Some thoughts from a law student about religious freedom

I've invited the students in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" class to help me feed the blog-beast by sharing thoughts, in blog-post format, about the readings.  One of the students in the seminar shared the following, which was prompted by some readings we did on religious freedom, and from the Pope's Deus caritas est:

If there’s anything I’ve learned in law school, it’s that the law can be complicated. More often than not, the law isn’t what it seems to be.  One of the biggest misunderstandings is the freedom of religion. Of course, it’s not that easy. Can we blame citizens for thinking that freedom of religion means they are free to exercise their religion as they see fit? Isn’t that what, truly, the freedom of religion means? Well, it’s complicated. . . .

Religious freedom isn’t what many think it is because the State has changed its definition.  In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII discussed the Church’s role in being a witness, evangelizing, and influencing the society that surrounds it. But, if part of the Church’s religious freedom includes her influence through open evangelization and others feel her influence is offensive, infringes upon their religion, or is threatening to the secular State, the State won't let the Church practice her religion the way she wants to practice it. The Church is not threatening. Not being “secular” does not make the Church “bad. Any risk of “threat” is in precise contradiction to elementary teachings of the Christian faith generally and the Catholic Church specifically.  Instead of bringing about healthy differences that energize the democratic society, religion is seen by the State as being divisive, destructive… even if she cooperates with political authority and presents, as Ratzinger put it, a modest “liveable alternative.” And still, being harmless, the State insists that the Church is better when it's not the exact way it's ordained by God to be--freely engaging in her religion. 

If the Church isn’t free to be different from the State when the Church does not harm the State, then is the Church really free? No. The Church is limited for reasons that are not so neutral, forcing her to learn of different ways that she can be so  different—transforming her ideals of being the salt of the earth, shining as a light, and emanating God's love—until  the next time she is forced to curb her behavior. Then, it will come a time when "religious freedom" just can't be called that anymore, it just can't be called what it isn't.