« Political ads and the Catholic press | Main | Remembering »
November 20, 2006
On religious freedom
Religious freedom is not only the individual right of each person to profess and display one’s faith, but it is also the collective right of families, groups and the Church itself, and engages civil power to “create conditions favourable to the fostering of religious life, so that citizens are truly able to exercise their religious rights and fulfil their respective duties.” The cordial meeting between the Pope and the President of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, gave occasion to Benedict XVI to reinforce the concept of religious freedom and to reaffirm the respect due to it by States, as occurs in Italy and other countries.
In his speech, the Pope also affirmed that the Church “is not and does not intend to be a political agent”, but “has a profound interest in the good of the political community” and that it is up to Catholic laypeople to affirm in society the principles that inspire them.
snip
“It would however be reductive,” the Pope went on to say, “to consider that the right of religious freedom is sufficiently guaranteed based on the absence of violence against or interference in personal convictions or when it is limited to respecting manifestations of faith that occur in the ambit of places of worship. Not to be forgotten in fact is that ‘the social nature of man itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community’ (ibid). Thus religious freedom is not only a right of the individual but also of the family, of religious groups and of the Church herself (cf Dignitatis humanae, 4-5.13) and the exercise of this right has an influence on the multiple ambits and situations in which the believer finds himself and operates. An adequate respect for the right to religious freedom implicates, therefore, the engagement of civil power to “create conditions favourable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will’ (Dignitatis humanae, 6).”
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Hmmmm. Does this mean that the Church has repudiated and now actuall opposes its constant ordinary magisterial teaching of the past that Catholics must strive, in the name of Christ the King, for a State that favors Catholicism and its interpretation of Natural Law, while discouraging non-Catholic evangelization? That Catholicism opposes Islam trying to impose Sharia law on the same grounds?
Or does it specifically require Catholics to oppose "separation of Church and State" because it requires that the State ("civil power") to pursue an obligation to "create conditions favourable to the fostering of religious life"?
You got me. I can't make head nor tail of the Church teaching on Church-State matters these days. Nor can anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Celine at Nov 20, 2006 10:35:42 AM
This is an important address!
When speaking about religious freedom and freedom of religion (not quite exactly the same although intimately related) it is easy to point fingers at countries where the Church and or religion in general is having difficulties or is even prohibited [for example certain Islamic countries or Communist countries] But problems exist outside this ambit as well.
In our own country, the United States, in the espousing of the principle of 'separation of church and state' [a separation which the Catholic Church, and this pope especially holds dear] there has been a new and radical interpretation of this 'doctrine' in a way that focuses on the individual having the rights and not recognizing any community of faith. In other words, according to this view-there are Catholics (for example) who have the right to worship but for all practical purposes there is no Church.
This interpretation fails to recognize the social nature of the human person, and the very nature of 'religion'[the word means 'that which binds together']. It also continues its sad erosion of any and all communal structures [including the family itself] that act as buffers between the individual and 'the state'
Pope Benedict's address is speaking to the secularizing Western democracies as well as laying down some groundwork for his upcoming visit to Turkey and future dialogue with Islamic leaders.
May the Lord grant him a long and healthy life and ministry as the successor of Saint Peter.
Posted by: Father Elijah at Nov 20, 2006 11:00:06 AM
Right on, Father Elijah. Pope Benedict's address also speaks to those in the U.S. who put secular and state interests and interpretations of ethical and moral issues above Catholic interpretations. This is very evident on the dotCommonweal blog, where the commentators preponderantly side with the interpretations advanced by the state or secular interests. This would apply also to so-called Catholic politicians, who persistently recuse themselves from the obligations of their faith, yet when election time rolls around, haul out the old "Catholic" moniker to get the vote.
Posted by: Janice at Nov 20, 2006 11:37:56 AM
Dear Celine,
The quotations are from the Pope's speech in Verona in October, in which he is also quoting his encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est":
Civil and political responsibility of CatholicsYour Convention has rightly considered the theme of citizenship, that is, the question of the civil and political responsibility of Catholics. Christ has come to save the real, concrete man who lives in history and in the community, and so Christianity and the Church have had a public dimension and value from the beginning.
As I wrote in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est (cf. nn. 28-29) on the relationship between religion and politics, Jesus Christ brought a substantial novelty, opening the way towards a more human, freer world through the reciprocal distinction and autonomy of the State and the Church, that is, between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22: 21).
The very religious freedom that we hold as a universal value, particularly necessary in the world today, has its historical roots here. The Church, therefore, is not and does not intend to be a political agent. At the same time she has a profound interest in the good of the political community, whose soul is justice, and offers it her specific contribution at a double level.
Indeed, Christian faith purifies reason and helps it to be better: as a result, with its social doctrine whose argument begins from what is conformed to the nature of every human being, the Church's contribution is to enable whatever is just to be effectively recognized and then also accomplished. To this end, moral and spiritual energies are clearly indispensable as they ensure that the demands of justice are put before personal interests, a social category or even a State. For the Church, here again, there is ample space to root these energies in the conscience, to nourish them and fortify them.
The immediate duty to act in the political sphere to build a just order in society is not the Church's task as such, but that of the lay faithful, who work as citizens under their own responsibility. This is a duty of great importance to which Italian lay Christians are called to dedicate themselves with generosity and courage, illuminated by faith and by the Magisterium of the Church and animated by the charity of Christ.
My understanding of these recent writings from the Pope is that "The Church" as institution or hierarchy (including bishops, priests, religious) should not be directly involved in politics, but rather directly involved in the formation of the laity for their participation in politics. It is the job of the laity, not the clergy (and religious) to be active in politics and work for a just socity.
The laity should be political agents, and, in as much as they laity are also "The Church," then the Church (through the laity), is indeed a political agent. "The Church" as institution and clergy (with religious), however, should not be a direct political agent, but be directly involved with the salvation (i.e. formation, conversion) of the laity.
Does that help?
Posted by: Old Zhou at Nov 20, 2006 2:31:21 PM
