HIS-Press-Service, 1980 (5. évfolyam, 16-18. szám)
1980-02-01 / 16. szám
HIS Press Service No.16, February 1980 Page 9 statements of the Second Vatican Council. (Encyclical Redemptor Hominis (Redeemer of Man), 17; point 20 of the papal speech before the United Nations). Let us examine here more closely point 3 of Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom, which the Pope referred to in New York before the United Nations. "The social nature of man itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion; that he should participate with others in religious matters; that he should profess his religion in community." Point 4 of the same declaration goes on to say that "the freedom from coercion in religious matters, which is the endowment of persons as individuals, is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious bodies are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself." Secretary of State Miklós' understanding of religious freedom, however, excludes such things as allowance for the possibility that the faithful, on the basis of their individual human right to religious freedom, establish religious communities (e.g., base groups) which would be acceptable to the country's political leadership. A corroboration of this concept of religious freedom is also evident, for example, in the efforts of Hungarian Church politicians at bringing about a situation where all measures affecting the life of the Church should be issued by the diocesan bishops - who are under the Church politicians control. This is also the reason why this "episcopal" system of monocratic Church leadership was imposed upon the Protestant Churches, whose statutes call for a "presbyterial" form of government. If in analyzing this approach, someone - especially from another country, should come to the conclusion that the Church in Hungary is not free, then - according to Secretary of State Miklós - he is applying forms of the capitalistic system to the Hungarian situation. On the basis of Miklós1 remarks, however, it is not clear what he means here by "forms of the capitalistic system." It is of course true, as emphasized by Miklós, that the possibilities available today in the area of pastoral activity are greater than those of the Stalin era: The list of regulations stipulating what the Church may and may not do has actually grown larger. The Marxian concept of religious freedom permits the State to make the regulations and regimentations imposed upon the Church seem to be in harmony with the principle of religious freedom. A significant casuistic has already developed in Hungary as to what is and is not allowed in communal religious expression. The faithful, for example, are allowed to come together in the churches for catechetics or the discussion of religious matters, but the church may not be closed during such meetings. A protest has already been raised about the fact that normal entrance to the church through the main door is blocked off
