By 
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
In regards to the letter I released on September 20, 2024, I received this comment:
“You quoted Pope Pius IX, who, in Syllabus of Errors (1864) condemned the proposition that ‘every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.’Does this not contradict your earlier statement: ‘Although tolerance and religious freedom are important …’ Evidently, Pius IX didn’t agree. …”
Although I would not ordinarily put out another letter to answer a question someone had asked about a point in a previous letter, I think that this topic deserves a more complete examination.
First of all, I think it is important to note that earth’s definitions often fail to adequately express heavenly truths and, therefore, men’s actions, no matter how well intentioned, often fall short of heavenly intent.This is because we live in an imperfect world that does not fully comprehend and, therefore, cannot fully define, the fullness of the truth. However, in Heaven one cannot be less than fully united to truth.
It is true that the Church has not always been an advocate for complete freedom of speech and religion. This is because, since eternal salvation is the ultimate good, and the Catholic Church is the universal way God intended for men to receive that salvation, then a secular government/society that allows anyone to believe and worship any way they want does not seem to be the plan that is most conducive to bringing the most people to salvation.
However, as free will is a necessary component for love, God has granted free will unto man; it could be said that free will is a gift of love from God. And because of this irrevocable gift of free will, religious freedom is allowed. Religious freedom can indeed open the way to a path of destruction, but it can also lead to acceptance of truth and salvation since religious freedom is a prerequisite to both proclaim and to receive the gospel. However, although God permits religious freedom, it is not His active will; it is instead His permissive will which is allowed to achieve something greater, which is our salvation. It must be stated though that religious indifference is condemned because all religions are NOT equal. And God does not actively will other religions - for God does not actively will that which is not Truth, because He ISTruth.
To those who would state that in the past the Church indeed pressured governments at times to repress all religious activity except the true religion, Catholicism, I would reply that yes, this cannot be denied. However, although such repression occurred, the fact that it occurred does not necessarily prove the justice of the act.
As St. Thomas Aquinas said in Summa Theologica:
“Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred.”
“On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason, the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous.”
Pope Gregory the Great, in fact, correctly taught that justice required Catholic civil authorities to tolerate the worship of Jews under his rule.
What must be understood is that there is a difference between affirming a right to do a certain thing, andaffirming a right to immunity from being coerced to do a certain thing. If religious freedom is defined as simply immunity from coercion and includes no further definition beyond that, then we can unequivocally state that Catholicism mandates religious freedom. However, other things come into consideration if the meaning is expanded. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, it is the definition that often fails to define what Heaven truly intends.
Although we can state that persons outside the Church should not be coerced into the Church, and that justice also requires that they have the freedom to teach their own religion privately to their children, we must also state that it is the civil authorities’ right to limit the spread of harmful ideas if it is deemed to be in the interest of the common good. Therefore, it might be deemed right in some instances that this freedom not be extended into the public sphere. Therefore, as there is necessary freedom, there is also just restraint.
And what about tolerance? Archbishop Fulton Sheen addressed this well in his book, Moods and Truths:
“There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s. And hence the Church in her history, due reparation made, has always welcomed the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never his heresy into the treasury of her wisdom.”
Perhaps like Archbishop Sheen, I should have made clearer that distinction in my letter. Also I should have emphasized that watering down or attempting to change the truth in order to walk in “harmony” with someone or to “dialogue,” is not tolerance; it is complicity in sin. Again, it is all in the definition.
Therefore, I stand by the statement: “Although tolerance and religious freedom are important, we in the Church must defend our faith with conviction and share the truth with certainty.” These things are indeed important. However, these topics deserve more explanation and more clarification, and I am grateful to the person who made this comment and brought this to my attention.
In summary, truth is not something we can change or modify. Truth is not even something God created; it is what and who He is – Truth itself. This is why we can truly say of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity—Truth is a Person. Truth has a face. And it is the face of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we must come to recognize Truth, as this means coming to know God for who He is.
God allows religious freedom, but it is not His active will; it is His permissive will in order to achieve something greater which is our salvation. And as for tolerance, there are many who might characterize the Catholic Church as intolerant, or “unwelcoming” as she tenaciously defends the Sacred Deposit of Faith.However, the Church was not founded as a man-made institution to promote brotherhood and unity, nor as a channel for dialogue; it was divinely founded by Jesus Christ, Truth Incarnate, to teach the truth and save souls. Therefore, we should have tolerance for the lost, but not tolerance for sin. Perhaps this is best said by St. Augustine:
“The shepherd seeks out the straying sheep, but because they have wandered away and are lost, they say that they are not ours. ‘Why do you want us? Why do you seek us?’ they ask, as iftheir straying and being lost were not the very reason for our wanting them and seeking them out. ‘If I am straying,’ he says, ‘if I am lost, why do you want me?’ You are straying, that is why I wish to recall you. You have been lost; I wish to find you. ‘But I wish to stray,’ he says; ‘I wish to be lost.’
“So, you wish to stray and be lost? How much better that I do not also wish this. Certainly, I dare say, I am unwelcome. But I listen to the Apostle who says: Preach the word; insist upon it, welcome and unwelcome. Welcome to whom? Unwelcome to whom? By all means welcometo those who desire it; unwelcome to those who do not. However unwelcome, I dare to say, ‘You wish to stay, you wish to be lost, but I do not want this.’ For the one whom I fear does not wish this. And should I wish it, consider his words of reproach: The straying sheep you have not recalled; the lost sheep you have not sought. Shall I fear you rather than him? Remember, we must all present ourselves before the judgment seat of Christ.”
May our loving and merciful Lord bless you abundantly and fill you with the light of His Divine Truth.
Bishop Joseph E. Strickland
Bishop Emeritus
Joseph Strickland
Bishop Joseph E. Strickland was named the fourth bishop of Tyler in September of 2012 by Pope Benedict XVI. Prior to being named bishop, he served a number of roles in the diocese, including vicar general, judicial vicar, and pastor of the Cathedral parish. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1985. 