Wednesday, August 9, 2023

Relations Between Church and State, by Leonel Franca, SJ

“Relations Between Church and State” by Leonel Franca, SJ, is a comprehensive examination of the intricate connections between religious institutions and governmental bodies. The introductory section underscores the significance of the issue by emphasizing its historical relevance, doctrinal implications, and timely importance. It also outlines the intellectual and moral complexities associated with the subject, laying the foundation for the structured approach the author will take in exploring the topic.

The body of the work is divided into two major parts. Part I discusses the fundamental principles and characteristics of both the State and the Church, elucidating their nature, purpose, and functions, and culminating in a balanced Christian perspective on the concept of the State. Part II explores various solutions to the problem of how the Church and State should relate. This part includes various historical and contemporary approaches such as Caesarism, Hierocracy, and Liberalism, and examines them critically. It also looks at concordats as a contemporary solution. Through a meticulous and detailed analysis, Franca draws a clear line of understanding between these two influential institutions, finally presenting both ideal and tolerable real-world solutions to the complexities that arise from their interactions.

Introduction.

Importance of the problem:

a) Historical Importance.

For 20 centuries, the State and the Church have faced each other on the stage of our Western civilization. The relationships between civil and religious society have varied from era to era, but a perfect understanding of our history and the deep forces that guide and explain events depends on their knowledge. The first three centuries are dominated by the State that persecutes the Church; with the Edict of Milan (313), the Church wins its freedom and begins to influence the State; later, in the Byzantine Empire and also in the West, the State strives to dominate and absorb the Church; the great Investiture Controversy, which dominates much of the Middle Ages, is a struggle between the two powers, the Priesthood and the Empire. The Protestant Reformation and modern liberalism attempt to give new solutions to the great problem. It’s impossible to deeply understand our history without an accurate knowledge of this great question.

b) Doctrinal Importance.

In solving the problem, legal and theological notions of capital importance are involved: nature, purpose, limits of the State’s competence; nature, purpose, limits of the Church’s competence; points of contact and interference of the jurisdiction of the two powers. Can there be a problem of greater interest or relevance, legally and sociologically, than finding the formula for the coexistence of spiritual society and civil society, which, without provoking conflicts in the religious conscience of individuals nor sowing seeds of discord in social peace, ensures harmony and the full balance of human life? G. RENARD: “L’intérêt juridique exceptionnel qui s’attache au problème des relations de l’Église et de l’État tient à ce qu’il engage toute la théorie de la souveraineté.” <“The legal interest that is exceptional to the problem of relations between Church and State is that it involves the entire theory of sovereignty”> (D. C. c. 27 (1932), p. 707.).

c) Importance of Singular Timeliness.

Even though it’s always a current issue, the problem of the synthesis of powers presents, in our day, a singularly gripping timeliness. The world is on the eve of a social and political reconstruction perhaps unheard of in human history. We all want the “new order” to rest on foundations of justice and freedom capable of ensuring stable peace. Hence a double necessity: to respect the religious rights of conscience and to allow the free influence of spiritual factors without which no social reconstruction will be viable. Harmony in collaboration or chaos in anarchy.

Difficulty of the problem:

a) Intellectual difficulty.

It is a problem of relation, and it is hard to find, in the realm of thought, problems more difficult than the exact determination of a relationship. In order to accurately determine it, it is necessary to rigorously conceptualize each of its terms, to define their unique nature, and then to precisely capture this nescio quid, this esse ad – being towards, which refers one term to another and in which the relationship essentially consists. Any slip or carelessness in the delicacy of this intellectual work can eliminate one of the terms present, absorb one into the other, and falsify their fundamental reciprocity. The history of philosophy is littered with false systems originating from the flawed study of a relationship. From ill-defined relations between necessary being and contingent beings arose pantheism and materialism; intellectual knowledge and sensory – idealism and sensualism; sovereignty and freedom – totalitarianism and anarchy.

b) Moral difficulty.

The intellectual difficulty, intrinsic, is here aggravated by the moral difficulties created by the violence of the passions at play; the ambition of command, the aspiration of primacy or the exclusiveness of unlimited power. Historically, the problem of relations between the Church and the State has often been discussed in a tense atmosphere of conflicts and susceptibilities. The legal experts of Philip the Fair and Louis of Bavaria; the claims of James I of England, etc., etc. The opinions then proposed and defined were not aimed at reflecting objective truth but serving a political interest of the moment.

Order to follow.

We will briefly study:

I Part – The terms of the problem: the State; the Church.

II Part – Solutions to the problem:

1° Caesarism and hierocracy

2° Separation

3° Ideal solution and tolerable solutions

4° Contemporary tendencies. Concordats.

PART I – The terms of the problem.

Chapter I: The State.

Nature of the State.

The term “State” initially referred to the more or less permanent condition of a person: marital status; servile status; it later came to signify a social class: the third estate; the three estates (nobility, clergy, and people), the assembly of general studies. More recently, the term came to mean what was formerly referred to as republic, regnum, Reich. Even in this broader sense, the word “State” doesn’t always have the same understanding. Sometimes it’s identified with a country, nation, perfect civil society, political unity. Other times, it’s limited to the legal structure of an autonomous civil society (synonymous with government). It comprises the organs through which sovereignty is exercised: legislative, judicial, executive-administrative organs.

The notion of the State is essentially legal and political; it’s related to law and sovereignty. A nation is a cultural unit, whose soul is the awareness of common destinies to be realized in history. The nation inherently tends to shape itself into an independent political entity; the nation “personalizes itself by becoming the State” (DELOS). States are born and disappear more easily than nations, closely tied to historical factors of slower evolution and less subject to human whims.

Purpose and functions of the State.

A. The purpose of the State is to promote temporal happiness, the common good of citizens as a whole, as members of families, as members of social classes. As a whole, meaning the common good of citizens under its jurisdiction. Defense against territorial invasion, defense of property and life. The integrity of the family and the prosperity of the class condition the well-being of society as a whole. The individual good is not directly and immediately aimed at by the State, but rather indirectly through the general good and supplementarily, when social groups – family and class – are not capable of fulfilling their own purposes.

This purpose of the State derives from the natural reasons that lead humans to social life: reciprocal benevolence and the needs of individuals and families in achieving progress and human improvement. Why do we gather in these larger associations if not to achieve a bonum commune, a temporal happiness that individual isolation and smaller social groups cannot ensure? The State is the natural culmination of human sociability.

B. In practice, this purpose – temporal happiness – comprises two elements: peace and prosperity; legal protection and public assistance.

a) Peace – tranquility within the legal order – The State must defend and protect all natural rights (right to existence, property, dignity, moral and spiritual security, essential freedoms). “These rights must be defended by the State not only when exercised by the individual but also when they are involved as rational objectives of associations. Therefore, the family and the Church and all legitimate private societies have a just demand for protection from the State in pursuing their own ends (RYAN, 131).”

Hence, the State’s function to define and determine rights when sufficiently defined by natural law.

To what extent? Criterion: The State shouldn’t extend the protection of individual rights beyond the point where its interference would cause more harm than good.

b) Prosperity – or rational abundance of the necessary means for physical, intellectual, and moral development of man.

In achieving this dual purpose of the State, there are some primary or essential functions, and others that are secondary and optional. The primary functions stem from the very nature or essence of the State and are found in every State worthy of the name:

  • Military functions – defense of the territory against foreign aggression, maintenance of internal order;

  • Civil functions – legislation that defines and regulates individual rights – contracts, commerce, etc.;

  • Financial functions – taxation that collects the necessary resources for the government’s functioning.

The secondary or optional functions aim to enhance common prosperity; they vary among different States, epochs, and phases of evolution; they are suggested by political prudence and experience; they can be fulfilled by private institutions – public works (communication routes, telegraphs, postal services, ports, electricity) – public education (museums, galleries, libraries, schools, etc.) – charity and social assistance (asylums, hospitals, insurance, pensions, etc.) – industrial regulation (contracts, employer-employee relations, working conditions) – public health (quarantines, vaccines, inspections, fighting epidemics, etc.) – moral safety (gambling, theater, publications, cinemas).

Individualistic Liberalism reduced the State’s function to protecting individual rights to life and property – a police-state concept. An inadequate conception. People associate to fulfill their human perfectibility. To this natural demand, civil society and its legal organization must correspond. Magnificently stated by SUAREZ: “The object of civil legislation is the natural well-being of the community and its individual members, so that they can live in peace and justice with the sufficiency of necessary goods for physical comfort and preservation, and with the moral conditions required for personal well-being and public prosperity (De legibus, L. III, c. 11, sec. 7).”

Important consequences.

a) That the State is for man, not man for the State. The State isn’t an absolute end but a means for man to realize his destiny. Man is an individual; the individual has a destiny, his own eternal one; he associates with his fellow men to better achieve the purpose of his nature.

“For indeed, nature did not produce society for the purpose that man would follow it as an end, but so that in it and through it, he would find the means to achieve his perfection (LEON XIII, Sapentiae christianae).”

This is a Christian achievement: the clear affirmation of human dignity. In ancient paganism, the State was an absolute; man, a means, an instrument. In practice and doctrine (PLATO).

In modern times, with paganism, totalitarianism resurfaces; the State, the Nation, the Class, or the Race are elevated to the status of absolutes.

It may be said: the part is for the whole; the organ for the organism, like the leaf for the tree, the stone for the building. Yes, when part and whole are homogeneous; No, when heterogeneous. Temporal man must sacrifice even his life for civil society, but the total destiny of man is of the order of eternal values; society passes, man remains. Stone and leaves have no value in themselves, but in the building and the tree. Not so with man.

Only Christianity, with its clear notion of human nature and destiny, is capable, in the coherence of doctrine and reality of life, of defending the autonomy, dignity, and freedom of man. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” Christian blood has been, for 20 centuries, the price at which the intangible dignity of the human person – martyrdom – has been bought and defended.

b) That the State is not the primary source of rights. Logically and chronologically, the individual and the family precede the State. In his own nature and dignity as a person, man has the root of inalienable and indispensable rights. The State’s mission is to protect these rights. “In the political society, man doesn’t seek oppression but protection of his natural rights, his natural freedom, and their legitimate exercise (PESCH, Nationaloekonomie, I, n° 76).”

Those who assert the opposite doctrine, besides annihilating human dignity, get entangled in inextricable contradictions and misunderstand the specificity of the legal order.

1°) The authority of the State is only conceivable when based on a pre-existing legal principle; otherwise, it equates to the nation or physical force. 2°) The social contract, by which, according to them, the State is constituted as the interpreter of the law, has no force unless presupposed as a general norm: pacta sunt servanda.

3°) The theory deifies the State, and all orders it mandates, even tyrannical ones, would be just, quidquid principi placuit, legis habet vigorem.

This saving doctrine of human freedom and dignity is also a Christian achievement. Its influence has succeeded in introducing it into the heritage of Christian civilization.

1°) All modern constitutions enshrine one of their essential parts – the so-called dogmatic part – with a declaration of citizens' rights. In the Weimar Constitution.

2°) Modern international codes are also increasingly incorporating, as settled doctrine, the inviolable defense of human personality with its essential rights. See the Declaration of International Human Rights by the Institute of International Law – I-ZAGA, Iglesia y Estado, p. 37. See also bidem, p. 195-200, the historical antecedents of the 1789 Declaration; doctrinal affirmations and practical realizations of the Middle Ages – The State must respect the human personality.

Summary.

The State is:

1°) A natural society, demanded by human nature for its full development. Non ad esse, sed ad bene esse. An example of human solidarity – The clothes we wear; the bread we eat; the book we read.

2°) Thus, a necessary society, as by nature man is progressive and perfectible, and outside social frameworks, he cannot attain his perfection.

3°) An organic society, which naturally results not from a gathering of individuals but from unequal social groups – family, profession, etc.

4°) A complete and perfect society. Complete because it aims at a general good – not a particular one, like a scientific or sports society, etc. – its purpose is temporal happiness. Perfect, because in its sphere, it is independent and possesses all the means for achieving its purpose. This purpose is ultimate in its order. Temporal happiness isn’t subject to any other good on the same temporal plane. Health, knowledge, economic goods are all good things, but incomplete, as they are elements of a broader system of goods. The society that aims at an ultimate good in its order is naturally a perfect society.

5°) A society in service of the human person, naturally destined to favor its full expansion, safeguard its titles, and create the environment of physical, intellectual, and moral values necessary for its perfection. Its mission is to promote human temporal happiness by ensuring peace and promoting prosperity. DEL VECCHIO: “The State must recognize the essential value of personality and limit its own action where it would destroy this value, which is a true and pure fundamental right (Filosofia del Derecho, I, p. 313, cited by MIER; Iglesia y Estado, p. 36).”

Equilibrium and Beauty of the Christian Concept of the State.

Liberalism reduces the State to a police force and leaves the fate of individuals to the clash of freedoms.

Statism or totalitarianism deifies the State, disregards human dignity, and leaves individuals defenseless against all forms of arbitrary power.

The Christian doctrine acknowledges the State’s natural origin, i.e., divine; it points to the lofty mission of defending and developing human personality; it balances authority and freedom, setting limits to sovereignty and defending the individual’s inviolable rights; it achieves harmony and equilibrium.

Chapter II – The Church.

Originally, among the Greeks, the word “Church” referred to an “assembly” or a “summoned multitude” gathered by the herald for civic deliberations, in contrast to a crowd gathered randomly. The gatherings of the faithful in the early Church later gave the term its meaning of a “temple.”

In early Christianity, the term was used to refer to the “assembly” or “multitude of Christians”: a) sometimes of a specific city or region – Church of Corinth, of Jerusalem; b) at other times, the universal multitude of Christians, the Christian people, the society founded by Christ to continue His redemptive work. This meaning is already found in the words of Christ (Matt. 16:18) and is frequently used by Saint Paul – Ecclesia Dei. The application of the term to the temple where the faithful gathered came later.

The Church can be considered in its “integral nature” through the eyes enlightened by faith, and examined merely as a historical fact by those who do not have the privilege of having another source of light in life. Two perspectives from different angles, encompassing different horizons. Let’s consider it from these two aspects:

Nature and purpose. Born of Christ.

Let’s open the Gospel to see the constitution given to it by its divine Founder.

The Church is a “continuation of the mission of Christ. Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos (John 20:21)” – Christ’s mission: to save the world: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

Therefore, the “purpose” of the Church is:

a) “proximate,” the sanctification of humanity, the practice of Christian life, moral improvement.

b) “remote,” eternal life, ultimate happiness in the possession of God.

The common external means to achieve this purpose:

a) “public profession of faith” – “whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven” (Matt. 10:32).

b) “visible use of the sacraments,” channels of grace – external bonds of sociability. “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit… unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man… whose sins you forgive…”

c) “practice of the Christian life” through the observance of moral precepts, commandments, expression of God’s will.

Powers of the Church.

To achieve its purpose, Christ endowed His Church with a threefold function and a threefold power:

a) “teaching authority” – “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:18). To proclaim and preserve faith;

b) “power of sanctification” – Sacred ministry of administering sacraments that sanctify and save;

c) “power of jurisdiction and governance” – through which the Church, as a legal institution, guides the faithful toward their purpose. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me… Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” (Matt. 28:18, 18:18)… If the Church doesn’t listen, let them be as heathens and publicans (Matt. 18:17). Doctrinal institution; sanctifying institution; legal institution.

The complete evangelization of humanity, enlightening all minds with the truth about our destinies, guiding all hearts toward the common good, religious direction of all individuals toward the happiness intended by God: this is the mission of the Church.

To fulfill this mission, Christ assured the Church a duration equal to that of humanity and His infallible and indestructible assistance: “Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The Church is fully aware of this mission and promise. It will never be unfaithful. It will remain obedient to God, faithful to its Founder, true to its essence and purpose. Understanding this awareness of the Church is essential to comprehend its historical actions and unwavering convictions.

Just as the foundation of His Church, to which He entrusted the guidance of souls, Christ brought about the greatest revolution in the spiritual history of humanity. The words “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” mark a watershed moment.

In paganism, the organizations dealing with religious matters were often synonymous with political organizations or were dependent on them. Caesar was a pontiff. This led to the oppression of consciences, the particularism of reduced and localized religions, such as city or empire gods, and the deification of emperors (apotheosis). Modern reconstructions of paganism. “Religion and the State were one; each people worshipped its god, and each god ruled its people… The State was a religious community, the king a pontiff, the magistrate a priest, the law a holy formula… Individual freedom was unknown… Man was enslaved to the State in his soul, his body, his property.” (Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, Book V, Chapter III).

Christ founded a spiritual society, endowing it with the essential qualities for its mission: doctrinal infallibility, indestructibility in existence.

Individually, it brought liberation of consciences and assurance for souls to reach religious truth and achieve the fullness of their destiny. “The rights of conscience were proclaimed by pagan antiquity; its heroes testified, its theater celebrated them; Socrates drank hemlock, and Sophocles glorified Antigone. The innovation of Christianity is the organization of the rights of conscience through the establishment of an external society, perfect and sovereign like the State, a rival to the State; The Church is, from this point of view, a legal and political shield for the protection of the rights of conscience, even for those who do not possess heroic souls.” (G. Renard, The Church and Sovereignty, D.C. vol. 27 <1932>, page 710).

Socially, it united all people in communion with the truth; provided the effective foundations for human fraternity; preached principles justifying and preparing civil equality; influenced future international relations and the constitution of humanity.

Summary.

In summary, the Church is:

a) a “visible” and “external” society – constituted by people united by visible social bonds – external profession of the same faith, reception of sacraments (baptism = visible rite of Christian initiation under the authority of the same leaders). That’s why it is called in the New Testament: kingdom, house, family, flock, Corpus Christi – all external and visible. The constitutive elements of a society – a multitude of people, a specific purpose, proportionate means, a bond or union under competent authority – are found in the Church.

b) a “hierarchical” or unequal society, composed by “divine institution,” with one part teaching and leading, and another part being taught and obeying. The apostolic college, continued by bishops – “teach all nations… whatever you bind on earth…” In the apostolic college, the primacy of Peter continued in the Popes: “You are Peter… feed my sheep.”

c) a “supernatural and spiritual” society, by its origin, purpose, and means.

d) a “legally perfect” society. A legally perfect society is one that isn’t part of another and whose purpose in the same order isn’t reduced to another’s purpose. It has within itself the authority of the final word. The Church’s purpose is supernatural and absolutely ultimate for humanity; beyond the temporal order, superior to all spiritual purposes; complete and supreme purpose; not part of a whole; not an instrument or means to another purpose.

e) Therefore, the Church is not only “distinct from civil society” – by origin, purpose, and means – but also “independent and sovereign” from it. Because:

1 – A society aiming at a supernatural and eternal good cannot be subject to a natural and temporal society.

2 – A “unique and universal” society (unity of governance) cannot be subject to multiple or particular States. National churches – destruction of Christianity.

3 – A perpetual and indefectible society cannot be subject to historical vicissitudes of States.

4 – This is the will of Christ: “You are Peter – feed my lambs.”

The historical consciousness of the Church, from its beginnings, resisted the authority of the Roman Empire, affirming its divine mission’s freedom gloriously.

Another method of argumentation.

For those without faith, who do not acknowledge the divine authority of Christ and the Gospel, the nature of the Church, in its legal perfection, imposes itself as a historical, visible, and manifest “fact.”

1 – It is a “fact” that there exists a multitude of people who profess the same faith, receive the same sacraments, obey the same shepherds – called the Church; that this Church, since its inception, has exercised supreme authority in its order: legislating, teaching, judging, disciplining, punishing – independently of civil authority and often against it – councils, decrees of the Holy Fathers, canons, corpus of canon law, code of canon law.

For 20 centuries, the Church has existed as a perfect society, the supreme authority in divine matters – an undeniable historical fact.

This fact has a decisive and conclusive legal value. It represents not only a century-long but also a millennium-long legal possession; and such possession constitutes a title of law. “The Church must be considered as it is, in fact” (Calisse, Ecclesiastical Law, page 158).

2 – This fact, with its legal consequences, has been recognized “from immemorial times” by emperors, princes, and codes – Roman emperors Constantine, Justinian; Roman law that recognizes ecclesiastical laws; Carolingian laws, medieval laws, modern codes admitting Canon Law as a “main source” (especially in some matters) or as an “accessory” or “supplementary” source.

3 – Through the morally unanimous recognition of all civilized peoples and nations, demonstrated in various ways,

a) through the right to conclude “concordats,” or international treaties implicitly and explicitly recognizing the Church’s personality and the validity of Canon Law.

b) through the right of “diplomatic representation,” both active and passive. No other religious society is granted the same right. And this right has always been recognized for the Church due to its nature, regardless of the existence of a territory necessary for the constitution of a State. (The Lateran Agreement itself was made by the Church before reclaiming temporal dominion. Speech by Ambassador Magalhães de Azeredo. Cf. Izaga, page 76.) This is further evidenced by the disproportion between the small territory and the magnificence of the diplomatic representations of the Holy See. Who would believe in ambassadors alongside the Republic of Andorra or San Marino? Or who would give their representatives precedence in the diplomatic corps? (The customary right of precedence, recognized for the representative of the Holy See in all countries, was sanctioned by the Congress of Vienna (1815)).

COROLLARIES:

1 – The Church possesses “internal and external sovereignty.”

a) Internally: full and supreme power over its subjects.

b) Externally: legal personality in its international relations with other sovereignties.

2 – It possesses this by its “own nature,” not by concession from other authorities. The Church’s sovereignty is recognized, not “authorized.”

Objections – These can be seen proposed and resolved in Cappello, pages 153 and following.

PART II – Solutions to the problem, synthesis of previous studies

Synthesis of previous studies. Man has a natural temporal end, and another supernatural one. Both, by their own nature, cannot be achieved in isolation but in collaboration with their fellow beings within a social organism.

The State is the society that guides man towards the attainment of his natural end. To achieve this objective that is proper and specific to him, it possesses suitable and proportional means in its dual function as an organ of law and assistance. Because of this, in its order, it is a perfect and independent society and, given the social nature of man, necessary.

The Church is the society founded by Christ to lead man to his supernatural end, to his destiny. It possesses all the specific means for this in its triple power of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. It is, in its origin, a perfect and independent society and, by the positive will of Christ, necessary.

LEON XIII, in the Encyclical Immortale Dei: “God has divided the government of the human race into two powers, namely the ecclesiastical and the civil, one indeed divine and the other human, each of them defined by its own nature and proximate purpose; thus, as if in a circle, each action is directed by its own proper right.” Cf. Sapientiae Christianae, §§ Altius et Perfecto. Therefore, the true relations between Church and State require, above all, that the two powers recognize the limits of their competence, imposed by their own nature and the sovereignty of the other.

Chapter I – Solutions that eliminate one of the terms of the relationship.

Erroneous systems that practically tend to eliminate one of the terms of the relationship absorbed in the other:

Absorption of the Church into the State: Caesarism

Absorption of the State into the Church: Hierocracy

Caesarism.

Absorbs the spiritual into the political and aims to transform religion into a branch of civil administration. Under the pretext of unification, it establishes the worst confusions to the detriment of the freedom of consciences.

The ambition of those holding political power always tends towards the unacceptable annexation of the spiritual sphere.

Paganism has always lived in this deplorable confusion. Cesar et potifex.

Many Christian emperors attempted to extend their control over the Church excessively = Caesaropapism.

Protestants handed over spiritual authority to civil power. Cujus régio, ejus religio (cf. Leonel Franca. The Church, the Reformation, and Civilization, p. 255.).

The French Revolution attempted to establish in 1790 a “civil constitution of the clergy”. In our days, totalitarianism – in its dual form of communism and Nazism – is the typical expression of pagan caesarism. The consequences have always been the most disastrous and painful: stagnation of religious life, oppression of consciences, persecutions, violence, oppressions, civil wars.

The refutation of this error has already been made when studying the Church, its origin, nature, and purpose.

In practice, this attitude leads to atheism or pantheism. The State, by the will of the general public, is superior to everything; the source of all law, the origin of all rights; without it, there would be no legally perfect society; human conscience has no inviolable rights; the Church can only exist as a society dependent on the State, recognized by it as having a diminished life under its tolerance.

Denial of God’s rights, atheism; deification of the State, pantheism (attitude of absolute liberalism).

The Church is a perennial defender of freedom of conscience and the spiritual dignity of the individual.

Hierocracy.

Hierocracy is the opposite abuse – the absorption of civil power by religious power. In less developed societies where sentiment is very strong and the principle of the distinction between the two powers is unknown, theocracy often occurs. In more advanced civilizations, hierocracy is found in:

a) Ancient Judaism, where religious power – the synagogue and the Sanhedrin – held political functions.

b) Islam – where the sultan is both pope and emperor, and religious codes have the status of civil laws.

In the Catholic Church, the distinction between the two powers has been proclaimed with clear clarity since the early days of gospel preaching.

In the Middle Ages, there were a few jurists or theologians who, less wisely inspired, advocated for the direct subordination of the State to the Church. JOHN SALISBURY (1180), in the work Polycratius, or On the Marriages of Courtiers, AUGUSTINUS TRIUMPHUS, in Summa de Potestate Ecclesiastica, and a few others taught that since Christ, being by nature the spiritual and temporal sovereign, the Pope, his vicar, was the sole monarch of Christendom. Kings and emperors were only so by his delegation and directly subject to his temporal jurisdiction.

Catholic doctrine consistently denied the direct subordination of the State to the Church and clearly taught the distinction between the two powers.

A. The rational argument is derived:

a) From the nature of the Church. The power of a society is measured by its purpose.

b) From the nature of the State, a perfect society and in its kind supreme.

B. The historical-positive argument highlights:

a) From the positive will of Christ, the founder of the Church: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:21) "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)

b) From the immediate teaching of the apostles: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God…" (Romans 13:1-5) This was during the time of Emperor Nero. For three centuries of persecution, Christians heroically practiced this doctrine without any rebellion.

c) From the teaching and constant practice of the Church. GELASIUS I (492-496) to Emperor Anastasius: "There are, Emperor Augustus, two powers by which this world is mainly ruled: the sacred authority of the Pontiffs and the royal power, both supreme, each in its own sphere, and although they are on a different plane, they coexist without mutual interference." (M. P. L. XIX, 42)

NICOLAS I (856-857) to Emperor Michael: After the coming of Christ, "neither emperor has dared, for Christ Jesus has so distinguished their own actions and dignities by separate functions that one does not encroach upon the other’s domain." (Epist. 86)

LEON XIII (1878-1903) – "Therefore, whatever is sacred in human affairs in any way, whatever embraces civil and political matters for the purpose of salvation, is subject to the civil authority, as Christ has ordered, giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s." (Immortale Dei)

Chapter II – Solution that ignores the relationship. Liberalism. Separation between Church and State.

Exposition.

A. Exposition. The 20th century attempted, through another approach, to solve the problem. Since the two societies are independent and irreducible, they should remain so in relation to each other, in mutual respect and ignorance of each other.

CAVOUR, in the Subalpine Parliament, during the session of March 27, 1861, gave it a resonant formula destined for great success: “Libera Chiesa in libero Stato.”

This was the formula of “moderate liberalism.” Its significance varies greatly. In essence, it implies that the State disregards the Church as a society with its own “public” rights, not minding that it exists as a “private” entity with the rights and privileges recognized by civil law in other corporations.

In practice: the Church is free (“Chiesa libera”) to preach and administer sacraments in temples and in some acts (but not all) of private life of citizens; otherwise, in all its activities, it depends on the State, whose intervention is demanded by its freedom (“Stato libero”) to safeguard all the external order entrusted to it.

This attitude seeks justification by appealing to liberty and equality. All citizens have an equal right to profess the religion of their choice. All religions are good. The State should detach itself from a specific religion; grant all religions, within the bounds of private law, the freedom to exist. Agnosticism and religious indifference from the State; separation of Church and State. Some sincere Catholics, deeply impressed by the abuses of civil power in interpreting concordats that turned their articles into true shackles for the Church, also advocated the separation of Church and State.

The so-called “Catholic liberalism” had its most vivid and brilliant defenders in the group that gathered around LAMENNAIS and founded the journal “Avenir” – under the motto “God and freedom.” The movement was condemned by GREGORY XVI (1832) with the Encyclical “Mirari vos.” One of its supporters, the young Montalembert, later, at the Catholic Congress of Malines (1863), would echo CAVOUR’s formula, proclaiming the principle as well: “L’Eglise libre dans l’Etat libre.”

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, liberalism shifted from the separation between Church and State to the secularization of the State. Secularism removes from the life of the State laws, public administration, armed forces, public education – all ideas and practices of religion. In reality, the secular State becomes an instrument of irreligious propaganda; it separates from the Church to better separate the individual and society from the Church. In this last century, France was the main propagandist and the most painful victim of secularism.

Critique.

B. Critique. The system of absolute separation between Church and State (as a system of “right”) doesn’t solve the problem of relations between the two powers because it is:

a) Inadmissible in theory;

b) Impractical in practice.

Inadmissible in theory:

a) because it would imply a “denial of God’s inalienable rights.” Civil society and authority are obligated to offer God the worship that is due to Him (adoration, thanksgiving, etc.) and, in the case of divine revelation, to recognize and accept it. To claim that the lives and actions of individuals must follow God’s law but to exempt the State from it is implicitly denying God and His omnipotent sovereignty, or rather denying the nature of God (absolute, Necessary) and the nature of the State (contingent being).

b) because, besides being “against nature,” it would also be against the “requirements and convenience of civil society” that the State must protect. The State relies on the morality of individuals and families; without religion, there is no morality.

Impractical in practice.

Absolute separation between Church and State opposes:

a) The “unity and indivisibility of the human person.” The man, subject both to the Church and the State,

is one. Dividing him, like in the judgment of Solomon, is against nature. As a citizen and a politician, a man doesn’t shed, nor can he shed, his religious conscience. This would create painful conflicts in citizens' consciences. The unity of a person requires an absolute unity of purpose; the temporal purpose of man cannot oppose his eternal purpose, nor can his partial destiny fail to be subordinate to his total destiny. Without understanding but with complete separation between the two societies guiding these two ends, contrast will inevitably arise. (Sunday rest)

– It won’t allow him to give to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

b) “The existence of mixed matters,” that is, matters that by their nature relate to the ends of both societies, and thus, both can legislate upon.

The State legislates autonomously in its exclusive sphere: form of government, monarchy or republic, centralization or autonomy, presidentialism or parliamentarism, treaties, commerce, judiciary.

The Church also legislates autonomously in matters that solely depend on it: convening councils, proclaiming dogmas, administering sacraments, organizing discipline, training its ministers, etc.

Between these two clearly defined fields lies an immense area where vital issues that concern both powers are debated. Just remember everything related to Property, Family, Education. Marriage is both a contract and a sacrament. Education must prepare a person for both citizenship and their total destiny. “Mixed matters” can extend to a broader or narrower scope based on the reasons given.

In general, something is considered a “mixed matter” when it refers “simultaneously,” but from different perspectives, to the ends of both societies.

If it refers to these ends “directly and immediately” by its inherent right, it is a “stricto sensu” mixed matter – marriage, school, etc. This relationship can be due to its “own nature” (marriage, school) or “accidentally” (nearly everything, “ratione peccati”; a youth regulation that concerns attendance at Sunday mass, a sports regulation that offends modesty, etc.).

If it only refers to them by “historical” or customary right (concession and agreement), it is a “sensu lato” mixed matter. In the broadest sense, if a matter, “directly” by its nature, only relates to the end of one of the societies, but the other is also interested due to advantages, dangers, or coexistence. The appointment of bishops and parish priests in relation to the State or the appointment of judges and civil officials in relation to the Church.

Conclusion.

In conclusion – due to coexistence in the same territory, by exercising jurisdiction over the same subjects, by the mixed nature of countless legislative objects, the Church and the State, practically, cannot ignore each other. “The Church is not the State; the State is not the Church, but there is a common Good between them that both are collaborators in” (J. RENARD, L’Eglise et la souveraineté, D. C. t. 27 (1932), p. 718)."

Because of this, historically, due to the internal necessity of things, the separation between the two powers, where established, “tends to evolve” either into a regime of persecution or a regime of collaboration.

In many countries in the 20th century, separation was proclaimed with the thinly veiled intention to persecute the Church. Church oppressed in a tyrannical State. Indeed, separation was followed by the confiscation of ecclesiastical assets, expulsion of religious congregations, enforcement laws, etc. This was the case in France (1903), Portugal (1910), Mexico, Spain (1931).

In others, separation was a gesture inspired by political or ideological reasons and was carried out faithfully. This is the case with the United States and Brazil. We will talk about Brazil later.

In the U.S., due to the heterogeneous religious constitution of the people, it is true that the Constitution does not require “religious faith for any public office or position,” nor does it allow Congress to legislate on establishing a religion. But apart from that, it extends legislation to protect all religious denominations so they can live, carry out their activities, and achieve their ends. Official worship exists: Thanksgiving Day is a national holiday, and its great leaders consider Christianity as one of the great political institutions of the great Republic, frequently referring to God, the Gospel, and Christianity in their messages and official acts. (See RUI BARBOSA, Speech at Colégio Anchieta, in “Discursos Acadêmicos,” p. 292-327). Conclusion – The regime of absolute and legal separation between Church and State does not solve the problem. It saves or attempts to save the two terms – Church and State – but isolates them without relating them. It hasn’t grasped the secret of the esse ad da relationship. Regarding de facto separation as a tolerable regime, we’ll say something later.

Chapter III – Solution to the problem.

Ideal solution.

What is the ideal relationship between the Church and the State? What attitude should be naturally deduced from their natures and purposes?

The ideal is that, while respecting the demands of justice and the counsel of prudence, the State should be Catholic where, in its moral unanimity, the people are Catholic. This thesis imposes restrictions:

a) Justice must be respected, protecting the rights of individuals and acquired rights of groups;

b) The counsel of prudence should be considered, not losing sight of the civil powers' purpose, which is to ensure peace and public prosperity;

c) The majority or moral unanimity of the people should profess Catholicism – Mathematical totality is impossible in social matters.

Under these conditions, nothing could be more just:

a) This is God’s will, that nations, like individuals, recognize the fullness of Christ’s truth through their laws and individual and social activities.

b) Civil authority must direct everything toward God, not only because all human actions should be oriented towards God as the ultimate end but also because the head of the State, as such, is Dei minister, who, within their sphere, must guide everything according to God’s will.

c) The law of a nation codifies social truth in all domains; why wouldn’t it codify in the religious domain? Why shouldn’t public actions be aligned with what the people believe in publicly? (Sunday rest, blasphemy). If an entire nation is convinced that Catholicism represents the greater good, both for the individual and society’s salvation, and everything that diminishes its influence or seeks to destroy it represents harm and a step towards anarchy, why shouldn’t this conviction be enshrined in its laws and its legitimate consequences derived from it? The law is the expression of the general will, as stated in the Declaration of the Rights of 1789. The principle is legally false; the general will cannot have the force of law if it is not just. However, in this case, it is just.

One might argue:

1 – There will always be dissenting individuals:

Response: a) There are dissenting individuals concerning all laws and public institutions. There are monarchists in republics; there are dissenters in economic, administrative, military, financial matters, etc. If unanimous agreement were necessary, no law would exist.

b) Justice and prudence would require, without violating consciences, respect for individual rights. Dissenters in religious matters would be tolerated, just as (or even more than) in political matters (monarchists in a republic, etc). Historical abuses, although real and undeniable, do not obscure the clarity of principles.

2 – The State must not have a doctrine to avoid offending citizens' differences.

Response: False. The State must necessarily have and uphold the doctrine essential to its own existence; otherwise, it would move towards its own dissolution. Just because there are university professors who see no difference between good and evil doesn’t mean the State would cease to legislate on evil, permitting or prohibiting what society deems essential for its existence (respect for life, property, monogamy, etc.). The number of truths that constitute the common heritage varies with the degree of spiritual cohesion in society. In a unanimously Catholic society, these truths are part of this social treasure. Thus, the more religiously and spiritually divided a nation is, the more unstable its social cohesion and the more challenging its governance. Religious unity is one of the greatest benefits of a nation.

The union of Church and State is an expression of a normal situation, desired by Providence. Soul and body coming together to form the human being. The benefits that arise from this union are undeniable, both for the Church and the State. Preservation of religious spirit; national unity; closer spiritual communion between the people and their political institutions (public celebration of religious festivals; military forces and religious life).

This is currently the situation in numerous states, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc. “Out of 35 constitutions that establish a link between the State and a religion in principle, 21 establish this link with the Catholic Church, 6 with Islam, 3 with Lutheranism, 2 with Eastern Orthodoxy, and others with various religions” (MEYSTOWICZ, La religion dans les Constitutions des états modernes, Rome, 1938, p. 49).

Tolerable de facto solutions.

However, the Church is the first to recognize that in certain circumstances, the ideal solution might not be possible without potentially causing even greater harm. After the rupture of religious unity in the Christian West, spiritual “families” multiplied to such an extent in certain nations that it is sometimes neither prudent nor achievable to claim a religious monopoly on public freedoms. While error itself has no rights, the consciences that err do have rights. When a nation religiously fragments into incompatible groups, it can be highly impolitic and inconvenient for one group to impose its creed without acknowledging the sincere opinions of its fellow citizens (as seen in the United States). When Catholicism no longer represents the complete truth for most citizens, and many reject, oppose, and fight against it, making it or maintaining it as the official religion may not represent a greater good anymore and could lead to many harms.

In such cases, the Church accepts a regime of practical tolerance (not dogmatic or doctrinal), which might represent a lesser evil. An amicable and respectful separation is then not advocated as a good or right but tolerated as a lesser evil or relative good. This is the distinction between the thesis and the hypothesis.

POPE LEO XIII: “In her maternal outlook, the Church takes into account the overwhelming weight of human weakness and does not ignore the movement that, in our days, affects minds and things. For this reason, even though recognizing rights only where truth and honesty are concerned, she does not oppose the tolerance that the public power deems necessary toward certain things contrary to truth and justice, to prevent a greater evil or to obtain and preserve a greater good. Even God Himself, in His Providence, though infinitely good and all-powerful, permits the existence of certain evils in the world. In the government of States, it is appropriate to limit the One who governs the world” (Encyclical Libertas).

In this case, however, where separation is tolerable, the Church claims a minimum of common rights, indispensable for its life. Without these conditions, separation would be unacceptable. These conditions are:

1st) Recognition of the Church as a society with its rights and privileges.

2nd) Freedom in exercising its legislative, judicial, and executive power.

3rd) Freedom of public and private worship.

4th) The right to religiously educate the youth, especially ecclesiastical education.

5th) The right to acquire, possess, and administer temporal goods.

6th) Freedom of existence for religious orders, without diminishing civil rights for those who embrace them. (Cf. CAPPELLO, Epit. Júris publici ecclesiastici, p. 281).

Chapter IV – Contemporary solutions. The concordat regime.

§1 General notions about concordats.

We move from the world of doctrines to that of institutions. Doctrines reside in the abstract realm of ideas; institutions do not, they delve into the concrete reality of historical contingencies.

In the contemporary world, after the wave of 19th-century liberalism has passed, the relations between the two powers tend increasingly to be regulated through concordats. As we will see in the 20 years that transpired between the two World Wars, the Holy See signed nearly 20 concordat agreements.

Before studying them, let’s establish some general notions about concordats.

Definition – Nominaly, a Concordat – as a participle – is that which is established by mutual consent between two or more parties; substantively, it is the pact itself.

In reality, it is a public and solemn agreement between ecclesiastical and civil authorities that regulates, for the common good, the functions of both parties. It is a consensus of two or more towards the same end. (ULPIAN, 1. D. de pactis.).

The agreement is authoritatively imposed on subjects and, from this perspective, it is a particular ecclesiastical and civil law that must be legitimately promulgated by both powers.

Purpose. Concordats sometimes bring an end to a phase of conflict (Worms, 1122; France, Napoleon, 1801; Italy, 1929); other times, they are a manifestation aimed at consolidating a state of mutual collaboration and benevolence (Poland, 1925; Austria, 1934). It is a treaty of peace or alliance. In any case, its goal is peace, harmony, and collaboration between the two powers.

Form. Regarding the form, historically, concordats have taken three modes of stipulation:

  1. Sometimes, the two powers make simultaneous declarations in separate and complementary documents about the agreed-upon matters. The document from the Supreme Pontiff contains the concessions made by the Church to the State; the document from the civil authority outlines the commitments undertaken by the State in relation to the Church. This was the case with the Concordat of Worms (1122), which resolved the famous Investiture Controversy. In the Praeceptum Henrici V Imperatoris, the emperor renounces the investiture by ring and staff, promises to restore unjustly confiscated ecclesiastical properties, and pledges his support to the Church. In the Privilegium Pontificis, Calixtus II grants the emperor certain prerogatives in the provision of bishoprics, specifically, investiture by scepter after canonical election. (Cf. Raccolta di concordati, p. 18).

  2. Other times, the stipulated articles are presented in reverse letters (official documents containing the complete text of the agreement, exchanged by plenipotentiaries who mutually accept the agreed-upon articles and commit to them). These articles are promulgated in separate documents by both powers. The Roman Pontiff includes them in a Bull or Brief addressed to the faithful of a nation. The Government includes the same articles in a civil law. This less formal form was occasionally used in concordats with non-Catholic princes who wanted to avoid the solemn initial inscription and final signatures where the Pope is attributed the first place. An example is the concordat of 1821 between Pius VII and the King of Prussia.

  3. The most solemn and frequent form of concordats is that of an international treaty or bilateral convention. A single text simultaneously signed by both parties. The preamble solemnly identifies the high contracting parties and the purpose of the agreement; the plenipotentiaries are named, acknowledging their powers; the agreement or the terms of the treaty follow; finally, the signatures of the plenipotentiaries. Subsequently, in separate acts, the ratification, the exchange of instruments, and the promulgation by both powers take place.

This is how all the pre-war concordats were celebrated, except for the modus vivendi with Czechoslovakia, which followed the second form.

Object. The object or subject matter of concordats is generally what concerns both powers in some way, referred to as mixed matters in public ecclesiastical law and already defined and explained. Purely spiritual or purely civil and political matters are not part of concordats. (For a detailed list, see CAPPELLO, p. 383). We will practically study the object of concordats by examining contemporary concordats.

Legal nature. Without delving into minute discussions on this point, which used to be hotly debated among canonists and jurists, we can say that a concordat is a bilateral pact that imposes true obligations on both parties. (The nature of the obligation will adapt to the nature of the object: strict justice in matters of property; fidelity or non-strict right in matters of inalienable divine law).

Concordats are, therefore, akin to international treaties, even though they can’t be entirely equated with them.

a) In terms of form, there is no difference. Treaty text; ratification.

b) In terms of the law governing them, there is also no difference: both are subject to the law of nations.

c) As for obligation, it depends on the subject matter of the articles, which may involve an obligation of commutative justice or fidelity.

d) As for the subject matter, there is a greater difference. In common international treaties, the subject matter concerns two distinct peoples: concordats pertain to the internal public law of one country in relation to its constitutional, civil, or administrative law; they harmonize the free exercise and rights of a faith with a specific social order.

In common treaties, two entirely distinct states with their integral elements – sovereignty, population, and territory – face each other. Concordats are established between two distinct but different sovereign societies that exercise their competence over the same territory and population. (The Pope is not a foreign sovereign anywhere: where there are Catholics, the Roman Pontiff is their spiritual sovereign. Therefore, there’s a formal distinction of sovereignties and competences and a material identity of population and territory. (For this reason, the Nuncio is not entirely comparable to other ambassadors; while the others can’t interfere in internal affairs and only deal with the head of state, the Nuncio usually communicates with the entire national Episcopate).

§2 Contemporary concordats.

Number – Between the two World Wars, the following concordats were concluded:

  • With Latvia (1922); Bavaria (1924); Poland (1925); France (1926); Lithuania (1927); Romania I (1927); Czechoslovakia (1928); Portugal I (1928); Italy (1929); Portugal II (1929); Prussia (1929); Romania II (1932); Baden (1932); Germany (1933); Austria (1933); Ecuador (1937); Portugal III (1940).

In total, 17 concordats with 14 different nations.

Of these different concordat pacts, some "encompass a general systematization of the relations between the Church and the State and, therefore, have the official name of concordats in the strict sense of the word (A.DURÃO)". Others deal only with certain aspects of ecclesiastical policy and are called solemnis coventio, like those with Baden and Prussia, or simply convention or agreement, as the ones signed with France and Portugal, concerning matters unrelated to the metropolises (liturgical matters in the French colonies of the Near East, Patronage of the Indies). With Czechoslovakia, only a modus vivendi was signed, which by its nature has a transient character.

In addition to these concordats signed in the post-war period, others continue to be in force, concluded previously with Switzerland, England (regarding Malta), Colombia, and Haiti. (Cf. A. PERUGINI, Concordata vigentia, Rome, 1934).

Common content – (Concordat common law).

In general, concordats:

a) Recognize the legal personality of the Church, ensure its freedom of action within the limits of its competence, enshrining canonical law that thus reenters the civil legislation of concordat nations and normalizing diplomatic relations between the Holy See and different governments (MIER 200, 201, 202, 203, 205).

b) Provide a legal status for ecclesiastical property, recognizing individuals, associations, and ecclesiastical institutions the full capacity to administer their assets in accordance with the norms prescribed by Canon Law (MIER, 379-385).

c) Recognize ecclesiastical immunities, exempting clergy and religious from military service and certain public offices incompatible with their ecclesiastical status; recognizing the Church’s right to form its clergy; granting total or partial tax exemptions to religious educational and charitable establishments; establishing precautionary measures against scandal in cases of judicial inquiries against clergy and religious (MIER, 256, 258, 260, 262).

d) Regulate matters related to the family and education in more or less accordance with the demands of Christian law for religious freedom and educational justice (MIER, 507, 508, 575-590).

e) Grant the State, in addition to certain privileges (right of regard) in the selection of bishops (their nationality, political orientation, etc.) and in the division of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, broad and selfless collaboration with civil authorities concerning the public good (not in matters of party politics) (MIER, 297-307).

Causes and significance of contemporary concordat law development. A phenomenon of such breadth and far-reaching impact on people’s lives must have deep and universal causes. We can identify these from both the Church’s and the State’s perspectives.

On the part of the Church.

a) Most evident manifestation of its strength and internal vitality. Amidst numerous social and political crises that swept empires and institutions, the Church remains an unswerving center of life, a beacon of superior moral radiance, an impregnable bulwark of civilization. Amid different ideologies threatening to undermine social order, it stands as the uncorrupted guardian of the only doctrine capable of coherently defending human dignity and the fraternal solidarity of the human family. States realize that harmonious collaboration with the Church offers not only a pledge of religious peace but also a guarantee of their own stability.

b) Higher stance of the Church in the face of political differences. The Church, steadfastly following its principles:

1st) Refrains from engaging in internal partisan struggles, except when religious interests and fundamental rights are at stake.

2nd) Remains above changes in political regimes (Spain, Austria, France, etc.).

3rd) Maintained the strictest neutrality during the Great War, which earned Benedict XV the trust and gratitude of all peoples.

In this way, the Church practically demonstrates that it harbors no ambition for temporal sovereignty and that governments have nothing to fear from it regarding their full independence within their spheres of authority. The Church aspires to save people, not to conquer positions in the temporal governance of nations.

c) Increasing external prestige manifested.

1st) Through the powerful diffusion of its doctrinal influence. The pontificates of Leo XIII (encyclicals on social issues, philosophical renewal, political doctrines), Pius X, Benedict XV, and even Pius XI. In contemporary matters, the Church demonstrated its superiority in fulfilling its mission and responsibilities.

2nd) In the recognition by nations of its unique standing in the international sphere. Remarkably, in 1870, the temporal power of the Holy See disappeared; however, the diplomatic corps remained near the Vatican! Italy not only did not protest but, by Article 11 of the Law of Guarantees, recognized its diplomatic immunity. Hence, the number of diplomatic representatives steadily grew, reaching its zenith, 36 (plus 4 diplomatic agents), 12 of whom with the highest rank of embassy (See the list in MIER, p. 196).

3rd) In its prodigious missionary expansion. The conquest of the pagan world – Indigenous clergy – Chinese bishops.

On the part of the State.

a) The failure of liberalism with its policy of religious separation. The liberal state believed it could solve the problem of relations between spiritual and temporal power through separation. However, ignoring or denying a problem is not the method to find a solution. The Church, separated from the State, did not weaken as some liberals thought. The struggle within consciences between citizenship and Catholicism became more acute. The confusion between religion and politics intensified to the great detriment of social and political order. The liberal state turned into a persecuting state. Hence, the unease of consciences, painful internal conflicts, and, often, civil wars. What had been proclaimed under the banner of freedom ended under the banner of violence, with its sad consequences for social order. Cases in France, Portugal, Mexico, and Spain.

b) The recognition of the need for a religious restoration to defend the right to preserve the state itself. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. Liberalism failed to recognize the social importance of religion in ensuring state freedom. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. Liberalism actually undermined its foundations, compromising its unity and purpose. Symptoms of dissolution began to appear in all areas of social domains. Dissolution of the family (divorce, neo-Malthusianism, free love). Dissolution of the economic-social order due to class conflict (instead of collaboration). Dissolution of culture, which loses its essence, which is its meaning, its purpose (reduced to technique, surrendered to the influence of undisciplined instincts, an instrument of moral corruption).

The idea of purpose and destiny was lost. Now, just as individuals, nations are subject to continuous dynamism, a becoming that is their own life. But self-creation without knowledge of the objective is a contradiction. Blood, race, language are causes of individual and social movement; what matters is the ideal that is realized through these. Upon this ideal depends whether a person becomes a hero or a traitor, a saint or a criminal, and for nations, whether they experience fraternal coexistence or a chaos of fratricidal struggles.

In this field prepared by 19th-century liberalism, subversive ideologies like communism and totalitarianism emerged, threatening to destroy the very foundations of civilization.

Thus, through yet another painful experience, we come to the conviction of all great thinkers and statesmen that religion is a social necessity.

Among the ancients, PLATO: “The first in every well-constituted republic is the care for true religion.” “True religion is the basis of the republic… The foundation of all human society crumbles when religion crumbles.” (De legibus, Book II, X).

ARISTOTLE asserts that the care for religion is the state’s first duty (Polit. Book VII, chapter 8, cf. Book VI, chapter 2, chapter 7).

PLUTARCH: “I think it easier to build a city without a foundation than a city without religion, the foundation of society being removed, either society will not unite or will not last.” (Against Colotes, chapter 31).

And so, CICERO, PYTHAGORAS, SOLON, etc.

Among the moderns:

WASHINGTON, in his first address to Congress in 1799: “In the economy of nature, general happiness and prosperity are indissolubly associated as solid rewards to honesty and magnanimity in government. Heaven cannot smile on the nation that disregards the eternal norms of order and right established by heaven itself.” Seven years later, in his famous Farewell Address, the father of the United States condensed his long statesman’s experience: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It would be vain for the patriot to plead patriotism in overthrowing these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The politician must not be less concerned with them than the devout souls. Grant all that may be granted to the influence of an educated mind in gifted individuals; neither reason nor experience leaves us to expect that national morality can be maintained without the support of religious principle.”

RUI BARBOSA, in his famous Oração aos moços (Speech to the Young) on March 29, 1921, in which he summarized the experiences of his soul: “Finally, my dear friends, finally, the last, the best lesson of my experience. Of all that I have seen in the world, it can be summarized in these five words: there is no justice without God.”

CHURCHILL, in his famous speech on world reorganization, delivered on March 21, 1943: “There is one more ingredient which we should never banish from our educational system. Here we have freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. Here we have championed religious freedom. All this has made religion a rock in the life and character of the British people, on which they have built their hopes and poured their cares. This fundamental element should never be removed from our schools… and I am pleased to hear of the enormous progress made by all religious institutions as they rid themselves of sectarianism, while fervently preserving the tenets of their respective creeds.”

Conclusion

From the foregoing, we can conclude:

1°) The bankruptcy agreement regime offers in our days the most acceptable solution and the most widespread (normal solution) to the problem of relations between the Church and the State.

2°) The concordat regime is based on a clearer differentiation of functions and an objective delimitation of competence. All progress is made through a process of division of labor. The State must strive to acquire a clearer awareness of its duties and not solve political problems by creating soul conflicts. The Church increasingly recognizes the specific functions of the State while unswervingly claiming what interests the realm of spiritual life. Mutual respect for sovereignties constitutes a principle of order. The word of Christ is being fulfilled more and more perfectly.

3°) The concordat regime, based on the separation of powers, advocates its loyal and effective collaboration. Instead of disregarding religious order, the State protects and assists it.

Stipulated without ulterior motives and observed with loyalty, the concordat regime:

1°) Ensures social peace, eliminating the unspeakable sufferings of religious oppression and conflicts of conscience. One of the essential purposes of the State. 2°) Ensures the normal conditions of stability and social progress. The specific end of the State is the temporal happiness of man; but man’s total and definitive destiny is another. And temporal happiness cannot be promoted in a way that compromises the definitive and eternal. It would not provide a human solution to the problem. The State, therefore, which has no authority to tell us an authoritative word about supernatural and otherworldly destinies, cannot organize civil society in a way that creates obstacles for the citizen to achieve his ultimate end. Man’s absolute destiny, from its eminence, dominates the entire social and moral problem. “The best possible government is the one that best leads society to its end or that allows it to better walk towards its end or that allows it to walk better to achieve it. But how will you know what is the end of a society of men if you do not know the end of man himself?”… When the destiny of man is ignored, the destiny of society is ignored; when the destiny of society is ignored, society cannot be organized (JOUFFROY, Dixième leçon sur le droit naturel – See the whole passage).

Only those who possess a doctrine about the end of man can speak of morality; only those who have morals can give consciences a rational and effective orientation. To the Church, which presents, with divine credentials, a solution to the problem of destinies, it is incumbent to inspire the path of civilization and progress; it unquestionably has a high influence in the direction of men. It is she who, descending to consciences, prepares, so to speak, governable matter. When religion declines, customs become corrupt; when morality declines, the State declines, enters into crisis, and may come to total ruin. Lesson from philosophy, lesson from history. “Christianity is this pair of wings…” (TAINE). Collaboration between the two powers: an indispensable condition of life and progress.

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)