p. 3 | The Relation Between the Church and the State

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Feb 18, 1909

The Relation Between the Church and the State

The Roman Catholic Doctrine

ONE direct and valuable result of the discussion which has followed President Roosevelt’s letter on religious liberty is that it has called forth from representatives of the Roman Catholic Church a clear statement of their position on the union of church and state. In the effort to parry the effect of quotations made by Protestants from official utterances of popes who have unqualifiedly condemned the separation of church and state, it has been claimed that these declarations were applicable to Catholic countries in the Old World, but that the position of the church in America, a Protestant country, was quite different. It is therefore of interest to read the statements of representative Roman Catholic teachers who set forth their interpretation of papal bulls and define the position of American Catholics upon the question of the separation of church and state. Our first quotation is from a sermon delivered at Philadelphia by Rev. David Hillhouse Buel, S. J., who declared:—

The Catholic Church has always taught that religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship should be allowed to the sincere and honest of every persuasion, whether Jew or Chinese. But she has also taught that the rebel Catholic, who knew the

truth and rejected it, the man of bad will who acted against his conscience, should be forbidden religious liberty, freedom to worship as he pleased, or say what he pleased, to write or to print what he pleased. This is the meaning of the seventy-ninth proposition condemned in the syllabus of Pope Pius IX.

This statement certainly reveals a unique conception of what constitutes religious liberty. Those who are “sincere and honest” should be allowed “freedom of conscience and freedom of worship,” but the liberty of “the man of bad will” should be restrained. In the application of these principles there must of course be some authority who shall determine whether a man is “sincere and honest,” or whether he is a man “of bad will;” and although it is not so stated in this paragraph, the history of the Roman Catholic Church proves that that body claims this right. What, then, becomes of religious liberty? It is granted or withheld at the discretion of the church, which is only another way of saying that there will be liberty to believe and practise Roman Catholicism.

Another utterance of some significance is made by Rev. Thomas F. Burke, of the Paulist Fathers, who is reported in the New York Times as saying:—

No matter how much the church may advocate the union of church and state where ideal conditions prevail, no matter how much she has insisted upon such a union in other lands and in other times, she has never advocated a union of church and state in America. On the contrary, in her principles and in the writings of her supreme pontiffs, she has ever told the Catholics of America that they should give their entire allegiance to the Constitution of the country, and, if necessary, give their lives in her defense. With conscientious rectitude, therefore, every Catholic does, unequivocally, subscribe to the Constitution.

The real meaning of this explanation of the Roman Catholic attitude should not escape attention. The church advocates “the union of church and state where ideal conditions prevail,” or in other words, where Roman Catholics have control in the affairs of state; and the reason she has never advocated the union of church and state in America is because she does not have the power to bring about a union between the Roman Church and the state, and she does not wish to see a union between the Protestant church and the state. Therefore, according to that principle of expediency which has characterized the history of the papacy, the Roman Catholics in this country can adopt the principle of the separation of church and state with apparent sincerity. If, however, they should at some time in the future realize their present purpose to make America Catholic, they would at once repudiate the principle forced upon them and accepted as a matter of expediency, and would advocate the true papal principle—the union of church and state. Those who are familiar with the history of the papacy can entertain no doubt that this is a correct forecast of the situation.

More authoritative and more clear than either of the declarations already quoted is the statement made by “Very Rev. D. I. McDermott,” in a lecture delivered in Saint Mary’s church, Philadelphia, Dec. 6, 1908. This lecture, which is a reply to the letter of the Lutheran ministers to President Roosevelt, has been printed with the approval of the Catholic censor and Archbishop Ryan. In it the teaching of the popes concerning the union of church and state is thus interpreted:—

In advocating a moral union of church and state, the popes teach that state and church are distinct and supreme, each in its order; but that they are not separated; that they are united just as body and soul, though distinct, are united. That, as the welfare of the body depends largely upon its subjection to reason, so the welfare of the state depends largely upon following the guidance of the church; that, as the uncontrolled appetites of the body would war against the aspirations of the soul, and involve both body and soul in destruction, so would legislation uncontrolled by the law of God, war against the prerogatives of the church and inflict injury upon both state and church; that as the separation of the body from the soul is physical death, so the separation of the state from the church is moral death.

Here we have the papal idea of the relation between church and state clearly defined. With an exhibition of that casuistry for which Roman Catholic reasoners are noted, this lecturer declares that the popes regard the state and church as “distinct and supreme, each in its order,” while at the same time affirming that they are as closely united as body and soul. The illustration used shows just to what extent the church and state are “distinct” in the Catholic mind.

When the position here taken is analyzed, it will appear that the principles advocated are in perfect harmony with the record of the church found in the history of the papacy. Popes have always claimed the right to dictate to kings and princes, and have not hesitated to hurl their anathemas against those who resisted these encroachments upon civil liberty. The principle that “the welfare of the state depends largely upon following the guidance of the church,” when formulated in the light of history, means that the state is wholly subordinate to the church, and is to be administered in harmony with the wishes of popes and prelates. Indeed, the claim is plainly made, in this lecture, that one of the purposes for which the church was established was that she might be a court of final appeal in determining the authority of the state. We quote again:—

As Christ certainly foresaw that it would perplex men at times to distinguish what belongs to the state from what belongs to God, he could not have neglected to establish an authority as competent as himself, to adjust differences, to settle disputes, to hold the balance evenly between the citizen and the country, in judging all questions of conscience. For this purpose, Christ established a church... The church, then, no more than Christ, was to learn from kings, emperors, presidents, or legislatures what is politically right or wrong, whether the laws of men are in violation of the laws of God or not. On the contrary, they were to learn this from the church.

It is hardly to be expected that this Roman Catholic lecturer intended to give an interpretation of that twofold symbol presented to John in vision when he saw “a woman sitting upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.” At the same time this statement of the Roman Catholic view of the proper relation between the church and the state is a complete justification of that interpretation of this symbolic prophecy which makes it a representation of the Roman Church in control of the Roman state.

Comparing now these quotations from the utterances of American Catholics with the official documents issued by the popes, it is clear that the principles maintained are precisely the same, the only difference being that in America the principles are not applied for the very good reason that Roman Catholics are not in control of the affairs of state. If at any time the Roman Catholic idea of the relation between church and state should become dominant in this country, a union of church and state would be inevitable. The proper way to guard against this contingency is to maintain inviolate the Christian and American doctrine of the entire separation of church and state.