Friday, May 27, 2011

Religious Freedom, Hermeneutic of Continuity, & the American Republic

Sandro Magister reports on Benedictine theologian Basile Valuet's explanation of how "there is no contrast but rather continuity between the teaching of Vatican II on religious freedom and the previous condemnation of it made by Pius IX and other popes" — Religious Freedom. Was the Church Also Right When It Condemned It?

In short, arguing that "it will always remain true that the liberalism condemned by Pius IX was condemnable, but it will not always remain true that the theories or the states of law that we have before us are the ones that Pius IX condemned," the theologian continues, "If a change of situation cannot change the natural law, it can nevertheless make a principle of the natural law (let's call it P1: it is not contrary to the natural law that the state should repress religious error), valid in a previous situation of ius gentium (in which RF [the right to religious freedom] is not yet recognized in reciprocal form), no longer apply in the same way in a new situation of ius gentium (in which RF is mutually recognized), and make another principle be applied now (P2: the modern state does not have penal competency, not even delegated, in religious matters)."

Orestes Augustus Brownson understood this in 1868, saying in Conversations on Liberalism and the Church, "There is no country in the world where the Church is or ever has been as free to govern her children according to her own discipline and laws, or where Pius IX is so truly Pope as the United States." Following is the full quote from the little book, which, like many philosophical tracts, takes the form of a dialogue, in this case between a progressive newspaper editor and an immigrant Catholic priest from Spain:
    "Yet you know perfectly well, Reverend Father, that the Church condemns those of her children who advocate the separation of Church and State."

    "Those she condemns are not those who mean by the separation of Church and state the order established by the Constitution of the American Republic, but those who mean by it the absolute independence and supremacy of the secular order, the emancipation of the state from the law of God, its freedom to suppress the Church whenever it finds her in the way of its ambition, its policy, its schemes of injustice against either its own subjects or against foreign states. In the Old World the separation of Church and state means the supremacy of the state alike in spirituals and temporals, as in Russia, Prussia, Great Britain, and other states, or at least, the right of the state to define the boundaries of the Church, and to enlarge or contract the sphere of her freedom at will. This right is claimed, is asserted for itself in every European state, and the state holds itself free to restrict the freedom of the Church or to exclude her altogether, as it sees proper. This claim renders concordats or treaties between the Church and the State necessary in order to secure to the Church some degree of freedom and independence. What the Church condemns under the head of separation of Church and State, is the independence of the state of the laws of God, the abrogation of these concordats, and the right of the state to abrogate them by its own authority without her consent, as has been done in the Italian states by the pretended kingdom of Italy, and more recently by Austria, which places the Church at the mercy of the state. In your republic concordats are not necessary. The state disclaims all authority in spirituals, and by its fundamental law recognizes the independence and freedom of the spiritual order, and its obligation to protect and defend the Church with all its power in the peaceable exercise of her spiritual freedom, which is more than the most favorable concordat has ever yet secured to her elsewhere. There is no country in the world where the Church is or ever has been as free to govern her children according to her own discipline and laws, or where Pius IX is so truly Pope as the United States. And this freedom is not held here as a grant from the state revocable at its will, but is the right of conscience of each and every citizen; one of those rights of man, or rather of God, which are antecedent to civil society, and which government is instituted to protect and defend. Rome would have but a small share of that wisdom and sagacity she gets credit for, if she should seek or suffer her children to seek to substitute for this system any system which does or ever has obtained in the Old World."
The above is not only a defense of the Church, but of the American constitutional order, a passion of Brownson's evidenced by his 1866 tome The American Republic; Constitution, Tendencies and Destiny. But let us give credit where credit is due and remember that it was the first clause of Magna Carta which guaranteed "that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired."

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Post a Comment

<< Home

Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.