What follows cannot be dignified with the title of “essay.” It is more of a note, expressing some thoughts inspired by an interesting essay by Dr. Larry Chapp, in which he addresses probably the most controversial document of Vatican II: the declaration, Dignitatis Humanae, On the Right of Persons and Communities to Social and Religious Freedom in Matters Religious. I agree with many of the points Dr. Chapp makes in his essay, though not all. In particular, it is not clear to me that Dignitatis Humanae (despite appearances) jettisons any of the tradition expressed in pre-Vatican II magisterial teaching on religious liberty. I say, “despite appearances,” for I think the declaration fails to show how the “new things” it proposes “are in harmony with things that are old” (DH 1) or how it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (DH 1). The reader can be led to believe that it does anything but.
In a nutshell, religious freedom has had in traditional Catholic thought a rather narrow purview. If there is a “right” to religious freedom, it belongs properly to the Church, for error in itself has no rights. All things being equal, the civitas (state or polis), which is bound to recognize the true religion, to protect it and promote it, should (under the guidance of the Church) restrict the public expression of ideas or practices contrary to the Catholic faith in order to protect the simple and ignorant from deception and to undergird the moral and religious foundations of society. Of course, any restriction directed to coercing the individual conscience must always be eschewed. Public order and civil peace, too, may demand tolerance of the public expression of religion when its restriction would elicit grave evils. Otherwise, the common good demands that the state should restrict the expression of error in the public sphere. So runs the traditional Catholic understanding of religious liberty. [Go to page 2]
Notes from the Wasteland 
Christ said, “Search, and you will find.” We can have every confidence that those who are encouraged to freely search will find the one true religion.
Your post reminds me of Newman, who says that conscience is the aboriginal voice of God within the person. To inhibit this free interchange between God and his creature seems like trespassing.
Do you know Catechesis of the Good Shepherd? Sofia Cavalletti says, “The help the adult can give the child is only preliminary and peripheral, and one that halts-that must halt-on the threshold of the ‘place’ where God speaks with his creature.”
Could we substitute “the state” for “the adult”?
Thank you, Chris. I appreciate your balance.
My eldest daughter is working on a curriculum based on the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd, so I have some familiarity with it. What Sofia Cavalletti says in the quote you cite is very true. When I taught, I used to ask my students who the teacher was, and they would invariably point to me. I would then correct them and say, “no, you’re the teacher. My job is only to help you teach yourself.”
I think the state and the parent are analogous but not equivalent, for obvious reasons. Both, however, have to have a care that their “subjects” learn to act virtuously from an inner principle, not compulsion. Sometimes outward compulsion is necessary, of course; but it should not break the will only guide it. Governments and parents who neglect that fact usually reap a sorrowful harvest.
I work for the Archdiocese of Vancouver in a position created to advance CGS in parishes and schools. We just created an atrium in the pastoral centre. I would love to know more about your daughter’s work.
I know she is working with Sophia Institute Press. I’ll give her your contact information. Her name, by the way, is Clotilde Gonzalez.