Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State Message-ID: Date: 20 Aug 90 03:23:43 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 128 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I offer here the traditional Catholic doctrine on the relationship between Jesus Christ and governments. Here is the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Compare this to article 1 of the 1862 Concordat between the Vatican and the Catholic state of Ecuador: The Roman Catholic Apostolic religion will continue to be the only religion of the Republic of Ecuador, and [the State] will always protect all the rights and prerogatives which it ought to enjoy according to the laws of God and canonical dispositions. Consequently there will never be permitted in Ecuador a dissident cult or any society condemned by the Church. The constitutions and concordats of other Catholic countries, like Italy, Ireland, Spain, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, contained similar clauses. The difference in approach is due to a difference in theology. The founding fathers of the U.S. were descendants of the Reformation, while the Ecuadorian concordat was produced by Catholics. Since Catholics believe that our Lord founded the Catholic Church as the sole means for the salvation of men, when they construct a government, this belief naturally plays a large part in framing the laws. The Reformers, on the other hand, did not teach that there was any one particular authority on earth to decide matters of faith and morals, so Protestants founded governments along quite different lines. Catholics see religion playing a vital part in a proper Christian government. Indeed, one of the very purposes of the Incarnation was to teach men what constitutes proper faith and morals, so they could reform their social organisms appropriately. This is called the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, the King. The darling of the present era, and the Western democracies/republics, is Liberalism, which is the following belief: Everyone has the right to believe and do as they please, provided they don't bother anyone else. This is basically what the U.S. constitution is based on, and is the reason why we have such things as abortion and legalized pornography. Strictly speaking, it is both a heresy and a blasphemy. Because, of course, no one has the right to commit sin. Whether the sins that people commit involve "bothering others" at some level is immaterial. No one has a right to commit sin. Liberalism is quite blasphemous, because it sees the basis of human laws in Man, rather than God. When considering a new law, liberal governments consider "how does this affect the rights of men?", rather than "how is this law in accordance with the eternal law of God?". Essentially, Liberalism is an attempt to found true peace and prosperity by resting on Man alone, independent of Christ. Of course, it won't work, as is amply demonstrated by the U.S. problem with abortion, pornorgraphy, drugs, etc. Viewing the present state of this country, I really have to wonder, do the people really believe in God, Hell, etc.? I think not. Just consider the public school system, where God is excluded. What kind of education is it that doesn't teach children about the fundamental realities of life? People who establish such a state of things don't really believe that God exists. Joe Buehler [You are probably right that separate of Church and State is to some extent a result of the fact that Protestants have no authoritative way to settle disagreements. Certainly American history seems to show that at least some religious freedom developed as a practical matter because there were many different beliefs, and we didn't really want to start religious wars on this continent. But that's not the only influence. Both Lutheran and Reformed theology distinguish clearly between spiritual and secular authority. I believe this is because the authority of the State is seen as being related to Law, and Protestants generally interpret Paul as allowing only a rather limited role for Law. The Law -- at least as an external, compulsory discipline, is seen primarily as something not for Christians. Lutheran theology traditionally saw three uses for the Law. Bonhoeffer summarized them as follows: "This primus usus legis concerns the establishment of a disciplina externa et honestas. The secundus usus concerns the knowledge of sins. The tertius usus serves as a rule of conduct for converts and as a punishment for the flesh, which is still alive even in them." He quotes the first part of the Formula of Concord (Ep VI.7): "This both for the penitent and for the impenitent, both for men who are born again and for men who are not born again, the law is and remains one and the same law, namely, the unalterable will of God, and the difference, so far as obedience is concerned, lies solely in the men themselves; for one who has not been born again performs the law as it is required of him, but he does it under compulsion and against his will (as do also those who are born again according to the flesh). The believer, however, without compulsion and willingly, if he has been born again, does what no threat of the law could ever force from him." Consistent with these ideas, government has normally been seen by Protestants as a way of compelling those who are not born again to follow the Law. The purposes are both establishing a civil order, which protects all of us from the actions of those who have not yet voluntarily submitted to God, and the hope that the Law will act as a tutor to Christ, convicting the unsaved of their sin. But the role of compulsion -- which is after all what the State is about -- is limited to Law. It is not responsible for actually saving people. That is grace, and comes from God alone, through the Church. Lutheran tradition uses the term "civil righteousness" to refer to the sort of visible, external order that is the responsibility of the State. In practice both Luther and Calvin thought that the magistrate had a certain responsibility to see to it that the Church was doing its job properly. This led in some cases to what we would now consider an inappropriate confusion of role between the Church and State. But there was always a theoretical separation between the Church and State, which had nothing to do with any practical difficulty of arriving at a single viewpoint. --clh]