense of sell• On their part, all men are bound to rch, and to t
in what conc erns God and His Chu
hood. This increasing awareness of the dignity of the human person marks a fast to it
progress of civilization. It is the good which has come out of the great evil truth they come to know, and to hold its belie
of totalitarianism, which brutally refuses to acknowledge the reality of ed Syn od like wise prof esses
man's selfhood. The second fact is the related rise of man's political con· This sacr e obli gatio
scie nce that thes
sciousness, his aspiration to live as a free man under a limited governme nt upon the human con h cann ot impo
which puts no obstacles to his pursuit of truth and virtue, and, in particular, exert thei r bindin g forc e. The trut
leaves him unhindered in the free exercise of religion in society. (Happily, makes its e
the Declaration adopts the classical phrase which the Founding Fathers liko­ cept by virtue of its own truth, as it er. Religio
wise adopted when framing the First Amendment in 1791.) the min d at once quie tly and with pow
In thus acknowledging certain realities of contemporary life, the Declaration y to fulfi
also establishes direct continuity with two basic doctrinal themes of John in turn, which men demand as necessar y from
to do with imm unit
XXIII in the encyclical "Pacem in Terris": the dignity of the human person to wor ship God , has
and the consequent necessity of constitutional limits to the powers of uched tradi
government. The language of these opening sentences is, in fact, taken frolll
civil society. Therefore, it leaves unto and soci
olic doctrine on the moral duty of men
this great encyclical. rch of
3. The issue of religious freedom arises in the political and social order-in the true religion and toward the one Chu
the order of the relationship between the people and government and betwee n Over and above all this, in taki ng up the mattei
man and man. This is the order of human rights, and in it the principle of inten ds to deve lop
freedom is paramount. However, man's life is also lived in another order of freedom this sacr ed Synod
of the hi
reality-in the spiritual order of man's relationship to what is objectivelY
true and morally good. This is the order of duty and obligation. In it a
of recent Popes on the inviolable rights .4
ety
man acts freely indeed, but under moral imperatives, which bind in con· and on the constitutional order of soci
science. No man may plead "rights" in the face of the truth or clailll
"freedom" from the moral law. The distinction between these two orders freedom. Neither the spirit of ch ecumenism nor the princi1
of reality would be admitted by all men of good sense. The underlying _in· fre edom requires that the Chur refrai n from stating pu
tention of these two paragraphs of the Declaration is to make this distinction believes herself to be. The demandsoppo of truth are no more1
clear, lest religious freedom be made a. pretext for moral anarchy. demands of freedom than they areis it so sed to the demands
However, the distinction is stated in Catholic terms. For the Catholic, the . other conciliar docu ment explicitly stated tl
4 In no olic doctrine. This is
"truth" is not a vague abstraction; it subsists in the Church, is taught b� of the Council is to "develop" Cath
the Church, is believed by the Church. Moreover, this truth about God an. it is an avowal that the tradition of the truth Church is a tradi
about His will for men is not the private possession of a party or s�ct; \t here is the
in understanding the truth. The basic who "feels "'
is to be taught to all men, and all nations are to be its disciples. It 1s no "citizen" as stated by Pius XII- the· man
to be thrust by force upon any man; in the order of man's relationshiP . t� consciousness of his own personality, of his duties, and of 1
truth, coercion has no place whatsoever. Consequently, as the Declarati� With a respect for the freedom of say,others" (Christmas Disco1
will later make clear, religious freedom is an exigence of religious trnth conception, as the Declaration will is deeply rooted both
conceived by the Church. tradition and in the tradition of reason.to In recent times, i
On the other hand, no man may say of the religious truth which sub�ists � (in "Rerum Novarum") who first bega n move it, as it were
the Church: "It is no concern of mine." Once given by Christ to HiS trU of Catholic social teaching. Pius XII man continued this devel1
Church, the true religion remains the one way in which all men are bound.: out the implications of the dignity of in terms of his c
serve God and save themselves. Consequently, religious freedom is no t a 11ve ht forwar d the corre lative truth , that the
Ile also broug ct, vindicate, ar
to exemption from the obligation to "observe all things whatsoever I htee of government is to acknowledge, prote
enjoined upon you." In fine, a harmony exists between man's duty_ �f in exercise of the rights of man. Both of these truths were ta
obedience to the truth and his right to the free exercise of reli�0�_;.,h in which they are
XXIII, chiefly in "Pacem in Terris,"
society. The duty does not diminish the right, nor does the right CIJJJllw-' &ystematic form of statement. to religious freedc
�� - � However, in regard to the right of man s. What precisely de
This frank profession of Catholic faith, at the outset of the Decl�at10n t In Terris" is unclear and even ambiguou
Religious Freedom, is in no sense at variance with the ecumenical ��jOfiUS, do m mean? Does it find place among the inalie
oab1e right:
any more than it is at variance with full loyalty to the principle of religl

THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN ll
itican Synod takes careful note of these desires in.
of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly
with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into
tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury
.ch the Church continually brings forth new things
t harmony with the things that are old.
his sacred Synod professes its belief that God hun...
times." Hence the Declaration begins by noting two facts. The
·ecent rise of man's personal consciousness, his sense of self.
tcreasing awareness of the dignity of the human person marks a
ivilization. It is the good which has come out of the great eVi}
nism, which brutally refuses to acknowledge the reality of
>d. The second fact is the related rise of man's political con.
.s aspiration to live as a free man under a limited government
J obstacles to his pursuit of truth and virtue, and, in particuiar
nhindered in the free exercise of religion in society. (Happily'
on adopts the classical phrase which the Founding Fathers likC:
when framing the First Amendment in 1791.)
nowledging certain realities of contemporary life, the Declaration
.es direct continuity with two basic doctrinal themes of J ohn
encyclical "Pacem in Terris": the dignity of the human person
sequent necessity of constitutional limits to the powers of
Ibe language of these opening sentences is, in fact, taken from
:yclical.
of religious freedom arises in the political and social order-in
:he relationship between the people and government and betwe en
11. This is the order of human rights, and in it the principle of
rramount. However, man's life is also lived in another order of
,e spiritual order of man's relationship to what is objectively
rally good. This is the order of duty and obligation. In it a
ely indeed, but under moral imperatives, which bind in con­
man may plead "rights" in the face of the truth or claim
om the moral law. The distinction between these two orders
uld be admitted by all men of good sense. The underlying in­
,se two paragraphs of the Declaration is to make this distinction
igious freedom be made a pretext for moral anarchy.
ile distinction is stated in Catholic terms. For the Catholic, the
t a vague abstraction; it subsists in the Church, is taught by
s believed by the Church. Moreover, this truth about God and
11 for men is not the private possession of a party or sect; it
ht to all men, and all nations are to be its disciples. It is not
by force upon any man; in the order of man's relationship to
,n has no place whatsoever. Consequently, as the Declaration
ke clear, religious freedom is an exigence of religious truth as
the Church.
�r hand, no man may say of the religious truth which subsists in
"It is no concern of mine." Once given by Christ to His true
rue religion remains the one way in which all men are bound to
d save themselves. Consequently, religious freedom is not a title
from the obligation to "observe all things whatsoever I have
1 you." In fine, a harmony exists between man's duty of free
the truth and his right to the free exercise of religion in
duty does not diminish the right, nor does the right diminish
profession of Catholic faith, at the outset of the Declaration on
edom, is in no sense at variance with the ecumenical spirit,
n it is at variance with full loyalty to the principle of religious
B,ELIGIOUS FREEDOM 677
self has made known to mankind the way in which men are
to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to
blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in
the catholic and apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus
committed the duty of spre�ding it abroad among all men .
Thus He spoke to the apostles: "Go, therefore, _and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all that I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:19-20).
On their part, all 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.
This sacred Synod likewise professes its belief that it is
upon the human conscience that these obli_gations _fall and
exert their binding force. The truth cannot nnpose itself ex­
cept by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into
the mind at once quietly and with power. Religious freedom,
in turn which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty
to wor�hip God, has to do with immunity from coercion in
civil society. Therefore, it leaves untouched traditional Cath­
olic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward
the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Over and above all this, in taking up the matter of religious
freedom this sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine
of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person
and on the constitutional order of society.4
freedom. Neither the spirit of ecumenism nor the principle of religious
freedom requires that the Church refrain from stating publicly what she
believes herself to be. The demands of truth are no more opposed to the
demands of freedom than they are opposed to the demands of love
_.
4. In no other conciliar document is it so explicitly stated that the mtention
of the Council is to "develop" Catholic doctrine. This is significant, since
it is an avowal that the tradition of the Church is a tradition of progress
in understanding the truth. The basic truth here is the concept of the
"citizen" as stated by Pius XII-the man who "feels w�tlri� him�� a
consciousness of his own personality, of his duties, and of his nghts, Jomed
with a respect for the freedom of others" (Christmas Disco�se, 1945) .. T�s
conception, as the Declaration will say, is deeply rooted bo� m the Christian
_
tradition and in the tradition of reason. In recent tlllles, 1t was Leo XIII
(in "Rerum Novarum") who first began to move it, as it were, to the forefr�mt
of Catholic social teaching. Pius XII continued this development, drawmg
out the implications of the dignity of man in terms of his du!ies and ri�ts.
He al.so brought forward the correlative truth, that the pnmary function
of government is to acknowledge, protect, vindicate, and facilitate the
exercise of the rights of man. Both of these truths were taken up by John
XXIII, chiefly in "Pacem in Terris," in which they are given an almost
systematic form of statement.
However, in regard to the right of man to religio� freedom, ev�� "Pacem
in Terris" is unclear and even ambiguous. What precisely does rebgious free­
dom mean? Does it find place among the iualieuable rights of man? These

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PRINCIPLE
OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
2. This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a
right to religious freedom.6 This freedom means that all men
are the questions to which, for the first time, the Church gives an unmis­
takably clear and entirely unambiguous answer. The Council brings fo th
out of the treasury of truth a doctrine that is at once new and also rin
harmony with traditional teaching.
,. The doctrinal substance of the Declaration is stated in this paragraph,
which defines what religious freedom is and affirms its status as a human­
and therefore civil-right. A right is a moral claim made on others that
they either give me something or do something for me or refrain from doing
something. Two questions always arise. First, what is the moral claim· I make
on others, or in other words, what is the object or content of my right?
Second, on what grounds do I make this moral claim, or in other words,
what is the foundation of my right?
The Declaration first defines religious freedom in terms of its object or
content. The moral claim that every man makes on others-on individuals,
groups, political or social powers-is that they refrain from bringing coercion
to bear on him in all matters religious. This claim is twofold. First, no man
is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his personal beliefs; secon�,
no man is to be forcibly restrained from acting in accordance with �
beliefs. The affirmation of this latter immunity is the new thing, which 1S
in harmony with the older affirmation of the former immunity.
It is to be noted that the word "conscience," found in the Latin tex t.
is used in its generic sense, sanctioned by usage, of "beliefs," "convictions,�•
"persuasions." Hence the unbeliever or atheist makes with equal right th1S
claim to immunity from coercion in religious matters. It is further to be
noted that, in assigning a negative content to the right to religious freedom
(that is, in making it formally a "freedom from" and not a "freedom for"),
the Declaration is in harmony with the sense of the First Amendmen t to
the American Constitution. In guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, t
First Amendment guarantees to the American citizen immunity from. �
coercion in matters religious. Neither the Declaration nor the American
Constitution affirms that a man has a right to believe what is false or
do what is wrong. This would be moral nonsense. Neither error nor e�
can be the object of a right, only what is true and good. It is, however
true and good that a man should enjoy freedom from coercion in matter ;
religious.
This brings up the second question, concerning the foundation of the
!i
right. The reason why every man may claim immunity from coercion ill
matters religious is precisely his inalienable dignity as a human per�0
Surely, in matters religious, if anywhere, the free human person is re�u�
and entitled to act on his own judgment and to assume personal respons1��\;
for his action or omission. A man's religious decisions, or his decis �
against religion, are inescapably his own. No one else can make thelll � r
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
are to be immune from coercion on the part
or of social groups and of any human poweli
that in matters religious no one is to be fore
manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is ao
strained from acting in accordance with hl
whether privately or publicly, whether alone 01
with others, within due limits.
The Synod further declares that the right to
dom has its foundation in the very dignity
person, as this dignity is known through the
of God and by reason itself. 6 This right of t
son to religious freedom is to be recognized i
tional law whereby society is governed. Thus
a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as pt
beings endowed with reason and free will and
ileged to bear personal responsibility-that all
at once impelled by nature and also bound 1
ligation to seek the truth, especially religious
also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is
order their whole lives in accord with the de1
However, men cannot discharge these o·
manner in keeping with their own nature U]]
immunity from external coercion as well a
freedom. Therefore, the right to religious f
foundation, not in the subjective disposition
but in his very nature. In consequence, the r
munity continues to exist even in those who
to their obligation of seeking the truth and
him. or compel him to make this decision or that, or
Putting his decisions into practice, privately or publicly,
Pany with others. In all these cases, the dignity of man ;
because of the denial to him of that inalienable respon
decisions and actions which is the essential counterpart
It is worth noting that the Declaration does not ba
free exercise of religion on "freedom of conscience."
Phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its aut
for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I t
What my conscience tells me to do, simply because my
to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril
llotion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not
Which determines what is right or wrong, true or false.
6. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr.'
(1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1!
P. 19; Pius XI, encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge," Mai
�1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encyclical "Libertas Praestan
888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), pp. 237-238.

CHAPTER. I
!RAL PRINCIPLE
ELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a
religious freedom.5 This freedom means that all men
uestions to which, for the first time, the Church gives an UIUnis­
lear and entirely unambiguous answer. The Council brings fo rth
e treasury of truth a doctrine that is at once new and also in
with traditional teaching.
Jctrinal substance of the Declaration is stated in this paragraph,
ines what religious freedom is and affirms its status as a human­
fore civil-right. A right is a moral claim made on others that
r give me something or do something for me or refrain from doing
. Two questions always arise. First, what is the moral claim I make
or in other words, what is the object or content of my right?
n what grounds do I make this moral claim, or in other words,
1e foundation of my right?
daration first defines religious freedom in terms of its object or
be moral claim that every man makes on others-on individuals,
Jlitical or social powers-is that they refrain from bringing coercion
1 him in all matters religious. This claim is twofold. First, no man
'orced to act in a manner contrary to his personal beliefs; second,
is to be forcibly restrained from acting in accordance with his
b.e affirmation of this latter immunity is the new thing, which is
1y with the older affirmation of the former immunity.
l be noted that the word "conscience," found in the Latin text,
its generic sense, sanctioned by usage, of "beliefs," "convictions,"
ins." Hence the unbeliever or atheist makes with equal right this
immunity from coercion in religious matters. It is further to be
t, in assigning a negative content to· the right to religious freedom
n making it formally a "freedom from" and not a "freedom for"),
1ration is in harmony with the sense of the First Amendment to
lean Constitution. In guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, the
.endment guarantees to the American citizen immunity from all
in matters religious. Neither the Declaration nor the American
on affirms that a man has a right to believe what is false or to
is wrong. This would be moral nonsense. Neither error nor evil
1e object of a right, only what is true and good. It is, however,
good that a man should enjoy freedom from coercion in matters
:ings up the second question, concerning the foundation of the
, reason why every man may claim immunity from coercion in
eligious is precisely his inalienable dignity as a human person.
t matters religious, if anywhere, the free human person is required
ed to act on his own judgment and to assume personal responsibility
1ction or omission. A man's religious decisions, or his decision
:ligion, are inescapably his own. No one else can make them for
].lELIGIOUS FREEDOM 679
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
Jllanner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be re­
strained 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 free­
dom 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.6 This right of the human per­
son to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitu­
tional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become
a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is,
beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore priv­
ileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be
at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral ob­
ligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are
also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to
order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.
However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a
manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy
immunity from external coercion as well as psychological
freedom. Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its
foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person,
but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this im­
munity continues to exist even in those who do not live up
to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.
him, or compel him to make this decision or that, or restrain. him from
putting his decisions into practice, privately or publicly, alope or in com­
pany with others. In all these cases, the dignity of man would be diminished
because of the denial to him of that inalienable responsibility for his own
decisions and actions which is the essential counterpart of his freedom.
It is worth noting that the Declaration does not base the right to the
free exercise of religion on "freedom of conscience." Nowhere does this
phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory
for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do
what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me
to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism-the
notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth,
which determines what is right or wrong, true or false.
6. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55
(1963), pp. 260-261; Pius Xll, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943),
p. 19; Pius XI, encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge," Mar. 14, 1937: AAS 29
(1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encyclical "Libertas Praestantissimum," lune 20,
1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), pp. 237-238.
 680 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
Nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that
the just requirements of public order are observed.7
3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that
the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal,
objective, and universal-whereby God orders, directs, and
governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human
community, by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man
has been made by God to participate in this law, with the
result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence,
he can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging
truth. Hence every man has the duty, and therefore the right,
to seek the truth in matters religious, in order that he may
with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of
conscience, with the use of all suitable means.
Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper
to the dignity of the human person and his social nature.
The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching
7. It was necessary for the Council to present an argument for the principle
of religious freedom, lest anyone should mistakenly think that the Church
was accepting religious freedom merely on pragmatic grounds or as a con­
cession to contemporary circumstances. However, it was not the intention
of the Council to affirm that the argument, as made in the text, is final
and decisive. Complete and systematic study of the arguments for religiou s
freedom is a task left to the scholars of the Church, working in ecumenical
spirit with scholars of other religious Communities, and in humanist spirit
with scholars of no religious convictions who are concerned with the exigen­
cies of human dignity. The Council merely presents certain lines or elements
of argument. It will be sufficient here to indicate the structure.
First, in this paragraph, the objective foundation of the right to religious
freedom is presented in terms that should be intelligible and acceptable to
all men, including non-believers. The simple essence of the matter is that man.
being intelligent and free, is to be a responsible agent. Inherent in his ve�
nature, therefore, is an exigency for freedom from coercion, especially �
matters religious. Therefore, in the following three paragraphs, an argumen
is suggested that will appeal to those who believe in God, in objective ord�r
of truth and morality, and in the obligation to seek the truth, form one 8
conscience, and obey its dictates. To the man who so believes, it will be
evident that no one is to be forced or constrained to act against his own
conscience (here conscience has its technical meaning).
th:
Two further arguments are advanced to show that a man may notan�
e llowever, it would clearly transgress the limit:
9
restrained from acting according to his conscience. First, by reason of m .
social nature, inner acts of religion require external expression; hence
external expression enjoys the same immunity from coercion as the inner �
es
themselves. Second, there is the "further consideration" that no ri811:t restd
e
in government to command or inhibit acts of religion, which by theu natuf
lie beyond the reach of government.
8
American theorists are generally disposed to relate religious freedODl toan,
general theory of constitutional government, limited by the right s of Dl ss .
e
and to the concept of civic equality. The Declaration, however, l�ys 1
of
stress on this political argument than it does on the ethical found ations
e
the right itself. In any event, the elements of the political argument ar
eni
stated in later Articles (6 and 7). And one is free to construct the axguDl
ill the form which may seem more convincing.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
or instruction, communication, and dialogue. In the
of these, men explain to one another the truth they h
covered, or think they have discovered, in order thus
one another in the quest for truth. Moreover, as the
discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are tc
to it.
On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the
tives of the divine law through the mediation of co!
In all his activity a man is bound to follow his cc
faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for ,
was created. It follows that he is not to be forced to
manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the otl
is he to be restrained from acting in accordance
conscience, especially in matters religious.
For, of its very nature, the exercise of religi01
before all else in those internal, voluntary, and
whereby man sets the course of his life directly to�
No merely human power can either command o;
acts of this kind.8
However, the social nature of man itself requu;
should give external expression to his internal ac
gion; that he should participate with others in m
gious; that he should profess his religion in commu
therefore, is done to the human person and to the
established by God for human life, if the free
religion is denied in society when the just requi
public order do not so require.
There is a further consideration. The religious
by men, in private and in public and out of a se
sonal conviction, direct their lives to God transce
Very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal i:
ernment, therefore, ought indeed to take account
gious life of the people and show it favor, since 1
of government is to make provision for the comn
Power were it to presume to direct or inhibit l:
religious.
4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in
gious which is the endowment of persons as i
also to be recognized as their right when they
8. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11.
(1963), p. 270; Paul VI, radio message, Dec. 22, 1964: AA
181-182.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN ll
Nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that
the just requirements of public order are observed.7
3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that
the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal
;:,bjective, and universal-whereby God orders, directs, an.ct
governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human
�ommunity, by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man
a.as been made by God to participate in this law, with the
result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence,
1e can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging
truth. Hence every man has the duty, and therefore the right
:o seek the truth in matters religious, in order that he may
with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of
:onscience, with the use of all suitable means.
Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper
:o the dignity of the human person and his social nature.
l'he inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching
7. It was necessary for the Council to present an argument for the Principle
>f religious freedom, lest anyone should mistakenly think that the Church
ivas accepting religious freedom merely on pragmatic grounds or as a con.
:ession to contemporary circumstances. However, it was not the intention
>f the Council to affirm that the argument, as made in the text, is final
md decisive. Complete and systematic study of the arguments for religiou s
:reedom is a task left to the scholars of the Church, working in ecumenical
,pirit with scholars of other religious Communities, and in humanist spirit
vi.th scholars of no religious convictions who are concerned with the exigen­
:ies of human dignity. The Council merely presents certain lines or elements
1f argument. It will be sufficient here to indicate the structure.
First, in this paragraph, the objective foundation of the right to religious
'reedom is presented in terms that should be intelligible and acceptable to
tll men, including non-believers. The simple essence of the matter is that man,
1eing intelligent and free, is to be a responsible agent. Inherent in his very
1ature, therefore, is an exigency for freedom from coercion, especially in
natters religious. Therefore, in the following three paragraphs, an argument
s suggested that will appeal to those who believe in God, in objective order
1f truth and morality, and in the obligation to seek the truth, form one's
onscience, and obey its dictates. To the man who so believes, it will be
:vident that no one is to be forced or constrained to act against his own
onscience (here conscience has its technical meaning).
Two further arguments are advanced to show that a man may not be
estrained from acting according to his conscience. First, by reason of man's
ocial nature, inner acts of religion require external expression; hence their
iXternal expression enjoys the same immunity from coercion as the inner acts
hemselves. Second, there is the "further consideration" that no right resides
n government to command or inhibit acts of religion, which by their nature
ie beyond the reach of government.
American theorists are generally disposed to relate religious freedom to a
ieneral theory of constitutional government, limited by the rights of man,
nd to the concept of civic equality. The Declaration, however, lays less
tress on this political argument than it does on the ethical foundations of
he right itself. In any event, the elements of the political argument are
t, ated in later Articles (6 and 7). And one is free to construct the argument
11 the form which may seem more convincing.
JELIGIOUS FREEDOM 681
or instruction, communication, and dialogue. In the course
of these, men explain to one another the truth they have dis­
covered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist
one another in the quest for truth. Moreover, as the truth is
discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere
to it.
On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the impera­
tives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience.
Jo all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience
faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for whom he
was created. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a
Jllanner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand,
is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his
conscience, especially in matters religious.
For, of its very nature, the exercise of religion consists
before all else in those internal, voluntary, and free acts
whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God.
No merely human power can either command or prohibit
acts of this kind. 8
However, the social nature of man itself requires that he
should give external expression to his internal acts of reli­
gion; that he should participate with others in matters reli­
gious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury,
therefore, is done to the human person and to the very order
established by God for human life, if the free exercise of
religion is denied in society when the just requirements of
public order do not so require.
There is a further consideration. The religious acts where­
by men, in private and in public and out of a sense of per­
sonal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their
very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Gov­
ernment, therefore, ought indeed to take account of the reli­
gious life of the people and show it favor, since the function
of government is to make provision for the common welfare.
However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its
power were it to presume to direct or inhibit acts that are
religious.
4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters reli­
gious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is
also to be recognized as their right when they act in com-
s. Cf. John XXlll, encyclical "Pacem in Te"is," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55
(1963), p. 270; Paul VI, radio message, Dec. 22, 1964: AAS 57 (1965), pp.
181-182.
682 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN 11
munity. Religious bodies are a requirement of the social na­
ture both of man and of religion itself.9
Provided the just requirements of public order are ob­
served, religious bodies rightfully claim freedom in order
that they may govern themselves according to their own
norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist
their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen
them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they
may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives
in accordance with their religious principles ..
Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered,
either by legal measures or by administrative action on the
part of government, in the selection, training, appointment,
and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating
with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erect­
ing buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition
and use of suitable funds or properties.
Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in
their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by
the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading
religious faith and in introducing religious practices, every•
one ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action
which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of
persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especial·
ly when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a
manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of
one's own right and a violation of the right of others.10
9. The freedoms listed here are those which the Catholic Church claimS for
herself. The Declaration likewise claims them for all Churches and religioUS
Communities. Lest there be misunderstanding, however, it is necessarY !-°
recall here the distinction between the content or object of the right and 1�
foundation. The content or object always remains freedom from coercion ;t
what concerns religious belief, worship, practice or observance, and pub _c
testimony. Hence the content of the right is the same both for the Ca��;!�
Church and for . other religious bodies. In this sense, the Church cl......­
notbing for herself which she does not also claim for them. The matter �
different, however, with regard to the foundation of the right. The Cath�
0 relevant to the life and action of society. Therefore religious freedom :
Church claims freedom from coercive interference in her ministrY and
cf
on grounds of the divine mandate laid upon her by Christ Him.Self ( . •
below, note 13). It is Catholic faith that no other Church or Comm'"tli�
°/ Jie
may claim to possess this mandate in all its fullness. In this sense, .
18
freedom of the Church is unique, proper to herself alone, by reason
foundation. In the case of other religious Communities, the foundation
right is the dignity of the human person, which requires that men be
°kept
as
free from coercion, when they act in community, gathered into Churches,
well as when they act alone.
5 11·
/':in,
10. It is customary to distinguish between "Christian witness" and ''pr0 re,
e
°
tism" and to condemn the latter. This distinction is made in the text
Proselytism is a corruption of Christi.an � by appeal to bidden
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
In addition, it comes within the meaning of religiow
dom that religious bodies should not be prohibited fron
ly undertaking to show the special value of their doctt
what concerns the organization of society and the insp:
of the whole of human activity.11 Finally, the social
of man and the very nature of religion afford the founda1
the right of men freely to hold meetings and to es
educational, cultural, charitable, and social organizatioll
der the impulse of their own religious sense.
5. Since the family12 is a society in its own original ri
has the right freely to live its own domestic religious li
der the guidance of parents. Parents, moreover, ha�
right to determine, in accordance with their own re
beliefs, the kind of religious education that their childr,
to receive.
Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the
of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools f
other means of education. The use of this freedom of
is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burde
parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the rig
parents are violated if their children are forced to
lessons or instruction which are not in agreement with
religious beliefs. The same is true if a single system of
tion, from which all religious formation is excluded, .
posed upon all.
6. The common welfare of society consists in the entir
those conditions of social life under which men enjc
possibility of achieving their own perfection in a certaiJ
ness of measure and also with some relative ease. Hem
Welfare consists chiefly in the protection of the rights,1
of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the gospel. It is
U se but the abuse of the right to religious freedom.
11. Implicitly rejected here is the outmoded notion that "religion is i
Private affair'' or that ''the Church belongs in the sacristy." Rel
the right to point out this social relevance of religious belief.
�2. The internal structure of family relationships and the general
�Y life vary widely throughout the world. Still greater variety
hibited in the organization of school systems, in their relation to the
to society, and to government,
and in the religious and ideological
Or lack thereof, of their teaching.
In consequence, the Declaration
�ntine itself to a few principles of universal import, which would
b doctrinal line-freedom from coercion. To descend to further detai
ts
/ to enter the realm of policy, in which contingent circumstances
etermmant role.
lJ. CJ. John XXIII, encyclical "Mater et Magistra," May 15, 196.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN ll
Religious bodies are a requirement of the social na..
b. of man and of religion itself.9
ied the just requirements of public order are ob..
religious bodies rightfully claim freedom in order
:y may govern themselves according to their own
honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist
!mbers in the practice of the religious life, strengthen
r instruction, and promote institutions in which they
1 together for the purpose of ordering their own lives
rdance with their religious principles. _
.ous bodies also have the right not to be hindered
y legal measures or by administrative action on th�
government, in the selection, training, appointment,
nsferral of their own ministers, in communicating
ligious authorities and communities abroad, in erect­
ldings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition
, of suitable funds or properties.
ious bodies also have the _right not to be hindered in
1blic teaching and witness to their faith, whether by
ken or by the written word. However, in spreading
s faith and in introducing religious practices, every.
�ht at all times to refrain from any manner of action
night seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of
ion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especial­
n dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a
· of action would have to be considered an abuse of
wn right and a violation of the right of others.10
reedoms listed here are those which the Catholic Church claims for
l'he Declaration likewise claims them for all Churches and religious
ities. Lest there be misunderstanding, however, it is necessary to
re the distinction between the content or object of the right and its
>n. The content or object always remains freedom from coercion in
1cems religious belief, worship, practice or observance, and public
,. Hence the content of the right is the same both for the Catholic
and for _ other religious bodies. In this sense, the Church claims
for herself which she does not also claim for them. The matter is
· however, with regard to the foundation of the right. The Catholic
claims freedom from coercive interference in her ministry and life
nds of the divine mandate laid upon her by Christ Himself (cf.
10te 13). It is Catholic faith that no other Church or Community
im to possess this mandate in all its fullness. In this sense, tho
of the Church is unique, proper to herself alone, by reason of its
on. In the case of other religious Communities, the foundation of tho
the dignity of the human person, which requires that men be kept
n coercion, when they act in community, gathered into Churches, as
when they act alone.
1 customary to distinguish between "Christian witness" and ''prosely­
o.d to condemn the latter. This distinction is made in the text here.
ism is a corruption of Christian witness by appeal to hidden forms
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
In addition, it comes within the meaning f . .
dom that religious bodies should not be proJbi::Jtr-°'18 free­
ly undertaking to show the special value of their d 0� fre�
what concerns the organization of society and the�=�- m
of the whole of human activity.11 Finally, the social n:�:
of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of·
the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish
educational, cultural, charitable, and social organizations, un­
der the impulse of their own religious sense.
S. Since the family12 is a society in its own original right, it
has the right freely to live its own domestic religious life un­
der the guidance of parents. Parents, moreover, have the
right to determine, in accordance with their own religious
beliefs, the kind of religious education that their children are
to receive.
Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right
of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of
other means of education. The use of this freedom of choice
is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on
parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the rights of
parents are violated if their children are forced to attend
lessons or instruction which are not in agreement with their
religious beliefs. The same is true if a single system of educa­
tion, from which all religious formation is excluded, is im­
posed upon all.
6. The common welfare of society consists in the entirety of
those conditions of social life under which men enjoy the
possibility of achieving their own perfection in a certain full­
ness of measure and also with some relative ease. Hence this
welfare consists chiefly in the protection of the rights,13 and
of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the gospel. It is not the
use but the abuse of the right to religious freedom.
11. Implicitly rejected here is the outmoded notion that "religion is a purely
private affair" or that ''the Church belongs in the sacristy." Religion is
relevant to the life and action of society. Therefore religious freedom includes
the right to point out this social relevance of religious belief.
12. The internal structure of family relationships and the general style of
family life vary widely throughout the world. Still greater variety is ex­
hibited in the organization of school systems. in their relation to the family,
to society, and to government, and in the religious and ideological content,
or lack thereof, of their teaching. In consequence, the Declaration had to
confine itself to a few principles of universal import, which would enforce
its doctrinal lin�freedom from coercion. To descend to further detail would
be to enter the realm of policy, in which contingent circumstances play a
determinant role.
13. C/. John XXlll, encyclical "Mater et Magistra," May 15, 1961: AAS
684 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
in the performance of the duties, of the human person.
Therefore, the care of the right to religious freedom devolves
upon the people as a whole, upon social groups, upon gov­
ernment, and upon the Church and other religious Commu­
nities, in virtue of the duty of all toward the common wel­
fare, and in the manner proper to each. 14
The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of
man ranks among the essential duties of government.15
53 (1961), p. 417; idem, encyclical "Pacem In Terris,.. Apr. 11, 1963: AAS
55 (1963), p. 273.
14. The development of Catholic doctrine which the Declaration promised
has already shown itself in the clear definition of religious freedom as a
human right and in the firm claim that all Churches and religious Com­
munities are entitled to equal freedom from coercion in what concerns re­
ligious belief, worship, practice or observance, public testimony, and the
internal autonomy of the community itself. Correlative with these develop­
ments is the doctrine stated here with regard to the functions and limitations
of government in what concerns religion in society. The pivotal notion is
the concept of the common welfare which Leo XIII began to put forward in
"Rerum Novarum," which Pius XII strongly developed, and which John
XXIII defined with greater precision. The common welfare "chiefly consists
in the protection of the rights, and in the performance of the duties, of the
human person," who is to be the agent of the processes of society and their
beneficiary. The care of the common welfare is the common task of all
elements within society-individuals, groups, religious bodies, government­
each in the way proper to itself.
In a special way, the care of the common good-that is to say, the care
of the rights of man-devolves upon government. Consequently, in what
concerns religion in society, government has a duty that is twofold. The
first duty is to acknowledge the human right to religious freedom, and effec­
tively to protect it and vindicate it against violation. The second dutY
derives from the general duty of government to assist the people in the
performance of their duties; in this case, it is to show a general and un·
discriminating favor toward religion in society (cf. above, note 3, at the
end) and to assist· in the creation of conditions that will help, not hinder£
the people in the exercise of their religious rights and in the performance 0
their religious duties. This latter duty is stated with considerable· generalitY,
because the appropriato means for its performance will vary within diverse
circumstances.
The concern of the Council was, first, to make entirely clear the dutY of
government toward religious freedom as a human right, and secondlY, to
make sufficiently clear the function of government with regard to religion
itself as a perfection of the human person and as a social value. This lat�et
function is not easy to define with precision. It is chiefly a matter of avoid·
ing extremes. On the one hand, government is forbidden to assume the c�e
of religious truth as such, or jurisdiction over religious worship or pracU�
or the task of judging the truth or value of religious propaganda. OtherWJS
it would exceed its competence, which is confined to affairs of the temP0\al0
and terrestrial order. On the other hand, government is likewise forbi dd� 8
adopt toward religion an attitude of indifference or skepticism, much �
hostility. Otherwise it would betray its duty to the human person, for w:�e
religion is the highest good, and also to the temporal and terrestrial we aL
of society, whose content is not merely material but also moral and spir itu 5
Here then is the principle for finding the golden mean between the extrefs.s
15. Cf. John XXlll, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AA 1)
(1963), pp. 273-274; Pius XII, radio message, June 1, 1941: AAS 33 (194 '
p. 200. \ Of Communist inspiration is unmistakable.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Therefore, government is to assume the safeguard oJ
ligious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective mai
just laws and by other appropriate means. Govern
also to help create conditions favorable to the fost1
religious life, in order that the people may be truly
to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their
duties, and also in order that society itself may profi.1
moral qualities of justice and peace which have thei
in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will.16
If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining am,
tain peoples, special legal recognition' is given in t
stitutional order of society to one religious body, it i:
same time imperative that the right of all citizens a
gious bodies to religious freedom should be recognh
made effective in practice.17
Finally, government is to see to it that the equality
Zens before the law, which is itself an element of tJ:i
mon welfare, is never violated for religious re
whether openly or covertly. Nor is there to be discrirr
among citizens.
It follows that a wrong is done when government i
upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the
sion or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinde:
from joining or leaving a religious body. All the more
Violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights
person and the family of nations, when force is brm
bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion,
in the whole of mankind or in a particular country c
Specific community.19
7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in hum
16.
Cf. Leo XIII, encyclical "lmmortale Dei," Nov. 1, 1885: AAS 11
11-161.
17. This paragraph is carefully phrased. The Council did not
Condemn the institution of "establishment," the notion of a "religi01
state." A respectable opinion maintains that the institution is compati
fun religious freedom. On the other hand, the Council did not
canonize the institution. A respectable opinion holds that establish
always a threat to religious freedom. Furthermore, the Council wi
in sinuate that establishment, at least from the Catholic point of vit
matter of historical circumstance, not of theological doctrine. For �
reasons the text deals with the issue in conditional terms.
18. This statement about equality before the law as an element of the <
l'?elfare has an accent of newness in official Catholic statements. It
l>ortant for the construction of the full argument for religious freed,
19. This condemnation of religious persecution is couched in temperat
llnd without naming the guilty. However, the reference to totalitarian
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 685

performance of the duties, of the human person. Therefore, government is to assume the safeguard of the re­
ore the care of the right to religious freedom devolves ligious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by
he 'people as a whole, upon social gro��' upon gov­ just laws and by other appropriate means. Government is
tt and upon the Church and other ·religious Commu­ also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of
� virtue of the duty of all toward the common wel­ religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled
nd in the manner proper to each.14 to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious
protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the
:an.ks among the essential duties of govemment.15 moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin
in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will.16
" Apr. 11, 1963: AAS
), p. 417; idem, encyclical "Pacem In Te"is, If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among cer­
I), p. 273. . tain peoples, special legal recognition' is given in the con­
dev elopment of Catholic doctrine w�ch ofthereligiou D. �c1arat·ion proIDISed
s fr dom as a stitutional order of society to one religious body, it is at the
,ady shown itself in the clear definition Chur�hes . and religious Com­
��
right and in the firm claim that all co same time imperative that the right of all citizens and reli­
are entitled to equal freedom
from ercion_ m w�at concerns re­
pub�c te�imony, and the gious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and
belief, worship, practice or observance, elative �th these_ d�ve� op.
autonomy of the community itself. Corr made effective in practice.17
; the doctrine stated here with regarin d to the functions. and liID1t�tio1!5 Finally, government is to see to it that the equality of citi­
rnment in what concerns religion society. The pivotal notion _lS
;ept of the common welf are which Leo XIII began to put f<:>rward m zens before the law, which is itself an element of the com­
No arum," which Pius XII strong ly developed, a?.d _ which J�hn mon welfare, is never violated for religious reasons18
v
jefined with great er precision. The pcommo n welf are chie�y consists
erformance of the duti _ es, of �e whether openly or covertly. Nor is there to be discrimination
,rotection of the rights, and in the the processes of society and thett
person," who is to be the agent of is the commo task of alln
among citizens.
ary The care of the common welfarereligious bodies, government- It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes
� �thin society-individuals, groups, upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profes­
the way proper to itself. that is to say, �e care
special way, the care of the common good- . Conseq1;1ent1y, m what
sion or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men
rights of man-devolves upon government a 1;1o/ that is twofold. The
d from joining or leaving a religious body. All the more is it a
s religion in society, government has r�ligi':'us freedom, and effec-
ty is to acknowledge the human ri�t to v10latio n. The second_ duty
violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the
0 protect it and vindicate it
against person and the family of nations, when force is brought to
the people m the
· from the general duty of governmentis toto assist show a general and un­ bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either
ianc of th e ir duti es; in this case, it
e
ty (cf. a1><:>ve, note 3, a_t the
inating favor toward religion in soci eons
id to assist· in the creation of conditi that :wm help, not hinder, in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a
specific community.19
,ple in the exe rcise of their religious rights and m th _ e performance. of
with c:o ns1dera bl� �ene�ality,
:ligious duti es. This latter duty is statedance will vary within diverse
: the appropriato means for its perform 7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human so-
,tances. .
concern of the Council was, first, to make en�e1Y c1ear th e duty of
nent tow d religious free dom as a human n �ht, and secondl)'., . to 16. Cf. Leo XIII, encyclical ..lmmortale Dei," Nov. I, 1885: AAS 18 (1885),
rnment wi� regard to !eligion
ar
p.161.
sufficiently clear the function of gove
iS a pe rf ection of the human
pers_o� and � a �ocial value . This lato1d­ !er 17. This paragraph is carefully phrased. The Council did not wish to
n is not easy to define with prec1S1on. It is chiefly a matter of av condemn the institution of "establishment," the notion of a "religion of the
t is for?i�den to as� um e the c�e state." A respectable opinion maintains that the institution is compatible with
:remes. On the one hand, governmenov practl�,
gious truth as such, or jurisdiction of erreligious �e�gious worship or full religious freedom. On the other hand, the Council did not wish to
pro�aganda. Otherwise canonize the institution. A respectable opinion holds that establishme nt is
task of judging the truth or value d to .aff�s �f the �emporal always a threat to religious freedom. Furthermore, the Council wished to
ld exceed its compet ence, which is confine rnment is like�_se forbidden to Insinuate that establishment, at least from the Catholic point of view, is a
rrestrial order. On the other hand, gove erence or ske pticism, much
less matter of historical circumstance. not of theological doctrine. For all these
toward r ligion an attitud e of indiff
the human person, for whom
e
reasons the text deals with the issue in conditional terms.
y Otherwise it would betray its duty totempora l and terrestrial ��]fare 18. This statement about equality before the law as an eleme nt of the common
�·is the highest good, and also to tileerial _ but also moral and spmtual. welfare has an accent of newness in official Catholic statements. It is im­
ie ty whose content is not merely mat an between the extreme portant for the construction of the full argument for religious freedom.
be� is the principle for finding the golden m"e Apr. I , 1963: AAS :� 19. This condemnation of religious persecution is couched in temperate terms
. John XXlll, encyclical "Pa.cem in Terris, �
1, 1941. AAS 33 (194 )• and without naming the guilty. However, the reference to totalitarian regimes
; pp. 273-274; Pius XII, radio message, June of Communist inspiration is unmistakable.
I
686 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
ciety; hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory
norms. 20 In the use of all freedoms, the moral principle of
personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the
exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are
bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights
of others and for their own duties toward others and for
the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fel­
lows in justice and civility.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against
possible abuses committed on pretext of freedom of religion.
It is the special duty of government to provide this protec­
tion. However, government is not to act in arbitrary fashion
or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be con­
trolled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the
objective moral order.
These norms arise out of the need for effective safeguard
of the rights of all citizens and for peaceful settlement of
20. It ls a matter of common sense that the exercise of all freedoms in
society must be subject to certain regulatory norms. The Declaration states
first the moral norm-the principle of ,personal and social responsibility. ,ts
restraints, of course, are self-imposed. More difficult is the question of the
juridical norm which should control the action of government in limiting or
inhibiting the exercise of the right to religious freedom. (Note that the right
itself is always inalienable, never to be denied; only the exercise of the
right is subject to control in particular instances.) The norm cannot be the
common welfare, since the common welfare requires that human rights should
be protected, not limited, in their exercise. Hence the Declaration adopts
the concept of public order. The concept has good warrant in constitutional
law. However, it is more frequently used than defined. The Declaration under­
takes to define it. In doing so, it makes a contribution to the science of
law and jurisprudence.
First, the requirements of public order are not subject to arbitrary definition
-at the hands, say, of tyrannical governments, which might abuse the concept
for their own ends. The public order of society is a part of the univers �
moral order; its requirements must be rooted in moral law. Second, publiC
order exhibits a threefold content. First, the order of society is essentiallY
an order of justice, in which the rights of all citizens are effectively safe­
guarded, and provision is made for peaceful settlement of conflicts of rigbt�­
Second, the order of society is a political order, an order of peace ("domestic
tranquillity" is the American constitutional phrase). Public peace, however,
is not the result of repressive action by the police. It is, in the classic con
cept, the work of justice; it comes about, of itself, when the demands . 0 1 already hesitantly begun by Pius XII, was strongly furthered by Jol:
justice are met, and when orderly processes exist for airing and set tling
grievances. Third, the order of society is a moral order, at least in the sense
that certain minimal standards of public morality are enforced at all.
Public order therefore is constituted by these three values-j uridi�1
political, moral. They are the basic elements in the common welfare, whiC
is a wider concept than public order. And so necessary are these three vi:1u�
that the coercive force of government may be enlisted to protect and· vindic�te
them. Together they furnish a reasonable juridical criterion for co�r�iv
restriction of freedom. The free exercise of religion may not be inbibitedr
unless proof is given that it entails some violation of the rights of oth ers, �
of the public peace, or of public morality. In these cases, in other wo:ise•
a public action ceases to be a religious exercise and becomes a penal offe
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
conflicts of rights. They flow from the need for an
care of genuine -public peace, which comes about w
live together in good order and in true justice. lli
finally, out of the need for a proper guardianship
morality. These matters constitute the basic comp
the common welfare: they are what is meant by p
der.
For the rest,21 the usages of society are to be ti:
of freedom in their full range. These require that
dom of man be respected as far as possible, and
only when and in so far as necessary.
8. Many pressures are brought to bear upon meJj
day, to the point where the danger arises lest they
possibility of acting on their own judgment. On tJ
hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined to
name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to s1
authority and for making light of the duty of obeci
Therefore, this Vatican Synod urges everyone, e
those who are charged with the task of educating Oi
do their utmost to form men who will respect the n:
der and be obedient to lawful authority. Let them f9
too who will be lovers of true freedom-men, i
words, who will come to decisions on their own j1
and in the light of truth, govern their activities with
of responsibility, and strive after what is true and rig
ing always to join with others in cooperative effort.2!
Religious freedom, therefore, ought to have this
Purpose and aim, namely, that men may come to i
�1 . Secular experts may well consider this to be the most significan
�the Declaration. It is a statement of the basic principle of the "fret
�ne principle has important origins· in the medieval tradition of
law, and jurisprudence. But its statement by the Church has an
blessed newness-the newness of a renewal of the tradition. The
Catholic thought had consistently held that society is to be based u
(the truth of the human person), directed toward justice, and ani:
Charity. In "Pacem in Terris," John XXIII added the missing fou
f�eedom. Freedom is an end or purpose of society, which look
liberation of the human person. Freedom is the political method
Cellence, whereby the other goals of society are reached. Freedon
is the prevailing social usage, which sets the style of society. This p1
��c trine is sanctioned and made secure by "Dignitatis Humanae P
� . The Council calls attention to the paradox of the moment.
}0day is threatened; freedom today is itself a threat. Hence the Cou
0r education both in the uses of freedom and in the ways of o
Wiien freedom is truly responsible, it implies a rightful response to 1
authority.
16 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN ll
ety· hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory
�r�s. 20 In the use of all freedoms, the moral principle of
�rsonal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the
rercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are
ound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights
E others and for their own duties toward others and for
1e common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fel-
1ws in justice and civility.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against
ossible abuses committed on pretext of freedom of religion.
is the special duty of government to provide this protec­
on. However, government is not to act in arbitrary fashion
r in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be con­
oiled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the
ojective moral order.
These norms arise out of the need for effective safeguard
f the rights of all citizens and for peaceful settlement of
). It Is a matter of common sense that the exercise of all fre�doms in
ciety must be subject to certain regulatory norms. �e Declarat!o� states
.
:st the mo ral norm-the principle of ,personal and social responsibility. Jts
'straints, o f course, are self-imposed. More difficult is the questi': >n ?f the
_ .
tridical norm which should control the action of government m limiting or
hibiting the exercise of the right to religious freedom. (Note that the right
�elf is always inalienable, never to be denied; only the exercise of the
ght is subject to control in particular instances.) The no rm c�ot be the
_
>mmon welfare since the common welfare requires that human nghts should
� pr otected, n�t limited, in their exercise. Hence the De laration_ a�opts
� and m the light of truth, govern their activities with a sense
.e concept of public order. The concept has good warrant m c o�stitutionaI
-rw. However, it is more frequently used than defined. The Declaratlo� under­
!kes to define it. In doing so, it makes a contribution t o the science of
iW and jurisprudence.
. . . .
First, the requirements of public order are not sub1ect to arbitrary definition
-at the hands, say, of tyrannical governments, which might abuse the C';)ncept
1r their own ends. The public order of society is a part of the uruversal
.oral order; its requirements must be ro oted in moral la�. Se�ond, p�blic
:der exhibits a threefold content. First, the order of society 1s essentially
1 order of justice, in which the rights of all citizens are e�ectively safe­
.
Jarded, and provision is made for peaceful settlement of conflicts of nght�.
�cond, the order of society is a political order, an order of peace ("domestic
anquillity" is the American constitutional phrase). Public peace, h owever,
not the result of repressive action by the police. It is, in the classic con­
ept the work of justice; it comes ab out, of itself, when the demands of
tSti�e are met and when orderly process es exist for airing and settling
:ievances. llid, the order of society is a moral order, at least in the sense
tat certain minimal standards of public morality are enforced at all.
Public order therefore is constituted by these three values-juridical,
r>litical, moral. They are the basic elements in the common welfare, which
a wider concept than public order. And s o necessary are these �e� v�ues
tat the coercive f orce of g overnment may be enlisted t o protect and vmdic �te
1em. T ogether they furnish a reasonable juridical criterion for co�r�1ve
.
:striction of freed o m. The free exercise of religi on may n ot be inhibited
nless proof is given that it entails some violation of the rights of others, or
f the public peace, or of public morality. In these cases, in other words,
public action ceases to be a religious exercise and becomes a penal offense.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 687
conflicts of rights. They flow from the need for an adequate
care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men
live together in good order and in true justice. They come,
finall �, out of the need for a proper guardianship of public
morality. These matters constitute the basic component of
the common welfare: they are what is meant by public or­
der.
For the rest,21 the usages of society are to be the usages
of freedom in their full range. These require that the free­
dom of man be respected as far as possible, and curtailed
only when and in so far as necessary.
8. Many pressures are brought to bear upon men of our
day, to the point where the danger arises lest they lose the
possibility of acting on their own judgment. On the other
band, not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the
name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to
authority and for making light of the duty of obedience.
Therefore, this Vatican Synod urges everyone, especially
those �ho are charged with the task of educating others, to
do their utmost to form men who will respect the moral or­
der and be obedient to lawful authority. Let them form men
too who will be lovers of true freedom-men, in other
wor�s, who . wm come to decisions on their own judgment
of responsibility, and strive after what is true and right will­
ing always to join with others in cooperative effort.22 '
Religious freedom, therefore, ought to have this further
purpose and aim, namely, that men may come to act with
�1. Secular �erts m�y well consider this to be the most significant sentence
m the J?ec !arati on. �t 1s a statement of the basic principle of the "free society."
The principle has Important origins in the medieval tradition of kingship
law, and jurisprudence. But its statement by the Church has an accent of
blessed newness-the newness of a renewal of the tradition. The renewal
alread)'. hesitantly begun b?7 Pius XII, was strongly furthered by John XXIII:
Catholic th ought had consIStently held that society is to be based up on truth
(the truth of the human person), directed toward justice and animated by
charity. In "Pacem in Terris," John XXIII added the nrl ssing fourth term,
_
f �eedo1:11· Freedom 1s an end or purpose of society, which l ooks to the
liberation of the human person. Freedom is the political method par ex­
cellence, w �c:reby ":'e other go� of society are reached. Freedo m, finally,
is th� pr�vailing _social usage, which sets the style of society. This progress in
doctrine 1s sanc�oned and made secure by "Dignitatis Humanae Personae."
22. �e C ouncil calls attention to the paradox of the moment. Freedom
today 1s threatened; freedom today is itself a threat. Hence the Council calls
for education b oth in the uses of freedom and in the ways of obedience.
When freedom is truly responsible, it implies a rightful response to legitimate
_
authonty.
688 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
greater responsibility in fulfilling their duties in community
lif e.23
CHAPTER II
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN
THE LIGHT OF REVELATION
9. The declaration of_ this Vatican Synod on the right of
man to religious fre edom has its foundation in the dignity
of the person. The requirements of this dignity have come
to be more adequately known to human rea�on through cen­
turies of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom
has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians
are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously.
Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the
right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters
religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human
person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respe�t
which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man 1s
to fulfill his duty of belief in the Word of God. It gives us
lessons too in the spirit which disciples of such a Master
ought to make their own and to follow in every situation.
Thus; further light is cast on the general principles upon
which the doctrin� of this Declaration on Religious Freedolll
is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is en­
tirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian
faith.24
23. Religious freedom is not an end in itself, but a means for the fulfilb11etl!
of the higher purposes of man. Its religious purpose is clear. But here th•
Council notes its social purpose. Respect for religious freedom rises out �
consciousness of human dignity; but Utis consciousness itself _ confronts .. ·es
with the responsibilities that his freedom entails. And these responsibiliU
pervade the whole of community life.
d to
24. The Declaration is the only conciliar document formally addreSSe ro­
the whole world-Christian and non-Christian, religious and atheist. The ill
r
fore it first considers religious freedom in the light of reason. Moreove �
so doing it follows the structure of the problem itself, both theoretical
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic
man's response to God in faith must be free. ·
one is to be forced to embrace the Christian fa
his own will.26 This doctrine is contained in t
God and it was constantly proclaimed by the R
Church.27 The act of faith is of its very natur(';
Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and throug
sus called to be God's adopted son,28 cannot l
herence to God revealing Himself unless the l
historical. Both as a principle and as a legal institution, rel
is less than two hundred years old. The First Amendment
honor of having first clearly formulated the principle and
institution. Only through centuries of experience, as the Dt
have the exigencies of the human dignity disclosed themsel
Nevertheless, the question remains, in what sense may religio
called a "Christian" principle? The Council answers by s;
principle has its "roots in divine revelation." These roots are t
second part of the Declaration. This section is of high ecumenill
It will furnish a major theme of ecumenical dialogue.
25. Cf. CIC, c. 1351; Pius XII, allocution to prelate audit,
officials and administrators of the tribune of the Holy Roman
1946: AAS 38 (1946), p. 394; idem, encyclical "Mystici Corpe,
1943: AAS (1943), p. 243.
26. The unwavering Christian dogma that the act of Christian
a free response to the Word and grace of God reveals the divi
human freedom and for man's inalienable responsibility toward
of his own life. The constitutional principle of religious free,
conclusion from this Christian dogma. The connection is rath
torical. That is to say, given the Christian doctrine of the free
men would gradually come-as over the centuries they have cor
that man's religious life is an affair of responsible freedom, fr,
coercion is to be excluded. Given this Christian appreciation
of freedom (and given also the growing secular experience of l
social value and a political end), men could not fail to becomE
conscious that religious freedom is an exigency of the dignity o
as this dignity is disclosed by the revelation that man is made
of God. Moreover, experience would also make it clear that, wl
freedom prevails, a climate of freedom is created in society
favors the free preaching of the gospel and the free living of l
life.
27. Cf. Lactantlus "Divinarum lnstttutlonum," Book V, 19: C�
463-464, 465: PL 6, 614 and 616 (ch. 20); St. Ambrose, '1
Yalentianum Imp.," Letter 21: PL 16, 1005; St. Augustine, "Coi
Petiliani," Book II, ch. 83: CSEL 52, p. 112: PL 43, 315; cf.
c. 33 (ed. Friedberg, col. 939); idem, Letter 23: PL 33, 98; idem
PL 33, 132; idem, Letter 35: PL 33, 135; St. Gregory the Grea
ad Virgilium et Theodorum Episcopos Masslliae Galliarum,"
Letters 1, 45: MGH Ep. 1, p. 72; PL 77, 510-511 (Book I, ep.
''Epistola ad Johannem Episcopum Constantinopolitanum,'' Registe1
lll, 52: MGH Letter 1, p. 210: PL 77, 649 (Book Ill, Letter 53),
c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 160); Council of Toledo IV, c. 57: Ma,
cf. D. 45, c. 5 (ed. Friedberg, col. 161-162); Clement Ill: X., JI
�ledberg, col. 774; Innocent III, "Epistola ad Arelatensem ArchiE
·, Ill, 42, 3: ed. Friedberg, col. 646.
28. Cf. Eph. 1:5.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN ll
responsibility in fulfilling their duties in community
CHAPTER 1J
GIOUS FREEDOM IN
LIGHT OF REVELATION
declaration of this Vatican Synod on the right of
religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity
person. The requirements of this dignity have come
tore adequately known to human rea�on through cen­
f experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom
ts in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians
nd to respect it all the more conscientiously.
.ation does not indeed affirm in so many words the
man to immunity from external coercion in matters
i. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human
ln its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect
:hrist showed toward the freedom with which man is
l his duty of belief in the Word of God. It gives us
too in the spirit which disciples of such a Master
) make their own and to follow in every situation.
[ further light is cast on the general principles upon
be doctrin� of this Declaration on Religious Freedom
I. In particular, religious freedom in society is en­
onsonant wi� the freedom of the act of Christian
ous freedom is not an end in itself. but a means for the fulfillment
gher purposes of man. Its religious purpose is clear. But here the
1otes its social purpose. Respect for religious freedom rises out of a
;iess of human dignity; but � consciousness itself .confronts man
responsibilities that his freedom entails. And these re�onsibilities
he whole of community life.
Declaration is the only conciliar document formally addressed to
: world-Christian and non-Christian, religious and atheist. There-
1,t considers religious freedom in the light of reason. Moreover, in
it follows the structure of the problem itself, both theoretical and
:RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that
1Dan's response to God in faith must be free. Therefore no
one is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith25 against
bis own will. 26 This doctrine is contained in the Word of
God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the
Church.27 The act of faith is of its very nature a free act.
Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Je­
sus called to be God's adopted son,28 cannot give his ad­
herence to God revealing Himself unless the Father draw
historical. Both as a principle and as a legal institution, religious freedom
is less than two hundred years old. The First Amendment may claim the
honor of having first clearly formulated the principle and established the
institution. Only through centuries of experience, as the Declaration says,
have the exigencies of the human dignity disclosed themselves to reason.
Nevertheless, the question remains, in what sense may religious freedom be
called a "Christian" principle? The Council answers by saying that the
principle has its "roots in. divine revelation." These roots are explored in the
second part of the Declaration. This section is of high ecumenical significance.
It will furnish a major theme of ecumenical dialogue.
25. Cf. CIC, c. 1351; Pius Xll, allocution to prelate auditors and other
officials and administrators of the tribune of the Holy Roman Rota, Oct. 6,
1946: AAS 38 (1946), p. 394; idem, encyclical "Mystici Corporis," lune 29,
1943: AAS (1943), p. 243.
26. The unwavering Christian dogma that the act of Christian faith must be
a free response to the Word and grace of God reveals the divine respect for
human freedom and for man's inalienable responsibility toward the direction
of his own life. The constitutional principle of religious freedom is not a
conclusion from this Christian dogma. The connection is rather more his­
torical. That is to say, given the Christian doctrine of the freedom of faith,
men would gradually come-as over the centuries they have come-to realize
that man's religious life is an affair of responsible freedom, from which all
coercion is to be excluded. Given this Christian appreciation of the value
of freedom (and given also the growing secular experience of freedom as a
social value and a political end), men could not fail to become increasingly
conscious that religious freedom is an exigency of the dignity of the person,
as this dignity is disclosed by the revelation that man is made in the image
of God. Moreover, experience would also make it clear that, where religious
freedom prevails, a climate of freedom is created in society which itself
favors the free preaching of the gospel and the free living of the Christian
life.
27. Cf. Lactantlus "Divinarum lnstttutlonum," Book V, 19: CSEL 19, pp.
463-464, 465: PL 6, 614 and 616 (ch. 20); St. Ambrose, "Epistola ad
Valentianum Imp.," Letter 21: PL 16, 1005; St. Augustine, "Contra Litteras
Petiliani," Book 11, ch. 83: CSEL 52, p. 112: PL 43, 315; cf. C. 23, q. 5,
c. 33 (ed. Friedberg, col. 939); idem, Letter 23: PL 33, 98; idem, Letter 34:
PL 33, 132; idem, Letter 35: PL 33, 135; St. Gregory the Great, "Epistola
ad Virgilium et Theodorum Episcopos Masslliae Galliarum," Register of
Letters 1, 45: MGH Ep. 1, p. 72; PL 77, 510-511 (Book 1, ep. 47); idem,
"Epistola ad Johannem Episcopum Constantinopolitanum," Register of Letters,
Ill, 52: MGH Letter 1, p. 210: PL 77, 649 (Book 111, Letter 53); cf. D. 45,
c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 160); Council of Toledo IV, c. 57: Mansi 10, 633;
cf. D. 45, c. 5 (ed. Friedberg, col. 161-162); Clement Ill: X., V. 6, 9: ed.
Friedberg, col. 774; Innocent Ill, "Epistola ad Arelatensem Archiepiscopum,"
X., 111, 42, 3: ed. Friedberg, col. 646.
28. Cf. Eph. 1 :5.
690 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
him29 to offer to God the reasonable and free submission of
faith.
It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of
faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on
the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the
principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution
to the creation of an environment in which men can without
hindrance be invited to Christian faith, and embrace it of
their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole
manner of life.-
11. God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth. Hence
they are bound in conscience but they stand under no com­
pulsion.30 God has regard for the dignity of the human per­
son whom He Himself created ; man is to be guided by his
own judgment and be is to enjoy freedom.
This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom
God perfectly manifested Himself and His ways with men.
Christ is our Master and our Lord.SI He is also meek and
humble of heart. 32 And in attracting and inviting His dis­
ciples He acted patiently.33 He wrought miracles to shed
light on His teaching and to establish its truth. But His in­
tention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confinn
them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them.34
He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened
to Him; but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the
day of judgment.35 When He sent His apostles into the
world, He said to them: "He who believes and is baptized
shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be con·
demned" (Mk. 16:16); but He Himself, noting that cockle
had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should
29. Cf. In. 6:44.
30. The major purpose here is to show, from the example and teaching 0f
Christ Himself, that coercion in matters religious is alien to the spirit of th�
gospel. The ways of God with men are not coercive. They are the ways 0
faithful love. And their supreme illustration is the cross. Rather than imP°a5:
the truth upon men by force, Christ willingly accepted death at their ban '
and He made His death itself the means of redemption, as the revelation
a love than which there is no greater. The way of Christ became the wa f
of His first apostles, whose reliance was on the power of the Word 0
God, never on earthly forces.
31. Cf. Jn. 13:13.
32. Cf. Mt. 11:29.
33. Cf. Mt. 11:28-30; Jn. 6:67-68.
34. Cf. Mt. 9:28-29; Mk. 9:23-24; 6, 5-6; Paul VI, encyclical "Ecclesza,n
Suam," Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 642-643.
35. Cf. Mt. 11:20-24; Rom. 12:19-20; 2 Th. 1:8.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will
at the end of the world. 36
He refused to be a political Messiah, ruling by f,
He preferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who can
serve and to give his life as a ransom for many"
10:45). He showed Himself the perfect Servant of (
"a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoking wi
will not quench" (Mt. 12:20).
He acknowledged the power of government and its 1
when He commanded that tribute be given to Caesa1
He gave clear warning that the higher rights of God ,
be kept inviolate: "Render, therefore, to Caesar the ·
that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are- (
(Mt. 22:21 ).
In the end, when He completed on the cross the we
redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true fre
for men, He also brought His revelation to completi01
bore witness to the truth,39 but He refused to impos
truth by force on those who spoke against it. Not by
of blows does His rule assert its claims.40 Rather, it
tablished by witnessing to the truth and by hearing the
and it extends its dominion by the love whereby Christ,
up on the cross, draws all men to Himself.41
Taught by the word and example of Christ, the a�
followed the same way. From the very origins of the Cl
the disciples of Christ strove to convert men to faith in {
as the Lord-not, however, by the use of coercion c
devices unworthy of the gospel, but by the power, abov
of the Word of God.42 Steadfastly they proclaimed t
the plan of God our Savior, "who wishes all men to be :
and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim.
At the same time, however, they showed respect for w
souls even though these persons were in error. Thus they \
it plain that "every one of us will render an account of
self to God" (Rom. 14:12),43 and for this reason is b
to obey his conscience.
°: Like Christ Himself, the apostles were unceasingly
�6. Cf. Mt. 13:30 and 40-42.
7. Cf. Mt. 4:8-10; In. 6:15.
38. Cf. ls. 42:1-4.
�- Cf. Jn. 18:!7. •
. · Cf. Mt. 26.51-53, In. 18.36.
41. Cf. In. 12:32.
42. Cf. 1 Car. 2:3-5,· 1 Th. 2:3-5.
43. Cf. Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 8:9-13; 10:23-33.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
to offer to God the reasonable and free submission of
s therefore completely in accord with the na�re of
hat in matters religious every manner of coercion on
lrt of men should be excluded. In consequen�e, �he
,le of religious freedom ma�es n'? small contn�ution
creation of an environment m which men can wi�hout
nee be invited to Christian faith, . and �mbr�e it of
>Wn free will, and profess it effectively m their whole
r of life;
>d calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth. Hence
re bound in conscience but they stand under no com­
t. 3o God has regard for the dig�ty of the �uman pe�-
1om He Himself cre ated; man is to be gmded by h is
tdgment and he is to enjoy freedom._
truth appears at its height in C�st Jesus, � whom
erfectly manifested Himself and His ways with men.
is our Master and our Lord. 3 1 He is also meek and
� of heart. 32 And in attracting and inviting His dis­
He acted patiently.33 He wrought miracles to . sh_ed
n His teaching and to establish its truth. But His m-
was to rouse faith in His. hearers and to confirm
n faith, not to exert coercion upon them.34 . Taught by the word and example of Christ, the apostles
lid indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened
t · but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the
: ' judgment.35 When He sent His apostle� into . the
He said to them: "He who believes and is baptized
e saved but he who does not believ e shall b e con­
l" (Mk.' 16:16); but He Himself, noting that cockle
m sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should
i. 6:44.
major purpose here is to show, fr_o':11 th� ex�p1e and t�a�hing of
imself, that coercion in m atters religious 1� alien to the spmt of the
]le w ays of God with men are not coercive. They are the w_ays of
ove. And their supreme illustration is the cross. Rather that_l impose
upon men by force, Christ willingly accepted death at their �ands,
made His death itself the me ans of redem ption, as the revelation of
ian which there is no greater. The way of Christ became the way
iirst apostles, whose reliance was on the power of the Word of
·er on earthly forces.
,. 13:13.
rt.
1
11:29.
t. 11:28-30; In. 6:67-68.
\,:ft. 9:28-29; Mk. 9:23-24; 6, 5-6; Paul VI, encyclical "Ecclesia ·m
fog. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 642-643.
1.t. 11:20-24; Rom. 12:19-20; 2 Th. 1:8.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
691
be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come
at the end of the world. 36
He refused to be a political M essiah, ruling by force;37
}{e preferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who came "to
serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk.
10:45) . He showed Himself the p erfect Servant of God;3B
"a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoking wick he
will not quench" (Mt. 12:20).
He acknowledged the power of government and its rights,
when He commanded that tribute be given to Caesar. But
He gave clear warning that th e higher rights of God are to
be kept inviolate: "Render, therefore, to Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are- God's"
(Mt. 22:21 ) .
In the end, when He completed on th e cross the work of
redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom
for me1;1, He also brought His revelation to completion. He
bore witness to the truth,39 but He refused to impose the
truth by force on those who spoke against it. Not by force
of blows does His rule assert its claims.40 Rather, it is es­
tablished by witnessing to the truth and by hearing the truth,
and it extends its dominion by the love whereby Christ, lifted
up on the cross, draws all men to Himself.41
followed the same way. From the very origins of the Church
the disciples of Christ strove to convert men to faith in Christ
as the Lord-not, however, by the use of coercion or by
devices unworthy of the gospel, but by the power, above all,
of the Word of God.42 Steadfastly they proclaimed to all
the plan of God our Savior, "who wishes all men to be saved
and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).
At the same time, however, they showed respect for weaker
souls even though these persons were in error. Thus they made
it plain that "every one of us will render an account of him­
self to God" (Rom. 14:12),43 and for this reason is bound
to obey his conscience.
Like Christ Himself, the apostles were unceasingly bent
36. Cf. Mt. 13:30 and 40-42.
37. Cf. Mt. 4:8-10,· In. 6:15.
38. Cf. ls. 42:1-4.
39. Cf. In. 18:37.
40. Cf. Mt. 26:51-53; In. 18:36.
41. Cf. Jn. 12:32.
42. Cf. 1 Cor. 2:3-5; 1 Th. 2:3-5.
43. CJ. Rom. 14�-23;. 1 C.or. 8:9-13; 10:23-3
3.
692 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
upon bearing witness to the truth of God. They showed spe­
cial courage in speaking "the word of God with boldness"
( Acts 4: 31)44 before the people and their rulers. With a fipn
faith they held that the gospel is indeed the power of God
unto salvation for all who believe.45 Therefore they rejected
all "carnal weapons."46 They followed the example of the
gentleness and respectfulness of Christ. And they preached
the Word of God in the full confidence that there was resi­
dent in this Word itself a divine power able to destroy all
the forces arrayed against God47 and to bring men to faith in
Christ and to His service. 48 As the Master, so too the apostles
recognized legitimate civil authority. "For there exists no
authority except from God," the Apostle teaches, and there­
fore commands: * "Let everyone be subject to the higher
authorities . . . : he who resists the authority resists the
ordinance of God" (Rom. 13:1-2).49
At the same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak
out against governing powers which set themselves in op­
position to the holy will of God: "We must obey God rather
than men" (Acts 5:29). 50 This is the way along which
countless martyrs and other believers have walked through
all ages and over all the earth.
12. The Church therefore is being faithful to the truth of the
gospel, and is following the way of Christ and the apostles
when she recognizes, and gives support to, the principle of
religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being
in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages, the
Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received
from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the
People of God as it has made its pilgrim way through the
vicissitudes of human history, there have at times appeared
ways of acting which were less in accord with the spirit of
the gospel and even opposed to it.51 Nevertheless, the d00-
44. Cf. Eph. 6:19-20.
4! t Cf. Rom. 1:16.
46. Cf. 2 Cor. 10:4; 1 Th. 5:8-9.
47. Cf. Eph. 6:11-17.
48. Cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5.
*The preceding 14 words are missing from the L'Osservatore Romano text 0
Dec. 11, 1965.-Ed.
49. Cf. 1 Pet. 2:13-17.
,o. Cf. Acts 4:19-20.
51. The historical consciousness of the Council required that it be loyal t�
the truth of history. Hence the Declaration makes the humble avowal �
the People of God have. not .always walked in the way Qf Christ and
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
trine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into
has always stood firm.
Thus the leaven of the gospel has long been about its
work, in the minds of men. To it is due in great measJ
fact that in the course of time men have come more
to recognize their dignity as persons, and the convictio
grown stronger that in religious matters the person in s
is to be kept free from all manner of human coercion
13. Among the things which concern the good of the C
and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-j
therefore which are always and everywhere to be ke1
cure and defended against all injury-this certainly i�
eminent, namely, that the Church should enjoy tha
measure of freedom which her care for the salvation oj
requires. 52 This freedom is sacred, because the only-be!
Son endowed with it. the Church which He purchased
His blood. It is so much the property of the Church tl
act against it is to act against the will of God. The fre
of the Church is the fundamental principle in what coll
the relations between the Church and governments an1
whole civil order. 53
In human society and � the face of government
apostles. At times they have followed ways that were at variance w.
spirit of the gospel and even contrary to it. The avowal is made briel
Without details. But the intention was to confess, in a penitent spiI
only that Christian churchmen and princes have appealed to the c
instruments of power in the supposed interests of the faith, but ats
the Church herself has countenanced institutions which made a simil
peal. Whatever may be the nice historical judgment on these instituti
their own context of history, they are not to be justified, much less ai
ever or in any way to be reinstated. The Declaration is a final renoun
and repudiation by the Church of all means and measures of coerc
lllattets religious.
52. Cf. Leo Xlll, letter "Officio Sanctisslmo," Dec. 22, 1887: AAS 20
P, 269; idem, letter "Ex Lltterls," ,Apr. 7, 1887: AAS 19 (1886), p.
53. This statement, together with the declaration of religious freedon
human right and the enunciation of the principle of the free society
tank as one of the central doctrinal utterances of the Declaration.
Portance is emphasized by the fact that Paul VI quoted it in his add1
Dec. 9 to political rulers: "And what is it that this Church asks c
after nearly two thousand years of all sorts of vicissitudes in her re
\!nth you, the powers of earth? What does the Church ask of you tod
one of the major texts of the Council she has told you: she asks ,
f llotbing but freedom-the freedom to believe and to preach her fai1
freedom to love God and to serve Him, the freedom to live and to
to men her message of life." This- doctrine is traditional; it is alsc
lniplicit in it is the renunciation by the Church of a condition ol
Privilege in society. The Church does not make, as a matter of right
divine law, the claim that she should be established as the "religion
Btate." · Her claim is freedom, nothing more.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN 1J
,earing witness to the truth of God. They showed spe­
mrage in speaking "the word of God with boldness''
4: 31) 44 before the people and their rulers. With a finn
hey held that the gospel is indeed the power of God
1lvation for all who believe.45 Therefore they rejected
mal weapons."46 They followed the example of the
ess and respectfulness of Christ. And they preached
,rd of God in the full confidence that there was resi­
t this Word itself a divine power able to destroy all
:es arrayed against God47 and to bring men to faith in
md to His service. 48 As the Master, so too the ap ostles
zed legitimate civil authority. "For there exists no
ty except from God," the Apostle teaches, and there-
1m.mands: * "Let everyone be subject to the higher
:ies . . . : he who resists the authority resists the
ce of God" (Rom. 13:1-2).49 ,,
.e same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak
.inst governing powers which set themselves in op-
to the holy will of God: "We must obey God rather
en" (Acts 5:29). 50 This is the way along which
s martyrs and other believers have walked through
and over all the earth.
Church therefore is being faithful to the truth of the
md is following the way of Christ and the apostles
e recognizes, and gives support to, the principle of
freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being
d with divine revelation. Throughout the ages, the
has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received
; Master and from the apostles. In the life of the
f God as it has made its pilgrim way through the
es of human history, there have at times appeared
acting which were less in accord with the spirit of
:1 and even opposed to it. 51 Nevertheless, the doc-
. 6:19-20.
1. 1:16.
•r. 10:4; 1 Th. 5:8-9.
6:11-17.
•r. 10:3-5.
ing 14 words are missing from the L'Osservatore Romano text of
i.-Ed.
t. 2:13-17.
4:19-20.
:orical consciousness of the Council required that it be loyal to
history. Hence the Declaration makes the humble avowal that
of God have- not always walked in the way of Christ and the
RELl'GIOUS FREEDOM 693
ttine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith
has always stood firm.
Th�s _the lea�en of the gospel_ has long been about its quiet
work, m the mmds of men. To 1t is due in great measure the
fact that � the _co�se. of time men have come more widely
to recogruze their digmty as persons, and the conviction has
¥1"own stronger that in religious matters the person in society
ts to be kept free from all manner of human coercion.
13. Among the things which concern the good of the Church
and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-things
therefore which are always and everywhere to be kept se­
cm:e and defended against all injury-this certainly is pre­
emment, namely, that the Church should enjoy that full
measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men
requires.52 This freedom is sacred, because the only-begotten
Son endowed with it. the Church which He purchased with
His blood. 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. 53
In human society and �- the face of government, the
a��tles. At times they have followed ways that were at variance with the
SJ?IDt of the .gospel and eyen C?ntrary to it. The avowal is made briefly and
without details _. �
ut the mtent1on was to confess, in a penitent spirit, not
only that Christian churchmen and princes have appealed to the coercive
instruments of power in the supposed interests of the faith, but also that
the Church herself has countenanced institutions which made a similar ap­
peal. Whatever may be the nice historical judgment on these institutions in
their own context of history, they are not to be justified, much less are they
ever or in any way to be reinstated. The Declaration is a final renouncement
and rep��on by the Church of all means and measures of coercion in
mattets religious.
52. Cf. Leo XIII, letter "ODido Sanctlsslmo," Dec. 22, 1887: AAS 20 (1887),
p. 269� Idem, letter "Ex Litteris/' ,Apr. 7, 1887: AAS 19 (1886), p. 465.
53. This . statement, together with the declaration of religious freedom as a
human nght and the enunciation of the principle of the free society must
rank as �ne of th� central doctrinal utterances of the Declaration. its im­
portance JS emphasized by the fact that Paul VI quoted it in his address on
Dec. 9 to political rulers: "And what is it that this Church asks of you,
after nearly two thousand years of all sorts of vicissitudes in her relations
_
With you, the �owers of earth? What does the Church ask of you today? In
one _of the maJor texts of the Council she has told you: she asks of you
nothing but freedom-the freedom to believe and to preach her faith the
freedom to love God and to serve Him, the freedom to live and to bring
to �� �er _m�ssage of life." This- doctrine is traditional; it is also new.
�p�c1t 1!1 1t 1_s the renunciation by the Church of a condition of legal
P��ege m s0C1ety: The Church does not make, as a matter of right or of
divme _law, the chum that she should be established as the "religion of the
state." Her claim is freedom, nothing more.
694 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN 11
Church claims freedom for herself in her character as a
spiritual authority, established by Christ the Lord. Upon this
authority there rests, by divine mandate, the duty of going
out into the whole world and preaching the gospel to every
creature. 5 4 The Church also claims freedom for herself in her
character as a society of men who have the right to live in soci­
ety in accordance with the precepts of Christian faith. 5 5
In turn, where the principle of religious freedom is not
only proclaimed in words or simply incorporated in law but
also given sincere and practical application, there the Church
succeeds in achieving a stable situation of right as well as of
fact and the independence which is necessary for the fulfill­
ment of her divine mission. This independence is precisely
what the authorities of the Church claim in society. 56
At the same time, the Christian faithful, in common with
all other men, possess the civil right not to be hindered in
leading their lives in accordance with their conscience. There­
fore, a harmony exists between the freedom of- the Chur ch
and the religious freedom which is to be recognized as the
right of all men and communities and sanctioned by con­
stitutional law.
14. In order to be faithful to the divine command, "Make
disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19), the Catholic Church
must work with all urgency and concern "that the Word of
God* may run and be glorified" (2 Th. 3: 1). Hence the
Church earnestly begs of her children that, first of all, "sup­
plications, prayers,. intercessions, and thanksgivings be made
for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight
of Gcxl our Savior, who wishes all men to be saved and to
come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4).
In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faith­
ful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doc­
trine of the Church.57, 58 The Church is, by the will of
54. Cf. Mk. 16:15; Mt. 28:18-20; Pius XII, encyclical "Summl Pontlficatus,"
Oct. 20, 1939: AAS 31 (1939), pp. 445-446.
55. CJ. Pius XI, letter "Firmissimqin Constantiam," Mar. 28, 1937: AAS 29
(1937), p. 196.
56. CJ. Pius XII, allocutlon "Ci Riesce," Dec. 6, 1953: AAS 45 (1953), P•
802.
*The CCD translation has "the Lord" instead of "God."-Ed.
57. Cf. Plus Xll, radio message, Mar. 23, 1952: AAS 44 (1952), pp. 270-278,
58. The Council directs a word of pastoral exhortation to the Chr istian
faithful. They are urged, in particular, to form their consciences under the
guidance of the authority of the Church. It might be noted here that the
Council intended to make a clear distinction between religious freedom as
a principle in the civil order and the Christian freedom which obtains even
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to givt
ance to, and authoritatively to teach, that Truth w:
Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by 1
thority those principles of the moral order which hav
origin in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Cb
walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in th�
Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (
6:6-7). Let them be about their task of spreading th
of life with all confidence59 and apostolic courage, e
the shedding of their blood.
The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward
his Master ever more adequately to understand the tr
ceived from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigoro
defend it, never-be it understood-having recou
means that are incompatible with the spirit of the gosj
the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to act lo
prudently and patiently in his dealings with those who
error or in ignorance with regard to the faith. 60 All i�
taken into account-the Christian duty to Christ, tb
giving Word which must be proclaimed, the rig:
the human person, and the measure of grace granted �
through Christ to men, who are invited freely to acce_
profess the faith.
15. The fact is that men of the present day want to b
freely to profess their religion in private and in publi
ligious freedom has alreac}.y been declared to be a civi
in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized �
national documents. 61 The further fact is that forms of g
ment still exist under which, even though freedom of re:
worship receives constitutional recognition, the pow
government are engaged in the effort to deter citizens frc
profession of religion and to make life difficult and dani
for religious Communities.62
inside the Church. These two freedoms are distinct in kind; and it w
perilous to confuse them. Nowhere does the Declaration touch the :
freedom within the Church. Undoubtedly, however, it will be a stim1
the articulation of a full theology of Christian freedom in its relatior
doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the Church.
59. CJ. Acts 4:29.
60. CJ. John XXIIJ, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: )
(1963), pp. 299-300.
61. CJ. John XXIJI, encyclical "Pacem in Te"is," Apr. 11, 1963: ,1
(1963), pp. 295-296.
62. At the end, the Council turns once more to the world at larg
facts claim its attention. First, the principle of religious freedom is
recognized; this fact takes its place among the signs of the times.
94 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN ll
;hurch claims freedom for herself in her character as a
piritual authority, established by Christ the Lord. Upon this
uthority there rests, by divine mandate, the duty of going
ut into the whole world and preaching the gospel to every
reature.54 The Church also claims freedom for herself in her
haracter as a society of men who have the right to live in soci­
ty in accordance with the precepts of Christian faith. 55
In turn, where the principle of religious freedom is not
nly proclaimed in words or simply incorporated in law but
lso given sincere and practical application, there the Church
1cceeds in achieving a stable situation of right as well as of
Lct and the independence which is necessary for the fulfill­
tent of her divine mission. This independence is precisely
hat the authorities of the Church claim in society. 56
At the same time, the Christian faithful, in common with
l other men, possess the civil right not to be hindered in
ading their lives in accordance with their conscience. There­
re, a harmony exists between the freedom of- the Church
td the religious freedom which is to be recognized as the
�t of all men and communities and sanctioned by con­
tutional law.
. In order to be faithful to the divine command, "Make
;ciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19), the Catholic Church
1st work with all urgency and concern "that the Word of
t>d* may run and be glorified" ( 2 Th. 3: 1). Hence the
turch earnestly begs of her children that, first of all, "sup­
cations, prayers,. intercessions, and thanksgivings be made
r all men....For this is good and agreeable in the sight
God our Savior, who wishes all men to be saved and to
ne to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4).
[n the formation of their consciences, the Christian faith-
ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doc­
ile of the Church.57, 58 The · Church is, by the will . of
Cf. Mk. 16:15; Mt. 28:18-20; Pius XII, encyclical "Summl Ponttficatus,"
. 20, 1939: AAS 31 (1939), pp. 445-446.
CJ. Pius XI, letter "Firmissimqrn Constantiam," Mar. 28, 1937: AAS 29
���
CJ. Pius XII, allocutlon "Ci Riesce," Dec. 6, 1953: AAS 45 (1953), p.
e CCD translation has ''the Lord" instead of "God. "-Ed.
CJ. Plus XII, radio message, Mar. 23, 1952: AAS 44 (1952), pp. 270-278.
The Council directs a word of pastoral exhortation to the Christian
tful. They are urged, in particular, to form their consciences under the
ance of the authority of the Church. It might be noted here that the
ncil intended to make a clear distinction between religious freedom as
inciple in the civil order and the Christian freedom which obtains even
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 695
Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utter­
ance to, and authoritatively to teach, that Truth which is
Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her au­
thority those principles of the moral order which have their
origin in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians
walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy
Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor.
6:6-7). Let them be about their task of spreading the light
of life with all confidence59 and apostolic courage, even to
the shedding of their blood.
The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ
his Master ever more adequately to understand the truth re­
ceived from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to
defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to
means that are incompatible with the spirit ·o f the gospel. At
the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to act lovingly,
prudently and patiently in his dealings with those who are in
error or in ignorance with regard to the faith.60 All is to be
taken into account-the Christian duty to Christ, the life­
giving Word which must be proclaimed, the rights of
the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God
through Christ to men, who are invited freely to accept and
profess the faith.
15. The fact is that men of the present day want to be able
freely to profess their religion in private and in public. Re­
ligious freedom has alreaq.y been declared to be a civil right
in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in inter­
national documents. 61 The further fact is that forms of govern­
ment still exist under which, even though freedom of religious
worship receives constitutional recognition, the powers of
government are engaged in the effort to deter citizens from the
profession of religion and to make life difficult and dangerous
for religious Communities.62
inside the Church. These two freedoms are distinct in kind; and it would be
perilous to confuse them. Nowhere does the Declaration touch the issue of
freedom within the Church. Undoubtedly, however, it will be a stimulus for
the articulation of a full theology of Christian freedom in its relation to the
doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the Church.
59. Cf. Acts 4:29.
60. CJ. John XXlll, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 5$
(1963), pp. 299-300.
61. CJ. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 5$
(1963), pp. 295-296.
62. At the end, the Council turns once more to the world at large. Two
facts claim its attention. First, the principle of religious freedom is widely
recognized; this fact takes i1s place among the signs of the times. Second,
696 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
This sacred Synod greets with joy the first of these two
facts, as among the signs of the times. With sorrow, how­
ever, it denounces the other fact, as only to be deplored. The
Synod exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men,
most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious
freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human
family.
All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of dif­
ferent cultures and religions are being brought together in
closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the
personal responsibility that weighs upon· every .man. All this
is evident.
Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and har­
mony may be established and maintained within the whole
of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be every­
where provided with an effective constitutional guarantee,
and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of
man freely to lead his religious life in society.
May the God and Father of all grant that the human fam­
ily, through careful observance of the principle of religious
freedom in society, may be brought by the grace of Christ
and the power of the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unend­
ing "freedom of the glory of the sons of God" (Rom. 8: 21).
Each and ever.y one of the things set forth in this Declara­
tion has won the consent of the Fathers of this most sacred
Council. We too, by the apostolic authority conferred on
us by Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in approving,
decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit,
and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be
published to God's glor.y.
Rome, at St. Peter's, December 7, 196S
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church
There follow the signatures of the Fathers.
the principle of religious freedom is also widely violated; this fact can onlY
be deplored. Then the Declaration, which has stated its argument in terms of
principle, turns to the pragmatic aspect of the issue-the practical value
and necessity of religious freedom in the world today. It is a world of
diversity which is striving toward some measure of unity; it is a world of
conflict which is yearning for peace; it is, above all, a world in which a
new consciousness of human dignity struggles to find expression in social in·
stitutions that will guarantee to men the freedom which is due to them in
justice. Most necessary of all is freedom of religion. Where it is safe, the
way is open for the "glorious freedom of the sons of God" to come to men
as God'a gift through Christ in the Holy Spirit.
A RESPONSE
The Declaration on Religious Freedom is the single cm
document addressed to the whole world. Like the enc�
Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963, Pope John XXII
which it owes a great deal, it is in effect addressed "1
Men of Good Will." The non-Catholic reader is, ther
reckoned among those addressed. He is not called up
express judgment, e.g., as a scholar or a Christian
grouper, as to whether such a declaration is appropri:
the spiritual government of a community of faith su
the Catholic Church. Rather, he finds himself personal
volved. The Church, in a legitimate exercise of her fre
to propagate the gospel, speaks bindingly to him.
To the degree that he is capable of meeting the spi
openness to Truth which informs this and every messa
for dialogue, the non-Catholic reader: (a) acknowledgf
right of the Church so to speak to him, and (b) accep
own duty to listen and to respond in like spirit. If hf
serious student, the obligation to clarity of thought �
upon him. If he is also a fellow Christian, although c
other communion and discipline, the further obligatic
charity and self-examination rests upon him. In either
only the frivolous will discharge the matter as "merel
other statement of opinion" or "of interest only to Cathe
Very appropriately, the Declaration begins its disc1
of that attitude and practice which is Christlike and ape
by reference to the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20;
16:16). This is the precise place where the first Prot1
defenders of religious freedom also began. 1 Reading frc
we discern the responsibility of Christians to commw
openly, to avoid coercion, to elicit voluntary commitme:
proclaim the plenary power of Christ (Mt. 28:18, W
Penn's favorite text), to announce the coming age. Reli
freedom is different in kind from toleration, even from ;
dissidentium: it derives, both historically and theologi
from a certain understanding of the nature of true fait
tolerate dissent is today merely prudent; to respect the
1. Thus Menno Simons, who wrote strongly against all use of coercion
ters religious, cited the Great Commission repeatedly in "The Founda
Christian Doctrine" (1539), "Christian Baptism" (1539), etc.
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN 1J
acred Synod greets with joy the first of these two
among the signs of the times. With sorrow, how­
lenounces the other fact, as only to be deplored. The
Khorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men,
refully to consider how greatly necessary religious
is, especially in the present condition of the human
tions are coming into even closer unity. Men of dif-
1ltures and religions are being brought together in
lationships. There is a growing consciousness of the
responsibility that weighs upon· every .man. All this
t.
quently, in order that relationships of peace and har­
ay be established and maintained within the whole
ind, it is necessary that religious freedom be every­
irovided with an effective constitutional guarantee,
respect be shown for the high duty and right of
ely to lead his religious life in society.
he God and Father of all grant that the human fam­
ugh careful observance of the principle of religious
in society, may be brought by the grace of Christ
power of the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unend­
dom of the glory of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:21).
.d evecy one of the things set forth in this Declara­
won the consent of the Fathers of this most sacred
We too, by the apostolic authority conferred on
brist, join with the Venerable Fathers in approving,
g,_ and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit,
direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be
d to God's glocy.
,t St. Peter's, December 7, 196S
Bishop of the Catholic Church
;:,w the signatures of the Fathers.
ple of religious freedom is also widely violated; this fact can only
�- Then the Declaration, which has stated its argument in terms of
turns to the pragmatic aspect of the issue-the practical value
isity of religious freedom in the world today. It is a world of
w�ch is stri�g toward some measure of unity; it is a world of
.
r!rlch 1s yearrung for peace; it is, above all, a world in which a
::iousne�s of human dignity struggles to find expression in social in­
that will guarantee to men the freedom which is due to them in
lost necessary of all is freedom of religion. Where it is safe the
en for the "glorious freedom of the sons of God" to come to 'men
gift through Christ in the Holy Spirit.
A RESPONSE
The Declaration on Religious Freedom is the single conciliar
document addressed to the whole world. Like the encyclical
Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963, Pope John XXIII), to
which it owes a great deal, it is in effect addressed "to All
Men of Good Will." The non-Catholic reader is, therefore,
reckoned among those addressed. He is not called upon to
express judgment, e.g., as a scholar or a Christian out­
grouper, as to whether such a declaration is appropriate to
the spiritual government of a community of faith such as
the Catholic Church. Rather, he finds himself personally in­
volved. The Church, in a legitimate exercise of her freedom
to propagate the gospel, speaks bindingly to him.
To the degree that he is capable of meeting the spirit of
openness to Truth which informs this and every message fit
for dialogue, the non-Catholic reader: (a) acknowledges the
right of the Church so to speak to him, and (b) accepts his
own duty to listen and to respond in like spirit. If he is a
serious student, the obligation to clarity of thought is put
upon him. If he is also a fellow Christian, although of an­
other communion and discipline, the further obligation of
charity and self-examination rests upon him. In either case,
only the frivolous will discharge the matter as "merely an­
other statement of opinion" or "of interest only to Catholics."
Very appropriately, the Declaration begins its discussion
of that attitude and practice which is Christlike and apostolic
by reference to the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk.
16:16). This is the precise place where the first Protestant
defen?ers of religious freedom also began.1 Reading from it,
we discern the responsibility of Christians to communicate
openl�, to avoid coercion, to elicit voluntary commitment, to
proclaun the plenary power of Christ (Mt. 28:18, William
Penn's favorite text), to announce the coming age. Religious
freedom is different in kind from toleration, even from a pax
dissidentium: it derives, both historically and theologically,
from a certam . understanding of the nature of true faith. To
tolerate dissent is today merely prudent; to respect the con-
1. Th� �enno Simons, who wrote strongly against all use of coercion in mat­
_
ters r�ligious, c�ted the Great Commission repeatedly in "The Foundation of
.
Christian Doctrine" (1539), "Christian Baptism" (1539), etc.
698 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
science and the person of another is noble. The cornerstone
of religious freedom is religious, not political. As Claus Fel­
binger, the 16th-century martyr, put it, "God wants no com­
pulsory service. On the contrary, He loves a free, willing
heart that serves Him with a joyful soul and does joyfully
what is right."2
Because love ever seeks to communicate, back of religious
freedom there is found a commitment to community. The
notion that "religion is a purely private matter" has no place
in a Christian document. To define religious freedom in pure­
ly subjective and individualistic terms is to misconceive its
essential nature and to build on sand. The true end of free­
dom is the growth of love and service to the neighbor. Here
again Catholics and Protestants are guided along a like path.
"The Reformation did not propose as an end religious liberty
in the political sense. It was not a battle for liberty but for
truth. It did not, and does not, care for liberty except as a
product of the truth and for its sake. Truth is the Church's
aim, liberty only the means thereto."3
It has been amply demonstrated in the modem period, of
course, that policies of toleration or freedom which are only
prudential are likely also to be only transitory. Furthermore,
freedoms-and especially religious freedom-which are ex­
pounded purely in terms of what is good for the state are
not likely to endure. The case for religious freedom does not
begin with politics but with religion. Both major forms of
totalitarianism have claimed to speak for freedom. Both have
defined freedom in reference to the prior claims of the state.
Both end, under the rubric "absolute separation of church
and state," in policies far more restrictive of the freedom of
religion than the earlier style of coercive Christendom.4 It is
quite possible to have "separation" without religious freedom,
Indeed, the ideological approach to separation has almost al­
ways been accompanied by hostility to and suppression of
the free exercise of religion. The Declaration therefore points
2. Cf. quotation and argument in "The Historical Free Church Tradition De­
fined." IX Brethren Life and Thought (1964), 4:78-90.
3. Forsyth, Peter Taylor, Faith, Freedom, and the Future (New York: Hodder
& Stoughton, n.d.), p. 200.
4. Note the almost identical policies for the suppression of religious free don1
in Martin Bonnann's program for the Warthegau and Hilde Benjamin's pro­
gram for the D.D.R.: Giirtler, Paul. Nationalsozialismus und evangelische
Kirchen im Warthegau (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup recht, 1958), Appe::
dix, Document 8, and "Die Kirchen in der Deutschen Demokratischen Rep u .
lik," in Beckmann, Joachim, ed., Kuchliches lahrbuch: 1958 (Giit erslob,
Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1958), p. 199.
REUGIOUS FREEDOM 6,
out repeatedly that no just government may suppress th
freedom of religious profession and practice which is the �
sential style of the Church's life.
In a parallel argument, religious freedom is grounded iJ
"the dignity of the human person," which leads to the dt:
mand "that constitutional limits should be set to the power
of government, in order that there may be no encroacbme:
on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations.
Religious freedom is thus made secure for all persons of con
science, whether they are professing Christians or not.
A most important advance in the Declaration is the rec
ognition that since there are means improper to serve Chris
tian ends, no true Church and no just government may limi
or coerce the religious freedom of non-Christians eithe1
Without weakening whatever the Christian insistence on th
ultimate authority of Truth and the final duty of religiou
obedience, the double standard is thereby eliminated and �
pre-condition of open and honest religious dialogue estati
lished. As Father Murray puts it, "the Declaration has opene,
the way toward new confidence in ecumenical relationships
and a new straightforwardness in relationships between ili
Church and the world."
In one major dimension, the logic of religious freedom r�
mains undeveloped. The theme is thoroughly elaborated i.J
reference to the natural rights of persons and associations. 1
is soundty grounded in the system of belief of the Church
The implications for the nature of a just government are les1
thoroughly treated. Governments which persecute are no
only defying the rule of reason and the law of the gospel
however: they are also guilty of denying the limits and styli
of sound government. Governments may "set themselves i.J
opposition to the holy. will of God" not only in defying th!
truth and persecuting the faithful but also by pretending 1:4
be something more than limited and-theologically speakinj
-"creaturely."
The American experience of religious freedom ls not onl!
an advance in Church history: it is also an important break
through in government. Governments which claim to achieve
Ultimate aims, which pretend to be more than human in
struments to effect limited and specific purposes-whethei
"sacral" in the old sense, or "ideological" in the sense o
c?ntemporary fascism and communism-are theologicall!
disobedient and historically retrogressive. "Secularized" gov
ernmental institutions, always to be distinguished from the
 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II
e and the person of another is noble. The cornerstone
igious freedom is religious, not political. As Claus Pel­
·, the 16th-century martyr, put it, "God wants no com.­
y service. On the contrary, He loves a free, willing
that serves Him with a joyful soul and does joyfully
S right."2
ause love ever seeks to communicate, back of religious
m there is found a commitment to community. The
that "religion is a purely private matter" has no place
!hristian document. To define religious freedom in pure-
1jective and individualistic terms is to misconceive its
.al nature and to build on sand. The true end of free­
' the growth of love and service to the neighbor. Here
Catholics . and �otestants are guided along a like path.
lef��ation did not propose as an end religious liberty
political sense. It was not a battle for liberty but for
It did not, and does not, care for liberty except as a
:t of the truth and for its sake. Truth is the Church's
.berty only the means thereto."3
38 been �ply demonstrated in the modem period, of
_that po�c1es of toleration or freedom which are only
tial are likely also to be only transitory. Furthermore
ns-and especially religious freedom-which are ex:
p purely in terms of what is good for the state are
�ly to endure. The case for religious freedom does not
�th politics but with religion. Both major forms of
rianism have claimed to speak for freedom. Both have
freedom in reference to the prior claims of the state.
nd, under the rubric "absolute separation of church
te," in policies far more restrictive of the freedom of
than the earlier style of coercive Christendom.4 It is
Jssible to have "separation" without religious freedom.
the ideological approach to separation has almost al­
een accompanied by hostility to and suppression of
: exercise of religion. The Declaration therefore points
otation and argument In "The Historical Free Church Tradition De­
� Brethren Life and Thought (1964), 4:78-90.
i. Peter Taylor, Faith, Freedom, and the Future (New York: Hodder
on, n.d.), p. 200.
1e almost identical policies for the suppression of religious freedom
Bormann's pro�am for the Warthegau and Hilde Benjamin's pro­
the D.D.R.: Giirtler, Paul, Nationalsozialismua und evangelische
n Warthegau (�t�gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), Appen-
ment 8, and , 'Die Kirchen in der Deutschen Demokratischen Repub-
8eckmann, Joachim, ed., Kirchliches lahrbuch: 1958 (Giitersloh:
:r Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1958), p. 199.
JlELIGIOUS FREEDOM 699
out repeatedly that no jus! government . may _suppress the
freedom of religious profession and practice which IS the es-
sential style of the Church's life.
In a parallel argument, religious freedom is grounded in
"the dignity of the human person," which leads to the de­
llland "that constitutional limits should be set to the powers
of government, in order that there may be no encro�ctions.�e1!!
on the rightful freedom of the person and of associa
al!
Religious freedom is thus made s�ure for. persons of con­
science whether they are professmg Christians or not.
A �ost important advance in the Declaration is the r�
ognition that since there are means improper to serve Chris­
tian ends no true Church and no just government may limit
or coerc� the religious freedom of non-Chri:5tians either.
Without weakening whatever the Christian insistence on the
ultimate authority of Truth and the final duty of religious
obedience the double standard is thereby eliminated and the
pre-condition of open and honest religious dialogue estab­
lished. As Father Murray puts it, "the Declaration has opened
the way toward new confidence in ecumenical relationships,
and a new straightforwardness in relationships between the
Church and the world."
In one major dimension, the logic of religious freedom re­
mains undeveloped. The theme is thoroughly elaborated in
reference to the natural rights of persons and associations. It
is soundly grounded in the system of belief of the Church.
The implications for the nature of a just government are less
thoroughly treated. Governments which persecute are not
only defying the rule of reason and the law of the gospel,
however: they are also guilty of denying the limits and style
of sound government. Governments may "set themselves in
opposition to the holy_ will of God" not only in defying the
truth and persecuting the faithful but also by pretending to
be something more than limited and-theologically speaking
-"creaturely."
The American experience of religious freedom is not only
an advance in Church history: it is also an important break­
through in government. Governments which claim to achieve
ultimate aims, which pretend to be more than human in­
struments to effect limited and specific purposes-whether
"sacral" in the old sense, or "ideological" in the sense of
contemporary fascism and communism-are theologically
disobedient and historically retrogressive. "Secularized" gov­
ernmental institutions, always to be distinguished from· the
700 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN 11

state committed to secularism as an ideolow, have in our

situation proved beneficial to both religion and politics.
While appreciating the fact that not all secularist govern­

APPENDIX
ments respect the integrity of conscience and not all govern­
ments with established Churches persecute dissenters today,
this writer would note the fundamental difference between
toleration and religious freedom and suggest that govern­
ment which is freed simply to carry on the proper business
of government marks a distinct advance in human history.
The assertion of religious freedom, therefore, which begins ADDRESSES AND DECISIONS OF
as a religious understanding and obligation, ends by giving a
new institutional formation to the world. As so often has hap­ POPE JOHN XXIII AND POPE PA[
pened in the works of Christ, the work begun among the
faithful is completed in the reshaping of the created order. CONCERNING VATICAN II,
Religious freedom, in sum, makes not only a better Church
and a finer obedience among Christians: its constitutional TOGETHER WITH THE CLOSING
recognition and protection also makes a better government.
Thus again, in the end, God's will for the realm of redemp­ MESSAGES OF THE COUNCIL
tion and His purpose for the created order blend in a final
harmony.
FRANKLIN H. LITTELL

Unless otherwise noted, the documents in this sectio

lations from the original Latin provided by the Va
Office and the Press Office of the Second Vatica

. (