Separation of church and state...

[IsaacSheen]

I’m just wondering what the Church’s stance is on this idea. I need official references though. Catechism, encyclicals, etc.

So far all I’ve found was this (from wikipedia):
On December 8, 1864, on the same day as the Pope’s encyclical Quanta Cura, the Holy See under Pope Pius IX issued a document titled Syllabus of Errors (Latin: Syllabus Errorum). This document listed 80 specific assertions which it declared to be erroneous. Assertion number 55 in this list, in the section headed “Errors about civil society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the Church”, reads: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”

 

[johnknoesel]

First off my friend, there is no such thing as separation of Church and State.

Here is the first ammendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In these modern times it is important that the Government shall not and cannot dictate to the Church nor can the Church dictate to the Governement. That is the long and the short of it.

I cannot name any encyclicals etc… that the Church rejects or denies this but the simple fact is that is the way the Constituion is written.

 

[Migueliones]

The church and state should be completely separate.

Here’s hoping the CofE is disestablished soon along with the removal of bishops from the House of Lords.

I am not sure what the Catholic stance on this is, it certainly has been (and may well still be) the state religion of countries in the past.

 

[DL82]

The ‘state’, in the sense of the legislative and executive functions of a nation state, is made up of people. For the Church and state to be separate, those people would need to be somehow outside the Church.

As the Church seeks to bring the message of the gospel to all people, and God calls all people to be subject to the Church in matters of faith and morals, the state should be subject to the Church.

Whether there ought to be any formal legislative document stating this relationship is another question entirely.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The ‘state’, in the sense of the legislative and executive functions of a nation state, is made up of people. For the Church and state to be separate, those people would need to be somehow outside the Church.

As the Church seeks to bring the message of the gospel to all people, and God calls all people to be subject to the Church in matters of faith and morals, the state should be subject to the Church.

Whether there ought to be any formal legislative document stating this relationship is another question entirely.

I think that there should be a clear distinction between the functions of the Church and the State. That’s a better way of describing it. There is and should be a separation there.

On the other hand, since the government is US (something most right-wingers refuse to learn) and most of US are members of a church, it’s impossible to completely separate Church from State.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The ‘state’, in the sense of the legislative and executive functions of a nation state, is made up of people. For the Church and state to be separate, those people would need to be somehow outside the Church.

As the Church seeks to bring the message of the gospel to all people, and God calls all people to be subject to the Church in matters of faith and morals, the state should be subject to the Church.

Whether there ought to be any formal legislative document stating this relationship is another question entirely.

I’m afraid we aren’t gonna have a theocracy in this country since undoubtedly it would not be a Catholic theocracy. The Fundie right would of course first of all ban Catholics.

So you really don’t believe in our form of Govt?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think that there should be a clear distinction between the functions of the Church and the State. That’s a better way of describing it. There is and should be a separation there.

On the other hand, since the government is US (something most right-wingers refuse to learn) and most of US are members of a church, it’s impossible to completely separate Church from State.

But we are under obligation not to impose our religious views into the arena of politics. That’s why JFK had to make a speech in 1960 assuring the American people that he would govern without the assistance or (name removed by moderator)ut from Rome.

 

[SoCalRC]

But we are under obligation not to impose our religious views into the arena of politics. That’s why JFK had to make a speech in 1960 assuring the American people that he would govern without the assistance or (name removed by moderator)ut from Rome.

I have to agree with Fr. Neuhaus (a rairity). JFK’s speech was good politics, but bad Catholicism. The primacy of the Pope and the Gift of Authority of the Church is part of our faith.

That said, the Church, via the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has given us guidance:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Interestingly, it includes “freedom of religion” with “abortion” as a moral principle that cannot be compromised. As many Catholic theologians have noted, we have long been a minority and the nation’s shift to public secularism early on has served us well.

Being a “Christian” nation and a nation that is friendly to Catholics are two distinctly different things. One might mean nativity scenes in the public square, which we generally would not object to, but how about public prayers decrying us as polytheists, who worship Mary and an anti-Christ in Rome?

It is often portrayed that there is a secular war on religion, but if you bother to look at recent cases, like the recent suit against minister lead prayers at pre-football game rallies, you will find that the plaintifs are not atheists, but Catholics and Jews (another Abrahamic religion).

I guess what I am saying is that Catholics could find living in a Protestant or Babtist theocracy as difficult as a Taoist of Confusist. So the concious seperation (Adam’s son, arguably the most religious of the early presidents, took the oath of office on the Constitution, not the bible), is probably a very good thing.

 

[drafdog]

The Catholic Church’s official position is that the state should be ruled by the teaching of the church.

Matthew

 

[mary_bobo]

I think that there should be a clear distinction between the functions of the Church and the State. That’s a better way of describing it. There is and should be a separation there.

On the other hand, since the government is US (something most right-wingers refuse to learn) what is that supposed to mean?

and most of US are members of a church, it’s impossible to completely separate Church from State.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

mary_bobo:
Right-wing ideology insists that the government is an outside evil that is plotting to take away their rights.

This flies in the face of the fact that in our Constitutional Democratic Republic, the people are the government. The government serves, under a set of laws, as the agent for the people to act on behalf of the people. It is not some outside entity “out there” that is plotting to take rights away from anyone. The government, when acting on behalf of the people, will abrogate the rights of certains people but only those who intend to do harm to society as a whole.

It is only when a politician who fails to understand this that we get abuses of power. Sort of like the guy in the White House…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The Catholic Church’s official position is that the state should be ruled by the teaching of the church.

Matthew

? The state should be ruled by moral men who understand the teachings of God as echoed by the Church. ?

 

[SoCalRC]

The Catholic Church’s official position is that the state should be ruled by the teaching of the church.

Matthew

I just linked to the Church’s position. The only criteria for legitimacy is that a state recognize the inalienable rights of the Human Person as defined by the second Vatican Council.

No theocracy is required. This is a shift in Church position from just a few centuries ago, when a free and pluralist society was seen as a possible threat and a monarchy was recommended. Now democracy is acknowledged as the best system, provided that the society have a true and proper understanding of the rights of the Human Person. In other words, a constitutional democracy that acknowledges certain individual rights, like life, education, a socially just economy, and freedom of religion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Right-wing ideology insists that the government is an outside evil that is plotting to take away their rights.Then the right wing and the left wing do have something in common after all. Paranoia perhaps? Witness the final sentence of this post.

This flies in the face of the fact that in our Constitutional Democratic Republic, the people are the government. The government serves, under a set of laws, as the agent for the people to act on behalf of the people. It is not some outside entity “out there” that is plotting to take rights away from anyone. The government, when acting on behalf of the people, will abrogate the rights of certains people but only those who intend to do harm to society as a whole.

It is only when a politician who fails to understand this that we get abuses of power. Sort of like the guy in the White House…

 

[SoCalRC]

The ‘left’ and ‘right’ should have a lot more in common. Constitutional scholars and various groups from all over the political spectrum have raised concerns about recent massive shifts in constitutional powers and the ellimination of checks and balances.

Assuming we resist outright facism, IE, illegitimate perpetual single party rule, these greatly expanded powers are going to fall into different ideological hands over time.

Just a few years ago there was crowing of a permanent GOP majority. But inflation, looming recession, an incredibly unpopular president, and an incredible unpopular war seem to be driving an enormous generational shift in political power (look at the record turnouts in Iowa).

The lesson being, what looks good when you are in charge can look a lot different when power (inevitably) shifts. Case in point, the fillibuster. Last Congress it was a dirty word, almost un-American, now the same folks that reviled it are using it at a record setting pace…

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is often portrayed that there is a secular war on religion, but if you bother to look at recent cases, like the recent suit against minister lead prayers at pre-football game rallies, you will find that the plaintifs are not atheists, but Catholics and Jews (another Abrahamic religion).

I guess what I am saying is that Catholics could find living in a Protestant or Babtist theocracy as difficult as a Taoist of Confusist. /QUOTE]

I don’t know what it’s like to live under a Taoist or Confucian theocracy, but I have a pretty good idea what it’s like to live under a Protestant one. You must be a young fellow, or you would know what it’s like. When I was in public high school here in the Bible Belt, we got regular readings from the King James, preachers at almost every assembly, invitations by the administration to join DeMolay, etc, etc. Actually, it was not only tolerable, but we few Catholics thought of it as a “defining” thing. It made it pretty clear what we were not, and easier to have a clearer identity as Catholics than I think many young people have now. That kind of thing was harmless. No offense, friend, but I don’t think you know Baptists very well either.

I am well aware of what my Irish ancestors went through, and the KKK (Mostly mainline, upper-class Protestants. I knew them.) was just dying out around here when I was a kid, so I know how it can be. But if I had the choice today between being ruled by Southern Baptists or left-wingers, I would take the Baptists every time. They actually do have a high degree of tolerance of, and charity toward, those who are not of their persuasion.

 

[IsaacSheen]

I just linked to the Church’s position. The only criteria for legitimacy is that a state recognize the inalienable rights of the Human Person as defined by the second Vatican Council.

No theocracy is required. This is a shift in Church position from just a few centuries ago, when a free and pluralist society was seen as a possible threat and a monarchy was recommended. Now democracy is acknowledged as the best system, provided that the society have a true and proper understanding of the rights of the Human Person. In other words, a constitutional democracy that acknowledges certain individual rights, like life, education, a socially just economy, and freedom of religion.

Sorry I haven’t responded sooner, I’ve been working all day. I appreciate the dialogue, and respect the opinions. But I asked for the Church’s teaching, not people’s opinions. I also asked for references such as encyclicals, catechism references, documents I can find at vatican.va, etc.

This quote above is interesting and more what I’m looking for. If you don’t mind SoCal…can you point me to where you found this?

I know I sound harsh, I don’t mean to be. I just say things the way they are and mean no offense by it. I trule appreciate the dialogue and time people have put into answering me…just wish it was backed up with references. Thanks again!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have to agree with Fr. Neuhaus (a rairity). JFK’s speech was good politics, but bad Catholicism. The primacy of the Pope and the Gift of Authority of the Church is part of our faith.

That said, the Church, via the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, has given us guidance:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Interestingly, it includes “freedom of religion” with “abortion” as a moral principle that cannot be compromised. As many Catholic theologians have noted, we have long been a minority and the nation’s shift to public secularism early on has served us well.

Being a “Christian” nation and a nation that is friendly to Catholics are two distinctly different things. One might mean nativity scenes in the public square, which we generally would not object to, but how about public prayers decrying us as polytheists, who worship Mary and an anti-Christ in Rome?

It is often portrayed that there is a secular war on religion, but if you bother to look at recent cases, like the recent suit against minister lead prayers at pre-football game rallies, you will find that the plaintifs are not atheists, but Catholics and Jews (another Abrahamic religion).

I guess what I am saying is that Catholics could find living in a Protestant or Babtist theocracy as difficult as a Taoist of Confusist. So the concious seperation (Adam’s son, arguably the most religious of the early presidents, took the oath of office on the Constitution, not the bible), is probably a very good thing.

'thank you so cal for another thoughtful response. I’ve been trying to little effect to explain that this blind allegience of some Catholics to the neo-con agenda is not to their ultimate benefit. Given the true beliefs of the Religious right about Catholics, life under a genuine evangelical govt would generally not bode well for Catholics in this country.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The ‘left’ and ‘right’ should have a lot more in common. Constitutional scholars and various groups from all over the political spectrum have raised concerns about recent massive shifts in constitutional powers and the ellimination of checks and balances.

Assuming we resist outright facism, IE, illegitimate perpetual single party rule, these greatly expanded powers are going to fall into different ideological hands over time.

Just a few years ago there was crowing of a permanent GOP majority. But inflation, looming recession, an incredibly unpopular president, and an incredible unpopular war seem to be driving an enormous generational shift in political power (look at the record turnouts in Iowa).

The lesson being, what looks good when you are in charge can look a lot different when power (inevitably) shifts. Case in point, the fillibuster. Last Congress it was a dirty word, almost un-American, now the same folks that reviled it are using it at a record setting pace…

so very true. Bill Moyers has been talking about this a lot lately. Several months ago he had on two very respected guys, gosh I can’t remember but I think they were think tankers…one very liberal, one very conservative and both were calling for immediate impeachment of Bush, solely on the issue of the unprecedented claims of executive power that are seriously threatening to our representative govt now. To suggest that these people are wrongthinking is obvious, but they do this knowing that almost certainly this new power will pass to Democrats. This suggests a naivety that is quite striking. This admin. truly is lacking in that basic quality of either common sense or actual deep intelligence. It’s getting scary out there!

 

[iamrefreshed]

'thank you so cal for another thoughtful response. I’ve been trying to little effect to explain that this blind allegience of some Catholics to the neo-con agenda is not to their ultimate benefit. Given the true beliefs of the Religious right about Catholics, life under a genuine evangelical govt would generally not bode well for Catholics in this country.

I think us catholics can make our own decisions.

Maybe you should concentrate on the catholic teachings and join us?