Religious Freedom Part II

In my last post I spoke about the First amendment and the importance of the separation of church and state.  Today I am going to write about why that is so important and why religious leaders are mistakenly attempting to erode that separation in their defense of religion.  

In 1962 Pope John XXIII called an Ecumenical council - Vatican II.  Out of that council came many of the changes that we now recognize as ordinary in the Catholic church.  One of those changes occurred in a document called Dignitatis Humanae - or the Declaration of the Religious Freedom. This document was radical in its approach to the theology of Religious freedom.  

Dignitatis Humanae professed that: 

“A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, 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.”  

Thus men should have the freedom and the right to follow their own judgement and not be coerced.  The document goes on to explain that God has made himself and the way which he is to be worshipped known to mankind but also explains that: 

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society.”  

Dignitatis Humanae proclaims that man has the right to be free from coercion by civil society in regards to the worship of God.  This was a slight departure from the Doctrine that the Church had professed for many centuries; this change occurred because of the socio-political change in the world which the Church existed.  The church had come to recognize that it was paramount that civilian governments refrain from coercing their citizens from observing or professing any specific religious belief and by extension giving their people freedom from laws created with a specific religious animus.  John F. Kennedy echoed this sentiment when he was running for President. 

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act.”

Now in 2017 we are seeing the pendulum swing in the other direction.  When at one time the Church advocated that men not be coerced into the worship of God, clergy now attempt to weave religion into the very fabric of American government.   The Religious Right has continued its campaign to “return America to God” by mobilizing candidates to run for local, state and national office.  Christian Political organizations have thrown their support to presidential candidates who are committed to nominating Judges that reflect Christian values and are willing to interpret the law based on their personal religious beliefs.  

The Catholic church has followed suit no longer honoring the separation of Church and State but boldly advocating that Catholic politicians and judges view and reshape American law through the lens of their faith.  As Americans we might view this as a departure but in fact it is actually a more true interpretation of Catholic thought.  For Centuries the Church advocated that the state had the ability to perceive and recognize the true faith (meaning Catholicism) and by that recognition was obligated to favor the true religion above all others.  The laws of the state should reflect the moral teachings of the Church and its ethics - what the church believes is wrong, the state must prohibit.  

This social theology was predominant for many centuries giving rise to Catholic kingdoms throughout Europe.  Quas Primus established the Feast of Christ the King and was a follow up to Pius XI’s first encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio in which he stated:

“....as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations."

Quas Primus was the completion of Pope Pius XI theology of the Catholic State.  It introduced the Social Kingship of Christ as the social norm that the world should follow.  The second Vatican council took another look at this theology and by taking into account the political and societal trend in the modern world adapted the understanding and expression of Church teaching; thus giving rise to the council document on Religious freedom.  While we as Catholic are called to be salt and light to work towards God's kingdom on earth, the church would no longer try to do this by exerting influence over the state.

But in the past several decades something has changed and now we are faced with the religious right attempting to reach through the wall between Church and State to exert political influence.  Politicians changing laws and Judges reinterpreting the existing laws based on their faith and not the objective law of the land.  There is a concerted effort to remake the last 50 years of law in the image of the Christian right and laws governing women’s reproductive rights and human rights are squarely in their sights.  

This must not be allowed to happen, the wall between Church and State protects us all by insuring no one religion will take precedence over the others.  Now you may ask why would it be a bad thing if the laws reflected a Christian ethos.  You might say that it would be good for society if the law embodied Christian morality.   I would only ask you one question - what about those people who are not Christian or simply do not believe in God?  If is fair that they must abide by laws that obligate them to follow a religious code foreign to their own?  And if the laws begin to reflect a Christian ethos who determines which denomination is dominant?

The Founding Fathers never intended any religion to take precedence over the others.  They intended America to be a country that recognized the creator but did not dictate how that creator would be worshipped.  

I will complete my exposition on Religious Freedom in my next post.  Stay tuned!