John Carroll and Religious Liberty: Catholicism, Liberalism, and Church–State Rapprochement in Early America

Abstract

This article aims to provide an account of the political thought of Archbishop John Carroll on the topic of religious liberty as a core principle of the American founding. It examines the relationship of Church and State through the lens of a developing self-understanding in the American and Roman Catholic identities. American Catholic colonists were accused of having a divided allegiance that made them dangerous to the social compact, divided between papal authority and the authority of the republic. Further, the place of the Catholic Church in a more pluralistic religious landscape following the Reformation demanded a reexamination of the traditional Catholic teaching on religious liberty. One man in particular stands out as a seminal figure in the development of a rapprochement between the American liberal understanding of religious liberty and that of the Catholic tradition. This man was Archbishop John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic Bishop in America. Carroll’s theoretical and practical approach to the highly contentious issue of religious liberty is a noteworthy example of simultaneous commitment to the Catholic faith and responsiveness to the exigencies of the moment and the perennial demands of political life. Carroll’s example is useful for Catholics and all others, as a model for Church–State separation.

1. Introduction

Roman Catholicism has a storied and at times turbulent history with American political life. In the colonial era, many Catholics were denied various civil liberties, including religious liberty, and struggled to harmonize their faith with the demands of political life in the new and diverse world of American politics. While legal penalties subsided in the wake of the Constitution’s First Amendment, religiously based animosity lingered long after. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, anti-Catholic political movements, such as the Know-Nothing movement, continued to view American Catholics with suspicion and act against their full inclusion in political and social life. With several waves of migration bringing large numbers of Catholics from Europe, the percentage of Americans who were Catholic dramatically increased. So too did the representation of Catholics in American political life, with a majority of the Supreme Court, numerous senators, congressmen, and governors identifying as Catholic today.1 The recent election of the first American Pope in history further elevates the role of Catholics in American public life. These remarkable developments highlight the success of reconciliation, which merits examination.

Throughout this history, the question of religious liberty has been a consistent point of contention for the integration of American Catholics into the American political order, both as a right to be secured for Catholics and as a fundamental social good to be endorsed by them. Historically, the Catholic tradition arising out of a religiously unified medieval Europe made little room for religious liberty. The issue of papal authority has likewise been a matter of public debate from the colonial era through the presidency of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend himself publicly against charges that he would be an agent of the papacy.

One of the most historically significant, clear-sighted, and regrettably too little-known figures in the history of Catholicism’s developing relationship with the American political order is America’s first Roman Catholic bishop, John Carroll of Baltimore. Carroll helped set the course for American Catholicism at the time of the American Revolution in a mode that was emphatically patriotic while self-confidently Catholic. Carroll’s chief contribution was his harmonization of Roman Catholicism with the burgeoning American political order. He was a strident champion of the revolutionary cause and a constant supporter of religious liberty. Understanding John Carroll’s thought and legacy will provide a new insight into the genesis of the posture of American Catholics in public life and an example of effective integration.

The existing scholarly literature on John Carroll is limited. Several biographies and other historical works that focus on the details of his life form the bulk of the literature. In several other works, Carroll is briefly discussed as one among many American Catholics of the founding era. Carroll is discussed in several brief articles, which indicate his place in American history and provide a high-level explanation of his thought, though without substantial analysis. Numerous histories have been written that tell the story of the Maryland colony (of which the Carroll family was a highly influential part), the experience of American Catholics in the colonies and young republic, the history of the Carroll family, and other themes, which incidentally include discussions of John Carroll as a secondary figure. These texts are helpful in establishing a clear picture of the facts of Carroll’s life, and they provide glimpses into his thought. However, they do not thoroughly examine John Carroll’s political thought nor do they typically focus on Carroll individually. This article seeks to fill that gap by examining Carroll’s thought in a concentrated manner from the perspective of political theory.

In his 2021 book Our Dear Bought Liberty, the historian Michael Breidenbach (Breidenbach 2021) makes the most substantial analysis of the political theory that influenced Carroll’s thinking, though this work too does not treat Carroll as a primary focus. Breidenbach identifies the conciliarist tradition as an especially prominent influence on Carroll, a thesis which this article will agree with and seek to further expound. Because Breidenbach’s analysis of Carroll is fairly limited, this article will serve to further substantiate and clarify the evidence for this position. Blanchard likewise demonstrates Carroll’s ongoing connection and correspondence with advocates of conciliarism (Blanchard 2018). Blanchard’s work helps to verify this intellectual genealogy, which will be explained here in new detail as well as specifically identified in the key texts of Carroll’s writings (Blanchard and Lehner 2021).

Nicholas Pelligrino (Pellegrino 2015) aptly situates John Carroll’s efforts to reconcile Catholicism with the broader Christian umbrella in order to establish that Catholics fit into the concept of America as a Christian nation The theme of Christian unity and the evolving sense of a shared identity between denominations indeed played a crucial role in Carroll’s support for religious liberty. O’Donnell (O’Donnell 2011) provides another valuable contribution in her analysis of Carroll’s organization and governance of the Church and the way this aided integration O’Donnell focuses on the practical motivations that indeed drove much of Carroll’s decision making. Joseph McShane likewise emphasizes the pragmatic elements of Carroll’s endeavors, asserting that he was “above all a realist (McShane 1988, p. 304). It is true that Carroll understood the practical necessity of reconciliation, though such presentations neglect the substantial theoretical convictions that undergirded Carroll’s endeavors. To see only the influence of pragmatic motivations on Carroll would be to miss the thoughtful synthesis he achieved and to draw suspicion on the sincerity of his positions. This article will complement such practical analysis with an explanation of the theory underlying Carroll’s praxis.

This article thus seeks to fill the gap in the scholarly literature by providing a novel analysis of Carroll’s thought from the perspective of political theory while building on earlier scholarship. Such an understanding of Carroll’s thought will make a valuable contribution to the study of such topics as the history of religious liberty in America, changing religious ideas in times of political change, the relationship of Catholicism to the American political order, and interfaith cooperation in politics. Carroll’s place in American history and his unique prominence among American Catholics merit a more detailed and thorough treatment of his thought than has thus far been provided.

Exploring John Carroll’s thought at the intersection of political theory and political theology allows for treating him not merely as a pastoral figure or historical actor but as an implicit political theorist navigating a moment of doctrinal and civic tension. In particular, Carroll’s thought illuminates a core problem in Western political development: how a tradition rooted in theocratic hierarchy and doctrinal exclusivity could engage meaningfully with the emerging liberal order built on pluralism, natural rights, and individual conscience. To frame this analysis, it is helpful to outline three broad models of Church–State relations operative in Carroll’s intellectual environment:

• The papalist–scholastic model, dominant in post-Reformation Catholic thought, which asserts the superiority of spiritual over temporal power (as in Bellarmine or Suarez), often endorsing the coercive enforcement of religious orthodoxy in Catholic states.
• The Lockean–liberal model, which grounds political legitimacy in the consent of the governed and separates civil authority from religious jurisdiction, emphasizing individual rights and toleration.
• The conciliarist or Gallican model, a more decentralized, often overlooked alternative within Catholic political theology, which affirms the authority of councils over papal supremacy and limits ecclesial interference in temporal affairs.

Carroll’s political theology draws on this third model while adopting the rhetorical and legal language of liberal republicanism. His writings suggest an effort not merely to accept religious liberty as a matter of expedience but to rearticulate Catholic ecclesiology in terms compatible with American liberal principles. The result is not a full synthesis—Carroll remains committed to Catholic truth—but rather a strategic rapprochement, one that foreshadows the position later formalized in the Second Vatican Council’s Decleration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, which recognized the right to religious liberty (Vatican Council II 1965).

Establishing this understanding of Carroll provides greater context for the debate over the compatibility of Catholicism with the American political order. Many authors have written on the question in the last two hundred and fifty years. John Courtney Murray’s (Murray [1960] 2005) 1960 book, We Hold These Truths; Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition, stands as a landmark defense of the pro-compatibility thesis, which has influenced many later writers. Other figures arguing in favor of compatibility include Orestes Brownson in the 19th century, and Richard John Neuhaus, John C. Rager, Michael Novak, Robert George, and many others in the 20th and 21st centuries. There has been no shortage of opponents in this debate, including such figures as Michael Hanby (Hanby 2015) and Christopher A. Ferrara (Ferrara 2012).

More recent authors have been proponents of the anti-compatibility thesis, promoting versions of post-liberalism, integralism, and other political theories that are taken as more properly aligned with Catholic principles than the liberalism of the American founding, which they reject. This debate has been approached from many angles, including the historical, philosophical, and theological. Numerous arguments and counterarguments have set much ink to the page and thereby render the debate robust and complex. Far too complex, indeed, to be settled here. Nonetheless, allowing Carroll’s voice to speak does serve to bring forth the perspective of a scholar and pastor who was recognized for his commitment to Catholic teaching, outspoken in his praise of the American political project, and uniquely positioned as a firsthand witness to the history of the nation’s birth.

2. Results

The finding of this research has been that John Carroll helped shape America’s tradition of religious liberty and foster the inclusion of American Catholics in the revolutionary cause and the political life of the new republic through a synthesis of conciliarist thought with political liberalism. Carroll departs in some surprising ways from the predominant political principles common in the Catholic tradition as an early and consistent supporter of the American Revolution. Carroll’s thought was shaped most significantly by the history of religious liberty in the Maryland colony, his decades of studies as a Jesuit academic, and especially by the conciliarist tradition.

3. Discussion

3.1. Carroll’s Biographical Details

John Carroll was born in 1735 in Maryland. His family was of Irish Catholic lineage and played a very significant role in the development of the Maryland colony and in the course of the American Revolution. At the age of thirteen, Carroll left Maryland for France to pursue his studies as a Jesuit, being ordained a priest in 1761. There, Carroll was immersed in humanistic studies encompassing the classical liberal arts, spanning from classical Greek and Roman sources to the humanism of his time. During his years abroad, Carroll became intimately familiar with trends in French theological and political thought, which were highly contested and one of the reasons why the Jesuits were suppressed. Of particular consequence were the principles of Gallicanism, which included the clear distinction of the spiritual and temporal orders and retained the primacy of the government in matters of the temporal order. Carroll imported many of these ideas to America when he returned. Carroll remained abroad for over a decade, teaching at Jesuit institutions.

When the Jesuit order was suppressed by Rome in 1773 (the suppression lasting until 1814), Carroll lost his station and returned to the family estate in Maryland as a place of refuge. Having returned to his family home in Maryland, he took up the care of ministering to the local Catholic population and organizing the sparse clergy there. His leadership and vision led to him quickly becoming recognized by his fellow priests as a natural and capable leader. A series of appointments culminated in Carroll being named Archbishop of Baltimore in 1789. During all this time, Carroll wrote frequently in defense of American Catholics, insisting that they would make as good of Republican citizens as anyone else. Carroll was first and foremost a pastor, not a political ideologue. As he noted in a 1776 letter, “I have observed that when the ministers of Religion leave their duties of their profession to take a busy part in political matters, they generally fall into contempt; & sometimes even bring discredit to the cause, in whose service they are engaged (Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 46). Nonetheless, his pastoral duties demanded of him a serious consideration of and response to the question of religious liberty in his day. In a letter, he noted that “willing to suppose liberality in the framers of your Constitution, I endeavored to reconcile it with Catholicity (ibid). This endeavor was a constant theme of his career.

Responsible for the organization of ecclesial life in the United States, Carroll shows his indebtedness to both the scholastic tradition and American sensibilities about representation. He was constant and careful in his insistence on the limited scope of the papal power in secular affairs and the prerogative of the local Church against Rome or any foreign ecclesial entity. Further, he established the mechanisms for internal Church governance in a representative manner, giving the local clergy significant say in the affairs of the Church and her leadership, including the selection of Carroll as their head. In their letter to the Pope requesting the appointment of Carroll as the superior of the American Church, the committee expressly offered their petition as a representative act on behalf of the entire body of American priests. Further, they specifically cited the delicate Church–State relationship in America as a primary reason for the selection of Carroll, who would mollify the suspicions of undue influence by foreign potentates on account of his status as a native of Maryland. Likewise, his known patriotism and defense of religious toleration made him a candidate well suited to the demands of the political context in which the Church was living. Carroll articulated his own understanding of the duty imposed upon him in a letter to the Pope, saying,

In these United States our religious system has undergone a revolution, if possible, more extraordinary than our political one. In all of them free toleration is allowed to Christians of every denomination; and particularly in the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, a communication of all civil rights, without distinction or diminution, is extended to those of our religion. This is a blessing and advantage which it is our duty to preserve and improve, with the utmost prudence, by demeaning ourselves on all occasions as subjects zealously attached to our government and avoiding to give any jealousies on account of any dependence on foreign jurisdictions more than that which is essential to our religion, an acknowledgment of the Pope’s spiritual supremacy over the whole Christian world.

(Carroll and Hanley 1976 v.1, pp. 80–81)

Fulfilling this duty to preserve the blessing of liberty was a hallmark of Carroll’s career.

3.2. The Influence of Anti-Catholicism on Carroll

One of the primary influences on Carroll’s thought, which strengthened his advocacy for religious liberty and the American Revolution generally, was the history of dissension and persecution, which had marked the experience of his native home of Maryland. Carroll was familiar with this history and had learned from it that the best path to the flourishing of peace in civil society and authentic faith in the Church was that of toleration and mutual respect between sects.

The quest for religious liberty was a hallmark of the American experience from the earliest settlements, such as the famed Mayflower voyage to the Plymouth colony. Violent sectarian strife and persecution in the Old World led many to seek freedom in the New World. At times, this inspired a pluralistic vision, such as that of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, or the Calverts in Maryland, where people of various faiths could live together in peace and harmony. At other times, religious groups sought freedom for themselves but denied it for other religious groups. Typically, larger and more established Churches were prone to exert their influence in their own interest and tolerate less religious pluralism, such as the Puritans in Massachusetts and Connecticut or the Anglicans in Virginia. Smaller religious groups—such as Catholics, Jews, Baptists, and Quakers—that suffered the sting of intolerance more acutely tended to favor toleration and pluralism.

The landscape of religious pluralism and tolerance in colonial and revolutionary America was intricate and diverse, manifesting differently across various groups and regions. Given the complexity in the relations of the many interrelated groups approaching the issue, it is difficult to say how Protestants as any kind of homogeneous bloc responded to Carroll and his ideas and on what grounds. Nevertheless, Carroll was recognized by various prominent Protestants, including some of the Founding Fathers, who celebrated his stance on religious liberty and his commitment to the cause of patriotism. Despite the limitations noted, it is clear that Carroll’s position fit well with the dominant consensus on religious liberty and pluralism that coalesced into the policy adopted in the First Amendment. This consensus was recognized as politically expedient, a requirement of natural rights, and consonant with the Christian faith shared by the members of the various denominations who together composed the vast majority of the citizens of the country. Carroll’s greatest contribution to this debate was to ameliorate political concerns about the possibility of Catholics integrating into American political life and rallying Catholics in support of liberty.

From their earliest arrival in America, Catholics in the New World faced fierce opposition. This relentless animus constantly threatened their freedom and erected barriers to their full integration into society. As Cogliano notes, “Anti-Catholicism, or anti-popery to use the contemporary term, was one of the most prevalent characteristics of New England culture before the American Revolution.” (Cogliano 1995, p. 2). Shea recognizes in The Life and Times of John Carroll, “Such were the conditions which prevailed in Maryland during the boyhood of John Carroll. The temper of the times was bitterly anti-Catholic …The Maryland colonial records are filled with gravamina against the Catholics, and the note sounded most often is the fact that … ‘children of Popish parents are sent to St. Omer’s.” (Shea 1888, pp. 12–13). St. Omer’s, where John, along with many other members of the Catholic community in Maryland, studied. Farrelly has captured the breadth of this hostility in his book Anti-Catholicism in America, 1620–1860, where he writes, “Fears of popery were a standard part of the rhetoric that fueled the cause of independence.” (Farrelly 2018, p. 84). Haydon, likewise, in Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth Century England, asserts that “for vast numbers of people there had never been the slightest doubt that papists represented the most dangerous element in English society.”(Haydon 1993, p. 118). These anti-Catholic sentiments were longstanding in the English and American minds and remained prominent up to the time of the revolution. John Carroll complained in a 1799 letter, “we dwell among unfriendly non-Catholic sects.” (Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.2, p. 276). This long-standing anti-Catholic sentiment in Maryland and the other colonies was a decisive influence on Carroll’s thought.

Two primary reasons led Protestant Americans to doubt the capacity of Catholics to be good citizens. First, they feared that Catholic obedience to the Pope entailed a split allegiance on the part of American Catholics between Rome and America that, in a moment of conflict, would follow the foreign power of the Pope against the American government. This could prove fatal if American Catholics, especially those entrusted with the powers of government, defected from their duty to the United States and followed conflicting orders from Rome to the advantage of the Pope, European monarchs, or some other foreign power. English history in the preceding centuries was rife with the consequences of this conflict, which remained fresh in the minds of Anglo-Americans.

The second reason for fear was the Catholic Church’s claim of being the one and only true Church and therefore having supremacy over all other religions. It was feared that this claim to supremacy would be the cause of the persecution of Protestants, as it had been at times in the Old World. At the very least, this claim to superiority would be an insurmountable source of disunity and bigotry, which would preclude the possibility of Catholics living harmoniously as citizens of the Republic with their Protestant American fellows. To grant religious liberty to Catholics was thus seen as a two-fold danger to the political order.

Samuel Adams presented the issue of Catholicism in America in the 1772 The Rights of the Colonists, where he said

The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed. … By the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists.

(Adams 1906)

John Jay, in the Address to the People of Great Britain by the First Continental Congress in 1774, (which he penned,) wrote, “Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country [Quebec] a religion [Catholicism] that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion through every part of the world.” (Jay 1774). Alexander Hamilton, in his 1774 A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress, asked, “Does not your blood run cold to think that an English Parliament should pass an Act for the establishment of arbitrary power and Popery in such an extensive country? … Your loves, your property, your religion are all at stake.” (Hamilton and Syrett 1961). He warned that the Canadian tolerance in Quebec would draw Catholics from throughout Europe, who would eventually act as a fatal influence in America.

The thoroughgoing anti-Catholic sentiments discussed above stretched far back in colonial history. A fear of papal tyranny and a distrust of the divided allegiance of Catholics formed a prominent part of English and American political thought from the English Reformation onwards. This hostile climate deprived Catholics of religious toleration in most of the English colonies. The Maryland colony stands out as a stark exception. Led by Catholic proprietors, the Catholic colonists of Maryland sought to buck the bigotry that oppressed them and establish a regime of religious toleration for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. As Breidenbach argues, “The central problem for Catholics in America, as in England, was to prove their civil loyalty, and early American Catholics followed Cecil Calvert in denying certain principles of papalism that made their faith uncivil.” (Breidenbach 2021, p. 89). Maryland’s experiment directly countered the prevailing idea that Catholicism was incompatible with American liberty. This fascinating and rich history was marked by a commitment to religious toleration throughout the reign of the Lords Baltimore.

From 1642 to 1688, the control of Maryland by the original Catholic line of Baltimore began to be challenged, and in 1691, King William transferred the control of the colony into new hands. The new government established the Church of England as the official State Church. By 1702, Catholics were excluded from voting and holding office and lost the right to worship in their own Churches, while other non-conformist sects suffered no such penalty. The policy of religious discrimination against Catholics continued from that time to the American Revolution. The fall from the robust protection of liberty maintained by the Calverts to tyranny and intolerance was swift and harsh.

The collapse of the successful regime of religious tolerance in Maryland deeply impacted John Carroll’s own understanding. The early legacy of the colony had been one of religious liberty. As Krugler states, “The Calverts’ bold experiment was a refreshing oasis in an age when the state advocated coercion and persecution to achieve religious uniformity and secure political allegiance. It also stood as a stark testimonial to a family’s ability to prosper as English Catholics.” (Krugler 2004, p. 11). This was undone by the sectarian feuding and intolerance that prevailed for nearly a century. Looking back at both of these eras, Carroll took the former as a model. He sought to reconcile Catholicism with American political principles and thus ameliorate the anti-Catholic attitude that had stripped Maryland of its freedom. Like the Calverts, Carroll avoided keeping past grievances alive and sought harmony wherever possible. Carroll was able to see in the history of his own people both the promise of religious liberty and the dangers thereto. From this perspective, he was able to champion the cause of religious liberty in a principled and effective manner.

Carroll saw all this clearly and recognized the need for conciliation. In 1784, he said, “we must use extreme circumspection in order not to give pretexts to the enemies of Religion to deprive us of our actual rights. It is very important that the prejudices entertained for so long against Catholics be eradicated.” (Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 153). This attitude marked Carroll’s entire career, demonstrating that he was intimately familiar with these attacks. He once remarked that “a popish priest was thought to be the greatest monster in the creation. … The horror, which was associated with the Idea of a Papist, is incredible; and the scandalous misrepresentations, by their ministers, increased the horror.” (ibid, v.1, p. 505). This animosity can be traced from the beginning of the English Reformation through to the American Revolution.

This sectarian strife stemmed in part from the specifically religious or theological dimension of the dispute. However, the conflict was not merely theological. One of the most consistently cited and intractable issues was the more properly political problem of divided allegiance. Catholics were accused of being slavish agents of tyranny because of their obedience to the Pope. This obedience, when set in opposition to the secular power, would render Catholics traitors to their country. If Catholics claimed to be obedient to both the Pope and the government, they would have to choose which to follow in the event of a conflict. The Pope’s claim to superiority and the threat of eternal damnation would incline Catholics to choose their faith over their country. English history after the separation of the Church of England showed the dramatic possibilities this entailed all too well. The Catholic Empires of France and Spain kept the specter of Popery in the minds of American Protestants as they sought to compete with England for control of the New World.

Among the many voices who made such arguments in the colonial era was the leading thinker, John Locke. Locke, though known as a champion of religious toleration and disestablishment, nonetheless saw Catholics as uniquely unfit for toleration. Locke directly addresses the issue that Catholicism presents for civil society, saying,

That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby, ipso facto, deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country, and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the court and the church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person; who has not only power to persuade the members of his church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or as in order thereunto; but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire.

(Locke and Shapiro 2003, p. 246)

In 2019, a previously unknown manuscript of Locke’s was discovered, bearing the title Reasons for Tolerating Papists Equally with Others. Here, he considers the consequences for religious toleration when Catholics do not hold to the problematic views listed above. In this brief text of only a few pages, Locke again addresses the issue of Catholics’ divided allegiance. He says,

I doubt whether upon Protestant principles we can justifie punishing of Papists for their speculative opinions as Purgatory transubstantiation &c if they stopd there. But possibly noe reason nor religion obleiges us to tolerate those whose practicall principles necessarily lead them to the eager persecution of all opinions, & the utter destruction of all societys but their owne. soe that it is not the difference of their opinion in religion, or of their ceremonys in worship; but their dangerous & factious tenents in reference to the state which are blended with make a part of their religion that excludes them from the benefit of toler-ation·who would thinke it fit to tolerate either presbiterian or Independant, if they made it a part of their religion to pay an implicit subjection to a forraigne infallible power Severity to Papists only, cannot make them unite with any other party. nor toleration disunite them among themselves.

(Walmsley and Waldmann 2019, p. 1115)

Here, Locke makes it clear that it is not on account of ‘speculative opinions’ that Catholics pose a danger to the commonwealth. A subject who holds the Catholic view on transubstantiation will on that account alone be no visibly different in his outward behavior and respect for the rights of others than any other person. Likewise, if a Catholic worships in Latin rather than his native tongue, this has no direct impact on his relationships with his countrymen.2 Such ‘speculative’ religious opinions are entirely interior or private. They have no bearing on one’s behavior in public life. They do not bear upon the natural rights of men, which the government exists to protect, and therefore fall outside the ambit of government interference.

However, Locke sees in Catholicism a penchant for persecution, such that these speculative opinions that ought to be private in fact become the pretext for ‘persecution’ and the ‘utter destruction’ of one’s neighbors.3 Elsewhere in the same text, Locke does consider how Catholics might be tolerated, despite these worries. He says, “If Papists can be supposd to be as good subjects as others they may be equally tolerated.” (ibid, pp. 1111–12). In essence, if they deny the claims of papal authority and refrain from persecuting those with whom they disagree, they pose no threat to the peace and wellbeing of the political community and thus can be tolerated.

Variations in this line of thinking were widespread during Carroll’s time and presented an urgent challenge to which American Catholics needed to respond. Carroll stated clearly that “A foreign temporal jurisdiction will never be tolerated here; & even the spiritual supremacy of the Pope is the only reason why in some of the United States, the full participation of all civil rights is not given to the R.C.” (Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 78). Elsewhere, he says, “The Catholics, therefore, desire that the adversaries of our religion be given no handle for incriminating us on the grounds that we depend more than is proper on a foreign power.” (ibid, v.1, p. 171). On the crucial issues of papal power and persecution, Carroll did adopt principles that would satisfy the Lockean criteria.

Near the end of his life, Carroll complained that Catholics were often deeply misunderstood. He argued that fear of ‘Popery’ was based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations more than an accurate assessment of what Catholics believe. He wrote,

Protestants carefully avoid reading books, which might disabuse them and believe every absurd tale concerning the tenets and practices of Roman Catholics. The Catholics in this country have very little fear of reading the controversial works of their adversary. I have sometimes had the curiosity to examine both their public and private li-braries, but, I have never discovered any traces of our ablest Theologians the Bellarmins, Bossuets, Fetaus, Sismond, Arnauds, Bedes, Fleure’s ecclesiastical History &c, whilst their shelves are filled with all the ribaldry of defamation and Ignorance against Popery as they call it.

(ibid, v.3, p. 149)

Carroll always sought to avoid giving offense to his neighbors and did not engage in polemics. For example, he lobbied strenuously for the removal of a line in the oath he took when he was consecrated as a bishop, the line being a promise to persecute heretics. He did, on the other hand, see it as a constant necessity and serious duty to present the beliefs of Catholics in their fullness and in a manner that was compelling and acceptable. Carroll thought his faith was misunderstood more than it was truly hated. He thus made it a special focus of his efforts to dispel such misunderstandings and present the faith in a manner amenable to his countrymen.

As Patrick Carey recognizes, “perhaps more than any other group in the early republic Catholics recognized, and wrestled with, the tensions between religious liberty at large and the need to preserve dogma and discipline with a church.” (Carey 1989, p. 323). This duty was in part a religious one, the work of evangelization, but Carroll also saw the crucial political implications to which he often referred.4 In the education of priests, Carroll placed a special emphasis on their being conversant in these topics. He recognized that “they [priests] will be placed amongst strangers and bitter enemies to our faith and Church, who will often seek opportunities of engaging in controversy, and not unfrequently with much dexterity.” (Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 504). In order to overcome these obstacles, he suggested that they “study our constitution, our laws, our customs.” (ibid, v.2, p. 105). Carroll followed this model himself and often spoke in praise of the Constitution and the government. Carroll, as the spiritual head of the Catholic Church in America, always sought to dispel the misunderstandings about Catholicism and to show how his faith was compatible with American political principles.

John Adams acknowledged that Carroll was “a Professor of the Roman catholic religion, yet a warm, a firm, a zealous Supporter of the Rights of America.” (Adams 1776). Indeed, Caroll confessed,” I have contracted the language of a Republican.” (Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 65). Carroll denied that the power claimed by some of the Popes to interfere in secular affairs was a legitimate doctrine of the faith. He likewise denied the claim of papal infallibility, instead adopting the ‘conciliarist’ position. The conciliarists argued for infallibility residing in the whole Church gathered at a council.5 In this view, it was not the Pope alone who was infallible. In adopting this position, Carroll was able to quell the fear of ‘popish’ tyranny and assert a Catholic identity unburned by the problematic beliefs that he denied. On this account, Carroll asserted that “In these United States our Religious system has undergone a revolution, if possible, more extraordinary than our political one.” (ibid, v.1, p. 80) Carey explains that, “in the United States … these traditional principles began to be interpreted in new ways as the American experience itself became a testing ground where the principles were reinterpreted and reapplied.” (Carey 1989, p. 332).

In 1784, John Carroll engaged in a public written debate with Charles Wharton, a former Jesuit priest who converted to Protestantism. This debate provides one of the most robust and insightful windows into Carroll’s mind. Wharton wrote a public Letter to the Roman Catholics of Worcester, in which he defended his renunciation of Catholicism (Wharton 1784). Carroll responded to this letter with his own letter, An Address to the Roman Catholics of the United States of America by a Catholic Clergyman. In this letter, Carroll responds to many of the arguments made by Wharton, which echo the same claims made by Locke.6 Here, one can see Carroll directly wrestling with many of these issues. Carroll explains his motivation for entering this public debate saying,

When I found that he [Wharton] not only had abandoned our faith and communion, but had imputed to us doctrines foreign to our belief, and having a natural tendency to embitter against us the minds of our fellow-citizens, I felt an anguish too keen for description; and perhaps the Chaplain [Wharton] will experience a similar sentiment, when he comes coolly to reflect on this instance of his conduct. It did not become the friend of toleration to misinform, and to sow in minds so misinformed the seeds of religious animosity. Under all these distressful feelings, one consideration alone relieved me in writing; and that was, the hope of vindicating your religion to your ownselves at least, and preserving the steadfastness of vour faith. But even this prospect should not have induced me to engage in the controversy, if I could fear that it would disturb the harmony now subsisting amongst all christians in this country, so blessed with civil and religious liberty; which if we have the wisdom and temper to preserve, America may come to exhibit a proof to the world, that general and equal toleration, by giving a free circulation to fair argument, is the most effectual method to bring all denominations of christians to an unity of faith.

(Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 140)

Here we see several key features of Carroll’s understanding of the relationship between the Catholic faith and American government. First, Carroll is deeply concerned with distinguishing the true beliefs of Catholicism from the unfair depictions of them, which so often embittered other Christians against Catholics. He identifies the embitterment of his ‘fellow citizens’ as the primary motivation of his efforts. This concern was typical of Carroll’s mind. He clearly understood the delicate relationship between the public understanding of Catholicism and the possibility of harmony and toleration between Catholics and their fellow citizens.7 Second, Carroll proclaims himself a proponent of toleration, harmony, and open discourse. In so doing, Carroll defied the claim that ‘Popery’ was synonymous with slavish obedience and cultivated ignorance. Rather, he planted himself and the Church which he represented on the side of liberty. Third, Carroll was at once a staunch defender of the doctrines of the Catholic Church and an ardent patriot concerned with the welfare of the political community. He consistently maintains both commitments throughout his career.8

Carroll’s first concern in this debate is to rebut Wharton’s argument that the infallibility of the Church entails a blind and ignorant faith. In his response to this accusation, he argues that

The Chaplain goes on to tell the catholics of the city of Worcester, that “if a man’s belief be not rational, if he submit to human authority without weighing or understanding the doctrines, which it inculcates, this belief is not faith. It is credulity, it is weakness.” Who doubts it? … And yet amongst these tenets, there are some beyond the reach of human comprehension. The Trinity, the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God, his being conceived of the Holy Ghost, his crucifixion and death, his descending into hell, are, I presume, those doctrines of christianity, which the Chaplain deems fundamental; for they are all contained in the apostle’s creed. He is certainly unable to weigh or understand them. Nevertheless he acts rationally in admitting and believing them, because he conceives them to be revealed by an infallible guide. Can it then be folly and credulity in you to believe for a similar reason these and all other articles of your religion?

(Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 93)

Here, Carroll argues that the belief in the infallibility of the Church itself is open to rational inquiry and examination. Once one has been convinced of the reasonableness of this idea, one has a foundation in reason to accept the authoritative pronouncements of the Church. In this way, a Catholic is no less reasonable in heeding the teachings of the Church than any man is for taking the authorities’ teaching of an expert, especially in areas of such complexity or subtlety as trinitarian theology or soteriology. Carroll argues that it would be quite unreasonable to expect a farmer or laborer to dedicate the time and careful study that a cleric is able to dedicate to these issues in order to determine for himself the truth of every doctrine and every sentence of scripture.

This response also meets Locke’s criticism of faith, which is coerced by an outside power. In the case of the Catholic faith, the Church does not impose a dogma to be accepted without the possibility of any rational inquiry. Rather, having come to a reasonable conviction of the truth of Christianity and the infallibility of the Church, one reasonably assents to the teaching of this authority. Being told what true doctrine is and what is to be believed is far from tyrannical coercion.

Carroll also refers to a papal bull that banned reading certain heretical texts. He argues that the bull is not valid because it was not received by most of the local ecclesial communities.9 Here, he is employing a Gallican principle, responding to the claim that the Church intentionally makes Catholics ignorant, and clarifying that not all papal pronouncements are necessarily binding. He says, “May I not then say with confidence, that rational investigation is as open to Catholics, as to any other men on the face of the earth?” (ibid, v.1, p. 68). Far from the caricature of darkened medieval superstition, Carroll’s faith was influenced by the Christian humanism of the modern era. Carroll again addressed the issue of papal power in a 1786 letter, where he wrote,

It has been always the uniform endeavor of the open and secret enemies the Catholic Church to represent this spiritual supremacy of Christ’s Vicar the most odious light; and I was not surprised to hear, that the turbulent men, who foment the present disturbances, have declared themselves independent of it, as of a foreign jurisdiction. By using these words, they not only manifest the spirit, by which they are governed, but they hope to rend obnoxious to our fellow-citizens, an essential tenet of our religion, and all of us, who profess it: a tenet, which is the bond of our union. … There would indeed be a foundation for the reproach intended by the words, foreign jurisdiction, if we acknowledge in the Successor of St. Peter, any power or prerogative, which clashed in the least degree with the duty, we owe to our country, or its laws. To our country we owe allegiance, and the tender of our best services and property, when they are necessary for its defense: to the Vicar of Christ we owe obedience in things purely spiritual. Happily, there is no competition in their respective claims on us, nor any difficulty in rendering to both the submission, which they have a right to claim. Our country commands and enforces by outward coercion the services, which tend to the preservation and defense of that personal security, and of that property, for the sake of which political societies were formed, and men agreed to live under the protection of, and obedience to civil government. The Vicar of Christ, as visible head of his Church, watches over the integrity and soundness of doctrine, and makes use of means and weapons, that act only on the souls of men, to enforce the duties of religion, the purity of worship, and ecclesiastical discipline.

(ibid, v.2, p. 460)

Carroll’s articulation here fits perfectly with Locke’s caveat in Reasons for Tolerating Papists Equally with Others. Carroll’s consistent effort to disabuse his countrymen of this misunderstanding and present an authentic understanding of papal power in its true light aided in dispelling the fear of tyrannical ‘Popery.’

Carroll celebrated the achievement of religious toleration in America many times throughout his life. In his Commemoration of American Independence, he said “God has visited you in particular by a signal instance of his mercy in removing those obstacles, which heretofore cramped the free exercise of our religious functions.” (ibid, v.3, p. 460). This accomplishment was a constant theme in Carrol’s discussion of the American Revolution and the new form of government. He never failed to express gratitude and happiness that the right to religious liberty had been enshrined in law and protected by the government. “What perfect freedom Catholics enjoy nearly everywhere in these states; and how all classes of Americans abhor any form of annoyance merely because of difference in religion.” (ibid, v.3, p. 472) In order to attain this accomplishment, these anti-Catholic attitudes had to be refuted. This was a difficult task because the scholastic tradition of Catholic political thought did provide a basis for these claims. Carroll understood this tradition, though he was not constrained by it and did not consider it representative of genuine Catholic doctrine.

There is no doubt that John Carroll was recognized and respected by his fellow countrymen across denominational lines. As quoted above, John Adams explicitly recognized both Carroll’s Catholicity and his zealous support of the rights of America. Carroll was even sought after by the Continental Congress when he was invited to participate in leading the 1776 delegation to Canada, which sought to form an alliance with the predominantly Catholic population. The delegation included Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and John’s cousin Charles, the sole Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. Though the mission was unsuccessful, the confidence placed in John Carroll by inviting him to participate demonstrates that his efforts were known to the leaders of the revolution and appreciated as politically significant and effective. In reference to this episode, Adams described Carroll as “A Roman Catholic but an ardent patriot.” (Adams 1776). General Charles Lee, in a letter to John Hancock, likewise described Carroll as “a man of liberal sentiments, enlarged mind and a manifest friend of Civil Liberty,” the kind of figure whose service “would be worth battalions.” (Melville 1955, p. 44). George Washington himself was familiar with John Carroll and expressed his “very great esteem and regard” for him in a 1792 letter (Washington 1792). These expressions of admiration for Carroll by leading men and the confidence placed in him by the Continental Congress illustrate Carroll’s success in overcoming the widespread anti-Catholic animosity and effectively presenting a vision of Catholic integration into and support of the new American political order.

3.3. Scholasticism and Religious Liberty

As a member of the Society of Jesus (commonly referred to as the ‘Jesuits’) whose membership included many of the most prominent scholastic authors of the post-Reformation era, Carroll could easily be expected to adopt their political principles, which included a generally negative attitude towards religious liberty. However, Carroll in many ways worked beyond his Jesuit heritage and approached these issues from a different position.

One does not have to look far for language in the Catholic tradition that could reasonably give the impression that Catholic political theology was incompatible with American liberalism and that Catholics were opposed to religious liberty (C.F. Gregory 1832; Leo 1888). Thomas Aquinas [1225–1274], to whom the entire scholastic tradition looked to as a preeminent authority, argues that “wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.” (Aquinas 1920, II.II.Q.11A.3.Sed Contra). Far from disestablishment and toleration, there were many advocates of an official State religion and varying degrees of enforcement.10 These arguments present an obstacle at the center of Carroll’s project by giving confirmation to suspicions about Catholics and casting religious liberty as a policy to be avoided. The following cursory glance at three major figures of the scholastic tradition will serve to exemplify the presence of these tendencies throughout the tradition.

This attitude presents itself consistently in many of the scholastic texts, which show a strong preference for some form of integration or cooperation between Church and State and for significant limits on religious toleration. Robert Bellarmine [1542–1621], a Jesuit Cardinal and one of the most prominent counter-Reformation authors, wrote extensively on the question of papal power and the relation of the secular and sacred powers. Carroll identifies Bellarmine by name in writing, suggesting a familiarity with his work. Even in the absence of such evidence, it is scarcely imaginable that Carroll could have been ignorant of the greatly famous Bellarmine. Bellarmine advanced the papalist position in a more moderate form than some. He argued that the sacred power (contained in the Church) was distinct from and higher than the secular power (contained in the State) and that the former could command the latter insofar as spiritual ends were concerned. This would be referred to as ‘indirect’ authority over temporal affairs. Bellarmine, like many Catholic theologians during this era, argued outright against religious liberty. Indeed, he states clearly that “without a doubt the Christian princes are obliged not to grant their subjects freedom of belief but to see to it that the faith that the Catholic bishops and especially the Supreme Pontiff teach to be the true one is preserved.” (Bellarmine and Tutino 2012, p. 83). In a Christian commonwealth, all the baptized were considered members of the Church and thus under her spiritual jurisdiction. A Christian prince, wielding the lesser secular power, was obliged to cooperate with the higher sacred power in achieving its end, the salvation of souls. To grant the freedom of belief was seen to be a dereliction of this duty, which harmed both the spiritual welfare of Christians and their temporal wellbeing. Bellarmine again states clearly that “dissension in faith is, therefore, the destruction of the Church. Accordingly, princes must on no account allow this freedom if they want to perform their duty.” (ibid, p. 85). It is not only permissible, in Bellarmine’s view, for heretics to be punished, but it is in fact a duty of the prince to punish them.

Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) was another major figure in the education that Carroll received at St. Omer’s. No less than Roger Filmer, the great foil of Locke’s First Treatise, attacked Suarez. Why? Suarez affirms that “Coercive power over wicked kings does indeed reside in the Pope. For in the first place, it clearly follows from what has been said above that there does reside in the Pope coercive power over temporal princes who are incorrigibly wicked, and especially over schismatics and stubborn heretics.” (Suárez and Pink 2015, p. 781). He goes on to say that “This same papal power may extend to the coercion of kings by means of temporal punishments, and deposition from their thrones, if necessity so demands.” (ibid) Suarez teaches that a heretical king who has been condemned by a declaratory judgment by the Pope ipso facto loses his legitimacy, becomes a tyrant if he remains in power, and “may be put to death by any private individual whatsoever.” (ibid, p. 819). The power to render such a judgment is said to lie with either the State or the Pope. Indeed, the Pope may “command and compel the said kingdom to take this course, when he shall have concluded that such an act is necessary for the spiritual welfare of the realm, and, especially, for the avoidance of heresies and schisms.” (ibid, p. 822)

Because the scholastics viewed the spiritual authority of the Church as a binding and preeminent power, the possibilities for religious liberty or toleration are rather distinct from that put forward by such liberal thinkers as John Locke. Suarez held that “the character of baptism is an indelible sign of subjugation to the Church.”11 (Suarez and Berton 1858, p. 496). This view was likewise held by the other authors discussed in this section. As a consequence of this principle, the Church had an authority and claim to obedience over members of the Church on account of which it could legitimately exercise spiritual and temporal influence. A member of the Church would be anyone who was baptized. This membership did not cease when one removed themselves from obedience via heresy or apostasy. A distinction was therefore made between the right to religious toleration for heretics—members of the Church who failed to fulfill their duty of obedience—and religious toleration for non-Christians who had not yet entered into the jurisdiction of the Church. “Suárez did not believe that a Catholic state could force infidels to convert because the temporal power of the state is ordered to a natural end. Therefore, the state lacks the authority to punish subjects who do not accept the Catholic faith. Suárez was so committed to this principle of religious freedom that he believed non-Christians would be justified in waging a just war against Catholic invaders who sought to convert them by force.” (Fastiggi 2022, p. 4).

Domingo De Soto (1494–1560) was a founding member of the famous and widely influential Salamanca School and held a similar vision of the relationship between the Church and the State. For De Soto, where the salvation of souls and the wellbeing of the Church are at stake, the Pope can and ought to exercise his superior power over the political power. He says,

If, for example, the Christian king were to make laws to the detriment of the faith; namely, laws adverse to the sacraments, or to the Christian religion in any way, or if the Pope were to call a council, which the king impeded wrongly and contrary to right, or if he were to furnish aid to heretics, and infidels opposing our faith, or to schismatics, or move any other sort of mischief against the Apostolic see or the Church, then the Pope would be able to act against him, not only with the spiritual sword but also with the temporal.

(De Soto and Wilson 2021)

While innumerable similar examples could be identified from the intellectual heritage in which Carroll was formed, these representative instances suffice to showcase the radically distinct character of these principles and those adopted by Carroll. This distinction being established, it is necessary to look elsewhere than the scholastic tradition for a recognizable intellectual source of influence in the formation of Carroll’s mind.

The language of the American founders and their philosophical inspirers could scarcely bear a more distinct tone than these scholastic documents. The fundamental claim of the liberal political theory on which the American order is premised is the natural equality of all men. All men are equally free inasmuch as no other man has a right to rule over another, including to rule over his religious belief and practice. Because religious liberty is a natural right that all men possess, it was held that the government had no role in dictating a man’s religious beliefs or worship. So long as his religion did not prevent him from being a good and peaceful citizen capable of living in peace with his fellow men, no man should be persecuted on account of his private beliefs. From the founders’ perspective, it is not the State’s domain to adjudicate religious disputes, and certainly not the fundamental disputes between religions. “Government is no longer in the business of defining the one true religion.” (West 2017, p. 407). Thus, religion should be left to the individual as much as possible.

Thus, for the founders, religious liberty is an inalienable right that cannot be wholly ceded to any other authority. Further, the government exists for specific purposes—i.e., the protection of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—which do not include defining the best way of life, the identification of the true religion, etc. Governments ought to abstain “from defining and compelling a particular vision of the highest life” in order to allow the liberty necessary for the attainment of that very life (ibid). John Carroll consistently adopted the ‘language of a republican’ and advocated for the protection of religious liberty as a natural right, in the fashion of the Founding Fathers. However, Carroll was not simply a classical liberal. He did believe in the spiritual authority of the Church hierarchy, with the Pope at the apex. He rejected deism and indifferentism and insisted on the necessity of orthodox belief for society’s fullest flourishing. While Carroll’s political vision was similar in its construction to the liberal view, it was rooted in a distinct intellectual tradition and set of principles. These principles were necessary for overcoming the politico-theological dilemmas that Carroll faced on account of his Catholicism because political liberalism does not address these questions.

Having reviewed the positions taken by the scholastics on the issues of Church–State relations and of religious liberty, it is manifest that John Carroll was not a dyed-in-the-wool adherent to the scholastic tradition. Indeed, Carroll was emphatically opposed to these principles. Where the scholastics taught the supremacy of the sacred power over the secular and the subsequent authority of the Church to intervene in political affairs, Carroll sought a separation of Church and State. Where the scholastics taught a narrow approach to religious toleration, Carroll supported and celebrated the much more expansive grant of religious liberty found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, it is clear that whatever the Catholic tradition Carroll drew on in the formation of his political thought was, at least in respect to these issues, it was something other than scholasticism. This alternative influence can be found in the conciliarist tradition.

3.4. Conciliarism

Among the centuries-long scholastic debates on the issues of political theology and political philosophy spanning roughly a millennium, one in particular has a surprising bearing on the thought of John Carroll. This is the debate surrounding two primary questions: the place of ultimate authority in the Church and the scope of that authority. Carroll was clearly influenced by the conciliarist school of thought, largely overlapping with the Cisalpine position, arising out of this debate. He can be seen deploying such principles throughout his career.12 As Blanchard affirms, “in the central theo-political issue of religious liberty, Carroll remained essentially allied to the Cisalpines.” (Blanchard 2018, p. 24).

The conciliarist school of thought, whose roots can be clearly seen in such figures as John of Paris [c. 1255–1306] and Marsilius of Padua [1274–1342] and which found preeminent expression in the Councils of Constance [1414–1418] and Basel [1431–1449] and the Assembly of the French National Clergy in 1682, argued that the supreme authority of the Church lay not in the Pope alone, over and above the rest of the faithful and hierarchy, but rather in the Church gathered together in a general council.13 This greater emphasis on the diffused episcopal authority likewise led to an elevation of the prerogatives of local bishops and the national bodies of bishops and clergy and a diminution of papal supremacy. Such conciliarist principles are seen as operative in Carroll’s thought as he led the formation of the nascent American Church, eager to retain as much independence and self-sufficiency from Rome as possible.

On the question of the legitimate scope of ecclesial power, the conciliarist tradition generally held that this scope was limited to matters of a spiritual nature and therefore did not include matters of a political or otherwise non-spiritual nature. The Church was thus held to be responsible for faithfully preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and doing everything else God had commanded for the salvation of souls. The papal deposition of kings and other forms of direct or indirect interference in political matters, however, were not integral to the salvation of souls and thus exceeded the legitimate scope of the purely spiritual power of the Church. This principle, which can rightly be identified as a principle of separation between the Church and State, creates a framework in which religious liberty can be secured and promoted. The Church, on the one hand, has no authority to coerce the subjects of the State with political authority and power, while on the other hand, the State’s purpose and authority do not extend to purely spiritual matters. In this gap, where neither a worldly Church nor a spiritualized State could interfere, lay religious liberty.

A more specific form of this position, known as Gallicanism, was very prominent in France, when and where Carroll was a Jesuit academic. The aforementioned Assembly of the French National Clergy in 1682 gave expression to the principles of this position in the Four Gallican Articles. Carroll would have had ample exposure to the Gallican tradition given his geographical and professional proximity. Evidence indeed exists to demonstrate that Carroll was aware of and influenced by these debates. Many of Carroll’s ex-Jesuit colleagues with whom he maintained correspondence became major figures arguing on various sides of this debate in writing and other public forums. This school of thought can be seen clearly reflected in Carroll’s approach to the relationship of the American Church to the Roman Pontiff and in his desire for equal religious liberty for all sects.

3.5. Carroll’s Theory of Religious and Civil Authority

John Carroll celebrated the American understanding of religious liberty on numerous occasions, saying in one place,

Thanks to the genuine spirit of christianity! the United States have banished intolerance from their systems of government, and many of them have done justice to every denomination of Christians, which ought to be done to them all, of placing them on the same footing of citizenship, and conferring an equal right of participation in national privileges. Freedom and independence, acquired by the united efforts, and cemented with the mingled blood of protestant and catholic fellow-citizens, should be equally enjoyed by all.

(Carroll and Hanley 1976, v.1, p. 259)

Elsewhere, Carroll said, “I receive additional pleasure from the diffusion of liberal and tolerating principles, which overlook diversity of Religious sentiment.” (ibid, v. 1, p. 193). At first blush, it may indeed sound as though Carroll had adopted novel ideas discordant with his Roman Catholic commitments. He made an admission which could be interpreted in this light, when he said “I have contracted the language of a republican.” (ibid, v. 1, p. 65). He said, further, “I am glad … to inform you that the fullest and largest system of toleration is adopted in almost all the American states: public protection and encouragement are extended alike to all denominations.” (ibid, v.1, p. 53).

Carroll recognizes unhesitatingly “that the Catholic church possesses a spiritual jurisdiction, so transmitted thro every age, is her distinguishing and glorious prerogative.” (ibid, v.1, p. 263) However, he adopts a position on the “two-swords” question, which long preceded the American experiment. This position held that the temporal and spiritual powers identified in early and medieval periods were both genuine and legitimate powers but distinct and operative within unique spheres. The spiritual or religious authority of the Pope was the ultimate and final authority within its sphere. Matters pertaining to salvation fell under the purview of ecclesiastical authority, but other matters of political life did not; such fell into the direction of the State. The two powers can, and indeed ought, to cooperate harmoniously in the promotion of the integral development of man in his temporal and spiritual wellbeing. Nonetheless, the two spheres were distinct. Therefore, the supremacy of papal authority and the claim to unique standing as the means of salvation could be maintained while the political order refrained from making a dispositive legal commitment on the issue. This position is central to the Gallican and conciliarist arguments, which closely mirror Carroll’s own position here. His understanding was clearly neither simply derived from classical liberalism nor from the scholastic tradition but shows a great debt to the conciliarist tradition.

Such an understanding was crucial for the American context. Carroll noted that “a foreign temporal jurisdiction will never be tolerated here; & even the Spiritual supremacy of the Pope is the only reason why in some of the United States, full participation of all civil rights is not granted to the R.C.” (ibid, v. 1, p. 78). If Catholics had their allegiance split between patriotism and ultramontanism, the latter would inevitably win out on account of its higher claims, it was thought. This would be sufficient to render Catholics unreliable members of the political community and a danger to their countrymen, especially in times of conflict with Catholic European powers that might well have the support of the Pope. Evidently, Carroll’s approach was informed to no small degree by the exigencies of the moment in which the lives and wellbeing of his flock were at stake.

In a letter regarding exclusionary religious test oaths for public office, Carroll emphatically defends religious liberty, using the language of liberalism. There, he says,

Every friend to the rights of conscience, equal liberty and diffusive happiness, must have felt pain on seeing the attempt made by one of your correspondents … to revive an odious system of religious intolerance.—The author may not have been fully sensible of the tendency of his publication, because he speaks of preserving universal toleration. Perhaps he is one of those who think it consistent with justice to exclude certain citizens from the honors and emoluments of society, merely on account of their religious opinions, provided they be not restrained by racks and forfeitures from the exercise of that worship which their consciences approve.—If such be his views, in vain then have Americans associated into one great national union, under the express condition of not being shackled by religious tests; and under a firm persuasion that they were to retain when associated, every natural right not expressly surrendered.

(ibid, v.1, p. 78)

Carroll’s claim to have adopted the language of a republican is verified by statements such as these. While his thought also has a connection to the older discussions of the ‘two swords’ and other notions, it is expressed primarily in terms of the liberal understanding. This shows quite clearly that Carroll was attempting, both in theory and practice, a synthesis. Having briefly outlined the Roman Catholic and American Liberal approaches to religious liberty and noted Carroll’s affirmation of both, it must again be asked if he was guilty of some incoherence in his thought or if he was able to truly work out a rapprochement between the two.

In his sermon preached on the occasion of his ascendance to the Episcopal See of Baltimore in 1790, Carroll exclaimed,

How much reason have I not to fear for myself, when I view the extent of my duties which include to preserve their faith untainted amidst the contagion of error, surrounding them on all sides; to preserve in their hearts a warm charity and forbearance towards every other denomination of Christians; & at the same time to preserve them from that fatal & prevailing indifference, which views all religious as equally acceptable to God and salutary to men: Ah! When I consider these additional duties, my heart sinks almost under the impression of terror that comes upon it.

(ibid, v.1, p. 477)

Evidently, Carroll himself thought that the balance was a delicate one, yet it was something that he had a genuine hope of achieving. In a letter written just a few months before his death, Carroll said “let the individuals follow the opinions, which they deem most consonant with the practice of former ages under the best and most enlightened Popes, & most useful to the preservation and extension of pure religion, and this liberty of opinion should be maintained, till the Head of the Church has spoken definitively on the subject.” (ibid, v.3, p. 340). As Breidenbach notes, Carroll’s Jesuit background placed him in the middle of the stream of French Gallican and Jansenist thought, which sought a conciliarist position in relation to papal authority. In examining his own words on the matter, it is clear that this claim bears scrutiny.

4. Conclusions

Speaking of critics among his peers who saw no place for Catholics in America due to their supposed divided allegiance and bigotry, Carroll asserted that “these principles of our theology are so different from the common misrepresentations of them.” (ibid, v.1, p. 89) By applying what Breidenbach characterizes as “paradoxical Jesuit conciliarism [Carroll] not only offered a Catholic tradition that could justify American independence and republicanism but also soothed Protestant fears of papal domination so that Catholics could become equal citizens.” (Breidenbach 2021, p. 118). This was achieved primarily by way of emphasizing that fears of imperium in imperio and anti-republican bigotry were misplaced. Obedience to the Pope was a binding reality for Catholics but only with respect to purely spiritual matters and not in the realm of politics. Resolving these fears was necessary for the integration of Catholics into the political community, which depended on enshrining the principles of religious liberty that left citizens free to follow their consciences in religious matters. Under this system, Catholics could integrate into a religiously pluralistic society, united as citizens despite the barriers of different forms of worship, doctrines, etc.

Carroll achieved this synthesis by adopting and deploying both the conciliarist principles of political theology and elements of the liberal republican tradition. In doing so, Carroll attempted to navigate the delicate political circumstances of his time and carve out a path forward that satisfied both the demands of faith and of citizenship. His achievement provides insight into the history of Catholicism developing self-understanding in relation to political liberalism and religious pluralism. It likewise stands as a useful tool for thinking about these issues in our own day.

In 1965, the Second Vatican Council promulgated its teaching on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, which reflects an understanding very much aligned with Carroll’s. There, it says, “the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.” (Vatican Council II 1965). The document further clarifies that

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. … This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. … This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

(ibid)

This document mirrors many of Carroll’s principles from the perspective of theological orthodoxy. These same principles are no doubt vindicated from a political perspective in the rich history of religious liberty, which America achieved. John Carroll was not the originator of these principles, yet he stood at a crucial historical nexus point between the theological and political aspects of ideas about religious liberty. He anticipated a development of the Catholic Church’s teaching on religious liberty, striking a tone not found in the Vatican documents of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which still disfavored religious pluralism. His historic significance and the accomplishment of the synthesis that he brought about are thus rather unique and keenly interesting.

Carroll was neither a statesman nor an originator of altogether novel ideas, yet he was the man present at the critical place and time who guided a rapprochement of crucial theological and political principles, which is of great importance for American and Catholic history.