JPII Conference Panel Discussion (2025): Church, State and Religious Liberty

This JPII Conference panel discussion on Pope Leo XIII and modern Catholic social thought features Dr. Christopher Wolfe and Dr. Gerard Bradley.

Dr. Christopher Wolfe is President Emeritus of the Dallas Forum for Law, Politics and Culture.

Dr. Gerard Bradley is Professor of Law Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School and Director of Natural Law Institute.

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:04

I would like to welcome for our first panel session um on uh the topic of state and religious liberty um Dr. Gerald Bradley, who's professor of law emeritus at the Notre Dame Law School. Um and if I may, I'll end at that. Is that all right? All right, I'll tell you when to start. Okay. Well, yesterday night, I said, you can have you can Google or use an AI agent uh to figure out all of that. Um I'll do it the old-fashioned way then, um, so that we give due honor to uh to everyone uh present here.

unknown 0:47

Dr.

SPEAKER_02 0:48

Bradley is Professor of Law and You can move on to Chris. Okay, okay. I appreciate that. Um our second speaker here is Dr. Chris Wolfe, um who is um uh an emeritus uh faculty member uh from the Department of Politics uh here at the uh University of Dallas. And um he and both uh he and Dr. Um Bradley um are uh highly qualified to speak about the legacy of Pope um uh Leo XIII, in particular with respect to the um aspect of the relationship between church and state and the question of religious liberty. Um I'll leave it at that too, if I may, and open it up right away. The way we proceed is as follows. Each one of our speakers will have 20 minutes, and they will speak one right after the other. And after that, we will have then the opportunity for you all to ask questions. Uh we'll conclude at 2.15, have a little break, and continue with our second panel at 2.30. Is that all right? Thank you so much. And we welcome now Dr. Wolfe. Well, that's your notes, yeah. That's right. Just want to check whether you should know what you're talking about.

SPEAKER_01 2:04

Yes, yes, yeah, wanted to follow there. Great. Uh well this conference is set in the context, I think, of certain current debates. Debates about liberalism, especially those stemming from Patrick Denine's Why Liberalism Failed, and also debates about integralism. Uh, integralists emphasize the ideal of a confessional Catholic state and tend to be very critical of liberal states that don't acknowledge the true religion. Today we want to look at modern Catholic social thought on church-state relations by beginning with Leo XIII, widely regarded as the founder of modern Catholic social thought. So, first let me look at basic Leonine doctrine. You know, background, uh, the sources here, the main sources are Immortalide in 1885 and Libertas Prestantissimum in 1887, two of the many social encyclicals of Leo XIII. One note, just briefly, uh, on the use of the word state, which is what's used in the Vatican online translation of Leo's encyclicals. This is, I think, a sort of anachronism. We usually mean today, I think, by state, the extensive bureaucratic mechanism for achieving policy goals. Uh the term Pope Leo, terms Pope Leo uses are chivitas and res publica, you know, polity or commonwealth or regime or political community, which all reflect a more classical, tomistic and Aristotelian, although they're not identical, view of the political community, according to which there's a more comprehensive polity that shapes a people's entire way of life. In Cicero, Chivitas is a social body of the citizens united by law, which gives them duties and rights. So that's, I think, more comprehensive than what typically we would mean by state. So turning to Leo XIII, what are the main points? First of all, the state cannot be neutral on the true religion. It should publicly profess the true religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, bind also the civil community by a like law. Since then no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and its practice, not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only true religion. It is a public crime to act as though there were no God. Leo does recognize this sort of second best regime. In Immortality Day, he says, the church indeed deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not on that account condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the state. And in fact, the church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be enforced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will. Yet with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being born. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice for the sake of avoiding some greater evil or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. Second, separation of church and state is wrong, according to Leo. In Immortality Day, he quotes Gregory XVI and Mirari Vos in 1832 Nor can we hope for happier results, either for religion or for the civil government, from the wishes of those who desire that the church be separated from the state, and the concord between secular and ecclesiastical authority be dissolved. In a footnote, he cites Pius IX Quanticura and Syllabus of Errors in 1864, condemning the proposition that, quote, the church must be separated from the state and the state from the church. A statement from Libertas helps make clearer, I think, what separation of church and state means for Leo. He says, but this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the state to be separated from the church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society and institutions and customs and laws, the offices of the state and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the church than if she did not exist. And at most would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private, if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which we disprove the principle of separation of church and state are conclusive. So, at least on the face of it, a harsh rejection of separation of church and state. But it also, these quotes I think, suggest that what he means by that is a situation in which there is actually a denial of religion and a so or a subordination of religion to the state, reducing her to just one more voluntary association among others. Third, what's the relationship between spiritual and political powers? Quote from Immortale. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each. But some things might belong to the jurisdiction or determination of both. There must accordingly exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The nature and scope of that connection can be determined only by having regard to the nature of each power and by taking account of the relative excellence and nobleness of their purpose. Whatever, therefore, in things human is of sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the church. Whatever is to be arranged under the civil and political order is rightly subjected to the civil authority. So this seems to suggest the church has power over what relates to spiritual things, which includes moral questions, which in turn includes significant political questions, not all of them, and that suggests that the civil power is subordinate to the spiritual power in these matters. But the form of the subordination is not spelled out in any detail. For example, is it that political authorities have a moral obligation to follow the teaching of the church? It's a moral obligation, or is it that the church can command political authorities to act in certain ways according to church teaching? I think those are quite different propositions. And Leo doesn't spell out what the relationship is. He goes on to say there's another method of concord available for the sake of peace and liberty, namely agreements or concordates between states and the pope regarding particular questions. This suggests less a relationship of command and more a spirit of concord and mutual accommodation regarding what are called mixed questions. Fourth, what does Leo say about liberalism background? I think it's pretty clear that he's talking about the atheistic liberalism of the French Revolution, uh, and especially in 19th century Europe. He talks about different levels of liberalism. Worst, naturalism and rationalism, reason rather than faith, and license in action. Slightly less radical, those who reject unfettered liberty and acknowledge it is subject to law, but who, quote, boldly reject all laws of faith and morals which are above natural reason, but are revealed by the authority of God. Another quote, there are others, somewhat more moderate, though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the state. For in public affairs, the commands of God may be passed over and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. And he adds, hence follows the fatal theory of the need for separation of church and state. That is, he connects the separation of church and state with the idea that the public sphere is not at all governed by divine law. So clearly, but in all of this, there's clearly a fairly rather critical attitude toward liberalism, ranging from the really harsh to the only harsh, you know. So Leo says that nations as well as individuals have a duty to worship God in the form of the true religion. In our terms today, this means that some sort of established religion would be appropriate, although there's all kinds of questions about what exactly establishment means. There are lots of different kinds of establishment. States that acknowledge the true religion should not impose religious belief, which must be free. So there is some measure what we would call free exercise of religion. But, and I don't have time to discuss this, which is tough because it's in some ways the most difficult and most important question. You know, what about the question of not imposing religious beliefs, but of forbidding the propagation of false religious beliefs? This is the most difficult question. And I think in Leo, if you read libertas, clearly he thinks that a good state can repress proselytism of false religious belief. People allow to practice their religion, but they can't proselytize. But of course, from the standpoint of a believer, isn't proselytizing part of their practicing their religion? You know, so it creates you know real tensions there. I think there's going to be a real shift here, which I don't know if Jerry's going to talk about it, he might. Uh that I think there's a real variance here between Leo XIII and Dignitatis Humane at Vatican II. You know, the where I think dignitatis, I think, says there is in fact a principled right to religious proselytism. I think Leo would have rejected that. Uh uh for those of you who are curious and masochists, I have a chapter on this whole question in my natural law liberalism, uh, a 2006 book. And we can talk about it a bit in the uh in the discussion as well if you're interested. But I want to turn to something else now, which has been the most fascinating part of doing this presentation for me. So I want to see what light is shown on Leo's understanding of liberalism and separation of church and state by the so-called Americanist heresy and his discussion of that. And there are two letters uh by Leo to the American bishops. I'm going to start with the later one, it's Testum Benevolentiae Nostre in 1899. The background to this, I mean, it's really complex, is basically you got a guy named Isaac Hecker in the United States. And there's a biography of him, this is after his death, written in France, and then that becomes this huge argument between French and German and other European Catholics, you know, that probably have not a whole lot to do with Hecker himself, but purported readings of him and translations of him. And then in addition, that kind of rebounds back to America in the form of some tensions between Irish American bishops and German American bishops over these questions. So uh the background is is pretty complex. But you know, test them begins, you know, by mentioning Hecker and the translations, translators and the problems, says this has given rise to some new opinions. And he says the underlying principle of these new opinions is that in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age. As you can imagine, you know, doesn't look kindly on that. Rightly so. He condemns, as per libertas, quote, the dangers of these present times, namely the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject, and to set them forth to in print to the world. He rejects the notion that apparently was involved in this debate that somehow spiritual direction or guidance is not necessary, rejects the notion that natural virtues are more important than supernatural virtues, rejects any contempt for the religious life as being passive rather than active. He says that older ways and methods of bringing people back to the church are still valid, and then in some he says he can't approve of views called by some Americanism. So rather nuanced statement. But he says, but if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, this is really key, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name. No. But he repudiates and condemns the above-mentioned doctrines. Uh and this he says is sent to the bishops, testifying again to that love by which we embrace your whole country, a country which in past times has done so much for the cause of religion, and which will, by the divine assistance, continue to do still greater things. So, kind of saying, wait a minute, isn't America a liberal country? And doesn't that sound really different from what Immortalite and Libertas, the quotes I gave earlier from that? Well, if you think test them raises that issue, I had never read uh uh Longinqua Oceani, which was written in 1895, and this came as a complete shock to me. And the reason is because the whole letter has an unbelievable tone of affection for America, you know, which you wouldn't expect at all when you when you hear about Leo condemning liberalism. Background, you know, he had sent this uh, you know, about uh it was it was a letter to the bishops, kind of on an anniversary. Recently, the Columbus, you know, celebration had been held. And he says, well, the church kind of joined in this, you know, happily, uh, talked about the activity of Catholic missionaries in, you know, I I taught at Marquette University for quite a few years. You know, where did Marquette come from? Well, yeah, so they're you know standard American history perhaps do not attribute as much to Catholic missionaries as Catholics might. You know, uh especially, of course, that's especially true of the Southwest, but it's true even of the you know the Northwest Territory as well. Strikingly, he mentions the friendship between George Washington and John Carroll. And he says that your republic is progressing and developing by giant strides is patent to all. And this holds good in religious matters, too. He's talking about the progress of the Catholic faith in America. He says this happy work is due to the bishops and to the lady to some extent, but also, quote, thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered republic. For the church amongst you, unopposed by the constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Now he then reminds them, yet though all of this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the church, or that it would be universally lawful and expedient for the state and church to be, as in America, decevered and divorced. She would bring forth more abundant fruits, the Catholic Church in America would, if in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. So he does restate this part of the teaching. Then he discusses the advancement of learning. He praises synods of the American bishop, mentions the appointment of a papal legate for the first time. It was in 1893. And he says, all intelligent men are agreed, and we ourselves have with pleasure intimated it above that America seems destined for greater things. Now, it is our wish that the Catholic Church should not only share in, but help to bring about this prospective greatness. We deem it right and proper that she should, by availing herself of the opportunities daily presented to her, keep equal step with the Republic in the march of improvement, at the same time striving to the utmost by her virtue and her institutions to aid in the rapid growth of the states. Then there's praise for the strength of marriage, its unity and indissolubility in America. He praises the churches in America, encouragement of citizens to virtue and their duties to the law. He reminds workers to associate with others with care, especially those hostile to Catholicism. He encourages Catholic journalists. Then he says, our thoughts now turn to those who dissent from us in matters of Christian faith. And who shall deny that, with not a few of them, dissent is a matter rather of inheritance than of will. How solicitous we are for their salvation, with what ardor of soul we wish they should at length be restored to the embrace of the church. Nor are we destitute of all hope. Surely we ought not to desert them nor have them leave them to their fancies, but with mildness and charity draw them to us, using every means of persuasion to induce them to examine closely every part of the Catholic doctrine and to free themselves from preconceived notions. And he ends actually, you know, noting also the unhappy lot of Indians and Negroes in the U.S. Overall, I mean, I can't convey to you as much as I'd like, and I have to do even more quoting than I've already done. The, in a way, the openness and the affectionate tone of this letter, such a sharp contrast to the very harsh condemnations of liberalism in Immortalide, Libertas, and other documents. He even has praise for, quote, the equity of the laws and the customs of the well-ordered republic, while still pointing out it would be better if the laws actually provided patronage as well as freedom. So despite the fact that America doesn't have ideal church-state relations, Pope Leo talks about it with great affection and respect. And yet, of all the nations, which was the first to propound religious liberty and freedom of speech and press and association, certainly strong roots in Britain. But first, modern liberal democracy is the United States. And here Leo is talking about it with such affection. So, how does this bear on the contemporary debates? Just two brief observations. With respect to liberalism, you know, I think especially if you see Leo's letters to the American bishops and read the other documents in that context, I think it cuts strongly against uh Patrick Denine's sharp critique of the founding as the font of corrupt contemporary liberalism. You know, uh recognizing the earth limits of early American liberalism, Leo still demonstrates a considerable respect for it. And at some point you have to ask, in fact, practically speaking, what can be done in a deeply pluralistic nation that is overwhelmingly Protestant? You know, uh well, what can be done? The second issue, the interglyphs. You can what's the word I'm groping for? Uh oh. This is what happens when you get to be old. Tweet. Assaults it. Let's put it that way. If you read most integralist evaluation of the United States, it is not a favorable one. You know, it's usually couched in rather harsh language. Invey against it was the word, by the way, that I was groping for for a minute. Uh and I think, again, that this study of Leo cuts against that. You know, yes, the integralists are right to say that it would be superior to have the state, the the civil society, the chivitas, as well as individuals, recognize the truth of the true religion and foster it. Although there's a footnote to that too, which is beware of governments fostering a religion. Because if you look at human history, what you find out is, you know, it's like the old King and I, you remember that musical, you know, that, you know, shall I alig myself with other nations to protect, you know, so they protect me? Might they not protect me out of all I own? You know, this is historically what's happened with a very large number of church state establishments. So I think it's it's a reading Leo this way is a kind of uh suggestion to integralists uh to, in a way, tone down somewhat the hostility toward at least a certain kind of American liberalism. You know, as I say, there's the this sharp difference between the liberalism of the founding and the corrupt contemporary liberalism that we're we're familiar with. Uh but I I in that sense I think understanding Leo XIII properly is gonna help us uh have certain attitudes toward the the contemporary debates about liberalism and integralism. Thank you.

SPEAKER_05 28:14

Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_02 28:20

Thank you so much, Dr. Wolf. And now we're gonna hear from Dr. Bradley.

SPEAKER_00 28:28

I won't need your notes, Chris. Well, Chris Wolfe has managed to distract me as it was probably his plan all along. Uh he most recently mentioned The King and I, uh the musical. I don't know if it's Rogers and Hammerstein, but but now my mind was is flooded with you know pictures, images of Yule Brenner and Deborah Carr. So I'm gonna try to get that out of my mind. And also, something else you don't see every day. You don't every day see a provost pinch hitting for Ryan Anderson. But I feel privileged to be a part of that. But thank you for the introduction, however, brief. Yes. And the privilege of the provost. But thanks to the University of Dallas for sponsoring the occasion. Um and thanks, maybe more than that. Even more, thank you for the really the wonderful and extraordinary students that you've sent us over the years in Notre Dame Law School. One such person is present today, Elizabeth Wilcox, graduated in the class of 2023. Um excellent student, wonderful young woman. Uh and more recent grad was my research assistant last semester, Alexa Hassel. Uh now Karluski. Um, she married Nathan. Um I think that's an argument for keeping your maiden name, by the way. But it's always a treat to share a panel with my friend Chris Wolfe. Uh, rare is the occasion when I'm flanked by someone who has even more children than my eight. Uh, but this is one such occasion. Now, the core of our absent leader's assignment to me, Ryan Anderson's assignment to me, the core of it as I understood the assignment, was to consider whether some aspects of Leo the 13th's teaching about church and state are relevant and perhaps even instructive to the religious liberty issues facing Leo the 14th. Now, I confess that at a first glance I was flummoxed. After all, Leo XIII preached in season and out of season the church's indispensable role in holding a society together. And by church, in this context, Leo had in mind the church's teaching authority. Of the great social question of his day, whereum Navarum is a description of it, Leo XIII said, no practical solution to it will ever be found without the assistance of religion and the church. Doubtless, Leo continued, this most serious question demands the efforts of others besides ourselves, of the rulers of states, of employers of labor, of the wealthy, and of the working population themselves. But we affirm without hesitation that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the church. Now, as Chris, I think, is suggesting in the end, Leo was no integralist. He was not even much of an establishmentarian, maybe a half-hearted or sometimes establishmentarian. He often criticized, it's true, the separation of church and state, in quotes, the separation of church and state. But at least predominantly what he meant by that was, as he wrote in Immatalidei, the dissolution of the concord between the secular and the ecclesiastical authority. And the very next paragraph of Imatali Dei 13, Leo 13, affirmed the separation of jurisdictions, what you might call the two swords, and in questions of what he called mixed jurisdiction, he called for complete harmony between the two authorities, such as suited in the end, such as suited to the end for which each of the powers exists. So I think that what Leo was talking about by and large, and I think what I'm about to say, is in sync, at least what Chris described. His remarks are much more studious and careful. But I think what I'm about to describe as Leo's bottom line is in sync with Chris's remarks. And to the extent they're not, Chris is wrong. And it won't be the first time nor the last. But I think what Leo held out for was Catholic cultural supremacy by dent of moral authority, not what we would call a legal establishment. Now, as far as I can tell, Robert Privost published nothing about public religion. Leo XIII's notion that the magisterium is social glue seems to be beyond his, that is Leo XIV's ken. I'm confident, at least, that 14 would never say, will never say, as did 13 in 1900 in the encyclical letter to Mizy. Leo said, wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance, there the order established by divine providence is preserved. And both security and prosperity are the happy result. As I say, those words I don't think will pass Leo XIV's lips. Now, Pope Leo XIV's only substantial, relevant remarks make it clear that he is a man of the council, that he embraces the council's teaching on indignitarium about each person's natural right to religious liberty. He told the group a few weeks ago, a group called Aid to the Church in Need, that, and I'm quoting uh Privost, Leo XIV, religious freedom allows individuals and communities to seek the truth, to live it freely, and to bear witness to it openly. It is therefore a cornerstone of any just society, for it safeguards the moral space in which conscience may be formed and exercised. True enough, uh close paraphrase of the key passage in the Dinghao Shumane. And yet, though I don't think that that passage, paraphrase as it is from Dingitao Shumane, is at least strictly speaking inconsistent with anything in Leo XIII's teaching. I'm pretty sure those words never passed the lips of the Pope Leo XIII. Oops. At second glance, there may be common ground between the Leos, actually, a bit of a synthesis. And I think that common ground or potential synthesis is Libertas Ecclesiae, the freedom of the church. Here's the opening passage of the gravely neglected second part of Dignitaris Humane, promulgated that document uh almost exactly 60 years ago. This is from part of section 13 of Dignitaris Humane. The second part, the first part I think is commonly described. The first part is about natural reason and philosophical part, and the second part is more strictly Catholic, that is based on revelation, which is, I think, roughly speaking, an accurate division. But this is the beginning of the second part of Dignitaris Humane. Among the things that concern the good of the church, and indeed the welfare of society here on earth, this certainly is preeminent. Namely, that the church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires. Further from Dignitas Humane, the freedom of the church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the church and government and the whole civil order. Now, Leo XIII wrote in 1887 that the church cannot renounce this freedom because it is of the essence of the service which she is bound to render. Go and make disciples of all nations. Indeed, it is so much the property of the church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. This ecclesia must be Leo 14's highest priority. And it's surely the biggest challenge to religious liberty that he faces. But the obstacles to it are daunting. Where should I start? Well, in China, where about 18% of the world's people live, and where the church is compromised by its alliance with an atheistic state? Or should we start with missionary activity among Muslims, a full quarter of the world's population, and with so many of them living in countries with Islamic rulers who forbid proselytization, evangelization? Okay, I'm being brutally frank, but I think the matter should be treated in no other way. But even in countries where religious liberty is legally protected, Muslims, among many others, think of religion as all about submission, conformity, civility. Still many more people think the opposite, what I would call the opposite. Religion is the expression of one's unique identity. But not in either case, religion as the human individual's intelligent, free response to the call of truth. Now, this latter cultural situation is, I think, the Pope's biggest religious liberty challenge in let's just call it the West, especially in the secularized, formerly Christian countries of Europe and North America, as well as Oceania. The second, where religion is an expression of identity. I think that's the biggest challenge in places like this. Not this, this, uh, but America. So now let's look at the few relevant texts of Leo 14 that I could find. Um, they're short, but I will read them. Uh, the few things Leo XIV has said about religious liberty. He won is from his May 16th address to the diplomatic core. This is Leo XIV. Religious and interreligious dialogue can make a fundamental contribution to fostering a climate of peace. This naturally requires full respect for religious freedom in every country, since religious experience is an essential dimension of the human person. Second text. His June twenty first address to members of the international interparliamentary union, whatever that is, the Pope said, of religious freedom and interreligious dialogue. This area has taken on greater significance in the present time, and political life can achieve much by encouraging the conditions for there to be authentic religious freedom, and that a respectful and constructive encounter between different religious communities may develop. Third, and the last for now, a little bit more from that talk a few weeks ago to a group called Aid to the Church in Need. Again, the Pope. Every human being carries within his or her heart a profound longing for truth, for meaning, and for communion with others and with God. This yearning rises from the depths of our being. For this reason, the right to religious freedom is not optional, but essential. Now I submit that what Leo XIV leaves out of these texts, indeed, I'd go further and say that these texts indicate, they don't establish, but they indicate, at least in my view, a certain innocence of what I'm about to describe. Here's what I want to say, and I think that these texts, and Leo the 14th, seems to be innocent of this. Libitox Ecclesiae, as well as the natural right of religious liberty of persons and communities, presupposes for its meaningfulness and requires for its flourishing a culture which treats religion as a zone of truth and not as an enclave of tradition, custom, identity, projections, emotions, and edifying fables. By zone of truth, I mean that the Catholic faith, for example, includes assent to propositions about the way things really are. This is another way of saying that religion is about reality, and that the different faiths are different accounts of that reality, including those parts of reality which are impervious to measurement and invisible to the eye and not available to the touch. These are invisible realities which can be known, if at all, sometimes through God's self-revelation. Religion is answerable to the truth about the universe, such as we can come to understand it, and to logical coherence with what we know with certitude to be true. Now, Pope Leo XIV is exactly right to worry over the space that genuine religious liberty needs. But this space is not a vacuum. The space around us includes an overarching narrative that's taken for granted by almost everyone in society. It's wallpaper that shows you what it is that the religious quest. Is actually about, and what religious liberty is actually seeking. In our culture, that space obscures truth with such alluring impostures as the contemporary right to establish one's bespoke mental universe, and by doing so, thereby to live authentically. Now, Pope Leo the Fourteenth emphasizes interreligious dialogue, religious experience, and a philosophical anthropology which stresses the profound longing in each human heart for meaning. These are not untrue, but they devalue and obscure the truth about truth that's essential to religious liberty. The Pontius' paramount, or at least leading, concern in these texts that I've referred to already, actually seems to be downstream political effects of religious liberty. Here's a little bit more from what he told the diplomats in May. Truth, then, does not create division, but rather enables us to confront all the more resolutely the challenges of our time, such as migration, the ethical use of artificial intelligence, and the protection of our beloved planet Earth. Now, this is perilously close to instrumentalizing the truth about God and instrumentalizing religious liberty. But to instrumentalize the search for truth is to relativize the truth itself. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his address to the Curia at Christmas time of 2010, quoting Benedict, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth, it thus becomes a canonization of relativism. So, in conclusion, and all too bluntly, erase truth from any society's picture of religion and you decapitate religious freedom and the r and render the duty to make disciples nearly senseless. For you cannot convince someone of the truth of Catholicism if they're convinced by their culture that religion is simply not the kind of thing that is either true or false. You cannot be a disciple as opposed to a member or follower, save where one cleaves to the faith as true. And really, how much of the faith, the Catholic faith, I'm saying now, how much of that faith could be embraced on any other basis? I mean, no one wants to believe in mortal sin and hell and that Satan and all the evil spirits prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. The only rational basis for any decent person to affirm these and so many other sobering, fateful truths, is to be convinced, even if reluctantly, that they are indeed true.

SPEAKER_02 47:37

Thank you so much, Dr. Bradley and Dr. Wolfe. We are entering now into a period of um of questions and answers. Um I've um I'm impressed um by the spectrum of views that we uh heard uh both on Pope Leo XIII and now Leo the Fourteenth. I think the um well um the different characters of both popes thinking um has become apparent. Um at the same time, I mean for for me as someone who is surely not an expert of either of the popes, well, there hasn't been much time to become an expert of Leo the XIV, I would say. But um it um it is uh really uh encouraging to hear how much more faceted, I think, the thinking of Pope Leo XIII is than it has been described oftentimes in the popular arena, uh whenever people even talk anymore about Leo the Thirteenth. So um but uh in any event, um so I will not start with the question. I will give the open the floor for others to do so. Please.

SPEAKER_06 48:44

Uh I'm wondering if you could both say more about why I should be more interested in what these popes have to say about um these questions, because you're a good Catholic, Dan? Uh that's my question, but I'm not, because uh it seems to me you've both shown at some length that uh among in the range of debated questions among American Catholics in 2021, 2025, sorry, the 21st century. Um you can find passages from any of these popes to support any view that's within at least the respectable range of these debated views, and you can find passages that contradict them. You can find and you know, the the that great I forget what it was, but the quote that you read, Dr. Bradley, just said, you know, this this would not be in the mouth of Leo the 14th. I mean, we can we know these these passages in order to say that whenever whatever our view is, in order to say that it's compatible with such and such a pope, we always at least end up leaning hard on some caveats. And I'm all for leaning hard on some caveats, but it just seems inevitably we're reading in these through the lens of opinions that we've gotten from elsewhere. Uh and it doesn't seem to me that ultimately these popes can can settle the kinds of questions we actually debate. And I'll just throw out one more thing. Dr. Wolf, you emphasize the tone of one of these. And that's interesting too, the tone of Leo, or more likely his ghostwriter for this particular essay, for this particular encyclical. But then you can look at Francis' tone, and we all know what he thinks about this country, and he doesn't like this country. Uh so you can go through different popes. You can you can look at the text and you end up leading in the caveats, or you can look at the tone, and the tone changes because different popes have different feelings, and I don't really feel bound by my pope's feelings, but anything. So, why should these documents matter? Why shouldn't we just read other things that actually help us get somewhere on these debates that we have?

SPEAKER_01 50:25

If you care about what Leo XIII thinks and is trying to teach, I think the uh what he says in the letters, in what I would regard as such an affectionate tone, has a real bearing on how we would interpret other parts of Leo. And especially some people want to say that Leo just hated liberalism, which is true if you understand liberalism in a certain way, but this the letter makes it, I think, utterly clear that he doesn't think America is such a liberal regime that deserves harsh criticism. And so I think that matters. Uh, you know, uh whether or not uh Leo XIII was a very harsh critic of liberalism. Uh and I think, you know, if you attend to the what I described, you you you have to end up recognizing that there are different kinds of liberalism and that the the kind that that Leo was very harsh about was quite different from our own, which I think is kind of important, you know. I uh when I'm trying to figure out, you know, what kind of you know political principles does the church want to encourage me to hold, to take. Uh I think that's important. You know, I I don't think encyclicals are you know likely to resolve any questions, to settle questions other than very broad ones, they're gonna still use, leave just a huge number of uh unsettled questions, you know, prudential questions. So I I guess I don't I look to those, to the papal encyclicals for a kind of framework. And that's sometimes tough too, because the framework has evolved, you know, uh and that's a problem. You know, Catholics have to, Catholic scholars, I think, especially have to kind of try to to work with that and try to determine has there really been a shift in what the church teaches? If so, what's the nature of that shift? What's the reason for the shift? Uh is the shift entirely good? Uh so you know I I don't expect I I don't have, I think, excessively high expectations for what I can get from encyclicals, but I think I can get something important there, you know, and especially from Leo. Leo was because he was a Thomist, I think, was a really smart guy. Although he was writing writing for a very different, you know, uh very different time, a very different society. And that colors, I think, what he wrote very much.

SPEAKER_00 53:17

Well, just also briefly, I mean, I I think it's quite right. I think I'm just gonna put it one way, to accept your invitation to anybody who wants to talk about either of the Leos, especially Louis XIII, that you really need to take a look at the whole body of work if one is going to talk about the heart of Leo's teaching. Or in the end, he wasn't an integralist and claims of that sort which we're making. Because any particular document, I don't I don't know if I'd go quite as far as as perhaps you do, in thinking that the documents can be made to say anything. Um I don't think we're going to get Leo XIII to be a communist or advocate of free love, I don't think.

SPEAKER_06 53:54

I said among respectable opinions in 2025. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 53:58

So, but but I think you need to look at all this stuff. And he can, but each one of them could be read as an historical artifact. That is to say, Longinqua, I think, had a certain effect upon what the bishops in America did and said, and probably in turn what the faithful did and said. And then the the reaction against Americanism seems like it's almost written by a different mind, different pen. So, but you can look at each one of them as for historical significance. But I think probably you'll find um, you know, really underlying um bedrock, uh, probably in almost any one of them. Uh but if I'm even slightly on the right track and wondering exactly when Leo XIV is gonna just start talking about the faith being true. That's just the way it is, then that that is a concern.

SPEAKER_05 54:51

Actually, something you're following, but um primarily to Chris could you see if you want. I think you're right, Chris, in your reading about Judah if Catholics could be proud, that would be a moment that Catholic Catholic Americans could be proud. Okay. So I wonder if the something of the tension that you point out there uh might be explained by saying something like uh if Leo endorsed something like the idea that the founders built better than so that the political and legal structure which he praises, um one might differentiate that from whatever the shards of liberalism that you rightly point out he would reject uh like my true problem.

SPEAKER_01 55:40

Yeah, uh I don't want to drive, you know, when they said when people say the founders built better than they knew, you know, what when they're talking about the founders, they're often talking about Madison and Jefferson, other leading intellectuals and the founders. And when I approach liberalism in general, I want to look at it not just as political theory, but as actually the way people live, the way a society lives. And so I think uh when I look at America in 1776 or 1789, one of the things I really emphasize is the distinction between the American Constitution capital C and the American Constitution Small C. And the latter one includes so many more things than the the former one does. You know, it includes all the states and what the states did, which was the vast majority of government at the time of the founding, and which includes things like religion and morality, uh all kinds of morality, uh especially family morality, but other kinds as well. So uh let's say Americans, you know, and and there are people, even among the leading founders, who you can see this in more, you can see it in James Wilson and his discussion of the common law, for example, because again, he's not focused just on the American constitutional capital C, which remember had very limited purposes. You know, it took some power from the state so that you know we could fight wars and conduct foreign affairs and have a kind of framework for the economy. You know, but that was such a small part of American life. I mean, really important, but a small part. And so that's, you know, uh, so I tend to have a much more uh benevolent view of the liberalism of the American founding than other people would, like Patrick Denis focuses almost entirely on Hobbes and Locke. That's what he means when he talks about liberalism. And that's just one strand among a variety of others that contribute to the American founding. So I think I think we should appreciate the good that liberalism has, although recognize still at the same time, you know, the limits of it. And that the church does remind us of this. Ideally, it would be nice to have a regime, you know, where there was not just tolerance and liberty, but some you know broader kind of patronage as well. Although always with that caveat that you really have to watch when somebody's helping you. When a when a government is helping you, you really have to watch out uh for the uh potential dangers of that.

SPEAKER_04 58:33

Thank you both for uh your presentation. Very good. Um I think my question is maybe oriented more to Dr. Bradley. I'm thinking about let me put the question very straightforward. Do you think that the connection of truth to religion is something that is proper to Christianity? And if that's the case, or at least was highlighted by Christianity in a pretty extreme way. And if that's the case, what does that make of the bringing of the question of truth to religion as the fundamental way to think about religion? In especially the kinds of context that I think Leo XIV is concerned with, talking to people of other religions where truth might not be the fundamental category within which they're even thinking about religion.

SPEAKER_00 59:22

Well, I think I would be among the first to observe that for all too many people today, not only in the developed West, but in other parts of the world, religion is not about truth. It's not about the way things really are, about divine realities and what they actually have to do and how they relate to humankind. I think that's true, uh true enough, um, but I think that's sort of characteristic of our time, but not of very many other times in human history. Because no matter how primitive seeming to us, uh older or perhaps contemporary, but very exotic seeming religious systems seem to us, uh, whether it's the pantheism of Native American spirituality or the kind of fuzziness about the nature of the divine realities you find in Buddhism, um, I do think that they're all trafficking in the truth about a greater than human source of meaning, power, vitality, energy, and how we're gonna get in line with that or be opposed to that. And depending on whether we're in line or out of line, things are gonna go better or worse for us. Now, I think that's fundamentally the religious thing, and I think it probably is characteristic of most religions most times in human history. I don't myself know what to make of descriptions of whether it's Roman or Greek religion and Greek gods, but the descriptions that come to us are by persons, you know, philosophers, writers, who I think understood them to be metaphors or fables. Um I think even those religious systems, such as they were, were probably taken to represent uh reality uh for those who adhere to them, maybe with some allowance for a metaphor or I mean, even in Christianity, there's metaphor and parables, and not everything in scripture is to be taken to be an historical account. So you probably have that element of fictionalized teaching in many, many religions, but nonetheless woven into something that's a story about reality.

unknown 1:01:41

Dr.

SPEAKER_00 1:01:42

Ronnie Gunn.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:43

Um I'm gonna do the really doctors thing and make one comment and then a question. So I apologize in advance. But just because I want to dovetail your point, uh Professor Wolfe, which is what we mean by liberalism today, most of the time, is just not what Leo XIII meant by liberalism. And what he's condemning in those 19th-century documents is really a metaphysical and an anthropological mistake. At least that's its deedious root, that the human being is a law unto himself. There's nothing higher than the human will, and I become the final arbiter of all that is true and false and good and evil. And then when that becomes extended onto the level of the state, that's what separation of church and state is kind of rooted in, this idea that the state is now the sort of totalitarian mortal god, it's kind of the Hansian state, which then allows for no authority and no truth higher than itself. So when he's condemning liberalism, he's really condemning something very specific. And it's just it's a very different thing than what we mean by liberalism in that sort of let's say context of limited government, which is republican in its structure, which respects what we're gonna call natural rights and natural duties. So there that I think there's just when those are run together, as if he's condemning something specifically American, it's just he's just talking about a very different understanding of that word, liberalism. And he's condemning by separation of churches, saying something very different in the American context. And when he says that, you know, that I mean you've done a good job, I'm just saying, I think that's got to be drilled down on even more because the tension evaporates in some ways, when you just see he's talking about different realities here. So anyway, just the comment, I think that's a really important point. But the other question, though, is about freedom of religion. I mean, it seems to me that the classical tomistic idea of natural law, that you know you've got a natural inclination to know the truth about God. And that natural inclination, of course, is sort of flowing from or is constituent of your freedom. I mean, that's the seems to me that's the deepest foundation for something like a freedom of religion. And it seems to me if you have that kind of a back to the anthological point, if that's the foundation for freedom of religion, then you can cut out all of these other problems and abuses. So I guess I'm just wondering, does it really come back to teaching this is a JP2 movement in some ways? Does it come back to just teaching the truth about what the human person is? And that there is this natural order to know the truth about God, but it has to be free because it's an expression of the human will.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:05

I mean, I think I agree, at least with most of it, Scott. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what I think of some of what you said. Um the ways in which I'm not sure. The reason why I'm not sure are twofold. One is that, at least certainly as I understand Dignita Shumani, and then my own view happens to be that in the first instance, religious liberty is founded in a duty, not a longing, not an impetus, not something inside of me. It's a duty to seek out the truth about divine realities, to deliberate and judge what's true, and then to align myself with it, with the truth as I understand it. So that's the, I don't know if you say that's the source, but I think that's the substance of the liberty. Um, whether it corresponds to a universal or nearly universal impetus or desire to know the truth about God, it may that you know may well be true. Um, but I I doubt it's universally true. Um I observe plenty of people seem to be getting along okay in our world today without wondering too much about God. So that part of it is not it's more than a quibble, but it's probably an argument, if it's an argument, about where people are at and what the numbers and percentages are. And I don't know too much about that. But I do think the fundamental drive is duty. And I don't know how far you can get with an impetus or urge or quest without a conviction about there being truth. Um and I think that's the other part of where I'm not sure if I'm resisting or just qualifying what you said. I I I don't think it's exactly what Benedict said. I quoted something from the talk to the curate at Christmas time 2010. He didn't quite say this, but maybe you could take what he did say and add a friendly amendment that if you engage in the religious quest, which I think the religious quest, I think Benedict reflected. Referred to as sort of um a kind of natural religious liberty, the quest. Um but it's only the conviction of knowing that there's a font of truth or that there is truth is really what pulls a kind of natural inclination out of you and makes it a duty, makes it a real moral duty.

SPEAKER_02 1:06:24

Thank you uh to all who asked questions, and primarily, of course, to our presenters for first panel on uh state and religious uh freedom. Um I'm happy to conclude with the observation that it's nice to hear a Pope say something positive about the United States of America. I think that's even though it's been a long time ago.

SPEAKER_01 1:06:45

Um John Paul II was full of it.

SPEAKER_02 1:06:48

He was, yeah, that's right.

SPEAKER_01 1:06:49

You see, his talks when he came to America. I remember being at Grant Park listening to his homily, which is one of the greatest masterpieces of rhetoric that I have ever listened to or read, because he started out with a pluribus unum, and he just praised America for its capacity to bring unity. And then he went from there to the need for unity in the church, which it which was a serious issue that you know the the church had to grapple with. Uh so it's it it's not just Leo. No. Uh it's been more recently as well.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:26

More reason to be confident that there's something right um about this country. And uh, well, you know, I mean, uh being a Platonist, uh, of course, um I'm very familiar with the decay of constitutions, and it ends up with democracy as the second worst uh possible form of human political life. And uh the foil against which I think one has to read, uh that I think it was the suggestion yesterday by Scott Reiniger, um, the the praise of the United States by Leo XIII is also um the uh the French Revolution, right? I mean, uh in the United States there is an example of a republic that actually is favorable to religion as opposed to the French Republic that was inimical uh to religion um and religious freedom uh for sure.