Following my discussion with Aelianus in the com-box of a recent post, I am inclining toward the view that a more liberal reading of Dignitatis Humanae may perhaps be in harmony with tradition, having previously inclined to the view that the right mentioned in that conciliar declaration could only be claimed by those who belong to the true religion. Let us imagine a Catholic who is instructed in the Church’s teachings up to and including Dignitatis Humanae, and consider how he would govern a non-confessional and religiously diverse state. To avoid one complication, I suppose that there are no other Catholics in the state. It might look something like this:
It was the afternoon of September 26th, the feast of Blessed Paul VI, which as all the world knows is a high holiday on the Island of Eleutheria. Delegates from the island’s many religions had come to pay their respects to the new governor, Eusebius, and to ask him to guarantee their traditional freedoms. He received them graciously and allowed each delegate to address him in turn.
A man in bright, loose-fitting garments spoke first. “I represent the Hindus of Eleutheria”, he said, “and I ask your Excellency to guarantee us our freedom to worship in our temples and to hold processions in the street.”
“I’m afraid not, my friend. You are idolaters.”
Next came a man with a shaven head wearing a saffron robe. “I represent the Buddhists of our island. I too ask for full liberty for our religion.”
“What religion?”, said the governor. “You are atheists. Next.”
A bearded man with a white cap then spoke. “I am a Muslim, and I claim the right for my people to build mosques; and the right for all Muslims working in the government to have their own prayer-rooms and washrooms. Also for our food to be prepared in separate kitchens. Also such other inviolable requirements of our religion as may occur to me in the future.”
“I’m afraid history shows to an unprejudiced observer that your religion is intrinsically violent and incapable of respecting the rights of others. So I can’t grant your requests. Also, I suspect some of you at least of worshipping an imaginary being. Next please.”
There was a slight pause. The remaining delegates seemed to be attempting to ascertain the order of precedence among themselves. Finally a tall man in a beautifully-tailored cassock came to the front of the group and addressed the governor in a friendly manner. “Excellency, on behalf of the Anglicans of Eleutheria, or rather, on behalf of all the inhabitants, I’m delighted to welcome you to our island. As you know, I am the Archbishop and Primate of the Church here. I must say I’m very much looking forward to our working together. This is my wife, Penelope. You must come to our palace for cocktails some time soon. Do you know, I think you’ll be the first Romanist we’ve ever had here as governor. I’m afraid it would have been very difficult in the past, but all that’s changed now, of course, what with Dignitatis Humanae and aggiornamento.” He pronounced the last word in a fine Italian accent.
Eusebius looked at him sternly. “You are a doubtfully baptized layman”, he said. “If the pope sends the Swiss guards here to arrest you for heresy I shall give him my full co-operation. Meanwhile, you may continue to gather in your conventicles, provided that they do not excel other public buildings in size and splendour, lest you use your wealth to attract the pagans. However, if I hear that you are promoting unnatural vice, you will of course not escape the rigour of the law.”
The Primate of all Eleutheria turned on his heel angrily. “Come, Penelope”, he said. “I told you that the Papists could never change their spots.”
A man with a fine beard and a pectoral cross spoke next in a deep voice. “I am the patriarch of the autocephalous and apostolic patriarchate of Eleutheropolis”, he announced. “My people have celebrated the divine liturgy here without interruption, ever since the island was evangelised by the the holy bean-eating brothers of Phrygia in the 2nd century.”
“I am honoured to make your Beatitude’s acquaintance”, the governor replied. “But I’m afraid that what I told our friend here about the Swiss guards would apply to you as well. Still, as far as I’m concerned you can carry on as you are, and please pray for the needs of the island when you celebrate the liturgy.” Then looking at the patriarch more closely, he exclaimed: “Just a moment, I know you, don’t I? You’re Paddy O’Brien, surely? Good heavens – we were at school together. When on earth did you become a schismatic?”
“It is true”, the other replied, “that I was formerly in communion with the western patriarch. But when I began the study of the history of the Church and discovered how grievously he had violated the holy canons of the first ecumenical council by allowing his subjects to kneel during Paschal time, it became impossible for me to remain under that yoke.”
“In that case”, said Eusebius, “you lose your right to religious freedom. You were properly taught, so you violated your conscience by going into schism. The apostolic patriarchate will have to choose another head for itself, that’s all. Right, is there anyone else?”
A short man in dazzling robes came to the front of the group. “I am a worshipper of the Great Thumb. In the name, then, of Dignitatis Humanae, I claim the right to – ”
“You must be joking”, interrupted the governor.
“Not at all. After all, His late Holiness John Paul II invited us to come to pray at Assi – ”
“Yes, yes”, said Eusebius hastily. “John Paul II was a fine man. But he isn’t the governor of Eleutheria. I am. You get nothing.”
A group of animists looked at each other moodily but did not speak. Then a man in a turban who had hitherto remained silent addressed the governor. “Your Excellency, I request religious liberty for the Sikhs of this island.”
Eusebius paused. “Hmmm. Well, I don’t know any evil of your people. But then I don’t know very much about you at all.”
A younger Sikh broke in enthusiastically: “Think of us as like Protestant Hindus.” His co-religionist discreetly kicked him. “Quiet”, he hissed, “that is not the way to win his Excellency’s favour.” Then turning back to the governor the older man continued: “We believe in one eternal God who created all things, who rules over and sustains them all. We seek union with Him through prayer and an honest life, avoiding empty rituals and serving our country.”
“Hmmm. Well, it sounds alright. Subject to further instructions, you can have your meeting places provided they’re not too big. And don’t call them temples, as that sounds too much like the Hindus. Also, if you publish any books teaching reincarnation, they will be burned.”
The Sikh bowed his acceptance of these terms and stood aside. A deep silence reigned for some minutes in the room. Finally an elderly man with a placid smile addressed the governor. “Your Excellency, I am a Quaker.” “And what do you people do?” “Mostly nothing. We sit in silence for long periods of time. May we carry on?” “By all means”, said the governor. “You have every right not to be prevented by me from doing nothing.”
A renewed silence followed these last words. “Well, gentlemen”, said His Excellency. “Thank you all for coming. I think I have been pretty liberal, but then of course this is not a confessional state. If I were governing a Catholic state then I should have to be more strict. My secretary will show you out. Please accept one of these miraculous medals, with my compliments.”
They all left the room. The governor sat back in his chair with his hands in his pockets, in the contented manner of one who has truly and indifferently administered justice. “God bless Eleutheria”, he murmured to himself, “let freedom ring.”
November 13, 2015 at 3:47 pm
The fact is in American Catholic churches none of the above would be prevented from receiving communion. After John Paul II had died the Vatican spokesperson being interviewed on American Nationwide television stated that while the Church has its teachings on who can receive and who can’t, it does not have an enforcement arm. It is considered to be a matter of individual conscience. It seemed to be speaking for the Church worldwide. Rome did not come up with this policy in a vacuum. It has been “coerced” into it by the spread of American style religious freedom worldwide which has spread like wild fire.
November 13, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Along with a general collapse in religious observance among milder religions and a voracious growth in Islam. Well done.
November 13, 2015 at 6:27 pm
I can’t argue with you Cordatus. That is exactly the scenario implied by DH. However it is neither the impression DH gives nor the impression DH is intended to give and there lies the heart of the problem.
November 14, 2015 at 3:23 am
Doesn’t St Thomas say that reincarnation is factually untrue but theoretically possible? Wouldn’t that make it unfair to forbid works on the subject?
November 14, 2015 at 10:10 am
Do you have a reference? My understanding is that since the human soul is individuated by reference to a certain body, it has an intrinsic relationship to that body such that it would be absurd (and so contraryt to the ordained if not to the absolute power of God) that it should be united to another body.
November 14, 2015 at 5:28 pm
My understanding from e.g. this and this is that to unite the same soul to new body would result in a new person but with the same soul as another person. This would be because the lack of continuity of matter would abolish numerical identity but there is no per se obstacle to the union of a separated soul with different matter. The transmigrationist even has a reasonable come back to the fact of the obvious unfittingness of such an arrangement – it is penal and ceases when the soul reaches moral perfection. As it happens I think one could rebut that because the successive incarnations are ex hypothesi not the same subject so one cannot punish one for the sins of the other. Nevertheless, it is sufficiently murky (especially as we all have some of the matter in us of pretty much everyone who has ever lived) that it would seem ultra vires to prevent a non-Christian monotheist speculating in print [at least for circulation among non-Christians] on the subject.
November 15, 2015 at 8:41 am
I think that his Excellency might allow such speculation provided that it remained mere speculation.
November 15, 2015 at 11:27 pm
Assuming the governor is not sovereign of Eleutheria and he cannot render it a Catholic state at will, and assuming it is not already a Catholic state how can he impose civil penalties upon Paddy O’Brien without usurping the spiritual power? Furthermore how can he allow the Swiss Guard to arrest the doubtfully baptized layman when the authority of the spiritual power is not yet recognised in Eleutherian law?
November 16, 2015 at 1:12 pm
With regard to His Beatitude, I was following the interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae which holds that the right to religious liberty is a right (ceteris paribus) not to be prevented from following one’s conscience; so the governor concludes that there is no such right vis-a-vis the state for those acting contrary to conscience. With regard to the Swiss guards, the governor was supposing that any such act by the pope would ipso facto turn Eleutheria into a Catholic state
November 16, 2015 at 7:32 pm
But it seems to me that the judgment that a baptized person is a formal heretic or schismatic is proper to the spiritual power and so the state cannot act upon it unless it formally recognizes the spiritual power. Otherwise, it would be usurping the functions of the spiritual power. Sending in the Swiss Guard to arrest a heretic or schismatic in a state that did not formally recognize the truth of the faith would be coercive conversion because it is a violation of its sovereignty and for the temporal ruler to permit it would be a gravely sinful subversion of the rule of law. If the governor of Eleutheria has the power to make public law by decree then this is not a problem so long as he alters the public law of Eleutheria to acclaim Christ as King and to recognize the Church as a perfect society with sovereign power over its subjects and the necessity for Eleutheria to give civil effect to canon law. If, on the other hand, he does not do this then he will be violating the rule of law in Eleutheria and guilty of serious sin. (This is not to say the power of the ruler to legislate by decree would be a good thing per se. Far from it.)
November 17, 2015 at 10:10 am
On the first point, if natural reason suffices to know the fact of revelation, though not to give a salvific assent to it, then it surely suffices to determine that a baptized person is a heretic or schismatic. On the second point, I think that his Excellency was understanding Unam Sanctam to mean that the Pope could change the constitution of states.
November 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm
But it is clear that the Church teaches that that judgment is reserved to itself. In Christendom it would never have been permitted for a lay tribunal to make it. To change the constitution of a state is to change its nature and so effect a substantial change. That would be equivalent to invading a state and overthrowing it on account of the fact that it is not Christian. This is coercive conversion.
November 17, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Is it clear that the Church teaches that? A final judgement would rest with an ecclesiastical tribunal, but what if there is no possibility of that. On the other point St Thomas does say that the Church could justly overthrow pagan states but doesn’t to avoid scandal; in my hypothetical case one could argue that the scandal envisaged is not there becasue the ruler was already Catholic, and so no new temporal power is being acquired for Catholics.
November 17, 2015 at 10:01 pm
I should say the entire Gregorian Reform and the teaching that came with it upholds the impossibility of such a use of the spiritual power by a lay authority. St Thomas says “unbelievers in virtue of their unbelief deserve to forfeit their power over the faithful” he does not say “the Church could justly overthrow pagan states” per se.
November 16, 2015 at 3:59 pm
I found this article interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/16/in-light-of-the-paris-attacks-is-it-time-to-eradicate-religion/
He could say a little more on the substantive differences in what different religions believe, which is significant, but nevertheless it is an interesting discussion of the perils of merging Church and State. I particularly liked the phrase “Christ gives substantive direction to Christians’ lives, and they give Him ultimate allegiance; the political order provides for the conditions of their living, and they give it conditional loyalty.”
November 16, 2015 at 7:37 pm
[…] a recent comment St John Smythe linked to this article from the Washington Post by the Croatian Protestant […]