(Vatican Radio) – “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.
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.”
Smt/6 Sept.12/DC