Theological Relentlessness

The draft text on religious freedom issued during the Second Vatican Council had the explicit aims of facilitating ecumenical dialogue and obtaining freedom for the Church in Communist countries [1].

The poor results of the whole ecumenical theater, and the situation of the Church in hostile countries, show that exhortations based on the dignity and right of the human person to determine his or her own religious life were not very convincing.

At least in the target circles. In the countries of old Christianity, the logic of religious freedom led to pressure from the Vatican to remove from the Constitutions the mention of the Catholic religion as the State religion or at least that of the majority of citizens (Colombia in 1973, Valais in 1974, Italy in 1984).

Rome then was not only renouncing the historical situation of medieval Christianity, but also the very idea that the desirable normal structure of the State included a religious denomination. This logic extends to the details: in 2018, Cardinal Marx, Archbishop of Munich, expressed his disapproval of the Bavarian head of government imposing the presence of crucifixes in public buildings, before carefully backtracking in the face of the criticism he had elicited.

Some prelates even argued that if the Muslim migrant families received at the Vatican demanded a Mohammedan place of worship, this should be granted, in the name of the principle of religious freedom [2]...

The West is already ashamed of its Christian roots, and now the Church has come to give it principled reasons for keeping them under wraps. Is it any wonder that Islam, which is not very receptive to the great principles of Personalism, is taking the place it is being offered?

In this context, it is surprising to see clerics in traditional circles striving to defend the Council's famous Dignitatis humanæ [3] declaration on religious freedom. A text which, like all those of the Council, makes no claim to infallibility [4], a text recognized by the aforementioned clerics as “weak,” “equivocal,” and “dangerous” [5].

A text which, like many others of the postconciliar magisterium, cannot seriously be presented to the faithful as a sure doctrine. A text which it would be better not to insist on, because the Church's Magisterium does not come out of it any better.

The same applies to the linguistic turns of phrase that allow Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et spes, Unitatis redintegratio, etc. to avoid the accusation of heresy. Bishop Schneider points out these equivocations to the faithful in his book Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith, but should he be reproached for making no effort to save these harmful texts [6]? Thinkers and writers from the traditional sphere have better things to do for the Church.

Prelates and theologians would be accomplishing their duty (their holy duty!) if they were to correct the situation with an unequivocal text on the rights of the person, properly understood. In the meantime, defending Dignitatis humanæ is merely prolonging its effects.
 

[1] Cf Ralph Wiltgen, Le Rhin se jette dans le Tibre, Cèdre 1973, pp.156ff.

[2] Private testimonies.

[3] See Fr. de Blignières' articles on claves.org and his review of Bishop Athanasius Schneider's Credo in Sedes sapientiae no. 169, Autumn 2024, pp.113-16.

[4] Cf. the notification from the Secretary General of the Council, dated November 16, 1964, issued in conjunction with the preliminary explanatory note on the Constitution Lumen Gentium. A Roman prelate in contact with the Society spoke of Dignitatis humanæ as a document of circumstance, linked to a historical context, therefore reformable and of no other impact! Paragraph 9 of the aforementioned Declaration notes that “Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious,” while seeking to find it there all the same.

[5] Quoted by Fr. Antoine-Marie de Araujo, FSVF, in “Lire un texte du magistère (brève réponse à une réponse de l'abbé Gleize),” claves.org, June 28, 2024.

[6] As does Fr. de Blignières in his review, quoted above.