No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TESTED FOR CONFESSIONALISM: THE VATICAN II DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2018
Abstract
In Catholic doctrine, church and state are two different and autonomous institutional subjects, but they are mutually linked. Therefore, a believer, as a citizen, is a subject simultaneously of two legal systems; the state is bound to recognize the confessional dimension of its own members, and the church is called to realize its proper ends within a precise political-social context. The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) constitutes for the Catholic Church a point of change and renewal. It did not limit itself to affirming the coexistence of the two systems in their independence, but it declared the necessity of a mutual alliance for the good of citizens and believers.
Therefore, the church offers its own contribution to the state, favoring in this way the right to religious liberty; and the state allows the church to establish itself and carry out its proper mission in an institutional form, guaranteeing the protection of the rights of citizens as believers for the free expression of their faith, whether in a private dimension or in an organized form. Vatican II abandons, therefore, the concept of “state religion” in the classic sense of the term, and thus the privilege reserved to one among numerous religious expressions, and opens an authentic collaboration between parties as a prerequisite for the good not only for individual believers and religious organizations, but also for society itself. In particular, religious liberty finds its foundation no longer in the concept of truth (that legitimized the exclusion of other confessions in that they were “not true”), but in the concept of the dignity of the person, which must be protected as such.
- Type
- Article Symposium
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2018
References
1 See F. Van Lieburg, Confessionalism and Pietism: Religious Reform in Early Modern Europe (2006); F. Jimenez Garcia, El principio de no confesionalidad del estado Espanol y los acuerdos con la santa sede [The Principle of Nonestablishment of the Spanish State and the Concordats with the Holy See] (2007).
2 See Bielefeldt, Heiner, Freedom of Religion: A Human Right Contented, 4 Concilium 53–67 (2016)Google Scholar; Driessen, Michael, Religion, State and Democracy: Analyzing Two Dimensions of Church State Arrangements, 3 Politics and Religion 1, 55–80 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, Jonathan & Sandler, Shmuel, Separation of Religion and State in the Twenty-First Century: Comparing the Middle East and Western Democracies, 37 Comparative Politics 317, 317–35 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Christianity, Freedom, Democracy (2007).
3 See La Libertad Religosa Y su Regulacion Legal: La Ley Organica de Libertad Religosa [Religious Liberty and Its Legal Regulation: The Systematic Law of Religious Liberty] (Rafael Navarro-Valls, Joaquín Mantecón Sancho & Javier Martinez-Torrón eds., 2009).
4 See Church Autonomy: A Comparative Study (Gerhard Robbers ed., 2001); McClean, David, The Changing Legal Framework of Establishment, 7 Ecclesiastical Law Journal 292 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John Habgood, Church and Nation in a Secular Age (1983).
5 Lorenzo Spinelli, Il diritto pubblico ecclesiastico dopo il Concilio Vaticano II: lezioni di diritto canonico [Public Ecclesiastical Law after the Second Vatican Council: Lessons of Canon Law] (1985).
6 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes [Pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world] (1965), § 76, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html; Jéröme Sembagare, La traduction canonique du principe conciliaire de la “Sana Cooperatio” de “Gaudium et Spes” no. 76, entre l'Eglise et la communauté politique [The Canonical Translation of the Conciliar Principle of “Sana Cooperatio” of “Gaudium et Spes” Number 76, Between the Church and the Political Community] (Rome 1993); Giuseppe Leziroli, Stato e Chiesa per una storia del dualismo giurisdizionale cristiano [State and Church for a History of Christian Jurisdictional Dualism] (1991).
7 See Matteo Nacci, Chiesa e Stato dalla potestà contesa alla sana cooperatio: Un profilo storico-giuridico [Church and State from Power Struggle to Sana Cooperatio: A Historical-Juridical Profile] (2015).
8 Giorgio Feliciani, Confessioni religiose e federalismo: Esperienze e prospettive [Religious Confessions and Federalism: Experiences and Perspectives] (2000).
9 See Visioli, Matteo, Il dialogo ecumenico nella prospettiva giuridica canonica [Ecumenical Dialogue in the Juridical-Canonical Perspective], 29 Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale 264–83, 264 (2016)Google Scholar.
10 See can. 96 CIC.
11 “The root requirement for a sound mutual cooperation between Church and the body politic is not the unity of a religio-political body, as the respublica Christiana of the Middle Ages was, but the very unity of the human person, simultaneously a member of the body politic and of the Church, if he freely adheres to her.” Jacques Maritain, Man and the State 160 (1951); see also Church and State in the Modern Age: A Documentary History (J. F. Maclear ed., 1995).
12 See Carlo Cardia, Ordinamenti religiosi e ordinamenti dello Stato: profili giurisdizionali [Religious Systems and State Systems: Jurisdictional Profiles] (2003).
13 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, paras. 40–45.
14 Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae [Declaration on religious freedom] (1965), paras. 73–76, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html.
15 “La Santa Sede e la Repubblica Italiana, tenuto conto del processo di trasformazione politica e sociale verificatosi in Italia negli ultimi decenni e degli sviluppi promossi nella Chiesa dal Concilio Vaticano II; avendo presenti, da parte della Repubblica italiana, i principi sanciti dalla sua Costituzione, e, da parte della Santa Sede, le dichiarazioni del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II circa la libertà religiosa e i rapporti fra la Chiesa e la comunità politica, nonché la nuova codificazione del diritto canonico.” (“The Holy See and the Italian Republic, taking into account the political and social transformation occurring in Italy over the last decades and the evolution promoted in the Church by the Second Vatican Council; with Italy taking into consideration the principles stated in its Constitution and the Holy See the declarations of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council on religious freedom and the relationship between the Church and the political community, as well as the new Canon Law codification.”) Accordo tra la S. Sede e la Repubblica Italiana e Protocollo addizionale, 18 febbraio 1984, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 72 [1985], p. 521. Unless otherwise indicated, all tanslations are mine.
16 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, para 40.
17 See the preface of Gaudium et Spes, the council constitution: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts,” id. at para. 1, later specifying that not only Jesus's disciples individually but the entire church as a whole “realizes that it is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds.” Id.
18 See the enlightening excerpt from paragraph 8 of Lumen Gentium, in which—thanks to no weak analogy with Christ's mystery of the embodied Word—the institutional dimension of the church is indicated as a constitutive element of its nature: “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.” Paul VI, Lumen Gentium [Dogamtic constitution on the church] (1964), para. 8, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
19 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, para. 40.
20 Lumen Gentium, supra note 17, para 1.
21 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, para 2. The next paragraph defines the church's will to offer to the world an “honest assistance in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs” Id. para. 3.
22 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, para. 11.
23 Id. para. 40.
24 “No longer would the Church seek separation from the world but in the midst of the world in service to the world. The cooperation between Church and state is actively sought out by the believer, not in the mode of convention, but as a witness through the very service to the world.” J. P. Hittinger, The Cooperation of Church and State: Maritain's Argument from the Unity of the Person, in Reassessing the Liberal State: Reading Maritain's Man and the State 200 (Timothy Fuller & J. P. Hittinger eds., 2001); see also F. Ricciardi Celsi, Il principio di sana collaborazione tra Chiesa e comunità politica a cinquant'anni dal Concilio Vaticano II [The Principle of Healthy Collaboration Between the Church and the Political Community Fifty Years after the Second Vatican Council], in Recte sapere. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Dalla Torre [Recte sapere. Studies in Honor of Giuseppe Dalla Torre] 561–83 (Geraldina Boni et al. eds. 2014).
25 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, at para. 42.
26 Id.
27 Id. (quoting Lumen Gentium, supra note 17, para. 1).
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 The Christian social doctrine states the necessity of a distinction among powers “is not in opposition to the Christian message but rather indebted to it.” Benedict XVI, Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Hon. Mr. Pier Fernando Casini, President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Republic, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20051018_on-casini.html (last visited Sept. 6, 2018). So the pope reaffirms, “the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions.” Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Mrs. Cristina Casta Ver-Ponce Enrile, New Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines to the Holy See, https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081027_ambassador-philippines.html (last visited Sept. 6, 2018); see also Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est [Encyclical letter] December 25, 2005, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 98 (2006) n.28.
32 In this regard, the whole Canon Law about the ecclesial organizations (associations, schools, charity institutions, and the like) can be recalled: according to which are distinguished nomine proprio actions and nomine Ecclesiae actions, by choosing as a differentiating parameter the juridical nature of the examined institution.
33 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, at para. 76.
34 “It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls might require it. In this, she should make use of all the means—but only those—which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the general good according to the diversity of times and circumstances.” Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, para. 76.
35 See what Pope Benedict XVI later states according to this Council doctrine: “[T]he Church, in Italy and in every Country as well as at the different international Meetings, does not intend to claim any privilege for herself, but only the possibility of carrying out her own particular mission, with respect for the legitimate secularity of the State.” Benedict XVI, Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Hon. Mr. Pier Fernando Casini, supra note 19.
36 See in this regard Giuseppe Casuscelli, Concordati, Intese e Pluralismo Confessionale [Concordats, Agreements and Confessional Pluralism] 136 (1974); Mario Tedeschi, Le attuali relazioni tra Chiesa e Stato [Current Relations between Church and State], in Saggi di diritto ecclesiastico [Essays in Ecclesiastical Law] 136 (1987); Piero Bellini & Attilio Nicora, Le due sponde. Morte e risurrezione dei concordati [The Two Edges. The Death and Resurrection of Concordats](1984).
37 Giorgio Feliciani, La laicità dello Stato negli insegnamenti di Benedetto XVI [The Secularity of the State in the Teachings of Benedict XVI], in Aequitas sive Deus. Studi in onore di Rinaldo Bertolino [Aequitas sive Deus. Studies in Honor of Rinaldo Bertolino] 244 (Ilaria Zuanazzi ed., 2011).
38 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, at para. 76.
39 The 1983 Code of Canon Law adopts this principle of independence and sanctions it through different Canons about specific juridical issues. See in this regard Giorgio Feliciani, La Chiesa di fronte agli Stati [The Church in Front of the States], La Scuola Cattolica 124, 263–87 (1996).
40 “L'Italia riconosce e riafferma il principio consacrato nell'articolo 1° dello Statuto del Regno 4 marzo 1848, pel quale la religione cattolica, apostolica e romana è la sola religione dello Stato.” (“Italy acknowledges and reaffirms the principle legitimized in article 1 of the Kingdom Statute of March 4th, 1848, according to which the Catholic apostolic and Roman religion is the only State religion.”) Trattato, art. 1.
41 See Legge 24 giugno (1929), n. 1159: “Disposizioni sull'esercizio dei culti ammessi nello Stato e sul matrimonio celebrato davanti ai ministri dei culti medesimi.” (“Dispositions on the practice of religions allowed in the State and on weddings performed by the ministers of the said religions.”)
42 The bibliography on the subject is vast. Some of the relevant studies concerning the present research are Matteo Visioli, Una verità, molte coscienze. Il rapporto Chiesa—Stato alla luce di Dignitatis Humanae [One Truth, Many Consciences. The Church-State Relationship in Light of Dignitatis Humanae], in Gruppo Italiano Docenti di Diritto Canonico, Libertà religiosa e rapporti Chiesa—società politiche [Religious Liberty and Church-Political Society Relationships] 39–67 (2007); Mile Babić, Il cristianesimo: dalla religione di stato alla libertà religiosa [Christianity: From the Religion of the State to Religious Liberty], 4 Concilium 27–40 (2016); Joan Bada, El context eclesiològic i la significació política del Concili Vaticà II [The Ecclesiological Context and the Political Significance of the Second Vatican Council], in Las dimensiones jurídico-públicas de la Dignitatis humanae [The Public Juridical Dimensions of Dignitatis Humanae] 1–18 (Álex Seglers Gómez-Quintero ed., 2007); Silvia Scatena, La fatica della libertà. L'elaborazione della dichiarazione “Dignitatis Humanae” sulla libertà religiosa del Vaticano II [The Struggle of Liberty. The Elaboration of the Declaration “Dignitatis Humanae” on Religious Liberty of Vatican II] (2003); Giovanni Battista Re, La libertà religiosa [Religious Liberty], in Le libertà garantite. Atti del Convegno Nazionale di Studi, 4–5 marzo 2005 [Guaranteed Liberties. Acts of the National Study Conference, 4–5 March 2005] (Elisabetta Conti ed., 2006); Pietro Pavan, La libertà religiosa. Dichiarazione: “Dignitatis humanae” [Religious Liberty. Declaration: “Dignitatis Humanae”] ( 1967); De Bertolis, Ottavio, Libertà religiosa: problemi e prospettive [Religious Liberty: Problems and Perspectives], 94 Periodica 693, 693–94 (2005)Google Scholar.
43 John Paul II, Discorso ai partecipanti al IX Colloquio internazionale romanistico canonistico organizzato dalla Pontificia Università Lateranense [Speech to the participants to the IX International Canonistic Roman Colloquium organized by the Pontifical Lateran University] Rome, December 11, 1993, para. 3, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1993/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19931211_colloquio-romanistico.html; see also the same pope's definition, given to the members of the Società Paasikivi at the Concert Hall in Finland on June 5, 1989: “uno dei pilastri che sorreggono l'edificio dei diritti umani” (“one of the pillars that sustain the human rights’ building”), para. 2, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1989/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19890605_soc-paasikivi.html.
44 Dignitatis Humanae, supra note 13, para. 1.
45 “This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society.” Id.
46 Id. para. 2.
47 Id.
48 Id. para 1.
49 Id.
50 It is defined as an “effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.” Id. para. 7.
51 Id. para. 2.
52 Id. para. 3.
53 “The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.” Id. para. 3.
54 Id. para. 4.
55 Id.
56 Id. To which it adds, with the purpose of avoiding misunderstandings and mistreatments, “However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.” Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id. para. 5. “Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education, and the use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the rights of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all.” Id.
60 Id. para. 6.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 A recent example of the demand for implementation of this principle by the Catholic Church is the pronouncement of the Spanish Episcopal Conference on the occasion of the Spanish bills on education in Spanish schools. The Ley Organica de Calidad de la Educaciòn (LOCE), first, and the Ley Organica de Educacion (LOE), later, meant to impose an educational system that would forbid Catholic Church-run schools the concession—over some ethical and anthropological matters—of that freedom that the church is invoking for herself as a right. The documents of the Episcopal Conference state this right as the true expression of a rightful relationship between the church and the political community. See on this regard Visioli, Matteo, Le dichiarazioni sull'educazione della Conferenza episcopale spagnola alla luce dei principi conciliari [The Declarations on Education of the Spanish Episcopal Conference in Light of the Conciliar Principles], 26 Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale 300, 300–32 (2013)Google Scholar.
64 “La libertà della Chiesa è rispettata colà ove sia rispettata la libertà religiosa; i cristiani come gli altri uomini godono del diritto civile di non essere impediti di vivere secondo la propria coscienza. Possiamo notare come l'unica potestas che la Chiesa rivendica verso la civitas sia una potestas libertatis e cioè la pretesa al riconoscimento di un diritto soggettivo ed originario della Chiesa, come realtà unitaria e nello stesso tempo sintetica di tutte le comunità ecclesiali locali, alla libertà, diritto che, per l'ambito in cui si pone e per le modalità con cui è proclamato, si può qualificare come peculiare espressione e specificazione del generale diritto di libertà religiosa, inteso nel suo senso più lato di libertà di manifestazione interiore del proprio credo sia nei rapporti con il pubblico potere che nei rapporti con gli altri consociati e coi gruppi in cui questi si raccolgono.” (“The Church's freedom is respected where religious freedom is respected; Christians, like all other men, enjoy the civil right to not be obstructed while living according to their conscience. We can notice how the only potestas the Church is claiming from the civitas is a potestas libertis, that is the demand of the recognition of a subjective and original right of the Church, as a whole entity and at the same time uniting the local church communities, to freedom, a right that, given the context in which it stands and the modalities through which it is affirmed, can be described as a peculiar expression and specification of the wider right to religious freedom, meant in its broader sense of freedom to interior display of one's own belief in the relationships with both the public authority and with the other individual citizens and the groups formed by them.”) Luciano Musselli, Chiesa cattolica e comunità politica [The Catholic Church and the Political Community] 74–76 (1975).
65 “La libertà religiosa è, nell'accezione conciliare, un concetto negativo, concretizzandosi nell'immunità da coercizioni esterne in materia religiosa o di coscienza. La libertas Ecclesiae, al contrario, è un concetto positivo, per il quale la Chiesa nel suo agire deve godere di “tanta libertà quanto le è necessaria per provvedere alla salvezza di tutti gli esseri umani” (dich. Dignitatis humanae § 13). Il primo concetto attiene all'ordine interno dello Stato; l'altro, al contrario, riguarda l'ordine esterno.” (“Religious freedom is, according to the Council, a concept affirmed in negative terms, that materialises in the immunity from external coercion on issues of religion or conscience. The libertas Ecclesiae, on the contrary, is stated through positive terms: the Church, while taking action, must be allowed to enjoy ‘as much freedom as necessary to provide salvation to all mankind’ (Dignitatis humanae § 13). The first concept pertains to the internal order of the State; the second one, on the contrary, concerns the outer order.”) Giuseppe Dalla Torre, La città sul monte. Contributo ad una teoria canonistica sulle relazioni fra Chiesa e Comunità politica [The City on a Hill. Contribution toward a Canonical Theory on the Actions between the Church and the Political Community] 116 (2007).
66 Dignitatis Humanae, supra note 13, para. 13.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 This doctrinal perspective is absorbed into a canon law environment by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in which a correspondence can be found between the provision of some canons and the principles expressed by the Vatican II document. For a synoptic overview, see Matteo Visioli, Una verità, molte coscienze. Il rapporto Chiesa—Stato alla luce di Dignitatis Humanae [One Truth, Many Consciences. The Church-State Relationship in the Light of Dignitatis Humanae], in Libertà religiosa e rapporti Chiesa—società politiche 64–67 (Gruppo Italiano Docenti di Diritto Canonico, 2007).
70 See Redaelli, Carlo R. M., Ordinamento canonico e ordinamento civile in Italia: i principi conciliari e costituzionali; gli accordi e la prassi [The Canonical System and the Civil System in Italy: The Conciliar and Constitutional Principles; the Accords and Praxis], 26 Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale 206–50, 206 (2013)Google Scholar.
71 Gaudium et Spes, supra note 6, para. 76.
72 Matteo Nacci, Chiesa e Stato dalla Potestà Contesa alla Sana Cooperatio. Un Profilo Storico-Giuridico [Church and State from Power Struggle to Sana Cooperatio: A Historical-Juridical Profile] 144 (2015).