|
|
|
In the
ancient world, the relation of Church and State as two distinct entities
was not a problem that needed resolution. Organized religion was in large
part civil religion, intimately bound up in the life and structure of the
polis, the political community. The gods were the gods of the city or
empire; priests were most often lesser functionaries of the political
authority. Even in the case of the chosen people, the law given by Yahweh
encompassed political organization and religious life and worship into a
unified whole. This
situation was to change, slowly, first with the dawn of Christianity, and
later through important changes in political theory and practice. Christ
preached a religion that transcended the merely political realm. He
promulgated a New Law, foretold by the Hebrew prophets, which would be
written on the hearts of men. Moreover, the new faith would be universal,
or catholic, making men first of all citizens of the City of God, which
cannot be contained within national boundaries. Jesus
acknowledged the legitimacy of political authority in its proper realm:
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Mt
22:21). So did his Apostles in their teaching and exhortations: “Let
every person be subject to the governing authorities. . . .
He who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed” (Rom
13:1-2; cf. 1 Tm 2:1-4; 1 Pt 2:13-17). Yet Peter, not Caesar, was
appointed head of the Church; and what is owed to Caesar was distinguished
from what is owed God. The spiritual realm was distinguished from the
secular, or temporal, each with its own proper authority and role in human
life. Hence arose
the challenge of how to understand the nature and function of each
authority, in itself and especially vis-à-vis the other: how to harmonize
their activities in the service of humanity and avoid the problem of
conflicting loyalties. This is far from a purely theoretical dilemma.
Rather, it is bound up with the actual life of Christians under various
political regimes throughout the centuries. Historical
Overview • The early decades of the Church frequently were times of
persecution, more or less bloody, by Caesar and his followers. Later,
after Constantine, the tables were turned and Christianity became the
official religion of the Empire, with all the benefits and dangers that
status brought. Then came the various heresies and schisms, from Arianism
to Donatism to the separation of the Orthodox from Rome, and the political
upheavals that preceded, accompanied, and followed these ecclesial crises. In the West,
dreams of a united Christendom faded with the advent of the Reformation,
followed by the havoc of the so-called Religious Wars. In the interest of
civil peace, many came to share the conviction that the responsibility for
deciding the religion of the people in a given country lay with the prince
of that realm: cuius regio, eius religio – “whose region, his
religion,” from the Peace of Augsburg (1555). The
proto-liberalism of the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1679) concurred with the proponents of the above thesis in placing
religion under the jurisdiction of the political sovereign, whoever he or
they happened to be. His overarching goal was to establish a more rational
politics and in the process to end senseless violence inflamed by
religious passions run wild. John Locke (1632-1704) and others argued
instead for religious toleration among the citizens of a liberal republic,
although in principle allowing for intolerance of untrustworthy groups
such as Catholics and atheists. The philosophes who inspired the French
Revolution were bitterly opposed to Christianity and especially to the
Catholic Church, which they regarded as in league with the reactionary and
oppressive aristocracy. The United
States, the first liberal democracy started more or less from scratch,
made the “antiestablishment clause” an important feature of its
Constitution, ensuring that the United States would not be officially
Anglican, Puritan, etc.; that no church would be favored above others at
the national level; and that the religious beliefs and practices of
law-abiding citizens would not be interfered with. In recent decades,
however, this provision has been interpreted as erecting a “wall of
separation” between religion and civic life, removing religion from the
public square and relegating it almost entirely to private life. Finally, the
twentieth century has witnessed the rise (and, happily, in many cases also
the fall) of Fascist and Marxist regimes, which strove to impose
neopaganism or dogmatic atheism and subjected the Church to violent
persecutions exceeding even the horrors of Rome’s colosseum. This is the
sketchiest of overviews, focusing primarily on the development of
Church-State relations in Europe and North America. Yet these developments
influenced vast areas of other continents, due especially to the
widespread influence of liberalism and communism. This historical
experience provided material for reflection on the proper relation of
Church and State, on the part of the Church herself as well as by others.
Centuries of theological reflection also deepened the Church’s
understanding of her own identity and mission, as well as of the roles
proper to her members – laity, religious, priests, bishops. This
resulted in a more precise appreciation of the Church’s role in relation
to civil society and the temporal order. Finally, beyond the general
principles governing Church-State relations as such, different forms of
political culture and organization require adaptation and the
specification of these principles to particular situations. Teaching on
Church and State • Addressing this question in light of the contemporary
situation, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council said: “It is of
extreme importance, especially in a pluralistic society, to work out a
proper vision of the relationship between the political community and the
Church, and to distinguish clearly between the activities of Christians,
acting individually or collectively in their own name as citizens guided
by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and their activity acting along
with their pastors in the name of the Church” (Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 76). Gaudium et Spes,
which follows from the Council’s “deep reflection on the mystery of
the Church” in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium
(cf. Gaudium et Spes, 2, 40), contains some of the most helpful treatments
of our subject by the modern Magisterium. Various papal encyclicals of
this century also take up aspects of the relationship between Church and
State, including Pope John Paul II’s encyclical The Hundredth Year,
Centesimus Annus (1991). The Catechism of the Catholic Church’s section
“The political community and the Church” (2244-2246) draws from this
encyclical as well as from Gaudium et Spes. Traditional
Catholic teaching describes both the Church and the political community as
“perfect” societies. That means each possesses within itself means
sufficient for achieving its proper ends. The end or goal of the political
community and its authority is the temporal common good or the earthly
happiness for which its citizens strive as human beings. Magisterial
teaching especially in the past fifty years has pointed out the
insufficiency of individual nation-states to achieve this goal in
isolation from the broader international community. By contrast, the
Church is a spiritual society whose raison d’être is the salvation of
souls, the spiritual or supernatural common good proper to human beings as
children of God redeemed by Christ and incorporated into his Mystical
Body. Hence, as the Council teaches, “[t]he Church, by reason of her
role and competence, is not identified with any political community nor
bound by ties to any political system. It is at once the sign and the
safeguard of the transcendental dimension of the human person. The
political community and the Church are autonomous and independent of each
other in their own fields” (Gaudium et Spes, 76, emphasis added). One
consequence is that the clergy as such do not normally have a role in
civil government. While over the centuries some churchmen have indeed
sought political influence and held office – with better or worse
intentions, with greater or lesser degrees of success – the Church does
not seek to usurp the rightful tasks and responsibilities of political
authority. In his 1939 encyclical On the Function of the State in the
Modern World, Summi Pontificatus, Pope Pius XII took up the charge that
“the activity of the Church in teaching and spreading [the doctrine of
Christ], and in forming and modelling men’s minds by its precepts . . .
[shakes] the foundations of civil authority and usurp[s] its rights.” He
declared that “any such aims are entirely alien to that same Church,
which spreads its maternal arms towards this world not to dominate but to
serve. She does not claim to take the place of other legitimate
authorities in their proper spheres, but offers them her help after the
example and in the spirit of her Divine Founder Who ‘went about doing
good’ [cf. Acts 10:38]. The Church preaches and inculcates obedience and
respect for earthly authority which derives from God its whole origin”
(92-94). John Paul II
explains that there can be and in fact have been “exceptional cases in
which it may seem opportune or even necessary to help or supplement public
institutions that are lacking or in disarray, in order to support the
cause of justice and peace. Ecclesiastical institutions themselves, even
at the highest level, have provided this service in the past, with all the
advantages, but also with all the burdens and difficulties that this
entails. . . . [M]odern political, constitutional and
doctrinal development tends in another direction. Civil society has been
progressively given institutions and resources to fulfill its own tasks
autonomously” (“Priests Do Not Have a Political Mission,”
L’Osservatore Romano, English language edition, August 4-11, 1993, cf.
Gaudium et Spes, 40, 76). Recognizing
the rightful jurisdiction of the state, the Church claims from civil
authority the freedom to carry out her God-given mission of evangelization
in the service of persons, families, and society. “The Church desires
nothing more ardently than to develop itself untrammeled in the service of
all men under any regime which recognizes the basic rights of the person
and the family, and the needs of the common good” (Gaudium et Spes, 42).
The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom goes so
far as to insist that “the freedom of the Church is the fundamental
principle governing relations between the Church and public authorities
and the whole civil order”: “Among those things which pertain to the
good of the Church and indeed to the good of society here on earth, things
which must everywhere and at all times be safeguarded and defended from
all harm, the most outstanding surely is that the Church enjoy that
freedom of action which her responsibility for the salvation of men
requires” (Dignitatis Humanae, 13). The
respective autonomy of temporal and spiritual spheres is not absolute,
however. The same men and women are members of (or related to) both the
Church and political society; and both are concerned with the welfare of
human beings, with facilitating their attainment of happiness and
fulfillment. This points to the need for cooperation between the Church
and the state “according to the local and prevailing situation.”
Vatican Council II goes on to observe that the Church, “being founded in
the love of the Redeemer, contributes towards the spread of justice and
charity among nations and within the borders of the nations themselves”
while she also “respects and encourages the political freedom of the
citizens” (Gaudium et Spes, 76; cf. Pope John Paul II, Address to the
United Nations General Assembly, October 5, 1995). The
Contribution of the Church • Evangelization, the primary task of the
Church, is also the principal way in which she contributes, if indirectly,
to the well-being of civil society and the harmony of the international
community (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 58 and n. 7). Through it the Church leads
people to true conversion of heart, which must precede and accompany any
sincere and lasting work for justice. The Church also seeks to influence
citizens and civil authority through her social doctrine. This body of
magisterial teaching does not propose concrete political or economic
models for implementation but rather offers more general “principles for
reflection,” “criteria for judgment,” and “guidelines for
action” (cf. CCC 2423). Catholic social doctrine is rooted in truths,
gleaned from reason and Revelation, regarding the nature and destiny of
the human person. Noting that “[o]nly the divinely revealed religion has
clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and
Redeemer,” the Catechism says the Church “invites political
authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired
truth about God and man” (CCC 2244; cf. Centesimus Annus, 45-46).
Finally, the Church acknowledges her duty, and therefore reserves the
right, “to pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics,
whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires
it” (Gaudium et Spes, 76). Examples in the twentieth century include
papal condemnations of communism and Nazism. In carrying
out her duties vis-à-vis civil society and its authority, “the only
means [the Church] 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” (Gaudium et Spes, 76). This refusal to appropriate the
weapons of “power politics” once prompted Soviet dictator Joseph
Stalin to ask mockingly, “And how many divisions has the Pope?” It has
been suggested that he received his answer, posthumously, with the events
of the late 1980s and early 1990s, in which the spiritual forces of the
Gospel and the Church’s social teaching, under John Paul II, played a
key role in defeating the vast armed forces of Stalin’s successors (cf.
Centesimus Annus, 22-29, and Address to the United Nations General
Assembly, October 5, 1995). The character
of a political regime and the quality of its leadership, for their part,
can contribute much to preparing good soil in which the seed of the Gospel
can take root, germinate, and bear fruit. The Church has no illusions
regarding prospects for establishment of some political utopia, much less
a theocracy. Nevertheless, greater attention by government to justice and
to the spiritual aspects of human flourishing can foster the development
of human virtues, sound family life, and proper education, and thereby
contribute greatly to integral human well-being. Also dependent in large
measure on the political situation is the climate of civil peace in which
Christians and all persons of good will can work unhindered by public
institutions. Yet, as the
Second Vatican Council says, “[t]he Church itself also recognizes that
it has benefited and is still benefiting from the opposition of its
enemies and persecutors” (Gaudium et Spes, 44 and n. 23). Even
oppressive states can unwittingly contribute to the growth of the Church
in holiness as well as in numbers: In the divine economy, as the Apostolic
Fathers noted with some amazement, the blood of martyrs is in fact the
seed of Christians. See:
Authority; Church, Membership in; Church, Nature, Origin, and Structure
of; Citizenship; Civil Disobedience; Common Good; Liberation Theology;
Magisterium; Politics; Religious Liberty; Social Doctrine. Suggested
Readings: CCC 2242, 2244-2246, 2256-2257, 2419-2425. Vatican Council II,
Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae; Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium; Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, especially 40-45, 73-76. Pius
XII, On the Function of the State in the Modern World, Summi Pontificatus.
John Paul II, The Hundredth Year, Centesimus Annus, especially I, III, V,
VI; Address to the United Nations General Assembly, October 5, 1995. Mary M. Keys Russell Shaw.
Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine. Copyright © 1997,
Our Sunday Visitor.
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
