Previously, we explored the question of whether prior to Vatican II (1965) there was a doctrine that nation states should confess the faith. (See Part I.)
In this Part II we will explore the linked issues of whether there was a doctrine that nation states must “care for religion,” by doing things such as paying clergy salaries, repairing churches, providing Church teaching in schools, or punishing heretics (etc.).
1. What Does Scripture Say?
There are many texts in the Old Testament which seem to show a head of state caring for religion by enforcing religious behavior. St. Augustine (d. 430) summarizes some examples in Epistle 185.
One instance involved God sending the prophet Jonah to preach repentance in Nineveh. The text states:
Then… [the king] had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh: “By decree of the king…, no man or beast… shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water… They all must turn from their evil way. (Jonah 3:7–8)
God seems to approve, as the divinely threatened punishment is averted when the population do as they are instructed.
This means that texts like that can seem to suggest divine approval for states which care for religion by insisting that citizens fulfil religious duties.
It is a question of interpretation whether those kinds of texts do in fact teach that states should care for religion. We can get a sense for how the Church has interpreted Scripture, by looking at what it has taught on these matters, throughout the ages.
2. The Early Church Era
Serious theological reflection on the issues of church and state began in the fourth century, when Christianity gradually became the religion of the Roman state. (See Edict of Thessalonica.)
Some of the earliest reflection can be seen in the way that the newly Christian emperor Constantine (d. 337) tried to model his imperial government on what he understood to be heavenly principles. Eusebius (d. 339) tells us that the emperor:
Fram[ed]… his earthly government according to the pattern of that Divine original. (“Oration in Praise of Constantine” 3.5)
More explicit reflection arose in 382 when the pagan Altar of Victory was removed from the Roman Senate. The pagan senator Symmachus objected strongly and asked for its return, so that he could continue to worship in accordance with his conscience. St. Ambrose (d. 397) wrote to the emperor Valentinian II, reminding him that his role as head of state included supporting the faith by suppressing pagan altars. He said:
Since… most Christian Emperor, there is due from you to the true God both faith and zeal, care and devotion for the faith, I wonder how the hope has risen… that you would… restore… altars to the gods of the heathen… Had these things not been abolished I could prove that they ought to be done away by your authority. (Letter 17, 3–5)
Pope St. Leo the Great (d. 461) expressed matters equally clearly, when he wrote to the emperor stating:
The kingly power has been conferred on you not for the governance of the world alone but more especially for the guardianship of the Church; that… you may both defend that which has been rightly decreed, and restore true peace where there has been disturbance, that is to say by… reinstating the ancient Faith in the See of Alexandria. (Letter 156, 3)
The points made by St. Ambrose and St. Leo were reflected in the legal Codex Theodosianus of 438. That document made it clear that the secular authorities were obliged to care for Christianity by promoting and supporting it. (See The Theodosian Code.)
3. Medieval History
During the Middle Ages, the principles developed during the Early Church era gave rise to a Christian Commonwealth (or Res Publica Christiana). This involved an integration of church and state which often saw bishops exercising political power, while using their theology to determine the shape and scope of their politics.
St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) explained why that integration was appropriate:
Since the beatitude of heaven is the end of that virtuous life which we live at present, it pertains to the king’s office to promote the good life of the multitude in such a way as to make it suitable for the attainment of heavenly happiness, that is to say, he should command those things which lead to the happiness of Heaven and, as far as possible, forbid the contrary. (De Regno (also called De Regimine) 1.16 [115])
Aquinas is saying that the duties of the state are defined partially by the heavenly goal of humanity. But he is not saying that the duty of the state is to turn citizens into saints. He makes it clear that state legislation has a different focus than divine law:
Just as the principal intention of human law is to create friendship between man and man, so the chief intention of the Divine law is to establish man in friendship with God. (Summa Theologiae 1-2, q.99, a.2)
However, the way that humans treat each other does affect their own individual relationships with God, especially when it involves sin. So, it is impossible to completely separate the specific interests and laws of church and state.
What this meant in practice was that the Church traditionally insisted that it alone had the power to define the morality of actions, so a morally good state would necessarily follow Church teaching, at least to the extent of not allowing or commanding anything that the Church has said is evil.
4. The Reformation Era
Although Catholics and Protestants disagreed on many points of doctrine during the Reformation era, they were largely in agreement that the actions of the state should conform to religious expectations. What they typically disagreed about was which religious denomination should be specifying the expectations.
We can see that viewpoint in the 1598 words which St. Francis de Sales directed to his secular ruler:
Alas, Sire, to permit Protestant ministers in this country is to lose your dominions and to lose Paradise besides, of which the span of one foot is worth more than all the world. (Quoted from “Religious Liberty.”)
Francisco Suárez (d. 1617) followed Aquinas’s views closely (see section 3). He agreed that it is the “common good” which should define the goal of human law. He said:
Laws… should… be made principally for the good of that community. [T]he common good or happiness of the state is the final end of that state… therefore law should exist for the sake of the common good. (Treatise on Law, Bk.1, Chp.7 #4, p. 105)
Suárez insisted that achieving the common good required states to act morally, following natural law and rationality. As it is the Church which defines morality by clarifying the meaning of the natural law, this means that states must have a duty to follow the Church’s direction. That was especially the case in matters involving ethical implications, such as religious duties. Thus, he concluded:
It is the duty of a civil state, by virtue of reason and the natural law, to provide for the true worship of God within its borders. (On the Three Theological Virtues, disputation 18, section 4 #7, p. 878)
With respect to civil laws…these…should not be incompatible [with religion] … if they are incompatible, [then] they cannot be just. (Treatise on Law, Bk.1, Chap. 9 #8, pp. 124-5)
What these texts show is a thought pattern which can be seen in theologians of the era. It shows the basic rationale for why nation states were thought to have a duty to care for (the Catholic) religion.
5. The Post-Revolutionary Era
The period after the French Revolution (1789) led to increasing demands by states that they should be able to determine for themselves the (moral) appropriateness of state actions (i.e., liberalism), using their own rationality to do so (i.e., rationalism, naturalism).
That opposition to the Church’s teaching led to papal reiteration of the prior teaching, particularly insisting on the necessity of the Church to clarify religious duties and ethical obligations for the state to fulfil.
In 1864 Pope Pius IX said:
At this time men are found… [claiming]… the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism” [which]… teach[es] that “the best constitution of public society… require[s] that human society be conducted and governed without regard… to religion… [and] without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” (Quanta Cura 3)
In 1885 Pope Leo XIII was even more explicit when he said:
The State… is clearly bound to… the public profession of… the religion which God enjoins [i.e., Catholicism] … it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion… and one of…[its] chief duties must be to favour religion, to protect it… under… the… sanction of the laws, and… not enact any measure that may compromise its safety. (Immortale Dei 6)
That was not an isolated remark of Pope Leo XIII. He repeated similar views in 1882 (Cum Multa 9), in 1884 (Humanum Genus 24), and in 1888 (Libertas 21).
In 1906 Pope Pius X said:
It… [is an error to] limit the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, [and to ignore the] … ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness… 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. (Vehementer Nos 3)
In 1925 Pope Pius XI said:
The State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice. (Quas Primas 32)
He made similar remarks in 1933 (Dilectissima Nobis 6) and in 1937 (Mit Brennender Sorge 29).
These texts are significant because they represent a formal reiteration in the face of opposition, that nation states do indeed have a duty to care for religion. As such, it is difficult to view them as if they had no magisterial significance.
6. Church Teaching on the Eve of Vatican II
There are two documents prior to Vatican II which were published by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (d. 1979), who was head of the Holy Office from 1959 to 1968. As the head of the Vatican Holy Office, he had responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of Church teaching.
The first document began as a speech delivered in 1953, in which Cardinal Ottaviani spoke in his private capacity as a theologian. The speech became a booklet entitled Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion. It effectively explained Church teaching as stating:
- States have a “confessional” duty to profess the Catholic faith and to worship God in accordance with Catholic rites.
- States have a “promotional” duty to support and protect the Church’s work and mission.
The document also said that those two points are infallibly taught, as they are taught by Scripture and have been consistently taught by the ordinary magisterium throughout the ages.
The second document was published almost ten years later in 1962, as a draft document for the consideration of the bishops of Vatican II. Although it was only a draft, it was formally approved as an “accurate” summary of the Church’s faith by Cardinal Ottaviani in his official capacity as head of the Holy Office.
That document stated:
[States must ensure] … above all that full freedom be granted to the Church and that whatever the Church judges to hinder the attainment of the eternal goal is excluded from legislation, governing, and public activity. The goal indeed should be to make it easier to live a life on Christian principles, one conducive to eternal life. (Draft of a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 42)
Although Vatican II did not adopt the document which made that statement, there has never been any suggestion that those words were doctrinally erroneous.
What this all means is that prior to Vatican II, the Church’s position was that there is indeed a duty for nation states to legislate and to act in ways that support the Church’s work.
7. Conclusion
It is clear that for around 1700 years the Church has said that nation states should care for religion by supporting the Church’s work (sections 1–4). Church comments culminated in the nineteenth century when a series of popes reiterated the point (section 5), which was then communicated to the bishops at Vatican II as a draft expression of the Church’s traditional faith (section 6).
We saw that Cardinal Ottaviani thought that that teaching was “infallible,” in virtue of its consistency and persistency across time. It is a matter of contemporary debate whether that view is accurate.
In Part III we will explore the question of whether Vatican II rejected that teaching.
