Is Benedict XVI contradicting Pius X & Leo XIII?

[brendan1104]

Benedict XVI described the separation of the Church and state as "great progress for humanity."...

"The Church not only recognizes and respects this distinction and autonomy, but welcomes it, considering it great progress for humanity and a fundamental condition for her very freedom and for the fulfillment of its universal mission of salvation among all peoples," Benedict XVI continued.

Moreover, Benedict explained that "without doubt, a healthy laicism of the state ensures that temporal matters are dealt with according to their own norms; to this, however, are associated ethical concerns that have their foundations in the very essence of man and that therefore, in the final analysis, can be traced back to the Creator." - from [url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=89360"]Zenit[/url].

[quote]"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. . . . Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State."[/quote]- Pope St. Pius X, [i]Vehementer Nos[/i]

[quote]"As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. . . . So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule."[/quote] -Pope Leo XIII, [i]Immortale Dei[/i]

Edited May 31, 2006 by brendan1104

[qfnol31]

But what about France?

Separation of Church and state was actually regarded as good by one Pope a while back...I don't remember who said that.

[Franimus]

I don't think this pertains to faith or morals.. So I think it's fine that they disagree.

Edit: It's really ironic (or hypocritical) that Pope Benedict would agree with separation of Church and State, since he's the ruler of Vatican City, an officially recognized State.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Franimus

[dairygirl4u2c]

It could also be that they are not contradicting. If Benedict is referring to "religious freedom", a Catholic principle which you can look up, and the older pope is referring to how laws are based on religious beliefs, then there's no conflict. Those are very abstract statements above. As to the actual intent, who knows. This is how doctrine is either construed not to be contradictory or is how doctrine legitimately develops. More writings etc are needed to ascertain the intent of both popes that the meager quotes above.

[Oik]

[quote]35. From these pronouncements of the Popes it is evident that the origin of public power is to be sought for in God Himself, and not in the multitude, and that it is repugnant to reason to allow free scope for sedition. Again, that it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favour different kinds of religion; that the unrestrained freedom of thinking and of openly making known one's thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens, and is by no means to be reckoned worthy of favour and support. In like manner it is to be understood that the Church no less than the State itself is a society perfect in its own nature and its own right, and that those who exercise sovereignty ought not so to act as to compel the Church to become subservient or subject to them, or to hamper her liberty in the management of her own affairs, or to despoil her in any way of the other privileges conferred upon her by Jesus Christ. [b]In matters, however, of mixed jurisdiction, it is in the highest degree consonant to nature, as also to the designs of God, that so far from one of the powers separating itself from the other, or still less coming into conflict with it, complete harmony, such as is suited to the end for which each power exists, should be preserved between them.

36. This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State. By the words and decrees just cited, if judged dispassionately, no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anything contrary to Catholic doctrine, and all of them are capable, if wisely and justly managed, to insure the welfare of the State.[/b] Neither is it blameworthy in itself, in any manner, for the people to have a share greater or less, in the government: for at certain times, and under certain laws, such participation may not only be of benefit to the citizens, but may even be of obligation. Nor is there any reason why any one should accuse the Church of being wanting in gentleness of action or largeness of view, or of being opposed to real and lawful liberty. The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will."[/quote]

-[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html"]Pope Leo XII Encyclical Immortale Dei[/url]
[Bold added]


[quote]3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits 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 (on the plea that this is foreign to it) 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 same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul. - Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur."He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. - Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."[1]

4. And if it is true that any Christian State does something eminently disastrous and reprehensible in separating itself from the Church, how much more deplorable is it that France, of all nations in the world, would have entered on this policy; France which has been during the course of centuries the object of such great and special predilection on the part of the Apostolic See whose fortunes and glories have ever been closely bound up with the practice of Christian virtue and respect for religion. Leo XIII had truly good reason to say: "France cannot forget that Providence has united its destiny with the Holy See by ties too strong and too old that she should ever wish to break them. And it is this union that has been the source of her real greatness and her purest glories.... To disturb this traditional union would be to deprive the nation of part of her moral force and great influence in the world."[2]

5. And the ties that consecrated this union should have been doubly inviolable from the fact that they were sanctioned by sworn treaties. The Concordat entered upon by the Sovereign Pontiff and the French Government was, like all treaties of the same kind concluded between States, a bilateral contract binding on both parties to it. The Roman Pontiff on the one side and the Head of the French Nation on the other solemnly stipulated both for themselves and their successors to maintain inviolate the pact they signed. Hence the same rule applied to the Concordat as to all international treaties, viz., the law of nations which prescribes that it could not be in any way annulled by one alone of the contracting parties. The Holy See has always observed with scrupulous fidelity the engagements it has made, and it has always required the same fidelity from the State. This is a truth which no impartial judge can deny. Yet today the State, by its sole authority, abrogates the solemn pact it signed. Thus it violates its sworn promise. To break with the Church, to free itself from her friendship, it has stopped at nothing, and has not hesitated to outrage the Apostolic See by this violation of the law of nations, and to disturb the social and political order itself - for the reciprocal security of nations in their relations with one another depends mainly on the inviolable fidelity and the sacred respect with which they observe their treaties.

6. The extent of the injury inflicted on the Apostolic See by the unilateral abrogation of the Concordat is notably aggravated by the manner in which the State has effected this abrogation. It is a principle admitted without controversy, and universally observed by all nations, that the breaking of a treaty should be previously and regularly notified, in a clear and explicit manner, to the other contracting party by the one which intends to put an end to the treaty. Yet not only has no notification of this kind been made to the Holy See, but no indication whatever on the subject has been conveyed to it. Thus the French Government has not hesitated to treat the Apostolic See without ordinary respect and without the courtesy that is never omitted even in dealing with the smallest States. Its officials, representatives though they were of a Catholic nation, have heaped contempt on the dignity and power of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Supreme Head of the Church, whereas they should have shown more respect to this power than to any other political power - and a respect all the greater from the fact that the Holy See is concerned with the eternal welfare of souls, and that its mission extends everywhere.

7. If We now proceed to examine in itself the law that has just been promulgated, We find, therein, fresh reason for protesting still more energetically. When the State broke the links of the Concordat, and separated itself from the Church, it ought, as a natural consequence, to have left her independence, and allowed her to enjoy peacefully that liberty, granted by the common law, which it pretended to assign to her. Nothing of the kind has been done. We recognize in the law many exceptional and odiously restrictive provisions, the effect of which is to place the Church under the domination of the civil power. It has been a source of bitter grief to Us to see the State thus encroach on matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church; and We bewail this all the more from the fact that the State, dead to all sense of equity and justice, has thereby created for the Church of France a situation grievous, crushing, and oppressive of her most sacred rights.
[/quote]

-[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos_en.html"]Pope Saint Pius X Encyclical Vehementer nos[/url]


Pope Saint Pius X Encyclical's full title is:
Vehementer Nos
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE FRENCH LAW OF SEPARATION

Pope Saint Pius X was addressing a specific issue in France at the time and only very loosely a general idea of Separation of Church and state. Pope Benedict XVI is of course addressing a more modern and general idea.

A reading through both previous Pope's encyclical provides a good context for Pope Benedict's reflection and reaffrimation of the responsibility of the Church and the state, both individually and also jointly.

[Jnorm888]

brendan1104,




Was the Roman Church always one with the state?


For the first three hundred years most of the Christian Churches were separate from the state.



Rome has a two thousand year history. What makes you think that she must abide by the sayings of a few Roman Bishops from the last 500 hundred plus years? She got a two thousand year line of sayings from Roman Bishops to pick and choose from.




What makes you think Benedict XVI is bound by the views about the State and Church of Pius X & Leo XIII?



Is not the Roman Church free to change her relationship with the state?

Is not the Roman Church above the state?










INLOVE Jnorm


I am a Protestant saying all this and even I can see that it is ok for a Church not to be bound by the State. Especially when the Church was free from it for the first three hundred years.



I am not talking about Vatican city.

Edited June 1, 2006 by jnorm888

[Winchester]

I should like a link to the letter, since I see nothing in Bene's words indicating we are speaking of separation of church and state, but rather a lack of theocracy and a freedom to choose a religion, a freedom for religions to operate within a state.

I should also wish to know the context of his statements, whether they be a speech or an encyclical or bull, etc.

[Desert Walker]

It is absolutely IMPERATIVE that ALL religions be SCRUPULOUSLY barred from unduly influencing government policy.

The Founders set it up that way when they said "Congress shall make no law favoring one particular religion" (paraphrase).

The highly unfortunate thing is this: Freemasonry is a religion and has been favored by most members of our government for too long than should have been tolerated. Now Globalism, a tenet of Freemasonic belief, has become part of the official policy of the federal government. It's even in some of the laws now.

Pope Benedict is very right to encourage the separation of church and state. That separation helps to prevent BOTH from manipulating each other for less than virtuous gain, and at the expense of human liberty, which Vatican II was so vocal in defending.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Since when does Church law have anything to do with how the US government was set up?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='993793' date='May 31 2006, 04:10 PM']
It could also be that they are not contradicting. If Benedict is referring to "religious freedom", a Catholic principle which you can look up, and the older pope is referring to how laws are based on religious beliefs, then there's no conflict. Those are very abstract statements above. As to the actual intent, who knows. This is how doctrine is either construed not to be contradictory or is how doctrine legitimately develops. More writings etc are needed to ascertain the intent of both popes that the meager quotes above.
[/quote]
:applause:

[Era Might]

Since we're asking questions...could Brendan be misunderstanding Pius X, Leo XIII, and Benedict XVI?

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='994776' date='Jun 1 2006, 03:03 PM']
Since when does Church law have anything to do with how the US government was set up?
[/quote]

Since the Constitution is based on Natural Law, I would say since the conception of the Country. You should read a book called [i]The Naked Public Square[/i] by Father Richard John Neuhause.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802800807/104-5995567-0603110?v=glance&n=283155"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080280080...glance&n=283155[/url]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='993793' date='May 31 2006, 05:10 PM']
It could also be that they are not contradicting. If Benedict is referring to "religious freedom", a Catholic principle which you can look up, and the older pope is referring to how laws are based on religious beliefs, then there's no conflict. Those are very abstract statements above. As to the actual intent, who knows. This is how doctrine is either construed not to be contradictory or is how doctrine legitimately develops. More writings etc are needed to ascertain the intent of both popes that the meager quotes above.
[/quote]

[Winchester]

We certainly don't need religion to influence government in bad directions. Would that Catholicism had more influence on our government. Obviously, if one is a dedicated member of a religion, that religion will influence whatever he promotes. It's unavoidable. Why is it permissible that philosophies can influence the government when religions should not?

While separation of church and state keeps the two from manipulating each other in bad ways, it also keeps away the good (to an extent. it's evident that there is not a total separation of the two.)

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='994790' date='Jun 1 2006, 04:25 PM']
Since the Constitution is based on Natural Law, I would say since the conception of the Country. You should read a book called [i]The Naked Public Square[/i] by Father Richard John Neuhause.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802800807/104-5995567-0603110?v=glance&n=283155"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080280080...glance&n=283155[/url]

[/quote]


Sounds like the Americanist heresy.

The church used to teach against Relegious Freedom, no?

so is the church contradicting Natural Law?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='994933' date='Jun 1 2006, 05:34 PM']
The church used to teach against Relegious Freedom, no?
[/quote]
No.