Coleman on Religious Liberty

The Nov. 28 issue of America includes this article (subscription required, unfortunately), "Religious Liberty:  Unfinished Items from the Council," by Fr. John Coleman, S.J.  In the article, Fr. Coleman reflects -- on the occasion of the document's 40th anniversary -- on the content and legacy of Dignitatis humanae, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty.  He poses three questions:   "What was at stake at Vatican II in approving the declaration?  What are [the document's] achievements but also its limits, flaws and lacunae?  And how does a retrospective reading of the text and its history provoke new questions about religious liberty today?" 

These are good questions.  I'd invite MOJ-ers and readers to send in answers!

With respect to the first question, Fr. Coleman describes the concerns of and moves made by the Council's "progressives" and "conservatives" [RG:  It is not clear to me that these terms are helpful.  After all, Karol Wojtyla was a strong supporter of Dignitatis].  For some, the Declaration was essential to efforts to engage credibly in ecumenical dialogues with those of other (or no) religions.  For others, the concern was the the Declaration might short-sell our obligations to the Truth. 

Turning to the second question (re: achievements and limits), Coleman notes, among other things, that the document said little about past failings by the Church -- or, at least, by Church members and leaders -- to respect the no-coercion and human-dignity principles proposed in the Declaration.  (That is, the Declaration, he suggests -- following Judge Noonan -- failed to deal with history).  Coleman also notes that the document avoided "the telling issue of freedom within the church."  [RG:  I'm not sure this is a failure, or a troubling "lacuna", in the Declaration.  It seems to me that the issue of religious freedom -- thought of as immunity in matters of faith from state coercion and as the Church's own freedom from political control -- is fairly distinguished from what Murray called the "theological meaning of Christian freedom," the examination of which might well require us to think about authority, disagreement, and dissent within the Church].

Finally, turning to "new questions about religious liberty," Coleman suggests that "the tension . . . between the duties toward truth on the one hand and, on the other, the objective grounding of freedom in human dignity . . . remain unresolved."   He also says -- after asserting that, in John Paul II's writings, we see a "theory of civil law that is excessively entangled with theological doctrine" -- that "[t]he dangers of any establishment (to the church, the state and genuine religious feedom) still need to be addressed.  [RG:  Here, Coleman -- and Leslie Griffin, whom he quotes -- seems to be falling into the mistakes of thinking (a) that Murray thought a "religiously neutral" state was one whose civil laws did not purport to reflect moral truths and (b) that it is an "establishment" of religion for the public authority to prohibit or regulate conduct on the ground that such prohibitions or regulations are consistent with moral truths about the human person.]

Anyway . . . maybe America will make the link available soon.  For now, track down the article and check it out.