New note is being sounded in international circles—the note of religious liberty. Leaders in many countries are today emphasizing the need for tolerance and understanding. This is both significant and heartening. The fact that religious liberty is even on the agenda of the historic Vatican Council is as impressive as it is significant. This is no sudden development, however. For years there has been a growing conviction on the part of certain Roman Catholic authorities that there needs to be much more understanding between Christian groups in general. A few quotations from Roman Catholic authorities will make this clear.
More than a decade ago Robert Rouquette, S.J., declared:
It should be the strict duty of the Christian state to ensure effective freedom of conscience, of propaganda, of worship and of teaching to all the idealogical groups which do riot constitute a danger to the general welfare of the state, in accordance with the requirements of natural law and natural ethics. —"Le probleme du pluralisme religieux," in L'eglise et la liberte (Paris: Flore, 1952), p. 222.
And the same principle was emphasized by another French author. In the same year (1952) he maintained that:
Religious freedom, if it is to be effective, should be included in the constitution of states and confirmed by legal statute. . . . Even supposing the faith (the Catholic faith) were to know again a time of triumph, religious freedom would nevertheless continue to be a sacred duty.—"Liberte de la foi et tolerance civile," in Tolerance et communautd humaine (Tournai-Paris, 1952), pp. 146, 147.
Theologians on all levels and among many different groups in France are expressing similar convictions. Ambassador Wladimir d'Ormesson, who not only knows the Vatican, but was a personal friend of Pope John XXIII, was the one who definitely urged that this subject be brought before the Vatican Council. The way he sets forth his reasons is impressive. Referring to the many letters he receives from Protestants, he says:
You protest rightly against the infringements of religious freedom which cause your co-religionists behind the iron curtain to suffer, but why do you say nothing about the sufferings of our Protestant brothers in some countries, which are not under Communist rule?
These reproaches are right. We claim liberty for our faith. We claim it in every place and for everybody. We wanted it for the Jews when they were so abominably persecuted by the Nazis. We want it now for our Protestant brothers and for our Orthodox brothers, wherever such liberty is infringed, compromised or menaced. On this level also, an Ecumenical Council may bring some benefit to our civilization by observing this rule of "Christian charity" which includes heaven and earth.—Le Figaro, January 29, 1959.
What changes may come if this is fully discussed is difficult to say, but we could hope that it would spark a new spirit of tolerance and mutual understanding which in turn would result in the granting of liberty for the proclamation of the gospel in areas where today this is practically impossible. While we recognize the possibility that this great Ecumenical Council at Rome could lead to the establishment of world religion, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Revelation 13, yet it may also be used of the Lord to bring about conditions that would greatly aid in the proclamation of the everlasting gospel to all the world. Before God's last message can accomplish its final work there will need to be some changes in certain countries where established religion is in power. Carlos Santarnaria, voicing the situation in his own group, says:
The Catholic Church does not speak the same language everywhere. Its attitude is not the same in France or in Poland as it is in Spain or in Italy. In one country it claims freedom of religion and human rights in general; in another it loudly proclaims its traditional thesis and emphasizes the classic concept of the Christian Society. . . . The Catholic Church does not like liberty of religion; it tolerates it against its own will. It crouches in wait for an opportunity to resume its traditional habits, its customary intolerance. . . .
We must recognize that there is some truth in these objections. They are very disturbing to us, Catholics.—"L'EgIise et les libertes dans l'histoire," in L'Eglise et la liberte, Semaine des intellectuels catholiques (Paris: Flare, 1952), p. 225.
With such questions as these disturbing clear-thinking Catholics it is little wonder there is division in the church. Roman Catholic theologians are naturally unhappy over this situation. John C. Bennett recently declared that:
". . . the Catholic Church is divided from top to bottom in this country and abroad on matters of principle in regard to religious liberty."—Christian and the State (New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1958).
The need for unity on this as on other vital questions was one of the main reasons for the Council. The late Pope John's Easter Encyclical gave evidence of real concern. While intolerance is usually seen as a misshapen monster, history reveals that it can also wear ecclesiastical robes. Could it be that the threat of the loss of liberty is influencing Roman Catholic leaders to join with Protestantism in defending the rights of the individual, especially in the areas of religious liberty?
These comments appearing in a recent article, Roman Catholicism and Religious Liberty, published by the World Council of Churches in Geneva, make the situation abundantly clear. It reads:
Today the international dimension of the world persuades Roman Catholics to be tolerant and to demand religious liberty for everybody and everywhere. Even Pope Pius XII made direct reference to the reasons which must lead a Catholic statesman to join the legal organization of a community of nations whose constitution includes religious liberty of all religious bodies. It is not any more (as the "thesis" of the Catholic state seemed to represent) a question of the welfare of a closed state. The Pope bases his remarks on the fact that the relations between the nations are growing closer and deeper and that this process of extension is driven onward by an imminent international development. Now, it is evident that no international community will be possible without international civil respect for religious liberty.
Intolerance is an ugly word these days. And as evangelists and teachers who should "keep abreast of the times," we must not fail to discern the significance of such important events as are transpiring in our world. These demand clear thinking and spiritual discernment, for the whole future of God's work is affected by what we are seeing today.
Tolerance on the part of Christians of all persuasions could well be an important step in the development of world peace. But the Word of God reveals very clearly that despite the popular emphasis on liberty, events too big for men to handle will ultimately lead into intolerance and oppression, when peoples of all nations will be coerced into a so-called "brotherhood" only to discover that at last a worldwide enforcement of religious dogma will result.
High-sounding, lofty sentiments are not enough. Only the truth as it is in Jesus can really set men free. And that truth will be proclaimed to all the world with or without permission, and in spite of coercion.
"Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments" is the message of Christ to His faithful church. Only those who watch and pray and are clothed in the righteousness of Christ will triumph in this great hour.
R. A. A.
