The

The twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church was first announced by John XXIII on January 25, 1959. He opened the council on October 11, 1962, and closed the first session on December 8 of the same year. After Pope John's death in 1963, his successor, Pope Paul VI, reconvened the council, which had three more sessions in the fall of each succeeding year. The closing session ended on December 8, 1965. A combined total of 2,865 and prelates attended the council, which issued sixteen formal documents as follows:

CONSTITUTIONS:

1. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church () explained the Church's nature as a sign and instrument of communion with God and of unity among men. It also clarified the Church's mission as the universal of .

2. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine () distinguished Sacred Scripture from , declared that the must be interpreted under the Church's guidance, and explained how is the Church's ever-deeper understanding of what God has once and for all revealed to the human race.

3. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy () sought to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change, to foster Christian reunion, and to strengthen the Church's evangelization.

4. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World () identifies atheism as one of the most serious problems of our times, gives the most extensive treatment of marriage and the family in conciliar history, and declares the Church's strong position on war and peace in the nuclear age.

DECREES

5. on the Media () defined the modern means of communication as those which can reach not only single individuals but even the whole of human society. It declared that the content of the media must be true, and - within the limits of justice and charity - complete.

6. Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches () encouraged Eastern Catholics to remain faithful to their ancient traditions, reassured them that their distinctive privileges would be respected, and urged closer ties with the separated Eastern churches, with a view to fostering Christian unity.

7. Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratia) made a careful distinction between spiritual ecumenism, mainly prayer and the practice of virtue, and practical ecumenism, which actively fosters Christian reunion.

8. Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops () urged bishops to cooperate with one another and with the of and to decide on effective means for using the modern means of communication.

9. Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life () set down norms for spiritual renewal and prudent adaptation, legislating community life under superiors, corporate prayer, poverty of sharing, distinctive religious habit, and continued spiritual and doctrinal education. 10. Decree on the Training of Priests () centered on fostering vocations, giving more attention to spiritual formation, preparing for pastoral work and developing priests with a filial attachment to the Vicar of Christ, and loyal cooperation with their bishops and fellow priests.

11. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity () is a practical expression of the Church's mission, to which the laity are specially called in virtue of their and incorporation into Christ. It recognizes that the laity have the right to establish and direct their own associations, on the condition that they preserve the necessary link with ecclesiastical authority.

12. Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity ( Divinitus) defines evangelization as the implanting of the Church among peoples in which she has not yet taken root. It urges even the young churches to engage in evangelization as soon as possible and stresses the importance of adequate training of missionaries and their sanctity of life.

13. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests () defines priests as men who are ordained to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, forgive sins in Christ's name, and exercise the priestly office on behalf of others in the name of Christ. Priestly celibacy is reaffirmed, and priestly sanctity declared to be essential.

DECLARATIONS

14. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian () urged Catholics to enter, with prudence and charity, into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions.

15. Declaration on Religious Liberty () affirms each person's liberty to believe in God and worship Him according to one's conscience and reaffirms the 's revealed freedom for herself and before every public authority.

16. Declaration on Christian Education () told all Christians that they have a right to a Christian education, reminded parents they have the primary right and duty to teach their children, and warned believers of the dangers of state monopoly in education.

The best English translation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council is the one edited by Austin Flannery, O.P. In his introductory preface, Cardinal John Wright stated, "It is the collection of Council documents and their authentic interpretation that is indispensable for the serious student."

Three of these additional documents flow from the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World, further amplify it, and are, I believe, of particular importance.

#1: The Decree on Ecumenism

#2: The Declaration on the Relation of the Church with non‐Christian Religions (which was originally Chapter 4 of the Decree on Ecumenism)

#3: The Declaration on Religious Freedom (which was originally Chapter 4 of the Decree on Ecumenism)

Unitatis Redintegratio

…is the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism. It was passed by a vote of 2,137 to 11 of the bishops assembled and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 21 . The title in means "Restoration of Unity" and is from the first line of the decree, as is customary with major Catholic documents.

Contents: The numbers given correspond to the section numbers within the text.

1.Introduction (1) 2.Catholic Principles on Ecumenism (2‐4) 3.The Practice of Ecumenism (5‐12) 4.Churches and Ecclesial Communities Separated from the Roman Apostolic See (13‐24) 1.The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches (14‐18) 2.Separated Churches and Ecclesial Communities in the West (19‐24)

Policy on the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox calls for the reunion of Christendom and so it is not terribly different from previous calls for unity by Pope Leo XIII in the 1894 Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae. However, the document articulates a different kind of than Praeclara, focusing on the unity of the and on separate Christian brethren instead of a classical call for schismatics to return to the fold under the unity of the Vicar of Christ.

Reformation communities The document acknowledges that there are serious problems facing prospects of reunion with communities that make no attempt to claim such as the Anglican communion does. Ecclesial communities that adhere to are a particular case because they often have important doctrinal differences on key issues such as ecclesiology, liturgy and . Other communities have insoluble doctrinal differences with Catholic because their of the Holy is manifestly incompatible with the doctrine of the council of Nicea in the early Church. That these serious problems are a barrier to salvation is clarified in the 2004 Vatican document, "The Decree on Ecumenism, Read Anew after Forty Years".

Separated brethren First officially used by the Roman Catholic Church in the Unitatis Redintegratio, "" is a term sometimes used by the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy and members to refer to baptized members of other Christian traditions. Though also applied to Christians of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, the term is more often used about Protestants and Anglicans] The phrase is a translation of the Latin phrase fratres seiuncti.

Before the Second Vatican Council, per the pronouncements of the , the Roman Catholic Church officially referred to Protestants and other non‐Roman Catholic Christians as "heretics" not having hope of salvation outside of the "Church of Rome". After the Second Vatican Council, however, "that habit of unthinkingly hurling accusations of at Protestants pretty much died out". Since at least the mid‐1990s, the term has often been replaced by Roman Catholic with phrases such as "other Christians".

At least one Roman Catholic writer does not consider Mormons and members of some other religious groups to be separated brethren.[6] Among the groups not considered to be separated brethren are "Jews, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Muslims, Buddhists, and other groups."

History of this Document:

This document was first presented to the Fathers of the Council by Cardinal Bea during the Second Session of the Council, containing five chapters. There was much heated debate about its content – especially about the radical shift the council seemed to be taking considering the past church’s position on the issue of how to treat, relate and understand the Church vis‐à‐vis other religions. In the end Chapters 1‐3 were debated and passed. However there was not enough time to even begin discussing chapter 4, “On the Jews” and Chapter 5, “On Religious Liberty”.

During the intersession it was completely rewritten.

It was re‐introduced during the Third Session of the Council, but with still further objections from the “conservative” party. Their objections included:

1. Christ founded only one church, the Roman Catholic Church. Others are therefore invalid. 2. Faults cannot be attributed to the Church itself, but only to its members. 3. To leave the Church because of its sinful members is itself a sin. 4. The Church hopes for the RETURN of the Protestants. 5. Any dialogue with non‐Catholic needs be done under the guidance of the .

Despite this, the document (at least Chapters 1‐3) were voted on and approved. Chapters 4 and 5 had been separated as individual documents to be discussed later.

However at the last minute, Paul VI intervened with 19 emendations to the decree, the day before the vote was to be taken. This left no room for the fathers to debate them; to discuss them. They balked and told him no. He responded by now making them an order rather than a suggestion. The document passed with these emendations, but with great resentment on the part of the fathers of the . Apparently the changes were actually ‘trifling’ (as one Protestant observer noted). However it was the procedural interference that upset the Bishops.

Commentary on the Document

¶ 1: goal of ecumenism: unity of all Christians Sanctioned the use of the term “separated brethren” – these were any Christian communities that … a. invoked the Triune God b. confessed as Lord and Savior c. and did so corporately, not simply individually – ie. Confessed the Creed

Chapter 1: Principles of Ecumenism

¶ 2: Defined the Church = that community and institution, created by God, rooted in the life of Jesus, living in the Holy Spirit, promulgated by the Apostles and Peter, continuing in time in the Bishops and the .

¶ 3: Recognized that even from the start of the history of the church, there have been divisions.

It is important to note: “Children born into these communities and who grew up believing in Christ, cannot be accused of the sin involved in separation … For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.”

Difference in doctrine, in discipline, and in structure – do pose problems.

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are members of Christ’s body and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

It follows that the separated Churches and communities as such though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

But it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church which is “the all‐embracing means of salvation” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.

¶ 4: Definition of the term “ecumenical movement” …whatever is aimed at “promoting Christian unity” Should be guided by certain principles: a. speak the truth about “our separated brethren” – do slander b. dialogue should be between competent experts c. goal is to share knowledge, teaching and practice d. based on true inner faithfulness to ones beliefs and convictions It should be clear to make a distinction between catechumenate preparation (to become Catholic) and the ecumenical movement (which is aimed at institutional reconciliation).

Goal: to preserve unity in essentials, freedom in charisms, and in all things charity.

Chapter 2: Practice of Ecumenism

¶ 5: Ecumenism – a concern for all

¶ 6: Bade on fidelity to one’s own perspective

¶ 7: Clergy especially need to re‐think their positions about the separated brethren.

¶8: “a change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement.” This should be built around joint prayer services – to be decided by the Bishop

¶9: The ecumenical movement should include shared study of each other

¶10: And theology itself should be taught from an ecumenical perspective.

¶11: But false “syncretism” need to be avoided.

¶12: Ecumenism is to be encouraged as an integral part of the life of the Church.

Chapter 3: Specific Situations

¶13: Identifies two special groups of “separated brethren”

I. Easter Churches [¶’s 14‐18] Recounts the long history of the relationship between the Orthodox and Roman Churches Identifies the ecumenical principles needed for unity.

II. Protestant Churches [¶’s 19‐24] Recounts the historical development of various protestant movements; a much more complicated record and therefore situation – each movement requiring it’s own considerations.

General principles

¶20: Belief in Jesus ¶21: Reverence for the Scriptures ¶22: Rooted in baptism ¶23: and have a Christian moral compass and spirituality

Nostra Aetate (Latin: In our Age)

…is the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non‐Christian Religions of the Second Vatican Council. Passed by a vote of 2,221 to 88 of the assembled bishops, this declaration was promulgated on October 28, 1965, by Pope Paul VI.[1]

The first draft, entitled "Decretum de Judaeis" ("Decree on the Jews"), was completed in November 1961, approximately fourteen months after Cardinal Bea was commissioned by Pope John XXIII. This draft essentially went nowhere, never having been submitted to the Council, which opened on 11 October 1962.

Contents: Summary of the final text of Nostra Aetate 1.Introduction 2.Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions 3.Muslims 4.Jews 5.Conclusion

The Declaration begins by describing the unity of the origin of all people, and the fact that they all return to God; hence their final goal is also one. It describes the eternal questions which have dogged men since the beginning, and how the various religious traditions have tried to answer them.

It mentions some of the answers that some Hindus, Buddhists, and members of other faiths have suggested for such philosophical questions. It notes the willingness of the Catholic Church to accept some truths present in other religions in so much as they reflect Catholic teaching and may lead souls to the Christ.

Part three goes on to say that the Catholic Church regards the Muslims with esteem, and then continues by describing some of the things Islam has in common with Christianity and Catholicism: worship of One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Merciful and Omnipotent, Who has spoken to men; the Muslims' respect for and Mary, and the great respect they have for Jesus, whom they consider to be a Prophet and not God. The synod urged all Catholics and Muslims to forget the hostilities and differences of the past and to work together for mutual understanding and benefit.

Part four speaks of the bond that ties the people of the 'New Covenant' (Christians) to Abraham's stock (Jews). It states that even though some Jewish authorities and those who followed them called for Jesus' death, the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of all those Jews present at that time, nor can the Jews in our time be held as guilty, thus repudiating an indiscriminate charge of Jewish deicide; 'the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God'. The Declaration also decries all displays of antisemitism made at any time by anyone. True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead did not press for the death of Christ. The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti‐Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.The fifth part states that all men are created in God's image, and that it is contrary to the teaching of the Church to discriminate against, show hatred towards or harass any person or people on the basis of colour, race, , condition of life and so on.

Post‐Conciliar developments Nostra Aetate was one of Vatican II's three declarations, the other documents consisting of nine and four constitutions. It was the shortest of the documents and contained few, if any, references to the debates and the rationale that had gone into its making; therefore, the changes to be brought about by the declaration on the Church's Relations with non‐Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, carried implications not fully appreciated at the time.

The 1974 "Guidelines" To flesh out these implications and ramifications, the Vatican's Commission on Interrelegious Relations with the Jews issued its Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate in late 1974.

The 1985 "Notes" This was followed by that same body's Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in the Teaching and of the Roman Catholic Church in 1985. These developments were paralleled by accompanying statements from the U.S. bishops.

Nostra Aetate 40 years on The above‐referenced statements by the Vatican's Commission for Interreligious Relations with the Jews, as well as other developments, including the establishment of more than two dozen centers for Christian‐Jewish understanding at Catholic institutions of higher learning in the United States along with the participation by rabbis in seminarian formation training, demonstrate how the church has embraced Nostra Aetate.

The significance of Nostra Aetate as a new starting point in the Church's relations with Judaism, in light of the foregoing, can be appreciated from the vantage point of the passage of forty years. The U.S. Congress passed a resolution acknowledging Nostra Aetate at forty,[2] and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. also noted this anniversary. This is in addition to the marking of the occasion at the Vatican's Gregorian University itself and at major centers of Christian‐Jewish understanding around the United States. History of this Document:

This document began with a Jewish scholar named Jule Isaac who in 1960 wrote a critique on how the Roman Catholic Church has fostered and supported “anti‐semitism”. Pope John XXIII was duly impressed. He himself had seen the horrors of anti‐Semitism in WWII. He met with Isaac and shortly afterwards set up the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and asked Cardinal Bea to include “the Jewish Question” in its deliverations. He prepared a brief text that 1) condemned anti‐Semitism; 2) stated that Jewish people are not guilty of deicide (God‐killing) and 3) stressed the link between Judaism and Christianity. This was to be discussed at the ante‐ preparatory meetings of the Council. However it was withdrawn at the insistence of the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani because it has become inflammatory. The Arab Bishops heard about it and were scared that it would upset the churches in their countries. It looked like the Vatican was supporting the State of Israel. The Jewish state announced it was going to send an observer to the Council which further inflamed the situation. The document was shelved.

However during the intersession between Session 1 and Session 2 the document was salvaged and became Chapter 4 of the document on Ecumenism. It was felt that being part of a larger statement would alleviate some of the other problems. However by the end of Session 2 it had once again been separated as an individual document.

Suring Session 3 it was debated and changed. The word “deicide” had been dropped. The document was now called “On Jews and Non‐Christians”. However no one liked it – both liberals (who felt it was not strong enough) and the conservatives (who didn’t like it from the start). Bea was instructed to now include the statement as a Chapter in Lumen Gentium (the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

Cardinal Bea responded by rewriting the document, expanding it to five paragraphs (which were actually “mini‐ essays”0, and now entitling it Nostra Aetate. He presented it during the Fourth Session of the Council. Everyone was so impressed it was approved. Commentary on the Document

¶1 All nations are one community and have on origin because God caused the whole human race to dwell on the whole face of the earth. They also have on final end, God, whose provident manifestation of good ness and plans for salvation are extended to all.

Religion in general is the answer to existential questions: What is a human being? What is the meaning and purpose of our life? What is good and what is sin? What origin and purpose do sufferings have? What is the way to attaining true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? Lastly what is that final unutterable mystery which takes in our lives and from which we take our origin and toward which we tend?

¶2 Goes on now to talk about Hinduism Other religions “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of those things which are true and holy in these religions.”

¶3 Discuses specifically Muslims

Although considerable dissensions and enmities between Christians and Muslims may have arisen in the course of the centuries, this synod urges all parties that, forgetting past things, they train themselves towards sincere mutual understanding and together maintain and promote social justice and moral values as well as peace and freedom for all people.

¶4 Finally the council turns to the Jews

Since, therefore, the spiritual heritage common to Christians and Jews is so great, this synod wishes to promote and recommend that mutual knowledge and esteem which is acquired especially from biblical and theological studies and from friendly dialogues. Although the Jewish authorities with their followers pressed for the death of Christ, still those things which were perpetrated during his passion cannot be ascribed indiscriminately to all the Jews living at the time nor to the Jews of today. ¶5 Then become a general condemnation against any kind of discrimination based on religion.

Concluding comment by Cardinal Bea about this statement after the council: “What began as a small mustard seed – a brief statement on the right attitude of Christians to the Jewish people – has grown to become a tree in which all religions could build their nests.”

Dignitatis Humanae (Latin: Of the Dignity of the Human Person)

….is the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom. In the context of the Council's stated intention “to develop the doctrine of recent on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society”, Dignitatis Humanae spells out the Church's support for the protection of religious liberty. More controversially, it set the ground rules by which the Church would relate to secular states, both pluralistic ones like the U.S., and officially Catholic nations like Malta and Costa Rica.

The passage of this measure by a vote of 2,308 to 70 is considered by many one of the most significant events of the Council. This declaration was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965

Background

19th‐century Catholic view: Modernism

Historically, the ideal of Catholic political organization was a tightly interwoven structure of the Catholic Church and secular rulers generally known as Christendom, with the Catholic Church having a favoured place in the political structure. This ideal was challenged by the Reformation, the rise of nation‐states and the Enlightenment. The French Revolution, the failed radical Revolutions of 1848 and the loss of the Papal States traumatized many Catholic leaders, who held on to traditional ideas of relations with the secular powers.

Pope Pius IX had condemned the idea of abstract religious freedom. Pope Leo XIII, who had established working relationships with both the French and German secular statesmen issued the bull Testem Benevolentiae against the Americanist heresy, a specifically European problem wherein the attempt was made to apply democratic concepts and American models of church‐state relations to Catholic Church governance in Europe.

The Spanish model

The result was that as of the mid‐20th century, an example of Catholic church‐state relations was the Catholic situation in Spain (nacionalcatolicismo), where the Catholic Church:

 was officially recognized and protected by the state,  had substantial control over social policy, and  had this relationship explicitly set out in a .

It had long been the policy of the Catholic Church to support toleration of competing religions under such a scheme, but to support legal restrictions on attempts to convert Catholics to those religions, under the motto that "error has no rights".

John Courtney Murray This approach to church‐state relations was problematic for many American Catholics. By the mid‐20th century, the Catholic Church in the United States had managed to overcome much of the deeply entrenched anti‐Catholic prejudice that marked the nativist reactions of the 19th century. The separation of church and state required by the Bill of Rights had allowed the construction of an extensive network of Catholic educational, health‐care and social service institutions. But some, following the view of influential priest and economist Msgr. John A. Ryan, believed that established Catholic teachings conflicted with the American experience of religious freedom, holding that if Catholics ever became the majority group, they would be bound to enact, if possible, the kind of church‐state relationship that existed in countries such as Spain.[citation needed] The arrangements in the United States were permissible only as long as the other model was not politically feasible.[citation needed]

By the early 1940s, however, Jesuit theologian perceived that the most important coming challenge was secularism, a challenge that could best be confronted by many faith communities working together. The American view of separate church and state led to understandable mistrust of the motives of a quickly growing American Catholic community. Murray began to develop a view based on the American experience, where a government limited by law protects the liberty of all religious communities equally, while the Church pursues its aims by exercising its influence in society in general, without relying on government intervention to enforce the Church's status. This view was developed in a series of articles in such Catholic journals as America, while Msgr. Joseph Fenton, as editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review defended the traditional view and asserted that Murray's views contradicted essential Catholic teachings. By 1954, Murray had been advised by his superiors not to publish any more works on this specific topic.[citation needed] History of this Document:

Preparation and first session (1962): The initial conflict was regarding just what model of religious freedom was to be put before the Council, with the traditionalists calling for but claiming that an abstract right to religious liberty was relativistic.

Before the council both the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity led by Cardinal and the Theological Commission (led by Cardinal ) introduced revised drafts of statements to the Central Commission. Pope John in July appointed an ad hoc joint committee to resolve differences and Bea’s "Unity" submitted a revised draft. Negotiations between the various commissions broke down after this point.

The first session concentrated mainly on liturgy and on the nature of the church. A declaration on religious freedom, largely drawn from the "Unity" draft, was made part (Chapter V) of the schema on Ecumenism; the bishops did not have time to get to it. On January 13, after the close of the first session, Cardinal Bea of Unity indicated at a talk at Pro Deo University in Rome that he intended to prepare a constitution on human freedom for the next session, to make sure the issue would not go away.

On June 3, 1963, Pope John XXIII died in Rome. Pope Paul VI was elected on June 21 and immediately indicated that the Council would continue.

Second session (1963): John Courtney Murray was called to the Council in April 1963 at the request of Cardinal of New York (who was otherwise a theological conservative) to be a , despite Cardinal Ottaviani’s well‐known animosity towards him. Much of the material used by various bishops, especially American bishops, on the subject was drafted by Murray. Conflict over a possible declaration on religious liberty continued during this session, with the current draft taken off the agenda at one point during the fall, then placed back on it in response to pressure from the American bishops. A key point in the process came on Monday, November 11 and Tuesday November 12, when the generally conservative Theological Commission met to determine if the draft on religious freedom was to be submitted to the Council in some form. Both Father Murray and Monsignor Fenton were in attendance and Murray was one of the speakers on the subject. Some authors such as Xavier Rynne have reported that the conservative members of the Commission attempted to delay the vote on the 12th, but were forced to it by the rest of the members. The vote was 18–5 in favor of reporting the text to the Council for consideration. After this point, the conflict moved from arguing over the content of the proposed declaration, to fighting over whether it would be voted on before the Council concluded.

The schema on Ecumenism, with Chapter V concerning religious freedom, was formally introduced and discussed but not voted on, again due to lack of time. American bishops helped successfully press for Papal assurances that Chapter V would get a Council vote, perhaps as a separate document. During this entire time, pressure continued on Murray, with Apostolic Delegate to the U.S. Egidio Vagnozzi attempting to silence him. Cardinal Spellman, along with his Jesuit superiors, continued to shield Murray from most attempts at Curial interference.

Third session (1964): The debate on a separate Declaration on Religious Liberty was held on September 23– September 25, as promised by Pope Paul the year before. However, in October an attempt was made by the Curial party to return this declaration to review by a special commission, with many hostile members and away from the jurisdiction of Unity ] Protest by bishops to Pope Paul resulted in Declaration staying under Unity with a different working commission which reviewed and amended it. This Declaration on Religious Liberty was approved by Theological Commission on November 9.

The showdown on the Declaration is often called Black Thursday (Thursday, November 19), though Murray preferred the term “Day of Wrath”. The text of the Declaration was handed out on Tuesday, November 17 with an announcement that the usual preliminary vote with modifications would be taken on Thursday. The third session overall was slated to close on Saturday November 21. That text had been extensively revised, and in Murray’s opinion weakened. The majority of Council fathers wanted a vote before the end of the session to approve desired modifications to the text and to reassure observers that the council would indeed approve such a declaration at all. Curial conservatives quietly organized a group of 200 mostly Italian and Spanish bishops to ask for further delay in order to further study the document. This request was introduced suddenly on Thursday and quickly approved by one of the four council Presidents. The resulting furor was reported by many to be the worst during the four years of the council. A handwritten appeal, reportedly signed by as many as 1000 bishops, was made to the pope to allow some kind of vote during third session. Pope Paul, however, ruled that the decision was proper under Council rules and that he could not interfere with it. He did promise publicly that the Declaration would be considered at the next session, if possible before any other issue.

Fourth session (1965): Fr. Murray had suffered heart attacks in both January and December 1964, so he did not take a major role in the fourth session. The final debate was held as the first item of business September 15 – 21, with many prelates speaking. Many issues were raised but it was clear that the Declaration’s statement of development of church doctrine was a key issue. Members of the Council leadership attempted one last time to have the Declaration returned again to committee without a vote on September 20, in the apparent hope that time would run out on the Council. It was argued that support for the current version of the text was uncertain. That evening, according to some accounts, Pope Paul personally confronted the Council leadership and insisted that the Declaration be brought to a preliminary vote, where it was overwhelmingly approved 1997 to 224.

This re‐revised text was approved by the Council on October 25, with only minor amendments allowed afterward (including some disliked by Murray). The final vote was taken and the Declaration was promulgated at the end of council on December 7, 1965. The claim by some that this overwhelming majority was due to intense lobbying by the reformist wing of Council Fathers among those prelates who initially had reservations or even objections[8] however is not accepted by all. Stages of the text

 First draft submitted by the Council for Promoting Christian Unity  First draft submitted by Theological Commission  The version of the Declaration first debated as Chapter V of Declaration on Ecumenism – Textus prior  Modified version at the end of third session – Textus emendatus  Further modified version debated as separate Declaration on Religious Freedom – Textus re‐emendatus  Version approved – Textus recognitus  Final Version – Dignitatis Humanae

Summary of the declaration

The fundamental right to religious liberty All persons have a right to religious liberty, a right with its foundation in the essential dignity of each human being. All persons must be free to seek the truth without coercion. The highest norm of human life is the divine law and truth, but it can only be sought after in the proper and free manner, with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, and it must be adhered to by personal assent. This freedom from coercion in religious affairs must also be recognized as a right when persons act in community. As such a community, and in fact a society in its own original right, has the right to live its own domestic religious life in freedom, in particular the freedom to choose religious education.

The responsibility of the state The government is to protect the rights and equality of all citizens as part of its essential role in promoting the public good, and a wrong is done when a government imposes profession or repudiation of any religion. Religious freedom is exercised in society, therefore is subject to certain regulatory norms, again to ensure the common welfare. Freedom and responsibility must balance and religious freedom must have as its aim to promote persons acting with greater responsibility.

Religious freedom and Christianity The declaration has its foundation in the dignity of the person as understood through human reason, having its roots in divine revelation, Therefore Christians are called to an even more conscientious respect for religious freedom. Man’s response to God in faith must be free – no person is to be forced to embrace Christianity. This is a major tenet of the Catholic faith, contained in Scripture and proclaimed by the Fathers. Religious freedom contributes to the environment where such free response is possible. God’s own call to serve him binds persons in conscience but is not compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of all human beings as shown in the actions of Christ himself. Jesus did acknowledge the legitimacy of governments, but refused to impose his teachings by force. The Apostles followed His word and example. The Church is therefore following Christ and the Apostles when she recognized the principle of religious freedom, based both on the dignity of human persons and divine revelation. The Church herself does require a full measure of freedom, a sacred freedom, to carry out her mission.

Aftermath Dignitatis Humanae was quickly recognized as one of the foundations of the relations of the Church to the world, and was particularly helpful in relationships with other faith communities: it was a key part of establishing the church’s credibility in ecumenical actions. It became, however, almost immediately a lightning rod for conservative attacks. Archbishop cited this document as one of the fundamental reasons for his difficulties with the Second Vatican Council. It remains a focus for such attacks to this day.

The key issue was not religious freedom itself: almost all parties in the various arguments supported some kind of religious tolerance. The dispute was over the traditional understanding of the relationship of the Catholic Church to secular states and how it supported relations with “confessional” states such as Spain and . The declaration presented a view that fully supported the model of the Church in the United States and the UK, while allowing for confessional states, and freely stated that it was based on development of doctrine from recent popes. Doctrinal development went from being somewhat suspect to a bedrock theological concept with Vatican II.

The extreme level of conflict between 80 to 90% of the bishops at the Council with the Curial minority masked the serious[neutrality is disputed] differences within the majority[citation needed]. Soon after the end of the council, theologians tended to split into two general groups:  a more conservative party stressing a return to the patristic and scriptural sources (ressourcement) and a close and literal reading of the conciliar documents;  another stressing to some extent the continuation of and some amount of extrapolation from the documents.

This split remains to this day, and is a key division on Dignitatis Humanae. Some commentators still continue to try to show that the document is fully consistent with the 19th century papal statements on these issues. Murray wrote the initial commentaries on Dignitatis Humanae, and perhaps made the first translations into English, which remain influential in how the Declaration is perceived. As a result of the Council process of amendment and compromise there were differences between Murray’s own working out of the issue, which is more detailed and is considered by some more “political”, and the final Declaration.

On the apparent contradictions between Dignitatis Humanæ and Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors—seeming contradictions that, e.g., the Society of St. Pius X mention[9]—Brian Mullady, O.P., has argued that the “religious freedom condemned in the Syllabus of Errors refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the intellect, or freedom respecting the truth; whereas the guaranteed and encouraged by Dignitatis Humanae refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the will in morals. In other words, those who see in these different expressions a change in teaching are committing the fallacy of univocity of terms in logic. The terms "freedom" refer to two very different acts of the soul.”

Commentary on the Document

¶1 The dignity of the human person is a concern of which people of our time are becoming increasingly more aware. In growing numbers they demand that they should enjoy the use of their own responsible judgment and freedom, and decide on their actions on grounds of duty and conscience, without external pressure or coercion.

First then this holy synod proclaims that God has himself made known to the human race the way by which in obedience to him human beings may reach salvation and blessedness in Christ. We believe that this one and only true religion subsists in the catholic and apostolic church.

The synod further proclaims…that truth imposes itself solely by the force of its own truth.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

¶2 This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in privae or in public, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The synod further declares that the right to religious freedom is firmly based on the dignity of the human person as this is known from the revealed word of God and from reason itself.

¶3 discusses how this is rooted in divine law

¶4 discusses how this applies to communities

¶5 discusses how this applies to the family, parents and children

¶6 discusses how this applies to society in general, and the common good

¶7 advances “modifying principles” ‐religious freedom needs to be practiced according to moral responsibility ‐and people need to be protected against abuses under the guise of religious liberty

¶8 further there is a warning to guard again “license”

II. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN LIGHT OF REVELATION

¶9 Religious freedom lies at the root of the freely given response to God in the act of faith

¶10 No one must be forced to embrace the faith against his or her will

¶11 Religious decisions come from within – stimulated by the power of God’s message to attract and the Holy spirit to encourage.

¶12 Although at times in the life of the people of God, as it has pursued its pilgrimage through the twists and turns of human history, there have been ways of acting hardly in tune with the spirit of the gospel, indeed contrary to it, nevertheless the church’s teaching that no one’s faith should be coerced has held firm. [ I DON’T THINK SO !!! ]

¶13 The Church should be free to act – as part of “religious freedom”

¶14 This section introduces an interesting phrase: “the spirit of the gospels”

¶15 Briefly discusses “religious freedom” and the international situation.