|
|
|
Church and State |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
