'Legal apostasy of society'—Pope Leo XIII's devastating letter on religious liberty

[Stone]

'Legal apostasy of society'—Pope Leo XIII's devastating letter on religious liberty
What would Leo XIII have made of Vatican II’s declaration of religious liberty? 

And what would he have made of those who say that it is compatible with his teaching?

WM Review | Oct 23, 2024


Editors’ Notes

“Christ is King” has become a popular slogan, but it’s not always clear that people understand its meaning, context or implications.

By 1889, the Emperor of Brazil Pedro II was declining. He was weary of his reign and doubted that the Brazilian monarchy would continue after his death.

In June 1889, the Cabinet tried to preserve the Empire by proposing a raft of liberalising reforms—including “liberty of worship” and “liberty of education.” Pope Leo XIII wrote the letter É giunto to Pedro II against these measures, explaining their opposition to the Catholic religion, and the grave dangers which they posed.

In fact, two particular measures were primary ways in which Christ’s kingship was denied throughout the nations of the world—and a primary reason for Pius XI’s establishment of the feast of Christ the King in 1925.

The measures were indeed blocked by the conservative General Chamber, but this was not enough to save the monarchy. In December 1889, a few months later, the First Brazilian Republic was declared, Pedro II was deposed and exiled, and the monarchy was abolished.

It should not be understood that the failure of these proposals is what cause the collapse of the Brazilian monarchy. There were many other factors: for example, the recent abolition of slavery without compensation to slaveholders caused unrest amongst the latter, whilst the hostility caused by the long continuation of slavery itself did not vanish with abolition. There were various restrictions on military officers which also led to dissatisfaction there.

This letter has not, to our knowledge, been translated into English before. This is lamentable as it contains many powerful explanations of the Catholic doctrine of Church-state relations.

For example, Leo XIII tells us that…

“Liberty of worship” and “liberty of education” are deceitful names for ideas that “proclaim the legal apostasy of society from its Divine Author”

These ideas were completely untenable for any Catholic, as well as being irrational in themselves (for the reasons discussed below)

They are detrimental even for the temporal good of society, let alone the eternal good of souls.

Although Leo XIII doesn’t use the term “religious liberty” in this letter, this concept sums up the liberty of worship and of education, and it is used as such by Leo and other popes up to Vatican II.

But what would Leo XIII have made of Vatican II’s declaration of religious liberty?

And what would he have made of those who try to defend it as compatible with his teaching and with Catholic tradition?

To ask such questions is to answer them.

Pope Leo XIII
Letter È Giunto
On liberty of worship and of education in Brazil
To Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil
1889. Available in Italian at Vatican.va
Translated with headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

Your Majesty,

It has come to Our attention that in the programme of the new Brazilian Ministry, there are some projects that touch upon the most vital interests of religion and break the thread of the glorious traditions of your Empire. These would, if brought to completion, have the effect of…

• Disturbing the peace of consciences
  
• Weakening the religious sentiment among your Catholic populations
  
• Preparing a future full of dangers for the Catholic Church as well as for civil society.
  

We refer to the “liberty of worship” and “liberty of teaching,” and the provisions associated which, though not openly stated in the government’s public declaration, leave no doubt as to their nature and quality.

It is not Our intention here to elaborate on all the arguments that stand against the introduction of the aforementioned projects. Speaking to Your Majesty, whose cultured and elevated spirit is well known, it will suffice to mention a few of the principal points.


“Liberty of Worship”

This “liberty of worship,” considered in relation to society, is based on a notion that the State—even in a Catholic nation—is not bound to profess or favour any particular religion; rather, that it should be indifferent to all, treating them as legally equal.

This “liberty” does not concern itself, therefore, with that de facto tolerance which, under certain circumstances, may be granted to dissident cults; rather, it is concerned with granting these cults the same rights that belong to the one true religion—which God established in the world, marking it with clear and distinct signs, so that all could recognise and embrace it.

Such “liberty,” therefore, places on the same level…

• Truth and error
  
• Faith and heresy
  
• The Church of Jesus Christ and any other human institution
  

It establishes a deplorable and disastrous separation between human society and God who is its author; it leads to the sad consequence of the State’s indifference in matters of religion, or—what amounts to the same thing—its atheism.


The state’s duties to God

Yet no one can reasonably deny that civil society, no less than the individual, has duties towards God its Creator, its supreme Legislator, and its most provident Benefactor.

To break all bonds of subjection and respect to the Supreme Being, to refuse to honour His sovereign power and dominion, and to disregard the benefits society receives from Him is something condemned not only by faith, but also by reason and the general sentiment of even the ancient pagans. Even they based their public institutions and civil and military enterprises on the worship of the divinity, from whom they believed their prosperity and greatness were derived.


The harm done by this “liberty of worship”

But it would be superfluous to insist on these reflections. On other occasions, in public documents addressed to the Catholic world, We have demonstrated how erroneous is the doctrine of those who, under the seductive name of “liberty of worship,” proclaim the legal apostasy of society from its Divine Author.

What is of interest here, however, is that such “liberty” is the source of incalculable harm to both governments and peoples. Indeed, while religion commands citizens to obey legitimate authority as a divine ministry—prohibiting all seditious movements that might disturb public peace and order—it is all too evident that the State, by declaring itself indifferent to religion and demonstrating its disregard for it, deprives itself of the most powerful moral force, and separates itself from the true and natural principle from which all respect, loyalty, and love of the people are generated.

Furthermore, by neglecting its most holy duties towards God, the State not only forfeits this most effective means of ensuring the obedience and veneration of its citizens, but also undermines the religious sentiment in which the people find strength, resignation, and comfort to endure the hardships and miseries of life. This sets a pernicious example, made all the worse by the elevated status from which it originates.

Here, it will not be necessary to point out to Your Majesty that, especially in the present age when the need for the salutary influence of religion is felt more than ever, and given the ever-increasing moral and social disorders that are unsettling society, it cannot but be extremely dangerous and harmful to the public good to introduce into a Catholic country a system that can have no other result than to weaken or destroy in the population the only moral restraint capable of keeping them within the bounds of their duties.

Those nations which have embarked on this path of “renewal” have had, or still have, cause to lament…

• The progressive increase of crimes, discord, and revolts,
  
• The instability of power
  
• All the moral and material ruins that are accumulating upon them.
  

Therefore, wise and impartial men, after long experience, have had to acknowledge that a people who lose their religious spirit are a people on the path to decline; and that, consequently, the only means of recalling them to salvation lies in the beneficent action of religion, which…

• Alone effectively ensures respect for laws and constituted authorities
  
• Alone awakens and stirs within man his conscience, that admirable power which reigns in the depths of the soul, presides over all his actions, approves or condemns them according to the norms of eternal justice, and provides the will with the strength and energy to do good.
  

"Liberty of teaching"

But no less fraught with dire consequences in the social sphere is the so-called “liberty of teaching.”

Indeed, this grants broad licence to schools to disseminate theories and doctrines of every kind, even those most opposed to both natural and revealed truths.

Under the false pretext of “science”—whose true progress has not only never been hindered by faith, but has always been greatly advanced by it—those fundamental principles on which morality, justice, and religion rest are undermined or openly attacked.

As a result, the educational system deviates from its noble purpose, which is not only to produce knowledgeable individuals for society, but also honest ones—those who, by fulfilling their duties towards others, towards the family, and towards the State, help to secure the general well-being.

Instead of curbing the seeds of passions that breed selfishness, pride, and greed in the hearts of young people, and instead of encouraging the growth of sentiments and virtues that distinguish a good son, a good father, and a good citizen, the system becomes an instrument of corruption, leading the inexperienced youth down the path of doubt, error, and disbelief, and sowing within them the seeds of all pernicious tendencies.

These effects are all the more inevitable because, on the one hand, every monstrosity of opinion is given free rein; while on the other, once the principle of “free teaching” is established, the Church’s freedom and legitimate influence over the education of youth are hindered in countless ways.


Conclusion and appeal to the Emperor’s conscience

These few reflections, we are certain, will suffice to show Your Majesty the grievous evils that could arise from the proposed reforms in a country that has, until now, carefully preserved the precious inheritance of faith, and whose inhabitants remain so faithful to the holy traditions of their forefathers.

We do not wish to examine what other supplementary provisions might be alluded to in the Ministry's programme: the wording in which they are hinted at is vague and general, and could conceal further harmful innovations, among which might be the most pernicious of all (the so-called “civil marriage”) and other similar measures. However, we prefer to believe that the men whom Your Majesty’s sovereign trust has called to share in the responsibility of government will, in their political wisdom, understand how beneficial it is for a people to preserve intact the precious advantages of religious peace.

Above all, we trust that Your Majesty, in Your profound insight and constant attachment to the Catholic religion, of which We recently received a fresh and shining testimony through the wise and generous abolition of slavery within Your Empire, will never allow the foundations of a legislation that serves the true interests of the people and the sovereign authority that governs them to be altered, or an era of religious and social discord and unrest to be opened.

By averting such a disaster from Your Empire, Your Majesty will contribute effectively to its prosperity and will call down upon Yourself, upon Your August Family, and upon the Brazilian nation the blessings of heaven.

With this firm conviction, We wholeheartedly bestow upon Your Majesty and the entire Imperial Family Our Apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, 19 July 1889.