50(

The Second Vatican Council

Declaration on

Religious Liberty

and

Declaration on the

Relartionship ofthe Church

to Non-Christian Religions

The John LaFarge Institute



Imprimi Potest: John J. McGinty, SJ. Provincial of the New York Province.

Nihil Obstat: Felix F. Cardegna, SJ., S.T.D., Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur: Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, Archbishop of Baltimore.

February 14, 1966

Copyright 1966 by The America Press, 106 West 56th St., New York 10019



The Second Vatican Council

Declaration on

Religious Liberty

and

Declaration on the

Relationship ofthe Church

to Non-Christian Religions

With Introduction and Marginal Notes by John Courtney Murray, S.J.

and Robert A. Graham, SJ.

The John LaFarge Institute



S

Co pom

CONTENTS

Declaration on Religious Liberty

Meaning of the Document 3

Text and Notes 7

Review Questions 28

Reading List 30

Declaration on the Relationship of

the Church to Non-Christian Religions

Meaning of the Document 33

Text and Notes 37

Review Questions 46

Reading List 47



Declaration on Religious Freedom

Meaning ofthe Document

On November 19, 1963, the first schema (draft-text) on reli-

gious freedom was presented to the conciliar Fathers by the

Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. In the course of the

following two years, five corrected versions of that text ap-

peared in print, each being the work of many revisions v/ithin

the secretariat. Three public debates on it were held in the

Aula, during which some one hundred and twenty speeches

were made. Some six hundred written interventions were sent

to the secretariat, many of them signed by groups of bishops.

Moreover, critiques of the successive schemas were made,

either orally or in writing, by a considerable number of bishops

and theologians whom the secretariat consulted. Also consulted

were a number of the observers at the Council. Before the final

vote was taken, more than two thousand modi, or suggested

corrections, had been considered—though many of them, of

course, were identical.

Thus, the greatest argument on religious freedom in all

history happily broke forth in the Church. The debate was full,

free and vigorous, if at times confused and emotional. Out of it

came the sixth and final text, here presented.

CONTENT IS DOCTRINAL

The first text had appeared as Chapter V of the Decree on

Ecumenism. The second text had appeared as a Declaration,

but in an appendix to the Decree on Ecumenism. With the third

text, the Declaration assumed independent status. From the

outset, its intention was pastoral—as was the general intention
of the Council in all its utterances. This, however, does not

mean that the Declaration contains simply practical advice. Its

content is properly doctrinal. In particular, three doctrinal

3



tenets are declared: the ethical doctrine of religious freedom as

a human right (personal and collective)
;
a political doctrine

with regard to the functions and limits of government in mat-

ters religious; and the theological doctrine of the freedom of

the Church as the fundamental principle in what concerns the

relations between the Church and the socio-pohtical order.

It can hardly be maintained that the Declaration is a mile-

stone in human history—moral, political or intellectual. The
principle of religious freedom has long been recognized in con-

stitutional law, to the point where even Marxist-Leninist politi-

cal ideology is obliged to pay lip-service to it. But in all honesty

it must be admitted that the Church is late in acknowledging

the validity of the principle.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

In any event, the document is a significant one in the history

of the Church. It was, of course, the most controversial docu-

ment of the whole Council, largely because it raised with sharp

emphasis the issue that lay continually below the surface of all

the conciliar debates—the issue of the development of doctrine.
The notion of development, not the notion of religious freedom,

was the real sticking-point for many of those who opposed the

Declaration even to the end. The course of the development

between the Syllabus of Errors (1864) and Dignitatis humanae

personae (1965) still remains to be explained by theologians.

But the Council formally sanctioned the validity of the develop-

ment itself; and this was a doctrinal event of high importance

for theological thought in many other areas.

Moreover, in conjunction with the Constitution on the

Church in the Modern World, the Declaration opens a new

era in the relations between the People of God and the People

Temporal. A long-standing ambiguity has finally been cleared

up. The Church does not deal with the secular order in terms

of a double standard—freedom for the Church when Catholics
are a minority, privilege for the Church and intolerance for

others when Catholics are a majority. The Declaration has

opened the way toward new confidence in ecumenical relation-

ships, and a new straightforwardness in relationships between

the Church and the world.

4



man’s use of freedom

Finally, though the Declaration deals only with the minor

issue of religious freedom in the technical secular sense, it does

affirm a principle of wider import—that the dignity of man con-
sists in his responsible use of freedom. Some of the conciliar

Fathers—not least those opposed to the Declaration—per-
ceived that a certain indivisibility attaches to the notion of

freedom. The word and the thing have wrought wonders in the

modem world; they have also wrought havoc. The conciliar

affirmation of the principle of freedom was narrowly limited

—

in the text. But the text itself was flung into a pool whose shores

are as wide as the universal Church. The ripples will run far.

Inevitably, a second great argument will be set afoot now

—

on the theological meaning of Christian freedom. The children

of God, who receive this freedom as a gift from their Father

through Christ in the Holy Spirit, assert it within the Church

as well as within the world, always for the sake of the world

and the Church. The issues are many: the dignity of the

Christian, the foundations of Christian freedom, its object or

content, its limits and their criterion, the measure of its respon-

sible use, its relation to the legitimate reaches of authority and

to the saving counsels of prudence, the perils that lurk in it,

and the forms of cormption to which it is prone. All these issues

must be considered in a spirit of sober and informed reflection.

The issue of religious freedom was in itself minor. But Pope

Paul VI was looking deep and far when he called the Declara-

tion on Religious Freedom “one of the major texts of the

Council.” JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S. J.

5



PAUL, BISHOP

liiiiiipaWiBiiiiffi
OF THE SACkE© GOUNCIL

1

^ *'•'•!<'''



Declaration on Religious Freedom

on the right of the person and of communities

to social and civil freedom in matters religious

1. Cf. EncycUcal of John XXUI,

Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963:

AAS 55 (1963), p. 279; ibid., p. 265;
Pius XII, Radio Message, Dec. 24,

1944: AAS 37 (1945), p. 14.

2. Vatican II has been characterized

by a sense of history, an awareness

of the concrete world of fact, and

a disposition to see in historical facts

certain “signs of the times.” Hence

the Declaration begins by noting two

facts. The first is the recent rise of

man’s personal consciousness, his

sense of selfhood. This increasing

awareness of the dignity of the

human person marks a progress of

civilization. It is the good that has

come out of the great evil of totali-

tarianism, which brutally refuses to

acknowledge the reality of man’s

selfhood. The second fact is the re-

lated rise of man’s political con-

sciousness, his aspiration to live as a

free man under a limited govern-

ment that puts no obstacles to his

pursuit of truth and virtue, and, in

particular, leaves him unhindered in

the free exercise of religion in

society. (Happily, the Declaration

adopts the classical phrase that the

Founding Fathers likewise adopted

when framing the First Amendment

in 1791.)

In thus acknowledging certain

realities of contemporary life, the

Declaration also establishes direct

continuity with two basic doctrinal

themes of John XXIII in his encycli-

cal Pacem in Terris: the dignity of

the human person and the conse-

quent necessity of constitutional

limits to the powers of government.

The language of these opening sen-

tences is, in fact, taken from this

great encyclical.

1. 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.

The demand is also made that constitutional

limits should be set to the powers of government,

in order that there may be no encroachment on

the rightful freedom of the person and of asso-

ciations. This demand for freedom in human

society chiefly regards the quest for the values

proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first

place, the free exercise of religion in society.^

This Vatican Council takes careful note of these

desires in the minds of men. It proposes to de-

clare them to be greatly in accord with truth and

justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred

tradition and doctrine of the Church—the
treasury out of which the Church continually

brings forth new things that are in harmony

with the things that are old.

7



3. The issue or religious freedom

arises in the political and social

order—in the order of the relation-
ship between the people and govern-

ment and between man and man.

This is the order of human rights,

and in it the principle of freedom is

paramount. However, man’s life is

also lived in another order of reality

—^in the spiritual order of his rela-
tionship to what is objectively true

and morally good. This is the order

of duty and obligation. In it a man

acts freely indeed, but under moral

imperatives, which bind in con-

science. No man may plead “rights”
in the face of the truth or claim

“freedom” from the moral law. The

distinction between these two orders

of reality is admitted by all men of

good sense. The underlying intention

of these two paragraphs of the

Declaration is to make this distinc-

tion clear, lest religious freedom be

made a pretext for moral anarchy.

However, the distinction is stated

in Catholic terms. For the Catholic,

the “truth” is not a vague abstrac-

tion; it subsists in the Church, is

taught by the Church, is believed by

the Church. Moreover, this truth

about God and about His will for

men is not the private possession of

a party or sect; it is to be taught to

all men, and aU nations are to be its

disciples. It is not to be thrust by

force upon any man; in the order of

man’s relationship to truth, coercion

has no place whatsoever. Conse-

quently, as the Declaration will later

make clear, religious freedom is an

exigence of religious truth as con-

ceived by the Church.

On the other hand, no man may

say of the religious truth that sub-

sists in the Church: “It is no con-

cern of mine.” Once given by Christ

to His true Church, the true religion

remains the one way in which aU

men are bound to serve God and

save themselves. Consequently, reli-

gious freedom is not a title to

exemption from the obligation to

observe all things whatsoever 1 have

enjoined upon you. In fine, a har-

mony exists between man’s duty of

free obedience to the truth and his

right to the free exercise of religion

in society. The duty does not dimin-

ish the right, nor does the right

diminish the duty.

ONE FAITH

First,® the Council professes its belief that

God Himself has made known to mankind the

way in which men are to serve Him, and thus

be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We

believe that this one true religion subsists in the

catholic and apostolic Church, to which the

Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it

abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the

apostles: Go, therefore, and make disciples of

all nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever

I have enjoined upon you (Mt. 28:19-20). On

their part, all men are bound to seek the truth,

especially in what concerns God and His

Church, to embrace the truth they come to

know, and to hold fast to it.

IMMUNITY FROM COERCION

This Vatican Council likewise professes its

belief that it is upon the human conscience that

these obligations fall and exert their binding

force. The truth cannot impose itself except by

virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance

into the mind at once quietly and with power.

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. Therefore, it leaves untouched tradi-

tional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of

men and societies toward the true religion and

toward the one Church of Christ.

8



This frank profession of Catholic

faith, at the outset of the Declara-

tion on Religious Freedom, is in no

sense at variance with the ecumeni-

cal spirit, any more than it is at

variance with full loyalty to the prin-

ciple of religious freedom. Neither

the spirit of ecumenism nor the prin-

ciple of religious freedom requires

that the Church refrain from stating

publicly what she believes herself to

be. The demands of truth are no

more opposed to the demands of

freedom than they are opposed to

the demands of love.

Over and above all this, in taking up the

matter of religious freedom the Council intends

to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the

inviolable rights of the human person and on

the constitutional order of society.'*

4. In no other conciliar document

is it so explicitly stated that the in-

tention of the Council is to “de-

velop” Catholic doctrine. This is

significant, since it is an avowal that

the tradition of the Church is one of

progress in understanding the truth.

The basic truth here is the concept

of the “citizen” as stated by Pius

XII—the man who “feels within
himself a consciousness of his own

personality, of his duties, and of his

rights, joined with a respect for the

freedom of others” {Christmas Dis-

course, 1945). This concept, as the

Declaration will say, is deeply rooted

both in the Christian tradition and

in the tradition of reason. In recent

times, it was Leo XIII (in Rerum

Novarum) who first began to move

it, as it were, to the forefront of

Catholic social teaching. Pius XII

continued this development, drawing

out the implications of the dignity

of man in terms of his duties and

rights. He also brought forward the

correlative truth, that the primary

function of government is to ac-

knowledge, protect, vindicate and

facilitate the exercise of the rights of

man. Both of these truths were taken

up by John XXIII, chiefly in Pacem

in Terris, in which they are given an

almost systematic form of statement.

However, in regard to the right

of man to rcUgious freedom, even

Pacem in Terris is unclear and even

ambiguous. What precisely does re-

ligious freedom mean? Does it find

place among the inalienable rights of

man? These are the questions to

which, for the first time, the Church

gives an unmistakably clear and en-

tirely unambiguous answer.

9



5. The doctrinal suDsiance oi tnc

Declaration is stated in this para-

graph, which defines what religious

freedom is and affirms its status as a

human—and therefore civil—^right.
A right is a moral claim made on
others that they either give me some-

thing or do something for me or

refrain from doing something. Two

questions always arise. First, what is

the moral claim I make on others,

or in other words, what is the object

or content of my right? Second, on

what grounds do I make this moral

claim, or in other words, what is the

foundation of my right?

The Declaration first defines reli-

gious freedom in terms of its object

or content. The moral claim that

every man makes on others—on in-
dividuals, groups, political or social

powers—^is that they refrain from
bringing coercion to bear on him in

all matters religious. This claim is

twofold. First, no man is to be

forced to act in a manner contrary

to his personal beliefs; second, no

man is to be forcibly restrained from

acting in accordance with his beliefs.

The affirmation of this latter im-

munity is the new thing, which is in

harmony with the older affirmation

of the former immunity.

It is to be noted that the word

“conscience,” found in the Latin

text, is used in its generic sense,

sanctioned by usage, of “beliefs,”

“convictions,” “persuasions.” Hence

the unbeliever or atheist makes with

equal right this claim to immunity

from coercion in religious matters.

It is further to be noted that, in

assigning a negative content to the

right to religious freedom (that is,

in making it formally a “freedom

from” and not a “freedom for”),

the Declaration is in harmony with

the sense of the First Amendment to

the American Constitution. In guar-

anteeing the free exercise of religion,

the First Amendment guarantees to

the American citizen immunity from

all coercion in matters religious.

Neither the Declaration nor the

American Constitution affirms that

a man has a right to believe what is

false or to do what is wrong. This

would be moral nonsense. Neither

error nor evil can be the object of a

right, only what is true and good. It

CHAPTER 1

The General Principles

of Religious Freedom

2. This Vatican Council declares that the hu-

man person has a right to religious freedom.®

This freedom means that all men are to be im-

mune from coercion on the part of individuals

or of social groups and of any human power, in

such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a

manner contrary to his beliefs, nor is anyone

to be restrained from acting in accordance with

his beliefs, whether privately or publicly,

whether alone or in association with others,

within due limits. The Council further declares

that the right to religious freedom has its foun-

dation in the very dignity of the human person,

10



is, however, true and good that a

man should enjoy freedom from

coercion in matters religious.

This brings up the second ques-

tion, concerning the foundation of

the right. The reason why every man

may claim immunity from coercion

in matters religious is precisely his

inalienable dignity as a human per-

son. Surely, in matters religious, if

anywhere, the free human person is

required and entitled to act on his

own judgment and to assume per-

sonal responsibility for his action or

omission. A man’s religious deci-
sions, or his decision against religion,

are inescapably his own. No one else

can make them for him, or compel

him to make this decision or that, or

restrain him from putting his deci-

sions into practice, privately or pub-

lictly, alone or in company with

others. In all these cases, the dignity

of man would be diminished because

of the denial to him of that inalien-

able responsibility for his own deci-

sions and actions which is the essen-

tial counterpart of his freedom.

It is worth noting that the Decla-

ration does not base the right to the

free exercise of religion on “freedom

of conscience.” Nowhere does this

phrase occur. And the Declaration

nowhere lends its authority to the

theory for which the phrase fre-

quently stands, namely, that I have

the right to do what my conscience

tells me to do, simply because my

conscience tells me to do it. This is

a perilous theory. Its particular peril

is subjectivism—the notion that, in
the end, it is my conscience, and not
the objective truth, that determines

what is right or wrong, true or false.

6. Cf. Pacem in Terris, pp. 260-261;

Pius XII, Radio Message, Dec. 24,

1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 19; Pius
XI’s encyclical Mit Brennender

Sorge, March 14, 1937: AAS 29
(1937), p. 160; Leo XIII’s encyclical

Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20,

1888: Acts of Leo XIII, 8 (1888),

pp. 237-238.

as this dignity is known through the revealed

Word of God and by reason itself.® This right of

the human person to religious freedom is to be

recognized in the constitutional law whereby

society is governed; thus it is to become a civil

right.

DEMANDS OF TRUTH

It is in accordance with their dignity as per-

sons—that is, beings endowed with reason and
free will and therefore privileged to bear per-

sonal responsibility—that all men should be at
once impelled by nature and bound by a moral

obligation to seek the truth, especially religious

truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth,

once it is known, and to order their whole lives

in accord with the demands of truth. However,

men cannot discharge these obligations in a

manner in keeping with their own nature unless

they enjoy immunity from external coercion as

well as psychological freedom. Therefore, the

right to religious freedom has its foundation, not

in the subjective disposition of the person, but in

his very nature. In consequence, the right to this

11



7. It was necessary for the Council

to present an argument for the prin-

ciple of religious freedom, lest any-

one should mistakenly think that the

Church was accepting religious free-

dom merely on pragmatic grounds

or as a concession to contemporary

circumstances. However, it was not

the intention of the Council to affirm

that the argument, as made in the

text, is final and decisive. Complete

and systematic study of the argu-

ments for religious freedom is a

task left to the scholars of the

Church, working in ecumenical spirit

with scholars of other reli^ous com-

munities, and in humanist spirit with

scholars of no religious convictions

who are concerned with the exigen-

cies of human dignity. The Council

merely presents certain lines or ele-

ments of argument. It will be suffi-

cient here to indicate the structure.

First, in this paragraph, the objec-

tive foundation of the right to reli-

gious freedom is presented in terms

that should be intelligible and ac-

ceptable to all men, including non-

believers. The simple essence of the

matter is that man, being intelligent

and free, is to be a responsible agent.

Inherent in his very nature, there-

fore, is an exigency for freedom

from coercion, especially in matters

religious. Thereafter, in the follow-

ing three paragraphs, an argument is

suggested that will appeal to those

who believe in God, in the objective

order of truth and morality, and in

the obligation to seek the truth,

form one’s conscience and obey its

dictates. To the man who so believes,

it will be evident that no one is to be

forced or constrained to act against

his conscience (here conscience has

its technical meaning).

Two further arguments are ad-

vanced to show that a man may not

be restrained from acting according

to his conscience. First, by reason of

man’s social nature, inner acts of

religion require external expression;

hence their external expression en-

joys the same immunity from coer-

cion as the inner acts themselves.

Second, there is the “further con-

sideration” that no right resides in

government to command or inhibit

acts of religion, which by their na-

ture lie beyond government.

immunity continues to exist even in those who

do not live up to their obligation of seeking the

truth and adhering to it; and the exercise of this

right is not to be impeded, provided that the

just requirements of public order are observed/

PERSONAL ASSENT

3. Further light is shed on the subject if one

considers that the highest norm of human life is

the divine law—eternal, objective and universal
—whereby God orders, directs and governs the
entire universe and all the ways of the human

community, by a plan conceived in wisdom and

love. Man has been made by God to participate

in this law, with the result that, under the gentle

disposition of divine Providence, he can come

to perceive ever more fully the truth that is un-

changing. Wherefore every man has the duty,

and therefore the right, to seek the truth in

matters religious, in order that he may with

prudence form for himself right and true judg-

ments of conscience, under use of all suitable

means.

Truth, however, is to be sought after in a

manner proper to the dignity of the human

person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be

free, carried on with the aid of teaching or in-

struction, communication and dialogue, in the

course of which men explain to one another the

truth they have discovered, or think they have

discovered, in order thus to assist one another

in the quest for truth. Moreover, as the truth is

discovered, it is by a personal assent that men

are to adhere to it.

WORSHIP IN PUBLIC

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges

the imperatives of the divine law through the

mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man

is bound to follow his conscience, in order that

he may come to God, the end and purpose of

life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act

12



American theorists are generally

disposed to relate religious freedom

to a general theory of constitutional

government, limited by the rights of

man, and to the concept of civic

equality. The Declaration, however,

lays less stress on this political argu-

ment than it does on the ethical

foundations of the right itself. In

any event, the elements of the politi-

cal argument are stated in later Arti-

cles (6 and 7). And one is free to

construct the argument in the form

that may seem more convincing.

8. Cf. Facem in Terris, p. 270; Paul

VI, Radio Message, Dec. 22, 1964:

AAS 57 (1965), pp. 181-182.

9. The freedoms listed here are those

that the Catholic Church claims for

herself. The Declaration likewise

claims them for all churches and

religious communities. Lest there be

misunderstanding, however, it is

necessary to recall here the distinc-

tion between the content or object

of the right and its foundation. The

content or object always remains

freedom from coercion in what con-

cerns religious belief, worship, prac-

tice or observance, and public testi-

mony. Hence the content of the

right is the same both for the Catho-

lic Church and for other religious

bodies. In this sense, the Church

claims nothing for herself that she

does not also claim for them. The

matter is different, however, with

regard to the foundation of the

right. The Catholic Church claims

freedom from coercive interference

in her ministry and life on grounds

of the divine mandate laid upon her

by Christ Himself (cf. below, note

13). It is Catholic faith that no other

church or conununity may claim to

possess this mandate in all its full-

ness. In this sense, the freedom of

the Church is unique, proper to her-

self alone, by reason of its founda-

tion. In the case of other religious

communities, the foundation of the

right is the dignity of the human

person, which requires that men be

kept free from coercion when they

act in community, gathered into

churches, as well as when they act

alone.

in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on

the other hand, is he to be restrained from act-

ing in accordance with his conscience, especially

in matters religious. The exercise of religion does

indeed, of its very nature, consist before all else

in those internal, voluntary and free acts where-

by man sets the course of his life directly toward

God. No merely human power can either com-

mand or prohibit acts of this kind.® However,

man’s social nature requires that he should give

external expression to his internal acts of reli-

gion; that he should share with others in mat-

ters religious; that he should profess his religion

in community. Injury, therefore, is done to the

human person and to the order established by

God for human life, if the free exercise of reli-

gion is denied in society, provided that the just

requirements of public order are observed.

government’s help

There is a further consideration. The reli-

gious acts whereby men, in private and in public

and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct

their lives to God transcend by their very nature

the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs.

Government, therefore, ought to take account

of the religious life of the people and show it

favor, since the function of government is to

provide for the common welfare. However, it

would clearly transgress the limits set to its

power, were it to presume to command or inhibit

acts that are religious.

religion’s proper field

4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in

matters religious which is the endowment of

persons as individuals is also to be recognized as

their right when they act in community. Reli-

gious communities are a requirement of the

social nature both of man and of religion itself.’

Provided the just requirements of public order

are observed, religious communities rightfully

13



10. It is customary to distinguish

between “Christian witness” and

“proselytism,” and to condemn the

latter. This distinction is made in the

text here. Proselytism is a corruption

of Christian witness by appeal to

hidden forms of coercion or by a

style of propaganda unworthy of

the gospel. It is not the use but the

abuse of the right to religious

freedom.

11. Implicitly rejected here is the

outmoded notion that “religion is a

purely private affair” or that “the

Church belongs in the sacristy.”

Religion is relevant to the life and

action of society. Therefore reli-

gious freedom includes the right to

point out this social relevance of

religious belief.

claim freedom in order that they may govern

themselves according to their own norms, honor

the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their

members in the practice of the religious life,

strengthen them by instruction, and promote

institutions in which they may join together for

the purpose of ordering their lives in accordance

with their religious principles.

ITS REQUIREMENTS

Religious communities also have the right not

to be hindered, either by legal measures or by

administrative action on the part of government,

in the selection, training, appointment and

transferral of their ministers, in communicating

with religious authorities and communities

abroad, in erecting buildings for religious pur-

poses, and in the acquisition and use of suitable

funds or properties.

Religious communities also have the right not

to be hindered in their public teaching and wit-

ness to their faith, whether by the spoken or

written word. However, in spreading religious

faith and in introducing religious practices,

everyone ought at all times to refrain from any

manner of action that might seem to carry a

hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that

would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially

when dealing with poor or uneducated people.

Such action would have to be considered an

abuse of one’s own right and a violation of the

right of others.^®

OUTSIDE THE SACRISTY

In addition, it comes within the meaning of

religious freedom that religious communities

should not be prohibited from freely undertaking

to show the special value of their doctrine in

what concerns the organization of society and

the inspiration of the whole of human activity.”

Finally, the social nature of man and the very

nature of religion afford the foundation of the

14



12. The internal structure of family

relationships and the general style

of family life vary widely throughout

the world. Still greater variety is

exhibited in the organkation of

school systems, in their relation to

the family, to society and to govern-

ment, and in the religious and

ideological content, or lack thereof,

of their teaching. In consequence,

the Declaration had to confine itself

to a few principles of universal im-

port, which would enforce its doc-

trinal line—freedom from coercion.
To descend to further detail would

be to enter the realm of policy, in

which contingent circumstances play

a determinant role.

13. Cf. John XXIII’s encyclical

Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961:

AAS 53 (1961), p. 417; Pacem in
Terris, p. 273.

14. The development of Catholic

doctrine that the Declaration prom-

ised has already shown itself in the

clear definition of religious freedom

as a human right and in the firm

claim that all churches and religious

communities are entitled to equal

freedom from coercion in what con-

cerns religious belief, worship, pub-

lic testimony, practice or observance,

and the internal autonomy of the

community itself. Correlative with

these developments is the doctrine

stated here with regard to the func-

tions and limitations of government

in what concerns religion in society.

The pivotal notion is the concept of

the common welfare that Leo XIII

began to put forward in Rerum

Novarum, which Pius XII strongly

developed, and which John XXIII

defined with greater precision. The

common welfare “chiefly consists in

the protection of the rights, and in

the performance of the duties, of the

human person,” who is to be the

agent of the processes of society and

their beneficiary. The care of the

common welfare is the common task

of all elements within society—in-
dividuals, groups, religious bodies,

government—each in the manner
proper to itself.

In a special way, the care of the

common good—that is to say, the
care of the rights of man—devolves

right of men freely to hold meetings and to

establish educational, cultural, charitable and

social organizations, under the impulse of their

religious sense.

RIGHTS OF PARENTS

5. The family,’* since it is a society in its own

right, has the right freely to live its domestic

religious life, under the guidance of parents.

Parents, moreover, have the right to determine,

in accordance with their religious beliefs, the

kind of religious education that their children

are to receive. Government, in consequence,

must acknowledge the right of parents to make a

genuinely free choice of schools and of other

means of education, and the use of this freedom

of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing

unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or

indirectly. Besides, the rights of parents are vio-

lated if their children are forced to attend lessons

or instruction that are not in agreement with

their religious beliefs, or if a single system of

education, from which all religious formation is

excluded, is imposed upon all.

A COMMON RESPONSIBILITY

6. Since the common welfare of society consists

in all those conditions of social life under which

men can achieve their perfection in a certain full-

ness of measure and with relative ease, it chiefly

consists in the protection of the rights,’® and in

the performance of the duties, of the human

person. Therefore, the care of the right to reli-

gious freedom devolves upon the people as a

whole, upon social groups, upon government,

and upon the Church and other religious com-

munities, in virtue of the duty of all toward the

common welfare, and in the manner proper to

each.’^

15



upon government. Consequently, in

what concerns religion in society,

government has a duty that is two-

fold. The first duty is to acknowl-

edge the human right to religious

freedom, and effectively to protect it

and vindicate it against violation.

The second duty derives from the

general duty of government to assist

the people in the performance of

their duties; in the case, it is to show

a general and undiscriminating favor

toward religion in society (cf. above,

note 3, at the end) and to assist in

the creation of conditions that will

help, not hinder, the people in the

exercise of their religious rights and

in the performance of their reli-

gious duties. This latter duty is

stated with considerable generality,

because the appropriate means for

its performance wiU vary within

diverse circumstances.

The concern of the Council was,

first, to make clear the duty of

government toward religious free-

dom as a human right, and secondly,

to make sufficiently clear the func-

tion of government with regard to

religion itself as a perfection of the

human person and as a social value.

This latter function is not easy to

define with precision. It is chiefly a

matter of avoiding extremes. On the

one hand, government is forbidden

to assume the care of religious truth

as such, or jurisdiction over religious

worship or practice, or the task of

judging the truth or value of reli-

gious propaganda. Otherwise it

would exceed its competence, which

is confined to affairs of the temporal

and terrestrial order. On the other

hand, government is likewise for-

bidden to adopt toward religion an

attitude of indifference or skepticism,

much less hostility. Otherwise it

would betray its duty both to the

human person, for whom religion is

the highest good, and also to the

temporal and terrestrial welfare of

society, whose content is not merely

material but also moral and spiritual.

15. Cf. Pacem in Terris, pp. 273-

274; Pius XII, Radio Message, June

1, 1941: AAS 33 (1941), p. 200.

16. Cf. Leo XIII’s encyclical Im-

mortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885: AAS 18

(1885), p. 161.

government’s role

The protection and promotion of the invio-

lable rights of man rank among the essential

duties of government.’* Therefore, government

is to assume the safeguard of the religious free-

dom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by

just laws and by other appropriate means.

Government is also to help create conditions

favorable 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 that have their origin in men’s faith-

fulness to God and to His holy will.’®

WHAT ALL MAY CLAIM

If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtain-

ing among certain peoples, special legal recogni-

tion is given to one religious community in the

constitutional order of society, it is at the same

time imperative that the right of all citizens and

religious communities to religious freedom

should be recognized and made effective in

practice.’^

16



17. This paragraph is carefully

phrased. The Council did not wish

to condemn the institution of “estab-

lishment,” the notion of a “religion

of the state,” for a respectable

opinion maintains that the institution

is compatible with full reh’gious free-

dom. On the other hand, the Council

did not wish to canonize the institu-

tion, for a respectable opinion holds

that establishment is always a threat

to religious freedom. Furthermore,

the Council wished to insinuate that

establishment, at least from the

Catholic point of view, is a matter

of historical circumstance, not of

theological doctrine. For all these

reasons the text deals with the issue

in conditional terms.

18. This statement about equality

before the law as an element of the

common welfare has an accent of
newness in official Catholic state-

ments. It is important for the con-

struction of the full argument for

religious freedom.

NO DISCRIMINATION

Finally, government is to see to it that the

equality of citizens before the law, which is itself

an element of the common welfare, is never vio-

lated, whether openly or covertly, for religious

reasons.’® Nor is there to be discrimination

among citizens.

It follows that a wrong is done when govern-

ment imposes upon its people, by force or fear

or other means, the profession or repudiation of

any religion, or when it hinders men from join-

ing or leaving a religious community. All the

more is it a violation of the will of God and of

the sacred rights of the person and the family

of nations, when force is brought to bear in any

way in order to destroy or repress religion, either

in the whole of mankind or in a particular coun-

try or in a definite community.”

19. This condemnation of religious

persecution is couched in temperate

terms and without naming the guilty.

However, the reference to totali-

tarian regimes of Communist in-
spiration is unmistakable.

20. It is a matter of common sense

that the exercise of all freedoms in

society must be subject to certain

regulatory norms. The Declaration

states first the moral norm—^the
principle of personal and social re-

sponsibility. Its restraints, of course,

are self-imposed. More difficult is

the question of the judicial norm

that should control the action of

government in limiting or inhibiting

the exercise of the right to religious

freedom. (Note that the right itself

is always inalienable, never to be

denied; only the exercise of the right

is subject to control in particular

instances.) The norm cannot be the

common welfare, since the common

welfare requires that human rights

should be protected, not limited, in

their exercise. Hence the Declaration

adopts the concept of public order.

The concept has good warrant in

constitutional law. However, it is

more frequently used than defined.

The Declaration undertakes to define

MUTUAL RESPECT

7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in

human society; hence its exercise is subject to

certain regulatory norms.^° In the use of all

freedoms, the moral principle of personal and

social responsibility is to be observed. In the

exercise of their rights, individual men and social

groups are bound by the moral law to have re-

spect both for the rights of others and for their

own duties toward others and for the common

welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows

in justice and civility.

PUBLIC ORDER

Furthermore, society has the right to defend

itself against possible abuses committed on pre-

text of freedom of religion. It is the special duty

of government to provide this protection. How-

ever, government is not to act in arbitrary

fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its

action is to be controlled by juridical norms that

are in conformity with the objective moral order.

17



it. In doing so, it makes a contribu-

tion to the science of law and

jurisprudence.

First, the requirements of public

order are not subject to arbitrary

definition—at the hands, say, of
tyrannical governments, which might

abuse the concept for their own

ends. The public order of society is

a part of the universal moral order;

its requirements must be rooted in

moral law. Second, public order ex-

hibits a threefold content. First, the

order of society is essentially an

order of justice, in which the rights

of all citizens are effectively safe-

guarded and provision is made for

peaceful settlement of conflicts of

rights. Second, the order of society

is a political order, an order of

peace (“domestic tranquillity” is the

American constitutional phrase)

.

Public peace, however, is not the re-

sult of repressive action by the

police. It is, in the classic concept,

the work of justice; it comes about,

of itself, when the demands of justice

are met and when orderly processes

exist for airing and settling griev-

ances. Third, the order of society is

a moral order, at least in the sense

that certain minimal standards of

public morality are enforced at all.

Public order therefore is consti-

tuted by these three values—^juridi-
cal, political, moral. They are the

basic elements in the common wel-

fare, which is a wider concept than

public order. And so necessary are

these three values that the coercive

force of government may be enlisted

to protect and vindicate them. To-

gether they furnish a reasonable

juridical criterion for coercive re-

striction of freedom. The free exer-

cise of religion may not be inhibited

unless proof is given that it entails

some violation of the rights of

others, or of the public peace, or of

public morality. In these cases, in

other words, a public action ceases

to be a religious exercise and be-

comes a penal offense.

21. Secular experts may well con-

sider this to be the most significant

sentence in the E>eclaration. It is a

statement of basic principle of the

“free society.” The principle has

important origins in the medieval

These norms arise out of the need for effective

safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for

peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights; also out

of the need for an adequate care of genuine pub-

lic peace, which comes about when men live

together in good order and in true justice; and

finally out of the need for a proper guardianship

of public morality. These matters constitute the

basic component of the common welfare: they

are what is meant by public order. For the rest,*’

the usages of society are to be the usages of

freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom

of man is to be respected as far as possible and

is not to be curtailed except when and in so far

as necessary.

FREEDOM VS. ANARCHY

8. Many pressures are brought to bear upon

men of our day, to the point where there is

danger that they may lose the possibility of

acting on their own judgment. On the other

hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined

to use the name of freedom as the pretext for

refusing to submit to authority and for making

light of the duty of obedience. Wherefore, this

Vatican Council urges everyone, especially those

charged with the task of educating others, to do

their utmost to form men who will respect the

moral order and be obedient to lawful authority,

and who will also be lovers of true freedom

—

men, in other words, who will come to decisions

on their own judgment and in the light of truth,

govern their activities with a sense of responsi-

18



tradition of kingship, law and juris-

prudence. But its statement by the

Church has an accent of blessed

newness—the newness of a renewal
of the tradition. The renewal, already

hesitantly begun by Pius XII, was

strongly furthered by John XXIII.

Catholic thought had consistently

held that society is to be based upon

truth (the truth of the human per-

son), directed toward justice, and

animated by charity. In Pacem in

Terris, John XXIII added the miss-

ing fourth term, freedom. Freedom

is an end or purpose of society,

which looks to the liberation of the

human person. Freedom is the politi-

cal method par excellence, whereby

the other goals of society are

reached. Freedom, finally, is the pre-

vailing social usage, which sets the

style of society. This progress in

doctrine is sanctioned and made

secure by Dignitatis Humanae Per-

sonae.

22. The Council calls attention to

the paradox of the moment. Free-

dom today is threatened; freedom

today is itself a threat. Hence the

Council calls for education both in

the uses of freedom and in the ways

of obedience. When freedom is truly

responsible, it implies a rightful re-

sponse to legitimate authority.

23. Religious freedom is not an end

in itself, but a means for the fulfill-

ment of the higher purposes of man.

Its religious purpose is clear. But

here the Council notes its social

purpose. Respect for religious free-

dom rises out of a consciousness of

human dignity; but this conscious-

ness itself confronts man with the

responsibilities that his freedom en-

tails. And these responsibilities per-

vade the whole of community life.

24. The Declaration is the only con-

ciliar document formally addressed

to the whole world—Christian and
non-Christian, religious and atheist.

Therefore, it first considers religious

freedom in the light of reason.

Moreover, in so doing it follows the

structure of the problem itself, both

theoretical and historical. Both as a

principle and as a legal institution,

religious freedom is less than two

hundred years old. The First Amend-

bility, and strive after what is true and right,

willing always to join with others in co-operative

effort.**

Religious freedom, therefore, ought to have

this further purpose and aim, namely, that men

may come to act with greater responsibility in

fulfilling their duties in community life.**

CHAPTER II

Religious Freedom

in the Light of Revelation

9. The Declaration of this Vatican Council on

the right of man to religious freedom has its

foundation in the dignity of the person, whose

exigencies have come to be more fully known

to human reason through centuries of experi-

ence. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has

roots in divine revelation, and for this reason

Christians are bound to respect it all the more

conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed

affirm in so many words the right of man to

immunity from external coercion in matters reli-

gious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of

the human person in its full dimensions; it gives

evidence of the respect that Christ showed

toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill

his duty of belief in the Word of God; and it

gives us lessons in the spirit that disciples of

such a Master ought faithfully to make their

own. Thus, further light is cast on the general

principles upon which the doctrine of this

Declaration on Religious Freedom is based. In

particular, religious freedom in society is en-

tirely consonant with the freedom of the act of

Christian faith.*^

19



ment may claim the honor of having

first clearly formulated the principle

and established the institution. Only

through centuries of experience, as

the Declaration says, have the exi-

gencies of the human dignity dis-

closed themselves to reason. Never-

theless, the question remains, in what

sense may religious freedom be

called a “Christian” principle? The

Council answers by saying that the

principle has its “roots in divine

revelation.” These roots are ex-

plored in the second part of the

Declaration.

THE FATHER DRAWS US

10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic

doctrine that man’s response to God in faith

must be free. Therefore, no one is to be forced

to embrace the Christian faith ** against his

will.*® This doctrine is contained in the Word of

God and it was constantly proclaimed by the

25. Cf. Codex luris Canonici,

§1351; Pius XII, Allocution to Pre-

late Auditors and Other Officials

and Administrators of the Tribune

of the Holy Roman Rota, Oct. 6,

1946: AAS 38 (1946), p. 394; Pius

XII, encyclical Mystici Corporis,

June 29, 1943: AAS (1943), p. 243.

26. The unwavering Christian dogma

that the act of Christian faith must

be a free response to the Word and

grace of God reveals the divine

respect for human freedom and

for man’s inalienable responsibility

toward the direction of his life. The

constitutional principle of religious

freedom is not a conclusion from

this Christian dogma. The coimec-

tion is rather more historical. That is

to say, given the Christian doctrine

of the freedom of faith, men would

gradually come—as over the cen-
turies they have come—to realize
that man’s religious life is an affair

of responsible freedom, from which

all coercion is to be excluded. Given

this Christian appreciation of the

value of freedom (and given also the

growing secular experience of free-

dom as a social value and a political

end), men could not fail to become

increasingly conscious that religious

freedom is an exigency of the dignity

of the person, as this dignity is dis-

closed by the revelation that man is

made in the image of God. More-

over, experience would also make it

clear that, where religious freedom

prevails, a climate of freedom is

created in society that itself favors

the free preaching of the gospel and

the free living of the Christian life.

20



27. Cf. Lactantius, Divinarum In-

stitutionum, Book V, 19: CSEL 19,

pp. 463-464, 465: PL 6, 614 and 616

(ch. 20); St. Ambrose, Epistola ad

Valentianum Imp., Letter 21: PL

16, 1005; St. Augustine, Contra Lit-

teras Petiliani, Book II, ch. 83:

CSEL 52, p. 112: PL 43, 315; cf. C.

23, q. 5, c. 33, (ed. Friedberg, col.

939); idem. Letter 23: PL 33, 98;

idem. Letter 34: in PL 33, 132; idem.

Letter 35: in PL 23, 135; St. Gregory

the Great, Epistola ad Virgilium et

Theodorum Episcopos Massiliae

Galliarum, Register of Letters I, 45:

MGH Ep. 1, p. 72; PL 77, 510-511
(Book I, ep. 47); idem, Epistola ad

Johannem Episcopum Constantin-

opolitanum. Register of Letters, III,

52: MGH Letter 1, p. 210: PL 77,
649 (Book III, Letter 53); cf. D. 45,

c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 160); Coun-

cil of Toledo IV, c. 57: Mansi 10,

633; cf. D. 45, c. 5 (ed. Friedberg,

col. 161-162); Clement III: X., V. 6,

9; ed. Friedberg, col. 774; Innocent

III, Epistola ad Arelatensem Archi-

episcopum, X., Ill, 42, 3: ed. Fried-

berg, col. 646.

28. Cf.Eph. 1:5.

29. CfJn.6:44.

30. The major purpose here is to

show, from the example and teach-

ing of Christ Himself, that coercion

in matters religious is alien to the

spirit of the gospel. The ways of God

with men are not coercive. They are

the ways of faithful love. And their

supreme illustration is the cross.

Rather than impose the truth upon

men by force, Christ willingly ac-

cepted death at their hands. The

way of Christ became the way of

His first apostles, whose reliance was

on the power of the Word of God,

never on earthly forces.

31. Cf.Jn. 13:13.

32. Cf.Mt. 11:29.

33. Cf. Mt. 11:28-30; Jn. 6:67-68.

34. Cf. Mt. 9:28-29; Mk. 9:23-24;

6, 5-6; Paul VI, encyclical Ecclesiam

Suam, Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964),
pp. 642-643.

35. Cf. Mt. 11:20-24; Rom. 12:19-

20;2Th. 1:8.

Fathers of the Church.*' The act of faith is of

its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by

Christ the Saviour and through Christ Jesus

called to be God’s adopted son,*® cannot give

his adherence to God revealing Himself unless,

under the drawing of the Father,*’ he offers to

God the reasonable and free submission of faith.

It is therefore completely in accord with the

nature of faith that in matters religious every

manner of coercion on the part of men should

be excluded. In consequence, the principle of

religious freedom makes no small contribution

to the creation of an environment in which men

can without hindrance be invited to Christian

faith, and embrace it of their own free will, and

profess it effectively in their whole way of life.

CHRIST INVITES US

11. God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in

truth; hence they are bound in conscience, but

they stand under no compulsion.®® God has re-

gard for the dignity of the human person whom

He created; man is to be guided by his own

judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. This truth

appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom

God manifested Himself and His ways with

men. Christ is our Master and our Lord; *' He is

also meek and humble of heart.®* And in attract-

ing and inviting His disciples He acted pa-

tiently.®® He wrought miracles to shed light on

His teaching and to establish its truth; but His

intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and

to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion

upon them.®^ He did indeed denounce the un-

belief of some who listened to Him; but He left

vengeance to God in expectation of the day of

judgment.®® When He sent His apostles into the

world. He said to them: He who believes and is

baptized will be saved; he who does not believe

will be condemned (Mk. 16:16); but He Him-

self, noting that cockle had been sown amid the

wheat, gave orders that both should be allowed

21



to grow until the harvest time, which will come

at the end of the world.®® He refused to be a

political Messiah, ruling by force; He pre-

ferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who came

to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the

many (Mk. 10:45). He showed Himself the

perfect Servant of God,®® who does not break

the bruised reed nor extinguish the smoking flax

(Mt. 12:20).

He acknowledged the power of government

and its rights, when He commanded that tribute

be given to Caesar; but He gave clear warning

that the higher rights of God are to be kept

inviolate: Render to Caesar the things that are

Caesar's and to God the things that are God's

(Mt. 22:21). In the end, when He completed

on the cross the work of redemption whereby

He achieved salvation and true freedom for men.

He also brought His revelation to completion.

He bore witness to the truth,®’ but He refused

to impose the truth by force on those who spoke

against it. Not by force of blows does His rule

assert its claims; it is established by witnessing

to the truth and by hearing the truth, and it

extends its dominion by the love whereby Christ,

lifted up on the cross, draws all men to

Himself.®’

EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES

Taught by the word and example of Christ,

the apostles followed the same way. From the

very origins of the Church, the disciples of

Christ strove to convert men to faith in Christ

as the Lord—not, however, by the use of coer-
cion or by devices unworthy of the gospel, but

by the power, above all, of the Word of God.®®

Steadfastly they proclaimed to all the plan of

God our Saviour, who wills that all men should

be saved and come to the acknowledgment of

the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). At the same time, how-

ever, they showed respect for those of weaker

36. Cf. Mt. 13:30 and 40-42.

37. Cf. Mt. 4:8-10; Jn. 6:15.

38. Cf. Is. 42:1-4.

39. Cf. Jn. 18:37.

40. Cf. Mt. 26:51-53; Jn. 18:36.

41. Cf. Jn. 12:32.

42. Cf. 1 Cor. 2:3-5; 1 Th. 2:3-5.

22



43. Cf. Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 8:9-

13; 10:23-33.

44. Cf. Eph. 6:19-20.

45. Cf.Rom. 1:16.

46. Cf. 2 Cor. 10:4; 1 Th. 5:8-9.

47. Cf. Eph. 6:11-17.

48. Cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5.

49. Cf. 1 Pet. 2:13-17.

50. Cf. Acts 4:19-20.

Stuff, even though they were in error; thus they

made it plain that each one of us is to render to

God an account of himself (Rom. 14:12),^®

and for this reason is bound to obey his con-

science. Like Christ Himself, the apostles were

unceasingly bent upon bearing witness to the

truth of God, and they showed the fullest meas-

ure of boldness in speaking the word with con-

fidence (Acts 4:31) before the people and

their rulers. With a firm faith they held that the

gospel is indeed the power of God unto salva-

tion for all who believe.'^® Therefore they re-

jected all carnal weapons.*^ They followed the

example of the gentleness and respectfulness of

Christ. And they preached the Word of God in

the full confidence that there was resident in

this Word a divine power able to destroy all the

forces arrayed against God and to bring men

to faith in Christ and to His service.^® As the

Master, so too the apostles recognized legitimate

civil authority. There is no power except from

God, the Apostle teaches, and thereafter com-

mands: Let everyone he subject to higher au-

thorities he who resists authority resists

God’s ordinance (Rom. 13:1-5).^’ At the same

time, however, they did not hesitate to speak out

against governing powers that set themselves in

opposition to the holy will of God: It is neces-

sary to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).®°

This is the way along which the martyrs and

the faithful have walked through all ages and

over all the earth.

UNCHANGING PRINCIPLE

12. The Church therefore is being faithful to

the truth of the gospel, and is following the way

of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes,

and gives support to, the principle of religious

freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as

being in accord with divine revelation. Through-

out the ages, the Church has kept safe and

handed on the doctrine received from the Master

23



51. The historical consciousness of

the Council required that it be loyal

to the truth of history. Hence the

Declaration makes the humble

avowal that the People of God have

not always walked in the way of

Christ and the apostles. At times

they have followed ways that were at

variance with the spirit of the gospel

and even contrary to it. The avowal

is made briefly and without details.

But the intention was to confess, in

a penitent spirit, not only that

Christian churchmen and princes

have appealed to the coercive instru-

ments of power in the supposed in-

terests of the faith, but also that the

Church herself has countenanced in-

stitutions that made a similar appeal.

Whatever may be the nice historical

judgment on these institutions in

their own context of history, they

are not to be justified, much less are

they ever or in any way to be rein-

stated. The Declaration is a final

renouncement and repudiation by

the Church of all means and meas-

ures of coercion in matters religious.

and from the apostles. In the life of the People of

God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the

vicissitudes of human history, there have at

times appeared ways of acting that were hardly

in accord with the spirit of the gospel and even

opposed to it.*’ Nevertheless, the doctrine of the

Church that no one is to be coerced into faith

has always stood firm.

CONSTANT URGENCY

Thus the leaven of the gospel has long been

about its quiet work in the minds of men. And

to it is due in great measure the fact that in the

course of time men have come more widely to

recognize their dignity as persons, and the con-

viction has grown stronger that the person in

society is to be kept free from all manner of

coercion in matters religious.

CHURCH NEEDS LIBERTY

52. Cf. Leo XIII, letter Officio

Sanctissimo, Dec. 22, 1887: AAS

20 (1887), p. 269; idem, letter Ex

Litteris, April 7, 1887: AAS 19

(1886), p. 465.

53. This statement, together with the

declaration of religious freedom as a

human right and the enunciation of

the principle of the free society,

must rank as one of the central

doctrinal utterances of the Declara-

tion. Its importance is emphasized

by the fact that Paul VI quoted it

in his address On Dec. 9 to political

rulers: “And what is it that this

Church asks of you, after nearly two

thousand years of all sorts of

vicissitudes in her relations with you,

the powers of earth? What does the

Church ask of you today? In one of

the major texts of the Council she

has told you: she asks of you noth-

ing but freedom—^the freedom to
believe and to preach her faith, the

freedom to love God and to serve

Him, the freedom to live and to

bring to men her message of life.”

This doctrine is traditional; it is

also new. Implicit in it is the renun-

ciation by the Church of a condition

13. Among the things that concern the good of

the Church and indeed the welfare of society

here on earth—things therefore that are always
and everywhere to be kept secure and defended

against all injury—this certainly is pre-eminent,
namely, that the Church should enjoy the full

measure of freedom that her care for the salva-

tion of men requires.*^ This freedom is sacred,

because the only-begotten Son endowed with it

the Church that He purchased with His blood.

It is so much the property of the Church that to

act against it is to act against the will of God.

The freedom of the Church is the fundamental

principle in what concerns the relations between

the Church and governments and the whole

civil order.*®

In human society and in the face of govern-

ment, the Church claims freedom for herself in

her character as a spiritual authority, established

by Christ the Lord, upon which there rests, by

divine mandate, the duty of going out into the

whole world and preaching the gospel to every

24



of legal privilege in society. The

Church does not make, as a matter

of right or of divine law, the claim

that she should be estabUshed as the

“religion of the state.” Her claim is

freedom, nothing more.

54. Cf. Mk. 16:15; Mt. 28:18-20;

Pius XII’s encyclical Summi Port-

tificatus, Oct. 20, 1939: AAS 31
(1939), pp. 445-446.

55. Cf. Pius XI, letter Firmissimam

Constantiam, March 28, 1937: AAS
29 (1937), p. 196.

56. Cf. Pius XII, allocution Ci

Riesce, Dec. 6, 1953: AAS 45
(1953), p. 802.

57. Cf. Pius XII, Radio Message,

March 23, 1952: AAS 44 (1952),
pp. 270-278.

58. The Council directs a word of

pastoral exhortation to the Christian

faithful. They are urged, in particu-

lar, to form their consciences under

the guidance of the authority of the

Church. It might be noted here that

the Council intended to make a clear

distinction between religious free-

dom as a principle in the civil order

and the Christian freedom that ob-

tains even inside the Church. These

two freedoms are distinct in kind,

and it would be perilous to confuse

them. Nowhere does the Declaration

touch the issue of freedom within

the Church. Undoubtedly, however,

it will be a stimulus for the articula-

tion of a full theology of Christian

freedom in its relation to the doc-

trinal and disciplinary authority of

the Church.

creature.®^ The Church also claims freedom for

herself in her character as a society of men who

have the right to live in society in accordance

with the precepts of Christian faith.**

HAPPY OUTCOME

In turn, where the principle of religious free-

dom is not only proclaimed in words or simply

incorporated by law but also given sincere and

practical application, there the Church succeeds

in achieving a stable situation of right as well as

of fact and the independence that is necessary

for the fulfillment of her divine mission. This

independence is precisely what the authorities

of the Church claim in society.** At the same

time, the Christian faithful, in common with all

other men, possess the civil right not to be

hindered in leading their lives in accordance

with their conscience. Therefore, a harmony

exists between the freedom of the Church and

the religious freedom that is to be recognized

as the right of all men and communities and

sanctioned by constitutional law.

DUTY OF THE CHRISTIAN

14. In order to be faithful to the divine com-

mand to Teach all nations (Mt. 28:19-20), the

Catholic Church must work with all urgency

and concern that the word of God he spread

abroad and glorified (2 Th. 3:1). Hence the

Church earnestly begs of her children that first

of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of

thanksgiving be made for all men. . . . For this

is good and agreeable in the sight of God our

Saviour, who wills that all men be saved and

come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim.

2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences,

the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend

to the sacred and certain doctrine of the

Church.*^' *® The Church is, by the will of

Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to

give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach,

25



59. Cf. Acts 4:29.

60. Cf. Pacem in Terris, pp. 299-300.

61. Cf. ibid,, pp. 295-296.

that Truth which is Christ Himself, and also to

declare and confirm by her authority those prin-

ciples of the moral order that have their origin

in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Chris-

tians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside,

in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word

of truth (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about

their task of spreading the light of life with all

confidence and apostolic courage, even to the

shedding of their blood.

The disciple is bound by a grave obligation

toward Christ his Master ever more fully to

understand the truth received from Him, faith-

fully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it,

never—^be it understood—having recourse to
means that are incompatible with the spirit of

the gospel. At the same time, the charity of

Christ urges him to love and prudence and

patience in his dealings with those who are in

error or in ignorance with regard to the faith.*®

All is to be taken into account—^the Christian
62. At the end, the Conned turns

once more to the world at large.

Two facts claim its attention. First,

the principle of religious freedom is

widely recognized; this fact takes its

place among the signs of the times.

Second, the principle of reUgious

freedom is also widely violated; this

fact can only be deplored. Then the

Declaration, which has stated its

argument in terms of principle, turns

to the pragmatic aspect of the issue

—the practical value and necessity
of religious freedom in the world

today. It is a world of diversity that

is striving toward some measure of

unity; it is a world of conflict that is

yearning for peace; it is, above all, a

world in which a new consciousness

of human dignity struggles to find

expression in social institutions that

will guarantee to men the freedom

that is due to them in justice. Most

necessary of all is freedom of reli-

gion. Where it is safe, the way is

open for the glorious freedom of the

sons of God to come to men as

God’s gift through Christ in the

Holy Spirit.

duty to Christ, the life-giving Word that must be

proclaimed, the rights of the human person,

and the measure of grace granted by God

through Christ to men, who are invited freely to

accept and profess the faith.

A GROWING LIBERTY

15. The fact is that men of the present day

want to be able freely to profess their religion

in private and in public; religious freedom has

already been declared to be a civil right in most

constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in

international documents.*^ The further fact is

that forms of government still exist under which,

even though freedom of religious worship re-

ceives constitutional recognition, the powers of

government are engaged in the effort to deter

citizens from the profession of religion and to

make life difficult and dangerous for religious

communities.**

This Council greets with joy the first of these

26



two facts, as among the signs of the times. With

sorrow, however, it denounces the other fact, as

only to be deplored. The Council exhorts Catho-

lics, and it directs a plea to all men, most care-

fully to consider how greatly necessary religious

freedom is, especially in the present condition

of the human family. All nations are coming

into ever closer unity; men of different cultures

and religions are being brought together in

closer relationships; there is a growing con-

sciousness of the personal responsibility that

weighs upon every man. All this is evident.

Consequently, in order that relationships of

peace and harmony may be established and

maintained within the whole of mankind, it is

necessary that religious freedom be everywhere

provided with an effective constitutional guaran-

tee, and that respect be shown for the high duty

and right of man freely to lead his religious life

in society.

May the God and Father of all grant that the

human family, through careful observance of

the principle of religious freedom in society, be

brought by the grace of Christ and the power of

the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unending and

glorious freedom of the sons of God (Rom.

8 : 21 ).

Each and every one of the things set forth in

this Declaration has won the consent of the

Fathers of this most sacred Council. We too, by

the Apostolic authority conferred on Us by

Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in ap-

proving, decreeing and establishing these things

in the Holy Spirit, and We direct that what has

thus been enacted in synod be published, to

God’s glory.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, December 7, 1965

I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church

There follow the signatures of the Fathers.

27



READING LIST

BOOKS

American Pluralism and the Catholic Conscience, by Richard

Regan, S. J. Macmillan. 1963. Chapters two and three present

a clear statement of the relation between personal liberties and

a democratic society.

The Basis of Religious Liberty, by A. F. Carillo de Albornoz. Assn.

Press. 1963. The book is meant “to stimulate discussion within

the World Council of Churches—and the churches themselves
—on problems of religious hberty.”

The Catholic Church in the Modern World, by E. E. Y. Hales. Han-

over House. 1957. This volume provides a good historical

background for understanding the political writings of Gregory

XVI, Pius IX and Leo XIII.

Freedom of Conscience and Religious Freedom, by Louis Janssens.

Alba. 1966.

The Problem of Religious Freedom, by John Courtney Murray, S. J.

Newman. 1965. This is a short but masterly study by the lead-

ing theologian-specialist in this matter.

Protestant Concepts of Church and State, by Thomas G. Sanders.

Holt. 1964. Here are the basic Church-State theories of Luther-

ans, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Quakers and Puritans.

ARTICLES

“Religious Freedom,” by Cardinal Bea. In Catholic Mind (May,

1964 [62], 4-15). This address, given to the convention of

Italian Catholic Jurists, cites with approval Pope John’s state-

ment that the common good is safeguarded when personal

liberties are guaranteed.

“A Protestant Views Religious Liberty,” by John C. Bennett. In

Catholic World (Sept., 1965 [201], 362-8). The author dis-

cusses the differences between “common good” and “public

order” as basis for limitation of religious liberty and comments

on the theological and juridical approaches to religious liberty.

He concludes with specific observations on First Amendment

problems.

28



“The Declaration on Religious Liberty,” by Francis Canavan, S.J.

In America (Nov. 20, 1965 [113], 635-6). Here is a concise

commentary on the schema approved by the Council.

“Freedom of Religion and the State,” by Orio Gracchi. In Catholic

Lawyer (Autumn, 1965 [11], 271-284). The article maintains

that both the confessional state and the lay state repress true

religious liberty because both have an erroneous theory of

unlimited sovereignty.

“Religious Tolerance in Catholic Tradition,” by Cardinal Lercaro.

In Catholic Mind (Jan., 1960 [58], 12-24). This essay (also

available in a 15^ America Press pamphlet) contains a pre-

Council defense of religious liberty, in which the author insists

that the Church’s interest in this question is not a matter of

expediency.

“The Right to Religious Freedom,” by Anthony Levi, S.J. In The

Month (Nov., 1964 [32], 239-246). The writer discusses

ramifications of the theory that government is incompetent to

discern the authenticity of religious claims. He see no danger

to the divine mission of the Catholic Church because, if she is

true to herself, her teaching and activity will necessarily cor-

respond to the universal human quest for self-fulfillment and

self-completion.

“This Matter of Religious Freedom,” by John Courtney Murray, S.J.

In America (Jan. 9, 1965 [112], 40-43). A summary of sev-

eral talks the author gave, as a peritus, to the Council Fathers.

“The Nature of Religious Liberty,” by John B. Sheerin, C.S.P. In

Catholic World (Sept., 1965 [201], 365-61). This wide-rang-

ing article is intended to establish the philosophical and theo-

logical bases of religious liberty. It covers such questions as

“error has no rights,” the juridical and theological approaches

to religious liberty, and the difficulty in determining the “public

order” concretely.

“Religious Liberty,” by Emile de Smedt. In Catholic Mind (Feb.,

1964 [62], 54-63). Here is his famous address to the Con-

ciliar Fathers at the second session. Fr. de Smedt explains papal

statements of the past and describes religious liberty in positive

and negative terms. He fails, however, to stress the relation

between religious liberty and a democratic society.

29



REVIEW QUESTIONS '

(Letters of the alphabet indicate paragraphs under a number)

What is the distinction made, in the Declaration’s subtitle, be-

tween “social and civil freedom” in matters religious?

Is it true that modem man’s desire for freedom is strongest as

regards the “values proper to the human spirit”? (la)

Why does the Declaration begin, in this discussion of man’s

right to religious liberty, by mentioning his obligations? (lb)

In what sense does the affirmation of freedom in matters re-

ligious “leave untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the

moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion”? ( Ic)

Is the Declaration accurate in terming the right to religious

freedom a “civil right”? (2a)

Give examples of what the Declaration means by “psycholog-

ical freedom.” (2b)

Who are the individuals or groups referred to as having a

right to immunity from coercion in religious matters even

though they “do not live up to their obligation of seeking the

truth and adhering to it”? (2b)

In the statement that “every man has the duty, and therefore

the right, to seek the truth,” is man’s right asserted to free

inquiry and discussion in religious matters? (3a)

Are there limits to one’s right to “give expression to his internal

acts of religion”? (3c)

Does the U.S. Constitution forbid our government to “take

account of the religious life of the people and show it favor”?

(3d)

Does a problem of separation of church and state arise if indi-

viduals insist on their right to religious freedom “when they act

in community”? (4a)

Which are the more important—and which the less important

—

of the religious rights listed in 4b-e?

30



Give examples of how, “in spreading religious faith,” one’s

actions can “carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion

that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when deal-

ing with poor or uneducated people.” (4d)

Do parents in the United States enjoy the rights listed in the

Declaration’s §5?

Does “equality of citizens before the law” (6d) exclude “spe-

cial legal recognition given to one religious community” (6c)?

“Religious freedom is to be granted as far as possible and cur-

tailed only when and in so far as necessary.” In what sense is

this meant? (7b)

Can proper education instill into young people a sense of social

responsibility regarding the religious rights of others? (8a)

In what three indirect but definite ways does revelation justify

man’s title to freedom in religious matters? (9)

Cite some New Testament texts that establish the right to reli-

gious freedom. (10,11a) What were Christ’s own words in

this respect? (lib) Do they seem to contradict the Declara-

tion’s statement (9) that “revelation does not indeed affirm in

so many words the right of men to immunity from external

coercion in matters religious”? What was the practice of Christ’s

apostles and disciples in this matter? (11c)

Has the progressive development of our understanding of

Christ’s teaching made His doctrine on religious liberty clearer?

(12a,b)

Is it an overstatement to affirm that “the freedom of the Church

is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations be-

tween the Church and governments and the whole civil order”?

(13a)

What is the “stable situation of right as well as of fact” that the

Church is said to succeed in achieving? (13c)

What are the two facts alluded to in §15, one of which the

Council “greets with joy” and one that it “denounces ... as

only to be deplored”? (15b)

31





Declaration on the

Relationship ofthe Church

to Non-Christian Religions

Meaning ofthe Document

The history of the Declaration on the Relationship of the

Church to Non-Christian Religions begins with John XXIII.

Pope John wanted the Council to make a statement on the

Jews, and he asked Cardinal Bea to see to it.

The material of this Declaration was originally Chapter 4

in the schema of the Decree on Ecumenism. The early material

on religious freedom was contained in Chapter 5. During the

second session of the Council, the Moderators called for a vote

on the schema’s first three chapters; the other two were held

over (for lack of time. Cardinal Bea stated)

.

Just before that. Cardinal Bea, in his address to the Council

on November 19, 1963, introducing Chapter 4, revealed that

it was Pope John who had ordered preparation of a text con-

cerning the Jews. The Pope had, in fact, approved the basic

lines of the document some months before he died.

THE JEWS

A number of bishops, before and after Cardinal Bea’s talk,

declared that the topic of Catholic-Jewish relations was outside

the scope of the ecumenism schema. They urged that it should

be made the subject of a separate document. Some, especially

patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, did not want the Council

to say anything about the Jews. They feared that Arab govern-

ments would consider such a statement a political move favor-

ing recognition of the State of Israel, and that the Christian

minorities in their countries would suffer reprisals.

33



During the period between the second and third sessions,

the secretariat headed by Cardinal Bea worked out a new draft

on the Jews and other non-Christians. Its contents became

known throughout the world; the text was published in various

newspapers. It put an end to the idea held by some Christians

through the centuries that the Jews were a “deicide” people.

SOFTENING THE TEXT

When the Council Fathers returned to Rome for the third

session, the text presented to them was not this text. In the new

text, rejection of the charge of deicide had disappeared; the

section on non-Christians other than Jews had been extended;

special attention was given to Muslims.

Cardinal Lienart began the discussion by insisting that the

deleted passages about the Jews be restored—a remarkable
development, since he was the senior member of the Coordi-

nating Commission that was said to have made all the changes.

He was followed by a long line of cardinals from all parts of the

world who, with the exception of Cardinal Tappouni, made the

same request. They included Leger of Canada; Cushing, Meyer,

and Ritter of the United States; Frings of Germany.

Cardinal Tappouni, speaking for himself and four other

Eastern patriarchs, requested that the entire Declaration be

dropped—not because they disagreed with what it said but
because its adoption would impede the pastoral work of the

Church. This reference to political complications was lost in

the tide of three days’ speeches by cardinals and bishops, who

not only called for restoration of the earlier, stronger text but

advocated adding to it a statement that would forbid Christians

to justify persecution or hatred of Jews by appealing to Scrip-

ture. They called also for condemnation of all persecutions,

and for insertion of a request for forgiveness from those who

had been wronged by Christian persecution. Cardinal Bea

stressed that the document was entirely religious in character

and had no political implications, and it was evident that the

entire discussion was religious in the best sense.

The final text was offered for vote at the fourth session of the

Council. The statement on the use of Scripture contained in it

(Article 4) afiirmed so clearly the relationship of the Church

34



to the people of the Old lestament that any pretext for dis-

crimination was excluded. The request for forgiveness was not

inserted. Instead of looking to the past, the document looks

forward by fostering and recommending ‘“that mutual under-

standing and respect which is the fruit above all of biblical and

theological studies, and of brotherly dialogues.”

The full story, with its details about the weekend when it

seemed the statement on the Jews might be condensed to a

single sentence (some newspapers carried headlines announc-

ing that the entire Declaration had been shelved), would take

many pages to recount. We may note here that in the important

voting on the sections of the document in October, 1965, there

were 2,080 Fathers voting on the proposition that the Jews are

not to be regarded as rejected or accursed by God. There were

1,821 affirmative, 245 negative, and 14 invalid votes. One may

perhaps legitimately add to this summary that on the proposi-

tion concerning universal brotherhood and exclusion of all

discrimination (Article 5), 2,128 votes were cast: 2,064

affirmative, 58 negative, and 6 invalid.

A LASTING PRONOUNCEMENT

Some of the bishops objected that the text of the final version

offered for vote would play down the differences between

Catholicism and other religions, and would thus lead to indif-

ferentism and the discouraging of missionary vocations. The

great majority saw it otherwise, as the ensuing vote indicated.

ROBERT A. GRAHAM, S. J.

35



iliiiiiii

PAUL, BISHOP

llll^
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

illl

iiiiiiiiliii*

ilii

iiilii

liiw^

.:.j

iiW



Declaration on the

Relationship ofthe Church

to Non-Christian Religions

1. Originally a chapter in the schema

on the Decree on Ecumenism, the

material grew into this separate

document. Pope Paul prepared for

implementation of the Decree by

setting up, on May 17, 1964, a secre-

tariat for development of relations

with non-Christian religions, headed

by Cardinal Marella. The Secretariat

for Non-Christian Religions has an

episcopal committee of bishops from

all parts of the world, consultors in

Rome, and consultors throughout

the world, including laymen. The

secretariat’s aims are to create a

climate of cordiality between Chris-

tians and followers of other reli-

gions, to dissipate prejudice and

ignorance, especially among Catho-

lics, and to establish fruitful contact

with members of other religions con-

cerning questions of common in-

terest.

2. The stress on what men have in

common was one of Pope John’s

operative principles. As he often

made clear, this approach does not

deny or neglect differences; it sim-

ply gives primary consideration—as
this Declaration says—to common
goals and interests.

3. The solidarity of mankind was

another of Pope John’s guiding prin-

ciples, evident from the very begin-

ning of his pontificate and in his

first encyclical. The teaching of this

sentence of the Declaration has a

detailed history in papal statements

running back for decades.

4. The theme of light connects this

document with the great Constitu-

tion on the Church, Lumen Gentium

(Light of the World).

1 . In our times, when every day men are being

drawn closer together and the ties between vari-

ous peoples are being multiplied, the Church is

giving deeper study to her relationship with

non-Christian religions.’ In her task of fostering

unity and love among men, and even among

nations, she gives primary consideration in this

document to what human beings have in com-

mon * and to what promotes fellowship among

them.

UNITY OF MANKIND

For all peoples comprise a single community,®

and have a single origin, since God made the

whole race of men dwell over the entire face of

the earth (cf. Acts 17:26). One also is their

final goal: God. His providence. His manifesta-

tions of goodness, and His saving designs extend

to all men (cf. Wis. 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom.

2:6-7; 1 Tim. 2:4) against that day when the

elect will be united in the Holy City ablaze with

the splendor of God, where the nations will walk

in His light (cf. Apoc. 21:23 f.)."

QUESTIONS ALL MEN ASK

Men look to the various religions for answers

to those profound mysteries of the human con-

dition which, today even as in olden times,

deeply stir the human heart: What is a man?

What is the meaning and the purpose of our life?

What is goodness and what is sin? What gives

37



5. These questions outline a number

of the basic, common interests re-

ferred to in the opening paragraph

of the Declaration.

6. The Declaration now considers a

most basic and fundamental com-

mon interest of men. It speaks in the

widest possible terms.

7. The Declaration selects certain

key elements of Hinduism without

attempting the impossible task of

describing in a short space the com-

plex nature of Hinduism, the distinc-

tions between the Vedas (scriptures)

and Puranas (lesser sacred books),

the six philosophical systems, the

innumerable sects, etc.

Mention might have been made of

the similarities between Hindu and

Christian beliefs in, e.g., God’s ap-

pearance on earth, grace, the sacra-

ments; and similarities between the

Christian Trinity and the Hindu

ultimate reality. But all this, it was

legitimately felt, could be left to the

work of dialogue that is endorsed

and commended at the end of the

Article.

8. As with Hinduism, so with Bud-

dhism—a whole library of knowledge

opens up at the mention of the word.

Instead of attempting to give de-

tailed summaries of the common

areas of interest, the Declaration

touches on general themes and leaves

the rest to development in competent

dialogue.

9. Bishops from Africa, and scholars

of religion like Cardinal Koenig, of

Vienna, asked that mention be made

of a number of religions in Africa,

etc. It was decided, however, to keep

to the traditional idea of the great

religions in the world (Hinduism,

Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Is-

lam), giving these explicit mention

and referring to all the others in this

general summary.

10. The reader of Christian classics

will discern here an echo of the

famous sentence in St. Augustine’s

Confessions: “Our hearts are rest-

less and they will not rest until they

rest in Thee.”

rise to our sorrows and to what intent? Where

lies the path of true happiness? What is the truth

about death, judgment, and retribution beyond

the grave? What, finally, is that ultimate and

unutterable mystery that engulfs our being, and

whence we take our rise, and whither our jour-

ney leads us?
*

RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD

2. From ancient times down to the present,

there has existed among divers peoples a cer-

tain perception of the hidden power that hovers

over the course of things and over the events of

human life; * at times, indeed, recognition can

be found of a Supreme Divinity, and of a

Supreme Father, too. Such a perception and such

a recognition instill the lives of these peoples

with a profound religious sense. Religions bound

up with cultural advancement have struggled to

reply to these questions with more refined con-

cepts and in more highly developed language.

Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the

divine mystery and express it through an inex-

haustible fruitfulness of myths and a searching

philosophical inquiry.^ They seek release from

the anguish of our condition through ascetical

practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting

flight toward God.

Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges

the radical insufficiency of this shifting world.®

It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and

confident spirit, can either reach a state of abso-

lute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment

by their own efforts or by higher assistance.

Likewise, other religions to be found every-

where’ strive variously to answer the restless

searchings of the human heart by proposing

“ways,” which consist of teachings, rules of life

and sacred ceremonies.

38



11. This paragraph presents an un-

derstanding that is traditional in the

Catholic Church. One recalls, for

example, Justin Martyr in the early

Church attributing all the truths in

non-Christian religions to the Word

of God that enlightens every man

who enters into this world—a con-
cept found at the beginning of St.

John’s Gospel. Through the cen-

turies, however, missionaries often

concluded that non-Christian reli-

gions are simply the work of Satan

and that the missionaries’ task is to

convert from error to knowledge of

the truth. This Declaration marks an

authoritative change in approach.

Now, for the first time, there is

recognition of other religions as en-

tities with which the Church can and

should enter into dialogue.

12. The Declaration gives a good

example of prudence in putting

aside, for the moment, elements in

non-Christian religions that are re-

pugnant to Christians (idolatry,

etc.), in order to focus on the

spiritual and moral goods. Also,

there is here no undignified breast-

beating, no protestation that Catho-

lics were not responsible for unfor-

tunate episodes in history, no exag-

gerated emotionalism—all of which
would not have provided a good

basis for persevering in dialogue.

13. Students of the history of rela-

tions between Christians and Mus-

lims will find that this section reveals

a remarkable change in the Church’s

approach. One thinks inevitably of

the Crusades (but note that there

were Muslim crusaders as well as

Christian). Those were ideological

wars. The Council, as it also makes

clear in the Constitution on the

Church in the Modern World, wants
to disassociate itself from war.

Many readers will be surprised to

see how much Christians and Mus-

lims actually have in common in

their beliefs. Many Christians have

thought of Muslims as fanatical fol-

lowers of a religion of power and

ignorance, sexually excessive (poly-

gamy, ideas about heaven), etc.

14. Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter XXI
to Anzir (Nacir), King of Maure-

tania.

KEEP WHAT IS TRUE

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is

true and holy in these religions." She looks with

sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and

of life, those rules and teachings which, though

differing in many particulars from what she

holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect

a ray of the Truth that enlightens all men. In-

deed, she proclaims and must ever proclaim

Christ, the way, the truth and the life (Jn.

14:6), in whom men find the fullness of reli-

gious life, and in whom God has reconciled all

things to Himself (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19).

The Church therefore has this exhortation for

her sons: prudently and lovingly,’* through

dialogue and collaboration with the followers of

other religions, and in witness of Christian faith

and life, acknowledge, preserve and promote

the spiritual and moral goods found among these

men, as well as the values in their society and

culture.

THE MUSLIMS

3. Upon the Muslims, too, the Church looks

with esteem.’* They adore one God, living and

enduring, merciful and all-powerful. Maker of

heaven and earth and Speaker to men. They

strive to submit wholeheartedly to His in-

scrutable decrees, as did Abraham, with whom

the Islamic faith is pleased to associate itself.

Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God,

they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor

Mary, His virgin mother; at times they call on

her, too, with devotion. In addition, they await

the day of judgment, when God will give each

man his due after raising him up. Consequently,

they prize the moral life, and give worship to

God especially through prayer, almsgiving and

fasting.

Although in the course of the centuries many

quarrels and hostilities have arisen between

39



15. The Declaration, in taking up

the topic of the relationship between

Christianity and Judaism, begins on

a positive note. It probes to the root

of what the two religions have in

common: fatherhood in Abraham.

In this, and in the acknowledgments

of the following paragraphs, the

Declaration presents an authentic

tradition of the Church rooted in

sacred Scripture. Besides this section

of the Declaration, the Constitution

on Divine Revelation is vital to the

dialogue with Jews recommended in

the middle of this Article.

16. In practice, at various times in

the history of the Church, the facts

set forth in this Article have been

neglected or obscured by some

Christians. Here the Church pro-

claims her unity with the Chosen

People of the Old Testament. This,

therefore, and not any other, is the

authentic and approved tradition.

Christians and Muslims, this most sacred Synod

urges all to forget the past and to strive sincerely

for mutual understanding. On behalf of all man-

kind, let them make common cause to safeguard

and foster social justice, moral values, peace and

freedom.

THE CHOSEN PEOPLE

4. As this sacred Synod searches into the mys-

tery of the Church, it recalls the spiritual bond

linking the people of the New Covenant with

Abraham’s stock.'®

For the Church of Christ acknowledges that,

according to the mystery of God’s saving design,

the beginnings of her faith and her election are

already found among the patriarchs, Moses, and

the prophets. She professes that all who believe

in Christ, Abraham’s sons according to faith

(cf. Gal. 3:7), are included in that patriarch’s

call, and likewise that the salvation of the

Church was mystically foreshadowed by the

Chosen People’s exodus from the land of

bondage.

The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she

received the revelation of the Old Testament

through the people with whom God in His inex-

pressible mercy deigned to establish the Ancient

Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws

sustenance from the root of that good olive tree

onto which have been grafted the wild olive

branches of the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 11:17-24).

Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross

Christ, our Peace, reconciled Jew and Gentile,

making them both one in Himself (cf. Eph.

2:14-16).'®

A PEOPLE STILL LOVED

Also, the Church ever keeps in mind the

words of the Apostle about his kinsmen, who

have the adoption as sons, and the glory and the

covenant and the legislation and the worship

and the promises; who have the fathers, and

40



17. It was felt necessary by some of

the Council Fathers to indicate the

opposition of some Jews to Chris-

tianity—a fact that, among other
things, partly explains the subse-

quent history of tension between

Christianity and Judaism. The next

two sentences of the Declaration

present the Church’s official attitude

toward this fact.

18. Cf. Constitution Lumen Gen-

tium, in AAS 57 (1965), p. 20.

19. A reference to “conversion” of
the Jews was removed from an

earlier version of this Declaration

because many Council Fathers felt

it was not appropriate in a docu-

ment striving to establish common

goals and interests first. The sentence

as it now stands presents a sum-

mary of biblical understandings.

20. The word “mutual” indicates

that the Council hopes for two-way

communication. The Council Fathers

here take an initiative (just as the

Decree on Ecumenism urges Catho-

lics to take the initiative in proposals

for dialogue with other Christians)

and hope for a response. The word
also tactfully expresses the request

of Cardinal Ruffini, of Palermo, that

Christians should love Jews and that

Jews should declare they will not

hate Christians (he asked that cer-

tain passages in the Talmud be cor-
rected).

Pope John’s deletion of a word

from the Good Friday prayer for

Jews and Pope Paul’s extensive revi-

sion of the prayer (now “For the

Jews” instead of “For the Conver-

sion of the Jews,” etc.) were steps

in the direction of mutual under-

standing and respect. Jules Isaac has

related that, after representations

made by him in a private audience in

1949, Pope Pius XII made a similar

modification in the Good Friday
liturgy.

Also, on the day this Declaration

was promulgated, the Congregation

of Rites issued a decree banning

further veneration of Simon of

Trent, a small boy allegedly mur-

dered by Jews in 1475 in order that

his Christian blood might be used in

the synagogue during the Pasch. In-

from whom is Christ according to the flesh

(Rom. 9:4-5), the son of the Virgin Mary. The

Church recalls, too, that from the Jewish people

sprang the apostles, her foundation stones and

pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who

proclaimed Christ to the world.

As holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not

recognize the time of her visitation (cf. Lk.

19:44), nor did the Jews in large number accept

the gospel; indeed, not a few opposed the

spreading of it (cf. Rom. 11:28).^^ Neverthe-

less, according to the Apostle, the Jews still re-

main most dear to God because of their fathers,

for He does not repent of the gifts He makes

nor of the calls He issues (cf. Rom. 11:28-

29).’® In company with the prophets and the

same Apostle, the Church awaits that day,

known to God alone, on which all peoples will

address the Lord in a single voice and serve him

with one accord (Soph. 3:9; cf. Is. 66:23; Ps.

65:4;Rom. 11:11-32).”

PLEA FOR MUTUAL LOVE

Since the spiritual patrimony common to

Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred

Synod wishes to foster and recommend that

mutual understanding and respect which is the

41



vestigation had shown that Simon

was probably killed by non-Jews,

who tried to blame Trent’s Jewish

community for the crime.

21. The Declaration endorses and

promotes dialogue between Chris-

tians and Jews, just as the Decree on

Ecumenism endorses and promotes

dialogue between the separated

Christian groups. On Oct. 1, 1965,

in Rome, it was announced that the

Catholic bishops of the United

States had established a commission

to discover ways to further the

dialogue.

22. Some biblical scholars among

the Council Fathers pressed for hav-

ing on the record a reference to the

Gospel accounts that relate involve-

ment of Jewish leaders in the arrest

and death of Christ. This involve-

ment has, in fact, been a basic ele-

ment in the thesis that the Jevidsh

people therefore were guilty of the

death of Jesus—a thesis held, and
pushed to various consequences, by

some Christians from early times to

the present. In what follows here,

the Second Vatican Council repudi-

ates the thesis and its consequences.

The CouncU has been accused by

some of “playing God” and “absolv-

ing,” “forgiving” or “exonerating”

the Jews of guilt for the crucifixion,

and these terms were used in news-

paper headlines describing this sec-

tion of the Declaration. In fact, the

Council simply repudiates the notion

of a collective Jewish guilt, and in-

structs Catholics to eliminate false

views that in the past have caused

Jews to undergo discrimination and

suffering. The element of forgiveness

was capably handled earlier by Him
v.^ho said: Father, forgive them, for

they know not what they do.

23. The phrase “or guilty of deicide”

{deicidii rea) was dropped from this

sentence before the present version

of the Declaration came up for dis-

cussion and voting in the final

session of the Council. Many news-

paper accounts attributed the dele-

tion to pressure from Arab govern-

ments, etc., but the Secretariat for

Promoting Christian Unity, chief

architect of the document, explained

that many Council Fathere asked for

fruit above all of biblical and theological studies,

and of brotherly dialogues.*^

NOT A REJECTED RACE

True, authorities of the Jews and those who

followed their lead pressed for the death of

Christ (cf. Jn. 19:6) ;
**

still, what happened in

His passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews

then living, without distinction, nor upon the

Jews of today. Although the Church is the new

people of God, the Jews should not be presented

as rejected or accursed by God,*® as if such

42



the deletion because the phrase was

ambiguous and might even suggest

to some people that the Church no

longer regarded Jesus as God.

The secretariat agreed to drop the

phrase since the idea is already

found in the preceding sentence:

“What happened in His passion

cannot be blamed upon all the

Jews. . . .” The secretariat recom-

mended that the word “deicide” be

eliminated from the Christian vocab-

ulary; it has given rise to false

theological interpretations that occa-

sion dfficulties in pastoral work and

in ecumenical dialogue.

24. In some sermons of Fathers of

the Church, notably the Greek

Fathers (e.g., St. John Chrysostom),

and various preachers in the history

of the Church, there has been an

attempt to base a pejorative attitude

toward Jews on sacred Scripture.

The Council here rejects the attempt.

From now on, no Catholic may
quote the Bible to justify calling the

Jews an accursed or rejected people.

As Cardinal Bea and others ex-

plained, His blood be upon us and

upon our children (Mt. 27:25) is the

cry of a Jerusalem crowd that has

no right to speak for the whole

Jewish people. The severity of

Christ’s judgment on Jerusalem (Mt.

23:37 ff., etc.) does not suppose or

prove collective culpability of the

Jewish people for the crucifixion.

That judgment caps a long history of

Jerusalem’s disobedience to God,

crimes against the prophets, etc.,

and it is a “type” of the universal,

final judgment.

In 1 Th. 2:14-16, St. Paul angrily

associates those who arc persecuting

him with the spirit of those Jews

and their leaders in Jerusalem who

killed both the Lord Jesus and the

prophets. The Council’s teaching on

the interpretation of sacred Scrip-

ture, in the Constitution on Divine

Revelation, is essential reading for

all who wish to study this matter.

25. The spirit of Christ is one of

love, not hate.

26. Reprobat. Cf. note 31.

27. A Latin phrase meaning “and it
condemns” was dropped out at the

request of Council Fathers who

views followed from the holy Scriptures.** All

should take pains, then, lest in catechetical in-

struction and in the preaching of God’s Word

they teach anything out of harmony with the

truth of the gospel and the spirit of Christ.**

The Church repudiates** all persecutions

against any man. Moreover, mindful of her com-

mon patrimony with the Jews, and motivated by

the gospel’s spiritual love and by no political

considerations, she deplores the hatred, perse-

cutions, and displays of anti-Semitism directed

43



complained that the phrase would

put the Council on record as repu-

diating discrimination against Jews

more strongly than discrimination

against anyone else. Others argued

that “condemn” in a Council docu-

ment should be reserved for matters

of formal heresy, and Pope John

explicitly had requested that this

Council not engage in such con-

demnations.

28. In four of their seventy canoni-

cal enactments, the Fathers of the

Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A. D.)

dealt with the Jews: Christian

princes must watch lest Jews exact

from Christian debtors too high an

interest rate; baptized Jews may not

observe Jewish customs; Jews may

not appear in public during Easter

week; Jews must give tithes on their

houses and other property to the

Church and pay a yearly tax at

Easter; no Christian prince may give

an office to a Jew under pain of

excommunication; Jews must wear

a distinctive dress from their twelfth

year to distinguish them from

Christians. If there was anti-

Semitism in these laws, it is here

repudiated by the Second Vatican

Council (“at any time and from any

source”).

29. This sentence, together with the

preceding teaching, puts this declara-

tion on the Jews into a doctrinal

category. The Fourth Lateran Coun-

cil’s four discriminatory canons on

the Jews were disciplinary laws.

Disciplinary laws are changeable;

the content of doctrinal statements

is not changeable. The unfortunate

laws of 1215 long ago fell into

desuetude; the doctrinal statement

of 1965, it is to be hoped, removes

from the Church the remnants of

the thinking that lay behind those

laws.

It is curious that the Council

makes no reference to the beautiful

treatment of the Jews and of Christ’s

death given in the authoritative

Catechism of the Council of Trent

for Parish Priests, published by

order of Pope Pius V in 1566. That
catechism states that guilt for

Christ’s death “seems more enor-

mous in us than in the Jews, since

against the Jews at any time and from any

source.^®

Besides, as the Church has always held and

continues to hold, Christ in His boundless love

freely underwent His passion and death because

of the sins of all men, so that all might attain

salvation.^’ It is, therefore, the duty of the

Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of

Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love

and as the fountain from which every grace

flows.

A UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD

5. We cannot in truthfulness call upon that God

who is the Father of all if we refuse to act in a

44



brotherly way toward certain men,®° created

though they be to God’s image. A man’s rela-

tionship with God the Father and his relation-

ship with his brother men are so linked together

that Scripture says: He who does not love does

not know God (1 Jn. 4:8).

The ground is therefore removed from every

theory or practice that leads to a distinction be-

tween men or peoples in the matter of human

dignity and the rights that flow from it.

according to the testimony of the

same Apostle: If they had known it,

they would never have crucified the

Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8); while

we, on the contrary, professing to

know Him, yet denying Him by our

actions, seem in some sort to lay

violent hands on Him.” Cf. edition

by McHugh and Callan (New York:

Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1923), pp.

50-61, 362-365.

30. The reader will still, no doubt,

be thinking of the context of anti-

Semitism from the preceding Article.

As the next two paragraphs show,

however, the Declaration has moved

on to a more sweeping statement:

the Church repudiates all discrimi-

nation against individuals or whole

peoples because of race, color, con-

dition of life, or religion.

31. The word reprobat used here is

practically as strong as condemnat.

It means “reprove,” “repudiate”

—

words that are commonly under-

stood to mean “condemn” for all

practical purposes. Thus, although

obviously trying to follow Pope

John’s directive not to engage in

condemnations, the Council finds

racial and religious discrimination

too disturbing not to condemn it.

NO RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

As a consequence, the Church rejects,®’ as

foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination

against men or harassment of them because of

their race, color, condition of life, or religion.

Accordingly, following in the footsteps of the

holy apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred Synod

ardently implores the Christian faithful to main-

tain good fellowship among the nations ( 1 Pet.

2:12), and, if possible, as far as in them lies, to

keep peace with all men (cf. Rom. 12:18), so

that they may truly be sons of the Father who is

in heaven (cf. Mt. 5:45).

Each and every one of the things set forth in

this Declaration has won the consent of the

Fathers of this most sacred Council. We too, by

the Apostolic authority conferred on Us by

Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in ap-

proving, decreeing and establishing these things

in the Holy Spirit, and We direct that what has

thus been enacted in synod be published, to

God’s glory.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, October 28, 1965

I, Paul, Bishop of the Cathohc Church

There follow the signatures of the Fathers.

45



READING LIST

GENERAL STUDIES

The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology. Mircea Eliade

and Joseph Kitagawa (eds.)* Chicago U. Press. 1959. A valu-

able book that gives a survey of how the modem study of the

world religions has developed.

A Guide to Oriental Classics. E. T. de Bary and A. T. Embree

(eds.). Columbia U. Press. 1964. An excellent paperback

guide to the religious literature of the Oriental world. It includes

the works of Islam, India, China and Japan. Best translations

and secondary readings are listed.

Religion and Culture, by Christopher Dawson. Meridian. 1958.

A paperback introduction to the function of religion in the

major civilizations of the world, with chapters on the sources

of religious knowledge, sacred science, sacred law, and the way

of perfection.

Concise Encyclopedia of Living Faiths. R. C. Zaehner (ed.). Haw-

thorn. 1959. This work provides a good survey of the living

religions of the world done by competent persons.

The Religions of Man, by Huston Smith. Harper. A paperback study

of all the world religions, clear in presentation, precise in under-

standing, marked with good judgment. An excellent introduc-

tory presentation for the general reader.

Man's Religions, by John B. Noss. Macmillan. 1963. This is widely

used in classroom study of the world religions. It is substantial,

reliable.

INDIVIDUAL RELIGIONS

The Encounter of Religions, by Jacques-Albert Cuttat. Desclee.

1960. A book with excellent insight into the differences between

Christianity and the other religions of the world.

Christianity and the Other Religions, by R. C. Zaehner. Hawthorn.

1964. A valuable study by the Professor of Eastern Religions

at Oxford. This is a volume in the Twentieth Century Catholic

Encyclopedia.

46



Hinduism, by Louis Renou. Washington Sq. Press. 1963. This

paperback contains selections from the religious scriptures of

Hinduism. It is the finest collection now available in English.

Hinduism, by R. C. Zaehner. Oxford U. Press. 1962. An excellent

companion volume to the above work. This presents the basic

ideas of Hinduism.

The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha. E. A. Burtt (ed.).

Mentor. 1955. A fine paperback collection of passages from the

Buddhist scriptures. It portrays the fundamental thought and

spiritual mood of Buddhism.

A History of Zen Buddhism, by Heinrich Dumoulin. Pantheon.

1963. The only good history of Zen Buddhism that is available,

done by a scholar of distinction in Buddhist studies. An im-

portant work since, of all Asian spiritual traditions, Zen is the

most influential on the West at this time.

Zen Catholicism, by Dom Aelred Graham. Harcourt. 1963. An im-

pressive study of the possible communication that can pass

between Zen and Christianity.

The Analects of Confucius. W. E. SoothiU (trans.) . Oxford U. Press.

1937. A good translation of one of the most influential of all
Asian spiritual classics.

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, John C. H. Wu (trans.) . St. John’s U. Press.

1961. A remarkably fine rendering of the most mystical of aU
the Chinese spiritual writings.

Mohammedanism: An Historical Survey, by H. A. R. Gibbs. Men-

tor. 1949. This paperback provides the reader with the essen-

tials in the historical development and doctrinal teaching of

Islam.

Islam in Modern History, by Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Mentor. 1957.

This paperback brings the story of Islam up to the present and

studies the precise problems that Islam faces in its adaptation

to the realities of the new age of science, technology and urban-

ization.

47



REVIEW QUESTIONS
(Letters of the alphabet indicate paragraphs under a number)

Give examples of what the Church has done, in the past decade

and on a parish, diocesan, national and international level, to

further “what human beings have in common and what pro*

motes among them an identification of interests.” (la)

Does every religion try to answer the question listed here con-

cerning human destiny? (Ic) How about religions that make

no claim to having received a revelation from God?

In the great world religions—e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, Mo-
hammedanism—what are the “true and holy” elements that
“reflect a ray of the Truth that enlightens all men”? (2e)

In your opinion, is there danger that unsophisticated Cathohcs

will become indifferent if emphasis is laid on the positive aspects

of other faiths? (2a-f

)

Show how these passages dealing with the Muslims reveal a

great desire, on the Church’s part, to achieve better understand-

ing and bury the mistakes of the past. (3a,b)

What elements constitute the “spiritual bond linking the peo-

ple of the New Covenant with Abraham’s stock”? (4a) Show

the basis of this bond with future Christianity, in the early

years of the history of the Chosen People and in its later devel-

opment. (4b,c)

In the community where you five, is it possible to foresee “broth-

erly dialogue” with Jewish individuals and groups? (4f) What

is needed to promote it? What are the principal obstacles?

Can the cry of Jews, ''His blood be upon us and our children”

and Christ’s dire warning to Jerusalem, be construed as proving

that the Jews as a group have been rejected? (4g)

It has been said that Vatican II is the first general council not

to issue any anathemas, or condemnations. Is there a signifi-

cance in the fact that precisely here, in this section, the Fathers

came very close to uttering a condemnation of racial, social and

religious discrimination? (5c)

48



A
“must”

for today’s

Christian

citizen:

To learn

what underlies

the problems

of the world . .

.

to read of the

important issues

confronting mankind

... to see trends affecting

society—all from a Christian
perspective. These are but a few

of the benefits that readers of America

enjoy through regular reading of the

national Catholic weekly review, America.

In this modern day, laymen and religious

alike must face up to the crucial questions

which affect the home, the Church, the community

and the world. To do so intelligently requires

full understanding of the implications of every

question. By subscribing to America, the Christian

citizen can be sure he will be reading about all that

is important to the society of today.

You make an investment in responsible citizenship

when you subscribe to America. The subscription rate

is low: $8 for one year (51 issues). Order today!

America, 106 West 56th Street, New York, N. Y. 10019



A Note on The John LaFarge Institute

During his long life, Father John LaFarge, S.J., wasacclaimed for his work in the fields of interracial jus-
tice and interreligious relations. He died in November, 1963,

at the age of 83. Shortly afterward, the Jesuit editors of Ameri-

ca magazine founded The John LaFarge Institute to continue

the work of their former editor-in-chief. Its objectives are:

To establish a forum, under religious sponsor-

ship, that will be open to men of all races and

creeds (discussion and confrontation will be di-

rected toward understanding and mutual respect,

and toward relaxation of present-day tensions in

our racially mixed and pluralistic society).

To further co-operation among men of various

religious communities.

To publish the results of Institute meetings and

recommendations based on them.

By publishing the Declarations, the John LaFarge Institute

hopes to promote the interreligious harmony that Father La-

Farge so untiringly sought. The text used in this edition of the

Declarations was edited by Msgr. J. Joseph Gallagher, priest of

the Archdiocese of Baltimore and consulting editor of the Bal-

timore Catholic Review. The marginal notes were prepared by

John Courtney Murray, S.J., and Robert A. Graham, S.J.