Even before the founding of the United States, America was known as a land of liberty, particularly for religious minorities fleeing persecution. This included Catholics, who founded one of the original thirteen colonies. Unlike for other religious groups, however, the promise of religious freedom often fell short for Catholics. During this Religious Freedom Week, beginning June 22nd, in an important anniversary year, I’d like to look briefly at the ups and downs of religious liberty for Catholics in the United States.
Seeking Freedom
Today, we might take it for granted that Europeans were willing to sail across the Atlantic in search of freedom and opportunity. Many obstacles stood in the way, including costs, the risk of sailing, and the sheer difficulty of establishing new colonies while fending off starvation. Religious freedom drove many across the sea, particularly religious dissenters from the Church of England, such as Puritans in Massachusetts, Quakers in Pennsylvania, and, yes, Catholics in Maryland.
In general, those seeking toleration were not very tolerant of others. The Puritans established the Congregationalist Church in Massachusetts, leading Roger Williams to flee it to establish Rhode Island with a royal charter stating that no one could be “molested, punished, disquieted or called in question for any differences in opinion in matters of religion.” Most of the colonies, even after some initial openness, as in New Jersey, often singled out “Papists” as exceptions to freedom of conscience. Even in tolerant Pennsylvania, the only place where Catholics could conduct public worship freely throughout the colonial period, they were barred from voting and holding public office.
Maryland: A New Way?
Catholics tried to establish an alternative path in Maryland, the colony established by Cecil Calvert, Second Baron Baltimore. The Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the Act Concerning Religion, was passed on April 21, 1649. It made blasphemy illegal, penalized those who used disparaging language toward other religious groups (including Papists, of course), and ordered “that noe person or persons whatsoever within this Province … professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth bee any waies troubled, Molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within this Province or the Islands thereunto belonging nor any way compelled to the beleife or exercise of any other Religion against his or her consent.”
It was repealed five years later during the English Civil War, reinstated three years following, and then repealed a second and final time in 1692, following the Glorious Revolution. Even worse, Maryland then forbade public Catholic worship and withdrew the right to vote, leading many Catholics to migrate to Pennsylvania and, later on, to pioneer new communities in Kentucky.
The First Amendment
Due to these restrictions on worship and public life in the colonies, Catholics accounted for only about 1.5% of the population of the newly founded United States. Nonetheless, the Maryland Toleration Act set a precedent that would be taken up in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which stated: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This prohibited the federal government from establishing an official church (though five states maintained one) or barring public worship. (It did not mean that there should be no public expression of religion, an interpretation that was given to the amendment in the twentieth century.)
This amendment may have given Catholics greater freedom to peaceably found churches throughout the United States, but it did not immediately open the door to public life. Thankfully, Article VI of the United States Constitution stated that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” It took longer for most states to repeal religious tests that repudiated “papism” and even transubstantiation, such as Maryland in 1810, North Carolina in 1835, and New Hampshire not until 1877.
The Fight for Religious Freedom
Catholics would find a generally peaceful and prosperous home in the United States. The battle for religious freedom, however, has never ended.
Catholics have suffered violence, as when Know Nothing mobs burned churches and convents in the 1830s through 50s, German Catholics were targeted by riots in Cincinnati in 1853 and 1855 and the KKK harassed Catholics alongside African Americans and other minorities.
Catholic education has been attacked by hostile legislatures, such as through the Blaine Amendments added to 38 State Constitutions prohibiting any funding for religious schools and Oregon’s passage of the Compulsory Education Act in 1922 that prohibited attendance at Catholic schools (thankfully overturned by the Supreme Court).
More recently, Obamacare attempted to force Catholic institutions to cover contraceptives for their employees, a provision valiantly opposed by the Little Sisters of the Poor and other groups.
Some Catholics object to religious freedom, thinking it implies relativism or a denial that faith should be lived out in public life. Even in a Catholic society, however, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that freedom of conscience must be respected as flowing intrinsically from human dignity.
“The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right” (2108).
This preserves the Church’s ability to exercise her ministry freely while also respecting the fact that faith itself must be freely accepted.
The 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States is a time to reflect on America’s role in pioneering religious freedom. Catholics have contributed to this development while also courageously offering witness in the face of persecution. The promise and peril of this history should inspire us to continue to fight for the legitimate right to religious freedom while we boldly and charitably share the invitation of the Gospel.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thank you, Dr. now we need a follow up on what we need to do implement this freedom today including people and groups who. are currently engaged in this endeavor and what thiey are doing.
This article needs some balance. It does not mention that George Washington promoted religious freedom for all, including banning anti catholic practices in the ranks during the Revolutionary War. Also interesting is that before the start of the Constitutional Congress, before the first session the members that were present went to a Catholic Mass, go figure. Later so did George Washington.
Move forward to today, we have so called Catholic Politicians who are in reality anything but Catholic in supporting abortion. Biden supported putting Catholics in jail who would dare to pray in front of a abortion center. Here in Illinois we have Senator Abortion Durbin, who was even given an award by our Cardinal.
GRM: I hear you loud and clear!
“Even in a Catholic society, however, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that freedom of conscience must be respected as flowing intrinsically from human dignity”.
Freedom of conscience. A sacred American principle. Although a two edged sword, that in respect of human dignity, grants freedom to refuse revelation considered by its Author an obligatory mandate.
What then is the fine line if any that permits someone to reject revelation of the requirements for our salvation, and simultaneously remain saved? The commandments were clearly stated as obligatory by Christ, Those who refuse to be baptized will be damned.
Might we then in all justice consider the quality of presentation of that commandment? We’re reminded of St John Newman who remained Anglican for years prior to entrance into the Catholic Church. Would he have been condemned had he died before his baptism? Can we honestly argue baptism of intent when he nevertheless withheld consent?
From this writer’s perspective the answer should be left to God. Personally I believe he like many other eventual converts would have been saved simply on the merits of their being in a process of transition and conscientious inner dialogue.
If addressing Protestants, who presumably have consented to belief in Christ and already baptized, is of course a red herring. What does relate is the controversial position that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
That presumed ‘doctrine’ has been modified since, Vat II recognizing the many outside the true faith who live good lives free from serious sin. In fact the Church recognizes the good found in non Christians who follow their conscience. If the Gospel were effectively preached to them then the question would come to fore regarding salvation.
Salvation for those free of serious sin extends historically to 1201 in the letter of Pius III to the Archbishop of Arles that only those who commit mortal sin and do not repent are condemned. Our Church has held that they will be saved though withheld the Beatific Vision.