Separation of Church & State

[TOME]

Continuing from my first post I would like to continue on the topic of the separation of Church and State using Pope Benedict XVI’s “God is Love” as my main source.

In Part II of this encyclical our Holy Father states clearly that it is,“The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics” and that, “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State”. (no. 28). Vatican II referred to the “temporal sphere” and essential to Christianity is to make the distinction of what belongs to God and to Caesar and further in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “A just society must be the achievement of politics, not the Church”. (no 28).

I think if we look at these words in isolation some might be tempted to think our Holy Father’s encyclical was going against the tradition teaching of the Church, however, I think if one studies all of what this Pope has written along with the social teachings of John Paul II (and John Paul II’s teachings on moral philosophy and Christian life) one would find that it is in keeping with what the Church has always taught and is based firmly on the teachings of Christ. Of coarse there is the passage referred to above of rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s but more (name removed by moderator)ortantly, I would turn to Mark 4.

In the writings of Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict (Card. Ratzinger) there has always been the stress of the role of the Church in society which must be reflected in the lives of each Christian, is to act from within society itself becoming, as Our Lord instructed us, the leven that affect all of society.

In “God is Love” number 25, Pope Benedict states that the Church’s " deepest nature" is expressed in the proclamation of the Word, the celebration of the Sacraments, and the exercise of Charity. The exercise of charity has had a special influence on all societies since Pentacost, but what this points to is, again, the Church’s role in society or the State is most effective when it is acting as a “purifying force” within society.

According to Benedict,“Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origins and goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question what is justice?” (no 28)

 

[TOME]

Please forgive me but I am having all kinds of problems with the computer I am using - it keeps crashing and I cannot keep a constant flow in my thoughts or presentation and its best I end here without saying what I really wanted to say.

 

[Jerusalem]

Thankyou all for your considerate responses.
I can see this is a much more complicated issue.

If I may ask another question based upon the responses.

It seems Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae is not condemning
the sepn. of Church and state but the moral laxity & its appplication in America or rather Americanism.

Vehementer Nos However is directly condemning in the
encyclical the sepn. of church & state. I am really tring to
get at the Pope’s intention in this encyclical bc. it would
have direct implications upon American society.

Does anyone know about the type of French Govn. sponsored by Emile Combe that the Pontiff was condemning in Vehementer Nos?

-Bc. the Pope was writing directly towards condemning this type of govn.

Secondly, It seems that Pope Benedict isn’t sponsoring a Theocracy. Nor does it seem that it sponsors a secularized state with no moral grounding or religous influences. This leads to the next question:

Is it safe to say that the Church must push to be the dominant force or influence that shapes a government & society? Not in the sense of theocracy but in the sense of the shaping of laws, constitutions, and mores in the construction of the state?

 

[RWMorris]

Thankyou all for your considerate responses … Is it safe to say that the Church must push to be the dominant force or influence that shapes a government & society? …

You are welcome, thank you for your post. No, individual citizens must remain the dominate force; the individual Christian shaped by the Church’s teaching plays a role according to its representation in society.

… In the writings of Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict (Card. Ratzinger) there has always been the stress of the role of the Church in society which must be reflected in the lives of each Christian, is to act from within society itself becoming, as Our Lord instructed us, the leven that affect all of society …

TOME said it very well in his posting. Our influence could be greater than our numbers if our moral stands are seen as fair and just. In addition to our Christian morals, reasonable, logical arguments must advanced for our moral stance. If we are seen as unreasonable, unkind, thoughtless, illogical, and divided then our influence wanes.

 

[brockmac]

Two things:

1. The loss of secular power was probably a good thing for the Church overall because it allowed her to focus on the salvation of souls and her religious authority, rather than trying to preserve a secular kingdom.
2. While I tend to agree that a state mandated religion is a bad thing, for as P. Benedict XVI stated, there is no compulsion in religion, public officials, especially those who are Catholic, must ensure that their faith informs their public service. In fact Augustine said in City of God (Paraphrasing) that any law that is contrary to Divine law is no law at all. So while Catholic politicians cannot make laws requiring people to be Catholic, they should and in fact must work to pass laws that are in conformance with Catholic moral and social teaching.

 

[Reactionary]

Good Lord! I am frightfully sorry Jerusalem but i think these people are missing the point. The point is not whether Church involvement in politics is a good thing or not. It is a point of doctrine - can one believe in the intrinsic value of the separation of Church and State and not fall into heresy. The short answer is NO. There can be no ‘development’ which is against what has been authoritatively defined. It is defined that the Church and state can (in certain circumstances) benefit from close mutual cooperation. Not only does Leo XIII say this but I think we are also forgetting the much, MUCH stronger statement of these doctrines by Pius IX and Gregory XVI.

To all those who are making the blanket and absurd statement that the Church has never benefited from politics really need to expand there history. The conversion of the formal Roman Empire, the state sponsorship of a wildly popular Church in the middle ages, the active help of Catholic states in restoring Catholicism to no less than 80% of Europe after the Reformation? Any of these seem a good thing to you? Of course they are fantastic and they are the direct result of political Catholicism. The greatest revival of the 20th Century in Europe was a direct result of an Ultra-Catholic regime being set up in Spain following the defeat of Communism in the Civil War there.

Viz the Church dominating a democracy. Of course the Church should dominate! If it is a Catholic society then religion should affect all the voters voting patterns.

 

[brockmac]

Please point out to me the infallible doctrinal statement that calls on civil governments should force people to profess and practice the Catholic faith? I don’t believe that it is heretical to say that having a government should not force or induce people to be Catholic.

As I said in my previous post, Catholic voters and especially civic leaders definitely have a responsibility to ensure that their votes are consistent with Catholic moral and social teaching. To be more specific, Catholics should vote to end abortion, prevent fetal stem cell research, protect traditional marriage, protect the right of Catholics to worship freely, protect the right of the Church to administer herself and teach the divinely revealed truth free from burdensome government interference, protect the rights of the poor and of the laborer, encourage charity, etc.

The first amendment’s purpose was not to protect the state from the religious institutions, but to protect religious institutions from the state. In so doing, I think it has served the Catholic Church, which is a minority religion (with protestants out numbering Catholics by nearly 2:1 last I checked) quite well in that She has been free to teach the Truth and mostly govern Herself with little interference from government.

 

[Chancellare]

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.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

I too agree. Unfortunately, the abuse of the principle separation of church and state does not end there.

In other threads, I quoted heavily from Michael Sandel’s assertion in The American Myth of Religous Freedom by K. Craycraft Jr:

In recent Supreme Court rulings, the liberal idea of religious liberty does not afford the same protection to the religious believer as to the non-believer.
This is because the Christianity that has taken roots in America is not the ‘Historical Christianity’ but a post-Christian Religion known as American liberalism.
Case in point:
Liberalism does not distinguish between choosing as a result of persuasive evidence or simple assertion of the will on the other hand, and , on the other hand, being prompted by grace, sacrament, or providence, mediated by a church, tradition and other forms of religious authority. This means liberalism cannot grasp the idea that some decisions are not simple assertions of unfettered choice, but rather prompted by something outside the person and his private conscience.

US Jurisprudence has adopted the fundamental view that ‘neutrality’ toward religion is essential to protecting all selves. But the ‘selves’ it recognizes as legitimate are ‘unencumbered’ ones, meaning only those who impugn the legitimacy of religious truth that imposes itself upon the mind or soul. US courts therefore consider any community which presumes a natural or supernatural claim over the consciences and wills of its members to have an illiberal and thus illegitimate view of man. In effect, such community and its members are eased out of the legal protection as we know it.

 

[Reactionary]

brockmac,

“Please point out to me the infallible doctrinal statement that calls on civil governments should force people to profess and practice the Catholic faith? I don’t believe that it is heretical to say that having a government should not force or induce people to be Catholic.”

That is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that all good Catholics should make their political decisions with the Faith in mind. Thus in a society where everyone is Catholic (or at least most people) the Faith will inevitably dominate politics. It is just the natural result of democracy. Thus I was agreeing with what you said (excellently I may say) in your second paragraph.

I am afraid that your third paragraph is historically a little anachronistic. The first amendment was, originally, nothing to do with the separation of Church and State as a principle it was merely put there so that the individual States could choose which Church to establish. If the whole area had been Catholic or Calvinist or whatever they would not have put it in. It was there because much of the north was Calvinist and much of the south Episcopalian. It was a measure to keep the peace between the states and to allay fear in some States that the religion of other States would be forced upon them.

The separation of Church and State in a Catholic country is a bad thing as in such a society the Church and society are one for all members of the one are also members of the other. Nobody would look at the Church as an institution separate from themselves. Laymen have just as much of a responsibility to hold, teach and live the faith as any cleric. Government is the preserve of the layman and his duty (given by God) is to bring the work and message of Christ into that area. Thus all Hospitals, all Schools and all laws should be infused with the faith.

The Secular State is an ideology in itself. It is the negation of the state of society outlined above. It is the idea that the faith should be put in a box and only taken out on Sundays, it is the idea that only ‘secular’ values should be taught in schools so as to mot impede the choice of Children to reject God. As if those secular values where not a sort of anti-creed in themselves! Christ and the Natural Law he created are our only guide to what is right and wrong. If the Secular values of the state are not part of them then how on earth are they true? Are they not just some human thinking?

 

[Amolibri]

www.votethecommongood.com

 

[YADA]

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.

This is not exactly true - you should read real history… When George Washington was inaugerated he performed 7 * religious actions - I don’t remember all of them but I can do some research and post back… every president since has performed some of them … not all have done the same ones …

Congress was convened, the President sworn in, Washinton made his address and the very next action to go down the street in proccession to St. Paul’s church to invoke the blessings of Almighty God upon this new country. This was one of the very first actions of the congress with the President … to come together and pray - pray for this country … They did not adjourn but stayed in session!.

Washington referenced god in his inaugeral address

…it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being

who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes
and ending with

Having thus imported to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I*** shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people,***

with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

It was immediately after this that they processed to St. Paul’s

Washington decided to use a bible

I do solemnly swear

and ending with

“So help me God”

and Washington kissed the bible afterwards.*

 

[YADA]

While there assuredly are myths devoted to the religiousness of the frst president … so to - are the myths associated with the 'deist, agnostic or aetheistic" Washington …

From his own diaries we know that as president he attended church … though not the most regular church goer and one who appears to have attended less and less as he grew older, George Washington did assuredly attend church …

He also was a vestryman … which while a"church" position was also seen as politically expediant … and could - by the skeptic - be seen as the equivalent to the “Commnunion photo Ops” modern day catholic politicians favor …

Per Washington’s own diaries he attended church:
1768 attended church 15 times
1769 - 10 times
1770 - 9 times
1771 - 1772 - 6 times
1773 - 5 times
1774 - 18 times - six of the times were in Philedelphia with the COntinental Congress of which three times were to the Episcopal Chruch and once was to a Catholic Mass and one Quaker Meeting and one Presbyterian.

During his presidency it is reported that weather and schedule permitting Washington when in New York atended St. Paul’s Chapel or Trinity. While in Philadelphia he would attend either Christ Church or St. Peter’s. His diaries are not complete during this time like other periods of time.

This is from information presented in The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents by Francis Steiner … not a man to promote the religious beliefs of presidents … so this information comes from the author who would liook at this and say … see I told you Washington was an unbeliever…

You get the idea