Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Religions
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Musiewicz, Piotr. 2023. The
Catholic Church’s Formula for
Adaptation to Modernity and
Contemporary Models of Secularism.
Religions 14: 638. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rel14050638
Academic Editors: Iziar Basterretxea,
Ignacio Sepúlveda and Luzio
Uriarte
Received: 6 April 2023
Revised: 3 May 2023
Accepted: 4 May 2023
Published: 10 May 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
religions
Article
The Catholic Church’s Formula for Adaptation to Modernity
and Contemporary Models of Secularism
Piotr Musiewicz
Institute of Political and Administrative Studies, Faculty of Education, Jesuit University Ignatianum,
31-501 Kraków, Poland; piotr.musiewicz@ignatianum.edu.pl
Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to assess the Catholic Church’s formula for adaptation to Modernity
from the perspectives of contemporary models of Secularism. For this purpose, it will use the typology
of Jacques Berlinerblau, with five models of Secularism (Separationism, Disestablishment, Laïcité,
Accommodationism, and Atheistic Secularism). For some of these models, the Church’s formula will
be found—to different extents—agreeable, while other models will regard it as hardly acceptable.
The assessment will proceed by defining Modernity, outlining the Catholic Church’s formula for
adaptation to modern ideas, and discussing five different models of Secularism.
Keywords: Modernity; modernization; Secularism; models of Secularism; Catholic Church
1. Introduction
Up to the early nineteenth century, most states were connected with one particular
religion, and, at the core, their models of church and state relations remained similar.
They shared some form of establishment, though differing in particular instances in the
scope of influence of the state on the church and vice versa or in the level of religious
freedom for those professing other faiths. The state’s support for a particular church
was, however, reduced—gradually or by revolution—due to one of the crucial tenets of
Modernity: accommodation of different religions in one society (Bruce and Voas 2023). As
a result, the main Modern paradigm of church and state relations, especially in the Western
world, shifted from establishment to some form of separation of church and state. This
idea, in its various forms, is a crucial component of contemporary Secularism; therefore, all
contemporary models of Secularism have embraced the underlying idea of separation.
More traditional secularization theories indicate an ongoing diminution of the role
of religion due to the progress of modernization. Casanova argued that the separation
of church and state and progressive modernization provoked further differentiation of
spheres; this remained the core of the theory of secularization. However, he added, this did
not cause religion to disappear (Casanova 1994, p. 7). Even if the debate on secularization
theories has currently reached a “dead end” (Moniz 2023), the question of the role of
religion in contemporary secular states seems to be still open and vital, and might be
considered in many aspects without discussing general secularization theories.
Certainly, contemporary models of Secularism are visible signs of Modernity. Typolo-
gies and models of Secularism have been widely researched; we can find a variety of these
in contemporary scholarship (Saeed 2017). Another question important to Modernity—
whether and to what extent the Catholic Church underwent modernization—seems to
have been quite widely researched, even if the answers may differ slightly (Hastings 1991;
McGreevy 2022;Faggioli 2020). However, scholarship has not yet examined the relation
of the two above issues to one another. The questions of particular interest in this paper
are, therefore, the following: Do the realities of Secularism and the Catholic Church have
something in common? Does the Catholic formula of adaptation to Modernity resem-
ble contemporary models of Secularism? Most of all, how do contemporary models of
Secularism perceive the Catholic Church’s formula?
Religions 2023,14, 638. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14050638 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions 2023,14, 638 2 of 10
2. Modernity and the Catholic Church’s Formula of Adaptation
2.1. Modernity
After Shmuel Eisenstadt proved there is no one pattern of Modernity and that there
exist and are born many quite different Modernities (Eisenstadt 2000), an attempt to
propose any universally adequate and accepted definition of Modernity seems futile.
Therefore, in this paper there can only be proposed a definition of Modernity eligible
for its purposes and—hopefully—some new findings. Certainly, the definition will be
vulnerable to arguments pointing out that the Western model of Modernity is not the only
legitimate model in the world and that there are many other cultural programs different
than Judeo-Christian. However, acknowledging it, the more Western or “static” definition
of Modernity presented below might perhaps be justified. Modernity in the paper is
analyzed with reference to the Catholic Church’s formula of adaptation to it, and the
center of the Church—from where the official ideas are issued—remains embedded in
or at least surrounded and influenced by the Western cultural context (Judeo-Christian
cultural program), and therefore Western, especially European, version of Modernity.
Therefore, in this paper, when speaking of the Catholic Church’s formula of adaptation to
Modernity, “Western Modernity” is meant (defined below). Certainly, research concerning
other patterns of Modernities and the topic might be made elsewhere, but the paper is
confined to making new findings on this particular pattern of Modernity.
The definition of Modernity is, then, to some extent, derived from classical and re-
vised (sociological) theories of modernization. Modernity is to be understood as a set of
fundamental political, intellectual, and religious ideas prevailing in the West, significantly
different from those prevailing in traditional societies of the Medieval era: as a set of ideas
focusing on the autonomy of man (Eisenstadt 2000, p. 5). Therefore, the definition will not
discuss whether transformation to Modernity is a coherent, linear process functioning in all
societies (a version of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and later Fukuyama) or an unpredictable
process that might lead to different results (a version of Eisenstadt) (Feldhay 2022;Moniz
2023). For the purpose of this paper, it is enough to indicate the following crucial ideas of
(Western) Modernity: individualization (the individual becomes as or more important than
the community), sovereignty of the people (as opposed to the monarch), democratization,
rationalization (looking for rational rather than religious explanations of phenomena),
autonomy of science from religion, a plurality of worldviews, and a focus on individual
economic development. Implementation of these values in Western societies led to func-
tional differentiation, most clearly seen in the separation of church and state, the separation
of science and religion, and the individualization and privatization of faith (Inglehart and
Welzel 2005).
2.2. The Catholic Church’s Formula of Adaptation
Modernization in the West has not been confined to states and societies; it has also
affected churches and religions. The Catholic Church is no exception here, although she
directly resisted modernization up to the latter half of the twentieth century. In 1864, as
an appendix to the Quanta Cura encyclical, Pius IX issued the Syllabus of Errors, in which
he articulated the Church’s disagreement with—and condemnation of—individualization,
rationalization, liberalism, the idea of the separation of church and state, religious freedom,
limiting the Pope’s power to the spiritual realm, and some other modern trends. In addition,
the idea that “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms
with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” was described as one of the errors of
modern liberalism (Pius IX 1864, p. 80).
Since Vatican Council II, the above stance is no longer valid as the Catholic Church has
adapted to Modernity, at least in her own formula—this process was called aggiornamento.
However, it should be noted, this adaptation has not fully resembled the modernization of
Western societies. The latter underwent revolutionary, or sometimes evolutionary, changes
towards democracy: protecting individuality, separating church and state, and diminishing
the role of religion in public life. In many cases, these changes were so fundamental that they
Religions 2023,14, 638 3 of 10
shook the foundations of social and political orders. As to the Catholic Church, although
the discussion about the continuity or discontinuity of Catholic ideas at Vatican II is still
open (O’Collins 2012), it can be stated that the general approach of the Church to Modernity
has changed, as she saw the need to adopt Modern ideas. This need might have resulted
either from general modernizing trends in the West, the experience of twentieth-century
totalitarianism (Chappel 2018), or both. In any case, this meant change, and discontinuity
in many ideas; however, it did not automatically alter the foundations of Church order as in
the cases of states and societies. The Catholic Church at Vatican II did not accept all Modern
ideas. Particularly, it denied full rationalization as in its teaching the Revelation—meaning
the Scriptures and the Catholic Church’s Tradition—remains and should remain a crucial
source of worldview and assessing reality. Furthermore, it adopted only some elements of
democratization—the role of bishops presiding together as Council or regional conference
decisively increased, but still the laity, as a whole, plays no role in deciding local parish
or pastoral matters, nor in electing vicars, bishops, or popes. Finally, individualization
undertaken by the Catholic Church did not become as overwhelming as in Liberalism, as
it still focuses also on issues of communities and its duties: families, nations, the whole
Church, and global society. From a broader perspective, the Modern ideas were combined
or balanced with more permanent Church principles. However, even with the above
qualification, the Catholic Church’s adaptation to Modernity has been considerable and
remains a significant phenomenon worthy of extensive research, especially from secular
perspectives.
2.3. Particular Modern Ideas Adopted by the Catholic Church
Concepts of popular sovereignty and democracy were implemented into Catholic
doctrine at Vatican II and afterwards. It is remarkable that in Lumen Gentium, a crucial
document on the nature of the Church, the chapter about the People of God is placed
before the chapter on hierarchy (Paul VI 1964, pp. 9, 18). The focus on the common
dignity of priests and laymen is also a clear sign of democratization and a mark of equality.
Regarding bishops, a new concept of collegiality is frequently used, elevating their mutual
relations and encouraging them to preside together—a visible departure from papal or
monarchical absolutism. The Church herself is to be also a sign of unity among all men
(Paul VI 1964, p. 1); this again emphasizes human relations. There has been an acceptance
of diversity in discipline, liturgy, theology, and spirituality, and of local Churches; this
might be regarded as the introduction of pluralism within the Church. A departure from
exclusivity is also seen in the focus on common bonds with other Christians and people of
different faiths (hitherto close contacts of this sort were neither encouraged nor prohibited):
for example, in the addressing of the Church’s social messages to all people of good will
(not only to members of the Church) and in the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics
(McBrien 1991).
Generally, in Gaudium et Spes, this is presented not so much as the normative teaching
of the Church but rather the current human situation in present contexts—which were
not previously seen as serious points of reference. The achievements of science are no
longer seen as a threat. Democracy has become clearly accepted. Natural law categories,
formerly dominant in discussing social, political, and economic issues, have been replaced
by liberal and human rights categories. Indeed, the United Nations Declaration of Hu-
man Rights of 1948 has started to be integrated into Catholic teaching, along with the
need for wider international cooperation. The language of documents has refrained from
condemnation of other views and become more based on proposing and encouraging.
Personalism has been widely introduced, with a close focus on man and his dignity. Finally,
a “rightful independence of earthly affairs” (Paul VI 1965b, p. 36) is clearly stated, marking,
perhaps unwillingly, a direction towards functional differentiation in some other areas
(McDonagh 1991).
Human dignity has become a crucial, fundamental category. Valuing individuality
has resulted in statements in favor of freedom of inquiry and communication: the index
Religions 2023,14, 638 4 of 10
of prohibited books has been terminated, as well as the necessity for publications to have
“imprimatur” to be safe to be read by Catholics. Religious freedom has been acknowledged
so that religious beliefs can be embraced only as the free act of an individual and not
as a consequence of any extrinsic coercion. The Catholic Church has unambiguously
accepted the plurality of worldviews and now has to rely on persuasion. That, in turn, has
transformed the Church’s view on church and state relations so that the Church no longer
seeks any establishment or acknowledgment as a true Church from the state (Paul VI 1965a,
p. 1). The Church needs only freedom to act and not state authority. Civil powers have
become incompetent in matters of religion. This marked a sharp break with the tradition of
Church establishment, dating back to the times of Emperor Constantine (Burtchaell 1991).
3. The Perspectives of Contemporary Models of Secularism on the Catholic Church’s
Formula of Adaptation to Modernity
3.1. Contemporary Models of Secularism
This paper will employ Jacques Berlinerblau’s modified definition of Secularism. The
concept consists of political ideas, as well as legally binding actions of the secular state, that
seek to regulate the relationship between the secular state and religion, especially between
norms of the state and of religion, between the state and religious citizens, and between
religious citizens themselves (Berlinerblau 2022, p. 5). Secular states are, generally, those
in which there exists some sort of differentiation and separation between the state and
religion.
Berlinerblau, a contemporary Secularism researcher, also offered a typology of models
of Secularism that will be relevant to the purpose of this paper. His distinction was based
on different states’ attitudes and expectations towards religion, its norms, and its followers;
it differed little from typologies used in contemporary scholarship on Secularism (Saeed
2017). The typology did not consider the modernization of the Catholic Church and her
proposals on church–state relations; the aim of the present paper is precisely to look at these
questions from the perspectives of the models. Five of them can be outlined as follows.
From the perspective of
Separationism
, all religious organizations (including churches)
are or should be separate from the state and its institutions. The sphere of religion and its
authorities cannot interfere with the sphere of the state and its institutions. In this frame-
work, the aims and interests of religion and those of the state are considered to be basically
differentiated. Although Jonathan Fox (2017) claimed that Separationism has a negative
attitude towards religion, in this paper, the model will be treated on its own formal terms:
the state neither restricts religion nor supports it. The state treats religious organizations,
even the largest and most influential, in the same manner as private organizations—not
granting them any privileges and not supporting any religious beliefs. Under this model,
the freedom of individuals to choose (or not) their religious convictions is regarded as a
crucial value. For some scholars and citizens, the model of Separationism has existed in its
clearest form in the United States (Berlinerblau et al. 2014;Berlinerblau 2022).
Disestablishment
is also a form of separation of religion from the state, but not as
rigid as in Separationism. The main idea of Disestablishment is the lack of any established
religion: there is no state religion, and no constitutional rule to support any particular
religion. However, in contrast to Separationism, state support for religious organizations
is not forbidden if—and only if—they perform activities valuable for the state or society.
Examples might include social activities such as education or helping the poor. In this
manner, religious organizations, including churches, are treated the same as non-religious
organizations that have some valuable social aims. For many scholars and citizens, Dises-
tablishment clearly exists in the United States and is expressed in the First Amendment
(Berlinerblau et al. 2014;Berlinerblau 2022). There are, therefore, different opinions as to
the model of the United States—whether it is, in fact, based on Separationism or Disestab-
lishment. However, discussing this complex issue is not within the scope of this paper (see
Nussbaum 2008;Feldman 2005). Certainly, both Separationism and Disestablishment are
aimed at protecting freedom of exercise of religion, speech, the press, and assembly.
Religions 2023,14, 638 5 of 10
The perspective of
Laïcité
is of French origin and is said to have been aimed at elimi-
nating religious conflicts by impeding the public dimension of religion and subordinating
religion—to some extent—to state supremacy. It, therefore, contrasts with the two previ-
ous “Anglo-Saxon” models, which kept such subordination at a minimal level, with state
interference only permissible in the case of visible disturbance to the public peace. State
supremacy under Laïcitémeans, in practice, for example, prohibition of wearing religious
symbols and attires in public, and confiscation of religious properties (as in France in 1905).
However, after 1905 the French state started to subsidize the upkeep of religious buildings,
and it continues to do so, especially in the case of Catholic churches; the state also finances
the work of military chaplains. The Laïcitémodel seems partly hostile or at least suspicious
towards religion, either at its root or as a consequence of state supremacy in many religious
issues (Saunders 2009;Barras 2017).
Unlike Laïcité,Accommodationism believes religion to be a public good that should
be supported by the state. It does not equate to establishment of any religion: Accommoda-
tionism respects Disestablishment, but it is far from Separationism. The focus on religion as
a public good allows, for example, the acceptance of religious laws for particular religious
groups (e.g., Sharia laws in India), even when they differ from the state’s code of law.
Accommodationism is likely to maintain public peace by influencing religion; however, its
influence comes not through limiting public expressions of religion but by mediating and
making public policies that encourage religious organizations to respect each other and
contribute to the common good (Berlinerblau 2022).
In
Atheistic Secularism
, religion is regarded as a source of conflict and disruption.
However, the proposed solution is much more radical than that of Laïcité: religion should
not be limited but, in fact, eliminated from both public and private life. The aim of this
model is not freedom of religion but rather freedom from religion. For this purpose, the
atheistic worldview is favored and promoted by the state, and religion suffers severe
handicaps, including property confiscation with no compensation, state influence over
elections of religious leaders, prohibitions on confessing religion for persons holding
public office, prohibitions on teaching religion in schools, and sometimes imprisonment
or execution of clergy or religious people, as in Soviet Russia and contemporary North
Korea (Berlinerblau 2022;Wanner 2012;Bandow 2019). The state has an official agenda of
education, promoting non-religious worldviews that are profoundly rationalistic, including
materialism.
3.2. The Perspective of Separationism
Separationism, like all other models of Secularism, must react positively to the
Church’s agreement on autonomy of science from religion, as it allows science to be
placed within the field of interests of the state or society. Separationism would not forbid
religious organizations from conducting their own research.
As Separationism is preoccupied almost solely with the strict separation of state and
religion, its main assessment of aggiornamento will be connected with this issue. Generally,
it will react positively to the idea that the Catholic Church will not seek establishment
or state recognition and is focused on fulfilling its religious mission on its own. Because
acceptance of the plurality of worldviews by the Church seems to be also foundational for
Separationism (disestablishment would not be possible without this idea), this aspect of
turning to Modernity could scarcely sound better from the perspective of Separationism.
However, this perspective will remain indifferent as to pluralism within the Catholic
Church and other aspects of the Church’s adaptation to Modernity. From the Separa-
tionist view, it does not matter whether the Catholic Church is ruled by an absolute
monarch, a council of bishops, or popular, democratic voting among all her members.
Although Casanova and many other scholars link Secularism with democracy (Casanova
2009, p. 1051), the model of Separation does not seem to require democracy or popular
sovereignty on the Church’s side. Due to its rule of non-interference, Separationism would
tolerate any kind of governance among churches or other religious organizations as long as
Religions 2023,14, 638 6 of 10
they do not actively seek establishment. In the same manner, it does not matter whether the
Church uses natural law or human rights categories or whether there is a strong position of
the clergy or the laity. These kinds of ideas are treated by Separationism as internal issues
of religious organizations that are not subject to state regulations or assessment.
Separationism would generally allow public discussion on religious matters, including
the presentation of Catholic moral standards that differ from state norms, but would not
allow instruments of governments to be used to advance any particular religious norms.
While the Catholic Church’s modernized formula of church–state relations does not rule
out the possibility of state support for Catholic schools and education, financing the
teaching of Catholic religion at public schools, financing Catholic military chaplains, or
supporting Catholic social activities or projects, from the perspective of Separationism
these undertakings would be violations of the principle of separation and should be strictly
forbidden (Fox 2017).
3.3. The Perspective of Disestablishment
Disestablishment, like Separationism, positively assesses the retreat by Vatican II
from the earlier standard that “the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion
of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” (Pius IX 1864, p. 77). This
means that the core Disestablishment values—pluralism, freedom of speech, and exercise of
religion—have been accepted by the Catholic Church. In addition, Disestablishment, unlike
Separationism, would accept some forms of state support for the Catholic Church as long as
the Catholic religion is not established or unambiguously favored by the state. For example,
under this model, financial support for Catholic schools has been considered possible:
in the US, the Supreme Court confirmed in 2022 (“Carson v. Makin”) that states cannot
exclude religious schools from public benefits, a ruling that was very well received by the
US Conference of Bishops (however, earlier rulings were not always in this direction—see
Niose 2017). In Disestablishment, such support can be made not because any worldview
is favored by the state but rather because of the rule of equality (if other private schools
are supported by the state, then religious ones should be supported as well). Unlike
Separationism, this model would also allow financial support for social actions, such as
helping the poor, organized by the Catholic Church.
Disestablishment would probably remain indifferent to Church government: her level
of democracy, sovereignty of members, language categories, pluralism, diversity within
the Church, and many other effects of the modernization of the Catholic Church. Like
Separationism, Disestablishment would not interfere in the affairs of religious organizations,
giving them as much freedom as possible.
However, one difference between Disestablishment and the Catholic Church’s version
of the separation of church and state should be noted. While disestablishment is a funda-
mental requirement for this model of Secularism, this does not seem so for the Catholic
Church’s formula. Vatican II’s idea that the Church does not seek establishment does
not mean that the state cannot seek it or that the Church must not accept it. The modern
example of such a relation is the Constitution of Malta, Article 2, which declares: “The
religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion,” and “The authorities of the
Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles
are right and which are wrong” (Constitution of Malta 1964). The Catholic Church has not
objected to this establishment. From the perspective of Disestablishment, however, it is
obviously a violation of its fundamental principle.
3.4. The Perspective of Laïcité
Unlike the two previous perspectives, Laïcité’s aim is not to grant the Catholic Church—or
any other religious organization—as much freedom as possible, but rather to subordinate
her to the state as much as seems necessary. One of the reasons is the genesis of this
perspective. While Disestablishment, and to some extent Separationism, was created with
an accompanying idea that Christian churches are valuable elements of the public order,
Religions 2023,14, 638 7 of 10
Laïcité, crafted by les philosophes who were critical of the Catholic Church, has always been
suspicious about the influence of religion in civil society (Berlinerblau 2022, p. 66). As a
result, Laïcitéobjects to the scope of the freedom proposed by the post-conciliar Catholic
Church, and would certainly prefer to find in the modern Catholic formula an exposition
of the role of the state in directing some religious issues. It favors the formula of non-
establishment of the Church (accepted by the Church also), but not strict separation, since
the state, according to this perspective, should have a considerable level of control over the
Church. This is not in accordance with the Catholic formula of adaptation to Modernity.
In particular, from the perspective of Laïcité, the Church’s property should belong to the
state; such a proposal cannot be found in the Catholic formula. Laïcitéwould agree with
the Church’s formula only in its second step—subsidizing of Church buildings by the
state—and then only if they became state property. More generally, Laïcitéremoves religion
from the public sphere (Bauberot 2014), or introduces a “Rigid Control Model” (Drury 2017,
p. 11); no such idea is indicated in the Catholic Church’s adaptation to Modernity.
Although Laïcité’s influence on religion is not so extensive as to affect or propose
changes to Church government, the Catholic Church’s focus on individual, human rights
and elements of democracy, including popular sovereignty, must be favorable from this
perspective. Laïcité’s partial control over religion is said to be justified by the need to
eliminate religious conflicts and maintain public peace; the liberal instruments of human
rights adopted by the Church serve this end also, by protecting individuality and democracy.
Therefore, these aspects of the Catholic modern formula would be regarded positively from
the Laïcitéperspective, as they might indirectly support Laïcité’s aims.
3.5. The Perspective of Accommodationism
Accommodationism must place high value on the Catholic Church’s formula of sepa-
ration of church and state, firstly because of disestablishment, but also because it regards
religion as a public good. Unlike Laïcité, Accommodationism does not tend to confine
religion to the private sphere. It seems to understand the Catholic Church’s position that
“religious mission can be the source of commitment, direction and vigor to establish and
consolidate the community of men” (Paul VI 1965b, p. 42). Accommodationism, therefore,
acknowledges that religion, including Catholicism, may contribute to the common good
of society; it does not see a need to limit its public expressions, such as religious attires.
This kind of passive Secularism (Kuru 2007) is both favored by Accommodationism and
accepted by the Catholic Church.
As Accommodationism regards religion as a public good, it should not be indifferent
towards pluralism and the human rights categories presented in the Catholic formula
of adaptation to Modernity. Multicultural India, where the model is most clearly mani-
fested, seeks ways to strengthen peace and might highly value these aspects of modern
Catholicism’s proposals. In addition, Accommodationism is not particularly committed
to equal treatment of religions; it may give more public rights to one religion, not neces-
sarily to the prevailing one. In this case, Accommodationism is sometimes referred to as
“pseudo-secularism” as it tends to declare a secular state, at the same time “pampering”
some religious minorities (Pantham 1997, p. 528). Anyway, although the Catholic Church
does not seek special treatment from the state, she would probably accept or welcome
Accommodationism’s inequality if it took the form of public recognition of her laws, as it
has in the case of Islam in India, or as Malta has done for Catholicism. The first scenario the-
oretically exists in Accommodationism; however, the second would be unacceptable to the
model due to formal establishment, departing from the formula of neutrality (Berlinerblau
2022).
It is worth noting that although, theoretically, the model of Accommodationism
seems to be very close to the Catholic Church’s formula of adaptation to Modernity in
crucial points, the perspective of the model does not always align with the practical
dimension. This is especially so with social attitudes, as religiously motivated violence
against Christians in India has not been a rare phenomenon in recent years (Human Rights
Religions 2023,14, 638 8 of 10
Watch 2009). In addition, inequality under Hindu Accommodationism has tended to favor
Hinduism and Islam, while twenty-first-century anti-conversion laws in a number of Hindu
states are said to be easily used to sentence Christians, regardless of whether they have
attempted conversions of others (Gettleman and Raj 2021). If this practical inequality
is treated as an element of Accommodationism, then it would not regard positively the
Catholic Church’s modern call for religious freedom.
3.6. The Perspective of Atheistic Secularism
The last perspective would assess the Catholic Church’s formula of adaptation to
Modernity decisively negatively. This is not merely because Atheistic Secularism contests
reforms towards Modernity, but also because it contests religion, including Catholicism,
regardless of whether it is an older or adapted version. Atheistic Secularism cannot accept
either Catholic establishment—as promoted strongly before Vatican II—or a Catholic
version of separation of church and state. In the former case, the perspective cannot
agree to any public role for Catholicism, as it desires for the atheistic worldview to be
publicly promoted in a state’s Constitution, in its institutions, and in education. Instead
of establishing Catholicism or any other religion, it establishes Marxism or another non-
religious worldview. The latter case looks better for Atheistic Secularism, but it is still not
favored, as the Catholic version of separation still gives the Church a relatively large degree
of freedom to act and influence the public and private spheres. That is the exact opposite
of what the atheistic perspective would like to achieve. It would favor the independence
of science and religion, and would either disregard or not allow science to be cultivated
inside religious organizations. Moreover, Atheistic Secularism, unlike the Catholic Church’s
formula of adaptation to Modernity, would not accept pluralism of religion as it aims to
eliminate religion from public and private life (Berlinerblau et al. 2014;Wanner 2012).
The Catholic aggiornamento, introducing elements of democracy into the Church,
altering its government, and focusing on human rights, is not of particular interest for
Atheistic Secularism, which would remain indifferent to such matters. The model would
welcome only a version of Church government that would allow the state to interfere in
Church affairs, to keep the Church under state control and hinder religious influence. Such
a model, thwarting freedom of religion, is, of course, unacceptable for Modern Catholicism,
which promotes freedom of religion and accepts pluralism (Ngo and Quijada 2015).
Generally, the perspective of Atheistic Secularism, at least in the version outlined
above, denies the most crucial ideas of Modernity, especially those embraced by the Catholic
Church. It is not preoccupied with individualism, human dignity, freedom of religion, or
pluralism. Instead, it promotes a non-religious worldview and very often (in Soviet Russia
and most Communist states) class interests, to which it subjugates individuality and human
dignity. In North Korea a political religion called Juche, with a cult of personality around
the atheistic leader, has been promoted for decades, which has resulted in officially allowing
to function only one, state-subjugated, Catholic church parish in Pjongjang (Bandow 2019).
For the Catholic Church, it must resemble the situation of ancient Roman Empire with the
cult of emperors and Christian persecutions.
4. Conclusions
The Catholic Church made its own way to Modernity, adopting many modern ideas
at Vatican Council II and afterwards. The most significant of these are the separation of
church and state, religious freedom and pluralism, individual human dignity and human
rights, elements of democracy, and the “independence of worldly affairs” from religion
(Paul VI 1965b, p. 36).
The Catholic Church’s formula for adaptation to Modernity can be assessed differ-
ently depending on one’s perspective. In this paper, Jacques Berlinerblau’s typology of
models of Secularity (Berlinerblau 2022) provided five perspectives to assess the Church’s
modernization. These perspectives are summarized below, beginning with the most and
ending with the least positive assessment.
Religions 2023,14, 638 9 of 10
Looking at the theoretical assumptions of the models, the most positive assessment
of the Catholic Church’s formula for adaptation to Modernity would be given by Accom-
modationism. This model would particularly appreciate the Catholic idea of church and
state separation. The Catholic insistence on treating religion as a public good would enable
the state to support religion, to some extent, in order to benefit society. However, practical
applications of the model—see the example of India—seem rather problematic, as does
treating Catholicism as a public good, as justified in the paper.
A similarly positive assessment of the Catholic model is given by Disestablishment.
This model also appreciates the Catholic idea of separation of church and state, and the
possibility for a religious organization to be supported by the state, in some cases, without
an established religion. However, the model would not support establishment of religion
in any state; in practice, the Catholic Church has not fully abandoned this model of church
and state relations, as in the case of Malta.
The third most positive assessment of the Catholic formula for adaptation to Modernity
is given by Separationism. This view would positively assess the Catholic version of
separation of church and state and the Church’s need for freedom to act. On the other hand,
the model prefers stricter separation than proposed by the Church—in particular, it would
not agree to subsidize any public mission of the Church, including social or educational
actions.
A slightly less positive assessment would be made by the Laïcitémodel, which is
committed to limiting some aspects of the public mission of the Church, and prefers
to submit religion to state supremacy, at least to some extent. This model is, therefore,
suspicious of the Catholic ideas of freedom of religion and the Church’s wide range of
freedom to act; however, it would still agree to a certain level of freedom.
The only model to regard the Catholic Church’s formula for adaptation to Modernity
decisively negatively is Atheistic Secularism (at least in the Soviet version). Firstly, it
generally regards religion as problematic for the state and society; secondly, it does not
favor the Catholic version of separation of church and state. Instead, it would prefer stricter
submission of the Church to the state in order to eliminate or severely weaken the influence
of religion on society (Ngo and Quijada 2015).
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
Any data cited has been previously published and included in the
references.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
Bandow, Doug. 2019. Competing with Secular Gods in North Korea. Available online: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/
north-korea-religious-freedom-believers- compete-with-secular-gods/ (accessed on 3 May 2023).
Barras, Amélie. 2017. Secularism in France. In The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Edited by Phil Zuckerman and John R. Shook. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 195–210.
Bauberot, Jean. 2014. Laïcitéand Freedom of Conscience in Pluricultural France. In Secularism on the Edge: Rethinking Church–State
Relations in the United States, France, and Israel. Edited by Jacques Berlinerblau, Sarah Fainberg and Aurora Nou. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 103–11.
Berlinerblau, Jacques. 2022. Secularism: The Basics. London: Routledge.
Berlinerblau, Jacques, Fainberg Sarah, and Nou Aurora, eds. 2014. Secularism on the Edge: Rethinking Church-State Relations in the United
States, France and Israel. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bruce, Steve, and David Voas. 2023. Secularization Vindicated. Religions 14: 301. [CrossRef]
Burtchaell, James Tunstead. 1991. Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae). In Modern Catholicism. Vatican II and after. Edited by
Adrian Hastings. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–25.
Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Casanova, José. 2009. The Secular and Secularisms. Social Research 76: 1049–66. [CrossRef]
Religions 2023,14, 638 10 of 10
Chappel, James. 2018. Catholic Modern. The Challenge of Totalitarianism and the Remaking of the Church. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Constitution of Malta. 1964. Available online: https://legirel.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article447&lang=en (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Drury, Shadia B. 2017. The Liberal Betrayal of Secularism. In The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Edited by Phil Zuckerman and John R.
Shook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–83.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 2000. Multiple Modernities. Daedalus 129: 1–29.
Faggioli, Massimo. 2020. Modernization of the Papacy and Catholicism in the Postmodern: Legacy and Challenges to Vatican I.
Horizons. The Journal of the College Theology Society 47: 115–19. [CrossRef]
Feldhay, Rivka. 2022. Catholic Europe and Sixteenth-Century Science: A Path to Modernity? In Religious Responses to Modernity. Edited
by Yohanan Friedman and Christoph Markschies. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 49–63.
Feldman, Noah. 2005. Divided by God: America’s Church-State Problem-and What We Should Do about It. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Fox, Jonathan. 2017. Political Secularism and Democracy in Theory and Practice. In The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Edited by Phil
Zuckerman and John R. Shook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–74.
Gettleman, Jeffrey, and Suhasini Raj. 2021. Arrests, Beating and Secret Prayers: Inside the Persecution of India’s Christians. Available
online: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/world/asia/india-christians- attacked.html (accessed on 17 March 2023).
Hastings, Adrian, ed. 1991. Modern Catholicism. Vatican II and After. New York: Oxford University Press.
Human Rights Watch. 2009. Anti-Christian Violence on the Rise in India. Available online: https://www.hrw.org/news/1999/09/30
/anti-christian-violence-rise- india (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuru, Ahmet. 2007. Passive and Active Secularism. World Politics 59: 568–94. [CrossRef]
McBrien, Richard P. 1991. The Church (Lumen Gentium). In Modern Catholicism. Vatican II and After. Edited by Adrian Hastings. New
York: Oxford University Press, pp. 84–95.
McDonagh, Enda. 1991. The Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). In Modern Catholicism. Vatican II and After. Edited by
Adrian Hastings. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–112.
McGreevy, John. 2022. Catholicism. A Global History from the French Revolution to Pope Francis. London: Norton & Company.
Moniz, Jorge Botelho. 2023. Secularization in Europe: Causes, Consequences, and Cultural Diversity. Religions 14: 423. [CrossRef]
Ngo, Tam T., and Justine B. Quijada, eds. 2015. Atheistic Secularism and Its Discontents: A Comparative Study of Religion and Communism in
Eurasia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Niose, David. 2017. Separating Church and State in America. In The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Edited by Phil Zuckerman and John
R. Shook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 597–614.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2008. Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality. New York: Basic Books.
O’Collins, Gerard. 2012. Does Vatican II Represent Continuity or Discontinuity? Theological Studies 73: 768–94. [CrossRef]
Pantham, Thomas. 1997. Indian Secularism and Its Critics: Some Reflections. The Review of Politics 59: 523–40. [CrossRef]
Paul VI (Vatican Council II). 1964. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). Boston: Pauline Books & Media.
Paul VI (Vatican Council II). 1965a. Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humane). London: St. Paul Editions.
Paul VI (Vatican Council II). 1965b. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Boston: Pauline Books &
Media.
Pius IX. 1864. The Syllabus of Errors. Available online: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htms (accessed on 3 May
2023).
Saeed, Abdullah. 2017. Secularism, State Neutrality and Islam. In The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Edited by Phil Zuckerman and
John R. Shook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 250–65.
Saunders, David. 2009. France on the Knife-edge of Religion: Commemorating the Law of 9 December 1905 on the Separation of
Church and State. In Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship. Edited by Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Tariq Modood.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–81.
Wanner, Catherine, ed. 2012. State Secularism and Lived Religions in the Soviet Russia and Ukraine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
