Church "separation of church & state"

[Jerusalem]

This question is detailed so bare with me!

Pius X in his encyclical “Vehementer Nos” barred the sepn.
of Church and State as a pernicious error. What did he mean
by this? Was the Vatican advocating at one time a theocracy
as the normal form of govn.? Did the later Popes change their
position on this matter or does the Church hold that some interaction bn. Church and state should always exist?
What exactly is the official church teaching drawing from church
documents of the relation between church and state?

 

[Dauphin]

Basically, the Church teaches that a certain institutional distinction between Church and state is appropriate. For example, Bishops shouldn’t run for public office and parliaments shouldn’t formulate Christian doctrine.

However, the Church teaches also that the two spheres (the eternal sphere of the Church and the temporal sphere of the state) cannot be separated in purpose. Ultimately, the goal of both is to lead its people to eternal salvation. The Church has condemned the idea that the state can operate in a vacuum, essentially pretending that religion doesn’t exist or treating it as irrelevent. Instead, the state must be ordered according to the good of its people, which is their salvation.

Consequently, the state should profess the Catholic religion and should suppress the public practice of false religions.

The Second Vatican Council abandoned this position, although I and many other Catholics still hold it. The position of the council is articulated in the document Dignitatis Humanae.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This question is detailed so bare with me!

Pius X in his encyclical “Vehementer Nos” barred the sepn.
of Church and State as a pernicious error. What did he mean
by this?

The teaching is fully explained in this encyclical: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

I’ll post a little here, but you should really read the entire encyclical. It is one of my favorites and well worth the read.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: "14. … But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

1. …The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature…
2. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. **For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. **Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.

You should really take the time to read the whole encyclical as each point flows logically from the previous.

 

[Jerusalem]

Let me reiterate this to make sure I’m correct:

What you are saying Dauphin is that the Church at one
time advocated that the state should
be a Catholic theocracy or at least a govn. that only recognizes Catholicism. Later the Church’s position changed
in Vatican II to a more liberalized position recognizing
the conscience of each believer within the realm of the state.

So exactly how is there continuity bn. what Pius X said
and Vatican II document on the conscience?

I guess I’m still a little confused about what Pius X intention
was when writing the document. What exactly was he trying
to articulate or say. Yes, there is two spheres but was he
really saying the only religion to be recognized by the state
is Catholicism or rather was he trying to demonize the isolation &
complete alienation of religous influences into the civil sphere.

 

[Dauphin]

Let me reiterate this to make sure I’m correct:

What you are saying Dauphin is that the Church at one
time advocated that the state should
be a Catholic theocracy or at least a govn. that only recognizes Catholicism. Later the Church’s position changed
in Vatican II to a more liberalized position recognizing
the conscience of each believer within the realm of the state.

So exactly how is there continuity bn. what Pius X said
and Vatican II document on the conscience?

I guess I’m still a little confused about what Pius X intention
was when writing the document. What exactly was he trying
to articulate or say. Yes, there is two spheres but was he
really saying the only religion to be recognized by the state
is Catholicism or rather was he trying to demonize the isolation &
complete alienation of religous influences into the civil sphere.

There is no continuity between the two. Dignitatis Humanae didn’t just say that people should be free from coercion. It said that the state should not be Catholic, and should allow false religions to practice publicly.

Clearly, this is completely contrary to what the Church taught previously. And yes, Pius X actually meant that the state should profess the Catholic religion and suppress the public practice of other religions. He argued that the state is as bound by Divine law as any person.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This question is detailed so bare with me!

Pius X in his encyclical “Vehementer Nos” barred the sepn.
of Church and State as a pernicious error. What did he mean
by this?

To get a clear understanding of what this means, just look at the United States today. The separation of Church and state leads to many of the problems which are contributing to the erosion of our society itself. No prayer in schools or before sports events was the start. Now abortion on demand, gay marriages OK in some states, euthanasia, attempts at cloning, embryonic stem cell research.

Courts now rule so as to have freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion. Not to have religion involved in the state leads to a culture of death, which describes our society today. In many aspects it is self contradictory. e.g., abortion is OK but if you murder a pregnant woman and the child dies you have two counts of murder. But its OK for the mother and a doctor to terminate the life of the child. It makes no sense. This is the result of straying from being one nation under God. I strongly argue that this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

To get a clear understanding of what this means, just look at the United States today. The separation of Church and state leads to many of the problems which are contributing to the erosion of our society itself. No prayer in schools or before sports events was the start. Now abortion on demand, gay marriages OK in some states, euthanasia, attempts at cloning, embryonic stem cell research.

Courts now rule so as to have freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion. Not to have religion involved in the state leads to a culture of death, which describes our society today. In many aspects it is self contradictory. e.g., abortion is OK but if you murder a pregnant woman and the child dies you have two counts of murder. But its OK for the mother and a doctor to terminate the life of the child. It makes no sense. This is the result of straying from being one nation under God. I strongly argue that this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

We’ve disagreed in the past, but I just wanted to say that I agree with this post. Thank you for holding fast to what the Church teaches with respect to the separation of Church and State… when so many others have not.

 

[Our_Refuge]

To get a clear understanding of what this means, just look at the United States today. The separation of Church and state leads to many of the problems which are contributing to the erosion of our society itself. No prayer in schools or before sports events was the start. Now abortion on demand, gay marriages OK in some states, euthanasia, attempts at cloning, embryonic stem cell research.

Courts now rule so as to have freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion. Not to have religion involved in the state leads to a culture of death, which describes our society today. In many aspects it is self contradictory. e.g., abortion is OK but if you murder a pregnant woman and the child dies you have two counts of murder. But its OK for the mother and a doctor to terminate the life of the child. It makes no sense. This is the result of straying from being one nation under God. I strongly argue that this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

So Deacon did Vatican II change the Church’s teaching on the separation of church and state?

 

[Dauphin]

So Deacon did Vatican II change the Church’s teaching on the separation of church and state?

Of course it did.