What does the Church actually say about the separation of Church and State?

[CatholicWhovian]

I’m confused in this one. Wikipedia says that the Church does permit such a separation so long as the Church helps in guiding and informing politicians on their decisions and consciences. However Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the notion that…

1. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

However, as mentioned by one commenter pointed out in one of the comments in this blog, Cardinal Newman explained that the Pope did not say that the separation of Church and State is never allowed.

Personally on the face of it the issue of the relationship between Church and State is complicated, especially since it’s the Church’s mission to propagate the Gospel both in public and in private and, assuming that the State in question is a democratic one, it’s the obligation of the State to guarantee the happiness, equality and well-being of everyone.

It’s also complicated because there are states such as Denmark which do not have a separation of Church and State yet allow people to have abortions, same-sex marriage, and are completely secular. And then you have states like my country, the Philippines, which have have societies which are still religious and where abortion and same-sex marriage are still banned, yet the separation of Church and State is enshrined in the Constitution.

And there have been cases where the union of Church and State can have detrimental effects on both sides. For example, during the Spanish colonial era of the Philippines the Church and State were one. There was a culture of corruption both in the colonial government and in the main government in Spain. Incompetent people went into the colonial government to get an easy buck and to have a large influence over people. Since Church and State were one during this time, people treated positions in the Church like governmental positions where they can get more money and influence, rather than what they are actually supposed to be - which is to spread the Gospel and to spiritually administer to the people. As a result incompetent people went into the priesthood and did things contrary to the true goals of the priesthood itself.

Having explained my personal view of the relationship of Church and State, what does the Church actually say about it? If it is contrary to what I view then please correct my conscience. Also do syllabuses qualify as encyclicals?

Please be sensible in the discussion.

 

[Shin]

‘That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.’

Pope St. Pius X, ‘Vehementor Nos’

Vehementor Nos - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE ST. PIUS X - ON THE FRENCH LAW OF SEPARATION

Iamdudum - ENCYCLICAL OF POPE ST. PIUS X - ON THE LAW OF SEPARATION IN PORTUGAL

 

[CatholicWhovian]

‘That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies.** Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides**; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.’

Pope St. Pius X, ‘Vehementor Nos’

So what Pope Pius X was suggesting is the harmony between Church and State - where Church and State would agree on each other - and neither separation (like France and its policy of laïcité) nor union (theocracy)?

 

[St_Francis]

So what Pope Pius X was suggesting is the harmony between Church and State - where Church and State would agree on each other - and neither separation (like France and its policy of laïcité) nor union (theocracy)?

That period in the Phillipines which you described was not the first time the Church had in effect been the State. With the fall of the Roman Empire, in many places the Church was the only entity which had the organization and education to keep things together. Bit this did not work out well then, either, so the Church saw that what worked best was a policy of separate spheres, where there would be a free-standing government which was ultimately responsible to the Church in matters of faith and morals. A King would present a case for war, for example, and the Pope woukd say whether it was just or unjust.

In many Catholic countries, this relationship was enshrined in the Constitution, but after V2, for some reason a number of nations took it out, with the permission if not encouragement from the Vatican.

As you can see from the quote above, the separation Pope Pius 10 condemend was a particular form of separation of Church and state. The idea that the government ought not to be subject to the Church is a very bad idea.

 

[dmar198]

In many Catholic countries, this relationship was enshrined in the Constitution, but after V2, for some reason a number of nations took it out, with the permission if not encouragement from the Vatican.

Can you give an example where the Church permitted or encouraged such a thing after Vatican 2? Because it seems to me that Vatican 2 said that states should not do such a thing.

See the teaching against secularism by the Second Vatican Council at the following link:

Five Ways the Second Vatican Council Condemned Modernism
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=910323

 

[Cricket2]

First, there is not separation of Church and State. There is Freedom of Religion. They are different.

Second: I firmly believe that the Church has no business influencing political campaigns or politicians. You cannot make faith law, and I don’t really care what any of the Holy Fathers or Cardinals or anyone else says about that. Politics and Religion don’t mix.

Religion is a choice and people should have the right to live according to their faith. That is what our Freedom OF Religion is about. That means we can be Muslim, Mormon, Catholic or Buddhist if we wish and the Government cannot discriminate against us because of it or tell us how to practice our faith.

I sincerely think the Church would be stronger and more effective if she focused on being the Church of Christ then worrying about appeasing politicians or influencing political matters. If the people of God lived as He commanded we would not need so many laws in the first place, and the government would not have so much power over us. We need to change our focus a bit.

And folks need to get it right when it comes to the notion of “Separation of Church and State.” That has never been in the constitution of this country. Freedom of Religion has been and is. And it is not Freedom From Religion either.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

Second: I firmly believe that the Church has no business influencing political campaigns or politicians. You cannot make faith law, and I don’t really care what any of the Holy Fathers or Cardinals or anyone else says about that. Politics and Religion don’t mix.

But wouldn’t refusing to listen to the Church’s stance, or even silencing it, be an infringement of the Church’s right (as a group in civil society) to freedom of expression - and thus an infringement to the right of freedom of religion?

What I’m talking about is the notion of separation in general and how it plays out in other countries. Besides one has to take into account a politician’s personal principles and how it affects their decision in politics. Yes the Church can comment on issues in politics, but it’s up to the politicians themselves whether or not they would listen and apply what the Church teaches into their policies. Look at Nancy Pelosi for example. And so long as most of the politicians in a certain country belong to a religion, or at least have convictions based on religion, the assumption I have made still applies. If you want to go to a place where politics and religion don’t mix go to a secular society like Denmark’s.

Again like what I said the relationship between the Church and the State is very complicated. You can’t just make a line between them and pretend that’s it.

 

[Genesis315]

Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion are really two different, albeit related, questions. You can have a state governed by Catholic principles where freedom of religion is granted to non-Catholics, because granting such freedom (within the limits of the common good) is a Catholic principle.

Regarding the proposition from the Syllabus in the OP, as with all the propositions of the Syllabus, you have to go to the original source. Regarding #55, Acerbissimum is a consistorial address by the Pope concerning the situation at the time in New Grenada—it is not universal in scope. There you had a completely Catholic population where the government became anti-clerical, persecuted the Church, and encouraged other sects to come in and displace Catholics to break up the influence of the Church there. In a situation where you have a country unified in the Catholic faith, forcing the dissolution of that unity is contrary to the common good.

The ideal is of course for all men to be good Catholics, including the rulers. Then you would have the perfect organic unity of Church and State with the proper separation of spheres of authority, where the State dealt with temporal matters and the Church with spiritual, and they worked in harmony together where there was overlap.

In situations where this ideal is lacking, and there are mixed populations, etc. other arrangements can be good and acceptable–but we should always strive for the ideal. This is achieved primarily through evangelization and the laity penetrating the temporal order with Christian principles.

When we refer to the state, we can think of it in three ways: first, as all the people in the society. In that sense, all have a duty to worship God in spirit and in truth and to obey his commandments in all aspects of their lives, including their civil life. Second, we can view it as the rulers as individuals. They too have a duty to worship God in spirit and in truth and to obey his commandments, in all aspects of their lives, including their civil life. Third, we can look at the state as an institution. In this sense, it is not a real person, but a moral person. As such, it cannot worship or have faith, etc. The traditional way of speaking about it is that it should be “inspired” by the Christian faith.

This is how Vatican II’s decree on the laity, quoted by the Catechism, put it (the Christian spirit should be infused into the institutions of society):

CCC:

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33

More explicitly here:

CCC:

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

It also the Church’s duty to pass judgment even on political matters:

CCC:

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

 

[Genesis315]

Can you give an example where the Church permitted or encouraged such a thing after Vatican 2? Because it seems to me that Vatican 2 said that states should not do such a thing.

In Gaudium et Spes, after affirming the proper relationship between the Church and state, the Church offered to give up certain privileges and rights granted to it by the civil authority, if it would help give credibility to its witness:

76. It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.

The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.

The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.

The Apostles, their successors and those who cooperate with them, are sent to announce to mankind Christ, the Savior. Their apostolate is based on the power of God, Who very often shows forth the strength of the Gospel on the weakness of its witnesses. All those dedicated to the ministry of God’s Word must use the ways and means proper to the Gospel which in a great many respects differ from the means proper to the earthly city.

There are, indeed, close links between earthly things and those elements of man’s condition which transcend the world. The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods. It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it. In this, she should make use of all the means—but only those—which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the general good according to the diversity of times and circumstances.

While faithfully adhering to the Gospel and fulfilling her mission to the world, the Church, whose duty it is to foster and elevate(9) all that is found to be true, good and beautiful in the human community, strengthens peace among men for the glory of God.(10)

 

[Paleocon]

I’m confused in this one. Wikipedia says that the Church does permit such a separation so long as the Church helps in guiding and informing politicians on their decisions and consciences. However Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the notion that…

However, as mentioned by one commenter pointed out in one of the comments in this blog, Cardinal Newman explained that the Pope did not say that the separation of Church and State is never allowed.

Personally on the face of it the issue of the relationship between Church and State is complicated, especially since it’s the Church’s mission to propagate the Gospel both in public and in private and, assuming that the State in question is a democratic one, it’s the obligation of the State to guarantee the happiness, equality and well-being of everyone.

It’s also complicated because there are states such as Denmark which do not have a separation of Church and State yet allow people to have abortions, same-sex marriage, and are completely secular. And then you have states like my country, the Philippines, which have have societies which are still religious and where abortion and same-sex marriage are still banned, yet the separation of Church and State is enshrined in the Constitution.

And there have been cases where the union of Church and State can have detrimental effects on both sides. For example, during the Spanish colonial era of the Philippines the Church and State were one. There was a culture of corruption both in the colonial government and in the main government in Spain. Incompetent people went into the colonial government to get an easy buck and to have a large influence over people. Since Church and State were one during this time, people treated positions in the Church like governmental positions where they can get more money and influence, rather than what they are actually supposed to be - which is to spread the Gospel and to spiritually administer to the people. As a result incompetent people went into the priesthood and did things contrary to the true goals of the priesthood itself.

Having explained my personal view of the relationship of Church and State, what does the Church actually say about it? If it is contrary to what I view then please correct my conscience. Also do syllabuses qualify as encyclicals?

Please be sensible in the discussion.

The Church has taught and has never repudiated that the state must support the Catholic Church.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Church has taught and has never repudiated that the state must support the Catholic Church.

Saying a good Catholic “must” do this or that has power because said Catholic, by proclaiming himself to be a Catholic, has already submitted to the authority of the Church. But words like “must” have no power over entities that have not a-priori granted that power by pledging said allegiance. What good does it do to say “The state of China must support the Catholic Church”? So, what does it mean to say that a state, which has not a-priori submitted to the authority of the Church, must do so? What is the “or else” that follows upon that “must”?

 

[Paleocon]

Saying a good Catholic “must” do this or that has power because said Catholic, by proclaiming himself to be a Catholic, has already submitted to the authority of the Church. But words like “must” have no power over entities that have not a-priori granted that power by pledging said allegiance. What good does it do to say “The state of China must support the Catholic Church”? So, what does it mean to say that a state, which has not a-priori submitted to the authority of the Church, must do so? What is the “or else” that follows upon that “must”?

The “or else” is the same “or else” as with all other grave obligations. Of course if the officials making the decision are not Catholic, they should become Catholic.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It was Jesus Christ who separated Church and State when he said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s”

Today we worry religious influence over politics…but it was the reverse in the past. A good example were the Crown Cardinals of Europe. They were elevated to the cardinalate solely on the recommendation of the European kings. It would be like the President of the U.S. appointing a senator to serve as “Cardinal of the U.S.”…and the Church accepting such.
The last Crown Cardinal of Austria served until 1930.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-cardinal

Probably the last of the real “Catholic Countries” is Malta. Their State religion is Roman Catholicism and their constitution is based on Cannon Law. (Pretty good idea…I think)

But should Catholics influence politics by our vote based on our religious faith?

Of course we should and must. Our religion is based on truth and justice. Our primary principal is “love thy neighbor”. What better way would there be to govern?

 

[Paleocon]

It was Jesus Christ who separated Church and State when he said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s”

Today we worry religious influence over politics…but it was the reverse in the past. A good example were the Crown Cardinals of Europe. They were elevated to the cardinalate solely on the recommendation of the European kings. It would be like the President of the U.S. appointing a senator to serve as “Cardinal of the U.S.”…and the Church accepting such.
The last Crown Cardinal of Austria served until 1930.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-cardinal

Probably the last of the real “Catholic Countries” is Malta. Their State religion is Roman Catholicism and their constitution is based on Cannon Law. (Pretty good idea…I think)

But should Catholics influence politics by our vote based on our religious faith?

Of course we should and must. Our religion is based on truth and justice. Our primary principal is “love thy neighbor”. What better way would there be to govern?

You shouldn’t attribute condemned ideologies to Jesus Christ.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You shouldn’t attribute condemned ideologies to Jesus Christ.

Who condemned it???

 

[Paleocon]

Who condemned it???

Bl. Pope Pius IX

See the syllabus of errors #55.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Bl. Pope Pius IX

See the syllabus of errors #55.

Error # 55: The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

It is asserted by some that this proposition is affirmed by Vatican II in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae . In reality, this is not the case at all. To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter:

§2105 If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore issued a pastoral letter stating that the pope “evidently intended” his words “for the stand-point of European radicals and infidels,” who sought to undermine the Church. Far different, he argued, was the First Amendment that laid “down the sound and equitable principle that civil government, adhering strictly to its own appropriate sphere of political duty, pledged itself not to interfere with religious matters, which it rightly viewed as entirely without the bounds of its competency.” Spalding distributed his pastoral not only to the American hierarchy and government officials but also to Roman officials, from whom he requested a clarification. While he never received the clarification he desired, he also received no rebuke.

Since Archbishop Spaulding received no rebuke from Rome for his interpretation of point fifty-five, It therefore cannot be taken in and of itself as a condemnation of the sort of separation that a Constitutional Republic would make between Church and state. (This is not a reference to the liberal exaggerated separation that has no foundation either in the U.S. Constitution itself or the writings of the Framers of the Constitution.)

 

[Paleocon]

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.​

It is asserted by some that this proposition is affirmed by Vatican II in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae . In reality, this is not the case at all. To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter:

Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore issued a pastoral letter stating that the pope “evidently intended” his words “for the stand-point of European radicals and infidels,” who sought to undermine the Church. Far different, he argued, was the First Amendment that laid “down the sound and equitable principle that civil government, adhering strictly to its own appropriate sphere of political duty, pledged itself not to interfere with religious matters, which it rightly viewed as entirely without the bounds of its competency.” Spalding distributed his pastoral not only to the American hierarchy and government officials but also to Roman officials, from whom he requested a clarification. While he never received the clarification he desired, he also received no rebuke.

Since Archbishop Spaulding received no rebuke from Rome for his interpretation of point fifty-five, It therefore cannot be taken in and of itself as a condemnation of the sort of separation that a Constitutional Republic would make between Church and state. (This is not a reference to the liberal exaggerated separation that has no foundation either in the U.S. Constitution itself or the writings of the Framers of the Constitution.)

1. An unsourced letter from an Archbishop does not override Papal teaching.
2. I’m not going to argue with you about this, all I can do is show what the Church teaches, which I have. If you don’t want to accept the Church’s teaching, then that’s your problem.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

1. An unsourced letter from an Archbishop does not override Papal teaching.
2. I’m not going to argue with you about this, all I can do is show what the Church teaches, which I have. If you don’t want to accept the Church’s teaching, then that’s your problem.

I think it is very important to understand the teachings of our Church.

First and foremost is that the “Syllabus” itself was not magisterial.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) referred to the Vatican II Constitution Gaudium et Spes as a** “counter-syllabus”.**

I believe it is very important to accept the teachings of the Church. To do that one must UNDERSTAND what the teachings of the Church and not simply quote documents that are not in fact a teaching.

 

[CrossofChrist]

1. An unsourced letter from an Archbishop does not override Papal teaching.
2. I’m not going to argue with you about this, all I can do is show what the Church teaches, which I have. If you don’t want to accept the Church’s teaching, then that’s your problem.

In the 1800’s we ought to have the Church united with the state. In 2014 America, we ought not to.

It’s a matter of prudential judgment on when it should/shouldn’t. be united.

Ideally, there is a union. But unfortunately, this isn’t an ideal world. We can tolerate a secular state, and it can even be a good, so long as religion has a positive voice in the public sphere.