Does Error Have Rights? Freedom of Religion vs. the Obligation to find God

Perhaps there is no civil, religious, or philosophical question so charged and complex as the problem of human freedom.  All men at the core of their being feel the call towards an ever greater freedom - but what does freedom mean?  And what are we to do when my desire to exercise my freedom encroaches on the wellbeing or the freedom of another person?  Finally, to what extent are governments, societies, and religious leaders to permit their citizens to do evil in the name of freedom?  Amazingly, many religious, philosophical and civil communities throughout history have come up with a variation of the same maxim to solve this issue.  This maxim, in one of its forms, is stated as error has no right.  Put another way, in the strictest sense of the word (and depending on which community’s watchful eye I am acting in at the present moment), I neither have the right to proclaim that Abortion is permissible, nor to engage in “hate speech” language which demeans another human being.  

The years of history and the current climate may ascribe to this maxim to varying degrees; however, one of the final documents of the Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, does not, in the strictest sense.  Instead, the document tackles the topic of human freedom, specifically religious freedom, from a position of both natural reason and Divine Revelation.  Put simply, the first half of the document deals with man’s freedom as known from observation, while the second half attests to what we know about freedom and human dignity as Revealed by God.

Recognizing that man is endowed with reason is an observation as old as time itself.  Moreover, history tells us that man is bound by his conscience to seek the truth.  He cannot not seek the truth, which means he cannot not seek God.  Therefore, “it is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth(paragraph 2).”   In other words, all men are bound to seek God.  This is their responsibility.  Where there is a responsibility, so too is there adequate freedom, or rights sufficient for man to fulfill that responsibility.  Therefore, he has a right which equips him to do so.  Thus, because man only sees and encounters God through his senses and his conscience, “man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience (paragraph 3).”

The first part of the document argues for freedom of religion from a place of responsibility (that is, that, “the right of man to religious freedom [originates from] the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience (paragraph 9).”  The second part, on the other hand, takes a more traditionally religious stance.  Here, the Council Fathers argue for freedom of religion on the grounds that Divine Revelation dictates it.  Though to be sure, Revelation does not explicitly proclaim that man must be free to practice his own religion, it does, “disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith (paragraph 9).”

There is some merit to the phrase error has no rights.  It is inappropriate, for example, to shout “fire” in a crowded theater.  Likewise, just because someone proclaims they honestly believe killing an unborn baby is a morally permissible does not mean we must guarantee their ability to practice this.  This is because matter of religious liberty deal with not what is permissible, as much as what is obliged.  Because of this, no one must be coerced into practicing a religion that they do not freely believe to be true.  The document puts this beautifully as it transitions to dealing with Divine Revelation: “Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith (paragraph 10).”