Revisiting the role of Church in politics

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OneSheep

Guest
It dawned on me the other day that in America the value of “separation between church and state” is possibly being violated in modern times.

What I am looking at is the underlying value of separation of powers, that the US constitution was created in a way that political decisions were not to be overly influenced by religious leaders and organizations.

If the intent was to create a political arena where powerful entities do not have too much control over what happens in the state, this objective is no longer met, not by a long shot. Political lobbies are so incredibly powerful; as they actually write legislation and contribute billions of dollars to political campaigns. Politicians themselves have been reduced to simple contractors whose main effort has to go into raising money for campaigns, to feed their popularity in the out-of-control media.

Politicians are so beholden to the lobbies that it appears that before any political decision is made, the lobbyists are asked for their approval.

Given this, it appears that the underlying objective of separation of church and state is a complete farce in the modern US.

When it comes to power in politics, lobbies are the new religions.
 
Last edited:
Actually the separation of Church and State means that the government is not allowed to interfere in the internal governance of any religious organization nor in any of the theological propositions of any particular religious organization.
 
The separation of church and state was a mistake which allowed great evils to enter into society.
 
poche said:
Actually the separation of Church and State means that the government is not allowed to interfere in the internal governance of any religious organization nor in any of the theological propositions of any particular religious organization.
Click to expand...
Okay, that side of it works. However, my point is not about the separation, my point is about power in politics.
 
OneSheep said:
the US constitution was created in a way that political decisions were not to be overly influenced by religious leaders and organizations
Click to expand...
This may be true but it is a mistake. Separation of Church and State (which, as FrancisFan43 mentioned, is actually a condemned heresy) leads to politicians acting without the guidance of the true Faith, hence failing to keep a moral compass.
OneSheep said:
Politicians are so beholden to the lobbies that it appears that before any political decision is made, the lobbyists are asked for their approval.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more an issue of rising plutocracy, not one related to religion.

To quote the Holy Father:
if the aim of profit prevails, democracy tends to become a plutocracy
Click to expand...
 
The first immigrants to this country were seeking religious freedom. IE, they didn’t want the state (government) telling them what their religious beliefs should be.

From that, we got the first part of the 1st amendment to our Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Basically, the government should stay out of religion, other than if the religion is breaking some law that the government has established. Take the LDS and some of their views on multiple wives. That breaks gov. laws, therefore it is not allowed under the religious setting. Is it strictly adhered to, absolutely not. Heck we have tv shows about it.

For those who think that religion should have been included in our founding documents, well that certainly would not have been the Catholic faith by any means. Less than 2% of the population in the colonies were Catholic. So if say, the Church of England were to be picked or maybe Lutheran was picked as the nations religion, I am pretty certain you all would have a disagreement with that currently.

Having guidance of the true Faith is certainly not an indication as to whether or not one’s moral compass is pointed in the right direction. The Church herself has been governed by some folks with a completely messed up compass over the centuries.

If one can not serve in a particular role, whether it is in a secular governmental role, or any other without having a backbone to do what is right, maybe they shouldn’t be there. But you know what, the American people certainly keep sending spineless folks back to run their communities or country.

A particular religious belief has no place in government. Whether or not elected persons choose to make laws after considering their own personal religious beliefs is another matter and is not prohibited by our Constitution. Just as it should be.
 
Maybe we better understand separation through lens of 17th century England.

To hold office one had to take a vow against the Catholic Church and for the Church of England. It was a test. In the U.S. Constitution it states that no religious test shall be had to hold office.

Separation of Church and State is neither specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights.
 
In a way lobbies are the new religions.

If you want to learn more about a lobby, get a copy of the IRS form 990 that the organization files each year.

For instance, you can google up The Sierra Club’s 990 and look at who they receive money from and who they grant the money to.

You can probably even google Planned Parenthood’s 990.

From 990, you can even decipher how much influence a lobby has in your state.
 
I believe the 10th and 1st Amendments to the Constitution of The United States confirm that individuals can use power to assert their religious beliefs upon Government.
 
It’s not even American-ist. The “wall of separation between church and state” is something that only really arose in the last 75 years. Even then, despite what some campaigners would have us believe, nothing stops an elected official from using his faith to inform his choices in office.

Like the whole “fire in a crowded theater” argument, it is a court decision people often misinterpret.
 
Here are some quotes from founding fathers with regards to whether or not religion should or should not be separate from government. This is not a new concept at all.


So if our gov was to be based on religious beliefs, does that mean law enforcement would go around on Sundays and write tickets to those who didn’t attend Church. What would the penalty be. One must pay a fine, to the Church or the county, or would it be that they go to confession and bring proof of forgiveness to the local judge.

Can be quite amusing to think about how all of that would work.
 
farronwolf said:
Here are some quotes from founding fathers with regards to whether or not religion should or should not be separate from government.
Click to expand...
Who has higher authority, the Church of Christ or secular Founding Fathers?

What the Church condemns, stands condemned.
the State… is clearly bound to act up to the… duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness…bind also the civil community by a like law.

Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins…is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.

The Almighty… has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each […] There must, accordingly, exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. […]

Such…is the Christian organization of civil society; not rashly or fancifully shaped out, but educed from the highest and truest principles, confirmed by natural reason itself. […] Divine and human things are equitably shared; the rights of citizens assured to them, and fenced round by divine, by natural, and by human law; the duties incumbent on each one being wisely marked out, and their fulfilment fittingly insured. […]

In political affairs, and all matters civil, the laws aim at securing the common good, and are not framed according to the delusive caprices and opinions of the mass of the people, but by truth and by justice; the ruling powers are invested with a sacredness more than human, and are withheld from deviating from the path of duty, and from overstepping the bounds of rightful authority; and the obedience is not the servitude of man to man, but submission to the will of God, exercising His sovereignty through the medium of men. […]
Click to expand...
 
What if this is not observed?
The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself.

Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God.

Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favour; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all.

From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one’s conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship […]

Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named, it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven…

[T]he Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people.

With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church.

[…] they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State…If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State.

t has become the practice and determination under this condition of public polity (now so much admired by many) either to forbid the action of the Church altogether, or to keep her in check and bondage to the State.

Doctrines such as these, which cannot be approved by human reason, and affect the whole civil order, Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs (well aware of what their apostolic office required of them) have never allowed to pass uncondemned.

Pope Leo XIII
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Pope is entitled to his opinion on the Church’s role in government. I presume this is from one of his Encyclicals.

Since the Church didn’t found our country and most all of the founders were not members of the Catholic Church, they were under no obligation to act according to what the Church’s teachings were/are on governance of countries.

The Church might wish that it had control over all the countries in the world, and they would act according to the Church’s teachings, that isn’t the case.
 
There may be the desire to avoid one particular faith being enshrined in government, but to compartmentalize faith is to offer politics up as a holocaust to the licentious behavior of our age.

We have ample evidence of that now.
 
farronwolf said:
The Pope is entitled to his opinion on the Church’s role in government. I presume this is from one of his Encyclicals.

Since the Church didn’t found our country and most all of the founders were not members of the Catholic Church, they were under no obligation to act according to what the Church’s teachings were/are on governance of countries.

The Church might wish that it had control over all the countries in the world, and they would act according to the Church’s teachings, that isn’t the case.
Click to expand...
The Church has absolute authority on such matters, being the society established and headed by God, and those who act contrary to what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals act in error and contrary to God’s will, and this only leads to ruin for society.
 
The alternate would be a national Protestant religion that we Catholics would have to pay taxes to support.
 
Since the Church and her members are a minority in this country, I am certain any push for our government to conform to what the Church’s teaching are would be quashed instantaneously.

For those who believe that leaders and governments are instituted by God, this kind of goes directly against that.

How can governments or leaders instituted by God, not follow God’s will? How can there be such a broad variety of forms of governments across the globe? How can many of the countries which do have a majority Catholic population be such corrupt countries with terrible human rights records.
 
Public authority in general is part of the natural law. Some must have authority over others in order to coordinate society toward its common good. This can certainly take many forms. But since all men are inherently equal, no one can command another unless the authority to do so comes from God.

But again, since this is part of natural society, it is not based on the religion or virtue of the person in authority.

As St. Robert Bellarmine quotes St. Augustine in De Laicis:
“He Who gave dominion to Marius, gave it also to Caesar, He Who gave it to Augustus, gave it also to Nero, He Who gave it to Vespasian, father or son, most benign emperors, gave it also to the most cruel Domitian; and that it may not be necessary to recount every instance, He Who gave it to Constantine the Christian gave it also to Julian the Apostate.”
Click to expand...
Subjects may justly resist a command contrary to the law of God, because such a command would be outside the scope of authority delegated the civil power. But the personal beliefs or virtues of the person in authority does not detract from their rightful authority.

Ultimately, however, the point of the civil power is to serve the common good. The best measures to do this will vary according to the circumstances of time and place. However, to truly serve the common good, public authority must know what that good is–and only the divinely revealed religion gives that full picture.

As Catholics, especially a minority, we have to do the best we can under those circumstances. Evangelization is of course of the primary importance and the primary means of infusing the divine truth in the civil society.

The Church teaches it is our job as laity to ensure that the political order is ordered toward the truth.

Catechism:
898 "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will. . . . It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are closely associated that these may always be effected and grow according to Christ and maybe to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer."431

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top