An Interesting Discussion by W. W. P.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 29, 1909

An Interesting Discussion

By W. W. P.

Varying Views of Roman Catholics on the Relation Between the Church and the State

THE now famous letter of Theodore Roosevelt to Mr. J. C. Martin concerning the election of a Roman Catholic to the presidency opened the way for a vigorous and continued discussion of the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the proper relation between the church and the state. First came the letter from the members of the Lutheran Church, in which an appeal was made to the authoritative utterances by representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and to the facts of history to sustain the contention that the election of a Roman Catholic to the presidency would be a menace to the liberties of the country, provided he was loyal to the teachings of his church. Notable among the articles which this letter called out was one by Cardinal Gibbons on “The Church and the Republic,” which was published in the March number of the North American Review. We have already referred at some length to this article, and will therefore only quote from it briefly here to indicate the Roman Catholic position as interpreted by the leading American representative of that church:—

The distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical powers is very firmly established in Catholic teaching. . . .

The church, then, holds that the civil government has divine authority, just as has the ecclesiastical; that the limits of each are fixed by the nature of its purpose; that within these limits each power is supreme; consequently, that the church can not intermeddle in matters purely civil, nor the state in affairs purely ecclesiastical; and that members of the church are bound to obey the state, within its own domain, in all things that do not contravene the moral law. . . .

We may put aside, then, as an absurdity, the injurious supposition that the pope would ever interfere in purely civil affairs. But is there not a twilight zone over which both church and state put forth claims? True; and I grant that here a collision of authorities comes more within the horizon of possibility. But the American concept of government and of liberty puts this hypothesis outside the range of practical affairs.

In the May number of the North American Review there appeared a reply to Cardinal Gibbons, written by Rev. William Schoenfeld, of New York, who prepared the letter in behalf of the Lutherans. The real point at issue is clearly stated in this article in these words:—

This is the difference between the cardinal and his church, on the one hand, and ourselves, on the other: he and his church accept separation of church and state merely as a temporary policy, a matter of expediency; we proclaim it to be the only true and right principle, a fundamental principle also of the American Constitution which must be accepted as immutable by all loyal and true American citizens.

The Jesuitical nature of Cardinal Gibbons’s article is clearly pointed out in this statement:—

He [Cardinal Gibbons] tells us, indeed, that the distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical powers is very firmly established in Catholic teaching; but never once does he say aught to the same effect with regard to separation.

In the light of Cardinal Gibbons’s article, it appears to be quite possible to dwell enthusiastically upon the distinction between the church and the state, as recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, while at the same time to hold firmly to the doctrine of such a union of church and state as is illustrated by the union of the soul and the body.

The latest contribution to this illuminating discussion is made by “A Catholic Layman” in the July number of the North American Review. The writer of this article, whose name was doubtless withheld for good reasons, deals with the subject in a spirit of frankness which is manifestly lacking in Cardinal Gibbons’s writing. To give a clear idea of his views, we quote some paragraphs:—

Now what are the grounds upon which they who impugn our loyalty rest their charge that, until the Roman Church frankly changes her doctrine, the admission of Catholics to high offices in the state is a menace to American liberties? The grounds are that the union of church and state is a Catholic principle; that history shows that Rome has approved of religious persecution; and that the doctrine of “papal infallibility would seem to preclude the idea of retraction of dogma or decree;” that Catholics are bound to obey the pope in all things; and, as a make-weight, we are told that the pope maintains his claims to the temporal power against the kingdom of Italy, and desires to be recognized as a great power among the nations. . . .

That the pope does teach the ideal of human society to be the union of church and state no Catholic may deny. It was the only conceivable idea in the Middle Ages; it has been proclaimed by Pius IX, reiterated by Leo XIII, and rejuvenated by Pius X in his recent address to the French episcopate. This, certainly, is not a doctrine that falls sweetly upon the ears of American Catholics. How they regard it may be gathered from the silence in which it is passed over by all ranks of our clergy, a silence which is due not to astute calculation, but to strong attachment to American conditions and principles. True also it is that Rome clings to the vanished temporal power; but what that fact has to do with the loyalty of American Catholics is by no means obvious, and the Protestant synods have not elucidated the connection. Rome does crave to obtain political recognition from the great nations; she would be ready to pay a high price for it; I shall go further and say that I believe Rome has been often ready to pay much too high a price for it. Roman bureaucrats, administrators, and diplomats have more

than once induced the Holy See to buy the support or favor of secular statesmen at a rate incompatible with the best interests of the church and the eternal principles of justice.

With a clearness of perception which is most gratifying, and with a frankness which is most surprising, this Catholic layman deals with the practical side of this whole question in a manner quite in contrast with Cardinal Gibbons’s brief and uncertain treatment of the subject:—

We are familiar in this country with the cleverly drawn congressional bill or franchise grant which contains one little clause, more pregnant than all the rest, running counter to the tenor of the other parts which have been introduced merely to allay suspicion or disarm opposition. In like fashion, one provision of the amended papal doctrine is of a character to justify non-Catholics in asking whether, notwithstanding the admission that the state is supreme and independent, the pope does not still reserve to himself the right to interfere actively in the relations of Catholics, with the national government. And if this question must be answered in the affirmative, it is incumbent on us to convince our fellow citizens that there exists a force which may be counted on to successfully oppose any pernicious action of this sort. His Eminence [Cardinal Gibbons] has strongly insisted that we may subscribe to the fundamental article of English Protestantism that “the pope of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm,” but he is careful to add the very significant qualification, “If it be understood of the realm of purely temporal affairs.” But between the purely spiritual and the purely temporal realm there is “the twilight zone,” where both church and state put forth claims; and the cardinal frankly acknowledges that a conflict here is within the range of possibility. Then he hastily drops the subject, with the observation that the American concept of government puts this hypothesis outside the range of possibility. I share his conviction that the American government will never take any measures that would infringe our religious liberty. The possibility of danger lies elsewhere. The pope holds that, in those affairs which are the common concern of both powers, the state is bound to yield to the church, and that in case of dispute, he, the Vicar of Christ, is the court of final resort to determine the right. Now, to this claim join another co-ordinate doctrine, i. e., that, as the supreme teacher of morals, he possesses the right to decide what line of conduct duty imposes upon Catholics in any given circumstances. A moment’s reflection will show that these two principles in combination may be stretched so as to cover almost the entire civic life of a Catholic. The “twilight zone” embraces, among other things, ecclesiastical property, endowments for charity, wills containing bequests for religious purposes, marriage, the legitimacy of children, provision for the religious needs of the army and navy, and, students of history need not be reminded, the question of the exemption of the clergy from the civil jurisdiction. There are few political questions outside purely economical affairs that do not involve a moral issue. Any war, in the eyes of the pope, touches upon spiritual things if the success of either belligerent, in his judgment, will, anywhere on the globe, entail injury or gain to the world-wide church. In fact, when the enormous sweep of these two claims is fully surveyed, the concession that all purely temporal affairs are outside papal jurisdiction seems to be merely nominal, as far as the Catholic conscience is concerned. If, at any political crisis in any country, Rome should believe it to be her interest to exercise spiritual pressure on the Catholic body, expert canonists and theologians would promptly bring forth an imposing array of arguments and precedents to prove that the occasion required the Holy Father, in the exercise of his office as Supreme Pastor, to explain to his faithful children their duty.

It would be difficult for any Protestant writer to state the case more fairly. As a theoretical principle of expediency, Rome advocates a distinction (not a separation) between the church and the state. As a practical principle of policy, Rome adopts the idea that the church should dominate in all matters which in any way affect the interests of the church, and under cover of the idea of a “twilight zone,” the church reserves the right to extend her sway over the whole field of civil conduct. That Rome does thus assume to control in the affairs of state in the interest of the church is clear from the testimony of both medieval and current history. In support of this assertion we call attention to the letter of Martin V (A. D. 1416–1431), from whose instructions to the king of Poland we quote:—

Know that the interest of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery; they call the people to liberty, that is, to the annihilation of kings and priests! Whilst there is still time, then, turn your forces against Bohemia; burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites.—De Cormenin’s “History of the Popes,” Philadelphia, 1847. Vol. 2, pages 116, 117.

To this may be added a portion of an editorial article in the Western Watchman (Roman Catholic) of July 8, 1909, which reads thus:—

The Liberals in the German Reichstag have surrendered. The combination of all the irreconcilables has been broken. The kaiser is forced to call to his aid the indomitable Center, which for years has calmly looked on and witnessed confusion growing daily worse confounded. The Socialists now form the cloud the size of a man’s hand on the Hohenzollern horizon, and all the other parties are seeking for cover, save the Conservatives and the Center. These two have formed a coalition, and have been called to man the ship of state. Henceforward only such laws will be passed by the Reichstag as will suit the Catholic party, and the greatest Protestant state in Europe must, willy-nilly, take its orders from Rome.

The lack of harmony between these Roman Catholic writers is susceptible of a clear explanation. Cardinal Gibbons represents the hierarchy, the official side of the church, and gives expression to those views which must be maintained by every faithful ally of the pope. The Catholic layman views things from another standpoint, and does not attempt to conceal the actual facts,—facts which are patent to every candid student of history. He declares, however, that “the stick upon which the scarecrow of Vaticanism is constructed is the false idea that Catholics are bound slavishly to obey the pope in everything that he pleases to command,” and he depends upon what he designates as the “lay spirit” as the antidote for papal aggression. In other words, he assumes that the American Catholic would be loyal to the Constitution rather than to papal encyclicals and bulls. This, however, is somewhat uncertain ground.

The latest turn of affairs in the German Reichstag furnishes abundant evidence that the Roman Catholics are seeking political control in every country, and that when such control has been obtained in any country, that country “must, willy-nilly, take its orders from Rome.” This latest example in current history justifies all that has been claimed concerning the election of a Roman Catholic to the presidency.

W. W. P.