Michael Amaladoss

Religious freedom has become a live issue today. The latest Synod of Bishops on New Evangelization (October 7-28, 2012), in its final list of Propositions, said in No. 16:
The Synod Fathers reaffirm that religious freedom is a basic human right. This includes the freedom of conscience and also the liberty to freely choose one’s religion. We are in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, in different parts of the world, who are suffering from lack of religious freedom and even persecution.

The recent Popes – Bl. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis – have also been insistent on the need for it. The United States of America issues every year a document that comments on the various countries in the world where religious freedom is not fully available. If we look around the world religious persecutions are not rare. Not only Christians, but also Muslims, Hindus and others suffer discrimination, and even persecution, depending on which country we are looking at. Any list will be partial. Recently the Catholic bishops in the United States of America protested that religious freedom was in danger because laws were being passed depriving healthcare institutions, run by Catholics, of government funds if they are not participating in government sponsored programmes that promote contraception, abortion, etc.: the Catholics were not free to run their institutions following their own religious convictions.

Religion and the State
In all these cases religious freedom or the lack of it refers to the relationship between the religions and the state. This relationship in the world today is of various kinds. There are confessional states which establish a particular religion as a state religion, though they may ‘tolerate’ other religions. But these do not have the same rights as the official state religion. Most Muslim majority countries today, except perhaps Turkey, have such confessional states. Some may even seek to impose the practice of Shariat or Islamic law on all their citizens, Muslim or not. There are other countries which favour the religion of the majority of its citizens, even if it is not written into their constitution. Recently, when non-Christians challenged the presence of a crucifix in the class room of state-supported schools, both Germany and Italy defended its use in the name of the majority of their citizens who are Christian or in terms of the historical tradition of their culture based on Christianity. Buddhism is being treated as more or less an official religion in countries like Myanmar, Thailand and Sri Lanka. There are political movements in India that would like to make it a Hindu country. Nepal was a Hindu country till recently. On the other hand there are countries that claim to be secular or a-religious, if not anti-religious, and seek to make religion a private affair and control their public/social manifestations. Communist countries like China and Vietnam control religious practice. France has forbidden the public display of any religious affiliation even at a personal level. In between these two extremes, there are countries like the United States of America that practice a separation between the Church/religion and state as social institutions, leaving to each one its sphere of influence in civil society. But the recent experience in the USA shows that such separation is not simple and neat. So what does religious freedom mean in such a situation?

The Context of the Second Vatican Council
I am looking at this problem, not as a social or political scientist, but as a Roman Catholic theologian. Contemporary thinking on religious freedom in the Catholic Church goes back to the Decree on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) of the Second Vatican Council. So I would like to start my reflection from that point. Let us see how that decree came about, what changes it brought about in theological thinking and how this theology has developed since. At the time of the Council, Spain and Italy were close to being confessional states, the state giving a privileged place to the Catholic Church in civil society through concordats. The Church had no freedom at all in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe. Countries like France were trying to privatize religious belief and practice. The USA affirmed a separation between the Church and the state. India and Indonesia declared themselves secular countries, treating all religions equally positively. The situation was not too clear in many of the newly independent states in Asia and Africa. So there was a desire to affirm the principle of religious freedom. The Americans from the USA were pushing their model as an ideal one.

Any talk of religious freedom, however, encountered a serious obstacle from the tradition of the Church. The Church used to believe that error had no rights and that it had the fullness of truth revealed by God. In civil society the (Christian) state is obliged, not only to support it, but even impose it on the non-believers, in view of facilitating their eternal salvation. In the Latin American situation, for instance, the phrase compelle entrare – “compel them to come in” – (Lk 14:23) was used to justify the forced conversion of the indigenous people. It is in this context that heretics, who did not accept or opposed the truth as proposed by the Church, were burnt by the civil power in the Middle Ages. If, in civil society, there were some people who did not believe in the revealed truth, the state could tolerate them for the sake of maintaining peace and public order. It is from this perspective that concordats were made with the states in Italy and Spain where Catholics were in a large majority. This was the traditional position, officially taught by the Papal Magisterium, at the time of the Second Vatican Council. So any one who spoke for religious freedom was seen as opposing the tradition and promoting relativism. The people who defended religious freedom, however, suggested that dogmas can develop and even change in the light of history.

1. See http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_25_xiii-ordinaria-2012/02_inglese/b33_02.html
2. See Joslyn Ogden, “ Religious Liberty, Vatican II and J.C.Murray”, Duke University: The Kenan Institute for Ethics, Case Studies. Cf. kenan.ethics.duke.edu/wp content/uploads/…/Case-Study-Vatican-II.pdf‎; J.C. Murray, “Religious Liberty”, America (Nov 30, 1963), pp. 704-706; David Hollenbach, “Religious Freedom, Morality and Law. John Courtney Murray Today”, Journal of Moral Theology 1 (2012) 69-91.
3. Pius XI spelt this out in his encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllbus of Errors. See http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm. and http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm.

The historical change precisely is the move from a civil society dominated by religion to another that claims to be democratic and secular, meaning a-religious or even anti-religious depending on the preceding conflict between the dominant religion and the society that was trying to get out of its shadow. The historical fact also was that, apart from a few countries like Spain and Italy, most countries were also religiously more pluralistic with many Churches and religions. Critics also suggested that the Church had double standards, demanding freedom for itself where it was a minority and imposing itself and offering tolerance to others where it is a majority. This was the context in which the document on Religious Freedom was developed.

The Document on Religious Freedom
The document emerged out of a compromise. Inspired by the model of the USA, religious freedom was affirmed as a civil right based on human dignity and the right to follow one’s conscience even when it is erroneous. Side by side, there was the affirmation of the truth of revelation held by the Church with its binding character. Both groups got what they wanted. Let us look at the document a little more closely.

The document is neatly summarized in the introduction. “While the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ.” (Dignitatis Humanae (DH), 1) It is also specified that “truth can impose itself on the mind of man only in virtue of its own truth” (DH, 1), not by force of any kind.

The first part of the document addresses itself to civil society. Human persons, endowed with reason and free will, enjoy human dignity. By their very nature they have the moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious, and they should enjoy both psychological freedom and immunity from external coercion, provided public order is not disturbed. (DH, 2) This freedom is a civil right derived from God-given natural law. Given their social nature, their search for truth is achieved through teaching, communication and dialogue. “It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law” and s/he must be free to follow his/her conscience. (DH, 3) Humans, being social beings, should have the freedom to act collectively, to practice their faith, to transmit it within the group, to propagate it to others and to organize and administer such group activities. (DH, 4) Civil society has an obligation to protect the religious freedom of all its citizens in an equal manner, even when one particular religion has a special status for whatever reason. (DH, 6) The very reasons for which people claim religious freedom also demand that they respect the freedom of others. Civil society itself “has the right to protect itself against possible abuses committed in the name of religious freedom.” (DH, 7) Such situations may arise when there are fundamentalist religious groups.

In a second part the document goes on to speak of religious freedom in the light of revelation. Christian revelation manifests to us the dignity of the humans. Christ himself respects the freedom of his hearers (DH, 9), proclaims his message in a humble way and refuses to use force. (DH, 10-11) “The act of faith is of its very nature a free act.” (DH, 10) The Church follows the ways of Christ. (DH, 12) “The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle governing relations between the Church and pubic authorities and the whole civic order.” (DH, 13) It is the duty of the Church “to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself.” (DH, 14) We can note that there is no reference here to other religions.

A Different Perspective in Gaudium et Spes?
We see here the clear distinction between the order of nature and the order of revelation, though in practice they support each other. Religious freedom belongs primarily to the order of nature. Such a difference between natural law and revelation or ‘super-nature’ may not have been easily accepted by all in the Council itself. This is seen in the final document of the Council, Gaudium et Spes – GS (The Church in the Modern World.) This document starts with a presentation of the “joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the men of our time.” (GS, 1) Remaining at this ‘secular’ level it addresses all people. But at the same time, “the Church believes that Christ, who died and was raised for the sake of all, can show man the way and strengthen him through the Spirit in order to be worthy of his destiny.” (GS, 10) The document goes on to speak of the dignity of moral conscience. “Man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged. His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” (DH, 16) This is obviously true of every human being. This may be considered the sphere of the ‘natural law’. But GS goes on to say:

4. Cf. For the history of and the commentary on the document see Pietro Pavan, “Declaration on Religious Freedom” in Herbert Vorgrimler (ed), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969, pp. 49-86; Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak (eds), History of Vatican II, Vol. IV and V (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2003 and 2006), pp. IV, 96-134, 395-405, 533-544; V, 61-121, 451-456.
5. Quotations from the Document are from the translation in Austin Flannery (ed), Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents. (Bombay: St. Paul’s Publications, 1983), pp. 719-730.

In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear… Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man… Conformed to the image of the Son who is the firstborn of many brothers, the Christian received the “first fruits of the Spirit” (Rom 8:23) by which he is able to fulfill the new law of love… As one who has been made a partner in the paschal mystery, and as one who has been configured to the death of Christ, he will go forward, strengthened by hope, to the resurrection… All this holds true not for Christians only but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery. (GS, 22)

The quotation is long, but it puts the matter succinctly and clearly. It contradicts the vision of a natural order of things that would be free of Christ. One can focus on ‘human nature’ by an ‘epoché’. But it does not exist in itself. If we take this second vision seriously then we have to broaden our approach to religious freedom and relook at the second part of the document Dignitatis Humanae. While at the level of civil society, the separation between the state and religion as institutions and the freedom of religions from civil control have to be maintained, at the level of Christian faith the freedom of religions is internal to our faith – not merely at a civil/secular level.

The Teaching of John Paul II
I shall not go into the theological tensions between the schools of Aquinas and Augustine which experts speak about. But it seems clear that GS 22 does not speak any longer of the natural humans, but people with whom the son of God has ‘in a certain way’ united himself and who have the gift of the Spirit. This perspective raises the freedom of religions to a wholly different level. We can no longer speak at a theological level a merely secular, neutral, natural language, though it may be useful in certain civil contexts. For the Church, a language of faith seems inevitable. This also brings other religions into the picture. Let me try to explain this briefly with the help of Bl. John Paul II who takes this vision seriously in his encyclicals, starting with the first one, Redemptor Hominis. Due to limitations of space, however, I shall limit myself to a later encyclical Redemptoris Missio. My intention here is not to trace the development of ideas or doctrine, but to indicate the new perspective. Bl. John Paul II says:

The Spirit manifests himself in a special way in the Church and in her members. Nevertheless, his presence and activity are universal, limited neither by space nor time (DEV 53)… The Spirit’s presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions… Thus the Spirit, who “blows where he wills” (cf. Jn 3:8), who “was already at work in the world before Christ was glorified” (AG 4), and who “has filled the world,… holds all things together (and) knows what is said (Wis 1:7), leads us to broaden our vision in order to ponder his activity in every time and place (DEV 53)… The Church’s relationship with other religions is dictated by a twofold respect: “Respect for man in his quest for answers to the deepest questions of his life, and respect for the action of the Spirit in man.”

The reason for religious freedom is actually given in the last sentence in which Bl. John Paul II quotes himself from an earlier document. Both the Spirit and the humans interact freely. The area of such interaction is the Kingdom of God, in which the Church too is active.

6. For this section see David L. Schindler, “Religious Freedom, Truth and Amerian Liberalism: Another Look at John Courtney Murray”. Communio 1994. cf. http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/MURRAY.HTM.

7. Cf. Nos. 13-14. Bl. John Paul II seem to have suggested this already at the time of the Council. See the article in the previous footnote.
8. Nos. 28-29.
9. Cf. Address to Representatives of Non-Christian Religions, Madras, February 5, 1986: AAS 78 (1986), 767
10. Redemptoris Missio, 20.
11. Origins 15 (1986) 598. For similar sentiments see John Paul II’s address to leaders of other religions in New Delhi after the publication of Ecclesia in Asia: “The Interreligious. Meeting”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 63 (1999) 884-886.

The Church, then, serves the Kingdom by establishing communities and founding new particular Churches… The Church serves the Kingdom by spreading throughout the world the “Gospel values” which are an expression of the Kingdom and which help people to accept God’s plan. It is true that the inchoate reality of the Kingdom can also be found beyond the confines of the Church among peoples everywhere, to the extent that they live “Gospel values” and are open to the working of the Spirit who breathes when and where he wills (cf. Jn 3:8)… The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all mankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message. The Church contributes to mankind’s pilgrimage of conversion to God’s plan through her witness and through such activities as dialogue, human promotion, commitment to justice and peace, education and the care of the sick, and aid to the poor and to children.

What is the vision here? God is inviting all peoples to the Kingdom in various ways through their own religions. So we have to respect the freedom of God who calls people in various ways through the Spirit and the freedom of the people who respond according to the revelation that they have received. This is the basis of religious freedom from a Christian point of view. This freedom has its origin in God’s call, the work of the Spirit and the free response of the humans. But this freedom is not simply anarchic since it is guided by the Spirit of God. There is a convergence towards the Kingdom of God. That is why Bl. John Paul could tell the leaders of other religions in Chennai (Madras) in February 1986:

By dialogue we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God… As followers of different religions we should join together in promoting and defending common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare and civic order.
So it is not merely ‘freedom from’ coercion, but ‘freedom for’ collaboration.

Freedom for Collaboration
Looking around our world today, we may feel that such a spirit of collaboration does not exist. But it is not impossible. The various religions are often seen as the source of division that does not respect the freedom of religions. But a quick look at them shows that while religious fundamentalism and exclusivism remain a factor, the different religions do offer a perspective of openness to religious pluralism, leading not merely to tolerance, but to dialogue and collaboration. As we have already seen how our own Christian faith is open to the other religions, let us briefly look at a few of the other major religions. In Hinduism, more than 3000 years ago the Rig Veda said: “Truth is one: sages call it by various names.” (1.164.46) Contemporary Hinduism looks upon the different religions as rivers flowing into the same sea of divine reality. Buddhism sees all religions as suitable preparations that can lead one to the realization of selflessness through self-discipline and concentration. In the Koran, Allah says: “There is no compulsion in matters of faith. (2:256) To each of you God has prescribed a Law and a Way. (5:49) There is no nation wherein a warner has not come. (13:7)”

From the point of view of the state and civil society we could adopt a discourse of human rights that speak of freedom of religions. But we have to keep in mind two provisos. On the one hand, religious freedom does not demand a secular society that is totally a-religious, if not anti-religious, which keeps religions in the private sphere. We have ‘secular’ countries like India and Indonesia which do not look at religions negatively or privatize them, but look on them positively and equally. The Indian Constitution even offers special rights to the minority religions, offering them the freedom to practice, build up and propagate their religions, provided public order is respected. On the other hand, religious pluralism does not mean relativism based merely on human options. The Absolute is One which can be manifested, experienced and approached in various ways, conditioned by personalities, cultures and history. What is envisaged is a positive pluralism, based on the understanding that different religions are works of the Spirit, facilitating divine-human encounter, leading to the communion of the Kingdom in ways unknown to us. Every religion is a vocation, a call of the Spirit, a way to God’s Kingdom. The Asian Bishops look upon the believers in different religions as co-pilgrims towards the Kingdom. Communion among them will be eschatological. For example the Indian Bishops say:

As God’s Spirit called the Churches of the East to conversion and mission witness (see Rev 2-3), we too hear this same Spirit bidding us to be truly catholic, open and collaborating with the Word who is actively present in the great religious traditions of Asia today. Confident trust and discernment, not anxiety and over-caution, must regulate our relations with these many brothers and sisters. For together with them we form one community, stemming from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth. We share with them a common destiny and providence. Walking together we are called to travel the same paschal pilgrimage with Christ to the one Father of us all (see Lk 24:13ff, NA 1, and GS 22)

In a purely secular world freedom of religion based on the discourse of human rights may be the minimum necessary. As a matter of fact, the secular ideology may be taken as one more quasi-religion. At an institutional level, there is a separation between the state and the various religious institutions. But at the level of life there is an interplay of religious as well as secular (a-theistic) ideologies which respect each other’s freedom, rising up to the level of interreligious dialogue. Religions can speak to their believers and seek to convince others of their perspectives in matters that have to do with public morality and order. But they cannot demand that their perspectives are given common legal sanction. For example, the Catholic Church is against contraception. But it cannot insist that it be made illegal in the civic sphere. In the actual world, a vision of religious freedom based on the faith perspective of all religions may be more energizing and useful.

Conclusion
Religious freedom is recognized as a civil right by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The separation of the state and religion as institutions is also accepted now in many secular states. This should become the universal norm. As Christians we can affirm religious freedom not merely from the point of view of ‘natural law’, but also from the point of view of our faith. In this way, led by Gaudium et Spes we can go beyond Dignitatis Humanae. Interreligious dialogue and collaboration become integral dimensions of evangelization. While the autonomy of the civil sphere and of the state is respected, religions need not be privatized, but can play an active role in shaping peoples’ minds and options, respecting always the freedom of the other, both as an individual and as a religious believer, trusting in the presence and action of the Word and the Spirit in every one.

12. For an elaboration of this paragraph see Michael Amaladoss, Living in a Secular Democracy. (Dindigul: Vaigarai, 2010), pp. 77-99.
13. See Michael Amaladoss, Quest for God. Doing Theology in India. (Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 2013), pp. 157-169. He shows that pluralism is not relativism.
14. See Peter C. Phan (ed), The Asian Synod. Texts and Commentaries. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002), p.21.

Michael Amaladoss, S.J.