Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[AngryAtheist8]

Oh man, regular Ghengiz Khans. Why didn’t they just rule over Antarctica while they were at it.

In any event, there is a longstanding debate as to whether it was absolutely necessary to control some slice of the temporal holdings, in order to ensure that the Church would not be completely broken over the wheel and enlisted into the state’s service as the formerly strong Russian Orthodox Church was under Peter the Great.

To be able to control a small territory during this period was equivalent to ensuring that some ‘liberties’ would be guaranteed to the Church, even if its stated aim was spiritual rather than temporal jurisdiction.

I don’t deny any of that.

But the person I was replying to claimed that the Church/Pope has never had temporal authority. It was such an obvious untruth I felt compelled to respond.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Am I the only one here disturbed by conservative Catholics endorsing a religious system (Sharia law) that murders and mutilates its women?

Don’t worry - I’m sure such tendencies on this thread are an anomaly. One doesn’t have to look far among conservative Catholics in the U.S. - including here on this forum - to find such revulsion toward Sharia law that it sometimes even borders on hysteria.

Concerning Catholic teaching on matters of Church and state: I don’t think we quite did justice in this thread to what an immense shift Dignitatis Humanae was. The Protestant hysteria over the 1960 candidacy of JFK for president of the United States was not entirely unjustified: the objection that as president, he would have to work for the promotion of Catholicism and subordination of all other faiths if he were a good Catholic partially stemmed from what was then Catholic teaching.

I was rereading what SouthpawLink said, where he acknowledged that Dignitatis Humanae endorsed freedom of conscience in religious affairs but stopped short of changing the Catholic Church’s traditional application in the political sphere of the maxim that “error has no rights.”

That doesn’t seem to be the case. Starting in paragraph four (in the version on the Vatican’s website), the document describes the rights of “religious communities” that go well beyond mere freedom of individual conscience: for instance, “Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties. Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.”

So how does this not contradict earlier Catholic teaching? I’ll tell you why I think it’s consistent, despite the greatness of the shift.

I think it’s because the older Catholic teaching on matters of church and state was formed in a pre-Enlightenment, pre-Industrial Revolution society in which current political and economic systems - capitalism, socialism, secular dictatorship, secular democracy - were simply both nonexistent and almost unimaginable. This older teaching applies properly to the sort of international system for which it was devised - namely, one in which a state’s ruling prince often determined the religion of the people of that state.

Think of sixteenth-century England, for instance. Traditional Catholic teaching on church and state makes a heck of a lot of sense for a world in which the religion of England was to depend on the personal faith of whatever monarch next ascended the throne.

But what about today, when that’s simply no longer the case? During the first half of the twentieth century, with two World Wars and the rise of Christian democratic movements, I think it became clear to the Church that the autocratic alternative - fascism of whatever kind - was simply far worse for the Church, and that the political structures of pre-Enlightenment and pre-industrialist Europe were no longer relevant.

I think it’s clear - judging from Dignitatis Humanae in its entirety, and the actions and teachings of the Magisterium since the Second Vatican Council - that the Catholic Church actually formally approves of secular systems of western democracy.

This is not to say that it’s okay for any state, in its structure or laws, to ignore or violate the natural law or the rights of the Church to fully practice the Catholic faith and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to the fullest extent of its influence and power. But I think it does mean that the Church no longer expects nations of the modern age to formally promote Catholicism to the extent of suppressing other faiths.

Nor do I intend to say that it would be wrong for a state to be officially Catholic. There are many countries - Malta, for instance - that are officially Catholic. But it is clearly not required or even encouraged.

Also, concerning whether the Middle Ages was a “glorious” time or an “oppressive” one:

I think we should all avoid succumbing to historical “myths” about earlier time periods. The Middle Ages have certainly seen their fair share of overly simplistic anti-historicizing narratives.

The Renaissance humanists gave us the “myth” that the Middle Ages were a time of oppression and darkness, of ignorance and superstition, of disease and brutality, in which anyone might be burned at the stake for daring to express his or her own opinion - if he didn’t die of the plague first.

Then the nineteenth-century Romantics gave us the “myth” that the Middle Ages were a splendid time of nobility, chivalry, heroism, and community unity, not to mention environmental and economic harmony.

The truth is obviously something more complex, something in between these two - I think both are right and wrong in some ways. Catholics shouldn’t idolize any time period with nostalgic fantasies - every age had its ups and downs. In any case, the Kingdom of God is certainly not of this world in any of its epochs.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is strictly peripheral to this thread’s topic and secondary to my above reply, but I just had to comment…

Atheism is not even a system of beliefs. It is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural.

To be fair, atheism is considerably more dogmatic - as regards the whole universe and all of existence itself - than almost any revealed tradition. The reason is its embrace of philosophical materialism.

To paraphrase Chesterton, a Christian is free to doubt in some supposed miracle, but an atheist is not free to believe in any.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy” can be honestly spoken by a Christian, but not by an atheist.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I could pick any number of posts to reply to, but I picked this one.

It is necessary to separate marxism, atheism and secularism as these terms often get confused. A secular state and a marxist state are two different things. Secular states, to my knowledge, are in favour of capitalism to varying degrees. There are secualrists[sic] who are right wing, secularists who are left wing, and many shades of grey in between. There are atheists who are right wing, atheists who are left wing, and atheists who are many shades of grey in between.

A problem I see with dialogue between Atheists and Deists, is neither seem to be able to engage in dialogue in a productive way for the following reasons; neither can respect each others poing[sic] of view, neither can see the value of what each other says simply for what it is, neither seem to be able to de-personalize the topic of discussion, neither listen to what each other is actually saying but interpret it accordingly, both approach dialogue from an ‘I’m right’ perspective, both approach dialogue from an ‘I’m going to convince you of what I think’ perspective, neither seem to be able to see their own limitations and flaws but can readily see each others, and neither seem to be able to restrain their emotions.

Oooh, I sound so pious! Not so, I openly admit to being guilty of these things myself.

What I would say is the Religious world needs to see that atheists have some very valid points to make and are not necessarily wrong simply because they are an atheist. Atheists need to do the same, and not dismiss what someone says simply because they believe in God.

Of course, it all depends on what you want to acheive[sic]. Some people just like arguing for its own sake.

Hey, someone gets it!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is a broad, sweeping statement made without reference to the peasants in any one place. Local customs differed significantly.

The trans-Atlantic slave trade–and its accompanying American slavery–was both proto-modern and proto-industrial. It has few comparisons in human history, and pointing to the peasantry of Medieval Europe–a demographic that varied widely, and preceded the Emancipation Declaration by over half a millennium–and calling it comparable is just plain stupid.

Did it occur to you that when the “great protestant british empire was internationally advocating the abolition of slavery” its former daughter state–America–had an extremely large sector of its industry tied up in agriculture that depended on enslaved persons? And that, while advocating these high-minded principles, its colonies across the face of the world remained outposts of inequality and racialism?

I did not say that serfdom was the same as slavery.
But it seems more than fair to call them both forms of servitude.

Much like chattel slavery and indentured servitude (both of which existed in colonial America).

 

[Timothy17]

The question in this poll is loaded beyond belief.

The Church and the State are seperate by i) nature, and ii) institution. Even Vatican City State has a secular administrative government alongside the government of the Church Universal. The two are not synonymous. There is a clear difference and distinction that is even recognized in Canon Law.

This thread was and is a trap for Catholics :

The enlightenment ideal of seperation of Church and State deliberately then and continues today to mislead and confuse people. The pilgrim Church is not a secular department of State by its very nature. In every nation she is received as a guest. The Magna Carta, written in the 13th century, expressly demonstrates this reality, wherein it duly establishes and recognizes as a right “the liberty of the Church.” It does not define the Church, nor its heirarchy, not its methods of government in any way, because such compentence was already in the Church. Those who drafted Magna Carta were adressing a self-competent, independent instituion when they mentioned Her. If the Church were a state department, then granting it liberty would be absurd and redundant, as the State always enjoys sovereign immunity ; on the contrary, this precept of Magna Carta permitted another institution (the Church) to be at liberty within the jurisdiction of the State ; i.e., to be free from duress or interference from the State, and in the context of Magna Carta, that especially meant from the King :

The point, purpose and spirit of Magna Carta was to temper the despotism of the King, and part and parcel to this purpose those who drafted it thought it best to permanently ensure the liberty of the Church. Consider that carefully : a document meant to establish justice and a general liberty against tyranny expressly calls also for the Liberty of the Church. The Church was not seen as an agent in despotism but as a check against it.

It is ridiculous to believe as credible any politician demanding a “seperation of Church and State.” Even the very assertion is a one-sided imposition of one party against another, and therefore hypocritical. It becomes even more incredulous when historically it was always the State intervening or involving itself in the affairs of the Church, especially when and where She was weakest or most vulnerable. The State’s usurpation of jurisdiction that naturally belongs, and is proper to, the Church caused not a few issues, including the necessity for establishing the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Inquisition. The State usurpsed to itself a conjured right to try and punish heretics. Very quickly it became abundantly clear that this action of the State was malicious and intended purely as a political weapon and cudgel to persecute legitimate competitors or imagined threats to the State / throne. The Church responded by giving all Christians a right to choose to have their cases tried by the Ecclesiastical Courts rather than the secular ones. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, over 80% of those so accused voluntarily chose and prefered to be tried by the Ecclesiastical Court as opposed to their nation’s secular courts. This is no small condemnation of their local justice systems and equally not a small commendation of the competence and trust the Ecclesiastical Courts popularly or at least normally enjoyed. Through course of time, the State (especially in Spain) worked vigorously to control or otherwise usurp these Courts in order to use them as vehicles to implement state policy, and the consequences of this are by no means unfamiliar to anyone.

We can cite a litany of cases where the secular order, often violently : assaulted, attacked or otherwise maliciously interfered with the Church, including but not limited to : sending armies, assassins, agitators, agents, ad infinitum against the Church to force the Church into duress and thus submit to the will of the temporal rulers. Outright theft and nationalization of churches was common even in France before the Revolution by certain monarchs, and was implemented dramatically following that revolution, making it absolutely obvious what “seperation of Church and State” meant to radical liberals : the usurpation of the Church by the State or the total destruction and despoilment of the Church. The need for a government imposed “seperation of Church and State” is, therefore and for many more reasons, a laughable joke - even an open mockery of historical realities.

Pax,
Tim

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There is nothing extraordinary about the connection between Marxism (really just plain old ‘socialism’ will do) and Nazism.

The street battles the Brown Shirts participated in were more or less ideological cleansings, akin to the struggle… at one time or another… between the Bolsheviks and the Menshiviks, Trotskyists, and KADET (Social Democratic party) in Russia.

After all, its the National Social Germans Worker’s Party. Two of its chief ideologues, Martin Bormann and Josef Goebbels were “only” socialists and atheists.

The people who tend to believe that Nazism was a right-wing movement, tend to be people who are stupid enough to believe the lip-service paid to ‘traditionalism’ that the Nazis relied on to placate the strong Junker class and bourgeois traditionalists.

You amuse me.

Nazism glorified Germany’s past (including its pre-Christian pagan past), and what could be more conservative and right-wing than glorifying than past?

Now I’m sure you would dismiss this as mere propaganda, but consider this. Class struggle and the redistribution of wealth are key features of Marxism, yet the Nazism got along quite well with German big business, especially those linked to the war industry.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Based on what model?

The first one that comes to mind is Franco Spain.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

As far as I see it, National Socialism and Russian Marxism were two forms of dictatorship. There’s little difference in the two other than Stalin and Hitler went about aquiring power for themselves through alternative ideologies. However, I would have to disagree that National Socialism is an offshoot of Marxism. National Socialism was Hitlers ideology that had little to do with Marxism. National Socalism was a form of Facism. Mussolini was perhaps the only Facist who wrote on it as and ideology, but it was written from his own fanciful ideas. Don’t think Franco ever got into it other than from an ‘I want power’ perspective, which is what dictatorship, irrespective of who the dictator is, is all about.

Fascism was to paraphrase Mussolini, an Italian answer to an Italian problem. Nazism has almost nothing to do with Fascism. The Socialist/Communist/Liberal theories are directly opposed to the Fascist style of economic governance. Hitler was not a Fascist.
Perhaps you are using the overly-expanded word “fascist” to refer to any authoritarian government. That is an incorrect usage of the word and the two ideologies, economically speaking are distict.

While Hitler’s Nationalism may have well been influenced by Mussolini, his Socialism, that is, the economic foundation of the Third Reich as a State, was inherited from Marx.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Sebastiano:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8 View Post
In a strict Catholic theocracy, people would have no rights to speak of (or to speak up).

Right to Life? Right to be born of physical relations (and not in a laboratory)?
Those are just 2 off the top of my head…

Pax,

Sebastiano

You mean the Church’s right to decide how people are born.

Or rather, giving the Church the power to enforce the rights that GOD gave men. American political philosophy is rife with showing that the government does not endow rights; GOD endows them. So, it is up to us to protect those rights, as the Church is essentially GOD’S spokesperson, I’ll trust Her when She tells me what is and is not my right.

Regardless. Rights come from GOD. It is the duty of governments to protect those rights.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That is vile nonsense.

The number of REPORTED rapes in Saudi Arabia is so low because Saudi women cannot trust the court system. Which is far more likely to punish (and execute) them than their attackers. Due to the fact that the way their legal system works a woman who accuses a man of raping her but fails to prove it in court, has nevertheless effectively confessed to adultery/fornication, and can be (and in practice frequently is) executed for that crime.

Here is an Amnesty International report on the Saudi system you so admire:
amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE230292008&lang=e

As I have said before, I am disturbed by how much love there is in this thread for these kinds of misogynistic and murderous Muslims.

My husband has been working in Saudi for the last year. He goes to Bahrain during their ‘Sabbath’ and he says women go into to the toilet in Burkhas and come out in make up and jeans like butterflies emerging from a crysalis. On the way back they change into Burkhas. The sad thing is, a lot of them go mad in Bahrain because they are so repressed. This is the consequence of using external control measures as a means to ensure adherence to one’s religion. It is not embraced as a fulfilling way to live; but feared.

I would have to question your last comment. I would say that you do not think all Muslims are misogynistic and murderous. That would not be a rational view based on evidence. I’m guessing your referring to a particular type of Muslim. Turkey is a Muslim country and I believe it’s great for a holiday. There are also atheists who are a particular type of atheist, and we shouldn’t tar all with the same brush.

You are correct, I know that not all Muslims are like that.

I was referring specifically to Muslims that embrace a brutal and misogynistic form of Sharia law.

I actually have an aunt who converted to Islam (of the more liberal kind).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am not insecure about my own beliefs. I am however, insecure about the effect my own beliefs will have on others - when I dislosed my religion to some colleagues on a ward I used to work on, I was mocked. If they don’t ask, I don’t tell. I find it difficult to talk about my beliefs to people who have no understanding or respect for them. Perhaps people would respect and understand my faith more if they knew more about it, and how important it should be.

Also, since when I did advocate state authority imposing on others? In the USA, faith is openly discussed by politians without the non-religious feeling like they HAVE to go to Church, and HAVE to be religious.

Most of the ant-Separation of Church & State crowd in this thread IS advocating that. I am sorry if I accidentally confused you with them.

 

[TarkanAttila]

My husband has been working in Saudi for the last year. He goes to Bahrain during their ‘Sabbath’ and he says women go into to the toilet in Burkhas and come out in make up and jeans like butterflies emerging from a crysalis. On the way back they change into Burkhas. The sad thing is, a lot of them go mad in Bahrain because they are so repressed. This is the consequence of using external control measures as a means to ensure adherence to one’s religion. It is not embraced as a fulfilling way to live; but feared.

I would have to question your last comment. I would say that you do not think all Muslims are misogynistic and murderous. That would not be a rational view based on evidence. I’m guessing your referring to a particular type of Muslim. Turkey is a Muslim country and I believe it’s great for a holiday. There are also atheists who are a particular type of atheist, and we shouldn’t tar all with the same brush.

Is the Angry Atheist… RELATING to people?!

Wonders never cease!

 

[minkymurph]

Fascism was to paraphrase Mussolini, an Italian answer to an Italian problem. Nazism has almost nothing to do with Fascism. The Socialist/Communist/Liberal theories are directly opposed to the Fascist style of economic governance. Hitler was not a Fascist.
Perhaps you are using the overly-expanded word “fascist” to refer to any authoritarian government. That is an incorrect usage of the word and the two ideologies, economically speaking are distict.

While Hitler’s Nationalism may have well been influenced by Mussolini, his Socialism, that is, the economic foundation of the Third Reich as a State, was inherited from Marx.

I probably have overly-expanded the term. However, it depends on one’s understanding of the term ‘Fascist.’ To explain, Franco is described as a Fascist dictator but was not a Fascist in the sense Hitler was.

As far as my understanding goes, Fascism never really meant anything specific. It meant whatever people like Hitler wanted it to mean.

Can you expand on why you state Hitler was not a Fascist and how the economic foundation of the Third Reich was inherited from Marx? To my knowledge, a feature of socialist economic policy is collective ownership. Hitler was not against private ownership. That’s not to say he may have borrowed Marxist ideas; but I wouldn’t describe his economic policy as socialist.

 

[Timothy17]

I probably have overly-expanded the term. However, it depends on one’s understanding of the term ‘Fascist.’ To explain, Franco is described as a Fascist dictator but was not a Fascist in the sense Hitler was.

As far as my understanding goes, Fascism never really meant anything specific. It meant whatever people like Hitler wanted it to mean.

Can you expand on why you state Hitler was not a Fascist and how the economic foundation of the Third Reich was inherited from Marx?

Fascist was a term used by communists to bash and slur their enemies even before WWII. It was always a malicious slur, which is why it’s so hard to find people who, in the relevant time period, were self-proclaimed “Fascists.” At best, from my historical knowledge, it was adopted by some to simply spite the communists, in the sense that fascist meant nothing except someone communists deeply hated ; i.e., anyone overtly or effectively opposed to communism. To be labeled a fascist was to have a bulls-eye painted on you to every communist or communist sympathizer. “Fascists” were the “it’s-okay-to-hate” group of the communists. Hence Hitler logically must have been a “fascist” because he persecuted communists and attacked the communist heartland of Russia. So any self-proclaimed “fascist” simply meant someone who equally hated or opposed communism/communists. Hence fascism even to this day is mostly used against right-wing persons and parties and seems inapropriate or illogical to apply to the left. It’s “their” word : they monopolized it and gifted to themselves the right and privilege to determine who is or is not a fascist.

Pax,
Tim

 

[minkymurph]

Fascist was a term used by communists to bash and slur their enemies even before WWII. It was always a malicious slur, which is why it’s so hard to find people who, in the relevant time period, were self-proclaimed “Fascists.” At best, from my historical knowledge, it was adopted by some to simply spite the communists, in the sense that fascist meant nothing except someone communists deeply hated ; i.e., anyone overtly or effectively opposed to communism. To be labeled a fascist was to have a bulls-eye painted on you to every communist or communist sympathizer. “Fascists” were the “it’s-okay-to-hate” group of the communists. Hence Hitler logically must have been a “fascist” because he persecuted communists and attacked the communist heartland of Russia. So any self-proclaimed “fascist” simply meant someone who equally hated or opposed communism/communists. Hence fascism even to this day is mostly used against right-wing persons and parties and seems inapropriate or illogical to apply to the left. It’s “their” word : they monopolized it and gifted to themselves the right and privilege to determine who is or is not a fascist.

Pax,
Tim

So, would you say the term ‘Fascist’ was invented and defined by communists, and neither Mussolini or Hitler would have described themselves as Fascist?

 

[mjakemccoy]

Lycorth;6183787:

America was not founded on a single Christian ideal. Moreover, I am aware that many of America’s earliest shapers were anti-Catholic, and that is a part of my overall point.

American culture is perhaps one of the worst in the world in terms of moral fiber (QUOTE.)

This comment is at best laughable.

Compared to countries like Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and the Congo the people of the United States and our rulers are shining examples of peace, nobility, and justice.

Peace is an interesting word. Are we at peace in America? I certainly have problems with some actions in Saudi, but have visited their neighbor Bahrain. There’s things I didn’t care for, but I was humbled as a Christian. The devotion and humility of the faithful muslims laid shame on my American heart. Bahrain unlike Saudi is very tolerant of westerners, but Islamic law is still part of the secular law. You know what the law is so you don’t break the law. There are daily prayer calls, much like the church bells called for daily prayer in pre-Reformation Europe. Every public building (malls, airports, etc.) have a prayer room. Abortion is illegal. We can all learn alot from our muslim brethren how Christian government operated before the separation. In America the law applies to those who can’t afford an attorney, but the wealthy can break the law as long as they can afford to do so. Where is this in the Bible, or in simple philosophical reason for that matter?

Another question of extreme importance; “is the war in the Middle East a Just War?” That is a question I used to back fully with a yes. Over 3,000 civilians were killed on 9/11, so military action is justifiable against those military combatants and those in support of it. But since coming to that conclusion I have been to the Middle East, and we also have a new commander in chief. The hard ponderence for me now is “if America liberates health care in the Middle East (i.e. takes abortion there), is the war still just?”

Now you’re comparing 100,000’s if not millions of innocent lives. As brutal and heartless as 9/11 was, this is a matter far more grave is it not? We are not at peace in America, rather our unborn lie in pieces. Pardon my frankness, but it’s time to call a spade a spade. I’m not condoning any attrocities in those foreign establishments you mentioned, but open your eyes to the attrocities on our soil at the hands of “shining examples of peace, nobility and justice”. Nazi’s hid their death camps behind closed doors at the hands of “scientists and doctors”, and the average German had no idea what was happening in those camps. Those citizens can’t bear guilt for the unknown action of their government, other than perhaps ignorance. But we Americans don’t have that luxury, we all know too well what is going on at planned parenthood. But we turn our eyes, our minds filled with question and doubt. The teachings of our conscience, our Church and our God leave no room for doubt, that is a living being until life is taken from it, i.e. murder. These doctors and politicians have concealed themselves in a veil of “peace, nobility and justice” (wolves in sheeps clothing). Our eyes must be opened to our current decay and the cost of division. May God grant us wisdom, fortitude, and justice. Praise be Jesus Christ.

 

[AcolyteLector]

If you are so insecure in your own beliefs (that you easily bow to peer pressure) you should not advocate using state authority to impose them on others.

Religious rights need to be protected. Even if the government is not full-blown Catholic or even Christian, a government better disposed to religious faith would be an improvement over the Pan-Labourism currently enthroned in Whitehall.

 

[AcolyteLector]

If you can reject younger doctrines in favor of older ones then why forbid things like married priests. After all, the doctrines requiring priests to be unmarried and celibate are not as old as the ones that allowed it.

The measures of having unmarried priests in the Latin Rite Church are not ‘doctrines’, per se, but a discipline imposed with a single ideal in mind: the asceticism of celibacy. How best to cultivate this ideal in our clergy has been something that we need to take a different approach in, throughout the ages.

These are policies, based on ‘doctrines’.

If you don’t know what you’re talking about, my advice is to stop talking about it.

 

[AcolyteLector]

The first one that comes to mind is Franco Spain.

Franco’s government was not a theocracy. It was not ruled by priests/clerics, it did not always place Catholicism as the first indispensable set of values.

It was a government very much influenced by the Catholic religion, and favorable to the Catholic church–unsurprising, as their chief enemies had committed innumerable acts of arson, murder, and rape against the Church and Her servants. Who wouldn’t side with the victor, in this battle?

To call this a ‘theocracy’ is a frustrating abuse of the term, and it unnecessarily vilifies every government that incorporates any element of a single religion into their government. If you are genuinely against true ‘theocracy’, then don’t call non-theocracies theocracies. This would be like if the Simon Wiesenthal Center branded every leader of the PLO a ‘Nazi’: just because you have an aversion for them, doesn’t make them an instance of the ideology you dislike.