The Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, has become one of the most controversial and devastating texts of the Second Vatican Council. It is the document on religious liberty, whose central principle affirms that every human being possesses a civil and natural right to freedom to profess and practice the religion of his choice, without external coercion (Vatican II, 1965). This principle is not a simple pastoral innovation, but the formal acceptance, within the Church, of the liberal ideas born of the 1789 Revolution, which aim to dethrone Our Lord Jesus Christ and secularize society (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 7, 113).
From a traditional viewpoint, this document represents an explicit rupture with the perennial Catholic doctrine on the relationship between truth, error, and religious liberty. The Sovereign Pontiffs, from Pius VI to Pius XII, repeatedly taught that there is no right to error, as right is objectively founded on truth and goodness. Only the truth, and consequently the one true Church, possesses inalienable rights. For prudential reasons, governments may tolerate false religions to avoid greater evils, but this tolerance can never be elevated to the status of a natural and civil right, as this would mean placing truth and error on an equal legal footing (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 47-53).
🔄The Shift in the Concept of Religious Liberty
The declaration defines religious liberty as “immunity from coercion in civil society,” such that no one should be prevented from professing the religion of their choice, within the vague limits of public order (Dignitatis Humanae, n. 2). Here lies the essence of the liberal deception: it confuses moral liberty, which is the faculty to adhere to the good and the true, with licentiousness, which is the false freedom to choose error. Divine and natural law is not seen as a guide to true freedom, but as a coercion that opposes human dignity (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 26-28).
The problem lies in the fact that the document does not limit itself to prudential tolerance, but attributes a positive "right" to every individual, regardless of the truth or falsity of the chosen religion. Religious liberty, which in Catholic tradition was understood as the tolerance of evil for the sake of a greater good, is now considered a right founded on the very dignity of the human person. This conception of dignity is naturalistic, as it detaches the person from his ultimate end and his obligation to God. True human dignity lies in submitting the intellect and will to God, not in proclaiming an independence that leads to the slavery of sin (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 21-23, 114).
Thus, while traditional doctrine distinguished between tolerance (an act of the civil power to avoid a greater evil) and right (founded on truth), the Council amalgamated the two concepts, conferring upon error a legal status hitherto inconceivable. Error is now given the right to propagate itself freely in society.
⚖️Contradiction with the Previous Magisterium
The central critique of Catholic fidelity is the blatant contradiction of the text with the infallible magisterium of the Popes. Pius IX, in the encyclical Quanta Cura, explicitly condemned the proposition that "liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man." This condemnation was not a mere disciplinary act, but a doctrinal defense against indifferentism and laicism, which are the pillars of Masonic and anti-Christian society (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 14, 47).
Leo XIII, in Libertas Praestantissimum, affirmed that "no true right exists except that which is founded on truth and the moral law." Similarly, Pius XII taught that the tolerance of false cults could be admitted for practical reasons, but not as a principle of right.
By affirming that religious liberty is a right founded on the dignity of the person, the declaration inverts the traditional principle: before, error could be tolerated; now, it is legally protected. The vain conciliar attempt to justify this change through a "new reading" of tradition (hermeneutic of continuity) is not convincing, as it is a clear rupture. The Council, on this point, functioned as a "counter-Syllabus," officially embracing the "principles of modern civilization" that Pius IX had solemnly condemned (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 7).
📉Social and Ecclesial Consequences
The practical application of Dignitatis Humanae had immediate and long-term repercussions:
Secularization of Catholic States – Traditionally Catholic countries, such as Spain, Colombia, and Italy, amended their constitutions to abandon the notion of an official religion, favoring religious pluralism. This was the official dismantling of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, handing nations over to state agnosticism and opening the doors to public immorality sanctioned by law.
Doctrinal Relativism – The idea that all religions enjoy equal legal protection fostered a relativistic mentality, in which Catholic truth appears as one among many. If all beliefs have the right of citizenship, objective truth ceases to exist for society, and faith is reduced to a mere subjective sentiment (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 5, 16).
Weakening of the Mission – The preaching of the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Church was relativized, as false religions came to be seen as legitimate expressions of the human search for God. This destroyed the missionary spirit. Why send missionaries and suffer martyrdom if all religions are valid paths? The liberal ecumenism that followed is the direct consequence, seeking a worldly peace at the expense of salvific truth (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 105-112).
These effects were denounced by those who remained faithful to Tradition, qualifying the document as a "counter-magisterium" that frontally contradicts the constant teaching of the Church. The logical contradiction between the exclusive truth of the Church and the legal recognition of false religions is irresolvable.
🔚Conclusion
Dignitatis Humanae constituted one of the most radical innovations of the Second Vatican Council. By redefining religious liberty as a positive right based on a liberal-inspired human dignity, it distances itself from the traditional magisterium, which admitted only the prudential tolerance of errors.
From a Catholic viewpoint, the declaration introduced a relativistic and liberal conception into the Church, undermining both Catholic identity and the evangelizing mission. It represents the triumph of the Masonic mentality that seeks to build a society without God and without Christ. Therefore, it remains to this day one of the most contested points of Vatican II, demanding a return to the clarity of traditional doctrine: only the truth has rights; error, when tolerated, does not. The refusal of this liberal principle is a matter of fidelity to Our Lord, the one and true King of nations.
📚References
Lefebvre, M. (1991). Do liberalismo à apostasia: A tragédia conciliar [From Liberalism to Apostasy: The Conciliar Tragedy]. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Permanência.