INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Order Number 1349426
John Courtney Murray and the vindication of the American proposition
Gutowski, James Arthur, M.A.
The American University, 1992
UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106
JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY AND
THE VINDICATION OF THE
AMERICAN PROPOSITION
by James A. Gutowski
submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Arts
in
History
Signatures^of Committee:
yy*
Dean .of the College
Date
1992
The American University 73/3 Washington, DC 20016
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRAF? © c o p y rig h t 1992
James A. Gutowski all rights reserved JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY AND
THE VINDICATION OF THE
AMERICAN PROPOSITION
BY James A. Gutowski
ABSTRACT
This work offers an explanation of how John Courtney Murray's theory of church/state relations metamorphosed from being theologi
cally suspect to becoming official Catholic doctrine in just ten
years. The basic thesis is that the world events of the last century
had awakened leaders of the Roman Catholic Church to the value of
popular sovereignty as a means of protecting human freedom. The
abuses of totalitarian and anti-religious governments overshadowed the Church's fear of democracy instilled by the excesses of the
French Revolution 150 years earlier. In contrast to this, the Catho lic Church in the United States had flourished spectacularly in an
environment of church/state separation. As a result, the Second
Vatican Council accepted the American concept of religious belief as
a matter of individual conscience. Murray used his theological
expertise to articulate this American ideal in terms understood by
the Catholic Church.
ii ACKNOW LEDGEMENT S
Although this paper bears my name as its author, much of the credit for its completion is due to those people who have helped me in a variety of ways. For this reason I would like to express my
gratitude to the following:
Dr. Alan Kraut, for his advice and direction during the course of my studies and in the production of this thesis;
Dr. Peter Kuznick, for his direction in the Research Seminar and for his work on the thesis committee.
Bishop Edwin Broderick, for his role as the "vox vivens" about the cooperation between Fr. Murray and Cardinal Spellman.
Bob Schrauf, for his support and commiseration about the difficulties of doing graduate work on a part- time basis.
my confreres in the Capuchin Order, for allowing me to pursue the history degree and for paying the bills.
the Special Collections Division of the Joseph Lauinger Library at Georgetown University for the assistance given me in my research.
to my friends, for their constant encouragement and support;
and, most of all, to Josephine and Henry Gutowski, my parents, for their love, wisdom, and guidance throughout all my years of education.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
A b stract ...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... i i i
Introduction...... 1
Chapter
1. The Development of Church/State Doctrine...... 6
2. The Development of the American Proposition...... 19
3. The Church a fte r Vatican 1...... 28
4. John Courtney Murray and the Church/State Debate...... 46
5. The Second Vatican Council...... 81
6. John Courtney Murray's Contribution to Religious Freedom 107 INTRODUCTION
On 7 December 1965, the Second Vatican Council overwhelmingly
approved the Declaration on Religious Liberty, thereby canonizing an
individual's right to religious freedom as part of the official
doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. This approval was the
culmination of a long process that witnessed a startling reversed of
the original premise of the document and, in so doing, broke a
tradition of caesaro-papism dating back to the Edict of Constantine
proclaimed in 313 CE. The passage of this Declaration is widely
considered to be the primary contribution of the American hierarchy
to the Council, and the vindication of the document's chief
architect, John Courtney Murray.1
John Courtney Murray (1904-1967) was an American Jesuit who
spent most of his life as a theologian and teacher at Woodstock
College in Maryland. As Editor of Theological Studies he tried to
develop an understanding of church-state relations based on the
American experience yet rooted in the theological tradition of the Church. His early efforts elicited a negative backlash from powerful
conservative forces within the Church, resulting in his being
effectively silenced by ecclesiastical authorities in 1954.
ijay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience (Doubleday & Co.: Garden City, NY, 1985), 425.
1 2
Ironically, that which brought the Jesuit international acclaim in 1965 had been the catalyst for his silencing a decade earlier. As an American Catholic theologian Murray was interested in broadening his church's theology of church/state relations to where
Rome could accept as valid the church/state separation practiced in the United States. Accordingly, he returned to the "two swords theory," a guiding principle of Catholic church/state theory for over a milennium, and reinterpreted it in light of the new understanding of human experience that had developed since the Enlightenment.
Essentially, Murray recognized that religious belief is a matter of individual personal conscience and should thus be free of any external coercion. Consequently, the role of the state is to protect the freedom necessary for the conscience to make such an act of
belief. In promoting this theory, the Jesuit had to confront the
complicated melange of history and politics that had bogged the
Church down in an ossified defensive posture toward the rest of the
world. He had to overcome both, the negative residues left by the
Church's bad experiences with popular revolutions and anti-Catholic
governments, and the resistance of a powerful group of theological
reactionaries who viewed any attempt to reconcile Catholicism with
the modern world as a betrayal of the Church's mission. In the end,
however, events conspired to give Murray an opportunity undreamed of
to promote his theory to the leaders of the Church and they voted it
into the Church's official body of doctrine. Today John Courtney
Murray is one of the heroes of American Catholicism.
In light of his later success, the circumstances of the 3
Jesuit's censure raise severed important questions. What were the reasons for his silencing? From whom did the order to submit to censorship originate? Given the normally elephantine pace of Church proceedings, how could Murray's writings metamorphose from almost heretical to become official Church doctrine in ten years?
This paper will address these questions by arguing the thesis that the Declaration is the Church's response to a world in which most monarchies have been replaced by popular governments. Although the Declaration was the definitive articulation of this new under standing of government, the seeds from which this blossomed had been germinating throughout the 20th century as successive popes tried to develop a modus vivendi for the Church under all types of government, from fascism through American democracy to communism.
In contrast to the evolution occurring in papal diplomacy, the
American Proposition, which promoted the separation of church and state as beneficial to all citizens, remained fundamentally the same. Although John Courtney Murray, as a professional theologian, developed the theoretical principles of the American Proposition in greater detail, his basic understanding of the position is almost identical to that of the American bishops that was condemned by Leo
XIII in 1895. Because of th is consistency, in light of th e evolution in Rome, what seemed radical in 1895 (and again in 1955), had become
respectable in 1965. That the American Proposition offered a
positive way to understand popular government that was yet consistent
with traditional Catholic theology made the Proposition more than
respectable; it became desirable. 4
The thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter One will be an overview of the Catholic conception of church/state relations as it developed over the centuries, the Church's first encounters with popular sovereignty and the reasons for the extreme reactions that these engendered. Chapter Two will recount the experience of the
Catholic Church in America regarding the separation of church and state. Chapter Three will trace the evolution of church/state relations in the twentieth century as Rome tried to address various types of totalitarian and popularly elected governments.
Chapter Four will introduce John Courtney Murray and explain his contribution to the debate. This chapter will consider the ongoing controversy between Murray and theologians at The Catholic
University of America about church/state relations that finally resulted in his being silenced by Rome in 1955.
Chapter Five will examine the Second Vatican Council itself and how the Declaration developed from a segment in a larger work
(that reiterated the traditional Catholic church/state position) to become a discrete Council document which replaced the traditional po sition with a new emphasis on the individual conscience. The circum stances surrounding Murray's late invitation to the Council and his subsequent contribution to the Declaration will also be discussed.
Chapter Six will tie all of th e n arrativ e stran d s together.
It will contrast the evolution of the papal position with the
stability of the American Proposition. This chapter will show how
Murray's position allowed the Church to come to grips with the modern
world in a practical and positive fashion. In conclusion, it will 5
show how the views of a prominent theologian, who was as American as he was Catholic, went from condemnation to canonization in a decade. CHAPTER ONE
The Development of Church/State Doctrine
The juxtaposition of temporal power and spiritual authority
within the papacy has been a source of conflict for the Church since
the days of the Roman Empire. Late in the 5th century Pope Gelasius
I articulated the "two swords" theory that would become the classic
paradigm of church-state relations. This theory, based on a passage
in the Gospel of Luke1, likens church and state to two swords to be
used by the hand of God. The Church is the supreme spiritual
authority to be obeyed by all people, including civil rulers, in
matters religious. All other concerns are governed by civil
authorities to whom the spiritual leaders are subject.2 Although
this theory is easily understood, its ambiguity concerning the actual
limits of each type of authority allowed such great latitude of
interpretation as to render the principle practically useless. This
became increasingly obvious as, down through the centuries, papalists
and nationalists both appealed to the Gelasian principle as
justification for their opposing views.3
1MThen give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's." — Luke 20:25.
2The New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Church and State: the Church in th e Roman Empire" by M. R. P. McGuire.
3Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall. Church and State Through the Centuries (Burns & Oates: London, 1954), 11.
6 7
Several centuries later, the eruption of the Reformation
shattered the monolithic sway of Catholicism in Europe, allowing
rulers to shed any Roman fetters by declaring allegiance to one of
the new Protestant sects. In an age when "cuius regio, eius
religio"4 was the operative norm, the religious dispute quickly
assumed political ramifications. Personal faith became an issue of
national loyalty and any variation from the religion of the realm was
subject to severe punishment. During this time Catholic theologians
developed a theory of "thesis/hypothesis" in which the "thesis,"
representing their ideal, consisted of a civil society that
recognized Catholicism as the only true religion and valued it as the
foundation of public order. The "hypothesis" represented actual
situations where the Church was not supported by the civil government
and could only demand the rights to: preach freely, rule and guide
the baptized, organize public and private worship, and possess
property. While the faithful could settle for the hypothesis in the
name of expediency, they were obliged to strive for the thesis if at
all possible.5 The philosophical revolution known as the Enlightenment
emphasized the value of human reason and experience in understanding
the nature of our existence. The practical manifestations of this
4Roughly translated, this means "whoever is king, his religion." In other words, the religion of the king is the religion of his kingdom.
5The New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Church and State: Church and State since 1789" by J. N. Moody. 8
revolution confronted a Catholic Church fortified by centuries of philosophical tradition that looked to universal concepts and divine revelation for understanding rather than particular human experience.
One product of the Enlightenment, the idea of popular sovereignty, was a radical departure from the divine right of kings that had shaped the Church's concept of government for centuries.
Given its philosophical tradition, Rome had no theoretical apparatus to understand the concept of people determining their own government. Furthermore, the Vatican was still reacting against the
Protestant Reformation (also shaped by the philosophical tenets of the Enlightenment) by maintaining a strict theological conservatism and enforcing uniformity of thought and action among the members of the Catholic Church. This combination of factors resulted in an institution that lacked the insight and/or will to understand the theory of popular representation underlying the developing democratic movement.
The French Revolution was Rome's first direct experience with popular sovereignty and the encounter was not a happy one. In 1789, relations between Paris and Rome existed in a state of uneasy peace.
A century earlier, King Louis XIV had attempted to undermine the authority of Pope Innocent XI through the passage of the Gallican
Articles of 1682. This document sought to limit the extent of papal authority in France and to deny the pontiff's ultimate authority in religious matters. After ten years of fighting with the pope, and even flirting with the prospect of schism, Louis quietly revoked the
Articles while managing to tightly bind the administration of the 9
Church in France to the throne. The controversy would also leave a
residue of resentment, jealousy, and suspicion that would last for
over a century. The revolutionaries of 1789 would remember what they
perceived as Rome's pretensions at dominance and would make sure that
it would have no place in the new republic.6
The blow that shattered the tenuous peace existing between
church and state came in 1790 with the passage of the Civil Consitu-
tion of the Clergy. The Constitution resurrected the undercurrent of
Gallicanism by conforming ecclesiastical government more closely to
civil authority and by according the pope only a primacy of honor
with no real authority over the Church in France.7 All French
clergy were required to take an oath of loyalty to the document.
Almost half of the priests in the country refused to take the oath
while, higher up in the hierarchy, only seven bishops acquiesced.8
When Pope Pius VI finally spoke out and condemned the
Constitution, he provoked many displays of anti-clericalism. Plays
were performed that portrayed the hypocrisies of religious life and
the corruption of Church leaders. Effigies of Pius burned in the
streets of Paris while mobs looted convents and scrawled
6Gerald R. Cragg, The Church in the Age of Reason 1648-1789 (Penguin Books: New York, 1981), 24-27.
7Alec R. Vidler, The Church in an Age of Revolution (Penguin Books: New York, 1981), 15-16.
8Christopher Hibbert, The Days of the French Revolution (Morrow Quill Publications: New York, 1981), 111-112. 10
revolutionary slogans on church doors. In one instance, a severed
head was tossed into the Papal Nuncio's carriage as he passed through
the streets of the capital.9
Two years later, as the idealism of the Revolution degenerated
into the Reign of Terror, the campaign against papal Catholicism
widened its focus to attack the general notion of Christianity. Late
in 1793 Joseph Fouche, a Commissioner of the Republic, instigated a
program of de-Christianization. In September of that year he
publicly announced his intention to sweep away the hypocrisy and
superstition of Christianity and to replace it with a cult of the
Republic. The Commissioner ordered that vestments be burned,
crucifixes destroyed, chalices confiscated, and signs be posted at
the gates of all cemeteries announcing that "Death is an eternal
sleep." He also took steps to end priestly celibacy, ordering all
clergy to marry, adopt a child, or to assume responsibility for an
elderly person.10
The idea of de-Christianization soon swept the nation. The
National Convention, France's ruling body, ordered the institution of
a new calendar that would emphasize the Republic's twin bases in
Nature and Reason rather than in Christianity. The Cathedral of
Notre Dame became the site of a Festival of Reason, where a young
girl was celebrated as the Goddess of Reason and speeches were made
•ibid, 117-118.
10ibid, 230. 11
praising the Revolution. The cult of the Republic soon spread to the
countryside as well where other churches were converted into temples
of reason and babies were given the names of revolutionary heroes
rather than those of saints.11
Even after the wave of de-Christianization had run its course
the Catholic Church continued to suffer at the hands of the
Revolution. By the end the Church was decimated. Local churches had
been looted, ecclesiastical properties confiscated, convents and
monasteries emptied, and all in the name of a democratic movement.
It took the rise of Napoleon to restore a measure of peace to
the French Church. Recognizing the social utility of a healthy
Church, the First Consul negotiated a concordat with the Holy See in
1801. This agreement nullified all existing episcopal appointments,
Constitutional and pro-Roman alike, to be replaced by a new hierarchy
nominated by Napoleon and approved by the pope. The slate of nomi
nees included members of both parties, a bitter but unavoidable pill
for Pope Pius VII to swallow. The concordat also restored all of the
Gallican principles that had governed pre-revolutionary French- Vatican relations. In fact, the pact went one step further; it put
all French clergy on the government payroll, thereby binding them
even more closely to that state than in the days of the monarchs.12
Whatever reservations Pope Pius VII might have had about
uibid, 230-233.
12Vidler, 19-21. 12
the concordat with Napoleon, the fact remains that the agreement
measurably improved conditions for the Church in Prance. The
institution of democracy there, however tenuous its hold, had been
disastrous for the Church. Whatever games the monarchs may have
played the Church had preserved at least a modicum of dignity and
prestige. At the hands of the people, however, Catholicism in France
faced near annihilation. This hard lesson was made more painful by
the fact that it was delivered by the hands of a strongly Catholic
country, indeed, the "eldest daughter of the Church." According to
Rene Remond, a political scientist at the University of Paris, the
Church's experience in the Revolution of 1789 "was long to burden its
[the Church's] future; in the eyes of the majority of Catholics the
very idea of democracy remained identified with militant hostility to
religion, and its applications seemed incompatible with loyalty to
the faith."13
Pope Pius IX certainly identified democracy with militant
hostility to religion and it was during his pontificate (1846-1878)
that the Church reached the peak of its anti-democratic tendencies.
Ruling the Church longer than any other pope, Pius presided over
several key events that firmly entrenched the Church against anything
smacking of liberalism or democracy. "Pio Nono's" reign began on a
promising note as he instituted reforms in the Vatican and in the
administration of the Papal States (lands in Italy over which the
13Rene Remond, "The Case of Prance," in The Church and Christian Democracy (T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1987), 73. 13
Pope was sovereign). The events of 1848, however, successfully
cauterized any growth of liberalism occurring within the walls of the
Vatican. In that year the city of Rome fell into the hands of
revolutionaries and Pius was forced to flee. When he returned, after
two years of exile, he was a very changed man, suspicious of
representative governments, religious toleration, and the separation
of church and state.14
After his return to Rome in 1850 Pius found himself at odds
with Catholics who had liberal political attitudes living in almost
every major European nation. French liberals traced their ideals
back to the Revolution that still traumatized Rome. Italian liberals
were viewed as willing to forfeit the temporal power of the papacy
(by relinquishing the Papal States) thus acting as accomplices to
Pius's most immediate enemies. Liberal Catholics in Germany and
England were suspected of being too accommodating to their Protestant
compatriots.15 This accommodation could too easily lead to an
indifferentism implying that one religion was as good as another.
Perceiving heresy and abandonment on all sides, Pius struck a
mighty blow in 1864 by issuing the Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus
proffered a global condemnation of a wide spectrum of liberal
tendencies. It condemned new trends in philosophy such as naturalism
and rationalism. In the social sciences the document warned against
14Vidler, 147-148.
15ibid, 150-157. 14
religious indifferentism and freemasonry. Most of the wrath in the
document was directed against politics. The Syllabus denounced
communism, socialism, separation of Church and State, freedom of the
press, and religious liberty.16
Overall, the document was a wholesale condemnation of
modernity. Indeed, one of the propositions condemned was: "The Roman
Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with
progress, liberalism and modern civilization."17 In retrospect, it
seems obvious that the Syllabus was an extreme reaction to the events
of the time, but it would continue to give headaches to liberal
Catholics until Vatican II.
It was also during the papacy of Pius IX that the Catholic
Church reached the height of its monarchical tendencies: the
declaration of papal infallibility. The events surrounding the
declaration exhibit a series of marked contrasts in which Pius
bolstered the spiritual authority of the papacy even as its temporal
power dwindled almost to the point of extinction.
Soon after promulgating the Syllabus, in 1864, Pius announced
his intention to convene a General Council, the first held since the
days of Trent in the 16th century. The General Council holds a
somewhat amorphous place in the life of the Catholic Church. While
16Pope Pius IX, "Syllabus of Errors, in The Papal Encyclicals in their Historical Context (G. P. Putnam's Sons: New York, 1956) 143-155.
17Syllabus of Errors. 80. 15
the papacy is the ordinary ruling component of the Church, the
General Council acts as an extraordinary ruling body. The exact
relationship of pope and council is clouded by history. A strong
pope is able to control the council, or even relegate it to a
position of irrelevancy. On the other hand, general councils have
been the source of radical reform in the Church. Any Catholic over
35 can attest to the great transformation wrought by Vatican II.
Unfortunately, the First Vatican Council leaned toward the opposite
end of this continuum.
Pius convened the General Council at the Vatican late in
1869. The main topic on the conciliar agenda was a definition of
papal infallibility. Although the concept of infallibility had been
an occasional topic of theological discussion over the centuries,
Pius and his supporters wanted a specific and comprehensive
definition to become part of the official teaching of the Church.
Specifically, the inf alii bilists wanted a declaration that the pope
is inf alii hie if he is: a) speaking on matters of faith or morals, b)
acting in his role as head of the Church (as opposed to merely his private opinion), and c) explicitly declaring his pronouncement to be
binding.18 The infallibilist position met with resistance from liberal
Catholics in Europe and America. Those who opposed the idea of
infallibility were known as "inopportunists" because they felt con-
18Richard McBrien, Catholicism (Winston Press: Minneapolis, 1980), 840. 16
ditLons in the world were such that a declaration of infallibility
would have disastrous consequences for the Church as a whole. Almost
forty of the forty-nine American bishops who attended the Council
were inopportunists. The majority felt such a definition might
revive the nativist persecution of Catholics that erupted
sporadically in the United States. A smaller group had theological
reservations as well. They felt a general council, comprised as it
was of all of the Catholic bishops in the world, maintained an
authority superior to that of the pope. To cede infallibility to the
papacy could only subordinate this conciliar authority.19
By early 1870, all efforts of the Council focused on the
discussion of infallibility. As the debate dragged on, it became
obvious that the acceptance of papal infallibility as church doctrine
was a fait accompli. At that point, fifty-five bishops addressed a
letter to Pius expressing their objections. Then they went home so
that they would not have to cast negative votes in the presence of
the pope. Several American bishops were among those who left. One
of these, Archbishop Peter Kenrick of St. Louis, was later required
by the Vatican to publicly repudiate his objections and express his
acceptance of the doctrine.20
Final voting on De Ecclesia Christi, the document proclaiming
papal infallibility, took place on 18 July 1870. As the bishops
19James Hennesey, American Catholics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), 169.
20ibid. 17
voted, a tremendous thunderstorm shook the Basilica of St. Peter
where the election was taking place. For some it was a sign of
divine disapproval. God's opinion notwithstanding, 533 bishops voted
for the document and only 2 against.21
Even as Pius worked to absolutize his spiritual power, events
outside transpired to strip him of his temporal authority. The Papal
States had been dwindling for centuries but the latter half of the
19th century saw their demise. Most of the papal territories were
lost in 1859 when they were overrun by Victor Emmanuel II, King of
Sardinia.22 The fatal blow, however, came in 1870 with the
outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. French troops had been
protecting the papal territories and, when their homeland went to
war, were recalled to defend it in August of 1870. The next month,
Italian troops under the command of General Raffaele Cadorna occupied
the city of Rome.23 The Council was hurriedly suspended, the
nation of Italy was born, and the papacy was imprisoned in the
Vatican until 1929. The papacy of Pius IX proved to be the Church's most extreme
reaction to the developments of modernity. Even he seemed to realize
this at the end of his life. Alec Vidler, a church historian at
Cambridge University, quotes Pius as saying "my system and my
21Vidler, 155-156.
22ibid, 146.
23Hennesey, 168. 18
policies have had their day, but I am too old to change my course;
th a t will be th e task of my successor."24 His successor would be
Leo XIII, who reigned from 1878 to 1903. Although he could not be
described as a liberal, Leo realized that the only way to restore the
Church to a position of influence in the world was to open the church
doors to modernity. Accordingly, he pursued a policy of measured
conciliation with modern society and learning. It would be Leo who
began the long trek toward the acceptance of religious liberty at
Vatican II.
24Vidler, 153. CHAPTER TWO
The Development of the American Proposition
Even as the Church in Europe contracted ever more bitterly into a defensive posture as its political power was chipped away, the
Catholic Church in America had taken a different tack. Separated from Rome by the vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean, the American
Church was less restricted by European conventions and thus was flexible enough to adapt itself to the political innovations of the newly formed United States, innovations such as the legislated non-establishment of any official state religion.
Although the American Revolution predated the revolution in
France, the intervening miles prevented it from having any great effect in Rome. After the Battle of Yorktown, when it became apparent that the colonies had won their independence, the Vatican was very slow to address the new situation in North America. Most of the Catholics in the newly emerging country were concentrated in
Maryland and Pennsylvania. The majority of priests had been members of the Jesuit Order until it had been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773. As British colonists, Catholics in the new country had been under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. Given the recent hostilities and their result, however, this arrangement was no
19 20
longer tolerable for the American Church.1
The American clergy took the initiative to fill this vacuum of
authority, but for them, the question of a religious superior was a
sticky one. All agreed that one was necessary. Who it should be was
the problem. Sensitive to anti-Catholic accusations of foreign
interference, the priests did not want to be subjected to a bishop in
another country, nor did they want a foreigner sent to America as
their superior. The only alternative for them, then, was for an
American citizen to be appointed. Accordingly, they wrote to Pope
Pius VI and requested just this.2
Rome's response to these events across the Atlantic was
unusually tentative. The American clergy were an entity largely
unknown to Rome, as was the American government. The Vatican
responded to the American request by approaching the French
government for advice. Rebuffed by the French government, the pope's
representative at Versailles consulted the American Ambassador to
France, Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, in turn, consulted Congress,
which responded that such spiritual matters were outside their jurisdiction. On his own initiative Franklin recommended John
Carroll, a priest with whom the diplomat had worked on a mission to
Canada, for the position.3
^■Hennesey, 69-70.
^id ., 69-71.
^id ., 71-72. 21
In 1784 Carroll was appointed Superior of the Mission to the
United States of America, but this did not solve the problem.
Although he was the head of the Catholic Church in America, the
priest had not been made a bishop and thus lacked the power necessary
to wield any authority over other priests. Subsequently, he
recommended that an American be made a bishop and appointed to head
the American Church. After initial resistance to the idea, the
American clergy petitioned Rome in 1788 for the appointment of a
resident bishop.4
At this juncture, Rome's uncertainty about the United States
again becomes evident. Instead of the pope naming his own choice, as
was the centuries old tradition that continues to this day, Pius VI
allowed the American priests to choose who the first Bishop of the
United States would be and where his diocese would be located.
Accordingly, John Carroll was elected by a vote of 24 to 2 and, on 6
November 1789, was appointed Bishop of Baltimore.5
Several factors here point to Rome's uncertainty about how to
deal with this new republic. The concession allowing the American priests to elect their own bishop is the most obvious, but the
earlier concession of naming an unknown American as Superior of the
Mission also evidences this uncertainty. The refusal of Congress to
intervene in spiritual matters was probably the Vatican's first
4ibid., 86. sibid., 87-88. 22
experience of the separation of church and state, and was certainly
more benign than those to follow in the ravages of the French
Revolution.
John Carroll was the son of Catholic gentry from southern
Maryland. He was a first cousin of Charles Carroll, signer of the
Declaration of Independence, who had accompanied Benjamin Franklin on
a mission to Canada for the Continental Congress.6 Although
educated by the Jesuits in Europe, the new bishop believed strongly
in the American proposition: that church and state fulfilled mutually
supportive, but necessarily separate, roles in society. Having roots
in a family that lived through the religious turbulence in the
Maryland colony, and having personally experienced the effects of
anti-Catholic legislation in the colonies, Carroll strongly supported
the American separation of church and state. His commitment to this
principle was demonstrated early in his career when he successfully
fought legislation that would have levied a tax to support Christian
ministers.7
Throughout his episcopal career, Carroll continued to stress
the value of religious liberty and his successors in the hierarchy,
most notably John England of Charleston, SC, followed Carroll's
example. England was a native Irishman who had felt the sting of
religious persecution as a child and never forgot it. When he wrote
6Hennesey, 69-70.
7ibid., 69-71. 23
his seminal Constitution for the Diocese of Charleston, he included
these passages:
2. We do not believe that our Lord Jesus Christ gave to the civil or temporal governments of states, empires, kingdoms, or nations, any authority in or over spiritual or ecclesiastical concerns. 3. We do not believe that our Lord Jesus Christ gave to the rulers of his church, as such, any authority in or over the civil or temporal concerns of states, empires, kingdoms, or nations8
In addition to supporting the separation of church and state,
many American bishops were zealous in their patriotism and supportive
of government policies. Despite this, many Americans questioned the
loyalty of their Catholic compatriots whose spiritual obedience to
the pope was interpreted as an allegiance to a foreign leader.9
Ironically, as American bishops worked to dispel this suspicion,
their own loyalty fell under Roman scrutiny that eventually led to
the condemnation of what the Europeans termed "Americanism."
The events leading to the condemnation of Americanism
developed in the late 18th century. Two factions had evolved in the American hierarchy, which disagreed on several crucial issues. The
liberal faction was led by three bishops: James Gibbons of Baltimore,
John Keane, rector of the Catholic University of America, and John
8Patrick W. Carey, American Catholic Religious Thought (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 79.
9Gerald P. Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy from 1870 to 1965 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier Press, 1985), XVIII. 24
Ireland of St. Paul, MN. The conservative faction was headed by
JohnCorrigan, Archbishop of New York, and included several
German-speaking bishops. The liberals were strong believers in the
fundamental goodness of American principles including church-state
separation, the need for the quick assimilation of newly arriving
immigrants, and a strong sense of national identity in the
hierarchy. The conservatives, on the other hand, were more
sympathetic to the pope’s European troubles and were very loyal to
the new sense of papal authority introduced by Pius IX. On the
immigration issue the conservatives worried that the loss of Old
World identity would be accompanied by the loss of Catholic values
and so they discouraged the complete assimilation that the liberals
considered necessary for good citizenship. Several skirmishes
between the liberal and conservative factions had reached Rome
throughout the late 1880s and early 1890s with most resolved in favor
of the conservatives. One of the conservatives' victories resulted
in Bishop Keane's ordered resignation from the university and
reassignment to an obscure corner in the Vatican.10
The spread of the American liberal platform to Europe resulted
in its being branded a heresy. Americanism translated abroad was
fundamentally characterized by the recognition of the benefit to the
Church of separation of church and state and of its corollary,
religious freedom. Americanism first took root in France. John
10ibid., 35-64. 25
Ireland had been educated there and had great affection for the
French people.11 Ireland knew of the their sympathy toward
American ideals and promoted the compatibility of Catholicism and
republicanism. Other Americans cultivated that same compatibility
among German liberals and Italian progressives. The mixture of
American liberalism and European progressivism would soon prove
displeasing to Vatican tastes.12
Meanwhile, John Ireland further complicated matters by
involving himself in American presidential politics. Throughout his
life Ireland had been an ardent Republican and, in 1896, showed his
su p p o rt for William McKinley by issuing a scathing attack on William
Jennings Bryan. When Ireland's attack provoked letters to Rome
questioning whether his views reflected official Church policy, the
Vatican demanded that he explain himself.13
Ireland's support of McKinley during the Spanish-American War
exacerbated his predicament. Spain had been a papal ally for
centuries and, when threatened by American imperialism, it sought the
intervention of Pope Leo XIII to prevent a war. In response,
Cardinal Rampolla, the Vatican Secretary of State, sent word to
Ireland requesting his intercession with President McKinley. Ireland
tried to comply, but his efforts were fruitless. Then, when war was
uibid., 142.
“ ibid., 153-156.
“ ibid., 145-146. 26
subsequently declared, almost all of the American bishops, including
Ireland, threw their support behind McKinley.14
On 21 January 1900 Leo XIII issued Testem Benevolentlae
condemning Americanism. Interestingly, he specifically condemned
religious Americanism, which he defined as the attempt to replace the
divinely instituted authority of the hierarchy with a more republican
form of government. However, he distinguished between religious and
political Americanism and, in addressing the later, praised those
characteristics distinctive to the American nation. While the letter
never mentioned the existence of doctrinal error in the American
situation, it was interpreted by Catholic conservatives as a victory
against the spread of American influence to Europe, where certain
theologians were suspected of advocating the introduction of
democratic practices into the Church itself.15
Although the content of Testem Benevolentlae allowed a wide
range of interpretation, its publication marked the end of the
ascendancy of the liberal faction in the American hierarchy. As the
liberal bishops died off, they were replaced by men who had received their education in Rome and returned to the United States with a
strong sense of Roman authority. While th e liberal bishops had seen
themselves as American leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, the next
generation of leaders brought a new awareness of themselves as
14Hennesey, 202.
15ibid., 178-183. 27
representatives of the Pope in America.
Symbolic of this trend was the emergence of Cardinal William
O'Connell of Boston as de facto leader of the American hierarchy
after th e death of Cardinal Gibbons in 1921. While Gibbons had spent
his entire ministerial life working in the United States, O'Connell
had built his career in Rome, largely through a close friendship with
Cardinal Raffaele Merry del Val, a powerful Vatican insider.16
O'Connell's success established a pattern continuing to this day: the
use of powerful Roman patronage to climb through the ecclesiastical
ranks in America.
With this "romanization" of the American hierarchy, Catholic
intellectual life in the United States began to stagnate. 17
Obedience was more highly prized than understanding. When William
O'Connell arrived in Boston as archbishop, he saw as his first task
the need to bring "Roman" discipline to his jurisdiction.18 This
attitude was not untypical of the times. The question of the
American Proposition would lay dormant again for over forty years.
16Fogarty, 201-203.
17ibid., 190.
18ibid., 204. CHAPTER THREE
The Church after Vatican I
The transition from Pope Pius IX to Pope Leo XIII marks a
crucial turning point in the development of the Church's doctrine on religious liberty. Leo assumed the Chair of Saint Peter in troubled
times. Pius had presided over a severe decline in the power and
prestige of the Catholic Church. Even death provided no escape from
political turmoil for the unfortunate Pio Nono. As his funeral
procession wended its way through the streets of Rome, the cortege
was surrounded by a mob of Italian nationalists singing obscene
songs. The mob then tried, without success, to throw the dead pope's
body into the Tiber River.1
Leo took a different tack than his predecessor. Pius's
reaction to the political and social upheavals of the 19th century
had been to batten down the hatches and prevent any modernity from
leaking into the Church. Leo accepted the inevitability of change
and, instead of condemning it completely, he worked to reconcile the
best elements of progress with the tradition of the Church. In so
doing, he set in motion the transition of Church doctrine culminating
in the ratification of the Declaration on Religious Liberty at
xAnthony Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators: 1922-1945 (Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, 1973), 24-25.
28 29
Vatican II.
During his pontificate, Leo wrote prolificaUy to address the
world situation in a systematic way. His most famous encyclical,
entitled Rerum Novarum. was published on 15 May 1891. Rerum Novarum
considered the changes being wrought by the Industrial Revolution,
specifically considering the conditions of the working class. In it
Leo proclaimed the rights of workers to a living wage, to organize
themselves, and to possess property.2 This letter is considered by
many to be the foundation of modern Catholic social teaching and has
served as a reference point for the teaching of subsequent popes.3
It was an earlier letter, however, in which Leo began to
modify the Church's theory of church/state relations. Immortale Dei
was published on 1 November 1885 as Leo's refutation of the
accusation levelled from various sources that the Church was an enemy
of the modern state. This encyclical outlines the characteristics
necessary for a Christian state.
Most of the encyclical is a reiteration of the traditional
Catholic "two swords theory" of church and state. Leo specifically states that the power by which a civil authority rules comes from
God. Because of this divine authority, all citizens are morally
2Leo XIII, "Rerum Novarum," The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (Benziger, New York, 1903).
3This happened most recently with the publication of Centisimus Annos by Pope John Paul II on 15 May 1991. 30
obligated to be loyal to their rulers.4
At this point, however, Leo parts from his predecessors by
stating:
The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature to insure the general welfare.5
With this statement Leo breaks the Church away from its preference
for monarchical types of rule and implies an acceptance of popular
sovereignty as a legitimate form of government.
After allowing the possibility of legitimate government
through popular democracy the pope was careful not to give license to
the humanistic excesses that tainted the French Revolution. Toward
the end of the document Leo specifically addresses the idea of
popular sovereignty and its role in government. While he allows that
the people might elect their civil rulers he repeats that the
authority by which those rulers govern comes from God.® Therefore,
while the people may select their rulers, their collective will does
not constitute the supreme authority by which the rulers govern and
to which those rulers must answer.
As his papacy continued, Leo would develop his new
4Leo XIII, "Immortale Dei" The Great Encyclical L etters of Pope Leo XIII. 109.
^ibid.
«ibid, 123-124. 31
articulation of Catholic church/state theory even further along the
guidelines set out in Immortale Dei. In subsequent encyclicals the
pope went beyond his implied acceptance of democratic governments.
The encyclical entitled Au Milieu des Sollicitudes. published in
1892, was addressed to the clergy and people of France. In it Leo
urges the Catholics of France to abandon the royalist cause and to
support the Republic. He asserts again that, in the abstract,
legitimate government can take many different forms. Then he begins
to deal with the concrete, acknowledging that France has now adopted
a republican form of government and, inasmuch as the government is
legitimate, Catholics are bound to be loyal to it.7
Even as he endorsed the democratic government in France, Leo
was careful to warn against the humanism that had tainted the
Revolution a century earlier. He begins by repeating the abstract
principle that the authority by which a legitimate government rules
comes from God and therefore that government must act according to
God's will. The pope then moves again to the concrete by advocating
the close association of Church and State. For Leo, the separation
of Church and State is equivalent to the separation of human
legislation from divine legislation, which would be a denial of the
governm ent's authority coming from God.8
Leo also introduced a new wrinkle to church/state theory in
7Leo XIII, "Au Milieu des Sollicitudes," The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII. 255-256. sfbid, 261-262. 32
this letter, the distinction between constituted power and
legislation. He raises the distinction by writing:
But a difficulty presents itself. 'This Republic' it is said, "is animated by such anti-Christian sentiments that honest men, Catholics particularly, could not conscientiously accept it." This, more than anything else, has given rise to dissensions, and in fact aggravated them...These regrettable differences would have been avoided if the very considerable distinction between constituted power and legislation had been carefully kept in view. In so much does legislation differ from political power and its form, that under a system of government most excellent in form legislation could be detestable; while quite the opposite under a regime most imperfect in form, might be found excellent legislation.9
In this text, Leo is trying to prevent French royalists from using
anti-Catholic legislation of government as an excuse for its
overthrow. The more far-reaching consequence of this distinction,
however, is that it provides a basis for civil disobedience that will
be expanded by popes in the next century.
Leo's contribution to the development of church/state theory
is considerable. His major innovation was to make the mode of
government (monarchical, democratic, etc.) irrelevant to whether that
government could be considered legitimate. At the same time he put a
renewed emphasis on the close association of Church and State to
serve as a corrective to assure that the State would be responsible
to the source of its legitimacy: God, the Creator of all.
Considering the American Church, Rome's acceptance of democracy may
?ibid, 258-259. 33
have moved it closer to accepting the American form of government, but the language about "separation of Church and State" would create a barrier of mistrust existing until Vatican II.
Leo's distinction between legislation and constituted power would prove to be insufficient for its purpose, but it, too, contributed to the development of thought resulting in the
Declaration on Religious Liberty. The pope's intention had been to allow objections to particular pieces of legislation without questioning the legitimacy of the government that produced that legislation. Subsequent popes would capitalize on this intention, specifically with regard to Nazi Germany and anti-Catholic Mexico, but the distinction would ultimately prove to be insufficient because it avoided the question of how legitimacy was bestowed on a government. Granting that the authority of a government comes from
God, the question remains as to how a government assumed that authority. Leo did not address this question, nor did his immediate successors. John Courtney Murray's church/state theory would provide the basis for such an answer at the Second Vatican Council.
Insufficient as it was, the distinction between legislation and constituted power was developmental inasmuch as it allowed citizens to question the morality of particular laws. The distinction released Catholics from any slavish obedience to civil law. At the same time it protected the Church from accusations of trying to undermine legitimate civil governments. Limited as it was, the distinction opened the door for Catholics to weigh the morality of their respective national governments. 34
Leo XIII ruled until his death in 1903. His successor, Pius
X, largely concerned himself with internal Church matters and died in
1914. That year, as the guns of August announced the carnage of the
World War, Giacomo della Chiesa was elected to th e Chair of Peter.
He took the name Benedict XV. The global war left Benedict with no
time to theorize about church/state relations. The Vatican abhorred
the war pitting Catholic France against the Catholic Austro-Hungarian
Empire and largely Catholic Germany and Benedict worked to bring an
end to the hostilities. On 16 August 1917 the pope published a peace
note that had been forwarded confidentially to the belligerents. The
note proposed a settlement returning to the status quo ante, with no
annexations or indemnities. While the British were amenable to
pursuing this initiative, it was rejected by the French, Italian, and
American governments.10
With his peace initiative ignored, Benedict's chief
contribution to international politics would be his appointment of
Achille Ratti as Apostolic Visitor to the new state of postwar
Poland. Plucked from an obscure scholarly career among the shelves
of th e Vatican Library, Ratti was sent to Poland in 1918. In 1920 he
retu rn ed to Italy to become th e Archbishop of Milan. In 1921 he was
made a cardinal and, a year later, he was elected to replace the man
who had started him on his way to the top. Ratti took the name
10David Stevenson, The First World War and International Politics (Oxford Univ. Press: New York, 1988), 162-164. 35
Pius XI.U It would be Pius's lot to deal with the aftermath of
World War I.
David Stevenson, a British historian, writes:
The First World War was a disaster whose repercussions on the Western world continue to be felt. Without it the Tsarist government in Russia might well have fallen away, but it is unlikely that Lenin and the Bolsheviks would have been the ultimate beneficiaries. Nor, without it, would the European inflation of the 1920s and the worldwide depression of the 1930s have been so severe. Without it, also, it is improbable that either Hitler or Mussolini would have come to office. As far as such things can be said in certainty, the First World War was an essential precondition for the Second.12
The First World War produced a number of substantial political
changes affecting the Church. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, a
supporter of the papacy for centuries, was replaced by a number of
smaller countries with varying types of governments. Orthodox
Russia, which had always kept the Catholic Church at arm's length,
had emerged from the Revolution with a Leninist government opposed to
all types of religion. Chaotic conditions in Italy and Germany
allowed both of these countries to flirt with communism before coming
under the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. All of these
developments would present new challenges to the Catholic theory of
church/state relations.
^•Rhodes, 17-19.
12Stevenson, V. 36
Pius' foray into church/state relations began with a concordat
negotiated with the Italian Fascist government of Benito Mussolini in
1929. A concordat is the traditional form of treaty that the Vatican
tries to negotiate with civil governments. These treaties usually
articulate the rights and duties of the Church in a particular
country as well as the Church’s relationship to the government of
that country. Concordats are only negotiated with countries
affording the Church some type of official status. Countries such as
Spain, Italy, and the Republic of Ireland, those considered to be
"Catholic" countries negotiate concordats as well as those countries,
such as Germany, which give official status to a number of
denominations.
The 1929 concordat between Italy and the Vatican, known today
as the Lateran Treaty, was mutually beneficial to both sides. The
Church recognized Benito Mussolini's upstart regime. Furthermore,
Mussolini wanted to assume the role of Protector of the Church that
had been left vacant by the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire. This close association with the Vatican would allow him to
exploit the disagreements that the Church was having with other
governments to advance Italian foreign policy.13
The Vatican also stood to gain from a treaty with Italy.
Firstly, the Lateran Treaty solved an impasse that had existed for
sixty years since the dissolution of the Papal States under Pius IX.
^Rhodes, 40. 37
The Vatican City was recognized as a sovereign state with the pope as
its head. Secondly, the Italian government paid almost two million
lire in reparation for the loss of papal territories, a very tidy sum
in those days. Most importantly to Pius XI, however, was the
alliance with a government (albeit an imperfect one) that was
strongly anti-communist. Shortly after the treaty was signed the
pope explained himself to detractors by saying: "If it were a
question of saving a few souls, of preventing greater evil, we would
have the courage to deal even with the devil in person."14
The Catholic Church had stood very strongly against communism
for many years because of that ideology's dismissal of religion as
being a tool of oppression. Pius had his own personal horror of
communism dating back to his days in Poland where he also had
responsibility the Catholic Church in Russia during the first years
of Leninism.15 Pius's aversion to atheistic communism was shared
by his Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio PaceUi, who would be
Pius's successor to the Chair of Peter.
Pacelli was a career Vatican diplomat who served as Papal
Nuncio to Germany during and after World War I. As nuncio he had
been attacked by the "Red Guard" of the socialist government of Kurt
Eisner that had seized power in Munich in 1919. Later, Pacelli
served as the Vatican's chief negotiator with the Soviet government
14Hansjakob Stehle, Eastern Politics of the Vatican: 1917 - 1979 (Ohio Univ. Press: Athens, OH, 1981), 124-125. 15Rhodes, 19. 38
that was persecuting all religions in the USSR. These experiences
convinced the future pope that the threat of communism spreading to
Europe was the greatest danger of this era.16
When Adolph Hitler came to power, Pius XI had strong
reservations about the new leader of Germany but grudgingly admitted
sharing the Fuhrer's repugnance of Bolshevism. By this time Pacelli
had become the Vatican Secretary of State and personally negotiated a
concordat with the National Socialist government of Germany.
Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen and Cardinal Pacelli represented
their respective governments at the signing of the treaty on July 20,
19 33.17
There is an adage in the Church stating: historia
concordatorium historia dolor urn, the history of concordats is a
history of sadness. By 1937, Pius realized that this adage applied
as well to his treaties with Mussolini and Hitler. Within three
years after their treaty with the Vatican, the Nazis began to
persecute the Church on a regular basis. Herman Goring accused
Catholic priests of being "black moles, as venomous as the red moles"
(Communists). Rumors were published about bishops having affairs
with Jewish women. Catholic charitable organizations that had been
active in Bavaria for over a century were harassed and their members
attacked. When the Papal Nuncio in Berlin went to complain about
16Stehle, 17-18.
17ibid, 156. 39
these abuses, he was not allowed to meet with anyone in
authority.18 In Italy, Mussolini had begun to emulate Hitler and
to adopt the Fuhrer's anti-Jewish and other discriminatory laws.
In March of 1937 Pius XI issued three major encyclical letters
considering the church/state doctrine in light of citizens' duties to
the State. Together, these would build upon the innovations of Leo
XIII and give greater responsibility to citizens vis-a-vis their
respective national governments.
The first encyclical, entitled Mit brennender Sorge. attacked
the Nazi regime in Germany. Written at the behest of the German
bishops, the first draft was prepared by the Archbishop of Munich.
The final text was written by Cardinal Pacelli and issued by Pius,
who was ill at the time. The document condemns the Nazis' cult of
the Aryan Race and their attempt to subordinate the will of God to
their national purpose. Furthermore, the document criticized the
German government for trying to force faithful Catholics to disobey
the laws of their Church.19 The document did not go so far as to
condemn Naziism per se. but it took a bold stance at a time of
persecution.
The second encyclical, Divini Redemptoris. was issued on 19
March 1937. This letter contained most of the same themes as its
predecessor but, since it was directed against atheistic communism,
“ Rhodes, 196-198.
19Pius XI, "Mit brennender Sorge," The Papacy and Totalitarianism Between the Two World Wars (John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1974) 153-158. 40
the language used was much stronger. In this letter Pius denounces
the "unjust usurpation that Communism arrogates to itself the right
to enforce, in place of the divine law based on the immutable
principles of truth and charity, a partisan political program that
derives from the arbitrary human will and is replete with hate."20
The third letter, Firmissimum. was issued on 28 March 1937 and
is the strongest of the three letters. This encyclical addressed the
situation in Mexico where the Church had been persecuted, often
violently, for over twenty years. Here the pope writes:
...the Church...condemns every unjust rebellion or act of violence against the properly constituted civil power. On the other hand,...if the case arose where the civil power should so trample on justice and truth as to destroy even the very foundations of authority, there would appear no reason to condemn citizens for uniting to defend the nation and themselves by lawful and appropriate means against those who make use of the power of the State to drag the nation to ruin.21
This statement constitutes a new development in church/state doctrine
by giving more power to the people to assure that their respective
governments fulfill their proper role in light of the Church's
teaching.
The timing of three encyclical letters in a single month is,
in itself, remarkable. The fact that all three address the same
20Pope Pius XI, "Divini Redemptoris," Sixteen Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI (National Catholic Welfare Conference: Washington, 1940), 33.
^Pope Pius XI, "Firmissimum," Sixteen Encyclicals of Pope Pius XL 35. 41
basic topic makes it even more so. Through these documents Pius
continues the transition begun by Leo XIII. In his letters, Leo
allowed citizens the opportunity to choose their form of government
but, once it was chosen, they were required to be loyal to it. In
Firmissimum Pius goes one step further and allows, in limited
circumstances, the people to remove governments that are harmful.
This development gives the citizens of a state more control over
their government than had ever been acknowledged by the Church
before.
When Pope Pius XI died in 1939 he was succeeded by his
Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli. Pacelli, who took the name Pius
XII, was a career diplomat, having been trained for the Vatican
diplomatic corps since his early days as a priest. Like Benedict XV
before him, Pius was elected on the eve of a world war. Unlike
Benedict, he had a long history of close contact with the German and
Italian governments. By 1939 these contacts had long gone sour and
the pope was well versed in the dangers of fascist totalitarianism.
The contributions of Pius XII to the church/state debate were
twofold and somewhat minimal. In his Christmas message of 1944 he
offered a mild endorsement of democracy as the most proper
governmental system of the future.22 While this endorsement went
beyond anything published by his predecessors the forum in which it
was delivered, a Christmas radio address, carried nowhere near the
22Pope Pius XII, "Christmas Radio Message, 24 December 1944," Acta Apostolica Sedis. 37 (1945), 6. 42
doctrinal weight of encyclicals used by earlier popes.
The second contribution of Pius XII takes the form of a speech
to a national convention of Italian Catholic jurists in 1953. In this
address, Pius allows that the eradication of religious error is not
always automatically an obligation of the State.23 This concession
undermines one of the essential corollaries to the thesis/hypothesis
model of church/state relations: that error has no rights (therefore
denominations other than Catholicism have no rights). The dilution
of this imperative would have a consequential effect on church/state
relations. If the obligation to safeguard its citizens against
religious error is removed from the purview of the state, the reasons
for a civil government's intervention in religious affairs are
greatly reduced.
In 1958 Pope Pius XII died and was succeeded by Cardinal
Angelo Roncalli, who took the name John XXIII. Like his predecessor,
John had spent a good part of his life in the Vatican diplomatic
corps, serving as Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and Greece during the
Second World War. In 1944 Pius assigned Roncalli to France to serve as Papal Nuncio.24 Unlike his predecessor, John brought personal
23Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, V,3. The copy of the speech used in this thesis is an English translation sent to John Courtney Murray by a friend in Rome. This translation is located in the John Courtney Murray Archives in the Joseph Lauinger Library at Georgetown University.
24A point of clarification may be helpful here. An Apostolic Delegate is the pope's representative to the Church in countries which do not maintain diplomatic relations with the Vatican. A Papal Nuncio serves the same function in those countries which do have such 43
warmth and a sense of optimism about the world to the Chair of Peter.
Both of these manifested themselves in his leadership of the Church.
Once, when asked how many people worked at the Vatican, John replied
cheerfully: "Oh, no more than half of them!" 25 John later set the
stage for John Courtney Murray to make his mark at the Second Vatican
Council.
In January of 1959 John startled the Catholic Church by
announcing his intention to convene a general council at the
Vatican. The watchword for this council would be "aggiornomento."
bringing the Church up to date. The pope wanted to "open the windows
of the Church to let in the fresh air of the Holy Spirit."26
Although John would not live to see the end of the Council, his
spirit of optimism would infuse the assembly and produce sweeping
changes in the Church that even the pope could not have imagined.
One of those changes would be the Declaration on Religious Liberty.
developed by John Courtney Murray and championed by the American
bishops.
In addition to his convening the Council, John also
contributed to the evolution of church/state doctrine that had been
relations. A good example of this distinction would be Archbishop Pio Laghi. Until 1984 he served as Apostolic Delegate to the United States. In that year, when the US established diplomatic relations with the Vatican, his title changed to Papal Nuncio but his function remained essentially the same.
“ Henri Fesquet, comp. The Wit and Wisdom of Good Pope John (P.J. Kenedy & Sons: New York, 1964), 71.
26Vidler, 270-271. 44
begun by Leo XIII. In 1963, a few months before his own death, John
published an encyclical entitled Pacem in Terris. In this letter he
asserts again that the authority of civil government comes from God
alone. Then he goes a step further to separate the authority of
office from the holder of that office.27 In other words, the
authority of office is not automatically imputed to the holder of
that office. The holder only functions with the authority coming
from God when s/he acts in accordance with divine precepts. E.g. a
president who orders the execution of a political prisoner acts
outside the divine precepts safeguarding the sanctity of life, hence
he acts without the authority of his office and citizens are not
morally obligated to obey him.
Pacem in Terris, in effect, set the stage for John Courtney
Murray's position concerning religious liberty and the role of civil
government. The American Proposition posits "the people" as the
medium through which God's authority to rule is bestowed upon a civil
government. Before Leo XIII, this concept would have been impossible
for the Vatican to understand, largely because Rome's initial close encounter with democratic government had been the French Revolution
with its humanistic excesses. From Leo onward, however, subsequent
popes assigned an ever increasing autonomy for citizens toward their
governments. After Pacem in Terris, the American Proposition would
seem the next logical step in the development of the Church's
27Pope John XIII, Pacem in Terris. 46-50. doctrine of church/state relations. CHAPTER FOUR
John Courtney Murray and the Church/State Debate
While events in Europe moved the Vatican steadily, if slowly,
toward a new understanding of the role of society in church/state
relations, the American Church's model of church/state relations
remained fundamentally unchanged since the days of Archbishop
Ireland. The stale atmosphere of blind obedience that had
accompanied the condemnation of Americanism was just starting to
dissipate when John Courtney Murray began to edit Theological
Studies.
Theological Studies (TS) was a quarterly journal sponsored by
the Jesuit theological faculties of the United States. The magazine
began publication in February 1940 and was intended to be a
professional journal for theologians who wanted to stay current with
developments in their field. The periodical included long articles
on specific topics, a section entitled "Current Theology" covering recent developments, and a segment devoted to reviews of newly
published theological works.1
As a professional journal, TS. filled a particular void in
Catholic America that had existed for decades. The last attempt at a
J-Donald E. Pelotte, John Courtney Murray: Theologian in C o n flic t (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 6.
46 47
scholarly American journal had occurred just after the turn of the
century when a group of New York priests launched the New York
Review. Although initially supported by the Archbishop of New York,
the periodical soon came under attack by American conservatives for
being too "modern" in its theology. After stumbling along for three
years, publication ground to a halt in 1908, driving critical
theological scholarship underground for another thirty-two years.2
In the interim, Catholic publishing was comprised mostly of
ethnic and diocesan newspapers, devotional publications, and popular
magazines. By the 1930s, however, a new interest in theology began
to develop among Catholics. One reason for this was the Catholic
Revival, which came to America when Sheed & Ward began publishing in
1933. The new company began to im port th e works of European
Catholics such as G.K. Chesterton and Jacques Maritain and made the
books available in bookstores across the country. Meanwhile, a group
of Benedictine monks in Minnesota began a liturgical movement to make
Catholic worship, hidden for centuries behind a veil of Latin, more accessible to lay people. The monks began their own journal entitled
Orate Fratres to explain liturgical theology to the laity.3
In addition to these grassroots American movements, Rome began
to show a warmer attitude toward theological speculation. This new
attitude was most prominently displayed in two encyclicals issued by
2Fogarty, 192-193.
3Dolan, 408-409. 48
Pope Pius XII in 1943: Mystici Corporis and Divino Afflante Spiritu.
With this type of encouragement, American theologians began to adopt
a more professional attitude, launching publications and forming
professional organizations such as the Catholic Theological Society
of America. It was into this hospitable environment that Theological
Studies was born. Its first issue was hailed by Orate Fratres as a
sign of Catholic America's newly realized theological maturity.4
John Courtney Murray was appointed to the editorship of TS. in
1941. Murray joined th e Jesu its in 1920 at age 16 and received his
B.A. from Weston College in 1926. A year later he received an M.A.
from Boston College and was assigned to a seminary in the Philippines
where he taught Latin and English literature. In 1930 he returned to
the United States to begin his own studies for the .priesthood at
Woodstock College. After his ordination in 1933 he traveled to Rome
to earn a doctorate in theology from the Gregorian University.
The selection of the Pontifical Gregorian University as the
site for his doctoral studies is a good indication of what Murray planned for his career. The "Greg" was established in 1551 by
Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Order. As a pontifical
school, the university grants an ecclesiastical degree certifying
that its bearer is well trained in the doctrines and dogmas of the
Catholic Church. Six saints and thirteen popes are numbered among
4Virgil Michel, "The Apostolate," Orate Fratres 14 (March, 1940), 231. 49
the school's alumni.5 The American was sent to Rome to get the
best training available for a life of teaching theology to Jesuit
seminarians.
The Jesuit specialized in a particularly abstract field known
as "fundamental theology." As opposed to scriptural, moral, or
ascetic theology that focus on distinct branches of theological
endeavor, fundamental theology is more like a philosophy of
theology. It examines and develops systematic principles on which
theology can be based. As such, its methodology relies more heavily
on rational thought than on other elements of theology (e.g. divine
revelation, papal pronouncements, etc.). This heavy philosophical
concentration would later help Murray to use Catholic principles to
theologize the American tradition of church/state relations.
In 1937 Murray completed his doctoral dissertation entitled
Matthias Joseph Scheeben's Doctrine on Supernatural, Divine Faith: A
Critical Exposition.6 Scheeben (1835-1888) was a German theologian
who had explored the roles of will and intellect in faith. According to Murray, Scheeben's great accomplishment was to "free the notion of
faith from every species of 'rationalism.'"7 In other words, the
German recognized that faith was more than merely an intellectual
5D. Thomas Hughson, ed. Matthias Scheeben of Faith: The Doctoral Dissertation of John Courtney Murray (The Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston, NY, 1987), 3.
6Fogarty, 192-193.
7Dolan, 408-409. 50
assent to a series of propositions about God; to believe requires an
act of will transcending rational understanding. Murray's interest
in this voluntary element of faith would manifest itself later in the
Jesuit's belief that choice of religion is a matter of personal
conscience.
Upon completion of his studies, he returned to Woodstock
College in Maryland where he remained on the faculty as a professor
of theology until his death in 1967.8 Woodstock was one of five
such Jesuit institutions in the United States. Although classified
as a "college," it did not conform exactly to the American concept of
the term. Woodstock was actually a specialized graduate school
training Jesuit seminarians for the Catholic priesthood. In an age
when vocations to the priesthood were plentiful, the college was one
of scores of theologates operated by religious orders in the United
States. When Murray joined the faculty, the student body consisted
of 229 Jesuit seminarians9, which would have made the college one
of the largest such institutions in America. Given the Jesuit
tradition of academic excellence, it would also have been one of the
best.
Although Murray had become editor of TS. in 1941, his first
article did not appear until 1942 when he included under "Current
Theology" a section entitled "Christian Co-operation." With the
^ i d . , 3.
9Official Catholic Directory (P.J. Kenedy & Sons: New York, 1937), 22. 51
onslaught of World War II, the need for ecumenical cooperation had
gained a new urgency. Even before the war, Catholic and Protestant
leaders around the world had been concerned that growing secularism
threatened to undermine the religious values of their people.
Despite this common recognition, most Catholic leaders argued against
any type of ecumenical cooperation on the grounds that it might lead
to "indifferentism," the belief that one denomination is as good as
another.10
The occasion for Murray’s entry into the ecumenical debate was
a joint statement on cooperation issued by two British groups, the
Joint Committee on Religion and Life, an organization of Protestant
denominations, and the Sword of the Spirit, a Catholic group. The
statement proclaimed all Christians to be obligated to act together
and Christianize society during and after the war. It maintained
that sufficient common Christian ground existed to allow cooperation
without doctrinal differences and resolved that the two groups would
work together, parallel in religious activities but jointly in social
action.11
Murray addressed the issue of ecumenical cooperation in a
series of three articles. In these the Jesuit expands the basis for
interfaith cooperation by seeking a unity based upon our common
humanity rather than upon a more narrow common Christianity. Good
10Fogarty, 347-349. uJohn Courtney Murray, "Current Theology: Christian Co-operation." Theological Studies 3 (September 1942): 427-428. 52
human values are also good Christian values and, as such, provide the
means for different denominations to work together. Making his point
concisely he asserts that a common belief in the divinity of Christ
is not necessary for cooperation in combatting the evil of
alcoholism.12 Furthermore, the common experience of humanity gives
rise to a natural law of justice, a common understanding of what is
right, an understanding on which the social and political order of
the postwar world should be based. Murray concluded the series by
c alling upon all Christians to promote this natural law of
justice.13 This emphasis on natural law would play an important
part in Murray's later writings on church and state.
Although these early ecumenical questions did not directly
address the question of church/state relations, they helped to set
the stage for Murray's later articles and the controversy surrounding
them. This early interest in ecumenism led Murray to consider the
issue of religious toleration and its effect on church/state
relations. These articles also attracted the unfriendly attention of
the staff at the American Ecclesiastical Review who would eventually
become the most vocal of Murray's detractors.
The end of World War II heralded a new period of global
upheaval witnessing the beginning of the nuclear age and the
12John Courtney Murray, "Current Theology: Co-operation: Some Further Views," Theological Studies 4 (March 1943), 105-109.
13John Courtney Murray, "Current Theology: Intercredal Co-operation: Its Theory and Its Organization," Theological Studies 4 (June 1943), 258-260. 53
emergence of Russia and the United States as dominant forces in world
politics, thereby shifting the balance of power away from the
European nations that had shaped the "civilized world" for the past
millennium. Consequently, the Catholic Church faced a world filled
with new threats and possibilities. In Europe, despite the best
efforts of the papacy, the spectre of communism loomed larger than
ever before. Even as the Church in Europe was fighting for survival,
Catholics in the United States were experiencing unprecedented growth
in numbers, wealth, and prestige. In the two decades after 1940 the
Church in America almost doubled in size. In 1941 the Official
Catholic Directory reported that the U.S. Catholic population was
22,293,101; in 1961 the official tally was 42,104,899.14 The
Church had also begun to shed its image as an "immigrant church" and
American Catholics were mingling more freely with the rest of
society The G.I. Bill of Rights enabled more Catholics to attend
college and subsequent surveys reflected the increased enrollment.
Whereas, in 1900 only 7% of American Catholics attended college
(compared to 17% of the general population), by 1950 the number had
jumped to 31% (compared to 32% of the general population).15
As church members climbed the economic ladder their financial
14Official Catholic Directory, (1941), 1135 and ibid (1961), 1293.
15Andrew Greeley, The American Catholic: A. Social Portrait (Basic Books: New York, 1977), 41. 54
support of the institution grew accordingly. Within eight years
after V-E Day, Catholic Relief Services, an American organization,
distributed over $200,000,000 to assist peoples recovering from the
war. At the same time, the American bishops sent $500,000 annually
to Rome to fund papal relief programs. All of this was in addition
to the regular collection of Peter's Pence, an annual collection
taken in every Catholic church for the general support of the
Vatican.16
The prestige of the American Church received a great boost
when Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered the White House. As a New
York politician, Roosevelt recognized the electoral power in the
large cities of the Northeast and Midwest. Accordingly, he
cultivated good relations with Catholic leaders, especially Cardinal
George Mundelein of Chicago. Mundelein agreed with most of
Roosevelt's policies and was happy to serve as the President's
liaison to the Catholic community. After the Cardinal's death in
1939, Francis Spellman moved quickly to ingratiate himself to the White House. Although Roosevelt was ambivalent about the new
Archbishop of New York, Spellman's well-publicized friendship with
Pius XII guaranteed his usefulness in Washington.17
After the outbreak of World War II, Roosevelt appointed Myron
16Gerald Fogarty, "The Vatican and the American Church since World War II," in The Papacy and the Church in the United States (Paulist Press: New York, 1989), 125-127.
17Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy: 1870 to 1965. 55
Taylor as his personal representative to the Holy See. The
semi-formal nature of the appointment circumvented the need for
approval from a Congress that had consistently rejected any
diplomatic relationship with the Vatican for almost a century.
Taylor's mission allowed Washington discreet access to the Vatican's
international network of connections and its status as a neutral
territory with diplomatic missions from all of the Axis nations.18
The new circumstances of the postwar American Church were not
without their difficulties. As Catholics mingled more freely with
the rest of society, their bishops worried about the spread of
secularism in the United States. This problem had been recognized in
Europe for years and stimulated the cooperation of groups such as the
aforementioned Sword of the Spirit and the Joint Committee on
Religion and Life. Seeing the problem develop on this side of the
Atlantic, the American bishops were moved, in 1947, to write:
This, in essence, is what we mean by secularism. It is a view of life that limits itself not to the material in exclusion of the spiritual, but to the human here and now in exclusion of man's relation to God here and hereafter. Secularism, or the practical exclusion of God from human thinking and living, is at the root of the world's travail today. It was the fertile soil in which such monstrosities as Fascism, Nazism, and Communism could germinate and grow.19
The field of Catholic education also presented problems. The
18Hennesey, 295.
19"secularism," in Pastoral Letters of the American Hierarchy. 1792 - 1970 (Our Sunday Visitor Press: Huntington, IN, 1971), 403. 56
explosion of Catholic population created a need for new schools at
all levels that could impart the Faith as they taught the three Rs.
The question of state support for Catholic schools became a national
issue debated in courtrooms, classrooms, and the halls of Congress.
Two cases had recently been tried in front of the United States
Supreme Court that directly affected the functioning of American
parochial schools. In one case, Everson vs. Board of Education
(1947), Justice Hugo Black interpreted the First Amendment's
non-establishment clause as commanding no state support for any or
all religion.20
Murray himself was deeply concerned about the place of
religion in education and saw its systematic exclusion as another
example of insidious secularism. In 1950 he addressed the issue in a
speech at Yale University. The Jesuit posited religion as an
integral part of education and stated that a religiously neutral
school was not neutral, it continued the secularist trend to make
religion irrelevant in American life.21 In the field of diplomacy, Harry Truman's attempt to continue
Roosevelt's policy of representation at the Vatican aroused a storm
of opposition, thereby forcing his abandonment of the practice. This
attempt, combined with the church schools controversy, precipitated
the foundation, in 1947, of the Protestants United for the Separation
20Hennesey, 299.
21JCM talk at Yale, 10 March 1950. 57
of Church and State (POAU). Established by Methodist bishop G.
Bramley Oxnard and others, the organization fought what it perceived
to be the Catholic Church's encroachment upon the American principle
of separation of church and state. Paul Blanshard soon became a
highly visible spokesman for the group.22
John Courtney Murray welcomed this new era for the American
Church despite its problems. For him the blossoming of American
Catholicism proved the validity of the separation principle as a
model for the peaceful and beneficial coexistence of Church and
state. At the same time, the problems outlined above would have to
be addressed if the legitimacy of the American proposition was to be
accepted by Rome. In a way, the Jesuit found himself caught between
two opposing views. Rome viewed the activities of Blanshard et al.
as proof that the United States was essentially inhospitable to the
Catholic Church, hence the need for the Church to gain government
approval. For their part, the POAU members interpreted the Vatican's
view of church/state relations as fundamentally subversive to the
American principle of separation. Therefore, good Catholics could
not be good Americans and vice versa. To Murray, the only way
between this Scylla and Charybdis was to reconcile the American
paradigm of church/state to the principles of Roman Catholic
theology. It was in this milieu that Murray began his foray into controversy.
22Hennesey, 295. 58
In 1945 Murray had begun to turn his attention directly to the
issue of church-state relations. Throughout World War II, religious
groups in the Allied countries had considered the matter of the
reconstruction following the victory in Europe. The totalitarian
regimes ruling the Axis powers and, though this was more delicate
because of their relation to the Allies, the U.S.S.R. had not proved
kind to religion. Catholics were especially sensitive to criticisms
that Pius XII had been ambiguous in his relations with the Axis
powers. The Vatican’s treaties with Mussolini's Fascists in 1929 and
with Hitler's Nazis in 1932 were well known. Even more embarrassing
to American Catholics, the Vatican had initiated diplomatic relations
with the Japanese in 1942.23 In any event, when the Federal
Council of Churches, an American assembly of Protestant
denominations, issued a statement on Freedom of Religion the American
bishops were eager to discuss the issue with their non-Catholic
counterparts.24
John Courtney Murray published a critique of the Federal
Council's statement in March 1945. While he applauded the Council's
efforts and emphasized the urgency of the topic, he did not agree
with what he understood to be its basic premise: humans were created
in the image of God and, as creatures of God, had a right to freedom
of religion. The Jesuit felt that this premise, based as it was in
23Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy: 1870 - 1865, 353.
24Pelotte, 12. 59
the Bible, was too Protestant for pluralistic America and therefore
unacceptable to a government practicing separation. Murray then
began to present an alternative that rooted religious liberty in the
civic rights of an individual under a constitutionally limited
government. According to Murray, the legitimate authority of the
state includes only the reasonable protection of the common good.25
Murray's article on the Council document attracted the
attention of Archbishop Edward Mooney of Detroit. Mooney tended to
be theologically progressive and his earlier career as a Vatican
diplomat (Papal Envoy to India) had sensitized him to questions of
church and state. One of his early moves as Archbishop of Detroit
was to muzzle the iconoclastic Fr. Charles Coughlin. The Archbishop
was also the Chairman of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, a
national assembly of Catholic bishops, and had been impressed with
Murray's opinions in the recent article. At a meeting with Murray
and Wilfrid Parsons, another Jesuit priest, Mooney commissioned the
two men to open a dialogue with representatives of the Federal
Council of Churches to consider the issue of religious freedom.26
As Parsons and Murray planned their assignment, it was agreed
that Murray would publish a series of three articles outlining the
Catholic position on the topic of religious freedom. The first
article appeared quickly in June 1945 and divided the issue into
25John Courtney Murray, "Current Theology: Freedom of Religion," Theological Studies 6 (March 1945), 85-93.
26Pelotte, 12. 60
three distinct problems: ethical, theological, and political. In
this article Murray focused on the ethical problem and concluded that
while the state had an obligation to promoted public morality, it had
no competence to regulate private beliefs.27 For reasons unknown
at this time, this first article was the only one of the series to be
published. Murray's foray into controversy began in 1948, with a paper he
read at the annual convention of the Catholic Theological Society of
America (CTSA) entitled "Governmental Repression of Heresy." In his
paper Murray recognized the long history of Gelasius's "two sword
theory" and its long development in differing historical
circumstances. He then proposed that a new interpretation of the
theory was necessary in light of the new socio-political milieu of
the twentieth century.28
Even as Murray finished his paper the objections began.
Francis Connell, President of the CTSA, praised Murray's effort but
objected that certain sections did not adhere to what the Church had taught over the centuries. Connell also proclaimed that he, for one,
would remain faithful to the traditional teaching.29
27John Courtney Murray, "Freedom of Religion I: The Ethical Problem," Theological Studies 6 (June 1945), 234-267.
28John Courtney Murray, "Governmental Repression of Heresy," Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Chicago, 1948, 34.
29Francis Connell, "Discussion on 'Government Repression of Heresy,"' Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Chicago: 1948, 100. 61
Within months, Murray's CTSA paper had become the catalyst for
a controversy that would rage in print for more than six years,
ending with the Jesuit's silencing by Rome. The battle lines were
clearly drawn between Murray, who based his theorizing on the
experience of the American Church, and a conservative faction
clinging adamantly to the thesis/hypothesis model.
The conservative faction was led by Joseph Clifford Fenton
who, through his editorship of the American Ecclesiastical Review
(AER), vigorously defended the traditional Catholic position on
church and state. The AER had been founded in 1889 as a monthly
scholarly journal for priests and laity. Fenton became editor in
1944.30 The magazine presented articles on a wide variety of
religious topics and offered book reviews in each issue. One
particular feature that characterized the careful conservative nature
of the journal was a column appearing in each issue. This column,
usually written by Francis Connell, would answer questions such as:
"Is it a sin to chew gum in church?" or "Can one baptize a person
using milk?"31
Joseph "Butch" Fenton was a big and blustery man who was not
afraid to state his opinion. Fenton, a professor of dogma at The
^Pelotte, 7.
31The answers were: Chewing gum in church incurs the venial sin of irreverence. If, however, one chews loudly enough, it then becomes the mortal sin of scandal. Although milk is 90% water, it is not popularly perceived as water and therefore not permitted for use at baptisms, (author's note: Skim milk had not yet been developed at th is time.) 62
Catholic University of America, would become dean of the theology
department in 1952.32 As a theology teacher at the official school
of the Catholic Church in the United States, Fenton was under mandate
to present and defend official Church doctrine. That Fenton took his
mission seriously is obvious from one contemporary's remembrance:
Fenton was fond of saying: "Here I am struggling in all dignity and responsibility to defend the true teaching of Holy Mother Church and I find myself surrounded by sons of bitches trying to stab me in the back!"33
Over the next few years, John Courtney Murray would develop a
theological position based on the premise that it is the task of the
theologian to translate the doctrines of the eternal Church in light
of current, concrete historical circumstances. In the case of the
"two swords" theory, the thesis/hypothesis model developed during the
Reformation had become obsolete. The intolerance exhibited in Spain,
that nation proclaimed by conservatives to be the best example of
thesis/hypothesis in action, proved that the old model was more
hindrance than help.34 In the current world order, where religion
32Pelotte, 7.
33Walter Burghardt, Personal reminiscence written sometime around 1968 during the compilation of the Murray Papers.
MAt this time the Spanish government of Francisco Franco was in the midst of negotiating a treaty with the Vatican. The repressive regime had declared itself a Catholic government and outlawed the practice of other religions. While this situation embarrassed liberals like Murray, it was heralded by conservatives as a prime example of the Catholic "thesis," the ideal relationship of church and state. One of the most vigorous proponents of the Spanish 63
played an increasingly minor role in most civil governments, the
relationship of church and state should be articulated according to
th e ten ets of the common good (th at natural law of ju stice commonly
perceived by all people, whether Christian or not).35
Despite his advocacy of a new model of church/state relations,
Murray did not want to enshrine the American model as the new
"thesis." He did, however, feel that the experience of the United
States had been unfairly judged by conservative theologians.
According to the Jesuit, conservatives were too quick to lump the
American model with the continental liberalism providing the
philosophical underpinnings of the French Revolution and the loss of
the Papal States.36 To bolster his argument, he pointed to Leo
XIII's denunciation of Americanism which, while acknowledging the
value of separation in the United States, condemned its spread to the
European milieu.37
In a letter written to a confrere a few years after the debate
had cooled, Murray summarized his understanding of the conservative position in this way:
situation was Alfredo Ottaviani, a Vatican official who would soon become the Church's point man in the battle against heresy.
35John Courtney Murray, "Governmental Repression of Heresy," Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Chicago, 1948, 34.
36ibid., 336-337.
37John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to John Tracy Ellis, Washington, 20 July 1953, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 64
1. There is no substantial difference between the United States and situations in Europe caused by the Revolution. Both exhibit "disestablishment" as "freedom of religion." 2. Therefore, Leo XIII's condemnation of "id genus res publicae" also includes the United States. 3. Therefore, the First Amendment can only be de fended as a minus malum [lesser evil], a con cession to force maieure. to be revoked as soon as possible when power comes into Catholic hands. 4. The only acceptable constitutional situation holds Catholicism as unica status religio. cetera exclusis [the one state religion, excluding the rest]. 5. Number 4 becomes necessary as soon as it becomes possible.38
In light of this summary, it can be understood why Murray felt the
need to adapt the Church's position to modern, less defensive,
circumstances.
In contrast to Murray's premise of historical adaptation,
Fenton insisted that the principles of Church doctrine were
immutable. They applied in exactly the same way in all circumstances
regardless of place or time.39 Any attempt to make Catholic
doctrine more palatable to people outside the Church was akin to
watering that doctrine down.40 These warnings were rooted in the
principle first stated by Thomas Aquinas that "error has no rights."
^John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to Vincent McCormick, Rome, 22 January, 1958, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
39Joseph Fenton, "New Concepts in Theology," American Ecclesiastical Review. 119 (July 1948), 57.
40Joseph Fenton, "Two Currents in Contemporary Catholic Thought", American Ecclesiastical Review 119 (September 1948), 211. 65
Fenton argued that non-Catholics were in error and therefore were not
entitled to the same rights belonging to Catholics. Murray's
emphasis on the common good would also confer these rights to those
who, in Fenton's interpretation, were not entitled to them.
While Fenton attacked the general tenets of Murray's position,
a fellow conservative concentrated on rebutting the Jesuit's views
regarding the American model. George Shea, a priest and theology
professor at Immaculate Conception Seminary in New Jersey, also
published in the AER. In his article Shea asserted that Murray had
not been able to disprove the old "Catholic thesis." Shea then
referred to the writings of Leo XIII to establish that Catholicism as
the "religion of the state" is a permanently valid principle.41
The claim to permanent validity implied that the "thesis/hypothesis"
dialectic could not be ignored when considering modern church-state
relations.
By 1951 the scholarly debate issuing from the pages of the
respective journals began to turn acrimonious. Fenton had invited Murray to publish a rebuttal to George Shea in the AER. but then
Fenton prefaced the article to disagree with the Jesuit's point of
view.42 This disclaimer angered Murray and prompted him to forgo
the submission of another article, also rebutting Shea, to the AER
41George W . Shea, "Catholic Doctrine and 'The Religion of the State'," American Ecclesiastical Review 123 (September 1950), 162.
«ibid., 327. 66
and publish it in his own journal. Later, when the Jesuit decided to
submit another rebuttal to yet another attack in the AER, he tersely
instructed Fenton to either publish the article without editorial
comment or exclude the piece altogether.43 Fenton replied by
rebuking Murray for not submitting his second article to AER and
claiming his perogative as an editor to comment on articles published
in his magazine.44 Remonstrations aside, Fenton did publish
Murray's article, without editorial comment, in January 1952.
Even as he fought his battle within the Catholic arena, Murray
was forced to rebut an assault from outside as well. In 1946, Paul
Blanshard had published a book entitled American Freedom and Catholic
Power. In it Blanshard argued that the cultural, economic, and
political policies of the American Catholic bishops were
un-American. He claimed that the hierarchy's policies contradicted
the dedication of the United States to the principles of freedom and
individual rights.45 Blanshard found a ready audience for his
book. It first appeared in March 1946 and by August of that same year was in its sixth printing.46
43John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to Joseph Fenton, Washington, 16 August 1951, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
44Joseph Fenton, Washington, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 27 August 1951, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
45Paul Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1948), 248-263.
46Hennesey, 295. 67
The actions of POAU prompted Murray to write a rebuttal
attacking what he saw as a new type of nativism. He detected three
fundamental points in this new phenomenon: that the Church's sole
competence is devotional, that the democratic state controls the
entire sphere of temporal life, and that scientific method provided
the only valid guide for forming opinion. This was a new phenomenon
because it was no longer a Protestant anti-Catholicism, but a secular
anti-Christianism The Christian humanism of the founding fathers was
being replaced by the secularism decried by the American Catholic
bishops. In light of this, Murray called for renewed cooperation of
Protestants and Catholics to develop a positive theory of the church
in public life.47
The early 1950s saw a new interest in church/state relations
manifested by several popular Catholic periodicals. While much of
this was due to Blanshard and POAU, events abroad had an impact as
well. In March 1952 the New York Times published excerpts of a
pastoral letter issued by Cardinal Pedro Segura of Seville, Spain.
In his letter Segura repeated the old adage that "error has no
rights" and, therefore, religious liberty in Spain would be contrary
to divine law.48 The more liberal journals, such as America.
quickly discounted the cardinal's opinion and even compared his
47John Courtney Murray, "Paul Blanshard and the New Nativism," The Month. New Series, 5 (April 1951): 218-219.
48"Cardinal Segura'a Pastoral," America 87 (5 April 1952), 2. 68
intolerance to that shown by Blanshard and his associates.49
Up to this point the Murray-Fenton dispute had been confined
to the pages of their respective journals and to a few cognoscenti on
each side. However, this began to change early in 1953 when the
conservatives upped the ante by publishing a speech by Alfredo
Ottaviani. Ottaviani was an Italian cardinal and a good friend of
Joseph Fenton. As Cardinal Prefect of the Holy Office, Ottaviani was
responsible for protecting official Church doctrine from any
encroachment of heresy.50 Any speech offered by the Cardinal
Prefect could be guaranteed to be free of doctrinal error and have
the permission, if not the ratification, of his only immediate
superior, the pope.
The Cardinal was unequivocal in his defense of the Catholic
confessional state as the only possible ideal. In addition, he
listed the three primary duties of such a confessional state.
Firstly, the state has the duty of professing its religion publicly.
Secondly, the moral principles of that religion must influence those activities proper to the state and its legislation. Finally, the
State must protect the religious unity of a people who know
themselves to be in secure possession of religious truth from
anything undermining that truth.51
49"C hurch-State in Spain," America 86 (22 March 1952), 662.
^Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy: 1870 - 1965. 537.
51Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, "Church and State: Some Present 69
Ottaviani's speech was greeted with mixed reactions in the
United States. While Fenton published the talk in its entirety,
other Americans were much less enthusiastic. Commonweal, a bimonthly
magazine of current events published by progressive Catholic lay
people, described the Cardinal's position as "harmful" and "capable
of arousing fear and misunderstanding of the Church." Without naming
Murray directly, the editorial praised his efforts to formulate a new
position, "one in close harmony with the realities of modern
civilization," and urged that the development of the position
continue.52 The Jesuit was gaining a larger audience.
Murray himself was wise enough not to immediately confront
someone as powerful as Ottaviani. Instead, he tried to learn the
status of this speech. Was it an official explanation of Church
dogma or the private opinion of a public official? Cardinal Samuel
Stritch of Chicago, at a private dinner with Murray, passed on
assurances to him from Archbishop Giovanni Montini (the future Pope
Paul VI) that Ottaviani's speech was a "purely private
utterance."53 Robert Lieber, a fellow Jesuit who served as an
advisor to Pope Pius XII, also assured Murray that the Cardinal's
Problems in the Light of the Teaching of Pope Pius XII," American Ecclesiastical Review 128 (May 1953), 325-326.
52"The Church-State Problem," Commonweal 68 (7 August 1953), 431-432.
“ John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to Vincent McCormick, Rome, 23 November 1953, No. 1, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 70
speech was not an official statement.54
Although Murray's theological endeavors had earned him some
prominent opponents he was not without friends as well. Cardinal
Stritch appreciated the Jesuit's work and used it to develop his own,
albeit cautious, opinions.55 Among his fellow Catholic academics
Murray found encouragement from his confrere and fellow author,
Gustave Weigel, but his most active ally was in Monsignor Fenton's
own backyard. Monsignor John Tracy Ellis was a professor of church
history at Catholic University and editor of the Catholic Historical
Review. Ellis was unsurpassed in his knowledge of the Americanist
bishops and applauded Murray's efforts to gain acceptance for the
American proposition. The historian passed along useful information
received from a close friend, Joseph P. Walshe, who was serving as
the Irish Ambassador to the Holy See. Walshe, too, supported Murray
and, through Ellis, offered advice about how to sell the proposition
in Rome.56
Henry and Clare Luce were also close with the embattled
Jesuit, inviting him to intimate birthday gatherings and even giving
54John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to John Tracy Ellis, Washington, 20 July 1953, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
“ Samuel Stritch, Chicago, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 7 December 1953, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
“John Tracy Ellis, Washington, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 16 December 1953, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 71
him a late model Buick57 When Clare Boothe Luce was appointed to
be the American Ambassador to Italy in the early 1950s she looked to
Murray for advice with her unofficial duties representing American
interests at the Vatican5® The Luce-Murray connection was
strengthened when the Jesuit contributed an article to Life magazine
in December 1955.59 After the publication of his book entitled We
Hold These Truths. Murray was also featured on a cover story in the
December 12, 1960 issue of Time.60
During the 1950s the Jesuit editor was also becoming well
known beyond Catholic circles. In 1951 he served, with J. Robert
Oppenheimer, as an advisor to the American Academic Freedom Project
sponsored by Columbia University. Other project participants
included Henry Steele Commager and Richard Hofstadter61 Murray also served as Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Yale during the
1953-54 academic year.62
Even as Murray considered his response to Ottaviani's speech,
he was attracting more attention in Rome. In November 1953 he
57John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to Henry Luce, New York, 23 November 1952, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. ^Pelotte, 39.
59Pelotte, 54.
60ibid, 76.
61American Academic Freedom Project (New York: Columbia University, 1951).
62Pelotte, 31. 72
received a letter from his superior in New York quoting an earlier
note received from Vincent McCormick, an American serving as
Assistant General of the Jesuit Order, with the following, rather
cryptic, message:
Read Can[on]. 2316. If I a ssist a man come to Italy for that purpose knowing that is why he is coming do I fall under the penalty? Our highest superior - I was with him last month - thinks so, unless excused by ignorance. America might know that. I think the time has come for Fr. Murray to put down in simple, clear statements his full, present position regarding this Church-State question and send it to me for Father General. Sic mandatum [Thus is it ordered].63
The mysterious nature of this message seemed to worry Murray,
who wrote three replies to McCormick on the same day. In his first
letter he indicated his intention to comply with the mandatum but
stated that his "position" was actually more like a purpose — to
explore the possibility of finding a place in Catholic doctrine for
the American solution to religious pluralism. In light of the
enigmatic paragraph he inquired as to whether he was suspected of
heresy or merely an object of interest.64 In two subsequent
letters written that same day Murray indicated that he had deciphered
63John J. McMahon, New York, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 21 November 1953, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
64John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to Vincent McCormick, Rome, 23 November 1953, Number 1, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 73
the meaning of the paragraph and responded accordingly.
In response to his letters McCormick assured Murray that he
was not under suspicion. Recent articles in Ecclesia and America
magazines (this was the "America" referred to in the mandatum) had
occasioned the General of the Jesuits to request a clear and complete
statement from Murray in case any inquiries were made. McCormick
reassured Murray that "Rome has not expressed any fear for the
orthodoxy of Fr. Murray, though not everybody in Rome, I presume,
accepts his writings."65
America was one of Murray's most consistent supporters in the
current controversy. Published weekly from New York by the Jesuits,
this periodical addressed current events in the Church and in the
world at large. Murray had been Religion Editor of the magazine in
the 40s and his confreres on the editorial staff remained supportive
of him throughout the controversy and continued the discussion after
his silencing.
In December of 1953, Pius XII delivered a speech entitled Ci
riesce to a group of Italian jurists. In the speech he called for
the recognition of religious pluralism not only between states, but
within them. The pope's talk seemed to almost reverse that given by
Ottaviani earlier in the year.66 To Murray, this address was his
^Vincent McCormick, Rome, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 27 November 1953, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
66Fogarty, 379-380. 74
license to answer Ottaviani. In the meantime, however, a controversy
surfaced between Gustave Weigel, who happened to be a close friend of
Murray's, and Joseph Fenton about the interpretation of Ci riesce.
Weigel understood the document as recognizing an obligation of civil
governments to practice religious toleration. Fenton, on the other
hand, insisted that Pius maintained the Church's disapproval of the
complete separation of church and state.67
While this controversy raged, Murray accepted an invitation to
speak at The Catholic University of America on 25 March 1954.
Although three different versions of this speech are still extant, it
is unknown which was actually delivered. In one version Murray
states that Pius' talk in December was his public correction of
Ottaviani's views.68 Another version contains a penciled notation
that people holding views similar to those held by Ottaviani would
have to revise in light of the pope's recent talk.69
Whichever version had been given, Murray's speech reached an
audience far greater than that actually attending the talk. The
National Catholic Welfare Conference had deemed the address important
enough to summarize in a general press release. While the release
did not mention Ottaviani by name, it did include the Jesuit's
67Pelotte, 45.
68Fogarty, 380.
69Speech of John Courtney Murray, possibly the version given at The Catholic University of America on 25 March 1954, Special Collection, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 75
assertion that Pius XII had destroyed the misconception that the
Spanish situation represented the "thesis" of ideal church/state
relations (one of Ottaviani's assertions).
In any event, Fenton reported Murray's remarks to Ottaviani
who was quick to take action. On 1 April Ottaviani wrote to Cardinal
Spellman of New York, asking him to take disciplinary action against
the Jesuit. Spellman replied that he had no direct jurisdiction over
Murray but would inquire about the matter with the rector of the
university.70 Murray himself wrote an apology to Ottaviani but
apparently received no response.71
Despite his powerful position, Ottaviani's options for
punishing Murray were very limited. As a member of a religious order
Murray would not have had any ambitions for the bishop's miter, so
the cardinal could not thwart any promotions to higher office.72
Because Woodstock was an "internal" school (only Jesuits could
attend) the local bishop would have no jurisdiction over the
faculty. Therefore Ottaviani could not appeal to the local authorities. Because the theological issues were sufficiently
ambiguous Murray could not be officially charged with heresy by the
Holy Office. Thus, the cardinal's only option was to go through
70Fogarty, 380.
71John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to Vincent McCormick, Rome, 18 August 1954, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Goergetown University, Washington.
72In this era members of religious orders were not appointed to the office of bishop unless they were in mission territories. 76
Murray's Jesuit superiors.
The events surrounding Murray's silencing are somewhat
cloudy. The official documentation relevant to the event is not
available from any known source, but several inferences can be drawn
from Murray's correspondence with Rome. Some time before March of
1955 Murray seems to have been censured by th e Holy Office. A le tter
from McCormick dated 4 March 1955 indicates that Murray offered to
travel to Rome to meet with Ottaviani. McCormick's response is that
such a meeting would be fruitless because the cardinal was too
deeplyhurt by the whole affair. The Assistant General somewhat
minimizes the censure noting that "one little error had been noted,
the mildest admonition had been given; let that simple error be
corrected, avoided, and for the present let us talk of the organist
at the Gesu."73 McCormick's note seems to indicate that the Holy Office
referred the matter to the Jesuit General who deemed the matter easy
enough to correct. By the next year, however, Murray had been
ordered to submit his writings to Rome for examination and approval
for publication. The reprinting of one of Murray's earlier articles
was cancelled by Rome, not because of any error contained, but
because the censors felt the situation in Rome deemed it imprudent at
the time. The Assistant General counseled Murray to let the
73Vincent McCormick, Rome, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 4 March 1955, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 77
church-state issue rest for the time being.74
After additional articles were cancelled in Rome, Murray began
to realize the extent of his censorship. He soon grew pessimistic
and began to cancel his own commitments to publish on the subject of church and state. When he wrote to McCormick asking what topics were
available to him, the Roman Jesuit replied conservatively:
I suppose you may write poetry. Between harmless poetry and Church-State problems, what fields are taboo I don't know; but ordinary prudence will give th e answ er. We'll try to keep out of controversy for the present.75
McCormick also promised to ask the General for a clarification on
Murray's limits. If he did receive clarification, it must have been
pretty liberal (in relative terms), because Murray continued to be a
prolific writer, especially on legal and educational topics.
While the Jesuit was discouraged by Rome's censorship, the
manner in which he adapted to the situation gives witness to his
strength of character and intellectual integrity. His Roman
superiors had instructed Murray to keep confidential the matter of
his silencing and he, for the most part, complied.76 As a result,
74Vincent McCormick, Rome, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 9 July 1955, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
75Vincent McCormick, Rome, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 14 December 1955, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
76Pelotte, 68. 78
the episode did not become public knowledge until after the
theologian's death. This demand for confidentiality lends itself to
different interpretations. On one hand, the Jesuit General could
have been protecting Murray from public embarrassment and scandal.
On the other hand, a public reprimand from Rome might have made the
American a martyr for his principles in the eyes of those who felt
the Church was too restrictive. At any rate, Murray remained
faithful to his Jesuit vow of obedience and observed the restrictions
ordered by Rome.
Ironically, after the order to avoid topics about church and
state, Murray diverted some of his energies into exploring the
philosophical tenets of censorship. In a 1956 speech to the Thomas
More Association, a Catholic literary organization based in Chicago,
the Jesuit upheld the right of minority groups to censor materials
only for their own constituencies.77 The speech was received
favorably by a number of Catholic journals who praised Murray for his
cogent reasoning and articulate presentation of a complicated subject.78 The address carried no inference of the Jesuit's own
experience with censorship and even upheld the Church's right to
restrict Catholic publications such as TS.
In 1958 Murray wrote again to Vincent McCormick with a bold
77John Courtney Murray, "Literature and Censorship," Catholic Mind 54 (December 1956), 672.
78John Cogley, "In Praise of Fr. M urray," Commonweal 60 (7 December 1956), 253. 79
proposed, to publish an article in Civilta' Cattolico. This proposal
was bold because every article appearing in the Civilta' required the
approval of the pope himself. Thus Murray was requesting not just
the approval of his superior to publish a speculative article, but
the virtual official approval of the Church. The impetus for this
proposal had been an inquiry from members of John F. Kennedy's
nascent presidential campaign as to whether a Catholic could support
the religious clauses of the Constitution. Murray hoped to create
the doctrinal support necessary to enable Kennedy to answer this
question positively.79
Despite Murray's enthusiasm, McCormick replied negatively
before he even received the article. He seriously doubted whether
the Civilta' would even consider an article by John Courtney Murray
on church and state. Although it would have provided scarce comfort
to Murray, the Assistant General added that if the situation in the
United States put Rome on the defensive, the climate there for a
statement by Murray might improve.80
As the months passed, the embargo against Murray's writings
was never officially lifted. In 1959 Murray was able to publish a
collection of his earlier articles in a book entitled We. Hold These
Truths; Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition. Its
79Murray to McCormick, 22 June 1958.
^Vincent McCormick, Rome, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 5 August 1958, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 80
publication provided a timely clarification of issues as Kennedy
campaigned to become the first Catholic President. Murray also
helped with revisions of Kennedy's pivotal speech delivered to the
Houston Ministerial Association. Interestingly, Murray's political
opinion of Kennedy was somewhat ambivalent. Thomas Watson, Jr., who
served with the Jesuit on Kennedy's Advisory Committee to the
Secretary of Defense on Non-Military Instruction in 1962, complained
that, despite repeated attempts, he could never get Murray to accept
the liberal views of the Kennedys.81
Even as Murray's reputation grew in secular circles, he was
still considered suspect by the Church. When the Second Vatican
Council opened in October 1962, Joseph Fenton traveled to Rome to
serve as theological advisor to Cardinal Ottaviani while Murray was
on a list of theologians specifically excluded from attending.82
Even in 1964, after he had been invited to the Council as theological
advisor to Cardinal Spellman, the rector of Catholic University
prevented him from speaking publicly on the campus.83 It would be
Murray's own participation at Vatican II that would replace the
shadow of suspicion with the limelight of a theological giant.
81Pelotte, 107.
82Pelotte, 77.
^F ogarty, 391. CHAPTER FIVE
The Second Vatican Council
When the Second Vatican Council officially opened on 11
October 1962, it did so with all of the pomp and splendor that the
Church had accumulated over almost two millennia. Some 2,381 Council
Fathers, cardinals, bishops and heads of the major religious orders of men, processed from the papal palace to the Basilica of Saint
Peter. These were the men who, for the next three years, would debate and vote on changes that would shape the Church for centuries to come. The procession offered scarlet splashes of cardinal red among the more common vestments of episcopal purple. These brilliant hues were occasionally punctuated by the brown robes or black cassocks of the Fathers who belonged to religious orders.
At the end of the procession came Pope John XXIII himself.
Sitting above the crowd in a sedia qestatoria he was carried along by a phalanx of Vatican noblemen outfitted in red capes. Surrounding the sedia was a troop of fifty Swiss Guardsmen wearing their ancient uniforms complete with iron breastplates and lace ruffles. Some of these carried long poles supporting an awning that shaded the pontiff from the morning sun. Two others flanked the sedia and provided a breeze by waving large fans made of ostrich feathers.
Arriving at the basilica, John dismounted the sedia and entered the church on foot. Inside, the pope led the Council
81 82
Fathers in the celebration of a Solemn High Pontifical Mass
replete with bells and incense, candles and choirs. The Mass was
followed by an ancient ceremony of obeisance to signify the loyalty
of the Council Fathers to the pope. Cardinals and patriarchs (heads
of the most ancient dioceses in Christendom) filed before the papal
throne to kiss John's ring These were followed by two archbishops
and two bishops who, representing their colleagues, kissed the pope's
right knee. Behind the bishops came two friars, representatives of
the Dominican and Franciscan orders respectively, who knelt before
John and kissed his silken slipper. This ceremony completed, the
Secretary-General of the Council opened an ornate fifteenth-century
Gospel and read from the first chapter of Saint John. With this, the
Second Vatican Council began.1 It would continue until 1965, with
the council fathers assembling each autumn to discuss and vote on
documents revised by the commissions in the months between.
The image of Pope John, a man who wanted to open the windows
of the Church to let in the new day, sitting in the ancient sedia qestatoria symbolizes the dynamic synthesis of old and new that would
characterize the Council and its aftermath. John had come to Rome as
an outsider, having spent his diplomatic career in such outposts as
Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece. His election to the papacy in 1958 is
commonly described as a compromise between liberal and conservative
Vatican factions, neither of which could gain the upper hand in the
Robert Kaiser, Inside the Council: The Story of Vatican II (Burns & Oates: London, 1963), 79-81. 83
papal election. Already 77 years old when he was elected, John was perceived as a Papa di passaggio. one who would sit in the Chair of
Peter while the factions struggled for dominance. The announcement of his intention to convene a general council to update the Church soon proved that perception to be incorrect.
While the pope is the visible leader of the Catholic Church, the daily functioning of the Vatican occurs through the efforts of a large, departmentalized bureaucracy. This structure is directed by a small body of archbishops and cardinals known collectively as "the
Curia." The Curia fills a role roughly similar to that of the
President's Cabinet in the United States but, given the vagaries of
Roman bureaucracy, the Romans are more autonomous than their American counterparts. Similarly to the Cabinet, Curial appointments expire with the pope who made them. John, however, chose to retain the appointments made by his predecessor, a man more defensive than himself. As a result, John's Curia would become the first line of defense against the changes that the Pope himself hoped to accomplish. This dialectic would set the tone for the Council itself.
Once he had begun the process of convening the Council, John gave the responsibility for its preparation to his Secretary of
State, Cardinal Domenico Tardini. Ten preparatory commissions were established, each concentrating on some facet of Church life, to generate topics for discussion at the Council. These commissions consisted mostly of Vatican officials and was headed by a member of the Curia. The heads of each commission comprised a supervisory 84
committee chaired by Tardini himself who was assisted by a future
cardinal named Pericle Felici. Robert Kaiser, a correspondent who
reported the Council for Time magazine, characterized the Central
Commission in this way:
No slower-moving, more reactionary dozen ever sat on the board of a New England bank. It took them a month to make their first decision: to ask the world's bishops, apostolic nuncios, superiors of religious orders and the Roman Curia to suggest what the Council should consider...The Curia, it was all too clear, was moving slowly - in its usual 'prudent' (or was it obstructive?) fashion.2
If the members of the Central Commission did not share John's
hopes for the Council, the suggestions received from around the world
seemed to corroborate their opinions. Many of the suggestions
received requested clarification of Church doctrine in a number of
areas. Other replies concerned the revamping of Church
administration to simplify it and make it more efficient.3 The
suggestions received were compiled into twelve volumes with a total
of 7,770 pages, but these contained little indication of the
revolution that would take place when the Council began.
Given their own conservative bent and the conventional flavor
of the suggestions that they received, the preparatory commissions
anticipated a council similar to that of Vatican I. Accordingly, the
documents that they prepared for discussion largely consisted of
^ i d , 21.
^ibid, 52-53. 85
standard reformulations of traditional Church teaching which, they
assumed, would be easily approved by the Council Fathers. These
assumptions, the commissions soon discovered, were specious.
Once the opening ceremonies were completed, the Council
Fathers took up the business at hand. The first item on the agenda
pertained to the preparatory commissions. With the Council underway,
these commissions were to be designated as "conciliar commissions" so
that they could continue to assist the Council in their respective
areas of expertise. This process included the election of new
members to each commission. The Central Commission saw this as a pro
forma exercise and presented for election only those people who had
served on the preparatory commissions, the vast majority of whom were
Vatican officials. It was here that the Commission received its
first surprise.
The assemblage gathered for the Second Vatican Council was
unique in the history of the Church. To begin with, it was the
largest group ever gathered for a general council. Vatican II opened
with 2,381 voting members while the First Vatican Council had begun
with 679.4 In addition, while the number of council fathers had
increased, the number of non-European participants had grown
disproportionately. In 1869, forty nine American bishops, none of
whom were cardinals, participated in Vatican I.5 Vatican II was
4Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1930), 165.
5Hennesey, 169. 86
attended by 226 American bishops, including six cardinals. The
United States delegation constituted the third largest national group
at the Council.6 This broader representation would generate a new
global awareness to counter the traditionally Eurocentric orientation
that had dominated the Vatican for centuries.
Besides there being more Americans attending the Council, the
national community that they represented had prospered mightily,
unaided by government support, since the bishops had last gathered in
Rome. In addition to the phenomenal growth of the Church in the
United States after World War II, the bishops had just witnessed the
election of John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, to the White House,
living proof that Catholicism had become acceptable to the majority
of the American population. The fathers from the United States came
to Rome secure in the knowledge that church/state separation had been
good for the American Church.
The first clash between the traditional Curial mindset and the
new global awareness occurred during the elections to the conciliar commissions. As mentioned earlier, the slate of candidates proposed
for election to the conciliar commissions consisted entirely of those
who had served on the preparatory commissions. When the first
session of the Council opened, Cardinal Achille Lienart of France
immediately asked for the floor. Speaking on behalf of the French
bishops, he proposed that the election be postponed because the
6Fogarty, 386. 87
council fathers did not know the candidates. His motion was seconded
by Cardinal Josef Frings who spoke on behalf of the German and
Austrian bishops. The motion was greeted with a thunderous wave of
applause from the assembly. Without taking a formal vote, the
Council presidents agreed to postpone the elections until the next week.7
This unexpected development received a number of differing
interpretations. Robert Kaiser cabled back to New York:
So-called liberal minority aren't going to have anything crammed down their throats by Italian Curia. Today demonstrated they have strength to avoid that possibility. This clearly going to be real parliament of the Church.8
Cardinal Lawrence Shehan of Baltimore, a participant in the
Council, was more sedate in his interpretation of the event, calling
it "nothing more than a dictate of common sense."9 Nevertheless,
the cardinal recalled that the next few days saw intense activity
among national groups of bishops as they prepared their own lists of
candidates for the conciliar commissions. It was the general
understanding that each group would nominate no more than two of its
members for each commission. Shehan also acknowledged that the
commissions elected were much more representative of the Council than
7Kaiser, 106.
®Lbid, 107.
9Lawrence Shehan, A Blessing of Years (University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, IN, 1982), 144. 88
the original slate had been.10
This pattern of conservative proposal and adverse reaction
resulting in progressive compromise would typify the working of the
Council over the next four years. Conservatives such as Alfredo
Ottaviani and other members of the Curia would almost constantly be pitted against progressive cardinals such as Albert Mayer of Chicago,
Paul Leger of Montreal, and Raul Henriquez of Santiago, Chile. With
the discreet guidance of Pope John and, after his death, by Pope Paul
VI the Second Vatican Council would achieve John's dream of
aggiornomento. the updating of the Church.
The first efforts at a statement of religious liberty derived
from two different sources. The Theological Commission, under the
leadership of Cardinal Ottaviani, was the first to consider the
question of religious freedom. The commission had assumed responsi
bility for drafting one of the major documents of the Council, an
overview of the Church defining its role in the modern world. The
ninth chapter of this document addressed church/state relations.
This chapter reflected the very conservative tone of the larger work
and merely restated the traditional doctrine of the Church: the
thesis/hypothesis theory. Its only concession to modern times was to
allow that other religions, although in error, could be tolerated for
the sake of the public good. When the document was presented to the
council fathers, they criticized it severely for being too
10ibid, 144-145. 89
conservative and juridical in tone. It was sent back to the
commission for major revision and, in the process, the ninth chapter
was dropped.11
The second initiative came from new entity, the Secretariat
for Promoting Christian Unity (SPCU). The Secretariat had been
created in 1960 by John XXIII with a dual mission: to draft conciliar
documents pertaining to ecumenism, and to establish cordial relations
for the Catholic Church with all faiths around the world. This body
represented a new direction for the Church regarding other
religions. In keeping with John's own optimism about the world, the
SPCU represented a positive attitude toward other faiths, seeking
points of common agreement on which to build a dialogue. For
centuries the Church's attitude toward non-Catholics had reflected a
"fortress mentality," that stressed the disagreement with other
religions and demanded conformity.
Given his own diplomatic experience in countries where
Catholics were in the minority, John took a special interest in the
work of the Secretariat. He appointed a German Jesuit, Cardinal
Augustin Bea, to head the commission. Bea was progressive in
temperament and had made a career in biblical scholarship. His
professional training would naturally provide a common ground on
which to begin the dialogue with other faiths. John also took care
iipietro Pavan, "Declaration on Religious Freedom," Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (Herder & Herder: New York, 1969), 4:49-50. 90
to protect the Secretariat from curial meddling. He specifically
designated it a "secretariat" to set it apart from the
commissions.12
By 1962, the Secretariat had produced its own document
pertaining to religious freedom. However, when the document was
submitted to the Central Committee for inclusion in the conciliar
agenda, the Committee rejected it on the grounds that the
Secretariat, since it was not actually a commission, was not
competent to produce council documents. Pope John solved this
dilemma in the autumn of 1962 by officially designating the
Secretariat as a conciliar commission.13 By this time, the first
session of the Council was underway and it was too late to include
the SPCU text in the agenda for this year.
John continued to support the work of the Secretariat until
his death, in June 1963, of gastric cancer. He would be replaced by
the moderate Archbishop of Milan, Giovanni Battista Montini, who
became Pope Paul VI. With John's death, the Council was
automatically suspended indefinitely, but Paul quickly dispelled any
doubts as to its future by announcing that the Council would continue
as planned.
The death of Pope John had not been the only development to
affect the Council when it reconvened in October 1963. The American
^Kaiser, 33.
^Pavan, 50. 91
delegation has acquired a new advisor: John Courtney Murray. Even as
he had gained a reputation in the United States as a first-rate
intellectual, Murray had remained under a cloud of suspicion in
Rome. As preparations for th e Council were being made, th e Holy
Office announced a list of theologians who were "disinvited" from
attending the Council. Murray's name had appeared on the list and he
had remained at home while his nemesis, Joseph Fenton, attended the
Council as Cardinal Ottaviani's personal advisor.
The details surrounding Murray's invitation to the Council are
somewhat vague. Cardinal Francis Spellman invited Murray to serve as
his theological advisor (peritus), but the reasons why a staunch
conservative like the Archbishop of New York would invite such a
liberal seem unclear. Donald Pelotte, Murray's biographer,
attributes the invitation to the intercession of Edwin Broderick,
Spellman's secretary at the time.14
According to Broderick, now a retired bishop living in
Manhattan, the invitation resulted for two reasons. When Cardinal
Spellman attended the first session of the Council he felt a certain
priority over the American bishops. In addition to being a cardinal
and head of the largest diocese in the United States, he had served
in office longer than any of the other bishops. He took two
assistants to Rome with him but, when he got there, he found that
other bishops from little dioceses in the Midwest had taken as many
14Donald E. Pelotte to James Gutowski, 18 June 1991, personal collection, Wickliffe, OH. 92
as five assistants. As the senior bishop of the American hierarchy,
Spellman felt entitled to bring more advisors as well.
At the same time, Spellman was aware that Joseph Fenton had
gone to the Council at the invitation of Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi,
the Apostolic Delegate to the United States. The cardinal had no
love for Fenton who, as head of the Theology Department at The
Catholic University of America, would be considered the premier
American theologian at the Council. More importantly, there had been
bad blood between Spellman and Vagnozzi for many years, dating back
to when Spellman had interceded in Rome for the bishops of the
Philippines to have Vagnozzi removed from his posting there as
Apostolic Delegate. So when Spellman decided to take more assistants
to Rome, he wanted someone who could compete with Fenton and would
show Vagnozzi that the cardinal was not without his own clout. When
Broderick, who had been a personal friend of Murray's for years,
suggested the Jesuit the cardinal had found his man.15
Murray's own explanation of his invitation was more mundane. In a letter to a confrere he wrote:
Between us, it was my Eminent friend of New York who pried me in. He said (and meant it, I think) that the Jesuits had got too slim a deal about periti. and that it was 'no more than right' that I in particular should be th ere. Which was nice of him.16
15Edwin Broderick, telephone interview by author, Wickliffe, OH, 20 July 1991.
16John Courtney M urray, Woodstock, to Leo Ward, Spring Hill, AL, 20 June 1963, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 93
Over the next few years the Jesuit and the cardinal developed
a strong working relationship that would serve them well throughout
the remainder of the council. For his part, Murray served as a great
resource for the cardinal, advising him in matters of theology and
political theory17 and even writing speeches for the New Yorker to
deliver on the council floor.18 In return, Spellman was able to
use his connections and personal clout to make the Jesuit effective
in the conciliar proceedings. With the cardinal's backing, Murray
grew bolder in confronting his opponents. When informed that the
Apostolic Delegate objected to some of his statements about the
council the Jesuit replied:
In any event, none of it is the business of the Apostolic Delegate. Finally, if there should be any trouble in my own case, which is hardly likely, I am sure that his Eminence of New York will stand behind me. He is one of the few American bishops who can be counted on to talk back to the Delegate. And he has — bless his heart — elected to be my patron.19
After the Council ended the two Americans went their separate ways
but maintained a cordial relationship. Spellman even visited Murray
a few times when the Jesuit was hospitalized in the New York
17Pelotte, 83.
18ibid, 86.
19John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to John J. McGinty, New York, 16 May 1964, Typed trnacript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington. 94
area.20
While events in the United States were drawing Murray into the
Council, the SPCU continued its work on religious liberty. The text
that had been developed, but rejected, for the first session of the
Council had been incorporated into a larger document pertaining to
ecumenism. As the fifth chapter of the Decree onEcumenism, the
religious liberty text was largely the work of Bishop Emile de Smedt
of Belgium. It introduced the idea that, insofar as the individual
conscience was th e prim ary medium for perceiving th e will of God,
each individual must be free to act according to his/her conscience
in matters religious.21 Although Murray had had no part in the
initial drafting of this document, its emphasis on the individual
conscience would serve as a good starting point for his own contribution.
As part of the process toward inclusion on the council agenda,
the Decree on Ecumenism was sent to the Theological Commission for
examination as to the document's orthodoxy. Once the decree came
under his jurisdiction, Ottaviani tried to delay its progress with
the hope of keeping it off of the agenda for the second session of
the Council.22 When Murray got wind that the Theological
Commission was dragging its feet, the Jesuit drafted a
^Edwin Broderick, telephone interview by author, Wickliffe, OH, 27 February 1992.
21Richard J. Regan, Conflict and Consensus: Religious Freedom and the Second Vatican Council (The Macmillan Company: New York, 1967), 35-37.
22ibid, 35. 95
memorandum to the American bishops explaining why the topic of
religious liberty should be addressed at the council. In response,
Spellman sent a letter to the council leaders demanding, in the name
of the bishops of the United States, that the SPCU document be on the
agenda at the second session. The cardinal also sent a copy of the
letter directly to Pope Paul VI.23
In early October 1963 Paul summoned Ottaviani and ordered him
to convene the Theological Commission to evaluate the decree. By
this time Murray had arrived in Rome where, at the invitation of a
commission member, he spoke at the meeting convened by Ottaviani. A
dramatic moment occurred when Murray arose and endorsed the decree.
Ottaviani, who was going blind, leaned over and asked his neighbor,
the progressive Cardinal Leger of Montreal, who was speaking.
Instead of mentioning Murray by name Leger merely identified him as
"One of the Council experts" and thus avoided what could have been a
head to head confrontation between the two adversaries. In the end
the commission voted to submit the text to the general session of the
council.24
Upon his arrival Murray had also begun to assist Bishop de
Smedt with his own work. When the decree was presented for
discussion on 19 November 1963, de Smedt introduced the fifth chapter
and listed the reasons why a conciliar declaration on religious
23Pelotte, 82.
24Regan, 35-37. 96
liberty was necessary. The initial draft of his introduction had
been written by Murray himself. The council discussed the text for
three days, but in the end, the discussion had to be tabled because
the general session was drawing to a close.25
In the interim between the second and third sessions of the
council, Cardinal Bea invited the fathers to send in their comments
about the fifth chapter of the decree. He received 152 responses,
the majority of which were from American bishops who generally
approved of the document. A strong minority of Spanish bishops,
however, vigorously opposed the chapter. The Spaniards endorsed the
traditional thesis/hypothesis doctrine and pointed to their own
country as an example of its success.26 These two national groups
would form the opposing front lines in the debate over religious liberty.
The SPCU commissioned John Courtney Murray to read and analyze
the comments received. As a result, the Jesuit produced an essay
contrasting the traditional position with that contained in the
conciliar text. In order to avoid inflammatory labels, Murray called
the traditional position the "first view" and the conciliar position
the "second view." The essay then criticized the first view as being
too abstract and divorced from reality. The second view was
recommended as having developed with the current historical situa-
25Pavan, 51.
26Regan, 53-54. 97
tion. Murray's critique was translated into several languages and
distributed to the council fathers.27
The interim between the second and third sessions provided a
surprise in the form of Joseph Fenton's resignation. In one fell
swoop Fenton resigned his positions at the Council, and The Catholic
University, and his editorship of the American Ecclesiastical
Review. Citing poor health as his reason, Msgr. Fenton retired to
life as a parish priest in Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts.28
The actual circumstances behind the monsignor's sudden
withdrawal are still a mystery. Fenton's personal papers are
unavailable for research and other sources have proven fruitless.
Edwin Broderick recalls that Francis Spellman may have had a hand in
the resignation. Spellman was a member of the Board of Trustees at
The Catholic University of America. Fenton was known to use vulgar
language that offended pious ears and the cardinal used this reason
to persuade the other trustees to demand the monsignor's
resignation.29 Although this theory has some plausibility, the
cardinal was not above such political machinations, it leaves many
questions unanswered. The resignation from the university would not
have required resignation from the conciliar post as well. Also, if
Fenton had wished to continue as a professional theologian, he had
27Pelotte, 88-90.
28ibid.
^Edwin Broderick, telephone interview by author, Wickliffe, OH, 27 F ebruary 1992. 98
enough powerful allies to gain him a position either in America or
Rome. In any event, this area of the Murray-Fenton dispute awaits
further investigation.
Debate on the ecumenism decree began at the third session on
23 September 1964. Two days earlier Murray had addressed the
assembled bishops of the United States who then unanimously accepted
the fifth chapter as a good starting point for a declaration on
religious liberty. The acceptance was made over the objections of
two other American advisors, George Shea and Francis Connell, who had
publicly debated the issue with Murray a decade earlier. Having
obtained a consensus in the American delegation, Murray planned a
systematic presentation by the bishops to promote the document.30
When the debate began, the first two speakers, bishops from
Italy and Spain, were conservatives who accused the text of stressing
novelty over tradition. After they finished, the Americans took the
floor. Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston spoke in the name of the
American bishops and urged that the text be made stronger because religious freedom was demanded by the principle of civil liberty. He
also stressed that the tenets of the document were in agreement with
the teachings of Pacem in Terris, published by Pope John just before
he died. Cushing was followed by another Spaniard, but the
progressive initiative resumed with approving speeches by two more
30ibid, 94. 99
American cardinals.31
Cardinal Ottaviani also entered the public debate for the
first time. He endorsed a return to the traditional position and
cited what he saw as several defects in the current text. Most
importantly, he felt that the document made freedom of conscience too
absolute, to the detriment of other values.32
After three days of debate forty-three council fathers had
spoken and the discussion was brought to a close. The text was
returned to the SPCU for further revisions with the hope that they
could be completed in time to resume debate before the end of the
third session. Murray was appointed as "first scribe" to collaborate
with de Smedt and others on the revision. The result of the
collaboration was a new document, extracted from the fifth chapter of
the ecumenism decree, which dealt exclusively with the topic of
religious liberty.33
The new document reflected the legal and historical bent of
Murray's own thinking. It began by noting the growing consciousness in the world of the dignity of the person. It defined religious
freedom as immunity from coercion regarding the formation of the
individual conscience and the exercise of one's religion. As a
consequence of this immunity the document advocated the juridical
31Regan, 74-76.
32ibid.
33Pavan, 94-95. 100
limitation of government power as necessary to protect personal
freedoms. This represented a new development for a Church which, in
the past, had sought to use governmental authority to promote
Catholicism. Finally, the document limited freedom of conscience
only by the moral principle of responsibility toward others.34 In
other words, the religious liberty of the individual was restricted
only by th e common good.
This first draft of the Declaration on Religious Liberty was
distributed to the council fathers on 17 November 1964, four days
before the end of the general session. As the text was distributed,
the Secretary-General of the Council announced that a vote on the
text would be taken in two days. This vote would determine whether
the text was generally acceptable to the assembly. If the text was
approved, the council fathers would be able to comment on specific
sections of the text in the interim before the fourth (and final)
general session. If the text was not approved, it would have to go
back to the Secretariat for an intensive period of major revision.
On 19 November, the Secretary-General announced that no vote
on the declaration would be held after all because time was growing
short before the end of the general session. The council fathers
were to submit any comments on the text to the SPCU by 31 January of
^Regan, 100-134. 101
the next year.35 This delay of the vote could have had serious
consequences for the document. If the vote took place during the
final session of the council and it went against the declaration, the
Secretariat may not have had time to complete revisions before the
end of the Council and the Church would have missed a golden
opportunity to speak out for human rights.
The announcement caused an immediate uproar on the floor of
the assembly. Cardinal Meyer of Chicago was outraged. As a member
of the board of council presidents, he should have been consulted
about the decision to delay the vote, but the conservative members of
the board had managed a quorum without him. Faced with such blatant
political maneuvering by the conservatives, the progressive members
of the assembly sought to reverse the decision. They composed a
petition requesting a reversal and collected over 800 signatures
among the council fathers. A delegation led by Cardinals Meyer,
Leger, and Ritter presented the petition to Pope Paul on the evening
of the 19th. Paul upheld the decision to delay the vote, but promised that the declaration would be the first item on the agenda
in 1965.36
Another hurdle for the declaration appeared early in 1965 when
an advisor to the French delegation published a severe critique of
the text, principally for being too restrictive in its definition
“ Pavan, 96.
36ibid. 102
of religious freedom. The French theologian advocated a definition
that would make religious liberty an absolute, with no restrictions
whatsoever.37
A copy of the critique was sent to Murray, who promptly
offered a rebutted. The American refuted the Frenchman by grounding
religious liberty in the social nature of humanity. It is because we
are social beings that religious freedom is a question at all. The
declaration offers a means by which people can live together in peace
despite their religious differences. The proposed alternative of
unrestricted freedom could only lead to chaos, an untenable position
for human society as a whole. Murray sent his rebuttal to a friendly
French bishop who, in turn, circulated it among the other members of
the hierarchy.38 The tactic evidently worked, because the majority
of French bishops came to the fourth session supporting the conciliar text.
The fourth and final general session of the Second Vatican
Council opened on 14 September 1965. As promised by Pope Paul, th e Declaration on Religious Liberty was the first item on the agenda.
Once again, the Americans came prepared to push their cause. Even as
he rebutted the French position, Murray had carefully planned (and
partially wrote) a series of speeches to be presented by leading
bishops in the United States that would systematically promote the
37Regan, 126-129.
38ibid. 103
declaration. Cardinal Cushing led off with a strong endorsement of
the text. He was followed quickly by Cardinals Mayer and Ritter.
Later in the debate, speeches by Cardinal Shehan and three other
American bishops answered specific objections and further explained
some of the technicalities. All of these speeches had been partially
planned and orchestrated by Murray himself.39
Throughout the council the American bishops had maintained a
solid front of support for a statement on religious liberty. As the
process drew on, they began to garner support from bishops around the
world At this initial debate of the fourth session, a Dutch cardinal
stood to declare the support for the text in the name of his
compatriots. He was echoed by a German cardinal speaking for 150
members of his hierarchy. Several bishops from behind the Iron
Curtain also stood to endorse the document. From outside of Europe,
bishops from Formosa, India, and Beirut were among those who
advocated passage of the declaration.40
The vote that had been delayed for the better part of a year was finally held on 21 September 1965 with the text resoundingly
approved. Now that the document had been found essentially
acceptable, it was returned to the Secretariat for final revision.
In an ironic counterpoint to his absence from the early stages of the
39John Courtney Murray to Joseph Ritter, 18 August 1965, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
40Regan, 134-149. 104
declaration's development, Murray could not present for the final
stages either. Having suffered two heart attacks the previous year,
the Jesuit was hospitalized on 5 October 1965 with a collapsed
lung.41
The final revisions on the Declaration on Religious Liberty.
officially known as Dignitatis Humanae. were completed by early
November. The document was submitted again to the council floor and,
on 19 November, the final draft was approved by the council fathers.
All that remained was the promulgation, the act of making the
document an official part of the Church's teaching. Promulgation
took place at the final working meeting of the Second Vatican
Council, on 7 December 1965. The document was accepted into the
Church's doctrine by a vote of 2308 to 70, a suitably democratic
conclusion to the American initiative.42
The essence of Murray's contribution to the declaration can be
found in one of the paragraphs that he authored:
The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will
41Pelotte, 98.
42Pavan, 61-62. 105
make it a civil right.43
Murray's contribution to the document was publicly recognized
by many different people and groups. While he was still
convalescing, the Jesuit was invited to celebrate Mass with Pope Paul
in recognition of the American's work. When Murray died less than
two years later, a German bishop publicly praised Murray's concern
for religious liberty and called the Declaration the "American
contribution to the Council."44
Even Murray’s old antagonist, Paul Blanshard, acknowledged the
Jesuit's work. In a book filled with caustic commentary about the
Council, Blanshard managed a few words of praise for his compatriot:
The star of the American delegation was John Courtney Murray, whose chief function was to give the pedestrian bishops the right words with which to change some ancient doctrines without admitting that they were being changed. He built verbal bridges to the modern world very effectively, and the American bishops crossed over on them joyously, delighted that they could be good American democrats and Catholic scholars at the same time. Murray argued that certain teachings of past leaders of Catholicism were not applicable at the present time in their original sense, since they had been designed to meet certain historic situations, and those situations had changed. Doctrine, he alleged, could 'develop,' a polite way of saying that it could change without any necessary admission that it had changed.45
43Austin Flannery, ed. "Declaration on Religious Liberty," in Vatican Council II : The C n n H lia r and Post Conciliar Documents (Costello Publishing: Northport, NY, 1975) 2.
44Pelotte, 100.
45Paul Blanshard, Paul Blanshard on Vatican II (Beacon Press: Boston, 1966), 87-88. 106
Blanshard also acknowledged that Murray had written the most
important parts of the Declaration on Religious Liberty.46
John Courtney Murray emerged from the Second Vatican Council
with an international reputation as a Catholic theologian and
scholar. He had hoped to return to Woodstock to pursue other topics
that interested him personally, issues such as freedom within the
Church, and contemporary atheism. However, he soon found himself in
great demand from inside the Church and out. His Jesuit community
appointed him director of the John LaFarge Institute, a forum which
gathered leaders, regardless of religious belief, from all sectors of
society to discuss contemporary problems such as racism, censorship,
and abortion. President Lyndon Johnson appointed him to an advisory
commission on conscientious objection where, with Kingman Brewster of
Yale, Murray comprised a minority favoring conscientious objection in
selected cases.47
Murray was not able to enjoy his newfound fame for long. He
had been suffering from health problems, mainly cardiac, for many
years. John Courtney Murray died of a heart attack on 16 August
1967. He was in a taxi returning from his sister's house in Queens
to the John LaFarge Institute in Manhattan.48 His legacy lives on
in the aaaiornomento of Vatican II.
46ibid, 76.
47Pelotte, 102.
48ibid, 104-105. CHAPTER SIX
John Courtney Murray'sContrib'iHnn t-.o Religious Freedom
From the perspective of a Church that has evolved very slowly
over nineteen centuries, the transformation wrought by the Second
Vatican Council was somewhat akin to a bolt of lightning. The four
years in which the Council assembled brought changes, the
repercussions of which will be felt long into the next century. Yet,
while these changes were radical in nature and degree, they were
stall rooted in the tradition that had guided the Church throughout
the ages. The Declaration on Religious Liberty was no exception.
The key to understanding the Church's sudden and decisive
rejection of the thesis/hypothesis model of church/state relations
can be found in the very first sentence of the Declaration:
Contemporary man is becoming increasingly conscious- of the dignity of the human person; more and more people are demanding that men should exercise fully their own judgement and a responsible freedom in their actions and should not be subject to the pressure of coercion but be inspired by a sense of duty.1
"Contemporary man" was not alone in this growing conscious
ness. The Church, since the papacy of Leo XIII, had also begun to
declaration on Religious Liberty. 1.
107 108
give more importance to the human over the institution. By
acknowledging that democracy could create a legitimate government,
Leo attributed a competency for self-determination to the individuals
who comprised that democracy, a competency that the Church had never
before acknowledged. Decades later, after his awful experiences with
the Nazis and Fascists, Pius XI expanded the role of "the people" to
act as a bulwark against the excesses of authoritarianism. John
XXIII continued that development by recognizing that individuals
possessed the moral competence to judge the actions of their leaders.
Murray and the other writers of the Declaration continued this
trend by asserting that individuals also had the competence to
determine their own religious attitudes. The acknowledgment of this
capability drastically affected, in ways implicit and explicit, the
Church's attitude toward church/state relations. This new concept of
individual religious freedom managed to bury the thesis/hypothesis
model while forging a new interpretation of the two swords theory,
thereby providing a necessary link with the age-old tradition of the
Church.
The Declaration presents a model of civil government based
solely on the purpose of protecting the public good.2 According to
the document, any activity by a government beyond that purpose is an
abuse of its authority to govern. Therefore, because of this single
purpose, the government is essentially a servant of the
?ibid, 3. 109
society creating it and receives its authority to rule from that
society. In other words, the legitimacy of a government is conferred
by the society it governs and that legitimacy may be withdrawn
anytime a better alternative is proposed.
This new source of legitimacy implies a new understanding of the two swords theory that may be illustrated as follows:
God God
spiritual null
C hurcli G overnm ent C hurch G o v ern m en t
Society Society
I'rc-Conciliar Model Vatican II Model
According to the old model the people were subject to the government
because that government received its authority to govern from God.
In the new model, however, the authority to govern still comes from
God, but it is mediated through the people for whom the government
functions. This new formulation effectively undermined the formerly
paternalistic nature of government and removed from its purview any
right to meddle in religious matters (inasmuch as those matters do
not impinge upon the public good).
What the Declaration accomplishes, then, is an implicit
endorsement of the separation of church and state. While it does not
specifically ratify the American proposition, separation as it is
practiced in the United States falls clearly within the 110
recommendations of the document. In this Murray accomplished one of
his primary objectives: to have the American situation made
acceptable in the eyes of the Church.
The questions remains, then, how did Murray's position evolve
from anathema to acceptability in less than a decade? Several
closely related factors suggest themselves: the solidarity of the
American bishops on the issue of religious freedom due to the long
tradition of separation in the United States, Murray's ability to
establish a continuum of doctrine bypassing the thesis/hypothesis
model, and the broad spectrum of representation at the Council that
engendered a spirit of reform.
The 226 American bishops who attended the Council brought a
broad and varied mixture of backgrounds and temperaments. Crusty
Cardinal Cushing, who left the first session early complaining that
he couldn't understand Latin well enough to participate attended
along with John Wright, the urbane Bishop of Pittsburgh who would
himself end his days as a member of the Curia.3 Archbishop James
McIntyre, who had left a lucrative career on Wall Street to enter the
priesthood, worked beside old farm boys heading obscure rural
dioceses.
Although disagreement on theological issues emerged early
when, at the first session of the Council they debated using the
3Garry Wills, Bare Ruined Choirs (Doubleday & Co.: New York, 1972), 26. Ill
vernacular in place of Latin in the Church's worship,4 on the topic
of religious liberty the American bishops maintained a united front
and mounted a systematic campaign (coordinated by Murray) to assure
the passage of the Declaration. This unanimity was used to great
effect in the conciliar debates.
The long American tradition of separation of church and state
was one major reason for the united front. John Carroll had endorsed
the principle of separation when he argued against a tax levied to
support the clergy, and most of his successors continued that trend.
By the time of the Second Vatican Council the American bishops had
been living comfortably, more or less, with separation for almost two
centuries.
The burgeoning success of the American Church after World War
II coincided nicely with Murray's emergence as a leading Catholic
intellectual. Through his writings, the Jesuit translated the
American experience of church/state separation into philosophical
categories useful for dialogue with other Catholic thinkers. By so
doing he provided both, a rationale for the current prosperity in America and an entree into the discussion of Catholic doctrine. The
American hierarchy, on the other hand, has always been perceived as
more practical than intellectual; men who could build magnificent
edifices and be savvy players in the games of American politics but
who had little time or use for theorizing. Gerald Fogarty, a
4Kaiser, 124-126. 112
historian at the University of Virginia, characterizes the Americans
who went to Vatican II as a "Church of doers rather than
thinkers."5 Murray had always had supporters among the American
hierarchy and, when Spellman brought him to Rome, the other bishops
recognized the Jesuit's usefulness as their intellectual point man. Although the Americans were careful not to point to their own
experience as proof of the viability of religious freedom, that
experience is what bound them together in support of the document.
Murray himself publicly acknowledged that the unanimous support of
the American bishops for the Declaration at the Council was inspired
by their largely favorable experience of separation in the United
States.6
Despite his not being present to assist with the original
draft of the Declaration. John Courtney Murray's contributions to its passage were numerous and significant. The most important of these
was his establishment of a theoretical continuum between the document
and the Roman Catholic tradition of church/state relations.
According to Catholic doctrine, Scripture and Tradition are
inextricably entwined sources of divine revelation from which the
Church discerns the will of God.7 Accordingly, any evolution of
5Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy. 386.
6John Courtney Murray, "Commentary on the Declaration on Religious Freedom." in American Participation in the Second Vatican Council (Sheed & Ward: New York, 1967), 668.
7Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. 1965, 2. 113
church doctrine must be rooted in these sources.
Since the Bible had little to say about the issue of church and state, Murray had to establish the legitimacy of his position through appeal to the Church's tradition, a complicated melange of papal pronouncements, amorphous ecclesiastical customs, and council
documents. In his own battle with the American Ecclesiastical
Review. Murray had appealed regularly to precedents set by Leo XIII.
His opponents had their own set of weaponry from Church tradition as
well as the trump card of ecclesiastical power, the favor of Cardinal
Ottaviani.
At the Council, Murray continued to stress the continuity of position with that of Leo XIII. Through the speeches that he wrote for the American bishops, the Jesuit was able to systematically develop his argument in a forum that had the ears of all of the
Council fathers. This linkage would assure any Council fathers who
were undecided of the theological orthodoxy of theDeclaration.
The six interventions that Murray orchestrated for September
1965 were masterpieces of theological argumentation. Cardinal Cushing established religious freedom with basis in natural law.
Cardinal Ritter argued that it was part of the common good.
Archbishop Hallinan rooted the concept in the teachings of Leo XIII.
Cardinal Shehan traced its development through subsequent popes including John XXIII. Two other bishops addressed possible criticisms that the document might implicitly encourage religious 114
indifferentism or democratic tendencies within the Church.8 Given
the hierarchical nature of the Church, Murray's employment of such
prominent bishops to make these interventions gave added credence to
the material presented.
The acceptance of the Declaration was also aided by the wide
representation of cultures and nationalities at the Council. The
fathers assembled at Vatican II comprised the largest number of
capitulars ever gathered at a general council. In addition, a large
proportion of th ese came from Africa and Asia. When the 2,381
fathers assembled at the Vatican in 1962, 800 of them were from Asia,
Africa or South America. These included 296 Africans, 84 Indians,
and 93 from Indonesia, Japan, and the Philippines.9 At the first
session of Vatican I in 1869, there were 679 capitulars in
attendance. Of these, 410 were from western Europe (300 from Spain
and Italy) and another 146 from English speaking countries.10
The wider representation at the second council had a
significant effect on the debate about the Declaration. Much of the
Vatican's reaction to early attempts at democracy and the separation
of church and state was based upon the Church's negative experiences
in Europe. Murray himself contrasts the European and American
8John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, to Joseph Ritter, Saint Louis, 18 August 1965, Typed transcript, Special Collections, Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington.
9Kaiser, 75.
10Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1930), I, 165-166. 115
experiences in his book entitled We Hold These Truths.11
Throughout the Second Vatican Council the Spanish and Italian bishops
constituted the primary opposition to the efforts of the SPCU, but
the more universal nature of the assembly diluted the Eurocentrism
that could have dominated as it did in previous councils. The catholic quality of the assembled fathers also contributed
to the generally revolutionary nature of the Council itself. Many
experts have commented that even Pope John himself could not have
conceived the extent of the changes accomplished by his council.
Even the suggestions that the Central Commission had elicited before
the Council, from the very men who would comprise it, gave no
indication of the events to come. Yet, almost immediately when the
fathers assembled, a collective energy developed that carried the
Council beyond the tight control of the Curia. This same energy
would drive that body, in four years, to reshape the Catholic Church
in many substantial ways. The accomplishments of that assembly
prompted Charles de Gaulle, himself no great fan of the Vatican, to
label the Council as the greatest event in the twentieth century.12
Although John Courtney Murray died soon after the Council, his
legacy lives on in the continuing debate about the relationship of
church and state in America. Edwin Scott Gaustad, an American
Protestant church historian, compares Murray's contribution to the
nMurray, We. Hold These Truths. 28-30.
^ v e s Congar, "A Last Look at the Council," in Vatican II Revisited (Winston Press: Minneapolis, 1986), 339. 116
church/state debate to that of Thomas Jefferson when the Virginian
authored his home state's Statue for Religious Freedom.13 Robert
McElroy, an American theologian and political scientist, asserts
Murray's work continues to inform this debate. McElroy writes:
More than a generation after his death, Murray's articulation of many of the central issues involved in the public religion debate are still unsurpassed both in their originality and in their forcefulness of expression. For all these reasons, despite the datedness of parts of Murray's public theology, and depite its tendency to often speak within an explicitly Catholic framework, Murray has remained an unrivaled source for public theologians of all ideologies and mainline denominations.14
While the Jesuit's condemnation for being progressive is,
unfortunately, not unusual in the annals of the Catholic Church, the
serendipitous timing of the Second Vatican Council allowed him to see
his ideas vindicated and his reputation restored. John Courtney
Murray was truly the quintessential American Catholic theologian. He
managed to capture the essence of the American Proposition, dating
back to the days of John Carroll, and root it firmly within the tradition of Catholic theology and doctrine. The happy accident of
the Second Vatican Council, called by a man intended merely to keep
the Chair of Peter warm until a more worthy successor could be found,
provided the last and most crucial stage in the evolution of Catholic
uEdwin Scott Gaustad, A. Religious History of America (Harper & Row: San Francisco, 1990), 305.
14Robert W. McElroy, The Search for an American Public Theology (Paulist Press: New York, 1989), 7. 117
church/state doctrine that had begun with Pope Leo XIII. The Council fathers gathered in Rome were searching for a way to understand the
Church's place in modern society. John Courtney Murray showed them that way through the American experience of two centuries of religious freedom. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archival Materials The following list of sources is located, with exceptions noted, in its entirety in the Special Collections Division of the Joseph Lauinger Library at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Broderick, Edwin B., interview by author, written notes, Wickliffe, OH, 20 July 1991, .
, interview by author, written notes, Wickliffe, OH, 27 F ebruary 1992.
Burghardt, Walter, SJ. Personal reminiscence about the Murray- Fenton controversy, written @ 1968 during the compilation of the Murray Papers.
Fenton, Joseph, Washington to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 27 August 1951, Typed transcript.
McCormick, Vincent, Rome to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 14 May 1951, Typed transcript.
______, Rome to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 27 November 1953, Typed transcript.
______, Rome to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 4 March 1955, Typed transcript.
______, Rome to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 9 July 1955, Typed transcript.
______, Rome to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 14 December 1955, Typed transcript. ______, Rome to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 5 August 1958, Typed transcript.
McMahon, John J., New York, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 21 November 1953, Typed transcript.
Murray, John Courtney, Woodstock, to Joseph Fenton, Washington 16 August 1951, Typed transcript.
, Woodstock, to John Tracy Ellis, Washington, 20 July 1953, Typed transcript. BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont'd)
Murray, John Courtney, Woodstock, to Henry Luce, New York, 23 November 1952, Typed transcript.
______, Woodstock, to John J. McGinty, New York, 16 May 1964, Typed tra n scrip t.
______, Woodstock, to Joseph Ritter, St. Louis, August 1965, Typed transcript.
______, Woodstock, to Leo Ward, Spring Hill, AL, 20 June 1963, Typed tra n scrip t.
______, Woodstock, to Vincent McCormick, Rome, 23 November 1953, Typed transcript.
______, Woodstock, to Vincent McCormick, Rome, 18 August 1954, Typed transcript.
______, Woodstock, to Vincent McCormick, Rome, 22 June 1958, Typed tra n scrip t.
Murray, John Courtney. Manuscript of a talk given at Yale U niversity on 10 March 1950.
. Manuscript of the speech given at the Catholic University of America on 25 March 1954.
Pelotte, Donald E., Gallup, NM, to James A. Gutowski, Wickliffe, 18 June 1991. Original in possession of th e author.
Stritch, Samuel, Chicago, to John Courtney Murray, Woodstock, 7 December 1953, Typed transcript.
Printed Materials
American Academic Freedom Project. American Academic Freedom Project. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951.
Blanshard, Paul. American Freedom and Catholic Power. Boston: The Beacon Press, 1948.
Cogley, John. "In Praise of Fr. M urray," Commonweal 60 (7 December 1956). BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont'd)
Connell, Francis. "Discussion on 'Government Repression of Heresy,'" Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Chicago: 1948.
Fenton, Joseph C. "New Concepts in Theology," American Ecclesiastical Review 119 (July 1948).
"The Church and the World," American Ecclesiastical Review 119 (September 1948).
______"Two Currents in Contemporary Catholic Thought," American Ecclesiastical Review 119 (September 1948).
"The Lesson of 'Humani Generis,'" American Ecolf>aiafiHf!al Review 119 (July 1950).
John XXIII. Pacem in Terris.
Leo XIII. "Au Milieu des Sollicitudes," The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII. New York: Benziger, 1903.
______. "Immortale Dei," The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII.
. "Rerum Novarum," The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII.
Michel, Virgil. "The Apostolate," Orate Fratres 14 (March 1940).
Murray, John Courtney. "Book Review: 'Religious Liberty: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates," Theological Studies 7 (March (1946).
______"Commentary on the Declaration on Religious Freedom." American Participation in the Second Vatican Council. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1967.
______"Current Theology: Christian Co-operation," Theological Studies 3 (September 1942).
______"C urrent Theology: Co-operation: Some F urther Views," Theological Studies 4 (March 1943).
______"Current Theology: Freedom of Religion," Theological Studies 6 (March 1945). BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont'd)
Murray, John Courtney, "Current Theology: Intercredal Co operation: Its Theory and Its Organization," Theological Studies 4 (June 1943).
______"For the Freedom and Transcendance of the Church'," American Ecclesiastical Review 128. (May 1953).
______"Freedom of Religion I: The Ethical Problem," Theological Studies 6 (June 1945).
______"Governmental Repression of Heresy," Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, Chicago: 1948.
______"L iterature and Censorship," Catholic Mind 54 (December 1956).
______"Paul Blanshard and the New Nativism," The Month, New Series, 5 (April 1951).
______"The Problem of 'The Religion of the State,"' American Ecclesiastical Review 124, (May 1951).
Official Catholic Directory. New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1937.
______1941.
______1961.
Ottaviani, Alfredo. "Church and State: Some Present Problems in the Light of the Teaching Pope Pius XII," American Ecclesiastical Review 128, (May 1953). Pius IX. "Syllabus of Errors," The Papal Encyclicals in their Historical Context. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1956.
Pius XI. "Divini Redemptoris," Sixteen Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI. Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1940.
______"Firmissimum," Sixteen Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI.
______"Mit brennender Sorge," The Papacy and Totalitarianism Between the Two World Wars. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974.
Pius XII. "Christmas Radio Message, 24 December 1944," Acta Apostolica Sedis. 37 (1945). BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont'd)
Pius XII. "Ci Riesce," 6 December 1953, Typed transcript in the Special Collections Division of the Joseph Lauinger Library, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Second Vatican Council. "Declaration on Religious Liberty," Vatican Council II: The C on ciliar and Post C onniliar Documents. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing, 1975.
______"Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," Vatican Council II: TheG n n r ilia r and Post Conciliar Documents. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing, 1975.
Shea, George W. "Catholic Doctrine and ’The Religion of the State'," American Ecclesiastical Review 123, (September 1950).
United States Bishops. "Secularism," Pastoral Letters of the American Hierarchy. 1792-1970. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1971.
Secondary Sources
Blanshard, Paul. Paul Blanshard on Vatican II. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.
Butler, Cuthbert. The Vatican Council. New York: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1930.
Carey, Patrick W. American Catholic Religious Thought. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.
Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. New York: Penguin Books, 1982.
Congar, Yves. "A Last Look at the Council," Vatican II Revisited. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1986.
Cragg, Gerald R. The Church and the Age of Reason. New York: Penguin Books, 1981.
Ehler, Sidner Z. and John B. Morrall. Church and State Through th e Centuries. London: Burns & Oates, 1954.
Fesquet, Henri comp. The Wit and Wisdom of Good Pope John. New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1964. BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont'd)
Dolan, Jay P. The American Catholic Experience. Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1985.
Fogarty, Gerald P. The Vatican and the American Hierarchy from 1870 to 1965. Wilmington: Michael Glazier Press, 1985.
______"The Vatican and the American Church since World War II," The Papacy and the Church in the United States. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.
Gaustad, Edwin Scott. A Religious History of America. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.
Greeley, Andrew. The American Catholic. New York: Basic Books, 1 9 7 7 - Hennesey, James. American Catholics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Hibbert, Christopher. The Days of the French Revolution. New York: Morrow Quill Publications: New York, 1981.
Hughson, D. Thomas, ed. Matthias Scheeben on Faith: The Doctoral Dissertation of John Courtney Murray. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987.
Kaiser, Robert. Inside the Council: The Story of Vatican II. London: Burns & Oates, 1963.
McBrien, Richard. Catholicism. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980.
McElroy, Robert W. The Search for an American Public Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Miller, Randall M. and Jon L. Wakelyn, eds. Catholics and the Old South: Essays on Church and Culture. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983.
Murray, John Courtney. We. Hold These Truths, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960.
Pavan, Pietro. "Declaration on Religious Freedom," Commentary on the Documents of Vatican H. New York: Herder & Herder, 1969.
Pelotte, Donald E. John Courtney Murray: Theologian in CnnfliH-- New York: Paulist Press, 1976. BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont’d)
Rahner, Karl, ed. The Concise Sacramentum Mundi. New York: Crossroads Publishing, 1975.
Regan, Richard J. Conflict and Consensus: Religious Freedom and the Second Vatican Council. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967.
Remond, Rene. "The Case of France," in The Church and Christian Democracy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987.
Rhodes, Anthony. The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators: 1922- 1945. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
Shehan, Lawrence. A Blessing of Years. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982.
Stehle, Hansjakob. Eastern Politics of the Vatican: 1917-1979. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1981.
Stevenson, David. The First World War and International Politics. New York: Oxford U niversity Press, 1988.
Southern, R. W. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. New York: Penguin Books, 1970.
Vidler, Alec R. The Church in an Age of Revolution. New York: Penguin Books, 1981.
Wills, Garry. Bare Ruined Choirs. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1972.