1964/12/01 by John Courtney Murray
Social Sciences · #American Constitutional Law and Politics
paper · doi:10.1177/004056396402500401
In a recent address to a seminar of the United Nations on freedom of information Paul VI said:As you know, the Church also is busy with a somewhat different problem but one that is not without affinity with the present object of your research.It is the problem of religious freedom.The importance and amplitude of the question are so great that it has claimed the attention of the Ecumenical Council.It is legitimate to expect the promulgation of a text on the subject that will be of great import not only for the Church but also for all those-countless in number-who feel that an authoritative declaration on the subject is a matter of concern to them.1This essay may serve to illuminate the formidable difficulties that the problem itself presents.They arise from two general sources.First, there is the variety of religio-social situations throughout the world, and the differences among political traditions and regimes, and the divergences in the historical experiences of the nations.For instance, religious freedom has been an integral part of the Catholic experience in the United States; the institution is considered to have made a contribution to the vitality of the Church.Elsewhere, perhaps chiefly in Spain, the institution is alien; the very notion connotes a hated Liberalismo, pernicious both to the Church and to a cherished national religious unity.Again, there is the more difficult problem of Chris-(3] THE PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMtian communities in lands of non-Christian tradition and culture-Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist.A declaration on religious freedom might be understood to signify the will of Christians to constitute a "state within a state," and to withdraw from solidarity with the existent national community.The result might possibly be governmental legislation against conversion to Christianity, as well as severe restrictions on missionary activity.Opposition on Christian grounds to governmental policies is an accepted phenomenon in those countries in which government pretends to do no more than administer the affairs of society; it is considered a legitimate exercise of religious freedom.The case may be different in those countries in which government is undertaking the task of constructing the social order, in the name of an ideology of which government is the representative.In these circumstances, opposition, based on an appeal to religious freedom, might be considered disloyalty to the state.Furthermore, there is the still more difficult problem of the Church in countries under Communist domination.Some conciliar Fathers are in favor of a strong condemnation of Communism, both as an ideology and as a regime, precisely in the name of religious freedom.Others are inclined to doubt the value or prudence of such a condemnation.Still others consider that it would do more harm than good.If the Council were to declare, explicitly or implicitly, that the atheist is not free to profess his ideology and to make it the basis of a socialist-materialist society, the retort might well be: "The freedom that you solemnly deny to us, we shall deny to you with equal solemnity and con-[ 4]