Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[EnchantedEve]

You draw some amazing conclusions from what I post.

I said palaces don’t seem to be particularly in the form of the anything Jesus described and that means I know more than his apostles?

Show me where I contradict anything his apostles did or say. Better yet, show me where an apostle built a palace.

As to the Jewish tradition of 100lbs of spices, show me how that could even be possible given the cost of spices in those days and the poverty of most people.

As to having more information at our finger tips today than popes knew in the past, that is within the grasp of more people today just because of technology.

It doesn’t make me “better” than a pope for knowing we shouldn’t burn people to death because they aren’t good catholics. Its just common sense and a more developed realization of what Jesus taught. And it wasn’t something that I made up, but something that was taught to me in years of catholic instruction.

When more developed conclusions are arrived at in modern times that contradict what was held in the past, it doesn’t mean that what Jesus taught was wrong, but that what Jesus taught is found to apply to more situations.

Most issues that arise in the church and society for that matter, do not arise because the previously held is “too” Christlike, but not enough.

The standards of day to day behavior in med times were much further away from what Jesus taught, than in today’s modern times. Sometimes we confuse obedience to weaker standards as being more acceptable than falling short of higher standards.

Sort of like giving an A to a person taking basic arithmetic and a B+ to a person taking advanced calculus. Which one do you want to figure out your taxes?
Peace

No, the context of my statement, as you should know, was regarding your saying that Joseph of Arimithea wasted his money. By saying so, you are stating you believe you know better how to honour Christ’s body that those who knew him did. Is this not the logical conclusion? Your post, as far as I can see, mentioned nothing of palaces at all.

The onus is not on me to prove anything. It is you who claim the Church from before the Medieval era until fairly recently was mislead, wasteful, and decadent. I defend the Church’s behaviour as it was, and therefore need make no defense because the Church’s actions speak for themselves. If you do not accept the Church’s way, that is your conundrum.

With regard to the spices, I just recommend as you have: Google it. Plenty of info comes up. If you want me to cite a book, the most notable is Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

As for burning people, I do not recall anyone advocating we should do that, any more than advocating for a return to riding donkeys, catapults, and thatch roofs. It would seem you are reading too much into a defense of the Medieval government and society. Nothing was perfect. Nothing today is perfect. Yes, some things did occur in that era that were dreadful, no one denies that . But to gloss over the wide positives, ignore the accomplishment, trivialize the achievements, and exaggerate the evils of Christian civilization is wrong, and you have shown ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove otherwise.

I, in fact, completely disagree with the notion that mankind has “progressed” significantly at all, even if we are more deluged in data, facts, and information. To say that our wisdom is more wise than those of previous ages belies the entire development of the West, and of earth period. The wise men of old were as wise, if not more so, than we are now. We make a pretense of our supposedly sophisticated knowledge, yet for all our learning nothing in man has essentially changed.

If we of modernity are holding ourselves to higher standards, than there are two logical conclusions that can be drawn: The Medieval era could not have been all that bad, if what was expected of them was so low (Interesting you say you could get burned for not being a good Catholic but the standards were lower!), or, if this is not true, than modern standards are really not as high as you make them out to be, that indeed that the standards (not necessarily the actions) were at least as noble, if not more noble, in the past.

Again, the scores of saints from the Medieval era, compared to the trickle that exists today, may speak something of the glory of that age. Otherwise, our Faith is in vain. The Church is run by corrupt fools, the past has no merit, the saints of old are frauds or exaggerated, and Christendom shameful. What other rational conclusions can we draw from these arguments?

Even if we accepted the premise that mankind has become closer to Christ in the modern world, this still would not invalidate the view that the structure of Medieval society and government is a better foundation than the current one. There is still no proof that this is the case, or that modern structure is the vehicle that brought this alleged miracle of human advancement about.

I again state the onus is on you to prove your point. Many of us here see no evidence man has improved, that the medievals were worse than us, or that we have advanced to the Omega point of Christ-like sophistication. I have still seen nothing which shows that harmony between Church and state causes any harm at all, that any alleged evils of times past were perpetrated by this idea, or that the modern system eliminated any previous evils or has solidified new virtues. Simply has not happened. Please give us some fact which indicates that the Church-state union causes positive harm in and of itself, that the modern system produces and enhances virtue, or that previous models are unworkable in modern society. Until this happens, than there is not reason for us to believe any of the above are indeed the case.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Any mixing of spiritual practices, which are the most personal things people become engaged in, with the necessarily forced, legal requirements embodied in civil and criminal law, rob religion of the necessity that individuals choose it, or do not choose it. Thus, under such circumstances, as happened in Europe during the dark ages of religious rule over the consciences of ordinary members while telling them that they would be standing up for Christ by demanding that state authorities persecute by limiting the commercial activities of people whose religious practices were different than their own, even though the dissenters were also monotheistic, was the result of having no constitutions separating church and state functions.

A public sense of guilt led to reduced spiritual growth which led to members feeling that they could earn their way to salvation by being “religious” rather than spiritual. The public didn’t feel they had any power to influence the state to respect the right of people to dissent from the majority of either the church or the state. Learned helplessness. Such helplessness is not what Jesus died to promote. Spirituality only exists when people can freely choose it. Their personal, private religious activities and observances are what promote their own personal spirituality. Ministers, priests, rabbi’s, imams, should teach their congregants to study the scriptures and religious writings for themselves, and act as God guides each one as his or her faith (a personal thing, not corporate) grows.

Again, everything above is pure conjecture. There is no evidence supporting a word what has been asserted above. Now we are even interpreting the feeling of peoples of the past!

So for all those in favor of seperation: If the government, in its laws and institutions, confesses that Christ alone is Lord and the state will manifest His ideals, this will automatically lead to authoritrianism, burning at the stake, persecution, narrow dogmatism, “religiosity,” and sundry other woes and evils? Wow, Christ sounds like true poison when confessed publically.

Is this really a rational or logical argument, based on the existing sound evidence and not “what we have heard” or our “gut feeling,” or the “Muslims doing it?” Do you really believe this?

 

[kenofken]

"So for all those in favor of seperation: If the government, in its laws and institutions, confesses that Christ alone is Lord and the state will manifest His ideals, this will automatically lead to authoritrianism, burning at the stake, persecution, narrow dogmatism, “religiosity,” and sundry other woes and evils? "

The track record of 15 centuries says it will.

 

[janet_baker76]

"So for all those in favor of seperation: If the government, in its laws and institutions, confesses that Christ alone is Lord and the state will manifest His ideals, this will automatically lead to authoritrianism, burning at the stake, persecution, narrow dogmatism, “religiosity,” and sundry other woes and evils? "

The track record of 15 centuries says it will.

Do you not think these things happen under secular governments? Every activity of human beings will manifest our sinfulness. The question is what will help us control it the best, and the track record of 15 centuries of unified action of Church and state show a state that must follow an ethical standard, however humanly, does better than those with none, or pagan standards. I don’t know where to put killing fields and genocide and mass rape in Africa now but don’t you dare lay them at the Church’s doorstep.

 

[mjakemccoy]

"So for all those in favor of seperation: If the government, in its laws and institutions, confesses that Christ alone is Lord and the state will manifest His ideals, this will automatically lead to authoritrianism, burning at the stake, persecution, narrow dogmatism, “religiosity,” and sundry other woes and evils? "

The track record of 15 centuries says it will.

I don’t totally disagree with you, there is a death penalty today, if the state adopted a religion there would still probably be a death penalty for certain crimes. To claim perfect society where no corruption would occur or no innocents would die would be foolish. But are we so free of killing the innocent today? As for 15 centruies of burning at the stake I certainly haven’t seen solid evidence of that. Heresy was made punishable in the Roman Empire by emperor Theodosius in 380, this generally resulted in assylum. As for buning at the stake, I’m not familiar with any accounts before the 1400’s. Joan of Arc was burnt by the English, in her inquisition she repeatedly requested French ecclesiasticals, but this was denied by her English ecclesial court. It was a state run execution, helped by corrupt clergy. Jan Hus was another famous one, and I really think it still sits bitterly today. I think it could have been handled better, a more just punishment for his heresy could have prevented alot of division. Reform was certainly needed during this time, but to give the state free rein was not the solution! History has proven so. You might find it interesting that the Protestant witch hunts killed far more than the Inquistion ever did in 600 years. The numbers of those put to death in the Inquisition (death penalty was usually reserved for treasonous acts against the state) were in the 1,000’s. In Germany alone the Protestant witch hunts burnt 26,000. Apparantly separating the Church from the state did not prevent stake burning, in fact it perpetuated more. The witchhunts of the northeast are still notorious in this country, post separation mind you. Recall our founders fled the persecution of the King of England and his church, not the church of Rome.

As for narrow dogmatism, the path is narrow and straight, should our dogma not also be narrow? Oh that’s right we live in America, we all travel our own path that leads to salvation, regardless of where the path leads. Who’s doctrine is this, because it is not of Christ my friend? There is but one all-encompassing truth, not relative truths differing from one individual to the other. We are called to follow Christ, not lead him to where he ought to be. Follow your thoughts to conclusion.

Persecution is a broad term. Some could interpret censorship as persecution. I believe that is a proper interpretation, and I think that type of persecution is necessary. Should a Christian civilization allow public displays of our Lord’s name in vein? Should devil worhipping and witchcraft be allowed public exposition, even in children’s movies? Does America not censor nudity, beastiality, child porn? Censorship would be far different in mind than torture and burning at the stake. I personally would not see these as just means except in extremely rare cases of treason, very minimal at best. But these can certainly be established within each government at different levels of enthusiasm. For example Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are both Islamic states. Saudi cuts your hand off for stealing, and if you’re alone with a woman in a room you may as well be up to no good, because you’re guilty of rape anyway, which means death the very next day. Consequently Saudi has very little rape, 1 in 4 women in America are raped. Bahrain still is an Islamic state, though they are extremely tolerant of other religions, but their laws still have something to back them up, religion. You don’t break the law because you get punished there, though the punishments are closer to what we have in the west, nothing compared to Saudi. So you can set up a religious state tolerant of other religions, and seek just punishments. You still would have to pray for good government by all means. There are some religions the US doesn’t tolerate today, Jamaican potsmokers and Mormon polygamists for example. You can establish a union between Church and state with checks and balances to maintain civility and try to root out corruption. Would you completely eliminate corruption? No, there will always be evil. We’re just suggesting opening a door to the Church.

One example would be a state with a balance of powers between a state executive branch, a state legislative branch, and an ecclesial judicial branch. Does it make sense to have a balance of power between 3 state agencies? Where is the so-called balance? But multiple possibilities could be tried. After the Reformation I think we’ve all learned a lot, and better balances of power could be pursued. Recall our country’s government was an experiment. Is it so radical to even mention another experiment? Praise be Jesus Chrsit.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I don’t totally disagree with you, there is a death penalty today, if the state adopted a religion there would still probably be a death penalty for certain crimes. To claim perfect society where no corruption would occur or no innocents would die would be foolish. But are we so free of killing the innocent today? As for 15 centruies of burning at the stake I certainly haven’t seen solid evidence of that. Heresy was made punishable in the Roman Empire by emperor Theodosius in 380, this generally resulted in assylum. As for buning at the stake, I’m not familiar with any accounts before the 1400’s. Joan of Arc was burnt by the English, in her inquisition she repeatedly requested French ecclesiasticals, but this was denied by her English ecclesial court. It was a state run execution, helped by corrupt clergy. Jan Hus was another famous one, and I really think it still sits bitterly today. I think it could have been handled better, a more just punishment for his heresy could have prevented alot of division. Reform was certainly needed during this time, but to give the state free rein was not the solution! History has proven so. You might find it interesting that the Protestant witch hunts killed far more than the Inquistion ever did in 600 years. The numbers of those put to death in the Inquisition (death penalty was usually reserved for treasonous acts against the state) were in the 1,000’s. In Germany alone the Protestant witch hunts burnt 26,000. Apparantly separating the Church from the state did not prevent stake burning, in fact it perpetuated more. The witchhunts of the northeast are still notorious in this country, post separation mind you. Recall our founders fled the persecution of the King of England and his church, not the church of Rome.

As for narrow dogmatism, the path is narrow and straight, should our dogma not also be narrow? Oh that’s right we live in America, we all travel our own path that leads to salvation, regardless of where the path leads. Who’s doctrine is this, because it is not of Christ my friend? There is but one all-encompassing truth, not relative truths differing from one individual to the other. We are called to follow Christ, not lead him to where he ought to be. Follow your thoughts to conclusion.

Persecution is a broad term. Some could interpret censorship as persecution. I believe that is a proper interpretation, and I think that type of persecution is necessary. Should a Christian civilization allow public displays of our Lord’s name in vein? Should devil worhipping and witchcraft be allowed public exposition, even in children’s movies? Does America not censor nudity, beastiality, child porn? Censorship would be far different in mind than torture and burning at the stake. I personally would not see these as just means except in extremely rare cases of treason, very minimal at best. But these can certainly be established within each government at different levels of enthusiasm. For example Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are both Islamic states. Saudi cuts your hand off for stealing, and if you’re alone with a woman in a room you may as well be up to no good, because you’re guilty of rape anyway, which means death the very next day. Consequently Saudi has very little rape, 1 in 4 women in America are raped. Bahrain still is an Islamic state, though they are extremely tolerant of other religions, but their laws still have something to back them up, religion. You don’t break the law because you get punished there, though the punishments are closer to what we have in the west, nothing compared to Saudi. So you can set up a religious state tolerant of other religions, and seek just punishments. You still would have to pray for good government by all means. There are some religions the US doesn’t tolerate today, Jamaican potsmokers and Mormon polygamists for example. You can establish a union between Church and state with checks and balances to maintain civility and try to root out corruption. Would you completely eliminate corruption? No, there will always be evil. We’re just suggesting opening a door to the Church.

One example would be a state with a balance of powers between a state executive branch, a state legislative branch, and an ecclesial judicial branch. Does it make sense to have a balance of power between 3 state agencies? Where is the so-called balance? But multiple possibilities could be tried. After the Reformation I think we’ve all learned a lot, and better balances of power could be pursued. Recall our country’s government was an experiment. Is it so radical to even mention another experiment? Praise be Jesus Christ.

Excellent points. During the Salazar regime in Portugal, the State acknowledged that the Church was the true Church, but not the official Church. The Church received little material assistance, and the government, while Catholic in character, was mostly secular. In Spain under Franco at this same time, on the other hand, Catholicism was the only religion recognized in Spain, all others were merely tolerated, and the State actively and materially supported the Church. During the Ghibelline Middle Ages, Church and State were considered seperate but equal institutions, one governing the Spirit, the other the corporal sphere. Iran is has an overlap of state and religious institutions, and the Papal states were an ecclesiocracy. There are many different types of Church-state union, we need not be confined to one model and philosophy, or one manner of structure.

 

[Lycorth]

No it never occurred to me that the earthly riches were a reward for acting as good shepherds.

But it did occur to me that when the Medicis became popes they liked to live in the comfort that there families were accustomed to.

The supposition that somehow having earthly palaces enables the church to better serve the poor is much more a product of bovine digestion than Jesus’ teachings.

The only BS here is the basically Marxist polemic that those who have nice material things or lots of money are therefore intrinsically evil or wrong-natured. Sorry, but common sense dictates that an institution with material resources has the potential to carry out a mission much more easily than one without such. It’s the basic principle behind individuals earning money for the sake of day-to-day life.

The Church has always prayed “… and give us this day our daily bread…” and the Lord, seeing the Church’s obedience, answered in the way He saw fit. It is not for you to gainsay that. You might want to practice some of that Christ-like humility when you’re up on that soapbox instead of telling everyone else to.

Do you not think these things happen under secular governments? Every activity of human beings will manifest our sinfulness. The question is what will help us control it the best, and the track record of 15 centuries of unified action of Church and state show a state that must follow an ethical standard, however humanly, does better than those with none, or pagan standards. I don’t know where to put killing fields and genocide and mass rape in Africa now but don’t you dare lay them at the Church’s doorstep.

But of course he will. Denying the simply history of the Western civilization, including when it was in submission to the Church and when it defied it, proves the case for the Catholic State succinctly. The crimes of anti-Christian governments (such as the Soviet Union, for one lonely example amongst many) cannot be spoken of in that light since they dwarf the misdeeds of Christian governments that went astray.

We cannot expect an honest treatment of the subject, here.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Moral ideals, learned from each citizen’s spiritual learning, can and should be shared as ideas and policies that do not result in government favoring the religious practices of any particular faith community, but in fact, protects all of those that do not physically harm people, or cause emotional pain to anyone. That allows for a wide variety of individual faith communities to practice their beliefs and practices, days, times, etc. from interference by government in any way, shape or form. Too many of the large religious communities in this world in fact practice inculcating the idea that there is somehow a common religious set of theological ideas that need to be protected by legislation. Case-in-point, India, China, Germany, etc.

If any large organized religion or faith community determines upon such behind-the-scenes encouragement of state political action by it’s members, to the detriment of the commercial or earning capacity of the members of other, smaller religious communities, or such capacities of those who are non-religious, they in fact do so at the cost of economic, hence social justice in any free country.

It would seem that each faith community needs to allow it’s members to grow in the personal knowledge of whatever scriptures they believe, through their own searching and learning, to be true. It is through the idea that religious communities seem to have, that they need to keep their own membership from discovering new spiritual truths from the oldest of texts, on their own, that unmovable dogma has led to spiritual stagnation, and subservience to the “organization” they were born into. People need to be allowed to read, feel, understand, and think, and then make decisions about what to believe and practice.

So-called “outreach” and “ecumenical” efforts are largely efforts to get leaders of religions and denominations within religions to “agree” on doctrines. In fact, it often turns out that this results in the diminution of the rights of conscience, oftentimes by the “leaders” of their own denominations when they make deals with the leaders of the larger ones.

Freedom of conscience in religious and spiritual matters is the only basis for truth. Suppresion of any by any other, only leads to disruption and dissent, which weakens any society. True freedom is the only choice that works to enhance society, and religious activity.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Moral ideals, learned from each citizen’s spiritual learning, can and should be shared as ideas and policies that do not result in government favoring the religious practices of any particular faith community, but in fact, protects all of those that do not physically harm people, or cause emotional pain to anyone. That allows for a wide variety of individual faith communities to practice their beliefs and practices, days, times, etc. from interference by government in any way, shape or form. Too many of the large religious communities in this world in fact practice inculcating the idea that there is somehow a common religious set of theological ideas that need to be protected by legislation. Case-in-point, India, China, Germany, etc.

If any large organized religion or faith community determines upon such behind-the-scenes encouragement of state political action by it’s members, to the detriment of the commercial or earning capacity of the members of other, smaller religious communities, or such capacities of those who are non-religious, they in fact do so at the cost of economic, hence social justice in any free country.

It would seem that each faith community needs to allow it’s members to grow in the personal knowledge of whatever scriptures they believe, through their own searching and learning, to be true. It is through the idea that religious communities seem to have, that they need to keep their own membership from discovering new spiritual truths from the oldest of texts, on their own, that unmovable dogma has led to spiritual stagnation, and subservience to the “organization” they were born into. People need to be allowed to read, feel, understand, and think, and then make decisions about what to believe and practice.

So-called “outreach” and “ecumenical” efforts are largely efforts to get leaders of religions and denominations within religions to “agree” on doctrines. In fact, it often turns out that this results in the diminution of the rights of conscience, oftentimes by the “leaders” of their own denominations when they make deals with the leaders of the larger ones.

Freedom of conscience in religious and spiritual matters is the only basis for truth. Suppresion of any by any other, only leads to disruption and dissent, which weakens any society. True freedom is the only choice that works to enhance society, and religious activity.

Interesting post. 10 points for creativity! I do not agree with the above, but it is indeed well expressed. Good job!

 

[mjakemccoy]

Freedom of conscience in religious and spiritual matters is the only basis for truth. Suppresion of any by any other, only leads to disruption and dissent, which weakens any society. True freedom is the only choice that works to enhance society, and religious activity.

Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are 2 totally different concepts. Your conscience cannot be touched by the most severe suppression, unless you let it. God and you are the only ones who can impose on your conscience, but He has given you that freedom to receive or deny his grace. I think we’re all in accord here that no one should be forced to join a religion or belief system that they do not believe. As to your religion, it’s freedom should have no bearing upon your conscience, although I would concede it is easier to follow your religion when it is supported by the community, i.e. the state, hence my support for a relgious state. Freedom of our own inner thoughts is a far cry different from the public display of religion. Freedom of conscience is an important part of the pursuit of truth. But from your previous statement I would assume it would be a reasonable assessment that an idealistic society should pursue and preserve the truth. According to Paul the pillar and bullwark of truth is the Church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:15). For our society and courts to be in accord with the pillar of truth, according to Paul, they would have to be inline with the Church. Would this assumption be correct? If so, then to separate the Church from state would be to separate the truth from the state, i.e. schools, courtrooms, legislation, etc… And this is something you are willing to support? Read Paul’s words again, and recall these words are from Sacred Scripture! “What is truth?” is basic philosophy 101, and the fundamental question rooted in the qwest for man to understand God. A question greatly avoided by so-called “enlightened” philosophers who have no ability to rationalize truth. Some great philosophers to help with your qwest for truth would be Justin Martyr, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.

By “suppression of any”, you’re making an all encompassing statement and more thought should be placed into infallible speech where you assert an absolute truth. Would you be asserting that society, even Christian society should allow Devil worshiping on a public television show, child porn be legal so children can have a “free conscience”, and a man should be allowed to marry a goat because he isn’t hurting anyone else and the goat has not filed a complaint? All of these cases could claim their own religion, and seek religious protection under the law. By society trying to prevent these acts you’re asserting we only cause disruption and dissent. I would agree, there is evil in the world, and people have fell for it in the past, do so today, and will continue in the future. There will always be dissenters of justice, but that does not give us the right to quit our pursuit of justice because it is difficult. I know that you would not tolerate these acts in your home town. These cases are utter nonsense and though they seem comical, follow your thoughts to conclusion and see if they’re justifiable according to your philosophies. You’re making broadbased philosophical assertions without thinking the consequences through. These philosophies claim full anarchy, though I know your heart does not mean to pursue it. An important question to rationalize is “what is law?”

But to limit one of those cases, just one, destroys your philosophy. Because that imposes on their freedom of “religion”. So I’m assuming in recanting you’d assert a society should tolerate only certain “legitimate” religious laws and morals. Perhaps only allowing the big 3, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, or something along those lines. I would prefer that to open-endedness, but that does still limit freedom for some. That is merely all I’m trying to prove, that society needs religion as a base for social and justice issues. There should be a separation, but we’ve left the door wide open, but thankfully we don’t interpret our Constitution to the letter of the law. We do have religious biasts in America, but how long will they last? There’s a big loophole in our Constitution and at some point it will have to be resolved. In an ideal situation I would think Muslims should have their own country and laws, so should Jews, and so should Christians. Societies that would tolerate eachother for the most part, but maintain their laws according to their faith.

Praise be Jesus Christ.

 

[Lycorth]

Great post

Freedom of religion can and will only go so far. All but the most blinded defenders of it would refuse that right to certain groups based on how vile they find that group’s practices. In essence, there is no such thing as “freedom” of religion and never has been.

 

[philipmarie]

I’m against seperation of Church and state but which religion is important. I don’t want my government to be influenced by Islam. Iran’s governemnt and religion are sort of bonded absolutely, like how Catholicism completely runs Vatican City (and how Catholicism ran most of Europe before the freemasonic dunderheads came and stole everything. Rember Garibaldi, Napoleon, Victor Emmanuel? Yes, they were all Freemasons!)

If ANY religion other than Catholicism were to run a government, that government would go downhill. Just look at Pakistan and Iran, and just look at how England and Germany were because it’s leaders converted to Anglicanism and Protestantism.

Just look at America. Although the American government does not support religion, it is still heavily influenced by Protestant ideas, such as liberalism and freedom of religion.

It is true that the Catholic Church USED (and correctly and rightly) to condemn freedom of religion. In Spain, which used to be a very devout country, and in Portugal, freedom of religion was prohibited. You would never see any muslim mosques or Jewish synagogues there, so as to not let these false religions spread. And what did you get? You got peace, a peace which was shattered when those filthy Communists came and overthrew the monarchy and Catholicism in Spain.

 

[Phil_Stone]

Wasn’t it the Fascists/Catholics who over threw the monarchy? The “Communists” were called Loyalists for a reason. Franco eventually allowed for the re-establishment of a form of monarchy under Juan Carlos, but as I seem to recall, only after he had married Franco’s daughter. Then Franco died and Juan Carlos pushed for a liberal constitutional monarchy.

Under British rule, the colonists celebrated Pope’s Day, a variation on Guy Fawkes Day where Catholics were ritually abused and humiliated. Madison, Jefferson and the rest brought an end to this extreme anti-Catholicism by enshrining religious tolerance in the Bill of Rights. Without it, mass immigration from Catholic countries might never have taken place, and many American Catholics might still be in the nations of established religion from which they flocked to freedom.

 

[SouthpawLink]

I side with the consistent teaching of the Supreme Pontiffs:

“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” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, n. 20; 15 August 1832).

“The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”: condemned proposition (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, n. 55; 8 December 1864).

“We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself. As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man’s rights spring from his duty toward God. Whence if follows that the State, by missing in this connection the principal object of its institution, finally becomes false to itself by denying that which is the reason of its own existence" (Pope Leo XIII, Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes, n. 28; 16 February 1892).

“That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him” (Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, n. 3; 11 February 1906).

“It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power" (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, n. 17; 11 December 1925).

 

[bmadamsberry]

I side with the consistent teaching of the Supreme Pontiffs:

“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” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, n. 20; 15 August 1832).

“The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”: condemned proposition (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, n. 55; 8 December 1864).

“We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself. As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man’s rights spring from his duty toward God. Whence if follows that the State, by missing in this connection the principal object of its institution, finally becomes false to itself by denying that which is the reason of its own existence" (Pope Leo XIII, Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes, n. 28; 16 February 1892).

“That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him” (Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, n. 3; 11 February 1906).

“It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power" (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, n. 17; 11 December 1925).

I don’t believe that any of those are infallible statements. In a perfect world, the State and Church would work intimately together, with the State giving support to the Church and the Church providing for the spiritual needs of the State. Rarely has this worked out in practice, and* both *the State and Church suffered from it!

The State is forbidden, according strictly to the Constitution, from establishing a state religion, and from stopping people from practicing religion. That said, it does not say that the State cannot provide support to religious groups, as long as that support does not form the religious institution into the State Religion.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I just want to add a few simple words.

I voted “No”, because I do not want state and religion to be seperate. Religion takes such a back seat in this country it makes me very sad. I feel that I would be more confident, secure and happy in my religion if it was more acceptable to be religious in the UK. I have heard collaegues of mine mocking a Catholic, joking that you shouldn’t swear in front of them because “He’ll make you pray the rosary to repent if he catches you swearing! Hahahaha!” I didn’t feel able to reprimand them because every single member of staff was laughing and making other such comments.

 

[SouthpawLink]

I don’t believe that any of those are infallible statements. In a perfect world, the State and Church would work intimately together, with the State giving support to the Church and the Church providing for the spiritual needs of the State. Rarely has this worked out in practice, and* both *the State and Church suffered from it!

The State is forbidden, according strictly to the Constitution, from establishing a state religion, and from stopping people from practicing religion. That said, it does not say that the State cannot provide support to religious groups, as long as that support does not form the religious institution into the State Religion.

A doctrine need not be definitively defined in order for it to be considered infallible; it merely needs to be consistently taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium over a long period of time. Moreover, I didn’t give every statement from those popes on the issue, as there were at least another 15 encyclicals I could have cited on the issue. As to the doctrinal status of the Church’s rejection of the separation Church and state, please read the following:

"Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

"There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, nos. 60-61; 23 December 1922).

Pope Pius XI said that the Church’s teaching on the relationship between the Church and State remained in full force and that those who opposed it were guilty of social modernism, which he condemned no less than he condemned theological modernism (in Pascendi and Lamentabili Sane Exitu). I’d say the doctrine is at the very least theologically certain (if not infallible based upon the ordinary and universal magisterium), one that no Catholic can reject.

I personally believe that it would be best for the U.S. Constitution to be amended in order to establish a concordat with the Vatican, and so that the U.S. can publicly give God due worship, as He is the King over both men and nations.

 

[bmadamsberry]

A doctrine need not be definitively defined in order for it to be considered infallible; it merely needs to be consistently taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium over a long period of time. Moreover, I didn’t give every statement from those popes on the issue, as there were at least another 15 encyclicals I could have cited on the issue. As to the doctrinal status of the Church’s rejection of the separation Church and state, please read the following:

"Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

"There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, nos. 60-61; 23 December 1922).

Pope Pius XI said that the Church’s teaching on the relationship between the Church and State remained in full force and that those who opposed it were guilty of social modernism, which he condemned no less than he condemned theological modernism (in Pascendi and Lamentabili Sane Exitu). I’d say the doctrine is at the very least theologically certain (if not infallible based upon the ordinary and universal magisterium), one that no Catholic can reject.

I personally believe that it would be best for the U.S. Constitution to be amended in order to establish a concordat with the Vatican, and so that the U.S. can publicly give God due worship, as He is the King over both men and nations.

You are reading these with the mind of 2010. The separation of Church and State that more modern popes have had to deal with has been a radical separation, where religion does not exist period (such as in the Communism of Eastern Europe). You are either interpreting modern ideas of separation of the institutions of Church and State incorrectly, OR you are interpreting the popes’ words out of context, because these two ideas are not the same (catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0901tbt.asp).

Would you be up in arms if the president appointed a bishop? I would, because the institutions of Church and State should NOT merge. Again, I think that you and I are talking about two different ideas in regards to separation of Church and State. I think that religion can and should be found in the public sphere, and that the separation should be one of institution not of spirit.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

A doctrine need not be definitively defined in order for it to be considered infallible; it merely needs to be consistently taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium over a long period of time. Moreover, I didn’t give every statement from those popes on the issue, as there were at least another 15 encyclicals I could have cited on the issue. As to the doctrinal status of the Church’s rejection of the separation Church and state, please read the following:

"Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

"There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, nos. 60-61; 23 December 1922).

Pope Pius XI said that the Church’s teaching on the relationship between the Church and State remained in full force and that those who opposed it were guilty of social modernism, which he condemned no less than he condemned theological modernism (in Pascendi and Lamentabili Sane Exitu). I’d say the doctrine is at the very least theologically certain (if not infallible based upon the ordinary and universal magisterium), one that no Catholic can reject.

Except for the fact that the Catholic Church formally endorses freedom of conscience in religious matters ever since the Second Vatican Council’s Dignitatis Humanae.

As we all acknowledge in theory, SouthpawLink, some things cannot change and some things can.

Clearly matters of Church and state are in the latter category, as proved by Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae.

 

[mjakemccoy]

You are reading these with the mind of 2010. The separation of Church and State that more modern popes have had to deal with has been a radical separation, where religion does not exist period (such as in the Communism of Eastern Europe). You are either interpreting modern ideas of separation of the institutions of Church and State incorrectly, OR you are interpreting the popes’ words out of context, because these two ideas are not the same (catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0901tbt.asp).

I would say the modern separation is less radical than it’s predecessor. Before America’s founder’s separated the Church from the authority of the King of England the Separation that existed was that that had been proposed by Protestant reformers. Luther, Wycliff and the like felt the state had supreme authority over the Church that the authority belonged to kings and not the pope. Much blood was shed over this, and personally I prefer our current state to that. But before the Reformation there was a line of separation, and a balance of powers. Certainly not perfect, there was crossing of that line, but a model that should be very carefully reexamined. In my opinion our founders made a step in the right direction, but we still have a lot to do. The only balance of power we have in this country is between 3 state institutions; that does not produce balance. It is time for the Church to be reinstated in the west. For that to happen this 500 year old division has to be ended, the Church must reunite! I firmly agree with a constitutional convention.

Would you be up in arms if the president appointed a bishop? I would, because the institutions of Church and State should NOT merge. Again, I think that you and I are talking about two different ideas in regards to separation of Church and State. I think that religion can and should be found in the public sphere, and that the separation should be one of institution not of spirit.

I am extremely loyal to Rome, and this may surprise you but I would answer it depends. If I were president there are certainly some bishops I would have some discussions with and if they did not renig on unorthodoxy I would send them back to Rome, along with some Catholic universities. I certainly feel the state has that authority to an extent. In the interim I think the state or people could appoint a temporary bishop, a respected priest in that diocese, one to be approved by Rome. St. Ambrose was elected bishop by the people after his predecessor died, he then had to be baptized. Certainly Rome later approved his appointment and I think that is very necessary. Constantine deposed St. Athanasius and Charles Martel deposed St. Eucherius, both of those I would argue were bad decisions. But as remarkable Christian leaders you have to take the good with the bad. Constantine called for the Council of Nicea and paid for the bishop’s travel expenses. Today if a president did that, would you be up in arms? Recall Nicea changed our Creed and how we sign ourselves. This is an extremely important precedent. Martel defeated the muslims at the Battle of Tours, many historians claimed this victory preserved Christianity from utter annialation. It makes a big difference when leaders are loyal to some extent to the Church.

I firmly believe in the authority of the Pope in these matters, but a political leader has to be aware of his people too. If you risk revolution, certainly it might be worth looking at moving an ecclesial for the sake of peace. I understand the authority of the bishop, but we’ve seen the radical nature of certain bishops. Certainly not all bishops or even many fit in this category but there are some, Judas was one of the twelve. It would not be inappropriate for a Christian leader to reject a bishop on moral teaching grounds in my opinion. This is certainly different than imprisoning or otherwise punishing the bishop. This does in some ways reject the authority given to that bishop, but it would be a compromise that has worked in the past. Not perfectly, but I firmly feel better than our current situation. Rejecting a bishop would be a decision that I don’t think should be taken lightly, but in modern circles we’ve even had the Church limit the capacities of the likes of Padre Pio. In current history authority has been removed even without state intervention. Perfection is something we can strive for, but we should also acknowledge our limitations. Persecution of saints will happen regardless, but perhaps we can stop abortion, teach the faith in public schools, and preserve family values in the meantime.