Church and State: Do Catholics Still Believe That?

[trickster]

Does anyone know what the history of the “separation of church and state” is? I remember quotes from JFK about the separateness of church and state; my generation of Catholics grew up with the concept…but now a days I am not sure if we still separate church and state?

As an example, because of my understanding of Church and State…the state can create any kind of marriage it wants to call marriage…why would the church have a problem with a state definition which has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[livingwordunity]

why would the church have a problem with a state definition which has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage?

Here is why Catholics can’t ignore this issue:

Archbishop Cordileone states case against "gay marriage"

Q: What is the greatest threat posed by allowing gays and lesbians to marry?

A:The better question is: What is the great good in protecting the public understanding that to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife?

I can illustrate my point with a personal example. When I was Bishop of Oakland, I lived at a residence at the Cathedral, overlooking Lake Merritt. It’s very beautiful. But across the lake, as the streets go from 1st Avenue to the city limits at 100th Avenue, those 100 blocks consist entirely of inner city neighborhoods plagued by fatherlessness and all the suffering it produces: youth violence, poverty, drugs, crime, gangs, school dropouts, and incredibly high murder rates. Walk those blocks and you can see with your own eyes: A society that is careless about getting fathers and mothers together to raise their children in one loving family is causing enormous heartache.

To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.

How can we do this to our children?
…
Q: How would the allegation that opponents are bigoted lead to their rights being abridged?

A: Notice the first right being taken away: the right of 7 million Californians who devoted time and treasure to the democratic process, to vote for our shared vision of marriage. Taking away people’s right to vote on marriage is not in itself a small thing.

But the larger picture that’s becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it’s a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination.

If you want to know what this new public legal and social norm stigmatizing traditional believers will mean for real people, ask David and Tanya Parker, who objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same sex marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized it in that state and wanted to pull him out of class for that lesson. He was arrested and handcuffed for trying to protect his son’s education, and they were told they had no right to do so.

Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don’t allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. Ask Tammy Schulz of Illinois, who adopted four children (including a sibling group) through Evangelical Child Family Services — which was shut down because it refuses to place children with same-sex couples. (The same thing has happened in Illinois, Boston and Washington, D.C., to Catholic Charities adoption services). … Ask the doctor in San Diego County who did not want to personally create a fatherless child through artificial insemination, and was punished by the courts… Ask Amy Rudnicki who testified in the Colorado Legislature recently that if Catholic Charities is shut out of the adoption business by new legislation, her family will lose the child they expected to adopt this year. … Nobody is better off if religious adoption agencies are excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children, but governments are doing this because the principle of “anti-discrimination” is trumping liberty and compassion. …

When people say that opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, like opposition to interracial marriage, they cannot also say their views won’t hurt anybody else. They seek to create and enforce a new moral and legal norm that stigmatizes those who view marriage as the union of husband and wife. … It’s not kind, and it doesn’t seem to lead to a “live and let live” pluralism.

Source

See also:
Marriage - Unique for a Reason - AN INITIATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons

 

[corsair]

I believe that if you were to examine the U.S. Constitution you’ll find no reference to “separation of church and state”. What you will find is the Gov’t shall not make a state sponsored church.

The separation of the two was “invented” after WWII.

 

[Brendan]

The Church holds that the State only has the authority to enact Just laws. Those laws would be those which are in accord with Justice, in other words, God.

Read Romans 13. The Church recognizes that the State has the right and duty to promote the Good and oppose that which is Evil. But the State does not own the right to define that which is Good and that which is Evil. The Church alone is the true voice on Morals, on what actions are Just.

Anything that is contrary to true Justice must be opposed by the Church and the Church does not recognize any right of the State to create such laws.

I am sure that you would agree that the Church has it’s own definition of care for the poor, a Divine Virtue of Charity.

But, for example, if the State enacted it’s own definition of care for the poor, which involved their extermination. I am sure you would agree that the Church would have every right, even a Duty to oppose it. We can agree that the Church should not just accept that the State had it’s own definition that had nothing to do with the Divine Virtues.

 

[Brendan]

I believe that if you were to examine the U.S. Constitution you’ll find no reference to “separation of church and state”. What you will find is the Gov’t shall not make a state sponsored church.

The separation of the two was “invented” after WWII.

FYI, the OP is from British Columbia.

 

[po18guy]

Does anyone know what the history of the “separation of church and state” is? I remember quotes from JFK about the separateness of church and state; my generation of Catholics grew up with the concept…but now a days I am not sure if we still separate church and state?

As an example, because of my understanding of Church and State…the state can create any kind of marriage it wants to call marriage…why would the church have a problem with a state definition which has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

The mythical “separation of Church and state” does not exist. It was mentioned in a private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It is nowhere in declaration of independence or the US constitution. Nowhere.

JFK exploited the phrase in order to get elected as a Catholic. It means, essentially, that one hides and forgets their faith while in public office.

What the constitution actually restricts is: congress may make no law establishing a state religion. Nothing more than that, even though a phrase culled from a 211 year old private letter has somehow become the law of the land.

If your faith does not inform your politics, do you really believe it?

 

[mikekle]

If there was a true separation of church and state, then who determines what is good or evil? Can they even make that determination?

 

[markomalley]

Does anyone know what the history of the “separation of church and state” is? I remember quotes from JFK about the separateness of church and state; my generation of Catholics grew up with the concept…but now a days I am not sure if we still separate church and state?

As an example, because of my understanding of Church and State…the state can create any kind of marriage it wants to call marriage…why would the church have a problem with a state definition which has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

The source of the expression comes from this letter:Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
​

It is decidedly NOT a Catholic concept, by the way.

Of course, we can refer to Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority) November 18, 1302.

With more modern reference, you can look at Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism) August 15, 183220. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.
Additionally, see Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (On the Christian Constitution of States) November 1, 1885 36. This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State. By the words and decrees just cited, if judged dispassionately, no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anything contrary to Catholic doctrine, and all of them are capable, if wisely and justly managed, to insure the welfare of the State. Neither is it blameworthy in itself, in any manner, for the people to have a share greater or less, in the government: for at certain times, and under certain laws, such participation may not only be of benefit to the citizens, but may even be of obligation. Nor is there any reason why any one should accuse the Church of being wanting in gentleness of action or largeness of view, or of being opposed to real and lawful liberty. The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, “Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The mythical “separation of Church and state” does not exist. It was mentioned in a private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It is nowhere in declaration of independence or the US constitution. Nowhere.

JFK exploited the phrase in order to get elected as a Catholic. It means, essentially, that one hides and forgets their faith while in public office.

What the constitution actually restricts is: congress may make no law establishing a state religion. Nothing more than that,

Actually, yes, a bit more than that. The text states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

even though a phrase culled from a 211 year old private letter has somehow become the law of the land.

If your faith does not inform your politics, do you really believe it?

Can you explain what differences you see between the text of the 1st amendment quoted above and the “separation of Church and State” concept? You seem to believe they are so disparate as to practically be opposites, but I don’t see it. However, I don’t want to put words into your mouth so please share your thoughts on that if you can.

mikekle:

If there was a true separation of church and state, then who determines what is good or evil? Can they even make that determination?

We all do. As individuals. Just as we always have and just as we always will.

I suppose you mean with respect to the law? The law is enacted for “real world” purposes that often (not always, but often) overlap with our moral sensibilities as Catholics… same for Protestants, Jews, Hindus and (gasp!) even… (gasp!) Muslims.

 

[po18guy]

If there was a true separation of church and state, then who determines what is good or evil? Can they even make that determination?

Both the Soviet Union and Germany had very effective separations of Church and state in the mid-20th century. How did that work out?

 

[sacredheart777]

Does anyone know what the history of the “separation of church and state” is? I remember quotes from JFK about the separateness of church and state; my generation of Catholics grew up with the concept…but now a days I am not sure if we still separate church and state?

As an example, because of my understanding of Church and State…the state can create any kind of marriage it wants to call marriage…why would the church have a problem with a state definition which has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

The Church does not have a problem but a State does when it creates its own laws of marriage without considering the profound meaning and true nature of marriage and thus violating the and diminishing the dignity of the human person. The role of the Church in this regard is to uphold the authenticity and originality and nature of marriage as designed from God for humanity. E.G. The Catholic Church does not and will not permit gay marriage even if it has nothing to do with the sacrament. Still the Catholic Church condemned this ‘deformed marriage’.

 

[trickster]

FYI, the OP is from British Columbia.

But Brendan, I can read and understand “American”…

 

[YADA]

…Can you explain what differences you see between the text of the 1st amendment quoted above and the “separation of Church and State” concept? You seem to believe they are so disparate as to practically be opposites, but I don’t see it. However, I don’t want to put words into your mouth so please share your thoughts on that if you can.

Yes - the first amendment means that the government cannot establish a religion and compel membership in that established religion … think Church of England - or Catholic France/Spain … As an example of the problem of a government sanctioned religion - coercion/bias against Catholics included being unable to hold public office in England. Even in the colonies - it was illegal for a Catholic priest to offer the Mass …

The first amendment states that people have the right to practice their faith without interference from the government - to freely worship, to freely be the faith they are - not only when locked away in a church building once per week or inside their homes.

The first amendment did not mean that all references to religion and faith had to be removed from the public square nor that individuals had to be protected by the state from exposure to the expression of faith …

The first amendment limits the role of government - it places no limits on the people …

Sadly - Hugo Black- after first failing in getting an amendment to the Constitution when he was elected to Congress that would have codified the idea of "Separation of Church and State - He was able to get it into a US Supreme Court decision Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Another champion of a this idea was Justice Harry Blackmun - what you cannot do with the Constitution and the Law - you do by judicial fiat.

FWI - Both Hugo Black and Blackmun were very anti-catholic - and of course Blackmun also gave is Roe V Wade where he cited a book “Abortion” by the anti-catholic - proponent of Sangers eugenics Lawrence Lader 8 times …

If the concept of separation of Church and State was clearly in the constitution - no amendment would have been necessary nor the Court decisions…

 

[Nacho45]

The mythical “separation of Church and state” does not exist. It was mentioned in a private letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It is nowhere in declaration of independence or the US constitution. Nowhere.

JFK exploited the phrase in order to get elected as a Catholic. It means, essentially, that one hides and forgets their faith while in public office.

What the constitution actually restricts is: congress may make no law establishing a state religion. Nothing more than that, even though a phrase culled from a 211 year old private letter has somehow become the law of the land.

If your faith does not inform your politics, do you really believe it?

^This! I am glad someone knows their history!

And to answer your question, I would say no.

 

[andyklein]

I think that “separation of church and state” implies that government should not institute a state religion. If that’s what we mean, then how can we say that “separation of church and state” does not exist? To do so would make the state a religion itself. The state also has faculties independent of the Church. It would also violate the rights to our own consciousness and the ability to choose.

If we mean that the “separation of Church and state” implies that the church can never influence the state and the state can never influence the Church, we’d find that the former is false and the latter is true. We obviously don’t want the government to violate the natural law, but we also don’t want the government to interfere with our right to worship.

So we should conclude that:

1. If the state can’t interfere with our right to worship freely, it also can’t impose any form of religion on us.
2. For a state to be just, it must not violate the natural law, so it must adhere to and enforce certain fundamentals of the Church.
3. The state must be guided, at least indirectly, by the Church but must not be the Church itself.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I believe in the separation of the Church and State, but not how the phrase is commonly understood (i.e. “never the two shall meet” and/or protecting the State from the Church). The Church shouldn’t have a direct role in the State, but should have an indirect role; and the separation of the two is to protect the Church from the State.

 

[edwest2]

Does anyone know what the history of the “separation of church and state” is? I remember quotes from JFK about the separateness of church and state; my generation of Catholics grew up with the concept…but now a days I am not sure if we still separate church and state?

As an example, because of my understanding of Church and State…the state can create any kind of marriage it wants to call marriage…why would the church have a problem with a state definition which has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

Regarding marriage, it’s all explained here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Separation of Church and State is a fiction. It is nowhere in the Constitution. I have read President Kennedy’s comments about a separation, and it has been criticized as being an incorrect view by Catholics. However, the Christmas card that was to be sent from the Kennedy White House had a photo of a Nativity inside the White House.

That the State can create legal fictions like same sex so-called marriage does make it right.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Does anyone know what the history of the “separation of church and state” is? I remember quotes from JFK about the separateness of church and state; my generation of Catholics grew up with the concept…but now a days I am not sure if we still separate church and state?

As an example, because of my understanding of Church and State…the state can create any kind of marriage it wants to call marriage…why would the church have a problem with a state definition which has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage?

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

If they think it is immoral and will have bad repurcussions for society then wouldn’t it make more sense for them to have a problem with it then not? I don’t really understand why you think this is inconsistant…

 

[edwest2]

Edit: the last line should read, “does not make it right.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I think we’ve forgotten this basic concept. The founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves right now.

Take Gay marriage as an example. Barring gays from having equal rights and protections under the state is so unconstitutional. Thankfully the Supreme Court realized this.