Mick is one who has been publicly wrong about this matter and he apologies for his public opposition to this and all the documents of Vatican Two.. Mea Culpa...
2. Comments on the "Christian Constitution of States"
by Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D.
1. (p. 3) THE MORAL AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENTS
The principle laid down in this paragraph is sometimes confused by ignorant persons with the theory of "the divine right of kings." The resemblance between the two doctrines is entirely superficial. In its logical and best known form, the latter doctrine comes down to us from King James I, of England. He maintained that his right to rule was conferred upon him by God directly and positively. That is to say, God did not bestow that power upon the king because the latter was designated by the people, nor because he was the constitutional heir to the throne, nor on account of any other fact, event, or situation. God selected and gave authority to the King (James I and every other king) by direct and positive action, independently of human wills or institutions, just as he chose and empowered Saul to rule over Israel. (See The Political Works of James I. Harvard University Press; 1918.) Hence the king rules by divine right in the complete sense of that phrase. The refutation of this theory, and the statement of the Catholic theory concerning the manner in which moral authority is conferred upon the ruler, are presented in subsequent pages of this volume. In the paragraph that we are discussing, Pope Leo declares that the authority to rule comes from God, indeed, but points out that it arrives by way of nature. It is not conferred by a divine act of supernatural intervention, as asserted by King James. Ruling authority, divinely sanctioned, comes into existence as a necessary consequence of the nature and end of human beings. They cannot live right and reasonable lives without civil society; civil society cannot function effectively without a governing authority; therefore, the latter, just like political society itself, is necessary for human welfare, and consequently sanctioned and ratified by the Creator and Governor the human race. Hence the political ruler has true moral authority to govern, and the citizens or subjects have a moral obligation to obey. The authority and ordinances of the rulers of a State are quite different from the authority and regulations of the president of a literary society or the leader of a whist club. Civil laws are, generally speaking, binding in conscience, for simple reason that they proceed from functionaries who hold power from God, "the Sovereign Ruler of all." Since only God has the authority to impose moral obligation upon human beings, political rulers can enact morally obligatory ordinances only because their authority is derived from Him. In this doctrine the authority of the government and the obligations of the governed are placed far above considerations of mere expediency, of arbitrary caprice, or of physical might.{1} Whether the authority of the political ruler, as thus expounded, may be called a "divine right," is objectively a question of language. In itself the phrase is not inappropriate. Owing, however, to its association with the false and decidedly unpopular theory of James I, it should be avoided and repudiated by all who reject that theory. Moreover, we must remember that the "divine right" to govern, in the explanation of Pope Leo, attaches quite as truly to the president of a republic as to the head of a monarchy.
The principal concern of Pope Leo in this paragraph is not to show precisely how moral authority is conferred upon a ruler or government, but rather to point out the fact and the nature of that authority. For the right ordering of human life it is necessary that civil society should exist, that government should function, and that governmental ordinances should impose moral obligations. That is all that Pope Leo says concerning the manner in which moral authority comes to the ruler. The conditions that are necessary to justify the possession and exercise of political power by any individual or group of individuals, -- whether there must be a popular election or some other manifestation of the will of the people, whether certain constitutional forms must be observed, whether the ruler derives his credentials from a happy concatenation of events, -- are questions that Pope Leo does not touch in this place. Nor does he assert or imply that every actual ruler is legitimate and therefore possessed of moral authority. He merely assumes the case of a government that is legitimately established, and points out the moral character of its authority. His statements are directed against those who would deny the ethical nature of political power, not against any particular theory of the way in which it legitimately reaches the ruler.
2. (p. 3) VARIOUS FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
Two important principles are contained in the first two sentences of this paragraph. None of the three classical forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) nor any of their modifications or combinations, is morally unlawful or unfavorably regarded by the Catholic Church. It is true that many Catholic writers have defended the monarchical as superior to the other forms, but the Church has never officially sanctioned such a view, nor formally expressed a preference for any of the other polities.
The second important principle in this statement of Pope Leo concerns the supreme test of a good form of government. That test is the general welfare. Since this is the end of all government, any form of polity that promotes it in any given circumstance is morally legitimate and reasonable. By implication, therefore, a form of government which is destructive of the general welfare is not legitimate and ought, through lawful means, to be supplanted by some other form which will attain the true end of a political society.
(p. 4) PUBLIC PROFESSION OF RELIGION BY THE STATE
To the present generation this is undoubtedly "a hard saying." The separation of Church and State, which obtains substantially in the majority of countries, is generally understood as forbidding the State to make "a public profession of religion." Nevertheless, the logic of Pope Leo's argument is unassailable. are obliged to worship God, not only as individuals, but also as organized groups. Societies have existence and functions above the existence and functions of their individual members. Therefore, they are dependent upon God for their corporate existence and functions, and as moral persons owe corporate obedience to His laws, formal recognition of His authority, and appropriate acts of worship. To deny these propositions is to maintain the illogical position that man owes God religious worship under only one aspect of his life, in only one department of his life. Since the State is by far the most important of the secular societies to which man belongs, its obligation to recognize and profess religion is considerably greater and stricter than is the case with the lesser societies. And the failure of the State to discharge this obligation produces evil results of corresponding gravity. It exhibits in most extensive proportions the destructive power of bad example.{2}
The logic of Pope Leo's position receives strong confirmation from the attempts that have been made to enforce consistently the opposite theory. In governments which profess absolute neutrality toward religion, the actual policy is one of hostility. This is shown in a hundred ways (some of them open and some quite subtle) in the recent history of France, and of some of the countries south of the United States. Such a policy is logically defensible on no theory except Atheism. It is conceivable that a State might explicitly adopt the opinion that there is no God, and therefore prohibit divine worship as injurious to the public welfare. The practice of repression would follow logically from the theoretical position. But the persecuting governments to which reference has just been made, have not had the courage, or the hardihood, to support their practical policy by a frank avowal of the corresponding theory. As a consequence, they exhibit a contradiction between theory and practice, and demonstrate the impossibility and unveracity of the theory of neutrality.
The State cannot avoid taking an attitude toward religion. In practice that attitude will necessarily be positive, either for or against. There can be no such actual policy as impartial indifference.
This proposition receives further confirmation from the attitude of those States which refrain from any formal acceptance of religion in theory, and yet accord it some measure of recognition in practice. The policy of the United States is the most conspicuous and significant. Our Federal and State constitutions forbid the legal establishment of any form of religion, thereby ensuring the separation of Church and State, and apparently making inevitable a policy of neutrality or indifference. Nevertheless, our Federal and State governments have never adopted such a policy. Their attitude has been one of positive friendliness toward religion. Some of the manifestations and expressions of this policy are: The appointment of an annual day of public thanksgiving by the President of the United States and the Governors of the several States; the empoyment of chaplains to open with prayer the sessions of the National and State legislatures; the provision of chaplains for the Army and Navy; the exemption of church property from taxation; the general policy of promoting the interests of religion, and many other acts and practices, for example, the recent action of the school board of New York City in placing the school buildings at the disposal of the various denominations for the purpose of giving religious instruction.
These institutions and practices are in fact what Pope Leo "a public profession of religion." As compared with the degree of recognition accorded in a formal union of Church and State, they are, indeed, feeble and inconspicuous. Nevertheless they do exemplify the principle. "The public profession of religion," is susceptible of very many forms and degrees, from the adoption, support, and toleration of only one creed, to the slight manifestations of recognition shown by countries which do not go even as far as the United States.
It is not here contended that the latter kind of attitude is normal or desirable in the abstract. The point to be kept in mind is that the principle laid down by Pope Leo is not to be contrasted with the policy of separation of Church and State. His principle is directly and universally opposed only to a policy of specious neutrality, which in practice is always a policy of hostility. To assume that "the public profession of religion" always calls for something radically different from the arrangement obtaining in the United States is to be guilty of confused thinking and to ignore important facts of experience.
4. (p. 4) ATTITUDE OF THE STATE TOWARD THE CHURCH
But Pope Leo goes further. He declares that the State must not only "have care for religion," but recognize the true religion. This means the form of religion professed by the Catholic Church. It is a thoroughly logical position. If the State is under moral compulsion to profess and promote religion, it is obviously obliged to profess and promote only the religion that is true; for no individual, no group of individuals, no society, no State is justified in supporting error or in according to error the same recognition as to truth.{3}
Those who deny this principle may practically all be included within three classes: First, those who hold that truth will by its own power speedily overcome error, and that the State should consequently assume an attitude of impartiality toward both; second, those who assume that all forms of religion are equally good and true; third, those who hold that it is impossible to know which is the true one. The first theory is contradicted and refuted by the persistence of a hundred errors side by side with truth for centuries. In the long run and with sufficient enlightenment, truth will be sufficiently mighty to prevail by its own force and momentum, but its victory can be greatly hastened by judicious assistance from the State and, indeed, from every other kind of organized social power. The successful opposition of the Church to the Protestant Reformation in those countries where the Church had the sympathy and assistance of the State, is but one of a vast number of historical illustrations. Against the theory that all forms of religion are equally sound, it is sufficient to cite the principle of contradiction; two contradictory propositions cannot be true, any more than yes can be identified with no. Finally, it is not impossible to know which religion is the right one, inasmuch as the Church of Christ comes before men with credentials sufficient to convince all those who will deliberately examine the evidence with a will to believe. The argument and the proofs are summarized by Pope Leo in the paragraphs immediately following the one now under consideration. Such is the objective logic of the situation. In a particular case the public authorities can reject and frequently have rejected the evidence for the divinity of the Catholic Church.
It is not of such rulers or such States that Pope Leo is speaking in this part of the encyclical. The principle that he is here defending has complete and unconditional application only to Catholic States. Between these and the Catholic Church the normal relation is that of formal agreement and mutual support; in other words what is generally known as the union of the Church and State. In his encyclical on "Catholicity in the United States," the same Pope gave generous praise to the attitude of our government and laws toward religion, but immediately added: "Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church, to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of public authority." Occasionally some Catholics are found who reject this doctrine on the ground that alliances between Church and State have done more harm than good. Space is wanting here for an adequate discussion and refutation of this contention. Nor is a formal criticism necessary. Men who take this position are engaging in what the logicians call "the fallacy of the particular instance." Because they find some forms of union between Church and State working badly in some countries for certain periods of time, they rush to the conclusion that all are bad, at all times, in all countries. An adequate evaluation of the arrangement, a judicious weighing of the good effects against the bad effects, supposes a knowledge of history far more comprehensive than is possessed by any of these critics. Men who lack this knowledge ought to show a becoming modesty and hesitancy in making any general pronouncement on the complex effects of this policy.
One observation may be made which is calculated to prevent much misconception and false reasoning on this subject. It is that the principle of union between Church and State is not necessarily dependent upon any particular form of union that has actually been in operation. When men condemn the principle because they see that State support of the clergy, or State nomination of bishops, has in certain cases been harmful to the Church, they are laboring under a false assumption. Neither of these particular arrangements is required by the principle. Other critics identify the principle with the particular application of it that obtained in the Middle Ages. This assumption is likewise illogical and incorrect. The distinguished German theologian, Father Pohle, writes thus: "The intimate connection of both powers during the Middle Ages was only a passing and temporary phenomenon, arising neither from the essential nature of the State nor from that of the Church."{4} In the same article, he points out three grave evil results of this intimate connection; namely, excessive meddling by ecclesiastical authorities in political affairs, conflicts between the two powers which produced diminished popular respect for both, and "the danger that the clergy, trusting blindly to the interference of the secular arm in their behalf, may easily sink into dull resignation and spiritual torpor, while the laity, owing to the religious surveillance of the State, may develop rather into a race of religious hypocrites and pietists than into inwardly convinced Christians." All that is essentially comprised in the union of Church and State can be thus formulated: The State should officially recognize the Catholic religion as the religion of the commonwealth; accordingly it should invite the blessing and the ceremonial participation of the Church for certain important public functions, as the opening of legislative sessions, the erection of public buildings, etc., and delegate its officials to attend certain of the more important festival celebrations of the Church; it should recognize and sanction the laws of the Church; and it should protect the rights of the Church, and the religious as well as the other rights of the Church's members.
Does State recognition of the Catholic religion necessarily imply that no other religion should be tolerated? Much depends upon circumstances and much depends upon what is meant by toleration. Neither unbaptized persons nor those born into a non-Catholic sect, should ever he coerced into the Catholic Church. This would be fundamentally irrational, for belief depends upon the will and the will is not subject to physical compulsion. Should such persons be permitted to practice their own form of worship? If these are carried on within the family, or in such an inconspicuous manner as to be an occasion neither of scandal nor of perversion to the faithful, they may properly be tolerated by the State. At least, this is the approved Catholic doctrine concerning the religious rites of the non-baptized. Only those religious practices of unbelievers which are contrary to the natural law, such as idolatry, human sacrifice and debauchery should be repressed.{5} The best indication of the Church's attitude on this question is the toleration and protection accorded all through the Middle Ages to Judaism and Jewish worship by the Popes in their capacity of civil rulers of the Papal States. The same principle regarding freedom of worship seems fairly applicable to baptized persons who were born into a non-Catholic sect. For their participation in false worship does not necessarily imply a wilful affront to the true Church nor a menace to public order or social welfare. In a Catholic State which protects and favors the Catholic religion and whose citizens are in great majority adherents of the true faith, the religious performances of an insignificant and ostracized sect will constitute neither a scandal nor an occasion of perversion to Catholics. Hence there exists no sufficient reason to justify the State in restricting the liberty of individuals.
Quite distinct from the performance of false religious worship and preaching to the members of the erring sect, is the propagation of the false doctrine among Catholics. This could become a source of injury, a positive menace, to the religious welfare of true believers. Against such an evil they have a right of protection by the Catholic State. On the one hand, this propaganda is harmful to the citizens and contrary to public welfare. On the other hand, it is not among the natural rights of the propagandists. Rights are merely means to rational ends. Since no rational end is promoted by the dissemination of false doctrine, there exists no right to indulge in this practice. The fact that the individual may in good faith think that his false religion is true gives no more right to propagate it than the sincerity of the alien anarchist entitles him to advocate his abominable political theories in the United States, or than the perverted ethical notions of the dealer in obscene literature confer upon him a right to corrupt the morals of the community. No State could endure on the basis of the theory that the citizen must always be accorded the prerogative of doing whatever he thinks right. Now the actions of preaching and writing are at once capable of becoming quite as injurious to the community as any other actions and quite as subject to rational restraint.{6} Superficial champions of religious liberty will promptly and indignantly denounce the foregoing propositions as the essence of intolerance. They are intolerant, but not therefore unreasonable. Error has not the same rights as truth. Since the profession and practice of error are contrary to human welfare, how can error have rights? How can the voluntary toleration of error be justified? As we have already pointed out, the men who defend the principle of toleration for all varieties of religious opinion, assume either that all religions are equally true or that the true cannot be distinguished from the false. On no other ground is it logically possible to accept the theory of indiscriminate and universal toleration.
To the objection that the foregoing argument can be turned against Catholics by a non-Catholic State, there are two replies. First, if such a State should prohibit Catholic worship or preaching on the plea that it was wrong and injurious to the community, the assumption would be false; therefore, the two cases are not parallel. Second, a Protestant State could not logically take such an attitude (although many of them did so in former centuries) because no Protestant sect claims to be infallible. Besides, the Protestant principle of private judgment logically implies that Catholics may be right in their religious convictions, and that they have a right to hold and preach them without molestation.
Such in its ultimate rigor and complete implications is the Catholic position concerning the alliance that should exist between the Church and a Catholic State. While its doctrinal premises will be rejected by convinced non-Catholics, its logic cannot be denied by anyone who accepts the unity of religious truth. If there is only one true religion, and if its possession is the most important good in life for States as well as individuals, then the public profession, protection, and promotion of this religion and the legal prohibition of all direct assaults upon it, becomes one of the most obvious and fundamental duties of the State. For it is the business of the State to safeguard and promote human welfare in all departments of life. In the words of Pope Leo, "civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the well-being of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek."{7}
In practice, however, the foregoing propositions have full application only to the completely Catholic State. This means a political community that is either exclusively, or almost exclusively made up of Catholics, In the opinion of Father Pohle, "there is good reason to doubt if there still exists a purely Catholic State in the world." The propositions of Pope Pius IX condemning the toleration of non-Catholic sects do not now, says Father Pohle, "apply even to Spain or the South American republics, to say nothing of countries possessing a greatly mixed population." He lays down the following general rule: "When several religions have firmly established themselves and taken root in the same territory, nothing else remains for the State than either to exercise tolerance towards them all, or, as conditions exist today, to make complete religious liberty for individuals and religious bodies a principle of government."{8} Father Moulart makes substantially the same statement: "In a word, it is necessary to extend political toleration to dissenting sects which exist in virtue of a fact historically accomplished."{9} The reasons which justify this complete religious liberty fall under two heads: First, rational expediency, inasmuch as the attempt to proscribe or hamper the peaceful activities of established religious groups would be productive of more harm than good; second, the positive provisions of religious liberty found in the constitutions of most modern States. To quote Father Pohle once more: "If religious freedom has been accepted and sworn to as a fundamental law in a constitution, the obligation to show this tolerance is binding in conscience." The principle of tolerance, he continues, cannot be disregarded even by Catholic States "without violation of oaths and loyalty, and without violent internal convulsions."{10} But constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. While all this is very true in logic and in theory, the event of its practical realization in any State or country is so remote in time and in probability that no practical man will let it disturb his equanimity or affect his attitude toward those who differ from him in religious faith. It is true, indeed, that some zealots and bigots will continue to attack the Church because they fear that some five thousand years hence the United States may become overwhelmingly Catholic and may then restrict the freedom of non-Catholic denominations. Nevertheless, we cannot yield up the principles of eternal and unchangeable truth in order to avoid the enmity of such unreasonable persons. Moreover, it would be a futile policy; for they would not think us sincere.
Therefore, we shall continue to profess the true principles of the relations between Church and State, confident that the great majority of our fellow citizens will be sufficiently honorable to respect our devotion to truth, and sufficiently realistic to see that the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Check with your doctor