What is the Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Christ the King?

On the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of Quas Primas, Pius XI’s encyclical instituting the feast of Christ the King, this brief paper will identify the “the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ” which Vatican II’s “Declaration on Religious Liberty” (Dignitatis Humanae, a. 1) claims to “leave intact.” If we accept DH’s claim as true, then Catholics are bound to assent to the traditional teaching. However, that teaching is mostly unknown because it is not taught.

This topic is relevant to social science insofar as it treats the most fundamental, essential element of all social and political theory and praxis: the ultimate end of human life (both individually and socially). As such, it lays out the end of ethical, social, and political activity. The doctrine on the duty publicly to profess and worship Christ the King is both the most important and the most overlooked element of Catholic social doctrine. For this reason and to present this teaching clearly, I have taken the liberty of providing several direct and somewhat extensive citations.

The Traditional Doctrine

The traditional teaching on the duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ is rooted in the divinely revealed truth of Christ’s Kingship and the duty of nations to recognize and worship the true God, as exemplified in Psalm 72:11, “May all kings fall down before him and all nations serve him” (RSV) and Rev 15:4, “All nations shall come and worship thee” (RSV). And though the traditional doctrine has been expressed in various ways throughout the Church’s entire history, the likely reference in DH, a. 1 is to this doctrine as taught by popes in the 19th and early 20th centuries – roughly from Pope Gregory XVI’s 1832 encyclical Mirari Vos to Pius XI’s 1925 encyclical Quas Primas.

In the wake of the French revolution and its more licentious notion of liberty (as distinct from the more reasonable notions of liberty animating the revolution in America), the Church warns against the danger of nations apostatizing from the Catholic faith. In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI teaches that religious indifferentism leads to the perverse notion of a radical liberty of conscience. This, coupled with a purely temporal notion of the end of human life and society, drives the movement to separate Church from state, generating the modern, secular, nonreligious nation – a new phenomenon in world history. Condemning this view, Gregory warns,

When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly ‘the bottomless pit’ is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other (MV, a. 14).

The restraints here refer to the government prohibiting or limiting the practice of false religions. In an indirect reference to 2 Thess 2:6-12, the term “restraints” here also refers to true religion itself which functions to hold back lawlessness that lethally corrupts society and which restrains the man of lawlessness, the  Antichrist. Gregory’s warning was prescient since one of the marks of contemporary, secular society is a “contempt of sacred things and holy laws.”

In 1864, soon after Marx published The Communist Manifesto, Pius IX reaffirmed the condemnations of these errors in his encyclical Quanta Cura and the accompanying Syllabus of Errors, noting that these errors are not only opposed to Church teaching, “but also to the eternal natural law engraved by God in all men’s hearts, and to right reason; and from which almost all other errors have their origin” (QC, a. 2). The Catholic Church, by divine institution and command, exercises “salutary influence” over “individuals, nations, peoples and sovereign princes” (QC, a. 3). Pius identifies the following errors:

Liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way. (QC, a. 3)

In a. 6, he formally condemns these errors: “Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” This condemnation is general in nature and does not specify the theological note or weight of the particular teachings contradicted by the condemned errors.

In the accompanying Syllabus of Errors, Pius condemns a list of erroneous propositions drawn from prior papal documents. St. John Henry Newman notes that the weight of these particular condemnations must be determined by having recourse to the original documents cited by Pius for each proposition. Regarding the duty of individuals, Pius condemns proposition 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” This proposition, as noted in the Syllabus, was condemned in Pius’ 1862 allocution Maxima Quidem as follows:

They assign to man a certain basic right, from which he can think and speak about religion as he likes, and give such honor and worship to God as he finds more agreeable to himself…. Lifting up our Apostolic voice in this your most distinguished assembly, we reject, proscribe, and condemn all the particularly related errors, entirely repugnant and very much opposed not only to Catholic faith and teaching, and to divine and ecclesiastical laws, but also to the everlasting and natural law, and to justice and right reason.

An error opposed to Catholic faith is a heresy so the theological note is determined to be a truth of Catholic faith that man does not have a right to profess any religion whatsoever he considers to be true. The rationale for this is found in the dogma that the Catholic faith alone is necessary for salvation, hence the subsequent condemnation of proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.”

Regarding the duties of societies toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ, Pius condemns the following propositions in the Syllabus: proposition 55, “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”; proposition 77, “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship”; and proposition 78, “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.”

Pope Leo XIII reaffirms the doctrine and condemnations of his predecessors in his encyclical Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, 1878, where he says in a. 13, “All such censures, We, following in the steps of Our predecessors, do confirm and renew from this apostolic seat of truth.” His invocation of apostolic authority seems to raise this doctrine to the level of a definitive teaching, truths to be firmly accepted and held.

By far the best articulation of the traditional doctrine and its theological basis is found in this lengthy citation from Leo’s 1885 encyclical Immortale Dei, a. 6:

The State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. 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 reaching and 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 one true religion –it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the well being of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the
religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God. [emphasis added]

And in a. 25 Leo condemns the following errors:

Since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief [emphasis added].

And he concludes in a. 35, as follows, “It is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favor different kinds of religion.”

Though he reaffirms the condemnation of unrestrained freedom of conscience in matters of religion, in his 1888 encyclical, Libertas, Leo articulates a principle of toleration whereby the state would permit the practice of non-Catholic religions by its citizens as an evil to be tolerated in order to avoid a greater, foreseeable evil. In a. 33 he says, “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” [emphasis added]. But in a. 42, he affirms,

From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.

In this, Leo is likely drawing from St. Thomas Aquinas’s argument for the conditions under which a state may tolerate the practice of non Catholic religions found in STh II-II, q. 10, a. 11.

In his 1925 encyclical, Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI establishes the feast of Christ the King. In a. 18, he teaches,

The empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: ‘His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.’ Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ.

Touching on individual and societal duties, he continues in a. 19: “When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.” Pius then institutes the Feast of Christ the King in order to bring about a true Christian peace (a. 21). In a. 24, he notes the “deplorable consequences” of “the rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ.” He hopes that the annual celebration of this feast (which, incidentally, takes place tomorrow in the traditional Catholic calendar) will remind nations, “that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ” (a. 32).

Difficulties with Dignitatis Humanae

Dignitatis Humanae appears to teach something radically unprecedented, namely, that all men have a natural right to be free from coercion to act against their convictions in matters of religion and to be free from restraint to act in accord with these convictions (DH, a. 2):

The human person has a right to religious freedom…. All men should be immune from coercion so that nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor restrained from acting in accord with his convictions in religious matters in private or in public…. The right to religious freedom has its foundation …in his very nature.

This right “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. The exercise of this right cannot be interfered with as long as the just requirements of public order are observed” (ibid.). In addition, in a. 3, DH teaches that

Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious [emphasis added].

Certainly, the Church has never explicitly taught this before. More concerning is the fact that this teaching does not clearly or obviously harmonize with the traditional doctrine; in fact, it appears to entail claims condemned by the traditional doctrine. DH itself acknowledges this tension as the Council Fathers modified the document’s preface by inserting into the final draft the insistence that its teaching leaves the traditional doctrine intact (DH, a. 1). Nevertheless, seventy council fathers voted against the final draft.

Catholics are bound to give the type of assent proportionate to the theological note (or weight) of the Church teaching in question. The 1990 CDF document Donum Veritatis specifies that definitive teachings of a doctrine as revealed requires the assent of supernatural faith; definitive teachings that are not specified as revealed required the Catholic firmly to accept and hold them; and non-definitive teachings require the Catholic to give religious respect or submission (obsequium) of intellect and will. Some theologians understand that this last type of teaching is not guaranteed free from error and so they interpret the assent of obsequium to be a readiness to accept those teachings as true. Others, in the minority, think even this type of teaching is also immune from error and so the assent is an acceptance of those teachings as true.

Continuity or rupture?

As DH implies, Catholics are bound to give that traditional doctrine the assent owed to it. And as shown above, one aspect of that teaching requires the assent of faith, others firm acceptance and adherence. Joseph Ratzinger, however, considers DH’s claim to leave traditional teaching intact “a minor flaw”:

Most controversial was the third…aspect [of the final draft of DH]. The text attempts to emphasize a continuity in the statements of the official Church on this issue. It also says that it “leaves intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and communities [societies] toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ” (n.1). The term “duty” here has doubtful application to communities [societies] in their relation to the Church. Later on in the Declaration, the text itself corrects and modifies these earlier statements, offering something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII. It would have been better to omit these compromising formulas or to reformulate them in line with the later text. Thus the introduction changes nothing in the text’s content; therefore, we need not regard it as anything more than a minor flaw. – Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, part IV translated by Werner Barzel, NY: Paulist Press, 1966, page 147.

Note that this is the “early Ratzinger” of the 1960s. The hermeneutic of rupture of the young Ratzinger contrasts with the hermeneutic of reform in continuity for which he is more well known. If DH’s teaching is a rupture, that is, if the new teaching contradicts the old, there are two competing approaches to its resolution. The first approach is a “Magisterial progressivism” in which older teachings are interpreted, reinterpreted, corrected by newer teachings. This view presupposes that, because the current, living magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit to meet the pastoral needs of Christians today (not yesterday), the Church can be led in new ways by the Spirit in matters like religious liberty, capital punishment, homosexual unions, female ordination, and the like. In the other, more traditionally Catholic hermeneutical approach, non-definitive and prudential Magisterial teachings can be in error and they are judged, interpreted, and corrected by more authoritative and more binding teachings, especially by dogmatic definitions and definitive teachings which are infallible. And if there is an official correction, then what is corrected, at the point when it is corrected, can no longer be held to be an exercise of the authentic Magisterium. Prior opinions that it was authentic were permissible because no final judgment had yet been pronounced. But because it is erroneous it was never authentic; just like an ordinance that appears to be a law, if conclusively shown to be unjust, is not a law at all.

Finally, some theologians adopt a hermeneutic of continuity, and such an approach is initially demanded both by the exigencies of a charitable reading of Magisterial texts (or any text, for that matter) and by the faith we have in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church. The scholarship of those who approach this thorny question of the harmony between DH and the traditional doctrine of Christ the King is vast, lively, and ongoing. But if, after theological “heavy lifting” and all due diligence, it is not possible to interpret the texts harmoniously, then the theologian ought to employ the second approach when facing a contradiction, as mentioned above. In the end, it would seems to be fitting to submit a dubium or dubia on religious liberty. It would be prudent, however, first to wait to see whom Pope Leo XIV appoints as the next prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Regardless, the traditional teaching on Christ the King should be recovered and made known to the faithful.