The Problems with a Confessional State (or State in General)

[fakename]

Although I’ve always been in favor of a confessional state to some degree, there were problems with the idea which I haven’t been able to articulate until now.

In the spirit of solving and criticizing these problems, I’ll write them here:

(1) A calculation problem. If a government could control morality (to whatever degree this is needed) then it would educate the people to believe that it was in fact, making them better. However, if (in a particular case) the gov. was harming a particular person, then the gov. could never reform itself since that person would have already been educated to think that the gov. was not harming him.
From here, this problem would snowball until it destroyed the gov.

(2) A logic problem: if the gov’s job is to make people who are worse into better people, then the more it succeeds at this task, the less it is needed. However, the more it succeeds, the more influence it will want. That’s a problem.

(3) A psychological problem: if the gov. could promote a particular religion or way of life, it would also need to defend it by the sword. But gov. frequently not only promote a religion by defense but also by offense (the taking of taxes to fund its preferences). But a doctrine which relies too much on the sword must ultimately die by the sword since, if it tries to impose itself on others involuntarily, then those others will (in proportion to their numbers and organization) revolt against the state and reject its ideas. Even if it can get them to cowardly accept its ideas, such a doctrine so established must be a “zombie” doctrine not the living spirit of a people, accepted voluntarily. Therefore, it is likely that it will not last long and will be overthrown in catastrophe.

(4) A practical problem: no state generally, and the confessional one in particular, is needed all the time for the roles that they supposedly fulfill. The roles of the state are variously: the protection of morality, the generation of wealth, and all that accompanies it.
However, society already has more proper sources of morality (priests, schools, the home) of wealth (companies, small business, pioneering) and of the accompaniments to these (law firms, libraries, construction/infrastructure, etc.). So what is the confessional state good for? It can hardly be necessary all the time, nor could it acting as a standing army,law firm, church, etc. be necessary all the time either or even conveniently for the most part.

My solution:

“… As the State develops, it grows in unity, and greater unity means an ampler measure of central authority. There is far more authority in the England of today than in the England of the Heptarchy. There was more authority in an Anglo-Saxon kingdom than in a horde of savages.” -Catholic Encyclopedia

A confessional state ought to be a loose organization that offers its power on a subscription basis (like mercenaries?) under the restraint of some sort of secular private group (insurance co. or legal arbitrator).

Of course the objection is that it is too private. However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia rightly states, the smaller and more unified the state is, the more authority it has. Therefore authority is found in limited gov. while totalitarianism is the source of anarchy.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

What, on earth are you talking about? Your whole inquiry is turbid at best!
I am not only a college graduate but have two advanced degrees, and when I can’t understand something…

 

[fakename]

What, on earth are you talking about? Your whole inquiry is turbid at best!
I am not only a college graduate but have two advanced degrees, and when I can’t understand something…

Some editing is needed then.

on #1, the reason person why the person cannot criticize the state, is because he has been educated (by the state or by the common experience of the state’s effects shared with other people) that the state is accomplishing good now.

On #2, that the state will increase its power if it is accomplishing its goals, is a historical observation and not one derived from the sentences that came before.

Aside from these minor changes, the rest OP seems pretty clear. If anyone has any problems with it, say specifically what it is.

 

[Viki63]

What is a confessional state, please?

The purpose of the state is not to make people better, it’s to help them manage common needs, such as education, protection, infrastructure maintenance.
When states try to get into the business of legislating morality, they run into problems. They can only legislate behavior – i.e. murder is illegal, but hatred is not. Theft is illegal, but covetousness is not.
We need to look elsewhere for guidance to become better people.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

1. A confessional state doesn’t necessarily “control” morality
2. It’s the Church’s job to make people better people. The state’s job is merely to guide people along in that process by helping the Church.
3. I don’t get this. Helping partially fund a religious organization (e.g the Catholic Church) with taxes doesn’t follow that people are all of a sudden going to rebel against it. And a confessional state doesn’t even necessarily mean that the state helps the religious organization on the “offensive” (e.g taxes), but means that it helps it on the “defensive” to an extent (making sure it isn’t slandered).
4. I think the problem is your conception of the state. (Sorry in advance for the neo-scholastic terminology in the following):

The State, furthermore, is bound to render due worship to God, as follows from the same argument from the natural law which proves man’s obligation to external worship, namely, that man must acknowledge his dependence upon God and his subjection to Him in every capacity in which he is so dependent, and therefore not only in his private capacity as an individual but also in that public, corporate capacity whereby he and his fellow citizens constitute the State.

So basically because the state is a society composed of individuals, who each have an obligation to worship God, the state has an obligation to render God the worship he is due by “confessing” the Catholic Faith. Hence, the confessional state.

I don’t understand what you are saying at the end.

This doesn’t mean that it is always desirable to have a confessional state. Well, I guess it is most desirable, but under certain conditions it might not be. In a secular society, like one we have today in Europe and North America, a confessional state won’t do the Church any good and in fact could arguably hurt it. What is first required is to have the individuals become Christian so they can confess together in the state the Catholic Faith. That is why Bl. Pope John Paul II says in Ecclesia in Europa:

117. In her relations with public authorities the Church is not calling for a return to the confessional state. She likewise deplores every type of ideological secularism or hostile separation between civil institutions and religious confessions.

The Church has to call people to conversion before she can call the state to confess. Otherwise the end result for the Church would be “deplorable” and make her worse off than if there was no state help. A good example of this would be to look at Scandinavian countries where the state churches are in terrible shape, because the people themselves aren’t active Christians, so the Church appears to be a sign of coercive authority.