Separation of Church & State

[Jerusalem]

This question is detailed so bare with me!

Pius X in his encyclical “Vehementer Nos” barred the sepn.
of Church and State as a pernicious error. What did he mean
by this? Was the Vatican advocating at one time a theocracy
as the normal form of govn.? Did the later Popes change their
position on this matter or does the Church hold that some interaction bn. Church and state should always exist?
What exactly is the official church teaching drawing from church
documents of the relation between church and state?

 

[Digitonomy]

Here is a link to the encyclical:

Vehementer Nos

The Church view on separation of church & state has evolved somewhat over the last century or two. In the 19th Century, Church leaders in the US were early advocates of greater Vatican acceptance of the separation of church & state, and freedom of religion. These two principles were essential for the Catholic Church in the US, but were threatening in officially Catholic countries like Italy, France, Spain, Austria-Hungary, and parts of Germany, where most of the Church’s leadership in Rome came from. In recent years, especially with Vatican II, the Church has moved much closer to the American position.

 

[RWMorris]

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin
sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
– James Wilson

Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts…in which all religions agree.
– Thomas Jefferson (Westmoreland County Petition, 2 November 1785)

Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society.
– Reference: The Works of John Adams, C.F. Adams, ed., vol. 9 (636)

Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.
– Reference: Original Intent, Barton (320); original The Writings of Samuel Adams, Cushing, ed., vol. 4 (74)

Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.
– Gouverneur Morris, 1791

Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
– Benjamin Rush

The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.
– George Washington, 1778 - letter to Thomas Nelson

Sounds like our founding fathers agreed with Pius X; at least in principle.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sounds like our founding fathers agreed with Pius X; at least in principle.

No I believe you are quite wrong on this. It is very much true that most of the colonies were started as religious units. In fact Catholics were barred from Massachusetts and many of the early colonies completely. The could not vote, own property, or be elected to office. It is mostly the experience of these excesses that caused the founding fathers in drafting the constritution and bill of rights to give way to primacy of consciousness and this was almost the wording introduced into the 1st Amendment.

Madison was very concerned about this issue. He wrote extensively about it. He came to be of the opinion that state involvement in religion was harmful to religion. He also believed that those faiths which were worthwhile would survive best in the public arena of ideas, and thus should not be supported by the state any way. In fact, he believed that state support would weaken and serve to prop up unhealthy and bad religion.

People like David Barton and his pseudo-history are nothing but a means to an end of introducing theocracy into our government. It is trash history as any number of real historians will tell you. If you wish to read a fair and well received book on the subject, I would recommend Steven Waldman’s “Founding Faith: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America.” He goes through all the major players, and volumes of documentation. He really taught me a lot. He basically shows how neither side is entirely correct. It has been well received based on the reviews I’ve read. You can read mine if you are so inclined at my website under the category, “book reviews”

PS. Washington refused to participate in any religious events while president and did not attend church for the most part, so sensitive was he to the Bill of rights. Additionally, to his credit he stopped the Continental forces from burning the pope in effigy as they did every year. Catholics of course were also blamed and accused of siding with the British in the Revolutionary war. This idea was later dismissed when Catholic Canada was asked for help against the British.

 

[RWMorris]

No I believe you are quite wrong on this …

Of course, you are correct. Hence the concept of “separation of Church and state” (even though that term does not occur in the Constitution). But, and this is a big but, the founding fathers did, almost unanimously, agree that religious principle and morality had a place in government, law, education, and civic life; “front and center.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Of course, you are correct. Hence the concept of “separation of Church and state” (even though that term does not occur in the Constitution). But, and this is a big but, the founding fathers did, almost unanimously, agree that religious principle and morality had a place in government, law, education, and civic life; “front and center.”

The words do not appear as such. It is the common wording we use. The actual statement is the Government shall make no law…regarding the establishment …It is called the establishment clause.

You are quite correct that all our founding fathers believed to one degree or another than faith was important. Faith fell off very dramatically in America as people moved from the original colonies. The experience in Virginia, Massachuttes, and even in Maryland, long touted as the most religiously open of all the colonies, simply made it most clear that we could not have a federally mandated religion. In fact the ironic thing is that it was baptists who led the fight for freedom of conscious and religious freedom. They were horribly discriminated against, like Catholics, Jews and other miniority faiths.

In fact, many states still provided for religion well after the constitution as you are no doubt aware. States supported churches until the 14 amendment was passed and applied to the states. That is when our involvement with theocracy really ended. Madison was thoroughly angry that it had not stopped at the radification of the Constitution and Bill of rights.

But again to agree, you are most correct. All of our founders were religious, with few exceptions. They believed religion was a valuable thing, they encouraged it. I would not agree that they felt it had any place in government at all, and certainly not in law. BUt of course, one hopes that God-loving men and women man those posts and enact our laws, with due respect for the moral teachings of the world’s great faiths.

 

[Amolibri]

May I add a quote from Pope Benedict?

"What I find fascinating about the U.S is that it began with a positive concept of secularism. [Its founders] wanted to have a lay,secular state that would open the possibilities for all the churches and for all forms of religious practice. So it was designed as a secular state, it was really against a state church, but secular specifically for love of relligion and of its authenticity, which can only be lived freely…This seems to me to be a fundamental and positive model that should also be considered in Europe. "
CNS, "papal inflight pres conference, April 15, 2008

Says so much to me!!!

 

[RWMorris]

… I would not agree that they felt it had any place in government at all, and certainly not in law. BUt of course, one hopes that God-loving men and women man those posts and enact our laws, with due respect for the moral teachings of the world’s great faiths.

I do not favor a Theocracy. A Church state has no place in America, and I agree that our founding fathers did not what a Church state or a state Church. But I do believe they wanted moral principles base on natural law as the basis of the law of the land. It is cited in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and most of their other writings. Our Supreme Court, and Legislators imperil our liberty, our freedoms, and ultimately our security by ignoring this natural law and its fundamental part in our Law.

Once again, while I agree that the separation of Church and state is a vital part of our liberty and security, I disagree with you that religious principle and morality have no place in government and law. They are already there. We ignore and discard them at our peril.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

May I add a quote from Pope Benedict?

"What I find fascinating about the U.S is that it began with a positive concept of secularism. [Its founders] wanted to have a lay,secular state that would open the possibilities for all the churches and for all forms of religious practice. So it was designed as a secular state, it was really against a state church, but secular specifically for love of relligion and of its authenticity, which can only be lived freely…This seems to me to be a fundamental and positive model that should also be considered in Europe. "
CNS, "papal inflight pres conference, April 15, 2008

Says so much to me!!!

No one can deny that Pope Benedict is a giant of a mind. I thnk he succinctly got it exactly right. I took a whole page to say what he said.! LOL.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do not favor a Theocracy. A Church state has no place in America, and I agree that our founding fathers did not what a Church state or a state Church. But I do believe they wanted moral principles base on natural law as the basis of the law of the land. It is cited in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and most of their other writings. Our Supreme Court, and Legislators imperil our liberty, our freedoms, and ultimately our security by ignoring this natural law and its fundamental part in our Law.

Once again, while I agree that the separation of Church and state is a vital part of our liberty and security, I disagree with you that religious principle and morality have no place in government and law. They are already there. We ignore and discard them at our peril.

I probably went to far in my statement. I too believe that many of our best laws are based on a clear understanding of principles that are based on moral statements of our great religions. I was confused I guess because your original post seemed to suggest that you followed the nonsense being pushed by such people as David Barton and his Wallbuilders. His has no degree in history and his is but a feeble attempt to inject Christianity into government. I believe deeply that religion is best served by being safe from government. Freedom to believe and what to believe in are the hallmarks of strong religions. Where this is not allowed, religion suffers greviously.

 

[Reactionary]

I am afraid that it is indeed the case that the Church teaches that in a country run by Practicing Catholics it is there duty to further the aims of Christ and his Church through cooperation with the Hierarchical Church. This is quite natural in a Catholic society as ‘the Church’ is synonymous with society.

In modern America most people are not practicing Catholics and so it is allowed that, for the preservation of peace and order, the state should not fulfil its duties to the Church in terms of support and furtherment.

It is very clear that to say that the separation of Church and State is universally good and must be done in all places is a heresy and is condemned in numerous Bulls and Encyclicals throughout the centuries.

This is not an extreme position by historical standards it is merely a position that says that in some circumstances a connection between Church and state is good. In many South American states such as Peru this is the case. It is also the case in the Catholic part of Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Switzerland.

Any of you Americans who try to condemn this practice are falling into the heresy of ‘Americanism’ (as defined by Pope Leo XIII) ie: putting the ideology of your individual nation above the doctrines of the Church. Do not try to impose what is good in the USA on the rest of the world.

 

[RWMorris]

… I believe deeply that religion is best served by being safe from government. Freedom to believe and what to believe in are the hallmarks of strong religions. Where this is not allowed, religion suffers greviously.

You’ll get a big ditto from me; extremely well put! Thank You.

 

[rlg94086]

I probably went to far in my statement. I too believe that many of our best laws are based on a clear understanding of principles that are based on moral statements of our great religions. I was confused I guess because your original post seemed to suggest that you followed the nonsense being pushed by such people as David Barton and his Wallbuilders. His has no degree in history and his is but a feeble attempt to inject Christianity into government. I believe deeply that religion is best served by being safe from government. Freedom to believe and what to believe in are the hallmarks of strong religions. Where this is not allowed, religion suffers greviously.

I agree. The only time I get a little miffed is when people take the idea of “separation” too far and try to ban religion from the public square. This was never the founding fathers’ intent.

BTW…on a lighter note (and please do take it that way), you mentioned “primacy of consciousness” earlier, and I’m pretty sure you meant primacy of conscience. That said, we should all be free to follow our individual conscience in religious matters…and it helps to be conscious while doing so.

 

[Digitonomy]

Any of you Americans who try to condemn this practice are falling into the heresy of ‘Americanism’ (as defined by Pope Leo XIII) ie: putting the ideology of your individual nation above the doctrines of the Church.

Here are some relevant sources:

Leo’s encyclical:
Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

Wikipedia articles on
Americanism

Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on
Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

Vatican II documents that relate to some of Leo’s concerns:
Inter Mirifica (media/press)

Unitatis Redintegratio (ecumenism)

Dignitatis Humanae (religious freedom)

Gaudium et Spes (Church in the modern world)

Gravissimum Educationis (Christian education)

 

[fix]

This question is detailed so bare with me!

Pius X in his encyclical “Vehementer Nos” barred the sepn.
of Church and State as a pernicious error. What did he mean
by this? Was the Vatican advocating at one time a theocracy
as the normal form of govn.? Did the later Popes change their
position on this matter or does the Church hold that some interaction bn. Church and state should always exist?
What exactly is the official church teaching drawing from church
documents of the relation between church and state?

Some little help here:

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism…

Centesimus annus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I am afraid that it is indeed the case that the Church teaches that in a country run by Practicing Catholics it is there duty to further the aims of Christ and his Church through cooperation with the Hierarchical Church. This is quite natural in a Catholic society as ‘the Church’ is synonymous with society.

In modern America most people are not practicing Catholics and so it is allowed that, for the preservation of peace and order, the state should not fulfil its duties to the Church in terms of support and furtherment.

It is very clear that to say that the separation of Church and State is universally good and must be done in all places is a heresy and is condemned in numerous Bulls and Encyclicals throughout the centuries.

This is not an extreme position by historical standards it is merely a position that says that in some circumstances a connection between Church and state is good. In many South American states such as Peru this is the case. It is also the case in the Catholic part of Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Switzerland.

Any of you Americans who try to condemn this practice are falling into the heresy of ‘Americanism’ (as defined by Pope Leo XIII) ie: putting the ideology of your individual nation above the doctrines of the Church. Do not try to impose what is good in the USA on the rest of the world.

Historically the church has not found involvement in state politics a good thing. There is no heresy here at all. There is no ideology of the state. It is simply that the Church tends to agree that we don’t as clergy run for office at least in this country. History generally refutes any idea that a theocratic state is a good thing. The church seems to be in agreement. Certainly Pope Benedict’s remarks are clear on the subject insofar as the US is concerned.

The Church’s position has changed over the centuries to be sure.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree. The only time I get a little miffed is when people take the idea of “separation” too far and try to ban religion from the public square. This was never the founding fathers’ intent.

BTW…on a lighter note (and please do take it that way), you mentioned “primacy of consciousness” earlier, and I’m pretty sure you meant primacy of conscience. That said, we should all be free to follow our individual conscience in religious matters…and it helps to be conscious while doing so.

Yes you are correct. My mind sometimes travels a good deal faster than my fingers! Thanks for the correction.

 

[TOME]

I think the best presentation of the Church’s teaching on the nature of the seperation of Church and State and thus proper role of the Church in any given State, especially the USA" can be found in Part II of Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical letter, “God is Love”. I hope all will read it because as I think many of us would agree he is able to express the Church’s teaching a lot more precise, with greater clarity and almost as much authority as most of us who participate in this forum.

However, I think our Holy Father also expressed an essential role of Christianity in western society in his work as Card. Ratzinger, “Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures”. Although it was directed at Europe I think most of us can see the USA being reflected in his words.

 

[sidonius]

Here in Massachusetts the old Puritan church was the established church until 1820 something. The Puritans by that time had split into Unitarian and Trinitarian (now Congregationalist/UCC) parishes. In various towns you see the First Parish Church, Second Parish Church and these, either Unitarian or Congregationalist, were the Established Church back in the day. Disestablishment came about naturally, not by court fiat. And I suspect that given contemporary American culture there is no danger of any church being established again. What the phrase “separation of church and state” has come to mean is the separation of religion from society. This is a pernicious doctrine which has denuded the public square.

 

[RWMorris]

… What the phrase “separation of church and state” has come to mean is the separation of religion from society. This is a pernicious doctrine which has denuded the public square.

You are absolutely correct, it is a highly destructive misinterpretation of “separation of Church and state.” And I believe it is a deliberate distortion, one made to relieve us of the burden of morality and liberty.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…

• Romans 1:21-22

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.