Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[mjakemccoy]

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 have read these and firmly agree with you and these quotes, but I’ve been hung up on Vatican II’s Humane Dignitatus. Where it refers to “freedom of religion” and no religion should be descriminated against. Do you have any insights on that document? Thanks and God bless.

 

[bmadamsberry]

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.

That sounds like a perfect world. But in the real world, do you want President Obama having the power to send bishops back to Rome? Because my guess is that he would send the orthodox to Rome, and keep the liberals here.

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.

The issue of the people electing a bishop, with the approval of Rome, is a different matter than separation of Church and State. The State should NOT have the power to appoint bishops. Again, it wouldn’t be a great thing if Obama appointed bishops. One could say “well, he has to have the approval of Rome”, but this rarely stopped kings in the past from appointed those he wanted to. If, say, Rome denied one of Obama’s bishops, Obama could simply ignore the Pope, or he could use military persuasion. Besides, what benefit is there in the president choosing what bishops should be in the US and which ones not? There is none! It is one of the Pope’s duties to make sure the souls of those in the US are being shepherd by an orthodox bishop. It isn’t that of any political institution.

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.

Yes, I would be up in arms if the president called for a council. It is the Pope’s duty to decide when a council is needed and when one is not. Furthermore, let me give money to the Church in order to pay for the travel expenses. Don’t take take the tax dollars that I have given for education, medical care, etc.

I firmly believe in the authority of the Pope in these matters, but a political leader has to be aware of his people too.

Aware of his people, yes. But let the bishop and Pope be aware of my spiritual needs, not the president!

If you risk revolution, certainly it might be worth looking at moving an ecclesial for the sake of peace.

No political entity should have the power to move a bishop, to decide what is better for the spiritual needs of the people. Our shepherd is the Pope, and G-d made it the pope’s duty to look out for the spiritual needs of the people.

It would not be inappropriate for a Christian leader to reject a bishop on moral teaching grounds in my opinion.

Really? Becaue last time I checked, it was the bishop who was to be the teaching authority in regards to faith and morals in his diocese. I want the Church to decide what moral teaching grounds are, not the State.

Not perfectly, but I firmly feel better than our current situation.

You would feel better at Obama being able to decide if a bishop could be in the US? Because that sounds worse!

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.

And this would happen under the current State? There is no evidence that abortion would cease if the Church and State institutions weren’t separated. In fact, in the current political climate, I would say that it would be worse if the State could make decisions in regards to religion.

 

[SouthpawLink]

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.

On the contrary, Dignitatis Humanae also states:

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (n. 1 §4).

What, then, is the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of societies toward the true religion? Pope Leo XIII especially wrote extensively on the subject, addressing it in no less than seven of his encyclicals.

bmadamsberry,
With regard to your previous reply, I fully understand and agree with the Pontiffs that the Church and the State are separate societies and have their own separate powers (cf. Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, nn. 13-14, 18, 35; Libertas Praestantissimum, n. 18, 21; Diuturnum, n. 26).

mjmccoy,
A very good question. You may want to read Bishop de Smedt’s Relatio on “Religious Liberty” (I don’t think the link currently works, however… sorry) as well as Fr. Brian Harrison’s two articles on the subject, Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty and Religious Liberty: “Right” vs. “Tolerance”.

rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html
rtforum.org/lt/lt16.html

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

On the contrary, Dignitatis Humanae also states:

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (n. 1 §4).

What, then, is the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of societies toward the true religion? Pope Leo XIII especially wrote extensively on the subject, addressing it in no less than seven of his encyclicals.

bmadamsberry,
With regard to your previous reply, I fully understand and agree with the Pontiffs that the Church and the State are separate societies and have their own separate powers (cf. Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, nn. 13-14, 18, 35; Libertas Praestantissimum, n. 18, 21; Diuturnum, n. 26).

mjmccoy,
A very good question. You may want to read Bishop de Smedt’s Relatio on “Religious Liberty” (I don’t think the link currently works, however… sorry) as well as Fr. Brian Harrison’s two articles on the subject, Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty and Religious Liberty: “Right” vs. “Tolerance”.

rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html
rtforum.org/lt/lt16.html

Okay, fair enough. That makes sense.

But I’m assuming that you’ll agree with those on this thread who don’t want our country’s president or Congress to have any power over papal appointments of United States bishops, right? But that too is part of separation of church and state.

But if you mean “separation of church and state” in the inaccurate sense in which radical atheist apologists and political activists use it to attempt to exclude religion from the public sphere, then of course I agree with you.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Okay, fair enough. That makes sense.

But I’m assuming that you’ll agree with those on this thread who don’t want our country’s president or Congress to have any power over papal appointments of United States bishops, right? But that too is part of separation of church and state.

But if you mean “separation of church and state” in the inaccurate sense in which radical atheist apologists and political activists use it to attempt to exclude religion from the public sphere, then of course I agree with you.

Yes, I fully agree with you that I do not want our country’s president or Congress to decide on any of the appointments of bishops, as that is not within their sphere of power (it instead belongs to the Church).

The State should protect, support and promote the true religion, but understand that I am not advocating for any kind of theocracy. The State and the Church have separate powers, but the State should have a relationship with the Church whereby its laws are based upon God’s laws, and the Church is promoted as the true religion.

I think the following is a good article on the proper relationship between the Church and the State: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/americanism/relation.htm

See also Cardinal Ottaviani’s article: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/americanism/cnstate.htm

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Perhaps we could just have a Catholic Theocracy

 

[roysheehan]

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.

There is a huge difference between separation of church and state and separation of church and federal government. The Federal government does not allow discrimination against religion and the state does allow it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

People are too caught up in selfishness. It’s all about my rights, my liberties, *my *opinions. Me, me, me. Nary a thought for the common good of the nation as a whole or the direction a godless government is inevitably headed, much less for God and what He may think of His Church being marginalized and trammeled as it is. After all, Christ established a Church for us, and not secular government.

In a Catholic society, we’d have all the liberties and freedoms we needed, and we’d have a Catholic framework to build a moral and decent society to boot. That’s what we need, not self-righteous Enlightenment-era novelties.

In a strict Catholic theocracy, people would have no rights to speak of (or to speak up).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Oh, certainly not. Sin will always be a problem, whether or not a state accepts its obligation to cooperate with the Church and help build a Christian civilization.

However, the devil is in the details here, and despite the sinfulness of humans who lived during the days of the Holy Roman Empire (or in other Christian states), it cannot even be argued that common culture was orders of magnitude more moral and decent than today’s secularized societies. The past shows us what happens when honest people (those who govern as well as those who are governed) place the Lord first in their lives and the rich, beautiful, innately noble cultures that arise as a result.

Most of these ‘beautiful’ Christian cultures you speak of featured things like slavery, the treatment of women as second class citizens (or worse), and the violent persecution of racial and religious minorities.

But the modern secular West rejects all these things, which for me is a point in its favor.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As secular means the state of being separated from religion, I have no intentions of supporting, in the end, any form of secular government, even if it were to have a religious beginning.(OUOTE.)

Even if the only apparent alternative was a non-Christian theocracy?

Such as in Turkey, where the only viable options appear to be the old secular model or an Islamic State.

Note, however, that I’m not talking about forcing a conversion at sword (or gun) point. I’m talking about making the faith part of the law of the land, which happened once before, and successfully, it must be concluded. It’s one thing to make a religion the law of the land (at least in the sense of allowing no others), and another to kill those who refuse to convert; the Lord only asks us to make converts of the whole world, not to stoop to heathen barbarism.

Making Christianity the law of the land would promote conversions on pain of death no more than the fact that shoplifting is illegal does not promote honesty on pain of death. Speaking from the perspective of the law regarding shoplifting, the citizenry is free to believe that theft is OK, so long as they do not engage in it; the law requires no actual, heartfelt conversion to the notion that it is wrong to steal from stores. The same would apply to the Faith; though the people are free to believe that the Church is bunk no one would actually be forced to practice the Faith - anything else would, however, be outlawed. Conversions would be the sole responsibility of the Church to make within the law, as of course a forced conversion is much like a confession extracted under torture - meaningless (QUOTE.)

It sounds like the slogan for your ideal Catholic state would be ‘with liberty and justice for none.’

It should be noted that what you are advocating would be even more restrictive and oppressive than how the rulers of the Ottoman Empire treated religious minorities. In the Ottoman Empire non-Muslims were allowed to practice their religions, they just had to pay a fine and were barred from certain government positions.

I apologize if I’m not explaining myself clearly.

But it’s terribly difficult to have a discussion like this with folks who have been raised in modern America, where we are taught that religion is subjective and what God wants of us is just make-believe. Speaking from the perspective of a “latin conservative”, this is unacceptable.(OUOTE.)

Your explaining yourself all too clearly.

As a Latin conservative I am sure that the papacy of John Paul II was very traumatic for you. Considering how liberal he was compared to popes such as Pius X.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Red herring. Mentioning the Jews and the Third Reich does not automatically give your argument credence, especially as nothing in this discussion pertains to the events of the second world war. Please stay on track or else don’t bother to post.

Besides, “freedom of belief” is not the issue here. A government working in union with and submission to the Church for the end goal of the construction of a truly Catholic society is the topic here.

The “Reformation” was caused by schismatic heretics who, instead of taking the patience and time to properly address questions and concerns they had with the Church rather took it upon themselves to rebel, deny the authority of the Holy Father, turn their backs on roughly fifteen hundred years of perfectly fine and God-given tradition.

It was far from ‘perfect’

The institutional Church was at the time quite corrupt, and had always tolerated evils such as slavery and legalized racism. Evils that the modern Western societies you so despise have long since rejected.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Excellent post, Janet, and great recommendations! They’re on my wish list

Great food for thought, here. The secular state of America is turning into an atheistic state under which we can be sure that our Faith will find more trouble and trammeling. If only Catholics themselves could see this; the Vatican II spell must be broken!.

I am not a Catholic, but I know that Vatican II was an official Teaching(s) of the Church. Therefore if you reject Vatican II you are rejecting the (teaching) authority of the Church, and engaging in the sort of heresy and rebellion you accuse secular Catholics of.

 

[edwest2]

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.

This is demonstrably true. American culture is littered with a great deal of garbage. There is nothing noble about watching nearly naked young ladies while drooling into your beer. A noble, civilized country would not produce movies like Porkies or American Pie or anything with Jay and Silent Bob. The current image projected by the mass media of the United States is one of rampant hedonism.

Women, especially in the West, should be treated as complete persons and not as a collection of body parts. In the last 20 years, virtually every female actress has had a role where she either played a prositute or appeared in some totally immodest situation. If we are to say we respect women then let’s treat them as full human beings, not some teenage sex fantasy that is totally out of control.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Farewell Address of George Washington, 1796. Note paragraph 27.

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I wonder somehow if Islam might be the ally of western religious state supporters. I know that’s a terrible thing to even think, in our climate, but I can’t help it. Did you know that Iran led a walk-out that in the end caused the UN to vote down an amendment that would have automatically included abortion in all language mentioning ‘reproductive rights,’ a phrase found throughout UN documents. It would have made abortion legal in all countries by fiat. Iran was the only country that copped to it and walked out, even though the Vatican delegation had been there, silent, Ireland, silent, all the Catholic countries silent. I was so grateful I sent an anonymous email to the Iranian embassy: thank you from the bottom of my heart. Because after they walked out, then our forces came to the fore and the US was forced to withdraw the motion. This happened in the fall of 2009. Austin Ruse reported it.

And sometimes I feel the same way about dress. Recently I was sitting on the bus with a Muslim lady in the whole getup on one side, and an American woman evidently dressed for a class in stripping on my other side, and I felt absolutely grateful to the Muslim lady. I was so embarrassed by the second lady I forgot my book on the bus.

I have a pro-life friend who continually circulates the most extreme anti-Islam material, and I asked her the other day, who else in this country does she think votes pro-life? It is not Muslims flocking to abortion centers, either.

I know all the confusion of who ought to be our allies and who actually are our allies and so forth stems from historical events quite beyond my control, and I accept them as God’s will. Still, when I hear on a travel channel a young Iranian woman, a college student outside her university where she had the insult, according to the reporter, of attending classes, free, with other women, very dignified looking in her discrete makeup and headscarf, saying she hopes Iran and the US become better ‘friends’ so she can enjoy freedom in the way she dresses, I find myself rooting for the regime! 'Cause those girls being interviewed looked well cared for and modest and sweet, still, safe in their terrible horrible ignorant theocracies!

In places where Sharia law holds sway (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) rape is severely under reported because women who are raped are legitimately afraid that if they go to the authorities to report what happened to them, they will be executed for adultery (and their male attackers will face little to no punishment). This is a legitimate fear because it frequently happens in areas where Sharia law is practiced.

In Afghanistan and rural Pakistan, girls have had acid thrown in their faces (or simply been murdered) for just trying to go to school. That is what Sharia law means in places like that.

I honestly don’t see how anyone who genuinely cares about the welfare of women, can find common cause with such merciless misogynists (who clearly attach little value to the lives of women).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Janet, I so agree with you. That which is true and eternal for Catholics is true and eternal for all, and certainly, the Holy Ghost is the author of all Truth.

We have picked the wrong allies. Islam and we may be ocean apart theologically, but we agree on those things which are perennial, true and eternal. We cannot claim that with ANY existing secular state. The Muslims are the only people who have been able to embrace the modern world without entirely abandoning their traditions. May we learn by their example!

Thank you for your courageous post!

You believe Catholics should admire and find common cause with the kind men who would perform ‘Honor Killings’ on their daughters if the girls were raped?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sorry to disagree, but it seems like when Muslims migrate here to the States, they keep the headscarves on for about the first generation… The second generation looses the scarves, and the third generation is full-blown Americanized… Thats the devout ones.

IMHO, the Muslims who have their traditions, have actually not embraced the modern world. In fact, Catholics in America were able to maintain their strong traditions (including the head-scarves) up until the time of Vatican ll in the 1960’s, when things in America began to change…

I wish there was a way to keep the traditions while embracing the “modern” world… However, I think the modern world needs to make the change. If we could only get people to stop worrying about material possessions so much, and to start embracing discipline, character, and intelligence, we would be doing the world a favor.

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I must deviate slightly; Muslims will never be our allies until we are Muslim ourselves. Though we are not wrong to look at how Muslims take their faith seriously and not wrong to note that we can learn from that example, it is best to learn from our ancestors’, who were both promoters of the religious state as well as Catholic.

However, you are spot-on nonetheless. Even Muslims provide examples of how the civil application of religious law can shape society according to the standards of faith. It is a sad day when the sworn enemies of Christendom have one-upped us in terms of being serious about their faith.

.

Yes, it is sad.

Because Sharia law is by its very nature murderous and unfair.