Separation of Church and State

[CivisRomanusSum]

Hi. What is the official Church teaching on the Separation of Church and State? From what we’re experiencing here in the Philippines, it’s invoked a lot, primarily from the secularists, modernists, and lukewarm Catholics.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Hi. What is the official Church teaching on the Separation of Church and State? From what we’re experiencing here in the Philippines, it’s invoked a lot, primarily from the secularists, modernists, and lukewarm Catholics.

I think the Church agrees with “separation of Church and state” with regard to the state not interfering with the Church. However, the citizens who belong to the Church, including the hierarchy, have every right to express their opinions and try to influence the legislation of the state. This is different than the Church having an official say-so in legislation. At least that’s what I think.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

The Church doesn’t have a teaching on separation of church and state to my knowledge, because this is more of a government policy, not a dogma in religion. A government decides if it wants to separate organized religion from the nation state. Basically it is intended to prevent a particular religious organization from gaining control over the government and forcing their beliefs, rules, customs, and morals on the general population. In the United States we also have ‘Freedom of Religion’ in which the government is not allowed to infringe on the persons right to practice a religion of their choice so long as that practice does not violate the rights of another person.

 

[Shin]

‘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. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.’

Pope St. Pius X, ‘Vehementor Nos’

 

[Shin]

Quite prophetic in a sense, considering, as it describes the inevitable results of sin precisely, and now here they are.

 

[JRKH]

As demonstrated above, the Church long held that Church and state should be connected and not divorced. Of course this comes out of the fact that for many centuries in the west, the Church and State WERE intertwined.
But these things are not necessarily unchangeable either…It wasn’t that long ago that the Church spoke against “democracy” and in favor of “monarchy”.
These are matters largely over “practice” rather than doctrines

That said, the Church has needed to make adjustments in how she expresses these ideas. Today the Church recognizes in the “separation of Church and State”, a protection of the rights of Catholics to practice their faith freely.
She also recognizes that part of that freedom includes the right to express these convictions in the public and political arena.

I don’t know the circumstances in the Philippines, but in the US, there has been an effort on the part of some to tell Christians that they should “leave religion out” of how they vote…Which is absolute nonsense.

Peace
James

 

[roads152]

The separation of Church and state is a declaration of the state. In France, the state declared it in order to protect the Church from influence of the state. In the Philippines it was being invoked in order to pursue immorality by the state, among others.
As far as I know, like others who posted, that declaration is not part of the teachings of the Church. Since it the state who declares it, the state must be in the forefront of implementing it, that is, the state must refrain from pretending to do what is good for the people to the point of leading the people away from God by encouraging them to go away from moral practices as taught by the Church.
The homily of a priest in the Cathedral of Baguio, few months past, about the Reproductive Health Bill was laudable. That was courageously stating the guidelines for the Catholic population, lawmakers included, in opposing possible passage into law of a measure that runs counter to morality. That priest cannot logically be considered as violating separating of Church and state. He was performing his duty to educate those who can hear him regarding morality. What he did was protected by the freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution.

 

[JRKH]

The separation of Church and state is a declaration of the state. In France, the state declared it in order to protect the Church from influence of the state. In the Philippines it was being invoked in order to pursue immorality by the state, among others.
As far as I know, like others who posted, that declaration is not part of the teachings of the Church. Since it the state who declares it, the state must be in the forefront of implementing it, that is, the state must refrain from pretending to do what is good for the people to the point of leading the people away from God by encouraging them to go away from moral practices as taught by the Church.
The homily of a priest in the Cathedral of Baguio, few months past, about the Reproductive Health Bill was laudable. That was courageously stating the guidelines for the Catholic population, lawmakers included, in opposing possible passage into law of a measure that runs counter to morality. That priest cannot logically be considered as violating separating of Church and state. He was performing his duty to educate those who can hear him regarding morality. What he did was protected by the freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution.

Peace
James

 

[stevekehl]

The idea that the church should have no influence on government is a 20th century concept. The US Constitution says that no religion will be supported by taxes (The Church of England received a portion of taxes received by the British Government, therefore money from the colonies supported the CoE regardless of the taxpayers religion) and the federal government will not stop a religious group from practicing their religion. These two ideas were promoted by religious leaders to prevent a state religion and government intrusion into churches, both of which happened in England.