September 13, 2012: “We stand for religious freedom so as to free others to become
fully human”, said the Vatican’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations in Geneva,
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, Wednesday evening in his address to participants at a conference
jointly sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Relief
Services and the Catholic University of America that was taking place in Washington.
Quoting
Pope John Paul II he said “Dialogue between cultures, a privileged means for building
the civilization of love, is based upon the recognition that there are values which
are common to all cultures because they are rooted in the nature of the person.”
Titiled
“International Religious Freedom: An Imperative for Peace and the Common Good”, Abp.
Tomasi said : “the special relationship between the United States and religious liberty
has not been fruitful just for Americans. It has been fruitful for everybody. The
American sensitivity to religious freedom played a prominent role in shaping the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights”.
Below the full text of Archbishop Tomasi’s intervention:
INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: AN IMPERATIVE FOR PEACE AND THE COMMON GOOD
Archbishop Silvano
M. Tomasi, c.s.* 1. Principles and reality 2. Evolution of the idea of religious
freedom 3. Religious freedom in the Catholic Church 4. Religious freedom in a secularized
culture 5. Working for religious freedom 6. The American experiment 1. Principles
and reality Freedom of religion is a global concern. From my observatory in Geneva,
where the U. N. Human Rights Council is based, it is clear that religion has become
a topic of frequent debate. Last March, the Human Rights Council unanimously approved
an explicit resolution on freedom of religion or belief where once again States are
urged “to ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in
conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all persons and members
of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions
is fully respected and protected.” On that occasion, I argued, on behalf of the Holy
See, that “religions are communities based on convictions and their freedom guarantees
a contribution of moral values without which the freedom of everyone is not possible.”
More than ever before, political analysts and human rights advocates include religion
in their agenda. But most of them emphasize either “tolerance”, as if religion were
merely a source of conflict, or “individual choices”, as if religion were merely the
concern of an individual’s convictions and were devoid of social consequences. The
juridical arsenal to protect religious liberty, however, has been stocked with some
excellent resources developed in response to the horrors of World War II and the systematic
violation of human dignity and human rights by the Nazi and Communist totalitarian
regimes. With the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of religion
entered the realm of international law and jurisprudence. This prompted the framing
and enforcement of other human rights instruments at a global, regional and local
level. In fact, declarations, conventions and charters have literally mushroomed.
I will mention only a few: the International Pact on Civil and
*Archbishop
Silvano M. Tomasi,c.s., is an Apostolic Nuncio and Permanent Observer of the Holy
See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva. Political
Rights (1966), the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981), that lists, among other specific
requirements, the freedom to establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian
institutions; and the Resolution of 1986 that establishes a Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion and belief. With these and other Conventions that include specific
references to religious rights, the international community has guaranteed freedom
of religion at the individual, collective and institutional levels. The Universal
Declaration set a standard for what type of treatment human beings are entitled, as
well as for what States are morally obliged to enforce. If a State ignores such rights,
this may well have a serious impact on its international relations as well in on its
domestic debate and legal framework. Declarations, however, are not enough. What
is enshrined in them can be misused and misinterpreted. Moreover, States and popular
movements can even manipulate such declarations into powerful tools of self-justification
and may thereby pursue goals that are in conflict with the very rights they were designed
to enforce. At present, there is no doubt that religious freedom is under stress
worldwide. During the 20th century, some forty-five million Christians died because
of their faith. The trend continues. A 2011 study on global restrictions on religion
by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 70% of the
world’s population lives in countries with high restrictions on religious beliefs
and practices, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities—including, in
some cases, people who are secular or non-religious. Additionally, more than 2.2 billion
people, nearly a third (32%) of the world’s total population, live in countries where
either government restrictions on religion or social hostilities involving religion
rose substantially between mid-2006 and mid-2009. Only 1% of the world’s population
lives in countries where government restrictions or social hostilities have declined.
The number of countries in which governments used at least some measure of force against
religious groups or individuals rose from 91 (46%) in the period ending in mid-2008
to 101 (51%) in the period ending in mid-2009. The consequent violence was wide-ranging,
including murder, physical abuse, imprisonment, detention or displacement from one’s
home, as well as damage to or destruction of personal or religious properties. On
the increase are mob violence, religious-motivated terrorist groups and the commission
of malicious acts by private citizens and groups motivated by religious hatred. Christians
are the first target. The Pew Report adds that restrictions on religion are particularly
common in the 59 countries that prohibit blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion.
While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they
often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or
heretical. A simple review of the daily press confirms the Pew study: bombs are exploded
in churches during Mass in Nigeria and Kenya; threats are carried out against the
ancient Christian communities of Iraq, and now of Syria, thus forcing them into exile;
a Christian girl of 11, living with Down Syndrome, Rimsha Masih, is arrested on charges
of blasphemy and put in jail in Pakistan, for purportedly burning pages of the Koran
and 400 Christian families of her poor neighborhood took flight in fear for their
lives; Sufi shrines are turned to rubble in Libya; a rabbi is attacked in the streets
of Berlin and has to be hospitalized and rabbinical students are advised not to wear
their kippa in public places; a Catholic Bishop Ma Da Qin is placed under home arrest
for allegiance to the Pope; Christians are in flight from Northern Mali to escape
the violent attacks of fundamentalists. The International Society for Human Rights
estimates that 80 percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today
are directed at Christians and that some 150,00 Christian are killed for the faith
every year. The age of martyrs is still with us. The struggle for religious liberty
endures. In a more sophisticated way, Western liberal democracies subscribe to a public
culture that tends to relegate religion to the private sphere and, through their respective
court systems, chip away at the original understanding of religious freedom. Through
a narrow reading of human rights-related provisions, the wording of declarations repeatedly
has been reinterpreted in order to fit the political agendas that have changed over
time. Education, family law, healthcare are just some of the fields in which narrow
reading of religious freedom paved the way to antireligious policies.
Evolution
of the idea of religious freedom
The journey leading to the recognition of
the right to freedom of conscience and belief has been long and painful. It began
with Jesus’ words: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Mark
12:17). Christians were to fulfill their obligations, to the fullest extent possible,
to both God and the State. At the same time, it became clear that there are limits
to the jurisdiction of earthly rulers. Caesar’s image is on those things necessary
to the proper function of civil society; therefore, civil government legitimately
exerts power over this realm. But since human being bear the image of God, the imago
Dei, their allegiance to God takes precedence over their allegiance to the State.
Moreover, genuine love for God comes willingly from the inner person; forced love
is an impossibility. Three premises are established: a distinction between religion
and the State and the legitimacy of both; the priority of God in case of conflict
between the two; the voluntary nature of genuine religious devotion. Tertullian
at beginning of the third century wrote: it is a ”fundamental human right, a privilege
of nature, that every man should worship according to their own convictions” (Ad Scapulam,
2), and he coined the expression freedom of religion (libertas religionis). Over
the centuries, intolerance and persecution were only too familiar to the Christian
communities. Over time, the insight of the Gosepl prevailed, particularly since it
could be argued in a coherent and logical way by human reason. Religious freedom became
the space that offered people the freedom to rise above all human and contingent situations
and enabled them to answer some of the critical questions all of us have to ask at
least once in life: if God exists; what happens after my death? Along this same path,
then, religious freedom has been accepted as the right of every person to profess
religion according to the dictate of her or his conscience. Such right to establish
a relation with God in the intimacy of one’s conscience implies both an individual-focused
and a communitarian way to exercise this relation that must be protected from any
constraint. To affirm religious liberty as a fundamental right means to sustain the
autonomy of the person not so much toward religion, but vis-à-vis those who would
want to limit the range of one’s religious sentiment. The achievement of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is a milestone in the historical journey. It states: “Whereas
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world, …. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this
right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone
or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” (Art. 18) This article 18 remains
the cornerstone of the international framework for recognition of and respect for
religious freedom and, together with other treaties, it provides the arsenal that
theoretically and juridically can protect religious freedom everywhere.
Religious
freedom in the Catholic Church
The importance of religious freedom for promotion
of the common good and peaceful coexistence also has become a major chapter in the
social doctrine of the Church. There is a convergence of language and substance between
international human rights developments and Church teaching. Besides, the educational
role of the Church has helped in no small way the consolidation of democratic institutions.
The American contribution to the Second Vatican Council opened the door wide for an
understanding of religious freedom that truly universalizes this right: “ This Vatican
Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom
means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of
social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to
act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether
alone or in association with others, within due limits. The Council further declares
that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the
human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason
itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in
the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil
right.” (Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, 2) The moral battle
of Blessed John Paul II to sensitize world’s conscience that all believers should
effectively enjoy religious freedom has led to the well known results that transformed
the map of Europe and global politics; his unique spiritual leadership advanced freedom
in the world. The aspiration for religious freedom also has been at the root of recent
democratic movements that led to the fall of several dicatorships. Through the
masterful addresses of Our Holy Father Benedict XVI and, in line with him, through
his Representatives in the U.N. arena, the voice of the Holy See reminds the international
community that, even in our present circumstances, peace requires religious freedom.
In fact, the promotion of full and universal respect for this liberty guides the activity
of the Holy See in international and intergovernmental organizations, in the stipulation
of concordats and other agreements, and in the service of its diplomatic corps. The
commitment that flows from faith benefits the entire society. The example of Mother
Teresa of Calcutta offers clear evidence . 4. Religious freedom in a secularized
culture Profound changes have taken place in most societies, however, due to an
increasing differentiation of beliefs, life styles, cultural traditions, ethnic identities,
secularization and extreme individualism. Globalization forces us to interact across
national, cultural, religious and other boundaries. Democratic States are challenged
to search for common acceptable criteria to preserve social peace and cohesion. Certainly
the ethical core of fundamental convictions within each person must be respected,
protected and guaranteed; if need be, through an affirmative action by public authorities.
But such an individualized focus on belief might also facilitate legitimation of behaviours,
or mere passions, that are quite distant from the lived and institutional dimensions
of religions. This religion à la carte places the legislator in a difficult situation
that risks the limitation of religious freedom in an effort to find pragmatic solutions.
God’s existence, the assumption in all the historical journey in the development of
the doctrine of religious liberty, is no longer assumed. Nor is the anthropological
foundation of human rights preserved. The question then arises of how to find
common values to keep cohesion and peaceful coexistence in society, while respecting
religious freedom in the new circumstances. In common we have our human nature; this
becomes the starting point for the search.. Nature, reason and the profound desire
of the human heart for fulfilment provide the possibility to discover and understand
the basic core values of every person. “Any well-regulated and productive association
of men in society demands the acceptance of one fundamental principle: that each individual
man is truly a person.” Wrote Pope John XXIII. “His is a nature, that is, endowed
with intelligence and free will. As such he has rights and duties, which together
flow as a direct consequence from his nature. These rights and duties are universal
and inviolable, and therefore altogether inalienable.” (Pacem in Terris, 9) In this
line of reasoning, freedom is not separated from truth, and thus eventual and objective
ethical limits to personal and social conduct are implied. The range of freedom of
the person, while she finds limits in her reference to truth, extends beyond the subjective
dimension. The person does not arrive to be a person without relations to others.
Therefore freedom of religion includes a communitarian and institutional aspect, as
well as inter alia the right of each religion to establish its own rules, to exercise
the power of self-organization and to disseminate its doctrine. The State cannot intrude
on this process and can limit the exercise of institutional religious freedom only
if such action is warranted in accord with the principles of respect for public order
and the common good. Attempts by the State to restrict fundamental values, like the
right to life, or to oblige a person to go against her conscience, can never be justified,
since this would violate personal dignity and be detrimental to society itself. Moreover,
compliance with certain core values provides a solid basis for social cohesion, respect
for others and the wellbeing of society as a whole. It has been aptly observed “that
just as freedom of speech depends not only on one’s right to say what’s on one’s mind,
but on the existence of institutions like newspapers, universities, libraries, parties,
and associations, so freedom of religion also involves protecting the institutions
that nourish individual free exercise.” 5. Working for religious freedom A reason
approach to human rights and religious liberty finds a universal appeal because it
is centred on the person. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that the religious
dimension of the person is part of human experience in all cultures and social contexts.
The contribution of reason and of religious insights to support religious liberty
is like the continuity of a ray of light that cannot be cut at any point. Instead
of hostility, the correct relationship between religious norms and the public sphere
can be articulated with reasonable arguments of a general character and without the
exclusion of religious insights. From the mutual openness of believers of different
religions and non-believers of good will, great benefits can derive for a dialogue
among religions and convictions to promote peace and the common good of humanity as
well as to establish a serene coexistence, social progress and institutional stability
in each State. Indifference or an exclusive absorption in materialistic pursuits risks
to relegate the fundamental right of religious freedom to be considered a “second
class” right with the negative consequences of violent claims and insurgencies that
the repression of this right has shown throughout history. Thus support of religious
freedom calls for a culture of respect, for a system of education that teaches the
value of searching together for the truth and of respect for the sincere beliefs of
evryone, that encourages forgiveness and promotes harmony in a way that integral human
development can truly be achieved. Pope John Paul II shared the learning from his
personal experience when he taught that: “ Dialogue between cultures, a privileged
means for building the civilization of love, is based upon the recognition that there
are values which are common to all cultures because they are rooted in the nature
of the person. These values express humanity's most authentic and distinctive features.
Leaving aside ideological prejudices and selfish interests, it is necessary to foster
people's awareness of these shared values, in order to nurture that intrinsically
universal cultural "humus-soil" which makes for fruitful and constructive dialogue.”
A practical help to advance religious liberty in the world and its many derived benefits
is the political monitoring of the implementation of this right that is undertaken
by the European Union and by the U.S. State Department, by the United Nations Human
Rights Council’s Universal Periodical Review of States, and in the annual Reports
on how religious liberty fares in the countries of the world. Thus we note an increasing
awareness of the link between foreign policy and religious freedom. Ultimately, each
one of us should engage in this task. I am reminded of an old African story of the
king lion escaping the forest in flames followed by all the animals. When the lion
notices a tiny hummingbird flying counter current toward the fire yells at him: ”What
do you think you are doing with your useless flight?” And the hummingbird replies:
“I’m trying to put out the fire.” Then the lion with a mocking laugh retorts: “With
only one drop of water…?” Without breaking his flight the hummingbird answers: “I
do my share.”
6. The American experimentThe novelty of the American experiment
has been to guarantee the free exercise of religious liberty for individuals, for
different religious groups, and for their religious-inspired institutions. This remains
a lasting and valid contribution to the world. John Noonan rightly defined religious
liberty as the “lustre” of the United States. Religious freedom was among the most
relevant freedoms that gave origin and shape to the American colonies, then to the
American states, and subsequently to the American Republic. Americans have a special
relationship with the value of religious liberty; it is well embedded, not just in
their past, but also in their present. Our twentieth century Civil Rights movement
was prompted by religious communities and personalities who substantially contributed
to erase racial inequality. But the special relationship between the United States
and religious liberty has not been fruitful just for Americans. It has been fruitful
for everybody. The American sensitivity to religious freedom played a prominent role
in shaping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thanks to the personal engagement
of Eleanor Roosevelt, as I mentioned previously, a deep understanding of religious
freedom found its place in a foundational article of the Universal Declaration of
Human rights. The American experience of religious freedom still is the focus of serious
study in other parts of the world, including Europe. Scholars and legislators there
still draw inspiration from American Constitutionalism when they try to find new and
positive ways of conceiving the relationship between religions and the State. Even
the Catholic Church learned much from the American experience as it shaped, during
the Second Vatican Council, what became the Declaration on Religious Freedom. The
United States still plays a global role in upholding religious freedom as, in many
ways, does the Church in this country. Democracies are built by respecting, through
personal and institutional choices, this freedom of conscience and religion, rather
than by military imposition, legal dictat, or the destruction of entire societies.
The United States Bill of Rights embodies a principle that remains a test of genuine
democracy: the free exercise of religion, that clearly implies freedom of conscience
and of institutional expression of belief. The American Constitution then prohibits
that the State adopt legislation to establish an official religion or that it prefer
one religion over another. From this perspective, the State should not interfere with
the free exercise of religious freedom, or with one’s practice of religion, nor should
the State require a person to act against her or his religious views. Thus the presence
of religious communities in the public sphere cannot be relegated to the celebrations
of rites and ceremonies, but must be able to play an active role and to express their
own vision of the human person and of the policies that rule society. As the world
becomes more diversified through technology of communication, migration, cultural
changes, scientific progress that involves the human condition, and the emergence
of new religious communities, peace and creative living together in our globalized
and interconnected societies will be possible only if freedom of religion is fully
respected. Indeed, this is the human right that, in the end, guarantees all other
human rights. The preservation of the American experience must remain a contribution
for the peaceful and truly democratic future of our world. As Alexis de Tocqueville
so wisely remarked, “Despotism may be able to do without faith but freedom cannot.”
Thus, we stand for religious freedom so as to free others to become fully human. Allow
me to conclude these remarks by quoting our Holy Father, a strong advocate of religious
liberty: “You are called to live with that attitude full of faith that is described
in the Letter to Diognetus: do not deny anything of the Gospel in which you believe,
but live in the midst of others with sympathy, communicating by your very way of life
that humanism which is rooted in Christianity, in order to build together with all
people of good will a “city” which is more human, more just and more supportive.”