• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • HOME
  • ABOUT CHINA
    • NEWS
    • TESTIMONIES
    • OP-EDS
    • FEATURED
    • GLOSSARY
    • CHINA PERSECUTION MAP
  • FROM THE WORLD
    • NEWS
    • OP-EDS
    • FEATURED
    • TESTIMONIES
  • INTERVIEWS
  • DOCUMENTS AND TRANSLATIONS
    • DOCUMENTS
    • THE TAI JI MEN CASE
    • TRANSLATIONS
  • EVENTS
  • ABOUT
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • TOPICS

Bitter Winter

A magazine on religious liberty and human rights

three friends of winter
Home / International / Featured Global

Benedict XVI and Religious Liberty. 1. Ratzinger and Lefebvre

01/03/2023Massimo Introvigne |

It was in dealing with Archbishop Lefebvre’s refusal of the Second Vatican Council that Cardinal Ratzinger started reflecting in depth on the foundation of religious liberty.

by Massimo Introvigne

Article 1 of 4.

The author, Massimo Introvigne, with Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger).
The author, Massimo Introvigne, with Benedict XVI.

I shook hands with four Popes but the only one I had serious conversations with was Benedict XVI (1927–2022), starting when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. One of the topics we discussed was religious liberty, and how this concept can be affirmed on theological and philosophical grounds that would exclude relativism, i.e. the theory that all religions are equally true—or equally false—and the question of truth is irrelevant.

For believers, this is a serious problem. We all want religious liberty, and today most religionists recognize that either it is granted to everybody or in the end nobody will enjoy it. However, some argue that the only possible philosophical foundation of religious liberty is that no religion is “truer” than others. This foundation would perhaps lead to a legal protection of freedom of religion but may ultimately destroy the claims of the very religions it should theoretically protect.

This century-old question was important for Benedict XVI, and I believe that remembering his crucial, although not uncontroversial, contribution is a fit way to honor his memory.

One of the conflicts involving the contemporary Catholic Church that for decades generated a considerable interest in the media is the one with the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905–1991) and others who challenge the authority of the Second Vatican Council. Lefebvre was excommunicated in 1988, and died without reconciling himself with the Church. Four bishops he consecrated without Rome’s authorization were also excommunicated.

Pope Benedict XVI lifted the latter excommunications in 2009, and started talks aimed at bringing Lefebvre’s organization, the Society of St. Pius X, back to the Roman fold. They were ultimately unsuccessful, but the dialogue he had already started when, before becoming Pope, he was in charge of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, offered Ratzinger the opportunity to further reflect on the foundations of religious liberty.

Although many media reports gave the impression that at the heart of the controversy was Lefebvre’s and his followers’ defense of the pre-Vatican II Mass against the liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI (1897–1978), Benedict XVI warned that this was not the case. In fact, when he liberalized the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, this did not solve the problems with most followers of Lefebvre. A general judgment on the documents of the Second Vatican Council was a deeper subject of contention than liturgy. And the controversy mostly focused on religious liberty.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Credits.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Credits.

Pre-Vatican-II Catholic teaching traditionally taught that only true religion, i.e. Catholicism, had a genuine right to be protected by the States. Other religions may be tolerated for the sake of the common good, but there was, strictly speaking, no “right to error” in matter religious. Religious tolerance might be appropriate and even necessary, but it was different from full-fledged religious liberty. This doctrine, although with different nuances, was particularly developed against modern liberalism by Popes Pius IX (1792–1878) and Leo XIII (1810–1903).

The Second Vatican Council in its declaration “Dignitatis Humanae” (December 7, 1965) proclaimed that religious liberty is a fundamental right for everybody, based on the very dignity of each human being. The declaration was adopted by the Council after a very long discussion. It cautioned in its very first paragraph that its content “has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men [sic] and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

This caveat notwithstanding, traditionalist opposition to the Second Vatican Council focused on the apparent contradiction between “Dignitatis Humanae” and earlier encyclicals that had condemned the modern notion of religious liberty such as Pius IX’s “Quanta cura” (1864) and its companion “Syllabus of Errors,” and Leo XIII’s “Libertas” (1888). Traditionalists did acknowledge that Pope Pius XII (1876–1958) was somewhat more tolerant of religious minorities in Catholic countries. But he always talked of religious tolerance rather than of religious liberty.

The debate may seem somewhat strange to non-Catholics. They may argue that the problem has one simple solution. The Catholic Church before Vatican II was either wrong or speaking from the perspective of a bygone theology, which modernity unavoidably changed. Happily, Vatican II took note of these changes and accepted the same liberal doctrine of religious liberty that Pius IX and Leo XIII had condemned. Indeed, this has been the position of some liberal Catholic historians with respect to both religious liberty and other teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The Council, they argue, has represented a discontinuity and a rupture in the teachings of the Church—but a happy one, a new beginning.

Paradoxically, their position is quite similar, as far as the historical reconstruction is concerned, to Lefebvre’s. The French Archbishop also argued that several documents of the Council represented a rupture with the past. For him, however, such rupture was not happy but catastrophic. And “Dignitatis Humanae” represented the most catastrophic rupture of them all with the older Catholic teachings.

While several non-Catholic historians of the Council do share this reconstruction, post-Vatican II Popes have never endorsed it. In fact, for the Catholic Church admitting that a solemn teaching such as the Council’s declaration on religious liberty directly contradicts an equally solemn teaching by previous Popes would create intractable problems about how the Church conceives itself.

The problem is not infallibility, since very few teachings of the Catholic Church are clearly defined as infallible, and whether these include the matter of religious liberty is both disputed and unclear. But outside the narrow realm of infallibility does not lie, for loyal Catholics, an alleged area of “fallibility,” including teachings one would be free to accept or reject. The Church claims that even the so called ordinary or authentic Magisterium, although not infallible, forms a coherent corpus throughout the centuries and should be loyally accepted by every good Catholic.

This is why the Popes have tried to reconcile older and more recent teachings on religious liberty, claiming that the apparent discontinuity hides a deeper continuity, and does not involve a rupture. Although both Paul VI and John Paul II (1920–2005) did speak on these topics, here I would confine myself to teachings associated with Joseph Ratzinger, first in his tenure as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (1981–2005) and later as Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013).

A dialogue that did not succeed: Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the then Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. From Twitter.
A dialogue that did not succeed: Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the then Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. From Twitter.

In 1987, one year before his excommunication, Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith tried to persuade Lefebvre that there was no rupture about religious liberty between pre-Vatican II Magisterium and “Dignitatis Humanae.” The letter to the French Archbishop “Liberté religieuse. Réponse aux ‘dubia’ présentés par S.E. Mgr. Lefebvre,” dated March 9, 1987, enclosed a lengthy theological opinion which, although technically not part of the Catholic Magisterium, is quite important for our topic.

The opinion insisted on two points. The first was that the religious liberty proclaimed by “Dignitatis Humanae” is not a positive right but an immunity from the coercion of the modern secular State. The second was that this peculiar form of State is the immediate reference of the document of the Second Vatican Council, while oldest Catholic statements had in mind a different kind of government.

The opinion also recalled the lively discussion that led to the decision by the Council to use the world “liberty” rather than “tolerance.” One reason of the choice was that the notion of “religious tolerance” was slowly becoming less important than “freedom of religion or belief” in international treaties and conventions.

Another reason was that “tolerance,” when dealing with States that today tend to expand their sphere of authority, would have been a weaker claim than liberty, and might have implied that religious freedom is something that the State may or may not concede according to its changing priorities. The opinion concluded that, once an admittedly difficult process of interpretation is completed, one discovers that “the teaching of Vatican II is perfectly compatible with the teaching of Leo XIII.”

This did not persuade Lefebvre. Both as cardinal and as Pope, Benedict XVI will continue his reflection on this issue in subsequent years.

Tagged With: Catholic Church, Religious Liberty

Massimo Introvigne
Massimo Introvigne

Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio.  From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.

www.cesnur.org/

Related articles

  • Japan’s Religious Donations Law. 2. “Fear” and Religious Fraud

    Japan’s Religious Donations Law. 2. “Fear” and Religious Fraud

  • Japans Religionsspenden-Gesetz. 3. Ein amerikanischer Präzedenzfall

    Japans Religionsspenden-Gesetz. 3. Ein amerikanischer Präzedenzfall

  • Japan’s Religious Donations Law. 1. An Ambiguous Text

    Japan’s Religious Donations Law. 1. An Ambiguous Text

  • For Christmas, Remember Religious Liberty

    For Christmas, Remember Religious Liberty

Keep Reading

  • California and Confession. 1. A Catholic Victory—Which Did Not Solve All Problems
    California and Confession. 1. A Catholic Victory—Which Did Not Solve All Problems

    In 2019, Catholics managed to stop a draft law that would have opened a breach in the confessional privilege. But they left a problem unsolved.

  • Japans Religionsspenden-Gesetz. 1. Ein mehrdeutiger Text
    Japans Religionsspenden-Gesetz. 1. Ein mehrdeutiger Text

    Das japanische Parlament hat Gesetze verabschiedet, die Spenden als betrügerisch einstufen, die durch „Angst“ motiviert sind und bei denen der „freie Wille“ der Spender angeblich unterdrückt wurde.

  • A Bitter Winter for MIVILUDES
    A Bitter Winter for MIVILUDES

    The deep crisis of the French governmental anti-cult mission has been revealed by the resignation of its chief, Hanène Romdhane.

  • La loi japonaise sur les dons religieux. 1. Un texte ambigu
    La loi japonaise sur les dons religieux. 1. Un texte ambigu

    Le Parlement japonais a adopté des lois considérant comme frauduleuses les donations motivées par la « peur » et pour lesquelles le « libre arbitre » des donateurs aurait été inhibé.

Primary Sidebar

Support Bitter Winter

Learn More

Follow us

Newsletter

Most Read

  • Pro-Chinese Propaganda by The World Muslim Communities Council: Uyghurs Strike Back by Gulfiye Y
  • Zhanargul Zhumatai: “Help Me, I Just Want to Leave China” by Ruth Ingram
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 1. The Aesthetic Mind by Massimo Introvigne
  • Stricter Rules on Private Tutoring Protect Ideology Rather than Parents by Wang Zhipeng
  • Japan Religious Donations Law. 4. The Return of Brainwashing by Massimo Introvigne
  • Hong Kong: Christian Scholar Peng Manyuan Released but Not Rehabilitated by Gladys Kwok
  • The Weaponization of the CCP’s “Zero COVID” Against Tibet by Marco Respinti
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 3. Art as Communication by Massimo Introvigne
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 4. Art and Illustration by Massimo Introvigne
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 5. Professionals vs. Amateurs by Massimo Introvigne

CHINA PERSECUTION MAP -SEARCH NEWS BY REGION

clickable geographical map of china, with regions

Footer

Instant Exclusive News
Instant Exclusive News

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

MASSIMO INTROVIGNE

Director-in-Charge

MARCO RESPINTI

ADDRESS

CESNUR

Via Confienza 19,

10121 Turin, Italy,

Phone: 39-011-541950

E-MAIL

We welcome submission of unpublished contributions, news, and photographs. Each submission implies the authorization for us to edit and publish texts and photographs. We reserve the right to decide which submissions are suitable for publication. Please, write to INFO@BITTERWINTER.ORG Thank you.

Newsletter

Follow us

LINKS

orlir-logo hrwf-logo cesnur-logo

Copyright © 2023 · Bitter Winter · PRIVACY POLICY· COOKIE POLICY