THE FOUNDATION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ---- - .

AS DEVELOPED BY - ---'rUE

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

by

'Michael J. Sablica, Bach. Chern. Eng.

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University in Partial Fulfillment of tbe Requirements

for the Degree of rvT.aster 0·£ Arts ill Theology

Miltiaukee, \'lisconsin

January, 1966

j

PREFACE

Religious freedom is an ecumeni cal question of ut~st

significance and impor tance in the world today. The whole

world i s waiting for the Second Vatican Council to make a

Pasoral state~ent on the subject of religious liberty.

Bishop End.le Joseph De Sroet '6 of Belgium, schema on religious

liberty was re jected as post phoned by the last session of I

His basi s .for rel1gous liberty was theologicaL the Council .

Father John Courtney Murray, S. J. ot l'/oodst ock College,

Maryland has been selected to draw up the schema on the

subject of religious freedom. at the next session of the

Council. He is a world wide authority on the subject. His

articles have appeared in Theological Studies about religious

I (

liberty from 1950 onwar ds. There is a strange unexplainable I

interruption of Father Courtney's artioles form 1955-1960 ; I

and a continuation trom 1960 urtll his most recent scld.arly

t reatise, Problem of Relis tus Liberty, Judgin~ tro~ the

nature of Father Courtney's works . his bas~ s for reli~jous 2

f reedom would be juridic, r ather than theological.

1. For the ultimate basi e of human dignity i e the fact that man is a creature of God. He i8 not God Himsel f, but an image of God. From this absolute dependence of man upon God there flows every r ight and duty of man to clainl for himself and for others true religious liberty. pg. 247. On pgs. 244--5, quoting Pope John 2), !:aeemand TerriS (1) by law of nature human person has the right to the free exercise of religion in society according to the dictates of a sincere con­science. (2) public authority must respect this right as such a way that human perED n in society is kept immune from all coerci on of any kind. Kung . Congar J o. P. 0' Hanlon, S. J ., Riig10us Liberty, Council Speeches of Vatican II, 1964, pgs. 244-5, 47. .

2. Interpreting Father Courtney's mind, I would pre­suppose that he favors the second of the two views, \'1hich he presents. It is not in any sense fuetion of government to

Both of these viewpOints will be discussed in this thesis.

It was my good fo·rtune at the suggestion of Father Sheets. /

B.J., to receive direction from Father Murray on the particu-

lar aspect of the problem. I am indebted to both for sUg­

gestions, directions, and also to Dr. Angel F. Carrillo de

Albornoz, who supplied me ,With much intoXtation about the

ideas of Religbus Freedom as d$veloped by the !oJ:~d Council

of Church. Dr. Albornoz is Executive Secretary of the

Secretariat on Religi,ous Liberty established in 1948 in

Btd t 2:erJald .;

The World Council of C~ohes considers re~igious

freedom essential to . christian witness. The goal of the 3

wec : ftut unum s1 t " •

The ecumenical movement, in caring for religious liberty,

not only eon.siciers the churches which belong to it, but it

bas l"egard foro and seeks to serve all christians and all

men , inoluding those wholere non .. religious. The basiS of

religious liberty agreed upon and discussed by specialists

and theologians of theWCC are two. The basis of religious

liberty is juridic or theological. A turther determination

than presents itself. If the basis of religious liberty is

juridic, does right flow from man's interior dignity and

worth as a person. or from the non-competbce of the state

2 .. ' (continued)authol"ize the existe,nce of any religion true or false PtIJ.34 .... 9. "The legal institutiOn o£ religious t,eedom in its contemporary sense is not a positiW.$ authoriza­tD.l'1 of either truth or error. The people of the United States inspt.t'ed by theper~nal andpoliticzal eonscioueness, declared tnt the free eXercise of religion is to be imm\U'le from coercive restJi1otion by the power of state Or any other power within $oei et y ft . pg . .3 9. »Wi th thi a growth of saan' s undersiandi ng of his pet§gnal an$! Roliticale.onsci,ousneas or himse~f as a

2.

in spiritual matters. If the basis is theological, does

religioUS liberty stem from man t s status 1. e. a perso",

redeemed, who responds freely to God~s non·cOercive activity

with mankind. Theologians not affiliated with the World

Council of Chunches are divided in their opinions. Those

favoring the theological basis for religious liberty are

Congar. Martain" Danielou, Pribella, Hartmann, Leonard,

Gustave Thebon, and Bishop De Smedt. Tb~Qlogians favoring

the juridic basiS (not affiliated. with WCC) , Murray, LUiggi,

Sturzo. Theologians J'elated. to WCC reflect a considerable

degree of ecumenieal unanimity. There are two general

tend~ncies. The first considers inner christian freedom

independent and separate from sccial religious freedom,

therefore, religious trf:edom is based on limitation of states

power, (a juridic basis). This first opinion, the limitation

of states t power has a large numbe r of devotees. Amons

these follower:s could be classified such men as Dr. Nolde,

Dr. Carrillo, Dean John Bennett (Union Theological Seminary,

New York), J. H. Oldhem, Prof. George Peyrot, Prof. Searle

Bates, (Pro:f.essor at Union Seminary at New York, member of

Commission on Religious Liberty), Dr. John A. Mackay (former

Preaident of the Tltlological Seminary, Princeton U.),

Prof. N. H. Soe (member eommission of religious liberty), Dr.

G. Voight (East GermMY me.r commission religious li bert y)

3.

2. (continued) free persoll in free society, catholic doctrine on religious freed.om must l$.tewise grow in its under­standing of itself .. pg . 90. Pope john saw the full imp!iication and articulated the concept of freedom as a political end and pol1tical method. pg .. 91. No argument can be made today which would validate the legal insittution of religious intolerance, much less canonize it as a eatholic ideal. The fact is that legal intolerance stands Gondemned today by the common consciousness of the peoples of the world. The condemnation is binding today on all civilized states. Today religiOUS freedom as a human and civil right, personal and corporate, requiring the protection

and Prof. Roger Mehl .

The opposite opinion maintains (1) that freedom in

Christ and social religious freedom are intimately rel&ted.

(2) Inner chr'istian t~eedom implies recognition of social

freedom. (j) State is viewed~ under GOd, as responsible

for spiri tuaJ. welfare of community. r.1an 'a redeemed status

and God's non-coercive .atti~y with man, postulates a free

respons,e by man to God . This theological basis for religious

freedom has an equally large folloWing. Included are such

men ot the WCC as: Prof. H. Berkhot. (member committee on

R. L.). Dr. C. Emmanuel Carlson (same committee), Dr. G.

Carpenter (International Missionary ~'/Couneil) J Dr. R. M.

Fagley (Executive Sec. \'lCC), Sir Kenneth Grubb (Chairman

Commission ot Char.ches on InternS10nal Affairs), Dr.

Charles Malik (Former Chairman of U. N. Commission on Human

Rights), Bishop Leslie Newbigin(Intemational MiSSionary

Council), Dr. Vittorio Subilia, Dr. iW.A. Viseer T'Haft; and

finally Dr. Amos N .• Wilder.

2. (Continued) ot a leg.al institution has emerged as an exigence of the personal and political reason. pg. t03-4.

Mur~ay. J:ohn Courtney, , S.J.} The Problem otReligious Newman Press, 1964.

4.

Page 9. J. Albornoz, de Carrillo, The Basis of Religious Freedom,

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

PART I - Religious Liberty as Espoused by the World PAGES

Council of Chur~hes ••••••••••••••••••••••• 5 - 12

A - Theological Basis of Religious Liberty

developed by Theologians not affiliated

wi th the ""orid Council of Churches •••• "... 13 - 20

B .. JU1""idic Basis for Religious Liberty

developed by Theologians not affiliated

with the World Council of Churches •••••••• 21 - 27

r!!ll'. II'" Basis for Religious Liberty as developed by

Theologians and Ecumenical Assemblies

affiliated with vlorld Council of ChUrches. 28 - 67

A - Theological Grounds for Religious Liberty. 28 - 36

1. The Redeemed Statu! of Man as a Theo­

l 'ogieal Foundation for ReligiQus

Liberty ......... e· •• 'Ii' ............. e, ..... 4fo • .37 40

2.. a.od' S Way With Man as a Theological

Foundation for Religious L1berty •••••• ~ 41 - 44

B - Juridic Basis for Religious Liberty ••••••• 45 - 55

1. Legal Limitations of Religious Liberty. ~6 - 60

2. Responsible Exercise o£ Religious

Lib'ert..y •••••••• ,', ........... ' ••••• ., ........ ,. 61 .... 67

THE NOTION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AS ESPOUSED BY

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

j

"leligious liberty is a vague term used in designating

many diff·erent kinds of religious freedom. The essential

elements involved in the type of liberty which the ecumenical

bodies of the World Council of Churches are seeking, include

the following:

(l) aetive s~ject - the whole human race, every human being, individually and collectively, who has the capability of exercising religious liberty within SOCiety! without any limitations regarding nation, color, sex, relig on. (2) The passive subject, whose duty it is to respect th~ religious liberty ot others. is human society in general. 0) Religious liberty must liberate from social coercion, :f.e~ physieal or ~oral restraint which undermines the Ultimate freedom of choice. (4) ReligiQus Inatters to be protected include the exercise of one's own chosen religion, or the right to change onete religion or belief, also all external activities of worship, preaching, teaching, practice, and obseX"Vance, and even the manifestattons in words and deeds of the imp&ations of one's own religious convictions for political, economic, or social relEtions.

The kind of religious freedom sought by ecumenical

bodies can ,be identified as the .social faculty of every

adult human being (individually, collectively, or corporately)

to re free from social coercion in religious matters. Social

religious liberty demanded by WCC is distinguished from other

4. Ibid, p. 16. Freedom be~ore God (e.g. psycholOgical, physical)

the freedom within oneself, i.e .. inner freedom is not the k~nd claimed by the wce or studied here.

,. Social religious liberty excludes not only social and juridic compulsion, but also economic, moral, psychological, conscioue, or unconscious forms ofeotnpulsion frOln society.

5.

types of. freedom (1) freedom of choice - proper to

intellectual creatures, and l<i'hich can co-exist ,'lith external I

compulsion or negation of social liberty.. (2) There :I.s also

freedom fundamental difference between social religious

liberty sought by the wee and the "1ibertas christianaft ; or

christian liberty_ The Amsterdam D£iclaration 194$, ex­

plicitly distinguishes between the "liberty with Wich Christ

has set us free " , which is int.ernal freedom, and its outward ----- 6 expression, social external religious liberty. The main

proof that both freedoms are d:1s tinct and ca.n exist separate ..

ly is seen in the christian martyrs. (J) A third term to

be distinguished from religious liberty is freedom of wor­

ship used as a synonymn. Theologians ot the Vice think that

freedom of worship is a very incomplete term, for the area

of social religious freedom is mueh larger than worship.

(4) A ii,n.al dllSuinction poses a problem. Freedom of con­

science as applied to sO¢lial religious liberty, seems to

apply only in an analogical sense, beiause the individual

alone has a conscience. It would be difficult to see how

the corporate 1'reedom of t.he chut'ch could be understood as

freedom of conscience.. Therefore freedom of conscience and

religious freedom cannot be synonymous terms, but rather

freedom of 00nseience will be considered 8S a part of

~elig1ous liberty.

6. TfHooft, W.A. Visser, Ed . The First Assembly 21' World Couneil of Churches, Amsterdam, pgs. 97-99.

An eSQentie.l element in a gOOd international order is freedom of religion. Christians are ·fl) ncerned that religious freedom be everywhere secured, in view of world Wide nature of christianity. In pleading for this freedom, they do not ask for

fp.

The concept of religi'ous freedom as identified

by the WCC does not necessarily have its 'Origin in

chriStian ineights, that is !fsocial religious liberty" /

is not in itself an objectively christian liberty. For

the Sirr.ple reason that many non-christians demand the 7

Same social religious freedom, as is demanded by the WCC.

7.

Nevertheless the wec concept of socialrelimous liberty is

chriet1an. The articulation of' its elements and motivations

are grounded on christian convictions. The wce claims re­

J.tgious liberty for all roen without distinctinn or discrim­

ination for, "we believe in the fundamental unity of the

human f8.l.llily. We demand protection against every social

cO,G110ion, for we believe that even the state must respect

manta highest loyalties. vie aSk fo'¥' liberty in a. very large

area of religious activitiee, evenlor the proclamation of

the political and soeial implications of our religious be­

liefs in virtue of our christian understanding of religion.

In this sense we may say e,orreetly that Qur notion of sooial a

rel1gious liberty is fully chr1stian.

6 . (continued) any privilege to be granted to chriS:ians which 1s del1ed to others. \-lhile the l:ilerty with which Christ has .set men free can neither be given or destroyed by any government. Christiars because of that inner freedom are jealous for its outward~ression and solicitous that all men should have .freedom in religious life. The rights of religiouB freedom herein decla.red shall be recogni zed and observed for persons without distinction as to race, color, se=, language, or religion, and Without imposition of disabilities by virtue of legal provisions or administrative acts.

7. The Charte~ of the United Nations affirms the purpose of the United Nations as to promote, encourage, respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race, sex, lan~age or religion. The Univer,sal Declaration of Human Rights, ArtlelelS of the draft covenant on civil and po11 tical rights states ; fiEveryone bafi a right to .freedom at thought, conscience and religion, this right includes freedom to change his religion ox- belief, and freedom, ei~her alone or in

The social religious liberty as identified by the

wee and discussed here is sometime mentioned in the

singular, considered as a whole unit; whereas on other

occas;1.ons this (social religious) liberty is considered

/

under various aspects, as many religious freedoms. The

ecumenical statements of the WCC do not @.ve a definition

of religious liberty in the Singular, but do contain nega­

tive and positive formulae, which can be oombined to enun­

tiate social religious liberty, as a right 'Of every human

being to be free from social or legal coercion in religious

mattl':rsJ 8S well as man's responsil:Uity to make it posl'Iible

for all to secure this freedom, Thus the New Delhi Conference

of 1961 ad'Opted the following ne,gative norm, "Christians

see religious liberty as a consequence of God's creative

work, of his redempti'On of man in Christ and his calling

of men into His service. God's de£ll:i.ng with men is .oot

coerCive. Accordingly human attempts by legal enactment

or by pressure 'Of oocial custom to coeroe or to eliminate 9

,faith are violations of the fundamental ways of God with men.

The declaration en religious liberty of the First

Assembly of t;[CC at Amsterdam in 1945 states posi ti vely the

social possibility of acting responsibility in matters of

religion . "While the liberty with Wich Christ has set men

FREE can neither be given, nor destroyed by any government;

Christians •• • •••••• are solicitiouB that all men should have

t.\

{

7. (continued) communit1With 'Others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

Krishnaswami, Ariot, Study of Discrj.mination in Matters of Religious Right., and Practices, United Nations, 1966 pgs.13.-67.

8. Carrillo, Dr., TIThe Baeis of Religious Liberty" ,pg.19

10 freedom in religious life. Pe..-hips the most complete

formulation of religious liberty, as understood by WC9

in singular sense of the Committee on Religious liberty

at St . Andrews. 1960;

"The faculty of . every human being individually, or in corporate bodies, publicly or in private to be free from social or legal coercion in raag10us matters, and to be for the proclamation of his faith , ftd the expressi on of its implications among his fellow men. "

So far for the notion of religious liberty con­

sidered in the eingular. We Will now consider the content

of various tlreligious freedoms tt found in the ecumenical

documents. These are divided into four main groups. (1)

Every person bas the right to (ietermine his own faith and

creed. (2) Every person has the right to express his

religious beliefs in wounip, teaching, and practice, and

to proclaim the implication of his beliefs for relati on­

ships in e. social or poli'ti,tal community. (3) Every

person has the right to aeeociate with others and to

organize with them tor religious purposes. (4) Every re­

ligious organization formed or maintained by action in

accordance with the rights of individuals persons, has

the right to determine its policies and practices for 12

the accomp11ebment of its chosen purposes.

9. TtHooft, W. A.Visser, The New Delhi Report, Third Assembly of Word Council of Chruehes, pg . iJ9.

10. TfHooft, W. A.Visser, The First AssemBlr of \1orld Council of ChQdes, pg. 97,fAmsterdam,

11. .d.bornoz, Religious Liberty, pg. 2. The word f aculty means that relgious liberty is not merely a legal right, but also a human faculty to be respected by society even outside legal proviSions or state protection. St. Andr 1960.

9.

12. T'Hooft, Amsterdam, pgs. 97-99. The "Declaration on Religious Liberty made by Amsterdam Aesembly 1948, classified the long list of liberties made by the World Conference on Church,

There are tour main groups of religious freedoms;

(1) Llbe;rtI of Conscience, or right to determine /

freely one's own faith or creed.

(2) Liberty of z-eligious exprcession.

(,3) Liberty of religious association.

(4) Corporate and Dtitutional religious freedom.

Liberty of conscience, tor WCC is not be identified with

inner liberty, but rather a kind of e~ernal or social

religious freedom, which allows one to make personal judg­

ments and deCisions concerning one's own religious beliefs,

without any social coercion •• The Amsterdam Declaration

vonsiders libertI of conscience as externa}., deelaring,

"Religious social and politDl institutions have t he ob­

ligat.ion to permit the mature individual to relate himself

to sources of information in such a way as to allow personal 13

ral igious decision and belieff!. The WCC considers the

four freedoms listed above; as complete and adequate to

express their notion of a descriptive definition of religious

social fre.dom. Dr. Carrillo makes a distinction between

the first of these freedoms and the other three. Albornoz

ealls "liberty of conscience" pure religious liberty ,­

MEANING in man's essential relations with God he is

liberated from every social compulsion, and independent

from everything besides God. The other three freedoms of

10.

12. (co~d.) COlIlllluttity and State at Oxford, 1937 The Conference of the International Missionhy CounCil, Madras, 198, (IMC), and the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, 1944.

13. T' Hoof, Arnst erdam, 194J! , pg. 98. St. Thomas wrote that although faith in Christ is good and es.etial for salvation} if someone were to become a Christian whq thought it would De wrong to believe in Christ, ~n he would be

(1) religious expression, (2) association, (3) cor­porate freedom t presuppose something more than man's complete dependence on fG od.

/ Man is essentially a social being , and the ~

Eresslon ot man's thoughts and feelings is a fundamental

human right. Therefore, man's right to speak religiously

must be considered a sacred right. If man were not social,

and we could not speak of religious liberty in spite of

man's essential relations with God. So freedom of associa ..

tion and corporate freedom presuppose not only religious

freedom in se i. e., man I s essential r 'elation to God through

fiath, and personal wo~ip, according to own religious

convictions, but also recognize the human right to associate

with others, and freely to administer corporations. Dr.

Carrillo calls the latter three freedoms, mi~ed religious

freedoms. In the sense that theee three types offreedoms

presuppose not only pure religious freedom, but also the

fundamental human rights of expression, association, and

corporate freedom. This terminology is a development

which can be helpful in solving some phases of religious

freedom Which have perplexed some theologians. Som

theologians are reluctant to limit religious freedom by

social or legal consideration; whereas others do not

want to open up sooiety to every possible abuse (even

crimes) committed on pretext of religious convictiDns.

13. (cont'd.) oommitting a sin. Article 5 8S, Iflhether the Will is evil when at var1ellse with erring reason. If (Omne quod est contraconscientiwn plX:atiJ.;ru est; ergo vo1untos discordous a ratione errante tstmalum). The

11.

will is evil, when it is at variance with erring conscienoe. Opera Omnia, Questio 19, Article 5, pg. 77, MU!Durgia Publisher N.Y . , 1948. Hartmann, S.J. has wt11tten "Freedom of conscience does not mean giving tfri.ghtstr to error, it means giving equal status to the people, who are living in accordance with a personal and sincere conscience. IQ1eranz ~nd Chrislicker Glaube, Pg. 199, quoted by Dr. Carrillo.

Applying the distinotion of the WeC,as developed by

Dr. Carrillo, religious liberty will mean both pure /

and mixed. In referring to religious liberty in the

tlpure Sense", or "liberty of' oonscience ft, the term will

not be used as a genus of all kinds of reli.cdous free­

dom. F<>1" what (D.n be pradiated of pure freedom (liberty

of conscience) cennot be predicated about the three

mixed religious freedoms. It can be stated that society

may not limit "pure .. religious freedom". or one 1 IS comple te

autonomy in relation t o God. However, this cannot be

applied without d:stinctJon to the mixed religious freedoms.

These mixed religious freedoms oan certainly be limited

by Society. This distinction between pure and mixed

religiOUS liberty is an inSight ~. 'n ,_ which has helped

the wec in coming C10S9 to unanimity in an Ecumenioal 13b.

Dialogue about religious freedom .

pg.26 . l).b) Carri110, Dr ., Ba_is of Religious Liberty,

12.

j

TtIEOkQGIQ~ 13ASI~.,OF RELIGIQ..US LIBERTY AS DEVELOPED

BY THEOLOGIANS, NOT AFFILIATED tam \'JCC

It is generally admitted in wee ecumenical

circles, that tbel,io has net yet emerged a consenaua of

opinion eonenung the theological bollis of religious

liberty.. The most numerous differences of opinion in

tha discuasion about religious fr-eodon center around

basis 'or grounds for religious liberty.. This. difference

o.tq>1tdal is noticeable among theologians f not ai'filiated

with ~be wee, and also among theologians affiliated With

the wec.. In a ~tudy of R~man Catholicism §D,d Religious

l!"e@dom. , Dr .. Carrillo 01: the wee notes, tbat Jbman Catholic

biblical and theological arguments in favor 01' religious

liberty are many. The first of these arguments as a basis

for re11gi~s liberty 18 the "dignity of man! who bas been

C.£!i;t&d in the 1rn,ageof God,l' . Many catholic theol.ogi9,ns

1).

, among these being Conger, t"'llari tain, Dani elou, Rouquettv.

Pr1bella, Latreille. Hartman, that in the Bible both in the

Old and liew TEHJtaments. God addresses Himself, to a Creature,

who is able to respond and to recognize His Sovereignty,

through free obedience. Because Has frae Will, he is

able to respond to God's call t and to believe and obey, but

also to re.fUse to believe and obey. f>7an is capable ot

convereion, and repentanoe t but ,alsO' of di sregard1ng God.

The early Fathers explained the capacity for choice

inherent in man by the biblical statement that God j

created roan in His own image. Citing scripture Fr .

Congar concludes, IIEast and West in Patristic times are

unanimous in maintaining that liberty as a basic

faculty for free determination is a quiity linked

wi th ontology, and bound up With the very nature of

man . Man continues to be made in the image of God, 14-

and free, even after the Fall. 1·1ari ta.in explains

the consequences for human society of mants freedom,

which f.lows from his resemblance to God. To use

violent force to accept the Gospel would be contrary

to human dignity_ Human society may not destroy the

conequence, i.e. external religious freedom, willed by 15

God When God created man .

14. (lAnd this is the condemnation, that light came into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil, hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have bElen wrought in God" . In . 3 :19-21. Congar, Yves. O.P. "Le Chl'istianisme Doctrine de L1berte fl in LttEglise et la libarte' pg. 2~L .

15. "In the sphere of everlasting worth and absolute dignity of the soul, 8.8 it has been created, society exists for and is subordinate to man." MaM.tain, Jacques, :Le8 Droitsde L"homme et La Loi Naturelle fl pages 26-27 •

14.

Danielou speaks about religious liberty in terms

of entering into e. new relationship with God f i.e. i

Sons of God. This means entering into freedom in a

new sense, not as servant to the Lord, but as Son to

his Father. St. Paul calls the freedom of the children 16

Qf God, parrhesis i.e. freedom to speak. In -. ;. ' the

light of the above catholic theological opinibns in con­

oeiving christian life as consequence of God's grace, any

ffort substituting human coercion of any kind for ,this

divine gracei.s not only unjust, but ineffective, and even 17

ridiculous.

Obr Catholic Theologians consider transcendence

of f:aith as the final and only perfect basis for re-­

ligious liberty. Dr •. Carrillo quotes Fl'. Leonard, O.P.

(1) faith is a gilt of God. A gift depending only on

the transcedental action of JGodts uncreated love. If

the .aesent of believer depends upon the action of the

Bovenign liberty of God, no human influence (not even

church gives faith) can be substituted for work of grace.

(2) faith, on the hUr.lan side is a complete and condition­

les6 committment of man to the '\'lord .of God. In the drama

of dommittcent one of the essential elements is freedom.

The believer has extr:-taord1nary privilege ot participating

in God's creative .treedom,and inserting his own assent.

t3} A f~~\th whioh is imposed is a oontl"adk>.tion in terms;

both in relation to God's free Will, and the free acceptance 16. In Greek, this word. was us.ed to descrH>e

the condition of the citizen in Athens Who could speak freely in the assembly among equals.

17. Carrillo, de Albornoz, Dr. A.F., Roman Catholicism and Religious Liberty, pgs. 29~)O, 35.

15.

presupposed in the believer.

elae it will destroy itself.

(4) Faith must be free I S

Dr. Carrillo. quoting , j

Hartman, S.J., arrives at these conclusions; II~Jtan's

dependence upon God ia subjectively man ts duty to

follow the injunction of his own conscience. Man's

whole moral ~onduet depends on his conscience. An act

does not ha.ve moral value for man unless approved by

his own persona.1 judgment. No external authority can

take the place of onets own conscience. Authority has

value t in so far as, its eompetenc.e is approved and

ita orders recognized as binding, by the conscience of

the individual. The right to live in accordance with

GOdts will mans t o live in accordance with one's con-

science. This right is called "f:r-eedom of consci ence" .

The right to .freedom of conscience implies man must not

be prevented from fulfilling dictates of his conscience.

No one has the right to interfere in matters of conscience

i .e. , forcing them to act contrary to conscience or 19

pTeventing from what conscience urget'. Religious

liberty, when it is understood correctly, does not mean

the protection of error - error as such has no right to

protection as it 1s wrong in itself - but the protection

of the Erring men, ''Tho should not be prevented from serving

God according to their conscience. Even the erring con-

Ie. Carrillo, Ri!)man Catholicism, pg. 35- 37, Leonard, Liberte pg. ~.

19. Ibid. pg. 37, Hartmann, S. J. Teleranz und Chr~st11uher Glaube, pg . l a2 ... 3, quoted in Ecumenical Revi ew Vol~3 , pgs. 427-3:3 •

16.

science imposes obligations and acquires correspmling

rights. This is the opinion of Max Pribal1a, S.J., /

as summed up by Dr. Carrillo with the conclusion; liThe

Church itself will therefore be wise t .o leave God

decide on the state ot conscience of people with 20

different baliefs."

All the preceding Catholic Theologians not

affiliated with the \'lCC, but eited by Dr. Cat-rillo of

wec Cotranission on Religious L1 berty ,are rals.ted in

their argUm.ent.s. All emphas~e the theological basis

ot religious freedom, and make a distinction between

inn • . ltt freedom 'J Q4~eb~ice and external liberties. They

hold unanimously that man is essentially a 80eial animal

and his inner faculties are vain,if he cannot exercise

them, within human society. These theol'ogians malntain

that freedom, which cannot express itself. is an illusion,

a freedom which has nQ collectIve dimension is n()t human.

20. Ca.r:eillo, Roman Catholicism and Religi ous Liberty. pg. 39. He cites this ineonte:lCt mth Matt . I) :28--)0. "Then do· you 'I.'lant ue to go and gather them?" But he said, "No" ; lest 1n gf,ithe.ring the weeds you root up the Wheat along with them. Let both grow until the har"est" " And. also, "Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, Who will corne ; Who wfll bring to light the things now hidden. lind will disclose the purposes of the heart."

I Cor. 4:5. .

17.

For Christians , the person is not merely an individual,

a solitary "I " confronted by the divine "Thou" , but af

being whose personality can find perfect expression only

in a community in a human exchange. This theological

basis is reinforced by the opinion of Pope Pius XII, who

recognized the relationship between inner and external

freedom.

"While we want this unceasing p~er to rise to God from the whole mystical body - that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet we recQPize that this step must come of their own free willi for no one believes, unless he wills to believe. The faith, without which it is impossible to please God, is a wholly free Bubmission of intell eet and will . Therefore, whenever it happens that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catbiic faith against his will, our sense of duty demands that we ~~~demn the act: The WCC is aware of Pius XII opinion., In his schema on religious liberty durin session two of Vatican II, Cardinal Emil de Smedt, Bishop

18.

of Bruges, Belgium, shows a Catholic development of Religious Liberty, based upon the dignity of the human individual, whioh is actually a theological basis. Bishop de Smedt cites Pius II, Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, and Pope John a.s contributing to this notion of religious liberty, based upon human dignity . If this is so, why the lag between awareness of the Popes and the unawareness of Catholios even some clergy. If a development is traceable to the Popes,why are some clergy still fightlnf2laicism and treating the faith­ful as the illiterate masses . · An Eownenical Protestant Theologian eomments upon the development of Bishop de Smedt's notion of religious liberty given at Vatican II. Bishop Emile Joseph Smedt of Bruges, Belgium explained the "Law of Development" in his presentation of the religious liberty chapter of the schema on ecumenism. Bishop de Smedt said that aceording to the law of development: "The ecclesiastical magisterium adapts, explains, and defends geniune doctrine according to the demands ·of errors and the needs of men ariSing from development of Society. By this progress, the mind of tie Church is led to search more deeply into doctrine and to understand it more clearly. The image portrayed is that the Church which is never i'alee to the truth in its teachings - f. though confessedly it may sometimes be in practices - always progressing, never regresssing, never out of character, bringing the new interpretation, of its ancient truth, out of an old treasury, according to the needs and demands of the

Social context.

The as~ute Protestant will discern an app1icatio~ of such laws, a wide opening for sophistry and more frequently for pushing scholastic argument to the point of absurdity.Ptroteste.nts say how much wiser, easier, more honest it would be to admit, as history indicates, that the Church was otten wrong in teaching as well as practice in the past, and now toget on with business of what-should be done now. It 1s good for f'l"otestants to say this J b:4t auch a sugge.stion demands a radical and entirely unlike ohange in Roman Catholic Doctrine. The Catho1ie Church does not and will not see itself as a fallible institution progressing by trial. There are many men in the Roman Catholic fold! who know how fixed and immutable doctrine -can pa~alyze progress. Immobilism in doctrine . is a serious obstacle in the path of unity. When therefore Protestants ,see the J Roman Catholic Church moving belat-ely to positions Protestants h~ire long held, the occasion is one for PJ'otetant joy, rather than complaint. Joy should be the reaction of Protestants to the councils deliberation of Religious Liberty. As of November 19, 196.3, the Council had before it a draft on religious libarty.for whiCh; if ado~ted, with minor emendations, will sweep the Roman Cat~olic Church intc the midstream of 20th Century thought, and action, in .the fii'd of religious liberty, Bishop de Smedt's preface and initial delivery gripped the minds and hearts of the Bisb:ops amd drew from them the loudest, most general and sus .. tainedapplau·se given t 'o any spee'Ch in this session. The immediate reaction of j'rotestants will be "we tried to tell you this 400 years ago, and you would haverone of itlf. Secularists will say, "What's new about this? How does it differ in applicable prinCiple from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rilhts?" Beyond the Church's flIp.e dixit " and the dilfer~ence to doctrines of continuity and} development there ie no scriptural argument for religious liberty which Protestants have not preached for eenturies. Key sentences from De Smedt's telatio will strike reponsi ve ·ohords. Each and e.very man, who follows his oonscience in religious matters has a natural right to true and auth entic religious liberty •••••• No human person can be the object of coercion or intolerance • . The greatest injury is to prevent a man f'Fom WO:tl'shipping God, and .from obeying God, ac­cording to the dictate of his OWi1 eonsc1ence.

Protestants did not invent religions liberty, ncr did tbey abstr'act their defense of it rationally.

21 . Pius XII, Mysti cal .Bodlct Christ, par.lla-9 part also quoted by Dr . Carrillo, ibid. pg. 40.

22. Kung ,. Congar e' Hanlon, Vati can II Speeches, pages. 246-252.

19.

This innate freedom, and its biblical and theo~ logical apology are from God. God endowed all men with elemental di~ni't;I' and to some men sooner than to others} gave t e knowledge of the gift. j

Protestant fidelity to truth requires that they pray for other men to come to .. the blessings of 2~'" ligious liberty, which is preliminar y to faith. J

23. Kyle , Haseld$n, The Christian CentytY, (Ecumenical Review), Catholic Rel'orro and Religious Liberty, Rome, November 27, 1963, pg . 1570-71.

20.

DE~PEq~y THEOhP~ANS NO~ AFFI~TED WIl~ wee

The opinion ot Catholic theologians, who propose

a. jlU'1dic basis tor :religious libe1'ty is well known

to the wee, especially to Dr. Carrillo, who discusses

variousopi'nions in hie book, "Rem!!!: Ca,:tl101ieism and_

Religi~u~ L1bel$IIl,

Roman Catholic Theologiano, who hcli a juridic

I

s tOl~ religious liberty are John Courtney Murray,

S.J .. t Stur~o, Lecmard, Congar. These men realize that

a. change took place in the relationslip beween religion

and politieal society. 'When Christianity appeared in

the world. The very idea, \fhieh men had until t ,hen

about religion, 'Wa$ modified by the Gospel. The human

soul Was p1ac(td in. It new, higher relationship \d th

the DiVine. The old idea or state and religion being

on~ and the same thing ceased to be. The citizen found

hi.rnselt divided between two societies: the civil and

temporal, and the other. a religious society, the Church

f'tmd;ioning tor the apiritual and eternal,. ·end o£ man.

As a consequence something in man became independent of

the states t power. The h\Wltu1 person. created lor an

et~nal destiny, made in the i mage of God, becomes a

21.

ttEree conscience" in the sta.te which cannot force

him to worship idols, nor to do e1/11. It follows thel~,

that both state and Church have their own sovereign

jurisdiction, and mutual a.utonomy. The Church and State

e perfect societies; this flows from the principle of 22

,utonomy. Another important prinoiple flows trom the

distinction and auton Qf the two powers. Tbe ~~at

it is called a Christian State. A state formed by

Christians does not have a e;reater power; nor a different

kind of power than a state composed by pagans. Th

state oompetence is clearly defined by i t& pu"poses ;

religion ie not one of" these. Fr. r·iurray writes; 'rha

State is not empowered to forbid indiViduals or groups

thin soc1 ety t who deny the exiu:d ve right ot the Churoh

as the true Church, end Who undertake to preach a gospel

o£ their own, provided the tenets of their gospel are not

incompatible With the order of justice, and a threat ~o 23

public peaee .. " Many Catholio Theologians are convinced

that constructive tolerance springs not trom religious

indifference but Fa.ther f'rom Christian law of love.

Christian allegiance to our fa! tb must be the true basi s

ot real rellg10us liberty, yet this presents a dilemma,

2~. "It is not. the function of the state to guide people towards their erilvatlon in the life beyond. '1 Rouquette. Robert t S.J., La Problem du pluralisme r$lig:B.uc. pg .. 2.14.

22 ..

2.5. l-lurray, John Courtney, $.J • Government Reprnpsiop of H~rG6Y, Proceedings of the third Annual Meeting of ; the Catholio Theological Society of' hlierica 194a. pg.59-60,

o pg. 66. ~The protection of members in poesessionor faith is the task of the Church; it is a spiritual, not a wiit1eal task .. It the Church is too ''leak to perform this task

t ension of living together With human society in

peace, and at the same time on a deeper level, having

a duty to one's own conscience and to truth. /

This is a problem which Catholic Theologians whom

Dr. Carrillo studied in his work, ~oman Catholicism and • I ~

Religious Freedom were trying to solve. This problem

that is allegiance to truth, tt!l one f s own eonscienceJ and

faith, and at the same time living together in society."

which may even be hostile to these eommittments, yet

living in this society in peace and love, is a problem

which the theologians of the wee such as Dr. Carrill o,

Dr . Fredrich Nolte t Bishop Newbigin, Professor Roger Mehl,

Professor Scheuner, Dr. Voight, Sr. Kenneth Grubb, Professor

Peyrot, Dr. Berkhot, Dr. Amos Wilder , and othe~s were

trying to solve in developing a asis for religious

liberty. The wee 1s aware of the principleofsp1ritual

pbwer, which explains the prineiple of autonomy. It is

evident that the eternal desf.t.lly of man 1s supertor to

man's tetrporal a1m, or that objectives of the state are

subordinate to those of the Church. This does not mean

in any way that the state is in any way subject to the

Church; otherwise the pr1.nciple of' autonomy folds up.

The distinction between the objectives of Church and

state 1.e. temporal and eternal, nakes a man a c1.tizen

2) • (cont' d.) .successfully, she does by that tact acqUire a juridic right to invoke the coercive strength of secular government.

2).

of two destinies. The Church therefore, comes into

existential relationship with the state, onl y directlyj

insofar as the t\'(O powers have a cormnon subject. It i s

the Church's exclusive task to teach supernatural faith

and to maintain the integrity of its doctrine. The

state's contribution to this goal must always be in­

direct. It cannot be that t he state somehow must share

in this ecclesiastical mission , undertaking to coerce

into raith, into regenerati.on, into unity and grace. The

state cannot be the instrumen~f the church for under -24

mining religious liberty. The church has no right to

demand of the state what the state is not requi red or

competent by its nature to give . The civil power cannot

be the instrument of the Church for t he ends of the Church ,

the state has its own ends, determined by its nature,

which are proper ends to it. These ends are not the

highest of man. The civil power is onl y subordinate

to the spiritual power in that the whole order of the

terrestrial ends of mm is subordinate to the order of

his transcedent, supernatural~ destiny, to which the

Church guides man . This subordination is not that of

the vassal or instrument, but of the free man. The

primacy of the spiritual cannot be a femal overlordship,

24. !tIt is common Roman Catholic Doctrine that the state in itself, has no competence in relig1~us matters" , Murray, Repression Heres:y;, pg . 10, cited by Dr. Carrillo, Roman Catholicism and Religious Liberty, pg. 35-45. .

24.

')

but a spiritual reign, infinitely respectful of all

hwnan freedoms in the temporal order. It seems that j

a mission of the Church, to the world, to bring a.ll

men unto con~unication with God may be best carried out,

according to biblical revelation, through the prophetic

word, and by the teaching of the Church. St. Paul did

not ask Christians, or the Church to take the sword

of the state, for religious purposes, but .he sword of

the Spirit, which is the Word of God. This sharp

distinction between the different spheres of Church

and state aet1~ity implies a purification, and is

healthy and beneficial. A state can very well be

Christian, without interfering with the exclusive

compelti'ence of the Church . Christ is Lord of the State,

as He is Lord of the Church . The immediate arm of the

state is the natural life of men , with their human

activities , not the divine life . Such a Christian

state does not require of its members that they should

subscribe to a common religious belief; and does not

relegate to a position of interiority, or political or 26

civil disadvantage, those who are st~Lngers to the faith .

This phase of the inquiry into the WCC of search for a

25.

26 . Religious minority groups where Rbman Catholic Church is in majority have been hindered exercising religious freedom . The winds bloWing from Vatiean II continue to exert their healing influence in several countries. In Italy the improvement for minority groups is slow, this 1s true in Colombia . All other countries of Roman Catholic majority with the exception of Spain and Haiti, have become more favorable to religious liberty. Belgium, Austria, Ireland, and most Latin. American and Carribean Republics are cited by Dr . Carrillo ' as making notable contributions towards religious liberty. Carrillo, Religious Liberty. World Situation. 1964.

basis of religbus liberty in the writings of Catholic

/ Theologians can be concluded by noting that great

damage has been done to true religion, by all forms

of coereion. Wherever the atate was given competence

in religious matters, beyond its jurisdiction, and

violence was used to obtain apparent external success;

the unity of faith which was externally preserved by

coercion, has suffered from congenital defects, which

have developed into all kinds of symptons of diseases

centuries later. ~One thing is certain, the application .

of force to maintain unity of faith has not succeeded

in preventing the secularization ot the modern spirit,

in the very countries wher.e t here is the so-called

26. (conttd.) In the same survey, Dr. Carrillo \trites; "The draft law on the civil rights of non­Catholics has been the occasion of a great controversy among $p~h Catholics. Articles against this govern-ment project appeared Widely in daily newspapers, even Bishop Pildain published a Pastoral Letter exhorting Roman Catholics to pray that religious liberty be withheld from Protestants in Spain (Ecumenical Press 6ir¥ice, May 28, 1964). This letter has now been withdrwan from circulation. If rights are given to Protestants, many still fear that Sly form of "public Witness " will be withheld from minority groups, because many Bish.Q:ps, as. well as Cardinal Arriba.>have de:c..};wed proselyti sm of any kind as a threat and grave danger to Catholic unity, and to religious and social peace. Ibid, pg. 6.

26.

Catholic unity, on the contrary. this seculariza.tion is 27 /

largely the outcome ot such compulslons. u

27. Carrillo, Ror~n Catholiciam and ReUgioue tibert,l, pgs. 52-53.

27.

PART - II ~ BASIS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AS DEVELOPED

BY THEOLOGIANS AND ECUMENICAL ASSEMBLIES AFFILIATED . . WITH THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

;

THEOLOGICAL avUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY • -- _ I

AS DEVELOPED BY w ee THEOLOGIANS AND THE

ECm~NICftLS ASSEMBLIES OF W C C ~

/

We have considered the de~pment basis of

religious libertv by WCC as garnished from theologians

not affiliated with the WCC, namely Catholics. Let us

now consider the contributions made by theologians

affiliated with the WCC . Biblical and Theological

grounds for a basis ·of religious liberty have been

proclaimed by Ecumen1cal Assemblies, affiliated with 28

the WCC, on many occaSions. Yet there is lack of

unanim1ty in agreeing what would be a dietintive theo­

logical baSis, which would 'be acceptable to all members

of WCC . The diftere-nces of opirxi.~ are due to the variety

2S. Oxford, 1937, Wond Conference on Church Community, State, 1948, Amsterdam, First Assembly of WCC , 1949, Buenos Aire8~ Frist Evangelical Conference of Latin America, 1961 , New Delhi, Statement on Religious Liberty. When in the 1937 Oxford Conference the question of socialism and cOJnIllunism was taken up, and their relation to WCC . The Conference approved aetatement that God might speak to the Churches, more clearly through their enemies than through their friends . Hence it is now commonplace

~e.

of the.ological traditions among various members of the

WCC . Even though there are theological tensions amon

the various members of the WCC in defending a common

basis of religious liberty there is, nevertheless,

complete ecumenical agr.eement, that religious liberty

is not a revealed truth. Even though religious liberty

is not revealed truth, many scholars argue that Sacred 29

Scripture provides a foundtion for religious liberty.

To establish a foundation for religious liberty

the Bible requires a study of not single passages from

Scripture, but rather an evaluation of Christ's way of

approaohing mankind as found in the Bible . This would

specify a theological foundation from Scripture of

ZS. (conttd.) that there was much of the Hebrai prophet in the godless Karl Marx, whose moral indignation was hardly consistent With his allegedly scientifio theory of economic determinism. Muller, Herbert, Religion and Freedom 1q the Modern World , University of Chicago, pg. 3, 1963.

29. Wilder, Dr . Amos, Eleutheria in the New Testament and Religious Liberty, . The Ecumenioal Review, Vol . 13, No .4 , July, 1961, pgs. 4<59-420. TM.s is an excellent article with many referenc·es. Wilder thinks that craation and re-creation, or redemption by Christ is Qf great importance in establishing religious liberty . Godts honors the ultimate freedom of a human creature, and will make proper retribution on the basis of how

29.

freedom was exercised. In support of his argument, Wilder cites passages from Romans, 1!21, also 2:56, 5:12-15, Phil. 2:5-7. Let your bearing towards one another rise out of your life in Christ Jesus, in other words force or coercion cannot be used to promote faith. Nyborg Meeting of the Central Committee of the WCC, 195e, Ecumenical Rev'1ew, Vol. 11, No.1, October 1958, pgs. 36-42.

Religious Freedom. However, there ie no ecumenical

agreement among members ,of WCC, in \'Ihat ma.nne~ j

Scripture and Theology give direetion for a foundation

of social religious liberty. The most d~_sCUSSQd point

ha.s been the interrelation betl'feen inner Chr:i.stian

freedom, with whicr Christ has set u~ ,ree; and the

social or external religiousf'reedom which ecumenical

bodies of \1TCC seek. The well kno~m statement of the

Amster dam !ssembly, 1948 was a breakthrough in articula­

ting a.greement, and also fomenting controversy among

ecumenical theologians. The statement is re,~roduced

here:

While the liberty with which Christ has set men free can neither be _yen nor deetJ"Oyed-by any goveTllment, Cl}ristians because of tha.t inner .deedom are jealous for its outward expreesion anq soli.citous that all men should hav~ freedom in religious li£e.)O

.3O.T' Hoeft t , WI. A. Viseer, General Secretary WCC" ]:i'iX"st",Asserob,!l:., ~f wee, Amat,erdam, pg. 97. The statement fJf Am;,tel'aam has beenre-interpreted by Dr . Carrillo aafollows,; (1) Christian liberty or the ,liberty with which Christ has set us tree is an inner freedom {2} Christian liberty cannt1)t be gi veJlor destroyeC! '6y ,any human power, because of its 1n'Watdnees () social or external religious liberty ie the outward expression of ~he inner Christian liberty, Social religious lib¢rty can b' g.n or recognized, or dest1"oyed by human power's. Social religious liberty is not identical with inner christian lib$rty. (4) Christians demand Social religious liberty (outward eXlPression), because of the inner Christian liberty.

.30.

All wee Ecumenical theologians agree on the distinction

between Christian liberty and social religious liberty.

This is a clear cut distinction, between what a man

is a.b1e to be I in himself, in terms of sf,iri tua1 al­

legiance, convictions as to r:l.ght and wrong, moral

judgments he makes, personal eommittments, and desires

and purposes which he hopes for. Quite a different matter

is a phase of life in which man has pOm"' and freedom

to express, to manifest and 'to carry into effect his

purposesn the socia.1 fabric of 11fe. All tolCC theolo ..

gians agree on this clear cut distinction between

inner religious freedom and its outward expression.

There is also ecumenical unanimity t}l~'t!. ~C?g~!l religious

.freedom is the outward expression of the inner Christian

liberty. TM.s agreement which was originally articulated

a.t Oxford, 1937, was actually restated and formulated 31

at Ams).t'erdal'n in 194$. · A consequence of t he agreement

among wee theologians on the distinction between inner

religious liberty, and $ocial ret igious liberty, was a

pre~ipitation of a controversy. The controversy resolved

itself B.!'ound the queetion \-lhether Christians should

demand outw~d e;pressiqp ot social religious liberty,

31. Secretariat on Religious L:tberty, ~ Ecument;al .State¥lentuL.2n Principles Concerning Religious Liberty, World Conference, OXford, 19.37, pg. 2. Same eltat.ement as quoted foot note 30.. A1eo quoted in Vol. 13 of ~oumenica1 Revi~, pgs. 421-426.

31.

A ro!nor1tygr,Qup claims that the two liberties are

completely ditferent, so that one ca.nnot be the reasoty

for the other. The great majority of theologians

believe t.hat Oxford, 1937, and Amsterdam, 1948! established

a causal nexus between christian inner liberty and soeia1 32

extemal lIberty. Some argue that the interaction

between (l)absolute freedom ot' spirit and (2)the

outwa~d eXpression of a 1'ree spirit is thwarted by

the psychological t'eatra.ints placed by Society. Con­

sequently, the external coercion of society, deprives

a man of tf\e possi bili tyot acting responsi bilyin

religious matteTs. This . . 1& therefore a denial ot

God's intent for man. The conclusion 18; this J a

liberation t'rom external coercion is demanded by the 33

ve.ry nath:-r:e of inner Christian freedom. Others

deny the above' a.rguments, maintaining that the liberty,

pg. ;6 .... ,8. 32~ A1bornoz, Ba~t:$ of Religious Liberty,

3;- Oldham, J .. H •• The Church and the Disorder of Society, WCC; pg .. 147 ... 151 ., OldEam speaks about the social ordet- which C~.ttans must seek to realiaetd.n virt.~ of thei~ t.aith. These goals can be attained only in a society which respects the consciences of :1 te JD'embere, and is op&nto the creative impulses to free men who participate in making moral deci,sions. Thia freedom includes the tttght of rntml.H)t"S tID critize ensting institutions, to eek, to eXpQS6e:roror; so that health of society may be permeated by the peFsonal resp()ns1ble aetion and initiative o£ a whole community.

32.

With which Christ has set ye free . can neither be

gi ven npr de.8troyed by any government. Persecutions , j

ue interpreted as being normal situations which purify

and strengthen C~:1=Jtiani ty • Other theploglans seem

to think that inner religious liberty d1)es net need

the protection of social liberty absolutely speaking)

but only relatively. External coerci on seems to

contradict God's intention of giving man inner freedom.

2fuey claim that the benefici.al etfeets of persecution

ue exaggerated. They cite Henry VIII who tried and

turned a Roman Cathclicpopulation into an ~lican one

in a few years. It would seem that external coercion

certainly has destructive etfect8 on inner free.clorn, and

that persecution, when radical,does not have inner 34

pudfying and 8trengtheninge.ffeots . God may permit

coere-ion in His Providence, but Hia Rl"int.aI"I intllntion

is that mSin remains free. God respects His own inner

freedom, His 'Will is a Itfortiore" , that man do the same.

~~ny theologians are convinced that inner freedom

demands social religious freedom, r~gardle$s of any

influence. which external coeroion mayor may not have

on inner freedom. .1)'1". Wilder 01 'teed previously, the freedom

ot man in the Bible is not only inner, but this freedom

demands, in itself; that authorities do not trespass upon

'4. Albornoz, OP, cit., pg .. 60.

3).

thistinal zone of liberty in what eoneerns man 's

de4Jtiny and dealings With etenl1 ty. Wilder reasonS'

that in the N.w Testament the eXistence of selt, is

j

a. s.Qcd .. al ... bistol"ioal existenee.. The primDrdial freedom

of man must be allewed a public ... historical &xpl"eesion

subject to the limit-s of the Divine sovereignty; which

operates in pU't through the .social orders. But the

social orders and the civil powers must. act here within

the terms of their mandate and subje-ot to divine judgment.

Wilder thinks that Paul's eleutheria is an es,onatolegical

freedom operating in the world, in histo.ry. Elfmtherea

is not just a supeZ"ticial cacept of ind1fferentism to

env1);'Onment, such as is found in st()icism, Gnosticism,

and some modern forms of i4el.:li.1srn. Paul.' s toadiesl view

of Christian 'ree!iom of sons l.ndentified with the lite

of the Spirit, with joy, peace, glol"Y.e.arries with it

an 1;rresistible pressure 'upon all d~mensions of the

fles,h, Whether Church Qr state. (I can't help but

feel that sQme of tis Pl"6s8u.t"e of treedomotsons is

now being eXQrted .1n the dimenSi .. on of .01 vil :rights for

negroes, who areconSil.'bi;"ad Sons, 6S Willed by the Father,

and announced ahd spoken by Christ.) Wilder's conclusion

thro-ugh his interpretation of Paul ta notion of Christ.ian

liberty a1"e: (1) Ultimate responsibility for choice and

dec;f..elon on the part o£believer ie presupposed. (2) Free­

dom is not only inner and private, but has historieal ...

34.

80cial and cosmic proportions (3) The Christian is obliged

to r ,ecognize the fredom of fellow believers in this I

Sllime sellse. (4) The temporal povel"' of "the state is 35

similarly obligated. This portion of Dr. Wilder,

that there is aneesential relationstip between inner

and social external relid.ous f reedom, is acmpted by

most ecumenical theologians. And also that the inner

Chriatian freedom pl:'esupposes that external social freedom

be made possible for all in a community. (My own question

would be, when does one really achieve inner freedom, in

practioe, not t1nly in theory, what happens it inner freedom

is not achieved by transformlltion?)

There aTe actually many ecumenioal theologians, who

recognize the essential relationship between inner and

sooial freedom, yet are opposed to Wilder's theory.

Their insight into man's freedom is both as to the

internal and social aspect follows two directions of

development . The first arg;uDtent considers the status

of man as created, redeemed, and called by God to

engage in making tree chOices, to .fulfill a personal

destiny, and a social vocation. Man bears t he con­

sequences of bis decisions. The opinion seems to be

more in line with the di~ni ty of man, than restraint

or coereion, which helps man from making mistakes. The

35. W~lder, Eleutheria, The Ecumenical Review. pgs. 412-416.

35.

second of the two arguments follows the direotion of

GOd's waXs with men. God, the Father, as disclosed j

through Jesus Christ, is neither arbitrary nor coercion. J

God does hot use f ·orce to win our allegiance. This divine

respect for human freedom shold be a lesson for the Church

and state, 8S to how power should be exercised. God

does not eomp~l faith. The second of these insights ...

forme what develops into juridic basis for some theo-

logians. These theologians deny the essential relationship

between inner and social freedom. For them, Bocial religious

libertx is a consequenceot the limits set upon the autho:l"ity

,of wolldly power or a lackot competence in :tpritua! matters.

(This would b~ mere along the line of argumentation of

Father John Courtney Murray, S.J.)

These tbree different posiUonswiU new be studied ?

in more detail.

~ry

t'r- :

)6.

THE STATUS OF ~~ AS A BASIS

~SOCIAL RELIGIOUS LIB~RTY

/

Actually the status of man. and God's way-of dealing

with men, are both aspects of the same spirit of Christian

revelation; however, for sake of dissecting the various

strands of theological development, each insight will

be treated sepantely. The Commission on Religious

Liberty of the wec at Spittal , 1959 SUllIed up the main

Ecumenical statements concerning man's status according

to Christian revelation. This summation of manls re­

deemed status Was epresssed in this general formula:

"God created man in His own image and redeemed him by H1sown free act of' grace in Christ, and calls him to a life of Sonship in freedoffi

A in which the respDnsi­

bility to accept or rejeot is place upon man himself. tl

After Ecumenical discussion some new elements to

the above formulation were added namely, God created

in ~, redeemed in love, called men in love, to be a

free child of God in Christ. Each is responsible bdfore

God; nothing can alter thie relation between God and man.

Hur.nan coercion often does assault man's power to cling

to God by faith (as a free child ).

37.

Beoause of the violence to man t $ essential (Christian) . 36

neture, eoerc1onis sintul(ItaJ.1os ~dne). The j

general criticism of some ecumenical theologians

seems to be that the above formulation is not

theologically clear. nor convincing. Some propose

a trinita~an formulation e,g. Prot. Berkhot, a mem-

ber of wee Committee ~, .. on Relig10us LibGrty. The

French Comm1$$i·01i of 'rheologien.e beliQvee that every

human being created in image o.fGc>d benef"its from Cbn't

and ther·efor'e deserves to be respected j e.en ''then he

makes mistakes. Other tlelogiaJls are much more reserved

1neollsiderlng the "Imago Dei II, as a foundation of

mants religioua fraedom. In tact. lome reject the idea,

claiming that the "Imago Dei" could serve both 4S a

foundation tor religious liberty, and a denial o£ free­

dom. The I~alian Commlss1on says. "If tr..an is made in

t.he ft,!we 9£ .God" he 18 committed to allow that i mag

38.

,6. can-il1o • Dr.. The Bgn otReligioy) J..1~et1ft, ~. 6S. Thi& formulae18 15ased upon atat.ants ma ' " at Q~O~ 1212i MadraS l~le, Amsterd,a~ 12lt!, _, Challlb¢n ~alti~c>n ,ranee '41, rfew elhi 194EJ, 1~61 t later re- · rrmed tlie general notS-onli. At OlCf'ord: IlMan created in image of God. and has indes'tructable value' . at. tvladFag, ItOrounds tor religious liberty are rights Qnd obligations 0 men as eh11<irs1'l 'Of God ft

; Amsterdam, "Every person has place in divine pur­pose. Created by God in Hie image t object of Cht"ist t 8 redeeming l'Ove 1 (each) must be .tree to respond to God t 8 ealling. Chambon­aur-J"ignon (France) 194.8, tTEvery man should fir8$ obey Goa. all others should in no way C1l"Ctlm$crlbe this 'Obedience. Also to., und on pages 4 ... 7 01 "Stet.matte) Anal~eieOf Eey'!enieal State­ments by Dr. A. F. Ca .. rI~lo or wee 1"_ beneva are etatementt road., at Bu.enos Aires 1949, First Evangelical Conterence; Bangkok 1949 Eastem Asia Conferenc64 Buenos Aires. Libert, of Con­sclence is inherent in human personal.ity, and has it.s deepest foundations in the Gospel of Je&U8 Christ, Bt:mgk~k. The fundamental :-ights of the human person cannot endure except as they are acknowledged as derived from man's relation to God

to shine forth tdt.h1n him. But at the laaIne time be I

may be committed to suppress the distortion of thi 37

1mag$. The ''tiea that roa.n is the "Imagp Dei", and

therefore is free, because God is perfectly free, is

an incorrect oversimpliticati.on. The reality of the

ima~e ie much more complex. r4e.n is a spiritual being

w1th the ~ower t>6 think, j~dget decide. This power or

ability must be tully respected. So there is a danger

of two destructive illusions in this opinion ot man' s

redeemed statUS being a theological foundation tor

religtus liberty. One exaggerates the dignity ot man ,

in such a way, 88 to make man 'Wholly superior to soeiety,

and independent of it. is Objected to society, but ,a not totally. as 8t. Thomas expresIS8s so clearly.

Another possible danger in considering the created and

redeemed etatus ot man, as a foundation tor religious

libertY:- ! l3 danger of l'secularization tl , aceorcUng to

)6. (cont fd.) in Christ. These same state­ments. exeept Buenos Aires, ore tound in Ecwnen1c~1 Review Dr. Carrillo, pgs. 421 .. 426, Vbl . 13 .. . This stuay also includes statemente from ChicnestfW 1949. EvanstQn, 19.54, and 8t. Andres, 1960.. Hal vereen, William H, "Freedom and

39.

the SeUIr, J~$l or a-eligion (J4J" 1963. pgs. 139 .. 150. The theo1ogicaa!menslon of·tne problem or t~edom may be stated 88 a p.roblem of the rfi1at1on of the self to God. Thi relation must be conceived analogically in sucb a way as to account for three tb1~$ (1) The universality of enstt'angement (1ts tragic character) (2) The selt's responsibility for its own estrangement (it. moral eharacter) (3J The selt's 1n-.bility to Qvercome its own estrangement (the need for grace).

)7. Ibid, Carrillo, Dr., both opinions. pg .. 68 ... 69.

3g~ Summa TheolOgice X-Ill q. 21, Art. 4. and ad.3, ,- i8 not ordained tor the body pOll tic, according to all

that he i8 and has and $0 it does not tollow that every action Qr hia acq\d:res merit 01" demerit in relation to the

Wilder, Professor Vittorio Sub11ia also stressed thief

danger, where theologieal insight-a ean be contusod

with humaniut1c and secular eorus1d.rations~

)8 .. (cont'd.) body Jd.1tio. But ul 1'-hat man is, e.nd ~an t end has ~ must be ref.rred to God; and thare.tor e overy action ot God. whether good Q¥' bad t acqulres merit or demerit in the sight of Gc:t:d,ae t"ax­as the action itself i8 doneerned.

40.

GOD'S WAY WITH MAN AS A THEOLOGICAL

FOUNDATION FOR ,RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Man's st.atua as child of God, created to an

eternal destiny is one aspeet in a theolo~ical in­

veet.1gation for a basis of religious liberty. The

other aspect is the manner in which God dealp with

!!!!m- This is a n~w insight, a new developement J the

/

, st recent declaration had been articulated by the

Central Committee on religiOUS liberty at St. Andrews,

1960; and appr~ved by the New Delhi A$sembly, 1961.

"GOd calls men into His service. God's redempt.1ve dealing with men is not coercive. Accordingly hwnan attempts by legal enactments.. or by pressure of social custom, to coerce or to e11ll1linate ways of God with men.. The freedom which God has given in Christ, . implies a free :vesp:nse to God's love, and the responsibility to serve ;fellow men a8 the pOint of deepest need. n39

The new insight is that the act of God in Christ

is a result p£ a i'ree decision. the free giving of th, _

Son. D.!!d therefore requires a free res12onse. God as

39. T' Hoeft, \"1.1... Visser, The new ¥h1 Report, wce,. 1962, pg. 159. In a very interestIng study Archimandute Jerome Cot&onis I ot Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School, pOints out that Force .was used in ancient times by Easter n despot.ism and Roman Absolutism to impose re~igious convictions. Maybe the Church once accepted force as a means of imposing the faith, but this WaS in antiquity in the Old Testament. Artaxerxes permitted Ezdra to rebuilA

41.

,/

God as disclosed, or spoken ot 'by Christ, is neither

arbitralrjl' nor-coercive. God has plac&d man in a world

endowed with everything f<>r man t 8 £ull development. GOd

las given men t'r·eedom to use gift. of cTeation as they

ehoo$e. God r;oespects man's f'r;f)edom, even when men

abuse abuse thin faculty. However, men must take full

re.sponS"ibill ty £Ol" deciSl·ons ,anci abuses. Bf blical

revelation is a. disclosure of' Godts, love , and concern

for manld.nd, in Christ Jesus, who laid aS1deall dltrine

glory in order to live among men in freeo'bed1enee, as

one who humbled Himself. Our Lord inV1 tes ue to 1m! tate

Him; to respond to God the Father. Man 1 S religious

act can constitute an authentic reSponse to Ged, <:mly

when the act is voluntary and uncoereed. God deals with

men, ae: free re.,nIlble beings, and He expects from men

an uncoel'cedresponse.. Even though the1"e eeems to be

gene~81 agreement in accepting this insight by \vCC;

Dr. Carrillo believe~ there 1s a p.osei.b11ity of mis­

\tnderst.andlng this principle in f>U'l exagger-ated sen8e * which would be alien both to $ct"iptU):'e,a.nd aleo to

.39. (cont 'd.) ,JftruSalem, he wrote an orde~; Everyone wnc does not do the law o£ God, e.nd the llw of t.he King ; readily; letjudgroen.t be upon him upeedily eithexo death - banis.hment ... contiacationsof g()odS, Q.%, person. Ezdras 7.~2w According to the author of the Epi.$tle t 'o Diogneto4; God s.t His only Son into the word ~ to conwlnce, not to torce, to~ force is not becot~ to God. La~antiuaJG~gory Natianzus, and Atbtmaaius. the Great, teQch6S that i G18 the nature of God to p1!'Ysuatie, to te""ch, hot to coerce, and brow beat. Th1$ is clear tX'om a great number o£ scripture passages; "WhoeQ8Ver will <:.cme after met! , Mt . 6:24, repeated also in Mk. 8:'4; Lk. 9%,2). The Lorc1 a8k8 the Apostles freely to

42.

40 Theology. Before entering into a detailed account

of th.e sJate'" . competence. or a .1ur1die 'bae!s tor I

:religious liberty, B;s . .fpnaW-atad. by the WOC , it would

be ppoper to point out that man's status, as redeemed,

and ·as, a responsible agent, whose liberty must be

respeoted by society; and godts non-coer~1ve dealing

with man, requiring Ii tree response, are one and the

same theological reality. God's redemptiVe dealing

men has le.ft men ire.e to accept the divine ti'evelation.

39. (cont 'd~) de¢1de whether they Will follow h!.m. In. 6:67~ 'lWo difticUlt1es in the Nf T. rtcompel them to come in that my house may be filled " , Lk. 14:23; and tIthe K1rgiom ot God sufters Violence Md vti.ent, bear it away", Mt. 11:12 (Lk. 16t66). The first sare St . Cy~l .. Alexandria is an insUstent u.ng that invita.tion is 81nc.e~e,eV'e~hough the invited seem so \U'lf'it_ The second, St. John ChrYfJo$torn .says; "the LOl'd was r .eterp'ing to severe e.tf'ort or pressure one imposes on selt, not a f'o':'ce rJ10m w;lthout. The G;reek Orthodox Theol.ogical Review, Freedom and COi!;.t'c1c;n in tlie ir.opoga,tr.ljn or the Faitli, PiS .. 97 ... 111.

40. carzo111o, Dr., TbeB$sis of. Religtous Libert.!, Pt:. 74. (1) It is true tliat the tord's sell t'evelatlon reguiresQ tree response, however, procla­mation in biblic.al 'eexts inll'ludes jucl.gment and. the poss! .. btUty of eternal 108a. (2) Bible teaches man' s en .. sla'V'ement by sln. artd the mystery t)t ele~tien, Of'course m~f.ens:lavement by 'in does not ~ede the possibility 1)£ trE4)" accapting or ref\1$ing God's revelat1on, .Mt .23:37.

"How I haVe longed .. but you would not': () Another element tor undEtrstan<Ung Gcd'snon-coere1ve activity with man , is the actual exi4ltenQ~ or eoereicn :in tho world. 'l'h18 seems to be orda.ined by God for a pUrpO$4ih Traditional theology doEts not throw tnueh light on the freedom of tJ1G Kingdom ot Ged, anc1coer~ion in the world which creates a tena10n in a dynamic inter-action in human sQciety. The &lZ6Ct beundar1ee of t.he ttirremovabl,e'l limit of tStat.~ cO$reive ·competel\ee bas not been preeie.ly delineated by theological speculat10n and Pt'inclplee ..

4 •.

Precisely bee.auae Qf Hia non-eoerc1vemethGd t God has /

c~eated and ~deomec.i freely and called man to be

freely ""ponsible,be£ore Himsell and H1'8 .fellow

men.

44.-

I

,JURIDIC ~ASIS FQR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AS DEYEI&P~ BY wec

Bome wee theologians are reluctant to accept essential

inten-elat1onebip between inner Chr1ati-an tnt,edom. and

,oc1al nli,d.ouG freedom. For theae theolcm.ans, social

reUg10us liborty .flowe-as a consequence ot the Chr1~

teaching on authority oE worldly powers, and t.he limits 41

set upon them. Ecumenical tonnulat1ona have stressed

tMee limitfS of the otates competence, or lack of it,

to rule over men's conscience. However. these state ...

rnt8 11m!. ting the "tat.. powera have had a8 their

81s the Crh1&tl.an insights or mants status, and Qed's

non-coercive activity W1th men. Once these Christian

concept" have beeneetab11:med. tben it naturally

tollows that man shoulcl reepond .. pons:lb:11ity i,to Ood;

ltl. Car'r111o, Dr •• BaSi, ot Rel1g!ou" Liberty, pg.. 6). The Chrialan view oonsiders the state as naving

4;.

,uthority .from God. In this limited authority the at.at 1s not entitled to rule over the conecience of man. TheretoFu, Christian do~tr1ne can demand that the state recognize the nght ot the Chr1$tian to exercise hie rel1gion freely.. Fr. John Courtney 1-1urray Wl"i tes, fRel1giou8 treedom was reeogni2led 6;$ a human right during the poet-Reformation era of ConfeSSional Abaolutlam. Even anabaolut1et prince could not. compel a man ;0 aot against his conscienoe, ~. doctrine of religious freedom. as an immunity tJtol:n eoer?~ iva restraint wu, however, f'1l"at e1"feot1 vQl.y proc1&.1m~ by the First Amendment to th Ccn8t1~ution of theUn1ted States. The Declarationretogn1zed that religious freedom, like other human and civil rights i exercised Within 80ciety and. may be subject to lim1t.ation. " Amer1can Magae:i.ne, January 9. 1965, pg. 40.

and that the state has no right to impede this 42

religious liberty. There are some theologians of ./

wec, who ar.gue that the limitations of states powers;

·or competence is the only basis tor religious liberty.

However , this non-co.mpetenee of the state, or jusidic

basis for religious liberty is not deduced from the

Chrietian insight of man t" free response to God. This

46.

42~ O~prd, 1937, World. Conference on Church, Co_unity and State , ItAll Churohes shoUld renounce the use of coercive power of the state in religious matters" , pg.2. MaDras, 1938, R!fort on Church ~d State, bh IntErnational MIssicmary Counc i; h\Thenever a nurch anyw ere as tor conscience saKe refused acquiescence in the deD$nds of the state. pg. 3. Amsterdam, 1948, wce; R,~ort on Church and State and .the International Disorder. It Is presumptous for ~.the state to aSSUl'1le tnat it .can grant or deny fUndanlenta1 rights, pg. 22. Ohichestet', 1949, Central Cozmn1ttee \'/CC. Statement on Reli.gi.ous t.ibertYf On.iY the recongition that man bas ends and loyalties beyond the state Which ensure true justice to the human person. pg • . 10. Torontot12iO' Central CoIrlD11ttee WCC, "Declared oppOSition to all pract ces of governments t churches (Catholic ... !Olems are predominant Religions) . or other agencies, Which cUl"b . exercises of .re1igiou8 liberty. " pg . 16. EVaDstoh, 19a4t The Second Assembly of wee. "Since we b,uieve In the 0 y God as a 80urce ot jUstice, we dooot conSider the state a.s the ultimate 80uree of law, but rather its guarantee. It (state) 1s not the iON but the settvant of justice. There can be tot the Christian no ultimate authority b\1t the v~ry God." This detinition ot the function ot the state was also articulated by the Oxford Confe reno e f 1931. The Eyanston 'Report also said; "No one form of government has a universal claim on Christians, but any political system must inClude 80me elements without which it t .ends to become an opp:res$ive lttyranny. tt pg. 115, The Evanston Re~ort. Second A8.sembly WCC, Harper Brothers-;-I"954 . ~I?Oritt5 , Central Comm1t~ee wec, Study on Religious ontl"i~ut on resolved t<HSt.udy the legitimate limitations and

the abuses of th.ae limitations which f9vernment. churches, and societies invoke involving I1mitat<ons In an arbitrary or discriminatory . tn.ann.r to . the detriment of .relig1 oue 11 be1"ty. pgs. 22-23. New DlM. 1161, Re-affirm all opinions above, and further pointed out; fi t is the obligation of governments and 80clety to emsUi"e the exdreise of these civil rights (claimed in name of Christ - f reely available to all men to exercise respons1b11it.y) without discrimination."pg. 37.

insight for a juridic basis evolves from (l) States'

non-competence over man's conscience, and also the states'

(2) incompetence concerning the objective judgment and

definition of reli.gious truths. 'l'bre is a division of

opinions as tothe precise theological insight upon which

Christians base their view concerning the $ltes' non­

competence in the affairs of mans' conscience. The

majority of opinions would consider man as created and

redeemed by God~ and in dealing with God, man is solely

respen.s! ble to God.. Therefore the State must respect

man's responsibility before Ged. Trying to argue from

Christian revelation about the precise limits of civil

authority :in virtue of the states' nature, in dealing

with man would be extremely difficult. So it would seem

that religious liberty, would be based upon the freedo

given to man by God, rather than the limitations of

political authority, as deduced from Christian revelation.

However, asme WCC theologians are reluctant to accept the

view that Jrelig:!ous liberty can be del"ived from faith.

They say tolerance cannot be derived trom faith. The

reason advanced is that Christian faith is absolute

truth, i • e. every inc:li.nation toward a reeognl tion of two

47.

42. (cont' d.) The Oxford J r.ladras, Chichester, Toronto, Evanston, Nyborg, New Delhi 8tate~ts were taken from World Council of Ch!1t';chea, Secretar1it on Religious Liberty DivisIon ot Studies, pgs. 2-37, G'~eva 1965. Main Ecumenical tatement on Prinei les of Reii iou8 Libert • Amstel'atn port rom - Carr · 0, r. A •• , cumeniea State­mentson RelifiOUS Liberty WCC~ Geneva, 1959. Evanston Report WCe , Harper , 954.

or more poselbll1t1es of truth must be avoided. So

ome theologians seek a Christian basis of religiOusi

Uberty in the limitations of civi.l power. This is

done to avoid objective relatiVism ot divine rovela-43

tion. Even though many Ecumenical statements have

been articulated and formui'lted by the WCC (fC)Otnot

42). a Chureh-3tate relationShip 1s tull of complex and

intricate problems . EC\Wlonical Theologians of wce

ree unanimously, that both the Church and State ar 44

Will,2d andord!f1tpd by !lgdJ Another point of agree-

ment 1s the state's incompetence conoerning the judg­

ment and definition of religious truth (also matters

01" conscience). If there is discu3s1on concerning the

state's compatence in religion, it certain~y has not

reached the level of dogmatic convictiona, and new

theological inSights. Some argue that it i8 alien to

01 vil aocUty to impose. an ideology J which would crush

religion. An institution (civil) which i8 incompetent

to judge among various religions beliefs 1s still less

competent to decide against !!! religious convictions.

Ecumenical Theologians also agree, that the state not

only bas the duty te re<:ogn1ze and respect legitimate

43. Carrillo, Dr. ,Basis of Religious Liberty pg. 83-87, 92. Summary of above opiniona.

44. Carrillo. Ibid., pg. 125.

4S.

religious freedom, but also the positive duty to protect religious liberty a.nst the many extra

legal forces, which tend to limit or destroy it.

Theological opinion divides itself as to the degree

l

of states competence concerning religion, and the free

exercise of faith . For some, such a8 Sir Kenneth

Grubb ., "the state should inter.fere aalittle as

possible in religious matters . Civil' "oeiety should

recognize the fa:t of religious pHaralismr and guarantee

the harmoninous exercise of t he religious activities of 45

all citizens and institutions. Other theologians

such as Dr. Wilder stress the positive respons1blity

of the state in religious matters. The state can re­

ceive guidance from the Church to ·fulfill its God-given

functions. Dr. Wilder comments upon Romans 1.3 to show

that Paul 's words should not be modernized to teach two

orders, temporal and eternal, one · caring tor natural

life, and the other for spiritual life of man. Paul's

notion of state has a sacral character, and is related

to God's~tion. at least in the sense of orge (wrath).

45.Drs. Mackay, Nolde, Voigt; seem to hold the same opinion. Even Mr . Nehru of India has said, "Although our ultimate aim is a secular state not to be identified with any particular religion, freedom of consoience and the reeognition ef the religious rights of all ci ti zens must be the starting point. " Ecumenical Press Service , #29 , !gust, 1946.

49.

The state should serve man positively, not only 46

negatively, in work of salvation. For these /

Theologians the state cannot be neutral about re­

ligious views, state Wil~e compelled to take sides,

because of Christ having entered into history, and

having introduced into history a polarization, in

which men are compEi led to take sides. The state is

expected to secure the nec essary o~der and freedom,

within which man can develop as a responsible person.

These Theologians look with suspicion upon formulations

such as "peace and public order"; "public order and

mo~ality", which delineate the states' area of competence

regarding religious liberty. To deny legi~t.teeompetence

of oi viI ,~power would cause a dangerous re-action in

opposite directions, either, (1) the state will abuse

its power; then men will wake up and ask, too late, why

the state has so much responsibility, or ase (2) the

Church \\till find its relation to commontotal fabric of

life, as a fossilized hierarchy, The defenders of the

states competence in religious matters advise that the

state should work out in a continuin~ dialouge between

the body politic, the ohuroh, and school restraints.

The restraints can be imposed upon harmful and disorder-

46 . \,/ilder, Amo8, El,eutheria, Ecumenical ReView, Pg. 419. Dr. Fagley aleo say~, nThe need for thorough etudy on the relati.on of the Christian faith to the principles of world community advanced on behalf of the churches is urgent. Ecumenical Revi!w, VoL 8, pg. 392.

,0.

ly expresslonsof religion. This involvement by the

state in religious matters is certainly very difteren~(.

from the position wh~ch considers the state completely

secular; and separated from any religious group or body.

In spite of the sharp contrast, in the two opinions

concerning the degree of states competebc'e in religious

me.tt~rs; there is agreement in saying, that the states'

competence must be solved, not by elaboration of

abstract principles, but by s~dy1ng each particular

case, in 1ts historical setting and dynamic circumstances.

Different situations will require different solutions

in establiShing a relationship between Church and State.

The wce has to face situations and find solutionsin

three situations where (1) Catholic tradition predominates

and the state becomes involved in defense ot the

"status quo" . The tendency is to inhibit the activities

of other religious denOminations, to protect the closed 47

system ot religious unity. (2) A second situation is

that in which a neWly independent nation with a non-

Christian majority is animated by anti-coloni8stistic ~

and nationalistic spirit.. The main obstacle to religious

liberty here. Would be a strong desire by the new nations,

for political unity. One rjiglon 1s used exclusively to

achieve this unity. The work o~ the WCC would be in

showing new nations, that Christians are loyal citizens

47. Carrillo, A. F. de ~lbornoz, R.li~us Liberty A General Review of Situations in Worlq, 1964; Ita:y, Spain~ Colombia; are places ot tens1on.pg •• 1--5.

51.

48 of a state, whieh recognizes religious liberty.

() The most difficult sit.uation with which the wec

must deal, to insure l'elig1ous liberty, based upon

the prinCiple ,of states jWi"idic competence, would be

in a (lountry with an atheistic govemment, bound up

wi th dialectic materialism., It state pretends to

to be bound up with manta best interests, then the

state c.an also pretend to be liberating man for his

own tree development. The state pretends to be

llm:1t1ng only those activities, which are against the 49

sooial and political welfare of the people. The

/

Ecumenical bodies of WCC are divided on the juridic

basis of the states' competence in promoting religious

11 berty. There are also extreme ~osi tions J and

QP1nlons among members of woe on whetheJ:' Church and

State should bp separated. The two extremes which

_ 48. Ibid.; Carrillo, pg. a "Al.geria and Syria proclaimed Islam as of£:1cllal %'"el1gU'An, - Tunisia signed a modus vivendi- With Catholics d1$c~iminat1ng to b"otestants." pg. 10 . Sud,an deported all Christians missionmes from state "to restore stability and security Qtst.ate tf

, March t 1964; pg. 11. Ceylon government drove all CatholiC nuns from hospitals.1 leprosariums, medical and health lnst1tutions, February, 1'764. Part of drive to rid all foreign missionaries from country, pg. 1;.

49. Ibid., Carrillo. pg. 16 .. 24. Situ.ations in CQmmunistcoUiltries. . In China, obstaeles plaeed tc baptism of Christiane' Russia, w~l"ker8 employed by Tceligious organizations .are barred ft'om stat'e pensIons. pg. 20.

52.

must be J'ejeoted are (1) the poa1tion which den14l's

that the Church has the duty to co-operate, to a j

degree, with the state, for the promotion and pro­

tection of religious liberty. The opposite opinion,

(2) advocating involvement Which wou~d subjeot the

Church to civil authority. The result would be the

10S8 ot that freedom, which 1s necessary for the

Churchts special mission o~ social service and soUi4

witness. Thl comp~ence of State in Church matters, '

and the relation of Church and State is an issue

deserving further research. and atudy, which the WCC I

hopes will lead to ecumenical agreement. of two

approaches to the problem of religious liberty from

juridic Viewpoint, (1) which over-emphasizes the

unconditional aspects of freedom, While ignoring th

power and function of the state; and the (2) other

approach, whioh e:ulte the power and functionol the

state, while minimiZing the, ultimacy ot the human

conscience; neither approach really solves t.be problem.1t9

Dr. Carrillo believes with other wce theologians, that

the distinction between pure religious freedom, and the

mixed religious freedoms, which involved other civil

freedoms, would help to solve the ,uestion of states

page 1)). 48. Carrillo, Basis of Religious Liberty,

53 ..

/

~ompetence in religious matters, and also tooelineate

the states' function. It is obvious that pure re­

ligious liberty, i.e., that fr~edom, which involves

our essential relationship with God; must not be

interfered tnth by civil society. The Assembly of

Amsterdam calls the right to determine one's own

faith and creed, a right which involves two processes,

(l) whereby a person adheres to a belief, and (2) 49

WHEREBY HE CHANGES HIS BELIEF. Also included are

the (1) the right to receive instruction and education,

and the (2) freedom of access to information. These

rights are claimed for individual persons, and re­

ligious bodies . It would seem, that these rights

should be free from every legal interference by the

state. Yet it also seems, that the exercise of other

ri~hts, having a social impact, these rights should be

regulated by law. I n these cases, the state should

exercise a proper function of requiring obedience to

non-discriminatory laws, passed in t he interest of

public order and well being. The state intervenes

in these activities precisely because they are social

activities, and presupposes the exercise of other

social rights.

49. Carrillo, BaSis of Religious Liberty pg. 157 . "Deolaration on ReH'gious Liberty of AOmste.rdafr" 19M.~ . t1

54.

The point at stake is this; the limitations

of the states competence, and the jurietic basis for /

religious liberty cannot rest upon arbitrary foundations .

So nOl,1 we shall consider some factors, and cendi tions,

which delineate and restrict the Sates activity, when

the state regulates social liberties, which are

atruetured4nto a religious$tting. After these con­

siderations, this study will be concluded by an analysiS

of he.,l religious liberty can be exercised responsibilly

by the individual in a Church society.

55.

LEGAL LIMITATIONS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

In virtually every country there are constitu­

tional and legal recognitions of religious liberty.

/

At the same time there are simultaneously, limitations

of religious liberty, based upon a variety or reasons,

such as (1) national unity, (2) public order, (3) public

safety, (4) public morality. Some limitations of the

free exerotae of religion are legimate; however, the

WCC believes that frequently violations of religious

freedom occurs, when reasonable limitations are invoked

in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. The fact that

some legal limitation of the exercise of religious liberty

1s legitimate and necessary is generally agreed upon by

wac . M08t of tbe Ecumenical statements about legal

limitations eXplicitly given, but vague, and open to

interpretations . It is difficult to determine, what

preCisely are reasonable and necessary limitations. It

1s equally difficult to determine abuses which constitute 50

real, unjust violations of religious freedom.

56.

50. (1) Oxford, 19;7, "Where there are majority and minority churChes In a state, the same essential liberties should be enjoyed by both majority and minority churches, pg. l~ (2) Madras! 19;9, "A grave tension between Churcnand state ariees from !mpos~tlon of restrictions upon church - chUrch involved must be left Ubimate decision as to when to refuse to submit

The most precis~ formulations leading to any type

of standard, and criterion of evaluating abuses, and ( " t"easonable limitations 1s the Amsterdam 1948 Dee1aration.

This declaration was confirmed by t he New Delhi Conference

1961. This formulae establishes a satisfactory solution

to the vagueness of the pre'lriou8 ecumenical statements.

The Amsterdam and New Delhi statements follow:

(1) Limite of the libept ot conscience: The right to detei-mlheone's oeliel lsiiriited only by parents; otherwise a perso~ may determine, and ~dhere or change his belief at will. This Includ8sthe riiht to in­struction, education, access to information.

(2) Limits of the liberty or reliEus elC,Press.ion: Inetitutions should grant immunity from discrimination, and from legal disability (meaning disqualification) solely on gnunds of expressed religi.ollS conviction. This free­domsho'lii prevail, until recogniz.ed community interests are adver.sely affected.

()Limitsof libe~ ,ot )4'eligious association: This type 01 liberty shQ d Deeubjeoted to the same type of non-diaeriminatory laws, and limited in ~ome way, as all other non .. re.. igioua a880ciatiC)ne are limited.

(4) Limits of corporate religious freedom: The eOttmlUnitr has arIght to reqUire, and expect .ohedience to . r1on-d scriminatorylaws, passed in the interest Of ' public order, and well being. A religious body must FftSpect the rights 'Of other :religious bodies. and also 51 the ind.ividual and corporate rights of the whole community.

50. (cont fd.) to state laws whieh curtail its activities. " Both above from "MAin Ecumenical Statements

57.

on princifles of RelifiouS L1berMy by wee. I') Federal COWlcil: f> Churches 0 7 chi'"ist in Amer1ea ; statement on religious liberty, 1944. tI "iteliiioue freedom is SUbject only to the maintenance of public order arid s·ecurity. " (4) Buen'08 Aires. 1949, Declaration of Religious LIberty, fTTbe practice o£ religious liberty cannot recognize any limitations by legal aotion other than those which are nec$s.ary for the defense of rqorals and~liC ora.r. " ()) and (4) from Carrillo. Basis or Relgious Lioertlt pg. 136.

The above formulation 1& based upon the wee irus1ght, which cU.Dt1ngu1shes between pure religious l

freodolu (liberty .of conscienoe), and mixed religiou

tl'eedom Which includes (Libel"ty .ot) (1) religiou

expr-.;saio'JI,(2) aasoeiat1on, am 0) corp.orate freedom).

Pure it-eadom must be abs.olutely prote-cted by civil

oc1ety, for it involvetJ a man' s per.anal relationship

to God. The other religious .freedom (mixed) inw.tes

tho exeroise .ot otber rights not specifically religious;

theretore, these rights may be legitimately limited

insofar aa the exercise of these other rights involv

some rullngs, and legal determi.nat1ona ot t.he state.

In other words l the basis fora limiting scme religious

freedoms 1a alwayse!l,temal to the essenoe o£ religiOUS

freedom. The need .for ora'er to secuzte the common good,

which is the reason tor 11m! tilll rights f refers .only to

d religious freedoma; which are not specifically

religious ones. So in lightot 1his dietinction the

tP'''' .. ,-.......... _ .. _- that. t.he p~po$1tion: the state paa power

OTHEB oivil rigbtswb!ch \he Bt!te max 1~g!t1mat~lx . control.

When a partieular religious power presupposes the exercise

51. Thue limltat10na are found on pages 6 and 7 Of the AmsteZ"<iam Deel.aration and PiS .. 25-37 ot the He' Delhi Report. wee Mt4.n Eeumen1cgl ;Statementa,,_poneva,. 1965.

56.

of a social riJIht, the otate may limit the exe~ei$e

or tIle social right in P1"9portien to t.he degree Q,f / S2

'ates cOlnpet~n\le on the matter. Tho cOHditiona

tor the legi t1rnate I1m1.tations of a right t in which

tate has competence, must b~ Eras,en b,eg and .r!9uef3 ted

bX law. and not left to ~~bitory administrati ve decisions.

Again the lirrd. tat i ons muet be etually applicable to all

citizens, . and to all religious organizations, and never

diecr1m1natory. Of cours·e. non-disorimination 1e neoes ...

sary; but in 1tse11\ non-d1eo.JIm1nat.1on is not euftic1ent

tor enjoying full liberty. It Il'AY happen, that th

rxereise of ll .n lllln right or an e •• ential mani£estation

.y be JrOhibited or restricted If!r. ill. "bile it 10 t~e, there 1e no d1scr1m1nation at the same

time the exercise or a human right has been denied

(llon-diacr1m1nete].y) to all. The pt"Oblom oC ncn-d180rirninf!­

tion by civil authority is relat6d to the problem of limiting

relig!ou~ .f'reedom, because of a particular confession or

croeeti. In a pluraliati~ soeiety, any limitation .imposed

upon a. particular religious group Within the cOmmunity

'b1eh is aavantagccue to another religiou8 group, must

ne~ees01'"11y be dieorindnatory~ It" the l imitation is based

,2. Cf11T11.1o. llf"!8Q-f a_l:+ttious LtbtnZ. pg " 142 .

59.

111erely on coni"e;Jsional &round:}, ci viI &..uthori ty fIlay

novel' deny relig~ouG trocdom to d1ssfmtl:ng l'rltnOrity

gt"Oup.s, .for tho cako of p~sarving religioutHttu.:tYt

and the prtv110gQS o£ tho religious majority. Th

limitation of' ralig10uD liberty in orUer to tl£'..il'ltain

or produce l"oligious unity, 'Within a society is

novor juatifiod.(This is One Qf' the ream ens why

the Spanish speo.kirJ.g Bishops OPPosfJcd Vatican II t 0

3chen:a on Religio\18 Libert.y :tn the second sesr.tion 5;'

of the Council).. Reetrictions on the .free

m.an~restation of religious convictions t and of their

1~p11cit consequences, cannot be justifi~d by society 54

for tear or eventual dangers.

./

The wec its in ecumenical agreement that the

ttpp11c!l.tion of the pr1nciplesconcerning the stetee

competenCQ in r~ig:Lous matter$ is difficult, nnd

changeable wi tb changing environments and soc1etieg"

Therefor e, even tho~h the theoritical Christian basis

rCD'41ns AS ~ut11ned in the study hero; yet, the wee realizes, that its stand on religious liberty must b

constantly adapted to, the needs otcbanging times

and conditione. Th1,p stud.y of tbe VICC on x'elig1.ous liberty

\>t.i.U be cenclttdtd by considering the responsible exercise

of :-ellg1oue liberty by the individual and inet1t\l\fenal

bodies ..

53. Italic8 v~ne.

SJ.. Prot. Peyrott · "Observations to Cotmn1seicn on a.U.g1ous Uberty, u C.-ilio, Ibid •• pg .. 144. .

60.

RESPONSIBLE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Religious freedom is certainly not ab501ute,

so it must be exercised responsibly. There are,

,/

of course, differencee of opinione and contro"sies

regarding the reeponsible exercise of freedom. The

differences of' opinion, as Been by WCC, can be roughly 55

divided into four groups. (1) Group one would include

the minority confessions or churches, who suffer serious

.and unjust lim1talons of their religious freedom. These

do not like to speak of responsible exercise, eve.n

though recognizing in principle, that freedom cannot

be absolute and unlimited. They hesitate to speak of

responsible exercise of freedom, because they them­

selves have been persecuted on grounds of suspected

irresponsibility. (This is an argument which is used

against civil rights demonstrators now-a-days) . Under

the pressure of a '(Mstile official environment, it

is not rare, that this group advocates, and defends

complete separation of Church and State, and a liberal

individualism. (2) The second group in controversy,

55. Carrillo, Dr., Basis of Religious Liberty pgs. 100"'104.

61.

as to I. now freedom is to be exercised responsibly,

are those Christian people, who enjoy freedom Wi thin , /

, which is favorable to all confessions. These

see the Church and State as a part of framework for

the common good of humanity. Unbridled religious

freedom appears, to these. 086 unwarranted, unjust,

and as a serious denger, and threat to freedom iteelf.

The state should be raponalble for the moral concerns

of the community, because religion is not foreign to

a state maintUning an environment in which all

conteesions flourish and are given tree expression.

(3) There is another opinion dealing with the responsible

exeroise of religious liberty, from those who live

Within the confines of countriee, in Which the ~vern ...

ment ie indifferent even hostile to relig1'On. For these,

the WCC claim tor religious liberty 1e inopportune.

Social religious problems should not be put in terms

ot liberty, but in terms o£ s fertile incorporation of

Christian principles into the concrete society in which

Christiane live. (4) A fourth opinion dealing With the

responsible exercise of religious liberty 18 advanced

by Christians, who live in non-Christian countries; where

the majority religion 1s non ... Chri,stian. These Chri8tians

advocate a secular state, indifferent to all religions,

as the beet solution for the1rproblems. They a8k tor

fundamental rights for all without discrimination. These

dit.ferent opinions and tendencies, muet be considered in

62.

arriving at a possible solut,ion, and. orientation

of an indiviciual and institut1enal exerciSe of I religious liberty, which is r8spone1ble. While

exercising religious freedom, one must be ready to

expect some unavoidable restric.tions of liberty. Re­

sponsibility 1s inherent in, the very concept of freedom.

Man c~ates and achieves bis destiny in conetant re ...

lationsbip with his mld.gbbor. Man is made free by

God, not to follow _ry erratic impulse, but to

grow to maturity as ill social being, aware of the tiC\ls

to his tellows in thecommun1ty. REsponsible exercise

of religioue liberty Dlust constitute a eommittment

toward God, one f s neighbor, and towards society.

R~SPOlil&1ble exercise of freedom 18 basic for gl1Sl'mteeing

the very survival of liberty. IX're.ponsible uae of free-

6,_

dom, and undisciplined libertinage will usually usher in I.r

coercion, as a necessary substitute tor liberty ..

R-espt1ns1bl.e freedom is th$ only a.ltern.ativ$ to 101"·oe.

The a.bove prinoiples on responaible eX.ere1ee of liberty

are valid, although the practical application of some

of theea pr1nd.plea in certain circumstances and eases, 56

will present almost insurmountable obsta-cles.. The

~bject1Qn.$ responsible for the exel"ciseot religious

UbEJrty advanced by some ohur-ehe$ of wee weI's d.elended

56. Bi.Bhop ERnest Primeau. Manoh est er • US in

an ad-dre.,s to . Vat1,can IIpo1nted out that todays laymlUl 1$ aware o£ bj,a own abilities, dignity, and reepons1billti,es and will. not longel".put .uP With being treated as a passing member Dubmitting blindly to th~ authonty of' the Church as ",si lent ebeep" 41 Thve $Fe taithf'lll whe have $pecial comp&­tence in ~eas, Which clergy lackG. They ask the clergy t.o

as follows" The first objection: some are afraid of complete lib-erty for all? The answer to this

could be that even among the \V'CC; some ma j ority /

religions fear a.'ld .suspect proselytism by minorities

in their tarrito • The other objection fears that

~ny proclamation of limits o~eligious liberty may

be dange~ous, ~or t.,-he state will then take advantag

on any pretoxtto liwit exeroi 's6 of freedom unfairly .

TrJ.S danger cannot be Jllinimi '0ed; but it is also t rue,

that abeol utereligious Uberty 1ts61£ can be even

rn~re deng;arous. For the r i s k in t he responsible exerci se

of rel181ou& ireedow 1s not temporal, but e~ernal. In

spite of thi s" God 1a willing to t~e this enormous risk,

ana so d0e~ the vlCC of proclaiming and demending responsible

religious liber ty, for the indivj.dual and institut i onal

bodies (minority groups) . The coneidera~ion of Euture

or eventual danger ~ll not de~er t he wec from reeog-

nieing responsible religiou$ freedom. and from acoepting

'Whate\H~r leg! t1mate restrtct1QJl8 are imposed by the ;7

ete.tth The \qCC recogn1~es thttt. it i s lleaeSSl:l!'y t o

proclaim these limitations upon the responsible exercise

of religious freedom t or two reasons (l) because the

churohes have a reopensi bili ty to :1l1um1ne society,

(2) the wce 'Would lone HiS authority it while defending

,6, hear them. This awareness of their ability nd. dignity . naees:iarily should Bet tIP a dialogue between

laity an(1 clergy_ One question whi ch must be answered in this dialogue is the relationship between f reedom and aut hority. pgs . 83 ... $6. Council Speeches Vatican II.

57. Carri l lo, The Beesis of Religious Liberty, pg . 106 . . .

64.

rel1g10u$ liberty, end condetr~ing unjust limitations,

it would not recog.n1~e legitimate IJ.rr.itEticme. The ./

New Delhi Aa()embly enuntiateS the individuale behavior 58

in ac~ng responsibly in exereieing religious liberty.

Dr. Can-illa pointe out that it ie the duty of a responsible

Church in the exercise of religiOUS liberty to claim this

right, not only for oneself' but tor all religious bodies,

even non-believers; and then to proclaim, and pl'actice

this right. The Church may not exerCise any type of

coerCion, either phyeieal or moral, in order to persuade

someone, to profess something, that he does not l:elieve, ,

nor to act against his conscience.

The Church's witness must be by the strength of

~he divine power, given to Jesus in heaven and on earth, '9 and never by the force of human power. Finally,

responsible exercise of religious liberty by the Church,

includes a complete renunciation of the use or power by

the state in religious matters . especj.ally in subject.ing 60

()l!' eliminating rceligiouB minorities. The responsible

Church, in ecumenical union with the wec, lI'!Ust continue

to sakror the recognition o£ complete religious freedom

for all.

58. The freedom with which Chris.1I basset us free calls tor reS;eOnpgb111ti tor the rights of others. The civil freedom wbie we cairn in the name of Chriat.

65.

must be freely liv,aila.ble tor 8.11 men to exercise rea~nSiblX. Secretariat on Religious Li ben)" t wce f ~1n ~cumeni£.­Statements on Principles ConC(lt1l1n.$ RelBious Freedom, Geneva, 1965, pg. J7.

59. Carrillo, Ibid. pg. 116. 60 .. Oxto~ and Amoterdam Con£erences, "We

condemn any Church which seeks poer of stat& to enf'orce religious unity."

It must be ready to choose to sU£fer persecution , and

must refuse to eubmit to .unjust 8t~te laws, and regu~~ I

lations, or administrative actions, which will curtail

essential activities. in its essential W1tnes6 ~ In ...

dividual membere must even chooae death, rather than 61

to disobey God; and the dictates of their conscience.

Finally the wee has declared i te loyalty to t,he message

of Amsterdam to stay together in a solidarity in the

r.erta1n knowledge that Je,ou6 i s Lord: f'Stand fast

therefore, in the liberty 'lflhereby Christ has made 62

you' free. "

61 . Conference of the IMC. Madras, 19)8, Report on Church and State, pg. 3, #45, in same report as fOQ'tnote #58.

62 . Central Corr.m1tt.ee of viCe , Chichester, 191,,9, Statement on Religious L., beltY t pg . 10, #25 of s ante ~cport as footnote #Sg.

66 ..

BIlMtIOGRArHY

I1!!MASY SQURCES I

Carrillo, de Alborno2l. nth!; Basi,S 9,/ lle~giOU$, LihrrX'~ t Secr&t.ariat tor Rol gi'ou6 t!te%"ty oi'ld CCunei of churches, A$soeiation Pr~&s, N.Y" 1963.

Carrillo, Dr. A. F. de A!bornQz. 15curo9!!1eal Stat.ements ~ Rel1iif>US tib~rtl; A oystemat.io Analysis, W,orla ~uncl1 orliUl"c~e$ Commission on Religious Liberty,

Geneva; Janu~ry, 19'9.

CamUo, de Albol"ncz. A.F . Dt-. , tjRoman C&'tIhOligiem . And R.li~;9YB L1beOY, l'ubli$~by the World Council or Churc es, 17 itoute de MlUagnou. G.neva., 1959. Seeretariat on Religious LibertY1 Mafn!E¢~ent~al $tatemt'pt,! on Principles cSAcern1nj ¥~ iit;ous 1i:~$gom • . lB, .. • • • • ot· St .: , lIZ •

8~CONDARY ~yRCES

II t

Chica.go,

Aquinatea, Thomae, ~p~a~, QU6stio 19. Article 5, pg 4 77. :iIusurg Ii ub II er e. N. Y 4 '. 1948

Bea, C~rdinal . Augu. stin, Unity iiFroej.ona, Ha.rper Row PublJl.shera J N.Y. and 15 allston, 1964.

1.

Carrillo; Angel aQ Albomoz , R,*11f10US Li be1;X' A genuine Review '01 the Present Sit"uet~on' In 'tii'e o:t"ld, prrepa:r-ed Cor Execu"i VEt Meeting oZ \forld Council of Churchae" 1964, Publiehed by wee, SWi t ;:el'land •

Hartma.nn, Albert, S.J .. T;olW.!:!1!-_~ CPt,istli<m..er Gltlube, Frankfurt am Main, Venag ose 'Knecnt ,'955.

fT Ho.oit , W •. A. Vlsser, (ed. . }1!!£J&yan~ton _:n.e~ort. The Second I.ssembly o£ the l~orld Council: or hUl"ches , pge. 11~~126. Report of Secdon III, The Responsible Soeiety in a World Per5pec~1v~. Harper B~s., New York, 1955"

.ff HOoft;,. U.A . Vlseo,J',ed. ,.it',he First A$;$embl~ of the World Qouncf~4SE~~~rche:sl. die t'iH'Ie!al eport at

. • Sar-Frees. Ltd. t London.

I

•

Kung; H8lls, Conger, Yura, O.F. o 'Hanlon" Daniel, S,J. f

"RfltUgi:ous ,Liberty" , Bl,.hop ~1l$ JO$G~b De Smed;t, Bruses, Belg1wn, CpW1P,l~, sie~gha8 0' Vatitan II.,t neu. Book1 . Pau1ist Pi"eI5Cl. ew J~r$ey. !'96. t

pgs# 2)1 .... ~53 ..

l4aritt.in, J~CqU~Sf ~ Droit,& ae, 'x,'hptiJ!ll0Jdl . kilt. tol JatyteMe, New ' ork E'aIt{OUiJ de la .' son, r~ee1s~, 1942.

Mull ... ; Ih~rbert J /I ,tteligi'on an<l Preedom in uho Modern ~/ct"ld; Umv~~i~l ,of QP.!cAgO ·Pr$$s.1963.

Mur~&y; John co .. ··urt. ", 'neva .8. "J. '. The. Pro-Qlom !f R.l~g1~us tib!r!Y:, n~n: 1965. ''''L •• , , .- -

Murray, John C~tll$1} S .. J.,W'e flold, l'hte!~rut~H!' . C$thol1~ aeil$ot1ona on the American ropos1tlon

$heed. and Wa)'"d. lIt_ 1(orl< f 1960.

Ne>rt.hoott., C$c111.. . R~igto\lS Itt borty t r-tacMUlan Co., N_ JOJ"k, 1 ';f48.

Oldham, J. C,. (on$ of "n contd blltOJ<e) The Church ~d She m.~rDf §iCClptii' .M l!:(;\11!lenl cax study prepared under' t • Btlap cae 0 - . CC •• SCM~ Pres., London; 1946, pg&. 126.155"

Pius nI. Nxstlenl ~dx ct. Qht!st; Pau11$t Press t 1942.

PrimG$u, E~n(tat. Bi8hop of Ji1tmQhe$t~)'tl U.S., uRespons1bl·e Frledom ot ·the IAYlnan. P2Yie;lj. Spetu:hea or Vatican II, edt t.ell b~ , fkule Kung. Yvea Congar. Dan1.a (5' ManIon, g. J • , pge. 8) .. S6. Pauliet F"88:, »ew Je,:rsOyt 1964.

twmv. Y..a)"l, S.J., Free Speech iXlt.be Qhur'Sb, Sbeed. and Ward tN.w Yewk t 19S~., , ,

~ .

~iL~OQ~HI ~ f~DICALS

~~X ftQYJl;CE I

CaJ"'l'1Uo, Dl'". A. F •• d. Albornoz, Main Prine1pl$$ ot Rel1g1ous. Uberty Proelaimed by Ecumenical Bodie"' t E'CUllleneal aev1~t Vel. 13,. October, 1960, July. 1961, Pie. 421 .. 4~.

S~NPARI §OURC~

Bates 1. M.S.; Recent Pbaaea ~ the Pl"Oblem of Religiou,s J.,1bGrty. ~en1e!l R_:U:cw. Vol. e, July, 19$6, pss. '72 .... - .

Ba1.Ull, a"~"ql Ie Church fa PC&1tion en Birth Control In.t'aUiUJ,e· 1Jj)e, Ec,Q~" Vol. 2.nUtlber Sf July -tugu&t. 1964, pp.~J:ll.5;- (CompaM. development in rGl~g1OU$ liborty Which was tit doctrine condemned ta$ danaGJi'OUo, and now thtough aa understanding of d.igaity ~f human per$On and ·many eh~tG in $oe1al o .. der.conde!lll1Qt~on haa been nbandri).

Cawdllo. Or. Alb,ronoss, Rel~~()us L~rty from DIlY to DflY. 1~¥,!en1.QB.la9J}iCle'J~ toun4 in' Ecrumen1~lU Review f

. 0 • 1), (3 e.-. 1'00 ... July, 1961. pgs. 476 ... $8.

Carrillo, Dr. A. F. da All»rnoll; Re11g!O\ls tib.~y and SecOt1d V$tican CQwrel1,. ~2unt$\1e!:k Rtviiw, Vol. 16, -1uly, 1904-, pgs. 395 ... 40,.

Gwri!l!>t Dr. A. F. de llbemofa • . RomanC(ltho11C1p Jand Mlle1o\l8 Liborty, Eeumen1eal Renow, Vol . 12, pga. 2'·43, July, OetobeJ"; 1959.

Can1.11~'1 I)rlt A. F .. de Albornoz, Roman Cathol1c1am and R,u.1g!ous Liberty, Scme .New Developments, 'IU.~ ~A t1l!h Nashville , Tonn •• Vol. 33. Winter

3· ., pas. ~).

COll[Jar. !ves,. o.P .. it! Oht:;eti!JB8meJ.. dCl(:trine de libortate, in 1-'EE!~Aao; et.;ta 11.!1rle. f"tll"le Fl~t 19" .

COtscn!e, Je~ 1, (.Archimandrite). Freedom and Coercion in th$ PHrl8tion ot. t .he Faith., lbe ~:r •• k QWodOX thfa01W-c n.. Vol . 9, Nt.m\bGr t, 5iiir-.o, , pgs. ' - ' . ',' '1 cx-oaa G:r'eGk Ortho4oa Theologi<lol School Pl'"$$G. Brookline. Massaohusetts ..

DovQJlandau, P~D. ,Tbe Hindu, Conc'&pt;1on .of Religious Liberty in tb~ t4elt1ng l"ot. Eeumenieal Review, Vol. 1), October, 1960, July 1961fP~$. 4)9-49.

lJou61as. Elmv a. f 'tbeol~ca1 Pos1tit'm oE Islam Conoem1ng 1teU~0U8 Libert" Eeumen1cal ReVi.w·, Vol. 13 j Octobel'~

. .1960, July, 1961. t P£:$ . 450.,.462.

3.

Eeunen1cal Bodies; Sympo81mrl on R'ligioue L:1b~ty, .. en1cal nmew, Vol. 13. July 1964; pga. 409"';

Ellis t J. '1' •• Re11pOWl Freedom ill J\lneri-e4'lt Changing tle. an1~e itl Pal)t ~d f-r.,ent1 tl1e~ R~V1 .. f))!, Vol. 237, Summer 1963 t }')ga. J.2l ... )lJ ..

Fagey, Dr, RJ-l., Chricti,an Wt tnesa in th$ World of Nations, ~C}1rn.~~gJ.Rey1~. Vol. 8, PE1lhlU ... 38.

Httlv~aon, William H .. ; Froedom and the Selt, :10. ot Rfl,iifD. mumbe:t 4.3J 1963, PIS., 139-50,Biiied tij" t . e . n1 ty School O:t thf) Uhl. VQf'si ty of Cldeago Press, 1963 ..

Hartmann. Alhe",BJ. Tha Prlncipl~ on Whioh tfRel:t~ons F"1h~tfr t is based in Catholic Theology, &!umw;Cal R~v1e'W, Vol. 1', OetobM" 1960-July 1961. pgs. ~ ... 1;3).

li~X'depC.· o~epondellcflli fbta n.~. on Religioue heed pgG. 352-5~, V-o • 1, liumb&l" 1;. DecembGl" 1964. flirder. ~ York.

Kyl~, Hatleld_n. C§tif1!Yc Ret~ ir~ ~ligi4\WLHbi!fttt , Chriotian Centw<y (EcUf(l e rem." " !ii. to a

CorreaPilndencQJ ionlf). r~ov~ber 2.7, 19A.:;. Vol, 00. July ... Pecesl>~r) 1903, pge. 1570-71.

LeQUnrd! A\liUGt1n. o.P. t nt1bertate de lao Eoi at to ~rulce e1vil.e. 1n .~c .. J.t ... c~~te bw~ef Pal't~, Tourn8. , CQ:$te.-man, I . •

l·lay. ntah()p 'G~dt Relig1ou.s Ltbwty in Auatric.., t!:&fj~.1¢~eJ f~_ in " P!!l1~~Rf~0t. o • . ,' , () . r l~Ju1y 1961, pga. 13- •

Mul't'-ay, . John C()urt.n:er •.. 8.11. t "This Matter oE ReligioU8 FFaedom f

) . ~tpler3.fr94 Je.nual7 9,. 196'~ Pth40 If.

Uv.nay. .,ohn Co~ney j . Relig1<)t,1fS tibertContentp0.al'enlfo\us Ori$ltlt1oJ}$ ot Ch\\l'eb am! seat., eo ·. 8l ·. U $8 Vol. X, 1949, pgf,. 167-227; :Articlis In " _0 ., 0 St:tld1,ee al$() appeal" in Vol. 6. Pet., 8$ rt 194,.. Vol. X Juno, 1.949,.Pi' 177 it; Vol. I, 1949, pg. 409 Wit 19'4, pg_ 441., t:£ ..

4.

lVold.$.t 0,1"., R •. 11~ Ltbtt),uy Oons1deJ'Cd &$ an ln~tional. problem, . Eeu.menieal Revi9W, Vol. 13tOctcber 1960 ... July

3. 961, pgB. 434-4'6.

./ Poyrot. Ge()~g". ~$~'i~~X :tnltaly, '~~C~l

C~c~e.. 0 n E~tmA1'l~.PMt&v'~j o. I ... ; "c1'_ "" J\1ly 1~ " c_

RWQUot.tct Boh9l't, trtCiJFrobl~ du plval1mn. ffiigie:ustl

ink ;§S~ae. (J,t, ;t.j Ml>~.!,. Pan.. Flo") 1952.

SoG, M$l$, R.! tlybo~~toetlng ~ th. cen .. ~al C~1;tt" of the lfCu, 1958 ~~!f . 'w .. Vf>l. 11 No. 1. Oe~ob~,.. 195 1.' pft,$.. ' .. ... C It ~ Tfwologte£li llQis of ae1:t9ollB J.,1b~y.. '

W11Q~. "~f m.~th. ena. in 'tait Nett ff&tatlGnt Md. r11d.~ Ltb~rtr. »t!~ •• s.~ bYi-.,1 Vol. 13,

Iio. 1+. July 1ge1., M~h .. ... . ' •

Wo:t1d Oo-u.rl<t11 C~ea (Pr&vi$,lcn&1 ~~J, Chri.aUan tli 1;;nel)G, P~D$l.~1-_ 4nd aeU~.uo 1,1 b£1~yin th St't;,tillG of thf;l tlorld Counailot CblQtllhee, Ecumon!e.al. hview, V."l. 9, Oet.b~,,. 1956 t ~g8. ~-S7.

5 •