Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/847

 TOLERATION

771

TOLERATION

and State proceed hand in hand and in perfect har- mony to promote by their common efTorts the tem- poral and eternal hapiiiness of their common subjects. As it is unnatural for a married couple to live sepa- rated, although separation may be defended in partic- ular instances as the better or less harmful arrange- ment in view of quarrels which have arisen, so also the ideal relation between Church and State is to be found, not in the separation of the two, but in their harmonious co-operation (cf. Pius IX, Encyclical "Quanta cura" of 8 December, 1864; Syllab. prop. 5.5). As a practical proof of the internal advantages of a separation in i)riiici])le, it is usual to point to the example of the United .States, which has extended the blessing of its liberal Constitution in recent years to its newly-acquired colonies of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. But, while it may be granted with- out reserve that both Church and State seem to pros- per exceedingly well in their friendly juxtaposition, it would be rash to speak of the situation as ideal. It must, however, be acknowledged that no other land in the world has so honourably maintained the ami- cable separation of Church and State, -while in some European countries the law of separation was unfor- tunately only a pretext for a more ■(•iolent attack on the rights of the Church. Not without good reason did Leo XIII in his Brief of 1902, addressed to the American hierarchy, express his approval of a wise and patriotic adaptation to the national and legal conditions of the United States. He could do this with a good conscience, although in his Encyclical "Immortale Dei" of 1 November, 1885, he had de- clared the harmonious union of the two highest powers the ideal situation, and had referred to con- cordats as the means of arranging questions bordering on both jurisdictions. If the United States forms the sole honourable exception to the rule, this is due partly to the fact that the State neglects neither the religious factor at large nor Christianity, as is shown by the strict laws concerning Sunday observance. Christian monogamy, and the celebration of Thanksgiving Day. What F. Walter WTote fifty years ago is still true to-day: "Even in the United States of North Amer- ica, to which people so readily appeal, religion is not regarded as a matter of indifference to the State, but is presupposed as the State's complement " ("Natur- recht und Politik im Lichte der Gegenwart ", Bonn, 186.3, p. 495).

(2) By a CathoHc State we understand a commu- nity which is composed exclusively of Catholic sub- jects and which recognizes CathoUeism as the only true religion. In this ca.se al.so the relations between Church and State may be different, according as the two powers are clo.sely united for offence and defence, or, while each maintains its independence, are less compactly joined. The first kind of union finds its truest ex-pression in the "religious state", a distinctive feature of the Middle Ages, while the second or looser union may be realized in a constitutional state that admits various denominations and yet retains its Christian character. In view of the difference of the fundamental ideas on which the.se two forms of state are based, the principles of political tolerance are sub- ject to important modifications.

(a) Every religious State, Catholic or Protestant, presupposes by its very existence that all or nearly all the citizens have the same faith, otherwise it would be contrary to natural justice and practically impo.s- sible. In certain cases such a State must take drastic measures to expel or exclude all elements which do not fit into its framework. Thus a Protestant religious State was forcibly instituted in England under Queen Elizabeth by clearing the country of all Catholics, and the Diet of I'psala in l.')93 strove to preserve the strictly Lutheran character of Sweden by making the immigration of Catholics punishable with death. The situation of the Cathohc religious State in the Middle

Ages was somewhat, though not entirely, similar. The medieval idea required that the State should lend the secular arm to the Church for the maintenance of all her doctrines, laws, and ordinances, and that in re- turn it should receive from the Church spiritual sup- port in all purely secular affairs. Thus State and Church formed the two all-embracing members of the one Christian body, assisting and supporting each other in the broad field of all secular and ecclesiastical interests. Empire and papacy, like body and soul, formed an organic whole. Citizen and Catholic were interchangeable terms. The rebel against the Church was regarded as likewise a rebel against the State, and conversely the ]jo!itical r(n-olutionary was by that very fact an enemy of the Church. Whoever was stricken with excommunication finally incurred also imperial ban, and the imperial ban brought excommu- nication in its train. It is true that many advantages must be conceded to the religious State. We see an imposing and elevating idea rendered concrete in the supreme dominion of tlie Christian spirit throughout the civic, national, and religious life, in the organic connexion of the secul.ar and the religious government, and in the strengthening of the state authority by the Church and of ecclesiastical authority by the State. These great advantages, however, must not cause us to overlook the numerous drawbacks which this mys- tical marriage of Church and State involved. First of all, in consequence of the fusion of (he objects of the State and of religion, the Cathohc religious State was compelled to adopt an attitude of fundamental intol- erance towards all errors of faith, which became so many crimes against the State. Viewed from the his- torical standpoint one may justly doubt whether the bloody persecutions resulted in greater blessings and advantages or in greater want, hate, and suffering for Christendom (cf. De Laveley, "Le gouvernement dans la democratic", I, Paris, 1892, pp. 157-62). It is certain that the odium for all those severities and cruelties had to be borne, not by the State which in- flicted them, but rather by the Church, since she seemed to stand behind ail these measures as the secret motive force, even though she did not know, much less justify many of them. We endeavoured above without partiality to appraise these accusations against (he Church at their true value. To refer briefly to another gloomy .aspect of this question, the ecclesiastical right to meddle directly in purely secular affairs might easily become a dangerous prerogative, inasmuch as the infliction of excommimication for purely political offences must necessarily have brought ecclesiastical jienalties, especially when they were unjustly inflicted, into grea( discredit among princes and peojile. On the other hand, the right of protection exercised by the sovereign in ecclesiastical matters, often withou( or even against (he wish of the popes, ha<i for its unavoidable consequence the loss of public respect for both authorities. The proverbial contest between impcrixim and snccrdntium, which practically runs through the whole history of the Middle Ages, redounded in fact to the advant.age of neither. A third disadvantage, arising essentially from the religious State, may not be pas.scd over in silence; this consists in the danger that the clergy, trusting blindly to the interference of the secular arm in (heir beiialf, may easily sink in(o dull resignation and spiritual torpor, while (he lai(y, owing to the re- ligious surveillance of (he S(a(e, may develop rather into a race of hypocrites and pietLsts than into inwardly convinced Christians. A Catholic clergy which relies on State assistance for its pastoral ac- tivity lacks that glowing zeal for .souls which springs from heartfelt convictions, and (he vi(ali(y and sin- cerity of religion are grie\-ously impaired wlien prac- tices of piety are made compulsory by the State. The last and most serious disadvantage associated with the religious State hes in the immanent danger that the