Catholicism & Religious Freedom

In a recent post, historian John Fea has asked if religious freedom in the United States extends to non-Christians. His answer? “Of course.” His deeper question, though, is whether “the Bible teach[es] the kind of Jeffersonian [religious] liberty” enshrined in our country. He inquires of his readers for “a Biblical defense of religious liberty.”

Religious liberty, it seems, is a relatively new idea in Western Civilization.  For example, what should we make of all the so-called Christian nations throughout history that did not separate church and state or promote the religious liberty of their people?  Did these states fail to conform to biblical ideas about religious liberty?

While there are strong arguments to be made for religious liberty based on Enlightenment ideals, natural law or reason, or even Catholic social teaching about the dignity of all human beings, I am interested in learning more about those who have made a robust theological and biblical defense of this belief and how such a defense relates to the fact that there were moments in Christian history when the church thrived in cultures where there was little or no religious liberty.

I commented on Professor Fea’s post (as of this post it is awaiting moderation), but desired to expound a bit more on what I wrote.

From the perspective of a Catholic and Catholicism, Vatican II’s pronouncement on religious freedom, Dignitatis humanae, is aligned with clear theological and historical precedent, contrary to the claims of “liberals” or “arch-conservatives.” (Both see Dignitatis as new doctrine and a break with Tradition, when in fact it is impossible for the Church to contradict or repudiate itself and promulgate new doctrine.) The Church has always opposed forced coercion of religious beliefs for those who aren’t baptized (forced coercion is not the same as evangelization); however, the Church argues it retains the right to address baptized Catholics (heretics, apostates, and the like). This goes far in elucidating for Fea about the Church’s former interconnectedness with secular state governments in medieval Europe.

Westerners initially converted by being witnesses to the lives of Christians, as well as the recipients of Christian love and charity (I recommend reading Rodney Stark, who walks through this process sociologically and historically). Once the Western Roman Empire fell, only the Church possessed any sort of institutional structure left standing and, as a result, was the only one in a position to pick up the pieces and rebuild a shattered civilization. Consequently, the Church became inevitably involved in the secular, because it had to.

Now if we bring it back to Fea’s point about a non-separation of church and state that allegedly failed to promote the religious liberty of its people, this historical context is what explains it. Europeans were almost universally Christian. The Church never forced conversion to Christianity, but maintained (and does so to this day), that all baptized Christians were spiritually answerable to the Church. As such, the Church is invested with certain prerogatives to ensure everyone “tows the line,” so to speak. An analogy:

I’m a citizen of the United States. I’m also a citizen of Pennsylvania, and a specific town in Pennsylvania, and formerly a citizen of Connecticut, and a specific town in Connecticut. As a resident of the United States, as a resident of Pennsylvania, and so on and so forth, there are(/were) certain behavioral and civic expectations of me. When those expectations aren’t met, there are negative consequences. Likewise, Professor Fea teaches at a college. His college has certain conduct policies in place the violation of which, while not “illegal” according to the “State,” nevertheless would land Fea in trouble, perhaps even termination. So too the Catholic Church. Now, Protestants don’t accept the analogy, but as an intellectual exercise I’m sure, if they’re being intellectually honest, would admit to the analogy’s aptness.

If we use the footnotes of Dignitatis as a frame of reference, the theology, in any “formal” sense, extends at least as far back as far as such individuals as Lactantius (died c. 320), Saint Ambrose of Milan (died 397), and his pupil Saint Augustine of Hippo (died 430), and includes Church councils like the Fourth Council of Toledo (633). Now I must stress, the footnotes are not a comprehensive list of the full spectrum of the theological development of religious liberty within Catholicism; as I indicated, it’s merely a “frame of reference.” For example, neither Saint Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) nor Saint Robert Bellarmine (died 1621) are cited.

The written context within which all of this is stated, properly in Dignitatis, is, “It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act.” In other words, the Church has always proclaimed it cannot force others to “embrace the Christian faith” essentially because of the Catholic acknowledgment of free will. That’s an incredibly crude oversimplification, but this is a mere blog post and not part of my graduate thesis/book project, so such oversimplification suffices.

In the time leading up to the creation of the United States, we see evidence of this affirmation coming from the Catholic Church concretely. Francisco Suarez’s Defensio Fidei Catholicae (1613) was commissioned by Pope Paul V and directed at James I of England. It maintained the State cannot coerce religion, insisting the State could only punish the citizenry with respect to religion “in so far as those crimes are contrary to political ends, public peace, and human justice; but coercion with respect to those deeds which are opposed to religion and to the salvation of the soul is essentially a function of spiritual power” – i.e., the Church. But again, the Church is only referring to its authority to “coerce” those who have been baptized (meaning, engaging heretics and apostates), as well as the right to “coerce” the unbaptized through evangelization.

Whether this all would meet Jefferson’s definition of religious freedom is a different matter. Yet, the vigorous and centuries-old theological position of the Catholic Church not to force someone to Christianity seems in step with his litmus test. I suspect Jefferson would be uncomfortable with notions of “heresy” and “apostasy,” but then again maybe not, given his feelings toward the Federalists. Nor for that matter would Jefferson be at odds with the Church’s concept of “coercion” via evangelization because, as Peter Onuf noted in the C-Span book discussion, Jefferson distributed his Bible.

“Secular” Jefferson?

This is a second follow up to my initial thoughts on the latest “Christian nation” ballyhoo. In this post I would like to reflect on Thomas Jefferson’s “secularism.”

In my essay juxtaposing Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson’s contrasting understanding of human nature, I painted Hamilton as much more of an authentic Christian and referred to Jefferson as “much more secular.” (For the record, I consider Hamilton something of a latter-day Augustine of Hippo and would dissent from those historians who view the “robust” portion of his life as an absence of religion; instead, I see the Augustinian search for restfulness in that Truth found only in God. Admittedly, this is an ahistorical bordering on theological argument.) Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed’s scholarship communicated via the aforementioned “Christian nation” ballyhoo that Jefferson in fact considered himself a devout Christian forces me to reevaluate, or at least re-present my position vis-à-vis Jefferson.

Professor Gordon-Reed has claimed both on the C-Span book discussion and on Twitter it is not for her to define someone else’s Christianity, nor does she consider it appropriate for others to do so. In other words, without getting into her reasoning (she explains it on the C-Span discussion), if Jefferson says he is a Christian, she takes him at his word. Let’s use Gordon-Reed’s logic and apply it to two modern individuals:

I have implied in the past President Obama is not authentically Christian, despite the soon-to-be former President’s own words. John Fea, on the other hand, rather famously landed in Glenn Beck’s sights for positing exactly opposite my assertion.

Presidential nominee Donald Trump (God help us) claims he is a Christian. Articles such as this found on the Patheos Atheist Channel running through the veracity of Trump’s Christianity is indicative of any number of articles sprouting up recently on the Internet. Two additional samples, again from John Fea (he’s a veritable treasure trove of topical sources), of more recent variety – in each of them Professor Fea doesn’t explicitly denounce Trump’s Christianity, but he sure might be suggesting Trump’s Christianity is perhaps slightly suspect.

What’s the point to all this?

Who is and isn’t authentically Christian (or authentically X) won’t be going away anytime soon. The fact these debates aren’t going away seems to refute Gordon-Reed’s preference not to define someone else’s Christianity, for the simple fact there are standards of Christianity we Christians hold others accountable to (all the individuals I have discussed in these posts claim to be Christian: Onuf, Gordon-Reed, Fea, myself). We might fiercely disagree about these standards, but nevertheless these standards exist. In Jefferson’s day, the very same arguments were held, as Jefferson’s political opponents accused him of atheism. At bare minimum, to call oneself Christian obliges a particular disposition and set of outward behaviors.

Where it becomes thorny are articles of faith. But to use Jefferson and Unitarians as an example (I have heard some, such as my former professor Glenn Sunshine refer to Jefferson as a Unitarian rationalist, and to be honest I’m not sure if there’s a difference between “Unitarian” and “Unitarian rationalist,” because it’s not a term I’ve heard expressed outside of a handful of academics), to deny the supernatural and still refer to oneself as a Christian…that puts the individual within a decided minority, to the point where I imagine my allegation of a “secular” Jefferson carries weight. Some might rebut Jefferson attended Christian services regularly and used federal money to pay for weekly Christian services in federal buildings, yet if the account we have is in any way accurate, Jefferson only performed these actions to set a good example, not out of any personal belief.

Ultimately, no one can judge a person’s soul and no one can read a person’s heart, and we must be cautious to ensure we do not give that impression. However, as I indicated in my first post over this controversy, definitions do matter, and we can define someone else’s religion, or at least have the debate if nothing else.


To be clear, when I speak of “[denying] the supernatural and still [referring] to oneself as a Christian…that puts the individual within a decided minority,” I am harkening back to my previous post in which I reflected upon how the expunging of the miraculous from the Bible turns the book as well as Jesus into nothing but an ethical guidebook no different from what can be found in any number of other, non-Christian sources.

Thomas Jefferson, Peter Onuf, & the “Christian Nation”

Historians Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed recently published what appears to be a watershed work on Thomas Jefferson entitled “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination. Onuf and Gordon-Reed are the acknowledged Jefferson scholars among historians, and it was my joy to have Professor Onuf as my instructor this past fall in my graduate class on Jefferson. Prior to Most Blessed, Onuf is probably best known for his book, Jefferson’s Empire: The Language of American Nationhood, a standard Jeffersonian text, while Gordon-Reed ruffled everyone’s feathers by confirming Jefferson was, in all probability, the father of Sally Hemings’s children.

A controversy has arisen in the past forty-eight hours from the back-and-forth historians were involved in with Gordon-Reed on Twitter (I watched this unfold live) over Onuf’s claim Jefferson desired a “Christian nation.” I have yet to read Most Blessed, and Gordon-Reed says this theme is more fully developed in the book, but Onuf made this particular claim as part of a book discussion which aired on C-Span found here.

Historian John Fea, who is a prolific writer and blogger, was one of the individuals involved in the skirmish with Gordon-Reed and he subsequently fleshed out his thoughts more precisely on his blog. His post really gets at why Onuf’s assertion is so controversial and provides some especially valuable insight I would like to respond to:

During the discussion, Gordon-Reed and Onuf claim that Thomas Jefferson believed he was a Christian.  You can see how they unpack this on the video, but I want to go on record and say that their claim is correct. (I also noted this in my post this morning on historical thinking).  Jefferson did believe that he was a Christian. As Onuf notes, his view of Christianity was grounded solely in the moral teachings of Jesus.  He did not believe in miracles, the deity of Christ, the resurrection (perhaps the ultimate miracle), the inspiration of the Bible, etc. Jefferson believed he could reject these beliefs and doctrines and still call himself a Christian.

Onuf even suggests (and he realizes he is being controversial and provocative here) that Jefferson wanted to forge a Christian nation.  For many who read this blog, or have read my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: Historical Introduction, this claim will set off red flags.  Yet, I think Onuf’s point is a logical extension of his view of Jefferson’s religion.  Jefferson did believe that the American republic would be stronger, more virtuous, if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus. He wanted America to be a Christian nation as he understood the true meaning of Christianity.  As I say in my book, the answer to the “Christian nation” question really depends on how the terms are defined.

1. Fea is absolutely correct: we must define our terms. Let’s start with “Christian nation.” There are many definitions of this phrase. Faux-historian David Barton has one. Thomas Jefferson apparently had a different one. Present-day Evangelical Christians across the spectrum of Evangelicalism have an array of definitions to match their array of evangelicalism. The secularists and anti-theists have a counter definition. Non-Christians also proffer their own definition and meaning too. Part of the problem with a phrase such as “Christian nation” is this constantly shifting set of definitions and amorphous nature of its meaning. Historians like Fea and Thomas Kidd have attempted to present more historically-centered definitions in their respective works and thus ground the phrase’s meaning into something concrete and tangible. The definition I argue to be best, and one which as of now is the subject of my graduate thesis and one of my book projects, is in that historically-centered vein: that the United States is a Christian nation insofar as the principles and ideas upon which the country was predicated originate from Catholicism, which itself means, in part, “historic Christianity.” In other words, without Catholicism, I contend, there is no Declaration of Independence, nor is there a Constitution or Bill of Rights as those documents were conceived, written, and passed/ratified.

2. Staying with the theme of “definition,” on Twitter Gordon-Reed argued it was wrong, in some capacity, to “define someone else’s Christianity.” She then went on to claim Christianity itself is not for “others” (my term, not Gordon-Reed’s) to define. Fea and others took issue with this position, as do I. The context for this particular aspect of the debate was whether Jefferson was indeed a Christian, regardless if he considered himself one. I think Gordon-Reed is wrong. Christianity can be defined and that definition can be placed onto others. If not, then there is no difference amongst any religion, any worldview, any ideology, and it’s analogous to a pantheistic soup. Even though there are stark differences between Catholics and Protestants, for example, there remain some fundamental aspects of commonality that still make us all Christian. To suggest otherwise, well, reveals either an incredible lack of intellectual depth or honesty. Certainly there are truly far-out, nutty, fringe Protestant sects out there, but the majority fall under the auspices of a “Christian” umbrella and would never be mistaken for a Jew, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, and the like.

3. Jefferson has long been hailed by those hostile to Christianity specifically and religion more generally as one of their own, especially with their blatant misunderstanding of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase. Onuf and Gordon-Reed, however, have further demonstrated that, whatever Jefferson’s personal beliefs, he nevertheless was no enemy of religion, and in truth, very much was typical of the founders in his assertion religion was necessary for the success of the American Experiment. And not just any religion, but at the very least the teachings of Jesus if not Christianity.

Back to Fea’s post. My thoughts are in bold.

A few more reflections:

  1.  Onuf suggests that Jefferson’s belief in a creator and an intelligent universe was an act of worship and a “leap of faith.”  That’s true.  But one does not have to be a Christian (at least how I define the term) to worship God and believe in an intelligent creator.  By Onuf’s standard, Abraham Lincoln was a Christian as well.  (Although I am guessing Onuf would have no problem calling him one, contra Allen Guelzo’s Gettysburg Prize-winning biography).  But I wonder, can one argue historically that Christians have always believed in certain non-negotiable doctrines and that the rejection of those doctrines means that you are not a Christian? To answer Fea’s question: Yes. This question alludes to the debate I discussed in Point 2 above. Have Christians “always believed in certain non-negotiable doctrines”? We have; it’s called Catholicism. Very simply, there are certain “doctrines,” as Fea calls them, that are non-negotiable if one is a Christian. If those doctrines are rejected, then one isn’t a Christian. This is an immensely important question, historically, because Fea raises the specter of Lincoln. I haven’t read Guelzo’s biography (Guelzo is about as authoritative as it gets on Lincoln), but many Christians have long embraced the Rail-Splitter as one of their own, myself included. In fact, the bishop in my new hometown even incorporates Lincoln’s axe as part of his coat-of-arms. And yet, Lincoln was seemingly no Orthodox believer. But is this an example of eisegesis, and thus poor history, as opposed to exegesis? More broadly, the individual cannot use his or her own definitions. Words, ideas, religion…even our bodies (to reference current zaniness), lose all meaning when we allow the individual to create his or her own definitions.
  2. And this leads to another observation.  It seems Onuf thinks the term “Christian” is important.  What is at stake if Jefferson is not a Christian?  (Or if a Unitarian is not a Christian?)  Why is this important?  (I guess I could ask myself the same question). I’m not sure there’s an answer to this query. I think the David Barton’s or some of the Evangelicals need Jefferson to be Christian to help fit their definitions of a Christian nation. For those of us who make more of a historical definition I don’t think it matters all that much. I have never considered Jefferson to be authentically “Christian,” which I suppose means I don’t consider Unitarians to be authentically Christian (which isn’t surprising because there are many denominations and sects I don’t consider Christian that others do, including adherents of the denominations and sects in question), so I guess I’m ambivalent about Jefferson’s Christianity in that I’ve never considered him “one of our own.” However, I would agree “the term ‘Christian’ is important” because it is unique: to be Christian and to adhere to Christianity means something that is unlike anything else in the world. Putting aside personal piety and the explicitly religious aspects, to speak strictly in a historical perspective, Christianity has brought about more good than any other variable in history. Ergo, I would agree with Professor Onuf that the very word “Christian” is important and we must understand what we mean when we use that word. It is also important for the other half of “understanding what we mean when we use that word”; namely, the flippancy of its use.

Onuf and Gordon-Reed certainly sparked a storm with their claim Thomas Jefferson desired  a Christian nation. Knowing the scholarship of both historians, it’s probably a thoroughly researched and documented claim; nevertheless, it has reignited fierce dissension within the discipline about just what is meant by “Christian nation” and even what it means to be a “Christian.” Perhaps more importantly, it has furthered the dialogue over the role of religion in society and government in the founding and Early Republic, which means our present culture will hopefully reevaluate its understanding of the role of religion in society and government.