 |
 |
 |
 |
Q: What is the Catholic Church's position on the separation of Church and State, and where should the line be drawn to prevent a majority from abusing a minority? What are the responsibilities of a Catholic politician?
– Paul
Dear Paul:
The issue of 'separation of Church and State' is often raised whenever the Church speaks out on moral issues, especially those issues where Church views differ from those of the government. This has happened in Canada recently over same-sex "marriage." When the Church speaks out against war, or against capital punishment, however, taking positions very close to those of the government, the 'separation of Church and State' argument seems strangely absent. In other words, the issue of separation is raised quite selectively. The matter becomes even trickier when it is a Catholic politician introducing laws contrary to Church teaching, such as in 1969 when former Prime Minister Trudeau legalized abortion, something the Church regards as "an unspeakable evil."
The story of Church/State relations is a long one, so it can only be touched on briefly here. It goes back as far as ancient times, when rulers exercised not only temporal power, but also were entrusted with making laws governing religious conduct. From time to time the early Church suffered persecution at the hands of the Roman authorities, who sometimes saw the allegiance of Christians to 'another king' as a threat to the State. The persecutions ended with Emperor Constantine, who introduced freedom of religion throughout the Roman Empire in 313 A.D. Constantine took a positive interest in Christianity, actually summoning two Church councils in order to deal with heresy, which illustrates the close relationship between Church and State during this period. Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, there were various struggles between Church and State over areas of jurisdiction. There were some who believed kings and emperors should control both Church and State, while others believed that Popes should have a large say in the affairs of state.
Following the Reformation, the issue came again to the fore when the Protestant leader John Calvin set up a virtual 'theocracy' in Geneva. A theocracy is a form of government where religious law is applied to state policy, such as happens today in certain Islamic countries. In Calvin's Geneva, church leaders made up the town council and filled the posts on the local courts. In England, King Henry VIII severed the Catholic Church in England from Rome, and declared himself Supreme Head of the new Church of England. Even today Queen Elizabeth is regarded as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The early settlers in the United States, who came from England and other parts of Europe, were anxious to have their religious rights protected, rather than be subject to any form of state-sponsored religion. It is worth noting, then, that the United States' First Amendment, the legislation covering Church/State relations, was designed to protect and enhance religious freedoms, not to curtail them. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment was partly an attempt to "prevent a majority from abusing a minority", as you put it, but subsequent court decisions resulted in it being cited to keep religion out of public institutions.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian Constitution (formerly The British North America Act, 1867), similarly refers to religious freedom: "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law....2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion." It is interesting to note that the preamble makes reference to 'the supremacy of God', not something we hear mentioned much in the various debates on Church and State. In addition, certain religious education guarantees, such as the right to denominational schools, were provided in the Canadian Constitution, but some of those guarantees have subsequently been removed by amendments. In the 1990s, for example, the federal government acceded to requests from the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec, and passed amendments to the Canadian Constitution which removed the right of those provinces to operate denominational schools.
Sacred Scripture tells us how Jesus himself responded to the Church/State dilemma when asked by the Pharisees if it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar. Jesus replied: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:18) In other words, it is our duty to support our government in all temporal matters, but when it comes to matters of faith and morals, for the faithful Catholic, the Church's teachings take precedence.
It is worth noting that Jesus, in his reference to God and Caesar, was not speaking of the relationship between Church and State, but of our relationship, as individuals, to Church and State, and of our subsequent responsibilities. Nor was his instruction intended solely for one group of people, such as politicians, but for all of us no matter what our position in life.
In similar fashion, the Church reminds all of the faithful (Gaudium et Spes, 1965) that they are "citizens of two cities," and directs them "to strive to discharge their earthly duties conscientiously and in response to the Gospel spirit."
"The Christian who neglects his temporal duties, neglects his duties toward his neighbor and even God, and jeopardizes his eternal salvation. Christians should rather rejoice that, following the example of Christ who worked as an artisan, they are free to give proper exercise to all their earthly activities and to their humane, domestic, professional, social and technical enterprises by gathering them into one vital synthesis with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are harmonized unto God's glory."
So the Church urges us to serve the State using all our talents, while never forgetting our duty to God and the Church. In this sense, there is no separation between Church and State, in that the Church acts in the world through the involvement of the faithful. At the same time, the Church recognizes that Church and State "in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other."
This is what the Church was doing, exercising her autonomy and independence, when she addressed the Catholic faithful on the subject of same-sex "marriage."
In March, 2003, our present Pope Benedict XVI, while acting as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a document titled, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons", which makes clear the responsibilities of Catholic politicians when faced with legislation which runs counter to Church teaching. Here is part of what he wrote:
"When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."
This statement is clear and unequivocal, but as you may be aware, several Catholic politicians have chosen to ignore the Church's teachings and support--and in some cases actually promote—both, same-sex 'marriage' laws and, what they euphemistically refer to as, "a woman's right to choose."
How do they justify their actions? Here is what Prime Minister Trudeau said when he introduced abortion to Canada:
"The problem of trying to render synonymous law and morality is that we then come down to the question: Whose morality? Whose standards of behaviour? Whose sense of morality?… In a pluralistic society there may be different standards, differing attitudes, and the law cannot reflect them all. Public order, in this situation of a pluralist society, cannot substitute for private conduct. We believe that morality is a matter for private conscience. Criminal law should reflect the public order only (Hansard, Jan. 21, 1969)."
Other Catholic politicians since have used similar arguments, namely, that it is unfair to 'impose' Catholic morality, or the morality of any one group, upon the entire nation. Those politicians, though, seem to forget that in a democracy one cannot actually 'impose' anything on the electorate that they do not want to accept--at least, not without political consequences at the ballot box. All that is required of the Catholic politician is that he make the case--"express his opposition clearly and publicly" as His Holiness put it, and to vote accordingly. Not to do so, he adds, "is gravely immoral."
In the eventuality that an immoral law is passed by the legislature despite his opposition, the duty of the Catholic politician does not end there, says the Pope. The politician must continue to make his opposition known, and if possible, support any measures "aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences."
So as you can see, Catholic politicians have a grave responsibility, and many of them carry it out faithfully. Those who do not do so endanger their own faith and the faith of others as well as permit untold damage through the enactment of immoral laws. Some Catholics among both the clergy and laity feel the Church should impose censures on such people--denial of Holy Communion, for example. 'Church censures' is a subject too difficult for us to explore right now, but you will find an extensive explanation in the most recent VEYO parish insert, which is also posted on our website.
God bless,
Father Norbert