The Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, having received the opinion of the
Pontifical Council for the Laity, has decided that it would be
appropriate to publish the present Doctrinal Note on some
questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political
life. This Note is directed to the Bishops of the Catholic
Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all
lay members of the faithful called to participate in the
political life of democratic societies.
I.
A constant teaching
1. The commitment of Christians in the world has found a variety of
expressions in the course of the past 2000 years. One such
expression has been Christian involvement in political life:
Christians, as one Early Church writer stated, «play their full role
as citizens».[1] Among
the saints, the Church venerates many men and women who served God
through their generous commitment to politics and government. Among
these, Saint Thomas More, who was proclaimed Patron of Statesmen and
Politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to «the inalienable
dignity of the human conscience».[2] Though
subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, Saint Thomas
More refused to compromise, never forsaking the «constant fidelity
to legitimate authority and institutions» which distinguished him;
he taught by his life and his death that «man cannot be separated
from God, nor politics from morality».[3]
It
is commendable that in today’s democratic societies, in a climate of
true freedom, everyone is made a participant in directing the body
politic.[4] Such
societies call for new and fuller forms of participation in public
life by Christian and non-Christian citizens alike. Indeed, all can
contribute, by voting in elections for lawmakers and government
officials, and in other ways as well, to the development of
political solutions and legislative choices which, in their opinion,
will benefit the common good.[5] The
life of a democracy could not be productive without the active,
responsible and generous involvement of everyone, «albeit in a
diversity and complementarity of forms, levels, tasks, and
responsibilities».[6]
By
fulfilling their civic duties, «guided by a Christian conscience»,[7]
in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their
proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values,
all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that
order,[8]
and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular
competence and responsibility.[9] The
consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican
Council is that «the lay faithful are never to relinquish their
participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different
economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas,
which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the
common good».[10] This
would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public
order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and
for the environment, justice and solidarity.
The present Note does not seek to set out the entire teaching
of the Church on this matter, which is summarized in its essentials
in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church,
but intends only to recall some principles proper to the Christian
conscience, which inspire the social and political involvement of
Catholics in democratic societies.[11] The
emergence of ambiguities or questionable positions in recent times,
often because of the pressure of world events, has made it necessary
to clarify some important elements of Church teaching in this area.
II.
Central points in the current cultural and political debate
2. Civil
society today is undergoing a complex cultural process as the end of
an era brings with it a time of uncertainty in the face of something
new. The great strides made in our time give evidence of humanity’s
progress in attaining conditions of life which are more in keeping
with human dignity. The growth in the sense of responsibility
towards countries still on the path of development is without doubt
an important sign, illustrative of a greater sensitivity to the
common good. At the same time, however, one cannot close one’s eyes
to the real dangers which certain tendencies in society are
promoting through legislation, nor can one ignore the effects this
will have on future generations.
A
kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the
conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which
sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the
principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual
to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical
pluralism is the very condition for democracy.[12] As
a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their
moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this
freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of
natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends,[13]
as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the
same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a
large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to
base their contribution to society and political life – through the
legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their
particular understanding of the human person and the common
good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those
citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and
with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature
of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the
common good and the state.
3. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate
freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political
opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law,
and to select, according to their own criteria, what best
corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is
not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all
conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and
truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very
concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given
historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural
contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety
of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and
solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific
political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as
the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the
free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the
Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal
matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.[14] If
Christians must «recognize the legitimacy of differing points of
view about the organization of worldly affairs«,[15]
they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a
conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy
must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable
ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.
On
the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a
plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise –
especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to
contribute to the public life of their country.[16] This
arises because of the contingent nature of certain choices regarding
the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for
accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the
possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of
political theory, and the technical complexity of many political
problems. It should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous
pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values. The
legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the
commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to
Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this
teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in
political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent
responsibility for temporal reality.
The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of
the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it
succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct
understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic
involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle,
for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as
well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be
non-existent. The democratic structures on which the modern state is
based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality
of the human person. It is respect for the person that makes
democratic participation possible. As the Second Vatican Council
teaches, the protection of «the rights of the person is, indeed, a
necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to
play an active part in public life and administration».[18]
4.
The complex array of today’s problems branches out from here,
including some never faced by past generations. Scientific progress
has resulted in advances that are unsettling for the consciences of
men and women and call for solutions that respect ethical principles
in a coherent and fundamental way. At the same time, legislative
proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for
the existence and future of human beings with regard to the
formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very
inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation,
have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper
understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in
this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the
Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly
involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation
to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for
every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for
them.[19] As
John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter
Evangelium vitae
regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or
completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force
or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute
personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could
licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by
such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level
of general opinion and public morality».[20]
In this
context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian
conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an
individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith
and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is
incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of
the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single
isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust
one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic
think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather,
the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth
about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.
When political activity comes up against moral principles that do
not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic
commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In
the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands,
Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of
the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human
person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and
euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo
extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such
laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural
death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to
respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously,
the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on
monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its
unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way
can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as
marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same
is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of
their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must
consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from
modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for
example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom
and the development of an economy that is at the service of
the human person and of the common good, with respect for social
justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity,
according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and
organizations and their practical implementation must be
acknowledged».[21] Finally,
the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic
and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of
peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary
ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues
involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of
charity».[22] It
demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism
and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all
political leaders.
III.
Principles of Catholic doctrine on the autonomy of the temporal
order and on pluralism.
5. While
a plurality of methodologies reflective of different sensibilities
and cultures can be legitimate in approaching such questions, no
Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy
of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting
the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical
requirements. This is not a question of «confessional values» per
se, because such ethical precepts are rooted in human nature
itself and belong to the natural moral law. They do not require from
those who defend them the profession of the Christian faith,
although the Church’s teaching confirms and defends them always and
everywhere as part of her service to the truth about man and about
the common good of civil society. Moreover, it cannot be denied that
politics must refer to principles of absolute value precisely
because these are at the service of the dignity of the human person
and of true human progress.
6.
The appeal often made to «the rightful autonomy of the
participation of lay Catholics» in politics needs to be
clarified. Promoting the common good of society, according to one’s
conscience, has nothing to do with «confessionalism» or
religious intolerance. For Catholic moral doctrine, the rightful
autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and
the Church – but not from that of morality – is a value that
has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs
to inheritance of contemporary civilization.[23] John
Paul II has warned many times of the dangers which follow from
confusion between the religious and political spheres. «Extremely
sensitive situations arise when a specifically religious norm
becomes or tends to become the law of a state without due
consideration for the distinction between the domains proper to
religion and to political society. In practice, the identification
of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even
going so far as to restrict or deny other inalienable human rights».[24] All
the faithful are well aware that specifically religious activities
(such as the profession of faith, worship, administration of
sacraments, theological doctrines, interchange between religious
authorities and the members of religions) are outside the state’s
responsibility. The state must not interfere, nor in any way require
or prohibit these activities, except when it is a question of public
order. The recognition of civil and political rights, as well as the
allocation of public services may not be made dependent upon
citizens’ religious convictions or activities.
The
right and duty of Catholics and all citizens to seek the truth with
sincerity and to promote and defend, by legitimate means, moral
truths concerning society, justice, freedom, respect for human life
and the other rights of the person, is something quite
different. The fact that some of these truths may also be taught by
the Church does not lessen the political legitimacy or the rightful
«autonomy» of the contribution of those citizens who are committed
to them, irrespective of the role that reasoned inquiry or
confirmation by the Christian faith may have played in recognizing
such truths. Such «autonomy» refers first of all to the attitude of
the person who respects the truths that derive from natural
knowledge regarding man’s life in society, even if such truths may
also be taught by a specific religion, because truth is one. It
would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised
by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that
prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.
By
its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not
wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion
of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends –
as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the
consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in
political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral
promotion of the human person and the common good. The social
doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of
individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to
be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and
indivisible. «There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence:
on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and
demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is,
life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the
responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch,
engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every
sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay
faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of
God, who desires that these very areas be the ‘places in time’ where
the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of
the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation,
every precise responsibility – as, for example, skill and solidarity
in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of
children, service to society and public life and the promotion of
truth in the area of culture – are the occasions ordained by
providence for a ‘continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity’ (Apostolicam
actuositatem, 4)».[25] Living
and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of
politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or
some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians
offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life,
society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity
of the human person.
In
democratic societies, all proposals are freely discussed and
examined. Those who, on the basis of respect for individual
conscience, would view the moral duty of Christians to act according
to their conscience as something that disqualifies them from
political life, denying the legitimacy of their political
involvement following from their convictions about the common good,
would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. Such a
position would seek to deny not only any engagement of Christianity
in public or political life, but even the possibility of natural
ethics itself. Were this the case, the road would be open to moral
anarchy, which would be anything but legitimate pluralism. The
oppression of the weak by the strong would be the obvious
consequence. The marginalization of Christianity, moreover, would
not bode well for the future of society or for consensus among
peoples; indeed, it would threaten the very spiritual and cultural
foundations of civilization.[26]
IV.
Considerations regarding particular aspects
7. In
recent years, there have been cases within some organizations
founded on Catholic principles, in which support has been given to
political forces or movements with positions contrary to the moral
and social teaching of the Church on fundamental ethical
questions. Such activities, in contradiction to basic principles of
Christian conscience, are not compatible with membership in
organizations or associations which define themselves as
Catholic. Similarly, some Catholic periodicals in certain countries
have expressed perspectives on political choices that have been
ambiguous or incorrect, by misinterpreting the idea of the political
autonomy enjoyed by Catholics and by not taking into consideration
the principles mentioned above.
Faith in
Jesus Christ, who is «the way, the truth, and the life»(Jn
14:6), calls Christians to exert a greater effort in building a
culture which, inspired by the Gospel, will reclaim the values and
contents of the Catholic Tradition. The presentation of the fruits
of the spiritual, intellectual and moral heritage of Catholicism in
terms understandable to modern culture is a task of great urgency
today, in order to avoid also a kind of Catholic cultural diaspora.
Furthermore, the cultural achievements and mature experience of
Catholics in political life in various countries, especially since
the Second World War, do not permit any kind of ‘inferiority
complex’ in comparison with political programs which recent history
has revealed to be weak or totally ruinous. It is insufficient and
reductive to think that the commitment of Catholics in society can
be limited to a simple transformation of structures, because if at
the basic level there is no culture capable of receiving, justifying
and putting into practice positions deriving from faith and morals,
the changes will always rest on a weak foundation.
Christian faith has never presumed to impose a rigid framework on
social and political questions, conscious that the historical
dimension requires men and women to live in imperfect situations,
which are also susceptible to rapid change. For this reason,
Christians must reject political positions and activities inspired
by a utopian perspective which, turning the tradition of Biblical
faith into a kind of prophetic vision without God, makes ill use of
religion by directing consciences towards a hope which is merely
earthly and which empties or reinterprets the Christian striving
towards eternal life.
At
the same time, the Church teaches that authentic freedom does not
exist without the truth. «Truth and freedom either go together hand
in hand or together they perish in misery».[27] In
a society in which truth is neither mentioned nor sought, every form
of authentic exercise of freedom will be weakened, opening the way
to libertine and individualistic distortions and undermining the
protection of the good of the human person and of the entire
society.
8. In this regard, it is helpful to recall a truth which today is
often not perceived or formulated correctly in public opinion: the
right to freedom of conscience and, in a special way, to religious
freedom, taught in the Declaration
Dignitatis humanae
of the Second Vatican Council, is based on the ontological dignity
of the human person and not on a non-existent equality among
religions or cultural systems of human creation.[28] Reflecting
on this question, Paul VI taught that «in no way does the Council
base this right to religious freedom on the fact that all religions
and all teachings, including those that are erroneous, would have
more or less equal value; it is based rather on the dignity of the
human person, which demands that he not be subjected to external
limitations which tend to constrain the conscience in its search for
the true religion or in adhering to it».[29] The
teaching on freedom of conscience and on religious freedom does not
therefore contradict the condemnation of indifferentism and
religious relativism by Catholic doctrine;[30]
on the contrary, it is fully in accord with it.
V.
Conclusion
9.
The principles contained in the present Note are intended to
shed light on one of the most important aspects of the unity of
Christian life: coherence between faith and life, Gospel and
culture, as recalled by the Second Vatican Council. The Council
exhorted Christians «to fulfill their duties faithfully in the
spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have
here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are
entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget
that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these
responsibilities according to the vocation of each... May
Christians...be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly
activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic,
professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious
values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the
glory of God».[31]
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience
of November 21, 2002, approved the present Note, adopted in the
Plenary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome,
from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
November 24, 2002, the Solemnity of Christ the King.
X
Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
X
Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
[1]
Letter to Diognetus,
5,5; Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2240.
[2]
John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio
Proclaiming Saint Thomas More Patron of Statesmen and
Politicians, 1: AAS 93 (2001), 76.
[3]
Ibid., 4.
[4]
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et spes, 31;
Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1915.
[5]
Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et spes, 75.
[6]
John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation,
Christifideles laici, 42: AAS
81 (1989), 472. The present doctrinal
Note refers to the involvement in
political life of lay members of the
faithful. The Bishops of the Church have the
right and the duty to set out the moral
principles relating to the social order;
«Nevertheless active participation in
political parties is reserved to the lay
faithful» (ibid., 60). Cf.
Congregation for the Clergy, Directory
for the Ministry and Life of Priests
(March 31, 1994), 33.
[7]
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et spes, 76.
[8]
Cf. Second Vatican Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et
spes, 36.
[9]
Cf. Second Vatican
Council, Decree Apostolicam
actuositatem, 7; Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen gentium,
36; Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et spes, 31 and 43.
[10]
John Paul II,
Apostolic Exhortation
Christifideles laici,
42.
[11]
In the last two
centuries, the Papal
Magisterium has spoken
on the principal
questions regarding the
social and political
order. Cf. Leo XIII,
Encyclical Letter
Diuturnum illud:
ASS 14 (1881–1882),
4 ff; Encyclical Letter
Immortale Dei:
ASS 18 (1885–1886),
162ff; Encyclical Letter
Libertas
præstantissimum:
ASS 20 (1887–1888),
593ff; Encyclical Letter
Rerum novarum:
ASS 23 (1890–1891),
643ff; Benedict XV,
Encyclical Letter
Pacem Dei munus
pulcherrimum: AAS
12 (1920), 209ff; Pius
XI, Encyclical Letter
Quadragesimo anno:
AAS 23 (1931),
190ff; Encyclical Letter
Mit brennender Sorge:
AAS 29 (1937),
145–167; Encyclical
Letter Divini
Redemptoris: AAS
29 (1937), 78ff; Pius
XII, Encyclical Letter
Summi Pontificatus:
AAS 31 (1939),
423ff; Radiomessaggi
natalizi 1941–1944;
John XXIII, Encyclical
Letter Mater et
magistra: AAS
53 (1961), 401–464;
Encyclical Letter
Pacem in terris:
AAS 55 (1963),
257–304; Paul VI,
Encyclical Letter
Populorum progressio:
AAS 59 (1967),
257–299; Apostolic
Letter Octogesima
adveniens: AAS
63 (1971), 401–441.
[12]
Cf. John Paul
II, Encyclical
Letter Centesimus
annus, 46:
AAS 83 (1991);
Encyclical Letter
Veritatis splendor,
101: AAS 85
(1993), 1212–1213;
Discourse to the
Italian Parliament,
5: L’Osservatore
Romano (November
15, 2002).
[13]
Cf. John
Paul II,
Encyclical
Letter
Evangelium
vitae, 22:
AAS 87
(1995),
425–426.
[14]
Cf.
Second
Vatican
Council,
Pastoral
Constitution
Gaudium
et spes,
76.
[15]
Second
Vatican
Council,
Pastoral
Constitution
Gaudium
et spes,
75.
[16]
Cf.
Second
Vatican
Council,
Pastoral
Constitution
Gaudium
et
spes,
43
and
75.
[17] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 25.
[18] Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 73.
[19] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 73.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 75.
[22] Catechism of the Catholic Church,No. 2304.
[23] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 76.
[24] John Paul II, Message for the 1991 World Day of Peace: «If you want peace, respect the conscience of every person», 4: AAS 83 (1991), 414–415.
[25] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, 59.
[26] Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See: L’Osservatore Romano (January 11, 2002).
[27] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, 90: AAS 91 (1999), 75.
[28] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1: «This Sacred Council begins by professing that God himself has made known to the human race how men by serving him can be saved and reach the state of the blessed. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church». This does not lessen the sincere respect that the Church has for the various religious traditions, recognizing in them «elements of truth and goodness». See also, Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16; Decree Ad gentes, 11; Declaration Nostra aetate, 2; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55: AAS 83 (1991), 302–304; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 2, 8, 21: AAS 92 (2000), 742–765.
[29] Paul VI, Address to the Sacred College and to the Roman Prelature: in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, 14 (1976), 1088–1089.
[30] Cf. Pius IX, Encyclical Letter Quanta cura: ASS 3 (1867), 162; Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei: ASS 18 (1885), 170–171; Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quas primas: AAS 17 (1925), 604–605; Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2108; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 22.
[31] Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 43; see also John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, 59.
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
