vidual or to a group in society, it is almost a tragic logic by which the state will end up denying the right of free speech, free association, and freedom of conscience. When one looks at religious liberty and other human rights, therefore, two conclusions follow from this analysis: First, we would argue that you should not separate the right of religious liberty from other human rights, and I think that is a consensual statement among people who work in the field. Second, religious liberty, because it is connected to other human rights, can have powerful political consequences, especially in situations where a totalitarian or authoritarian state seeks to surpress the rights of the person. Our own experience in this area does not lead us to think that there is an enormous difference in the practical order between totalitarian and authoritarian states when the right of religious liberty comes into question. Precisely because one reverence the right of religious liberty, one cannot allow a state, totalitarian or authoritarian, to claim total possession of the person or of the religious community. Therefore, to stand for religious liberty is almost inevitably to stand against the state that has either totalitarian or authoritarian pretentions. Let me look very briefly at the content of religious freedom, as it is understood in the Catholic tradition. The clearest exposition of this is in the Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty. Professor Clark mentioned the history of religious liberty, and our community, as I expect other religious communities, but I speak for my own, has had a checkered history on this. It took us a long time to come to the clarity of statement in principle about the right of religious liberty that one finds in the Vatican II document. I cite the document because it tends to speak of religious liberty in terms that are very similar to the two points that Professor Clark just made. Namely, if religious liberty is a personal right, then it is a personal right with social implications. And it is usually the social implications that are the troublesome implications for governments. More specifically, the right of religious liberty can be understood in terms of two categories: First, a freedom of conscience, which is the personal dimension of the right; and second, the free exercise of religion. Freedom of conscience is the right of each person to be immune from all external coercion in his or her right search for God. The right is radically personal, but it is also ultimately social, because the search for God almost inevitably means to find a community in which one searches for God. That is the social dimension of the right. To grant freedom of conscience, therefore, logically leads one to the question of whether you will grant free exercise of religion. And that is the social dimension of the right. Free exercise of religion has three component elements. The first is what is called ecclesial freedom in the Catholic tradition. This is the immunity from legal or political coercion which protects the religious institution as an institution. It calls for the right to establish schools, the right to communicate with ecclesial communities in other lands, and the right to make public statements about political issues. The right of religious association is the counterpart to ecclesial freedom. It affirms the person's right, not only to search for religious truth, but to join communities which assist that search for religious truth. The third element in the free exercise of religion is the freedom of religious expression. This right affirms religious organizations' right to be free from coercion in fulfilling a whole range of activities, running from worship to teaching. And when the teaching moves into the area of sociopolitical questions, that is precisely the point at which the social exercise of religious liberty becomes a problem for a range of governments. Let me then conclude by looking at three cases where this understanding of religious liberty influences the ministry in the Catholic Church today-three very different situations-and highlights the significance, I think, of religious liberty and international relations today-particularly for the international system, and then subordinately, for U.S. policy in the international system. My purpose is not to examine the three cases in detail, but to use them as functional examples of how the social right of the exercise of religious liberty is today not only an important moral and religious truth, but a significant political truth. The three case are Poland, Latin America, and Lebanon. In Poland, the Catholic Church's pivotal role in the Polish crisis is included in almost every analysis made in the situation. Without entering a detailed examination of the political forces at work in Poland, this testimony focuses on the way in which religious liberty establishes the basis for the church's action in the public arena. The church in Poland is clearly a religious force, acting as a teacher and mediator in a conflicted situation. The point to be clear about, however, is that its right to speak in a public way is rooted in its conception of religious freedom, the free exercise of religion, the social dimension of the religious right. The church uses this free exercise right to raise its voice in matters of public policy. The church's defense of the person, the personal right of religious liberty, and the other human rights that are associated with it, moves it to address those restrictions or suppression of rights which are essential for human dignity. It is in this context that the church has opposed the imposition of martial law and specifically has supported the right of laborers to organize in free trade unions. My point is, the right of religious liberty is directly connected with the right of people to organize in other associations like trade unions. The Polish case illustrates the interdependence of rights; because of the church's social conception of religious freedom, it joins the defense and exercise of this right to the protection of other human rights. Today in Poland, the institution of the church and the institution of the labor movement are joined together in the name of freedom against state power. Latin America provides a contrasting case. In Poland, the church is confronted by a government of the left; in Latin America it confronts most often governments of the right. The political and ideological coloration of the regimes vary drastically from Poland, but the dynamic of the church-state conflict is remarkably similar. In each case, the church refuses to allow an authoritarian regime the right to subordinate the human person to its purposes. In Poland, the church opposes the government because it suppresses the rights of workers. In Brazil, the church stands with workers in their struggle to form unions under a labor law which resembles fascist corporatism. The examples of the church in Brazil in the 1960's and Chile in the 1970's provide illustrations of the linkage of religious freedom and the protection and promotion of human rights. In both cases, Brazil and Chile, the Catholic Church found itself as perhaps the single social institution capable of withstanding the power of the state. As those two governments closed down political parties, restricted the freedom of the press, suppressed unions, interdicted universities, often the church was left as the one institution with power capable of standing against the state. As the church addressed violations of human rights, as it spoke about human rights other than religious liberty, about the right of freedom of expession, freedom of speech, freedom of association, as it spoke in those terms, it came under suppression from the government. It came under what the church in Chile called presecution, and has called persecution. I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter received only in the past week at the U.S. Catholic Conference from a number of missionaries in Chile who are very alarmed at the present time about the Government's efforts to place restrictions upon the entry of missionaries into the country and their ability to stay in the country. This is the most recent request we received after a decade of them, and I would like to submit that for the record with your permission. Mr. BONKER. Without objection, so ordered. [The information follows:] January 15, 1982 Most Rev. Thomas C. Kelly, O.P. Dear Bishop Kelly, 20005 Fle 11902 The enclosed documentation was prepared by a committee representing more than 70 foreign missioners from various nations (United States, England, Ireland, Spain, Italy, France, Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand), as well as their Chilean confreres. All are currently working in the poor marginated areas of Santiago, Chile. We decided as a group to send this documentation to our respective Episcopal Conference. The documentation focuses on the actions of the Chilean government to expel or to threaten the expulsion of priests, religious, and lay persons who are referred to as foreign missioners. Their permanent residency status has been revoked and they have been issued a temporary visa of three months duration or they have been refused the petition of permanent residency following the prescribed period of temporary residency. The documentation includes: -a summary of individual cases to date. -correspondence between the superiors of religious congregations -a letter of the parish community of Renca to Cardinal Silva -a letter of the group of foreign missioners to the Episcopal -an article entitled Religion and the National Security State We wish to inform the United States Episcopal Conference of this emerging pattern of persecution of the Chilean Church and to ask your support in combating these totalitarian measures which threaten the life and liberty of the local Church. Our esteemed Cardinal Archbishop of Santiago, Raúl Silva Henríquez met with us on December 21, 1981 to inform us of the protests that he has personally presented to the Minister of the Interior, the liaison for ChurchState relations, and to the President of the Republic and all has been an exercise in futility. In our reflection with the Cardinal it was acknowledged that the division within the local Episcopal Conference often stymies public Church response to the totalitarian acts of the current regime. We are also aware that the public support of the United States government enhances the unjust position of the regime. We have been encouraged by the recent and clear solidarity of the United States Bishops with the Latin American Church and with the United States missionaries working here. This has been evident since the assassination of the four women missionaries in El Salvador. The recent visit to Chile by Archbishop Ignatius Strecker, Bishop Mark Hurley, Bishop Joseph Sullivan, and Mr. Thomas Quigley was another indication of the support and interest that we have felt from the United States Episcopal Conference. In light of the above we again turn to you for your support. We ask that you recognize this persistent harrassment of missionaries as a calculated effort of the Chilean government to undermine the pastoral efforts in behalf of the poor and the marginated of Chile. Recently in his presidential statement to the United States Bishops, Archbishop John Roach reiterated the thought of John Paul II when he stated: "In the language of the Council (Vatican II) the task of the Church in the political order is to stand as the sign and safeguard of the dignity of the person. To fulfill this role in a political context requires that the Church not only teach moral truths about the person, it must also join in the public debate where policies are shaped, programs developed and decisions taken which directly touch the rights of the person locally, nationally, internationally." In Chile we are deprived of a participative role by the policies and procedures of a totalitarian regime. Therefore, we ask you as the Secretary of the United States Episcopal Conference to present our concern to the appropriate body. We are confident that you will discern the best means to defend the right to evangelize the poor and marginated of Chile. |