Human equality at the heart of the Declaration of Independence

We continue the series of reflections on the 250th Anniversary of our Nation and the role of our Catholic faith in our nation’s history with a consideration of our foundational document, the Declaration of Independence (1776).

The Declaration of Independence is often read as a quintessential expression of Enlightenment political philosophy. Yet, when viewed through the lens of the Roman Catholic intellectual tradition, the document also resonates deeply with principles long articulated in Catholic moral and political thought: the dignity of the human person, the natural law, the purpose of government as the guardian of the common good, and the moral legitimacy of resistance to tyranny. While the American founding was not a confessional Catholic project, the Declaration’s moral architecture bears striking affinities with ideas that had matured over centuries within Catholic theology and philosophy.

Among the fifty-six signers of the Declaration, one was a practicing Catholic: Charles Carroll of Carrollton of Maryland. His cousin, John Carroll — though not a signer — would later become the first Bishop of Baltimore and a central figure in shaping Catholic life in the new nation. Charles Carroll was educated in the Jesuit tradition in Europe, where he encountered the rich heritage of Thomistic thought and Catholic social reflection on law and governance. His participation in the Continental Congress and support for independence suggest that Catholic intellectual formation did not stand at odds with the American cause; rather, it could harmonize with it.

At the heart of the Declaration is the claim that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among them “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” This assertion echoes a fundamental tenet of Catholic anthropology: every human being is created in the image and likeness of God (imago Dei), possessing an intrinsic dignity that no earthly power may violate. Long before the eighteenth century, St. Thomas Aquinas had argued that human law must be rooted in the natural law, itself a participation in the eternal law of God. Rights, in this tradition, are not grants from the state but moral claims grounded in the nature God has given to the human person. The Declaration’s appeal to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” closely parallels the Thomistic understanding of natural law. Aquinas taught that human beings, by reason, can discern fundamental moral truths about justice and the proper ordering of society. This conviction undergirds the Declaration’s confidence that its claims are not merely political preferences but moral realities accessible to all rational persons. The authors do not argue from sectarian revelation but from truths they believe to be universally knowable — a method entirely consistent with Catholic natural law reasoning.

Equally significant is the Declaration’s teaching about the purpose of government. Governments, it says, are instituted “to secure these rights,” deriving “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In Catholic political thought, political authority is legitimate insofar as it serves the common good—the conditions that allow individuals and communities to flourish according to their nature. Rulers are stewards, not masters. When government ceases to serve the common good and instead becomes destructive of it, it forfeits its moral legitimacy. Here the Declaration aligns with a long Catholic reflection on the morality of resisting unjust rule.

Medieval theologians, including Aquinas and later Francisco Suárez and Robert Bellarmine, wrestled with the question of tyrannical authority. They concluded that when rulers violate the natural law and gravely harm the common good, resistance can be morally justified. The Declaration’s assertion that “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” a destructive government mirrors this tradition. The American colonists did not claim a whimsical right to rebellion but a grave duty to oppose sustained injustice.

The document’s careful tone further reflects a Catholic sensibility about political change. The signers acknowledge that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” This echoes the Catholic virtue of prudence and the Church’s general caution toward revolution. Only after “a long train of abuses and usurpations” do they justify separation. Such language resonates with the Church’s insistence that resistance must be a last resort, proportionate to the injustice suffered.

While the Declaration does not explicitly mention the “common good,” its vision presupposes it. The grievances listed against King George III are not merely personal complaints but indictments of actions that harmed the colonies’ ability to live in justice, order, and freedom. The implicit goal is not radical individualism but a political order in which communities can flourish. This harmonizes with the Catholic understanding that freedom is ordered toward the good, not license to act without moral constraint.

The presence of Charles Carroll among the signers symbolizes this harmony. As a Catholic in a predominantly Protestant colonial society, Carroll embodied the conviction that fidelity to the Church did not preclude commitment to republican government. His later support for religious liberty in Maryland anticipated the American experiment in a way that would allow Catholics to practice their faith freely without establishing a confessional state. This, too, aligns with Catholic teaching that the state should respect the freedom of the Church and the conscience of individuals.

In the end, the Declaration of Independence can be read not only as an Enlightenment manifesto but also as a political expression compatible with the Catholic moral tradition. Its grounding of rights in the Creator, its appeal to natural law, its understanding of government as servant of the people, and its sober justification of resistance to tyranny all find echoes in centuries of Catholic thought. For Catholics, the document can be appreciated as a remarkable instance in which enduring principles of moral theology proposed by our Catholic faith found new expression in the birth of one nation, under God.

Next month: Religious Liberty in the U.S. Constitution (1787-1791)