State Church versus Seperate Churches?

[TK421]

Okay, so here’s the deal. Like the vast majority of Americans, I tend to think that a separation between church and state is a healthy thing, but I’ve noticed there is some amount of disagreement on this issue, and I’d like to put my opinion under review.

Now, the particulars of a state system could vary from state to state, but when I say “state church”, I’m basically talking about churches whose expenses are supported by the government to some extent. The reason I hold the view that this is unhealthy is because of the multi-pronged dangers to the Church when she becomes directly integrated into the state. Where there is money flowing, there are interests flowing as well, and on a state level, that includes people that are not in agreement with - or are perhaps openly hostile towards - the Church. The Church risks losing much of her autonomy when she exists at the pleasure of the broad base of taxpayers.

The other danger is that Catholics are currently under siege for protecting their religious liberties on various issues. We do not want our money going to state abortion clinics, towards contraception programs, etc. In a system where the Church is integrated with the state, I feel like this would be an extremely hard battle to win. We’d basically be asking for protection from things we are against while simultaneously expecting all taxpayers to support parishes, etc. I can’t see it being a winnable public battle.

However, there have been Catholic dioceses in the past and through much of history that have been integrated with the state to varying degrees. Separation of church and state is more of an exception than it is a norm. Does the Magisterium give any sort of statement on how parishes are to interact with the state? Does it support having dioceses being state funded? Is it against it? Is it silent? I’m assuming it leaves this question somewhat open-ended or else there wouldn’t be varying opinions on this site. For those that are agreeable to the idea of a state church, to what extent would you wish it to go? What are your reasons for feeling this way? Basically, convince me that I’m wrong

 

[Reep]

Amen, TK421.

No state church. Never. Especially not the Catholic Church. Not when the money to support the Church is being extorted at gunpoint from the unwilling. I believe it to be immoral to coerce either membership or support of any church.

Not such great public relations for the church either.

• It also gives the government more reason to mind our business.
• State support of churches has led to extra taxes on Church members, thereby causing people to quit going to Church

Bottom line: the state corrupts whatever it touches, even the Church. I count it a privilege to live in an age where my Church is a spiritual power only. And my Pope not an earthly king.

 

[JRKH]

Agreed…

If the state giveth - the state can taketh away…

And if (as is likely over time) the particular ministry(s) become dependant upon these monies, it can and will adversely effect the programs run by the Church.

I believe is was Bush Jr who had proposed that monies be given to faith based groups more or less with no strings attached - as a cost cutting measure. The thinking being that such groups often can perform the same services as some government agencies…but cheaper.
Of course that Idea did not go far…and anyway - even if it started out as “no strings” - that would not have lasted long…

No - I think that the separation idea is a good one.

Peace
James

 

[Jozefo]

And yet, the vast majority of churches in the US are State sponsored, in that these churches apply - ie beg - for special treatment.

I suppose they could argue that they can do more good in the State, than they could otherwise, but at what price?

 

[JRKH]

And yet, the vast majority of churches in the US are State sponsored, in that these churches apply - ie beg - for special treatment.

I suppose they could argue that they can do more good in the State, than they could otherwise, but at what price?

I think one could argue that … It depends a bit on how one might define “sponsored”.

That said - I agree that the “at what price” is something that Churches are going to have to seriously take stock of.

Peace
James

 

[Jozefo]

I think one could argue that … It depends a bit on how one might define “sponsored”.

That said - I agree that the “at what price” is something that Churches are going to have to seriously take stock of.

Peace
James

Sponsored as in forming an association in the State. There is no requirement to ask for special treatment regarding taxation or other matters, yet they do it anyway. Their Articles of Incorporation, or Trust Indenture, whatever, is filed with the State’s authorities, in return for state granted benefits. Their charters are under the rubrics of the State.

 

[CrossofChrist]

*Of course, in Europe we cannot simply copy the United States: we have our own history. But we must all learn from one another. What I find fascinating in the United States is that they began with a positive concept of secularity, because this new people was composed of communities and individuals who had fled from the State Church and wanted to have a lay, a secular State that would give access and opportunities to all denominations, to all forms of religious practice. Thus, an intentionally secular new State was born; they were opposed to a State Church. But the State itself had to be secular precisely out of love for religion in its authenticity, which can only be lived freely. And thus, we find this situation of a State deliberately and decidedly secular but precisely through a religious will in order to give authenticity to religion. And we know that in studying America, Alexis de Toqueville noticed that secular institutions live with a de facto moral consensus that exists among the citizens. This seems to me to be a fundamental and positive model. It should be taken into account that in Europe in the meantime, over 200 years have passed with many developments. Today, there is also in the United States the attack of a new secularism, quite a different kind. Whereas, at first the problems concerned immigration, but later in the course of history the situation became complicated and therefore differentiated. But the foundation, the fundamental model also seems to me today to be worthy of being borne in mind in Europe.

• • Pope Benedict XVI

Positive and worth being borne in mind in Europe, but still not ideal.

28. a) The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. . . . The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated. - Pope Benedict in Deus Caritas Est

The Encyclical Quanta Cura says, "For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." Later saying it comes from a “totally false idea of social government”.

Benedict also said,“In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution…So it was that both parties were gradually beginning to open up to each other. In the period between the two World Wars and especially after the Second World War,** Catholic statesmen demonstrated that a modern secular State could exist that was not neutral regarding values but alive, drawing from the great ethical sources opened by Christianity**.”

This goes to show how there can be a secular state that in reality isn’t secular, but Christian. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the situation where Christianity influences a secular state isn’t ideal, even if it can be positive by giving genuine freedom for the Church and not having the Church run the state.

Furthermore, we have Pope Leo XIII:

*“But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. *(Showing the upside of a separated Church and state, meaning a state that allows the free exercise of religion without officially professing one in particular, albeit influenced by Christianity; sometimes, especially with Ratzinger/Benedict, separation of Church and state means institutional separation, as in rejecting a theocracy. This isn’t universally true of his writings though.) ***Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. **The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.”
*

 

[CrossofChrist]

There is also this quote from Pope St. Pius X:

*If any State has separated from the Church, while leaving to her the resource of the liberty common to all and the free disposal of her property, that State has without doubt, and on more than one ground, acted unjustly; but nevertheless, it could not be said that it has created for the Church a situation absolutely intolerable. *

So it seems like the above pretty well illustrates the situation of the US.

So going back to the original quote of Pope Benedict in an interview where he recommends, at least implicitly, the American model of Church and State relations for Europe, it is clear that he does so because there is an extreme secularism in Europe either caused by strict laicism as in France, or a past history of having a confessional state where the people are indifferent to religion due to the past history of what a confessional state implies: the silencing of minority opinions by means of restricting freedom of religion, the using of the state by the Church as a way of accomplishing her means directly, sometimes even with the leaders of the Church using immoral means (as in the Spanish Inquisition) or direct participation in areas reserved for the laity (as in certain Archbishops directly ruling a territory or territories, something reserved specifically for the laity). This is what Ratzinger meant when he recommends the American model over the European one since, *“Europe has remained bogged down in caesaropapism.” *This rejection of the confessional state for the present time in Europe is also, in addition to the above mentioned reasons, because the Church in confessional states was merely a puppet of the state, and it has been deemed better for the Church and state to be separate than for them to be together, as is ideal. For it is worse for the Church not to have complete control over herself and the direction she goes. This is my understanding of Church and state relations, that Catholicism being professed by the state, in addition to having morally sound laws, while at the same time respecting freedom of religion since religion can’t be forced on anyone to achieve true inner acceptance, save by the truth it possesses and shows to one’s heart; that is ideal.