In
Chapter 4, Don Pietro turns to consider
the Council’s teaching on the Church and State. He explains how the Church has
a duty not only to Her members, but also to the entire world. Her role in
regard to the State is to guide Kings and governors to promote the best
interests of their citizens, i.e. in the final analysis the attainment of
eternal life in Heaven, such as has been the constant teaching of Holy Mother
Church. Readers will be amazed to learn that an
entirely new political vision was to supplant this teaching, a vision which
originates in Freemasonry and of which the most notable fruits are the Declarations of the French
Revolution and the American Constitution, namely, the total separation of
Church and State. The genius behind this devastating work of destruction was
the American Jesuit, Father John Courtney Murray, who, unbelievably, was the
author of all the speeches of the five bishops calling for these changes. F.R.
The Council and the Eclipse of God
by
Don Pietro Leone
PART XIV
Chapter IV
The Church and The State
The court of
Justinian I, a case of strong cooperation between Church and State. Justinian with clerics (right) and soldiers
(left) (Mosaic Ravenna)
CHAPTER IV: THE CHURCH AND THE STATE
After having considered the
Council’s conciliatory attitude and behavior guide-lines towards the other
Christian denominations in chapter 2 and towards the other Religions in chapter
3, we proceed in the present chapter to examine its greatest and most important
conciliatory act towards these two categories of person, that is its
Declaration on Religious Liberty: Dignitatis
Humanae. We shall subsequently examine the Council’s failure explicitly to
condemn the greatest political evil of the age, namely atheistic Communism. The
chapter will accordingly be divided into the following sections:
A.
Religious Liberty;
B. The Failure to
Condemn Communism.
A.
Religious Liberty
We begin by giving a brief
summary of Catholic doctrine on the Church and the State, and then a brief
historical background to the Council doctrine.
Catholic Doctrine
The Church and the State are
sovereign, each in its own domain. The purpose of the Church is the salvation
and sanctification of man; whereas the purpose of the State is the common good
of its citizens. The common good is, however, not merely natural and temporal,
but also supernatural and eternal. It follows that the separation of Church and
State is an error: rather the Church and the State must collaborate for the
supernatural and eternal good of citizens. This entails that all men and every
state be subjected to the dominion of Christ the King, although no-one may be
coerced into embracing the Catholic Faith.
The principle of the common
good entails that citizens be protected from both moral and religious
falsehood: both from legislation opposed to the objective moral order (such as
the legitimization of abortion), and from the public practice of false
religions and the diffusion of heresy. The same principle of the common good
can, however, in some circumstances, justify the toleration of such errors. It
will of course be possible to protect the citizens from moral and religious
error only in a state where Catholics are in the majority (‘the thesis’); where
they are in the minority, by contrast, the Church will only have the negative
right of exercising the Faith with freedom (‘the antithesis’).
Historical Sketch
The principal Council document
which treats of the relation between Church and State is the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae. It is almost
exclusively the work of Father John Courtney Murray SJ, an American peritus. Formerly maintaining
traditional Catholic social doctrine, he was gradually to abandon it from the
mid-forties onwards, until he was finally to adopt a fully liberal position
some 20 years later in his celebrated article The Problem of Religious Freedom [1],
which would exert ‘considerable
influence upon the formulation’ of the said Declaration [2].
‘By 1955, his unorthodox views had become so blatant that the Holy Office felt
bound to intervene. Father McCormick, his superior, told him that he was to
cease writing on the Church-State issue’, adding, however, that ‘Time will
bring changes.’[3]
Michael Davies remarks: ‘Within ten years…Father Murray was able to celebrate
his triumph with a champagne party after concelebrating Mass with the Pope
himself.’ [4]
Dignitatis Humanae - is almost exclusively the work of Father John
Courtney Murray SJ. (TIME MAGAZINE COVER - December , 12 - 1960)
The Council peritus commented on his triumph:
‘During the Council the schema on religious freedom was often called the
‘American schema’… during the long course of its legislative history, the
schema had the solid and consistent support of the American bishops… the
support derived its basic inspiration from the American experience… the object
and content of the right to religious freedom, as specified both in the
Declaration and in the American constitutional system is identical’ [5].
If he saw as one of the scheme’s merits its conformity to the American
constitution, he saw as another the fact that it aligned ‘the Church firmly and
irrevocably with the movement of the historical consciousness of contemporary
men.’[6]
In the Second Session of the
Council, the Belgian Bishop Emile de Smedt held an impassioned speech,
combining orthodox and heterodox doctrine, which was to arouse thunderous
applause and to assure the support of the overwhelming majority of the Council
Fathers for Father Murray’s thesis on religious liberty. The speech had been
written by Father Murray himself, as had been the previous one delivered by
Cardinal Spellman, together with those by Cardinal Meyer of Chicago, Auxiliary
Bishop Veuillot of Paris, Bishop Mendez Arceo of Cuernavaca, Mexico, and
Cardinal Henriquez of Chile. An important theme in all the speeches was that of
Ecumenism.
1962 PRESS PHOTO RICHARD american CARDINALs, CUSHING, SPELLMAN, MEYER
AND RITTER IN ROME During the second vatican council
After many amendments to the
scheme had been made, it was presented in the Third Session, and attacked by
Cardinals Ottaviani, Ruffini, Browne, Archbishop Lefebvre, and a number of
other prelates opposed to the scheme. Hereupon, 14 liberal Cardinals complained
to Pope Paul VI, who in a spirit of compromise established a consultative
commission from which Archbishop Lefebvre was excluded. The schema that
resulted (the Third Schema) was more liberal than ever and had Father Murray’s
‘consciousness of contemporary man’ as a basic theme; only a fraction of the
second scheme had been retained and almost 500 new lines had been added.
Heterodox doctrine had been added concerning the right to repress heresy in the
external forum [7].
Cardinal
Ottiaviani - opponent of the schema on Religious Liberty
The International Fathers (the
group to which Mgr. Lefebvre belonged) complained that the two days allowed for
the study of the new version was insufficient. The Council Presidency agreed,
which led the Liberal party to pen the following petition to the Pope:
‘Reverently but insistently, more insistently, most insistently (instanter, instantius, instantissime),
we request that the vote on the Declaration on Religious Freedom be allowed to
take place before the end of this Council session, lest the confidence of the
Christian and non-Christian world be lost.’ Father Wiltgen comments: ‘Copies of
the petition passed rapidly from hand to hand. Never had there been such a
furious signing of names, such confusion, such agitation. Never had there been
such wild and harsh words as in this moment of panic when it seemed that a
cherished Council document might be tabled forever’ [8].
The Pope ratified the postponement, and Father Murray stated that he was
‘willing to be quoted’ as being ‘furious’ over the papal action. Protestants
observing the Council from within and without joined in expressing their
indignation.
Cardinal
Ruffini – opponent of the schema on Religious Liberty
The journalist, Xavier Rynne,
explained the reason for the brevity of the period offered for the review of
the schema: ‘In order to get a vote, The Secretariat for unity worked out a
wording designed to attract as many positive votes as possible from the
opposition, with the idea of restoring the watered-down parts to full strength
when the modi [9] were considered in revision. To
forestall action on the part of the opposition, it was deliberately decided to
keep the text under cover until the last possible minute. Unfortunately this
little manoeuvre failed’ [10].
Cardinal
Michael Browne – opponent of the schema on Religious Liberty
A fourth version was proposed
in the Fourth Session. The Americans ‘were more determined than ever to secure
the passage of the document. Almost to a man they made their own the
observation that Father Courtney Murray had uttered many times…: ‘One must have
in mind that it will be the duty of the Council to establish the formula
‘religious freedom’ within the Christian vocabulary…’ ’ [11].
64 Council Fathers spoke. Of
those who opposed the schema Cardinal de Arriba y Castro of Tarragona said:
‘This is probably the most delicate problem of the whole Council with respect to
the faith. We must clearly affirm this basic principle: only the Catholic
Church has the duty and the right to preach the Gospel…The Council must be
careful not to decree the ruin of Catholicism in those countries where it is in
fact the only religion.’ Bishop Velasco of Amoy, China declared: the schema is
totally unacceptable…’; Cardinal Ottaviani stated that only the Catholic Church
has a true, natural, and objective right to liberty because of Her divine
origin and because of Her divine mission.
Cardinal
de Arriba y Castro of Tarragona – opponent of the schema on Religious Liberty
In the course of a forceful
and luminous intervention, Mgr. Lefebvre asked of the theory of religious
liberty: ‘Where, in point of fact, did this conception come into force? …
Clearly it made its appearance among the self-styled philosophers of the 18th
century: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire. In the name of the dignity of human
reason they tried to destroy the Church by causing the massacre of innumerable
bishops, priests, religious and laity… It is in the name of this same
conception, in the name of the dignity of the human person, that the Communists
wish to force all men down to atheism and to justify their persecution of every
religion… [then, referring to the scheme’s proposal to limit religious liberty
only to considerations of public order, he added:] Jesus Christ Himself was
crucified in the name of public order, and, in the name of that same order, all
the martyrs have suffered their tortures. This conception of religious liberty
is that of the Church’s enemies. This very year Yves Masaudon, the Freemason,
published the book: ‘Ecumenism as Seen by a Traditional Freemason’. In it the
author expresses the hope of Freemasons that our Council will solemnly proclaim
religious liberty… ’
Archbishop
Lefebvre - opponent of the schema on
Religious Liberty, delivered a forceful speech during the Fourth Session referring
to the roots of the idea [of religious liberty]as fruit of ‘the self-styled
philosophers of the 18th century: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Voltaire.’
After a large majority
subsequently accepted the scheme, it was subjected to further modifications,
but only in order to improve its structure and clarity. The basis for the right
to religious freedom in both the internal and external forum was ‘now stated
with absolute clarity’, to be the principle of ‘the dignity of the human
person’ [12].
The resultant Fifth Schema
aroused over 600 proposed amendments, after which a Sixth Schema was composed.
This schema added the word ‘recent’ before the word ‘popes’ in the following
sentence that had been added to the end of the Preface by the Fifth Schema: ‘…
in dealing with the question of liberty the sacred council intends to develop
the teaching of popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the
constitutional order of society.’ This addition was made ‘because some Fathers
asserted again and again that the doctrine contradicted the doctrine of the
Popes on religious freedom’ [13].
Before the vote on the Sixth
Schema, the International Group of Fathers made a final suggestion, which, if
accepted, could have achieved an almost unanimous vote in favor of the text,
namely that the criterion for limiting religious freedom should be the common
good and not the preservation of law and order; but the suggestion was refused.
Of 2,216 Fathers 1,954 voted placet
(yes), and 249 non placet (no), and
despite the large number of negative votes, the Pope approved the schema.
Henri
Fesquet – liberal journalist at the Council: ‘Vatican II rang the death-knell
for Scholastic theology ushering in a personalist “existential” theology.”
Henri Fesquet, the best known
liberal journalist at the Council commented: ‘Vatican II rang the death-knell
for a conceptualist, notional, Scholastic type of theology, and ushered in a
personalist, and so to speak ‘existentialist’, theology… Liberty, Equality,,Fraternity. This liberation of Catholic thought,
too long imprisoned in the negative tide of the Counter Reformation, in a way
enables the Church to take up the standard of the French Revolution… this
glorious motto was the quintessence of Vatican II, as Hans Küng has recently
suggested.’[14]
Analysis of Texts
We shall examine Council teaching
in the light of Tradition under the following headings:
1. The Relation
between Church and State;
2. The Right to
Religious Liberty;
3. The Justification
of the Right to Religious Liberty;
4. The Right to
Propagate Error;
5. Christ the King;
6. The Rupture with
Tradition Constituted by the Document Dignitatis
Humanae.
1.
The Relation
between Church and State
i) ‘The political community exists for the common good... The common good
embraces the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable
individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and effective
fulfillment.’ (Gaudium et Spes
74);
ii) ‘There is no better way to establish political life on a truly human
basis than by encouraging an interior sense of justice, of good will, and of
service to the common good…’(GS 73)
iii) It is clear that the political community and public authority are based
on human nature, and therefore that they need to belong to an order established
by God’ (GS 74).
iv) ‘The political community and the Church are autonomous and independent
of each other in their own fields. They are both at the service of the personal
and social vocation of the same individuals… [so as to] develop better co-operation according to the circumstances of place
and time’ (GS 76);
Texts (i), (ii), & (iii)
are correct in presenting the good of the citizens, their common good, as the
end of the State, but incorrect in limiting the common good to the things of
this world such as social life, justice, and the exercise of good will. It is
true that God is mentioned in text (ii), but without specifying Him as the God
of the supernatural realm adored by the Church, to Whom the State is ordered.
Text (iv) is correct in distinguishing the two different domains over which
State and Church are sovereign, but incorrect in silencing their common ground,
namely the eternal good of man.
The texts correspond to the
views set forth by Jacques Maritain in ‘Man and the State’ [15]:
‘… the immediate object of the temporal community is human life with its
natural activities and virtues, and the human common good, not divine life and
the mysteries of grace…’ In short, both the conciliar texts and that of
Maritain ignore the State’s supernatural object, which, if it is not
‘immediate’, is nevertheless ultimate, and therefore primary. The error in
question is, then, that of naturalism.
Concerning the relation between
the Church and the State, Pope Leo XIII declares [16]:
‘Each of them is in its nature supreme. Each has definite limits, within which
it must remain, limits which are determined by its nature and its immediate
purpose’, and yet at the same time both the Church and the State share common
ground in their duty to promote man’s eternal good.
Consequently St. Pius X
condemns the error of limiting [17]:
‘the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life
only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies
itself in no fashion… with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal
happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present
order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme
and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no
obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.’
The malice of texts such as we
have quoted from the Council and from Maritain is that they can be used to
justify the separation of the Church and the State, which St. Pius X describes
in [18]
as ‘a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error’ and which is condemned
as Error 55 in the Syllabus of Bl.
Pius IX, with the words: ‘The Church ought to be separated from the State and
the State from the Church.’
Rather the Church and the
State should be united in a work of close collaboration, as Pope Pius XII declares
[19]:
‘the Church does not hide the fact that she considers such collaboration
normal.’ In such collaboration the Church has the primacy over the state just
as the eternal and supreme good has the primacy over the temporal good. The
Church’s primacy derives from Her divine institution, Her ‘most sublime’ object,
and Her ‘most eminent’ power [20]
which subordinate the state to Her and imposes on the state the positive
obligation of promoting Her final end.
.
[1] cf. Theological Studies XXV, Dec. 1964, MD rl, p.72
[2] MD rl, p. 72.
[3] MD rl, pp. 100-1
[4] MD rl p.101
[5] MD ibid.
[6] MD rl, p.103
[7] see (d) below
[8] Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber,
p.237, MD rl, p.139
[9] suggested amendments
[10] MD rl, p.141
[11] Mgr. Vincent Yzermans, American Participation in the
Second Vatican Council, p.625, MD rl, p. 146
[12] MD rl, p.154
[13] MD rl p.155 quoting Mgr. Pavan in Vorgrimler,
Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (London 1965), p. 61
[14] MD rl, p.160-1
[15] London 1965 pp. 10-11, quoted in MD rl, p. 81. We
recall the confusion reigning during the fabrication of the Novus Ordo Missae, as reported by
Cardinal Antonelli cf. our book ‘The Destruction of the Roman Rite’ op.cit.
[16] Immortale Dei, 13
[17] Vehementer nos (1906) REFERENCE
[18] Vehementer nos, 3
[19] in the address to the Tenth International Congress of
Historical Sciences in Rome in 1955
[20] Immortale Dei 7-11
