The Edict of Milan (313-2013): a Basis for Freedom of Religion or
Belief?
Opening Address
Metropolitan Emmanuel of France
Novi Sad (Serbia) May 3rd 2012
Your Beatitude, Patriarch Irinej
Your Eminences,
Your Excellencies,
Dear Bishop Irinej of Backa
Honorable Representative of the Serbian Government, Mr. Bogoljub Sijakovic
Honorable President of the Government of Vojvodine, Mr. Bojan Pajtic
Doctor Johann Marte, President of the Foundation Pro Oriente
Dear Mr. Boris Vukobrat, President of the Peace and Crises Management Foundation
Dear Mme Mirjana Prlhevic, Secretary General of the International Association CIVI
Dear Elisabeta Kitanovic
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Friends,
To celebrate a jubilee is like celebrating an anniversary. We take the time to return to
the events of the past, in order to better consider our present, and to consider the
situation itself, as well as the directives we may identify for our future. Next year, the
Edict of Milan will celebrate its 1,700 t h jubilee or anniversary, and its tenets are as
relevant today as they were then. Let us first take a look at the position of the Edict of
Milan, not only in the history of Christianity, but in human history in general.
Let me read something to you that I came across: “. . . for the sake of the peace of
our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases . . .”
1
(Edict of Milan, §1). This quote could have been printed in this morning’s newspaper,
yet it is taken from the English translation of the Edict of Milan in the year 313. When
he co-issued the Edict, St. Constantine the Great was a pagan ruler. The same hand
that signed this freedom of religion mandate into law, had also signed orders
carrying out executions and persecutions. Yet, somehow he had a change of heart.
This reality causes us to have hope for peace in the world because the personal and
institutional religious inclinations of rulers do not necessarily dictate their ability to
act on behalf of the minority religions under their jurisdiction. In Ephesians 1:11 we
learn that “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined
according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of
His will . . .” Perhaps, Christ’s concern for humanity is reflected in the decisions of
leaders who do not confess Christianity, yet act according to the counsel of His will
for the greater good of all God’s people.
What difference in the historical record has the Edict of Milan made? It remains an
important milestone in the plan of the development of ideas through 17 centuries.
The character and spirit of the edict of Milan is more so an act of recognition of
freedom in the pluralism of opinions and confessions rather than just an edict of
religious tolerance. There is within this idea a subtle difference that completely
changes the trajectory of the discussion. Comparing the concept of religious tolerance
to pluralism of opinions and confessions is like comparing something which is
substandard to us with something which is equal to us. According to the dictionary,
the word tolerate is derived from a Latin word for “to bear”. So, to merely tolerate
another puts one in a superior position, that is, we are choosing to overlook their
‘faults’ and ‘bear’ them. On the other hand, the definition of pluralism is “a theory
that there is more than one basic substance or principle.” If we have the view that
there is more than one basic substance or principle, we see a greater value for
individual identity and choice. Quite often we quote the following phrase from the
famous edict, acknowledging to each person the possibility to, and I quote:
“worship in his or her manner the divinity that is in the heavens”. The wisdom in
this concept provides humanity with an antidote to war, persecution, and hatred. It
must be emphasised that acknowledgement of the existence of “more than one basic
substance or principle” does not constitute syncretism, but allows others to
determine for themselves what substance and principle holds meaning for them. The
contentions caused by viewing others as needing to be tolerated, or even to be more
tolerant, are damaging to the human respect needed to live in peace.
For this reason, we see that the governments of our planet consecrate an ever
increasing amount of attention and intensity on such issues. And I will mention here
only as an example the Commission on Religious Freedoms of the Secretary of State
of the USA. The very existence of such a body must concern us in two ways. On the
one hand the existence of such a commission serves as recognition of the need for
expertise on this subject, in view of the global implementation of human rights. On
2
the other hand, it is the flip side, namely the existence of such a commission which
speaks to violations against religious freedom which have become more and more
prevalent. These violations of religious rights constitute an inalienable dimension of
this contemporary geopolitical issue. Think with me about this: Do religious rights
exist because governments, leaders, or commissions declare that they do, or do they
exist whether or not they are recognised by governments, leaders, or commissions?
Did not the freedom to follow one’s own conscience emerge in the Garden of Eden
when God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit, but they did so anyway? God
did not control their thoughts or actions through threats, imprisionment, persection,
or executions. Without wading into the deep waters of hard determinism versus
metaphysical libertarianism, there is in the story of Adam and Eve a framework for
freedom of choice within Christian doctrine.
Reflected within this framework of Christian theology, we find not only freedom of
personal choice, but how to approach another who does things you wished they did
not do. This theology can inform and support international relations in that we
recognise another and approach them with deep respect. For within religious
freedom we discover not only the expression of this freedom, but also the
interpersonal dimension that reveals the intrinsic links that unite humanity, creation,
and the States. His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in the footsteps
of the Apostle Andrew has spoken truth with regards to religious freedom as
understood from a purely individual perspective. He has stressed the idea that
freedom and religious freedom, a fortiori, cannot be taken into consideration in an
isolated manner; they can be deployed only within a relational sphere. Patriarch
Bartholomew insists that:
"We cannot be truly free unless we are part of a
community of free persons. Freedom is never alone but always social. [...] In turning
one’s back, in refusing to share is to lose freedom. Freedom is expressed in
socialization (In Search of the Mystery, 2010, p. 176)”. It is due to this kind of
commitment to our vision that the Orthodox Church will be recognized on May 12
when the Ecumenical Patriarch receives the Medal of Religious Freedom awarded by
the Roosevelt Stichting Foundation for commitment in favour of the reconciliation
through interfaith dialogue. We have witnessed a sustained effort in recent decades
on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other major religions to come face to
face and engage in interreligious and ecumenical dialogue. The creation of an
Ecumenical Charter is the result of many long hours of discussion between
representatives seeking to live in peace and unity.
For its part, the Ecumenical Charter emphasises the importance of religious freedom
by stating: "We commit ourselves that every person can freely choose his or her
religious and church affiliation as a matter of conscience" (§2). This commitment is
also one of the commitments of the Conference of European Churches, to which
religious freedom is an inalienable right. It seems important to me to recognize how
Christianity is related to the Edict of Milan, not only as an object, but especially more
3
so as a subject of this freedom brought by St. Constantine the Great. Therefore, it is
only appropriate that the various Christian families reinvest in the field of freedom in
order to give a stronger sense to its scriptural and theological sources that are
summed up perfectly in the phrase of St. Maximus the Confessor in the 7t h century:
"Created in the image of God, men are free by nature”.
At the crossroads of these two approaches where individual freedom cannot be
developed except in a relational form, it is solidarity that responds most
appropriately to the changes of our contemporary world. At a European level, the
first of these changes has been crystallized around the formation of a multicultural
pluralism, reinforced within the European Union with the free movement of people.
Migration from outside Europe also comes into play as a dynamic reconfiguration of
the distinctive European identity. However, tensions that emerge from European
pluralism should not cause us to lose sight of our commitment to peace through
religious freedom and dialogue. It was for peace that the Edict of Milan was created.
May peace be realised in Europe and throughout the world.
Dear friends,
Please allow me, on behalf of the Conference of European Churches, to congratulate
you for the organization of such an event. I would also like to express my heart felt
gratitude to your Beatitude for your blessing for this gathering; to Bishop Irinej of
Backa for hosting it; and to all the people that contributed to the coordination and
execution of this conference. As the president and the Council of European Churches,
I assure you that we are with you all as participants and we stand with the Serbian
people in their work toward peace and religious freedom. We support your efforts,
in the spirit of friendship and in prayer.
I am convinced that our dialogue today will allow us to delve even further into the
conditions of religious freedom posed by the Edict of Milan. Admittedly, 1700 years
have passed since this proclamation; nevertheless, its relevance continues to be felt
since religious freedom is still violated with increasing intensity. Is the Edict of Milan
the basis for freedom of religion or belief, or a divinely inspired declaration of
humanity’s God-ordained state? Either way, “. . . for the sake of the peace of our
times”, let us work toward a day when “each one may have the free opportunity to
worship as he pleases . . .” (Edict of Milan, §1).
In the spirit of St. Paul writing to the Romans, “. . . peace be with you all” (Romans
15:33).
Thank you.
4