State and Church.—The Church and the State are both perfect societies, that is to say, each essentially aiming at a common good commensurate with the need of mankind at large and ultimate in a generic kind of life, and each juridically competent to provide all the necessary and sufficient means thereto. The State is ethically demonstrated to be such, and the Church has a like demonstration from the theology of Christian Revelation. By reason of coexistence on the earth, community of subjects, and a need in common of some of the same means of activity, it is inevitable that they should have mutual relations in the juridical order. To declare these relations in brief from an ethical view-point, which is the scope of the present article, it will be necessary to state: I. The basis of their respective rights; II. The range of their respective jurisdictions; III. Their mutual corporate relation; IV. The union of Church and State; V. Counter theories.
I. THE BASIS OF RIGHTS.
—All rights and duties on earth come ultimately from God through the Divine Law, either natural or positive. The character of our natural rights and duties is determined by the purpose to which the Creator shaped the nature of man, and natural knowledge of them is acquired by human reason from the aptitudes, tendencies, and needs of nature. Duties and rights descending from positive Divine Law are determined by some additional purpose of God, over and above the exigencies of human nature, and are to be learned only from Divine Revelation, either in its explicit declaration or its rational content. Man has one ultimate purpose of existence, eternal happiness in a future life, but a twofold proximate purpose, one to earn his title to eternal happiness, the other to attain to a measure of temporal happiness consistent with the prior proximate purpose. The State is a natural institution, whose powers, therefore, come from the natural law and are determined by the character of the natural purpose of the State plus whatever limitation God has, because of qualifications in the last end of man, ordained in the Divine Positive Law. The Church is a positive institution of Christ the Son of God, whose powers, therefore, are derived from the Divine Positive Law and are determined by the nature of the purpose He has assigned to it, plus whatever further concession He has made to facilitate the accomplishment of that purpose. In any consideration of the mutual relations of Church and State the above propositions are fundamental.
The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man, and its proximate purpose the preservation of external juridical order and the provision of a reasonable abundance of means of human development in the interests of its citizens and their posterity. Man himself, however, as we have said, has a further goal of perfect happiness to be realized only after death, and consequently a proximate purpose to earn in this life his title to the same. In the pursuit of this latter purpose, speaking in the abstract, he had a natural right to constitute a social organization taking over the worship of God as a charge peculiarly its own. In the concrete, however, i.e. as a matter of fact, God by positive law has vacated this natural right and established a universal society (the Church) for Divine worship and the securing of perfect happiness in the hereafter. God, furthermore, has appointed for man a destiny which cannot be attained by mere natural means, and consequently God has conceded to man additional means commensurate with this ultimate purpose, putting these means at the disposal of man through the ministration of the Church. Finally, He has determined the form of external public worship to be rendered, centring it about a sacrifice, the efficacy of which is from itself, being, as it is, a repetition of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The goal, then, of the Church is the perfect supernatural happiness of man; its proximate purpose, to safe-guard the internal moral order of right and wrong; and its external manifestation, to care for Divine worship and minister to man the supernatural means of grace. The State, then, exists to help man to temporal happiness, the Church, to eternal. Of these two purposes the latter is more ultimate, man’s greater good, while the former is not necessary for the acquisition of the latter. The dominating proximate purpose of man must be to earn his title to eternal salvation: for that, if needs be, he must rationally sacrifice his temporal happiness. It is clear, therefore, that the purpose of the Church is higher in the order of Divine Providence and of righteous human endeavor than that of the State. Hence, in case of direct collision of the two, God‘s will and man’s need require that the guardian of the lower purpose should yield. Likewise the argument for the extension of the powers of the higher society in a measure into the domain of the lower will not hold for such extension from the lower into the higher.
II. THE RANGE OF JURISDICTION.
—As there are many distinct States of equal natural right the subjects of each are restricted in number, and its government of them is practically confined within the limits of its own territory. Within this territory it has full power to govern them, defining their rights and in some cases restricting the exercise of these rights, conferring purely civil rights and imposing civil duties, holding its citizens to a proper condition of public morality, owning property and qualifying private ownership of the same—all within the exigencies of the civic purpose of preserving external juridical order and promoting the prosperity of the citizens, and over all bound by the enactment of the Divine Law, both natural and positive. In a word, the State controls its own subjects, in the pursuit of its own natural end, in all things where a higher right does not estop it. A higher right will be a right existent because of an ulterior or a more essential destiny of man than the purpose which civil society pursues for him. The Church has the right to preach the Gospel everywhere, willing or pilling any state authority, and so to secure the rights of its members among the subjects of any civil polity whatever. The Church has the right to govern her subjects, wherever found, declaring for them moral right and wrong, restricting any such use of their rights as might jeopardize their eternal welfare, conferring purely ecclesiastical rights, acquiring and holding property herself, and empowering her subordinate associations to do the same—all within the limits of the requirements of her triple purpose, as laid down by the Divine Positive Law, of preserving the internal order of faith and morals and its external manifestation, of providing adequate means of sanctification for her members and of caring for Divine worship, and over all bound by the eternal principles of integrity and justice declared in the natural and positive Law of God.
In all purely temporal subject-matter, so long as it remains such, the jurisdiction of the State over its own subjects stands not only supreme, but, as far as the Church is concerned, alone. Purely temporal matter is that which has a necessary relation of help or hindrance to man’s temporal happiness, the ultimate end of civil society or the State, in such wise that it is at the same time indifferent in itself as a help or hindrance to man’s eternal happiness. It is of two kinds: primarily it includes all human acts so related, and secondarily persons or external things as far as they are involved in such acts. In all purely spiritual subject-matter, so long as it remains such, the jurisdiction of the Church over her ecclesiastical subjects obtains to the complete exclusion of the State; nor is the Church therein juridically dependent in any way upon the State for the exercise of its legitimate powers. Purely spiritual subject-matter is primarily made up of human acts necessarily related as help or hindrance to man’s eternal happiness, the last end of the Church, and at the same time indifferent in themselves as a help or hindrance to man’s temporal happiness; secondarily it extends to all persons and external objects as involved in such acts. In all subject-matter not purely spiritual nor purely temporal, but at the same time both spiritual and temporal in character, both jurisdictions may enter, and so entering give occasion to collision, for which there must be a principle of solution. In case of direct contradiction, making it impossible for both jurisdictions to be exercised, the jurisdiction of the Church prevails, and that of the State is excluded. The reason of this is obvious: both authorities come from God in fulfillment of his purposes in the life of man: He cannot contradict Himself; He cannot authorize contradictory powers. His real will and concession of power is determined by the higher purpose of His Providence and man’s need, which is the eternal happiness of man, the ultimate end of the Church. In view of this end God concedes to her the only authority that can exist in the case in point.
In a case where there is no direct contradiction but a possibility of both jurisdictions being exercised without hurt to the higher, though neither jurisdiction is voided, and they both might, absolutely speaking, be exercised without mutual consultation, practically there is a clear opening for some adjustment between the two, since both jurisdictions are interested in avoiding friction. Though concordats were not devised precisely for this purpose, they have in many cases been used for such adjustment (see Concordat). Consistently with the superiority of essential purpose indicated above, the judicial decision as to when a question does or does not involve spiritual matter, either purely or in part, rests with the Church. It cannot he with the State, whose jurisdiction, because of the inferiority of its ultimate end and proximate purpose, has not such judicial faculty in regard to the subject-matter of a jurisdiction which is as far above its own as the ultimate end and proximate purpose thereof is above that of the State. In analogous fashion every higher court is always judge of its own jurisdiction as against a lower.
All the above is matter of principle, argued out as a question of objective right, and it supposes that the jurisdiction is to be applied through the respective subjects of the same. In point of fact the duty of submission in a citizen of a State to the higher jurisdiction of the Church does not exist where the citizen is not a subject of the Church, for over such the Church claims no governing power. It may also be by accident subjectively obscured in one who, though in point of right the Church‘s subject, in good faith fails, through an erroneous conscience, to recognize this fact, and, by consequence, the Church‘s right and his own duty. The subject of the State has been made fairly clear by human law and custom; but the frequent rebellion, continued through centuries, of great numbers of the Church‘s subjects has confused in the mind of the non-Catholic world the notion of who is by revealed law a subject of the Church. The juridical subject of the Church is every human being that has validly received the Sacrament of Baptism. This birth into the Church by baptism is analogous to the birth within the territory of a State of the off spring of one of its citizens. However, this new-born subject of the State can, under certain circumstances, renounce his allegiance to his native State and be accepted as the subject of another. Not so one born into the Church by baptism: for baptism is a sacrament leaving an indelible character upon the soul, which man cannot remove and so escape legitimate subjection. Yet, as in a State, a man may be a subject without full rights of citizenship; may even, while remaining a subject, lose those rights by his own act or that of his parents; so, analogously, not every subject of the Church is a member thereof, and once a member, he may lose the social rights of membership in the Church without ceasing to be its subject. For full membership in the Church, besides valid baptism, one must by union of faith and allegiance be in fellowship with her, and not be deprived of the rights of membership by ecclesiastical censure. Hence, those validly baptized Christians who live in schism or, whether by reason of apostasy or of initial education, profess a faith different from that of the Church, or are excommunicated therefrom, are not members of the Church, though as a matter of objective right and duty they are still her subjects. In practice the Church, while retaining her right over all subjects, does not—except in some few matters not of moment here—insist upon exercising her jurisdiction over any but her members, as it is clear that she cannot expect obedience from those Christians who, being in faith or government separated from her, see no right in her to command, and consequently recognize no duty to obey. Over those who are not baptized she claims no right to govern, though she has the indefeasible right to preach the Gospel among them and to endeavor to win them over to become members of Christ’s Church and so citizens of her ecclesiastical polity.
III. MUTUAL CORPORATE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
—Every perfect society must acknowledge the rights of every other perfect society; must render to it all duties consequent upon such rights; must respect its autonomy; and may demand the recognition of its own rights and the fulfillment of obligations arising therefrom. Whether one may also command such recognition and fulfillment is another question: one does not involve the other; thus, for instance, the United States may demand its rights of England, but cannot command England to acknowledge them, as the United States has no authority over England or any other nation. Prescinding from this for the moment, the Church must respect the rights of the State to govern its subjects in all purely temporal matters, and, if the subjects of the State are likewise subjects of the Church, must hold the latter to the fulfillment of their civil duties as an obligation in conscience. On the other hand, in principle, as a matter of objective duty, the State is bound to recognize the juridical rights of the Church in all matters spiritual, whether purely so or of mixed character, and its judicial right to determine the character of matters of jurisdiction, in regard, namely, to their spiritual quality. The State, furthermore, is bound to render due worship to God, as follows from the same argument from the natural law which proves man’s obligation to external worship, namely, that man must acknowledge his dependence upon God and his subjection to Him in every capacity in which he is so dependent, and therefore not only in his private capacity as an individual but also in that public, corporate capacity whereby he and his fellow citizens constitute the State. Due worship, in the present economy, is that of the religion of Christ, entrusted to the care of the Church. The State must also protect the Church in the exercise of her functions, for the reason that the State is bound to protect all the rights of its citizens, and among these their religious rights, which as a matter of fact would be insecure and fruit-less were not the Church protected. The State is even under obligation to promote the spiritual interests of the Church; for the State is bound to promote whatever by reaction naturally works for the moral development of its citizens and consequently for the internal peace of the community, and in the present condition of human nature that development is necessarily dependent upon the spiritual influence of the Church.
There being, then, an obligation upon the State as such, arising out of the Natural and the Divine Positive Law, to render public Divine worship in accordance with the guidance of the Church, in whose charge Christ has placed the worship due in the present order of things, an obligation also to protect the Church and to promote her interests, the Church clearly has a perfect right to demand the fulfillment of these duties, since their neglect would infringe her right to the benefit proceeding from the fulfillment. To have the further right to command the State in their regard implies that the Church has a right to impose the obligations of her authority in their regard, to exact them authoritatively from the State. Now in purely temporal matters, while they remain such, the Church cannot command the State any more than she can command the subjects of the State, even though these are at the same time her own subjects. But in spiritual and mixed matters calling for corporate action of the State, the question depends upon whether the physical persons who make up the moral personality of the State are themselves subjects of the Church. In case they are, then the Church has in consequence jurisdiction therein over the State. The reason is that owing to the supremacy in man’s life purposes of his eternal happiness, man in all his capacities, even of a civil nature, must direct his activities so that they shall not hinder this end, and where action even in his official or civil capacity is necessary for this ultimate purpose he is bound to place the action: moreover, in all these activities so bearing on this end, since they are thereby spiritual matter, every subject of the Church is under the jurisdiction of the Church. If, then, the physical persons constituting the moral person of the State are the subjects of the Church, they are still, in this joint capacity, subject to her in like matters, namely, in the fulfillment of all civil duties of the State towards religion and the Church. The Church, because of the uselessness of her insistence, or because of greater evils to be so avoided, may waive the exercise of this jurisdiction; but in principle it is hers.
In practice we distinguish, from a religious point of view, four kinds of civil authority. First, in a Catholic State, in which, namely, the physical persons constituting the moral personality of the State are Catholic, the Church‘s jurisdiction in matters of her competency is in every way complete. Secondly, in a non-Christian State, for instance that of the Turks, where the constituency is not even baptized, the Church claims no jurisdiction over the State as such: the foundation of such jurisdiction is lacking. Third, in a Christian but non-Catholic State, where the constituency, though by baptism subjects, are not members of the Church, per se the jurisdiction of the Church would stand, but per accidens its exercise is impossible. Fourth, a mixed State, one, namely, the constituents of whose moral personality are necessarily of diverse religions, practically lies outside the reach of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, since the affiliation of some of the constituents could not make a subject of the Church out of the moral personality constitutionally made up of elements not all of which share such affiliation. The subordination here indicated is indirect: not that the Church does not directly reach spiritual and mixed matters, but that in their regard it directly reaches only its immediate subjects and indirectly through them the State which they constitute. Again, the State as such does not in such matters directly act for the supernatural purpose of the Church (the eternal happiness of its subjects), but for its own temporal purpose inasmuch as such action will make for their temporal happiness; and so it acts for the Church by indirection.
There is no parallel argument to give the State indirectly jurisdiction over the Church in matters purely temporal, and therefore of the State’s sole competency. The Church is universal and cannot be a member or subject of any particular State. Even were there but one universal State in the world, the Church would not be a member thereof, for its members are not citizens of the State to the extent that in every capacity they must submit their activities for the purpose of the State, particularly not the activities concerned directly with the higher purpose of eternal life. Moreover, the Church is not constituted merely by the exercise of the natural rights of the men who are citizens of the State, but by the supernatural endowment of the Divine Positive-Law. Finally, the Church in its corporate capacity is not bound to seek the temporal happiness of her members as a means to their eternal welfare, while the State as such is bound to Divine worship and to the protection and promotion of the Church in the interests of religion, because this is a necessary element involved in the perfect temporal happiness of the Catholic citizen. The State, therefore, has not, either in temporal or in spiritual things, any authority over the Church as such, however much it may have in things purely temporal over the members of the Church, who are subjects of the State. The State can, as was said above, demand its rights of the Church: it cannot command them.
IV. UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
—There is some confusion in the public mind about the meaning of the union of Church and State. The essential idea of such union is a condition of affairs where a State recognizes its natural and supernatural relation to the Church, professes the Faith, and practices the worship of the Church, protects it, enacts no laws to its hurt, while, in case of necessity and at its instance taking all just and requisite civil measures to forward the Divinely appointed purpose of the Church—in so far as all these make for the State’s own essential purpose, the temporal happiness of its citizens. That this is in principle the normal and ethically proper condition for a truly Catholic State should be evident from the religious obligations of the Catholic State as above declared. That in practice it has in the past sometimes worked evil to both Church and State, is an accidental effect consequent upon the frailty and passion of the human instruments then ruling in Church, or in State, or in both. As a partial attempt at security against such evil consequences, the Church has for centuries established concordats with Catholic States; but even these have not always saved the situation. For concordats, like all other agreements, however firm in principle, are in practice only as strong as the conscientiousness of those whose duty it is to observe them. The conscienceless can destroy them at pleasure. Between the Church and a non-Christian or a Christian, but non-Catholic, State a condition of separation, as meaning a condition of indifference of the State towards the Church, is to be expected, as the foundation of the specific obligations involved in union are wanting. Such a separation for a Catholic State would be criminal, as ignoring the sacred obligations of the State.
For a State once Catholic and in union with the Church to declare a separation on the ground that it has ceased to be Catholic is an action which as a matter of objective right has no standing; for in objective truth the duty of the people would be to regain their lost faith, if they had really lost it, or to live up to it, if in reality it were not lost. But on the supposition that the essential constituency of a State has been transformed from Catholics to those who, not by hypocritical pretense, but in the fulness of good faith, are not Catholics—a condition easier of supposition than of realization—the State through such mistaken conscience might seek for separation without subjective fault, provided the separation were effected without the summary dissolution of existing contracts, without the violation of vested rights of the Church or its members. It may be noted in passing that in the recent instances of separation in France and Portugal, i.e. the breaking up of an existing condition of union between Church and State, the separation has been effected where the bulk of the people is still Catholic, has been conducted in violation of rights and contracts both natural and positive, and has resulted, as it was aimed to do, in an attempt at complete subjection of the Church and of all civil subjects in the matters of religion to the tyranny of administrations which scoff at all religion. That in States whose personality is constitutionally made up of every complexion of religious faith, much of it in its diversity sincere, there should be a governmental abstention from any specific denominational worship or profession of belief, and a general protection and encouragement of the individual in the practice of religion according to his own religious principles within the limits of the Natural Law, or of a general acceptance of Christianity, seems a practical necessity of evil times, when unity of faith is so widely lacking, and a modus vivendi which, if sincerely carried out, seems to work as little harm to objective right as can be expected in a condition of consciences sincerely differing in the matter of right established by the Divine Positive Law.
V. COUNTER THEORIES.
… is the most extreme. Having its source in the principles of the French Revolution and beginning with those who denied the existence of God, it naturally takes the position that the State prescinds from God: the State, it says, is atheistic. Undertaking, with the elimination of revelation and the Divine Positive Law, to get back to purely natural principles, it accepted from Rousseau and the Utilitarians the principle that all right comes from the State, all authority from the consentient wills of the people of the State. The position logically followed that the Church has no rights—not even the right to existence—save such as are conceded to it by the civil power. Hence it is not a perfect society, but a creature of the State, upon which it depends in all things, and upon which it must be directly subordinate, if it is to be allowed to exist at all. (See Liberalism.)
B. Qualified Liberalism
… as formulated by Cavor and Minghetti in Italy at the close of the first half of the nineteenth century, does not go so far. While claiming to admit that the Church is more or less a perfect society with foundations in the Divine Positive Law of Christian Revelation, it contends that the Church and State are disparate in such fashion as to prosecute their respective ends independently in behalf of the individual, having no subordination what-ever one to the other. Consequently, in all public affairs the State must prescind from every religious society, and deal with such either as private associations existing within the State or as foreign corporations to be treated with accordingly. The axiom of this newer Liberalism is “A free Church in a free State”, which in point of fact means an emasculated Church with no more freedom than the shifting politics, internal and external, of a State chose to give, which in the event, as was to be foreseen, amounted to servitude. (See Italy : Political and Civil Government: (2) Church and State.)
C. The Theory of the Regalists
… conceded to the Church a certain amount of social right from its Divine Founder, but conditioned the exercise of all social powers upon the consent of the civil government. This theory, originating with Gallicanism (q.v.), practically denied the Church to be a perfect society, inasmuch as it made its jurisdiction depend for its valid exercise upon the civil power. The theory gradually extended its contentions so far as to make the Church indirectly subordinate to the State, attributing to the State the authority to forbid the Church any juridical act that might work to the detriment of the State and to command the Church in case of necessity to put forth her full powers to promote the interests of the State.
Kanisa na Serikali ni jamii kamilifu, yaani, kila moja ina lengo la msingi la manufaa ya kawaida inayolingana na mahitaji ya wanadamu kwa ujumla na mwisho katika aina ya maisha ya jumla, na kila moja ina uwezo wa kisheria kutoa njia zote muhimu na za kutosha kwa hilo. Serikali inaonyeshwa kuwa hivyo, na Kanisa linaonyeshwa hivyo kutokana na theolojia ya Ufunuo wa Kikristo. Kwa sababu ya kuishi pamoja duniani, jamii ya raia, na haja ya pamoja ya baadhi ya njia sawa za shughuli, ni lazima kwamba wanapaswa kuwa na mahusiano ya pande zote katika utaratibu wa kisheria. Ili kueleza kwa ufupi mahusiano haya kutoka kwa mtazamo wa maadili, ambayo ni wigo wa makala hii, itakuwa muhimu kusema: Msingi wa haki zao husika; II. mbalimbali ya mamlaka yao; III. Uhusiano wao wa ushirika; IV. Muungano wa Kanisa na Serikali; V. Nadharia za Kupinga. Mimi. Msingi wa Haki. <unk>Haki zote na wajibu duniani hutoka mwishowe kwa Mungu kupitia Sheria ya Kimungu, iwe ya asili au chanya. """Uhusiano wa haki zetu za asili na wajibu wetu huamuliwa na kusudi ambalo Muumba alileta katika asili ya mwanadamu, na maarifa ya asili ya haki zetu na wajibu wetu hupatikana na akili ya kibinadamu kutokana na uwezo, mwelekeo, na mahitaji ya asili." Majukumu na haki zinazotokana na Sheria ya Mungu ya kweli huamuliwa na kusudi fulani la ziada la Mungu, juu na juu ya mahitaji ya asili ya kibinadamu, na zinapaswa kujifunza tu kutoka kwa Ufunuo wa Mungu, ama katika tangazo lake la wazi au maudhui yake ya busara. Mtu ana kusudi moja la mwisho la kuwepo, furaha ya milele katika maisha ya baadaye, lakini kusudi la karibu la mara mbili: moja ni kupata haki yake ya furaha ya milele, na nyingine ni kufikia kiwango cha furaha ya muda inayolingana na kusudi la karibu la awali. Serikali ni taasisi ya asili, ambayo nguvu zake, kwa hiyo, zinatokana na sheria ya asili na huamuliwa na tabia ya kusudi la asili la serikali pamoja na mipaka yoyote ambayo Mungu ana, kwa sababu ya sifa katika mwisho wa mwanadamu, iliyoamriwa katika Sheria ya Positive ya Mungu. Kanisa ni taasisi ya Kristo Mwana wa Mungu, ambayo nguvu zake, kwa hiyo, zinatokana na Sheria ya Mungu ya Uhakika na huamuliwa na asili ya kusudi ambalo amempa, pamoja na upendeleo wowote zaidi ambao amefanya ili kuwezesha kutimiza kusudi hilo. Katika kufikiria yoyote ya mahusiano ya pamoja ya Kanisa na Serikali mapendekezo ya juu ni ya msingi. Lengo la serikali ni furaha ya muda wa mwanadamu, na kusudi lake la karibu ni kuhifadhi utaratibu wa kisheria wa nje na utoaji wa wingi wa sababu ya njia za maendeleo ya binadamu kwa maslahi ya raia wake na wazao wao. Hata hivyo, kama tulivyosema, mwanadamu mwenyewe ana lengo jingine la furaha kamilifu, ambalo atapata baada ya kifo, na kwa hiyo kusudi la karibu la kupata haki yake ya furaha hiyo katika maisha haya. Katika kufuatia kusudi hili la mwisho, akizungumza kwa ufupi, alikuwa na haki ya asili ya kuunda shirika la kijamii kuchukua ibada ya Mungu kama malipo ya kipekee yake mwenyewe. Katika saruji, hata hivyo, yaani Kwa kweli, Mungu kwa sheria ya kweli amefutilia mbali haki hii ya asili na kuanzisha jamii ya ulimwengu (Kanisa) kwa ajili ya ibada ya Mungu na kuhakikisha furaha kamilifu katika maisha ya baada ya kifo. Mungu amemwekea mwanadamu hatima ambayo haiwezi kupatikana kwa njia za asili tu, na kwa sababu hiyo Mungu amempa mwanadamu njia za ziada zinazolingana na kusudi hili la mwisho, akifanya njia hizi zipatikane na mwanadamu kupitia huduma ya Kanisa. Mwishowe, ameweka namna ya ibada ya nje ya umma itakayotolewa, ikizingatia dhabihu, ambayo ufanisi wake ni kutoka kwa yenyewe, kuwa, kama ilivyo, marudio ya dhabihu ya Kalvari. Lengo la Kanisa ni furaha kamilifu ya kibinadamu; kusudi lake la karibu ni kulinda utaratibu wa ndani wa maadili ya haki na makosa; na maonyesho yake ya nje ni kutunza ibada ya Mungu na kumtumikia mwanadamu njia za kibinadamu za neema. Serikali, basi, ipo ili kumsaidia mwanadamu kupata furaha ya muda, Kanisa, kupata furaha ya milele. Kati ya malengo haya mawili, ya mwisho ni ya mwisho zaidi, ni manufaa ya binadamu, wakati ya kwanza si muhimu kwa ajili ya kupata ya mwisho. Lengo kuu la karibu la mwanadamu lazima liwe kupata haki yake ya wokovu wa milele; kwa ajili ya hilo, ikiwa ni lazima, lazima kwa busara atoe dhabihu furaha yake ya muda. Kwa hiyo, ni wazi kwamba kusudi la Kanisa ni la juu zaidi katika utaratibu wa Utazamaji wa Mungu na jitihada za kibinadamu za haki kuliko lile la Serikali. Kwa hiyo, katika hali ya mgongano wa moja kwa moja wa hizo mbili, mapenzi ya Mungu na mahitaji ya mwanadamu yanahitaji kwamba mlinzi wa kusudi la chini apate kuachana. Vivyo hivyo hoja ya kupanua mamlaka ya jamii ya juu katika kipimo katika uwanja wa chini haitaendelea kwa ajili ya upanuzi kama kutoka chini hadi juu. Pili. Mzunguko wa Mamlaka. Kwa kuwa kuna mataifa mengi tofauti yenye haki sawa za asili, raia wa kila moja ni wachache kwa idadi, na serikali yake juu yao ni karibu imefungwa ndani ya mipaka ya eneo lake mwenyewe. Ndani ya eneo hili ina mamlaka kamili ya kuwatawala, kuelezea haki zao na katika baadhi ya kesi kuzuia utekelezaji wa haki hizi, kutoa haki za kiraia tu na kuweka wajibu wa kiraia, kuwaweka raia wake katika hali sahihi ya maadili ya umma, kumiliki mali na sifa ya umiliki wa kibinafsi wa sawa, yote ndani ya mahitaji ya kusudi la kiraia la kuhifadhi utaratibu wa kisheria wa nje na kukuza ustawi wa raia, na juu ya yote kushikamana na sheria ya kimungu, asili na chanya. Kwa neno moja, serikali huwadhibiti raia wake, kwa kufuata malengo yake ya asili, katika mambo yote ambapo haki ya juu haimzuia. Haki ya juu itakuwa haki inayopo kwa sababu ya hatima ya nyuma au muhimu zaidi ya mwanadamu kuliko kusudi ambalo jamii ya kiraia inafuatia kwa ajili yake. Kanisa lina haki ya kuhubiri Injili kila mahali, likitaka au likipinga mamlaka yoyote ya serikali, na hivyo kuhakikisha haki za wanachama wake miongoni mwa raia wa serikali yoyote ile. Kanisa lina haki ya kuwatawala raia wake, popote pale walipo, kuwajulisha kuwa ni haki na makosa, kuwakandamiza kutumia haki zao kwa njia yoyote ambayo inaweza kuhatarisha ustawi wao wa milele, kutoa haki za ki-eklezia tu, kupata na kushikilia mali yenyewe, na kuwezesha mashirika yake ya chini kufanya vivyo hivyo - yote ndani ya mipaka ya mahitaji ya kusudi lake la tatu, kama ilivyowekwa na Sheria ya Uhakika ya Mungu, ya kuhifadhi utaratibu wa ndani wa imani na maadili na maonyesho yake ya nje, ya kutoa njia za kutosha za kutakaswa kwa wanachama wake na kutunza ibada ya Mungu. Katika mambo yote ya muda tu, kwa muda mrefu kama inabaki hivyo, mamlaka ya serikali juu ya raia wake ni si tu juu, lakini, kama vile Kanisa ni wasiwasi, peke yake. "Hiyo ni ""ya muda tu"" ambayo ina uhusiano muhimu wa msaada au kizuizi kwa furaha ya muda wa mwanadamu, mwisho wa jamii ya kiraia au serikali, kwa njia ambayo ni wakati huo huo haina maana yenyewe kama msaada au kizuizi kwa furaha ya milele ya mwanadamu." Ni ya aina mbili: kwanza, inatia ndani matendo yote ya kibinadamu yanayohusiana na hayo; na pili, watu au vitu vya nje kwa kadiri wanavyohusika katika matendo hayo. Katika mambo yote ya kiroho tu, kwa muda mrefu kama inabaki hivyo, mamlaka ya Kanisa juu ya watu wake wa kanisa hupata kwa kutengwa kabisa kwa Jimbo; wala Kanisa katika hilo halitegemei kisheria kwa njia yoyote juu ya Jimbo kwa ajili ya mazoezi ya mamlaka yake halali. "Hii ni ""kiumbe cha kiroho"" ambacho kimsingi kinajumuisha matendo ya kibinadamu yanayohusiana na furaha ya milele ya mwanadamu, mwisho wa Kanisa, na wakati huo huo ni ""mtu wa kujitegemea"" kama msaada au kizuizi kwa furaha ya muda wa mwanadamu; kwa upande mwingine, inaenea kwa watu wote na vitu vya nje kama vinavyohusika katika vitendo hivyo." Katika kila jambo ambalo si la kiroho tu wala la muda tu, lakini wakati huo huo ni la kiroho na la muda, mamlaka zote mbili zinaweza kuingia, na hivyo kuingia hutoa sababu ya mgongano, ambao lazima uwe na kanuni ya suluhisho. Katika hali ya kupingana moja kwa moja, na hivyo kufanya iwe vigumu kwa mamlaka zote mbili kutekelezwa, mamlaka ya Kanisa inatawala, na ile ya Serikali ni kutengwa. Sababu ya hili ni dhahiri: mamlaka zote mbili zinatoka kwa Mungu katika kutimiza makusudi yake katika maisha ya mwanadamu: hawezi kujipinga mwenyewe; hawezi kuidhinisha nguvu zinazopingana. "Mungu anataka na anatoa nguvu kwa kusudi la juu la ""Utazamaji wake"" na mahitaji ya mwanadamu, ambayo ni furaha ya milele ya mwanadamu, mwisho wa Kanisa." Kwa sababu ya kusudi hilo, Mungu anampa mamlaka pekee inayoweza kuwepo katika kisa hiki. Katika kesi ambapo hakuna kinyume cha moja kwa moja lakini uwezekano wa mamlaka zote mbili kutekelezwa bila kuumiza juu, ingawa hakuna mamlaka yoyote ambayo imefutwa, na zote mbili zinaweza, kwa kweli, kutekelezwa bila kushauriana, kwa kweli kuna ufunguzi wazi wa marekebisho kati ya hizo mbili, kwani mamlaka zote mbili zina nia ya kuepuka msuguano. Ingawa concordat hazikuundwa hasa kwa kusudi hili, zimetumiwa katika visa vingi kwa ajili ya marekebisho hayo (tazama Concordat). Kwa kufuata ubora wa kusudi la msingi lililotajwa hapo juu, uamuzi wa kihukumu kuhusu wakati ambapo swali linahusisha au halihusishi mambo ya kiroho, ama kwa njia ya kipekee au kwa sehemu, unategemea Kanisa. Hawezi kufanya hivyo na serikali ambayo mamlaka yake, kwa sababu ya udhaifu wa mwisho wake na lengo la karibu, haina uwezo kama huo wa mahakama kuhusiana na mada ya mamlaka ambayo ni juu ya yake mwenyewe kama mwisho wake na lengo la karibu ni juu ya ile ya serikali. Kwa njia ileile kila mahakama ya juu daima ni hakimu wa mamlaka yake mwenyewe dhidi ya mahakama ya chini. Yote yaliyotajwa hapo juu ni suala la kanuni, linalosemwa kama swali la haki ya lengo, na inadhani kwamba mamlaka inapaswa kutumika kupitia mada husika za sawa. Kwa kweli, wajibu wa kujitiisha kwa raia wa Jimbo kwa mamlaka ya juu ya Kanisa haupo ambapo raia huyo si raia wa Kanisa, kwa sababu juu ya raia huyo Kanisa halidai mamlaka ya kutawala. Pia inaweza kuwa kwa bahati mbaya subjectively obscured katika mtu ambaye, ingawa katika hatua ya haki Kanisa ni chini, kwa imani nzuri kushindwa, kwa sababu ya dhamiri makosa, kutambua ukweli huu, na kwa matokeo, Kanisa haki na wajibu wake mwenyewe. "Sehemu ya serikali imeelezwa wazi kabisa na sheria na desturi za kibinadamu; lakini uasi wa mara kwa mara, uliodumu kwa karne nyingi, wa idadi kubwa ya raia wa Kanisa, umechanganya katika akili ya ulimwengu usio Mkatoliki wazo la ""ni nani kwa sheria iliyofunuliwa ni raia wa Kanisa.""" Chini ya sheria ya Kanisa ni kila mwanadamu ambaye amepokea sakramenti ya Ubatizo kwa njia halali. Kuzaliwa katika Kanisa kwa ubatizo ni sawa na kuzaliwa ndani ya eneo la jimbo la spring off mmoja wa raia wake. Hata hivyo, raia huyu wa jimbo anaweza, chini ya hali fulani, kuachana na uaminifu wake kwa jimbo lake la asili na kukubaliwa kama raia wa jimbo jingine. Lakini si mtu aliyezaliwa katika Kanisa kwa ubatizo; kwa maana ubatizo ni sakramenti inayoacha tabia isiyoweza kufuta juu ya nafsi, ambayo mwanadamu hawezi kuiondoa na hivyo kuepuka utii halali. "Lakini kama ilivyo katika nchi, mtu anaweza kuwa raia bila haki kamili za uraia; anaweza hata, wakati akibaki raia, kupoteza haki hizo kwa kitendo chake mwenyewe au cha wazazi wake; hivyo, kwa mfano, sio kila raia wa Kanisa ni mwanachama wake, na mara moja mwanachama, anaweza kupoteza haki za kijamii za uanachama katika Kanisa bila kuacha kuwa raia wake. """ Kwa ajili ya uanachama kamili katika Kanisa, mtu lazima, kwa muungano wa imani na uaminifu, awe katika ushirika na Kanisa, na asiwe amenyimwa haki za uanachama kwa hukumu ya kanisa. Kwa hiyo, Wakristo waliobatizwa kwa haki, ambao wanaishi katika mgawanyiko au, kwa sababu ya uasi-imani au elimu ya awali, wanadai imani tofauti na ile ya Kanisa, au wametengwa nayo, si washiriki wa Kanisa, ingawa kwa sababu ya haki na wajibu wao bado ni raia wake. Katika mazoezi, Kanisa, wakati kuhifadhi haki yake juu ya masomo yote, haina - isipokuwa katika baadhi ya mambo machache si ya wakati hapa - kusisitiza juu ya kutumia mamlaka yake juu ya yeyote lakini wanachama wake, kama ni wazi kwamba hawezi kutarajia utii kutoka kwa Wakristo wale ambao, kuwa katika imani au serikali kutengwa na yeye, kuona hakuna haki katika yake amri, na kwa hiyo kutambua hakuna wajibu wa kutii. Kwa wale ambao hawajabatizwa, yeye hakidai haki ya kutawala, ingawa ana haki ya kuhubiri Injili miongoni mwao na kujitahidi kuwapata wawe washiriki wa Kanisa la Kristo na hivyo kuwa raia wa serikali yake ya kanisa. Tatu. Uhusiano wa Chama cha Kanisa na Serikali <unk>Kila jamii kamili lazima ikubali haki za kila jamii nyingine kamili; lazima ipe wajibu wote unaotokana na haki hizo; lazima iheshimu uhuru wake; na inaweza kudai kutambuliwa kwa haki zake mwenyewe na kutimizwa kwa majukumu yanayotokana nayo. Kama mtu anaweza pia kuamuru utambuzi na kutimiza kama huo ni swali jingine: moja haihusishi nyingine; kwa hivyo, kwa mfano, Marekani inaweza kudai haki zake za Uingereza, lakini haiwezi kuamuru Uingereza kuzitambua, kwani Marekani haina mamlaka juu ya Uingereza au taifa lingine lolote. "Kutoka kwa hili kwa sasa, Kanisa lazima kuheshimu haki za serikali ya kuongoza raia wake katika mambo yote ya muda tu, na, kama raia wa serikali ni vilevile raia wa Kanisa, lazima kushikilia mwisho kwa kutimiza wajibu wao wa kiraia kama wajibu katika dhamiri. """ Kwa upande mwingine, kwa kanuni, kama suala la wajibu wa kimakusudi, Serikali ina wajibu wa kutambua haki za kisheria za Kanisa katika mambo yote ya kiroho, iwe ni ya asili au ya mchanganyiko, na haki yake ya kisheria ya kuamua tabia ya mambo ya mamlaka, kwa kuzingatia, yaani, ubora wao wa kiroho. "Kwa kuongezea, serikali ina wajibu wa kumwabudu Mungu kama inavyotakiwa, kama inavyofuata kutoka kwa hoja hiyo hiyo kutoka kwa sheria ya asili ambayo inathibitisha wajibu wa mwanadamu kwa ibada ya nje, yaani, kwamba mtu lazima atambue utegemezi wake kwa Mungu na kujitiisha kwake kwa Yeye katika kila uwezo ambao ni utegemezi, na kwa hivyo sio tu katika uwezo wake wa kibinafsi kama mtu binafsi, lakini pia katika uwezo huo wa umma, wa ushirika ambao yeye na raia wenzake wanaunda.""" Ibada inayostahili, katika uchumi wa sasa, ni ile ya dini ya Kristo, iliyowekwa chini ya utunzaji wa Kanisa. "Hata hivyo, lazima serikali iwalinde Kanisa katika kutekeleza kazi zake, kwa sababu serikali ina wajibu wa kulinda haki zote za raia wake, na miongoni mwa hizo haki zao za kidini, ambazo kwa kweli zingekuwa zisizo salama na zisizo na matunda kama Kanisa halingelindwa. """ Serikali ina wajibu wa kuendeleza hata maslahi ya kiroho ya Kanisa, kwa sababu serikali ina wajibu wa kuendeleza chochote ambacho kwa asili hufanya kazi kwa maendeleo ya maadili ya raia wake na kwa hivyo kwa amani ya ndani ya jamii, na katika hali ya sasa ya asili ya binadamu, maendeleo hayo yanategemea kwa lazima ushawishi wa kiroho wa Kanisa. Kwa kuwa, basi, kuna wajibu juu ya serikali kama hiyo, unaotokana na Sheria ya Asili na ya Kimaadili, kutoa ibada ya Mungu hadharani kulingana na mwongozo wa Kanisa, ambalo Kristo ameweka ibada inayostahili katika utaratibu wa sasa wa mambo, wajibu pia wa kulinda Kanisa na kukuza maslahi yake, ni wazi kwamba Kanisa lina haki kamili ya kudai kutimiza majukumu haya, kwa kuwa kutoyafanya hivyo kungevunja haki yake ya faida inayotokana na kutimiza. "Kuwa na haki ya kuamuru serikali kuhusu mambo hayo kunamaanisha kwamba Kanisa lina haki ya kuwalazimisha wajibu wa mamlaka yake kuhusu mambo hayo, na kuwalazimisha kwa mamlaka kutoka kwa serikali.""" Lakini katika mambo ya wakati tu, maadamu yanaendelea kuwa hivyo, Kanisa haliwezi kuamuru serikali, kama vile haliwezi kuamuru raia wa serikali, ingawa wao ni raia wake. Lakini katika mambo ya kiroho na ya mchanganyiko yanayohitaji hatua ya pamoja ya Serikali, swali linategemea kama watu halisi ambao hufanyiza utu wa maadili wa Serikali wenyewe ni raia wa Kanisa. Ikiwa ndivyo, basi Kanisa lina mamlaka juu ya Jimbo. "Kwa sababu ya umuhimu wa furaha ya milele katika maisha ya mwanadamu, mwanadamu katika uwezo wake wote, hata wa asili ya kiraia, lazima aelekeze shughuli zake ili zisizozidisha lengo hili, na pale ambapo hatua hata katika uwezo wake wa rasmi au wa kiraia ni muhimu kwa kusudi hili la mwisho, yeye ni wajibu wa kuweka hatua: zaidi ya hayo, katika shughuli hizi zote zinazohusiana na lengo hili, kwa kuwa kwa hivyo ni suala la kiroho, kila kitu cha Kanisa ni chini ya mamlaka ya Kanisa. """ "Kama watu wa kimwili wanaofanyiza mtu wa kiadili wa serikali ni raia wa Kanisa, bado wao ni raia wa Kanisa katika mambo kama hayo, yaani, katika kutimiza wajibu wote wa kiraia wa serikali kwa dini na Kanisa.""" Kanisa, kwa sababu ya kutokuwa na faida ya kusisitiza kwake, au kwa sababu ya maovu makubwa zaidi ya kuepukwa, linaweza kuachana na mazoezi ya mamlaka hii; lakini kwa kanuni ni yake. Katika mazoezi tunatofautisha, kutoka kwa mtazamo wa kidini, aina nne za mamlaka ya kiraia. Kwanza, katika nchi ya Kikatoliki, ambayo, yaani, watu wa asili wanaofanyiza utu wa maadili wa nchi ni Wakatoliki, mamlaka ya Kanisa katika masuala ya uwezo wake ni kamili kwa kila njia. Pili, katika nchi isiyo ya Kikristo, kwa mfano, ya Uturuki, ambapo watu hawajabatizwa hata, Kanisa halidai mamlaka juu ya nchi kama hiyo; msingi wa mamlaka hiyo haupo. Tatu, katika nchi ya Kikristo lakini isiyo ya Kikatoliki, ambapo watu wanaochaguliwa, ingawa kwa ubatizo wao, si washiriki wa Kanisa, per se mamlaka ya Kanisa ingesimama, lakini per accidens mazoezi yake ni haiwezekani. "Kwa nne, ""Jimbo la mchanganyiko, yaani, moja, ambalo washiriki wake wa kiadili ni lazima wa dini mbalimbali, ni karibu nje ya kufikia mamlaka ya kanisa, kwa kuwa uanachama wa baadhi ya washiriki hawawezi kufanya mtu wa Kanisa kutoka kwa kiadili ya kiadili iliyoundwa na vipengele ambavyo si vyote vinavyohusika katika uanachama huo.""" Utii huu unaonyeshwa hapa ni wa moja kwa moja: si kwamba Kanisa halifiki moja kwa moja mambo ya kiroho na ya mchanganyiko, bali kwamba kwa habari yao hufikia moja kwa moja tu watu wake wa karibu na kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja kupitia wao, Serikali ambayo wao hufanyiza. Kwa hiyo, katika mambo kama hayo, Serikali haifanyi kazi moja kwa moja kwa ajili ya kusudi la Kanisa la kiungu (furaha ya milele ya raia wake), bali kwa ajili ya kusudi lake la muda, kwa kadiri ambayo hatua kama hiyo itafanya kwa ajili ya furaha yao ya muda; na hivyo inafanya kazi kwa ajili ya Kanisa kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja. Hakuna hoja sambamba ya kumpa Serikali mamlaka ya moja kwa moja juu ya Kanisa katika masuala ya muda tu, na kwa hiyo ya mamlaka ya Serikali pekee. Kanisa ni la ulimwengu wote na haliwezi kuwa mshiriki au mshiriki wa Jimbo lolote hususa. Hata kama kungekuwa na serikali moja tu ulimwenguni, Kanisa halingekuwa mwanachama wake, kwa sababu wanachama wake si raia wa serikali kwa kadiri ambayo katika kila uwezo wanapaswa kuwasilisha shughuli zao kwa kusudi la serikali, hasa sio shughuli zinazohusiana moja kwa moja na kusudi la juu la maisha ya milele. Kwa kuongezea, Kanisa halijaanzishwa tu kwa kutumia haki za asili za watu ambao ni raia wa Jimbo, lakini kwa zawadi ya juu ya asili ya Sheria ya Kimaadili ya Kimungu. Mwishowe, Kanisa katika uwezo wake wa shirika halina wajibu wa kutafuta furaha ya muda wa wanachama wake kama njia ya ustawi wao wa milele, wakati Serikali kama hiyo ina wajibu wa ibada ya Mungu na ulinzi na kukuza Kanisa kwa maslahi ya dini, kwa sababu hii ni kipengele muhimu kinachohusika katika furaha kamili ya muda wa raia Mkatoliki. Kwa hiyo, serikali haina mamlaka yoyote juu ya Kanisa kama hilo, katika mambo ya kidunia au ya kiroho, hata iwe na mamlaka gani juu ya washiriki wa Kanisa, ambao ni raia wa serikali. Serikali inaweza, kama ilivyosemwa hapo juu, kudai haki zake kutoka kwa Kanisa: haiwezi kuamuru. IV. Utafiti Muungano wa Kanisa na Jimbo. <unk>Kuna mvurugo fulani katika akili ya umma kuhusu maana ya muungano wa Kanisa na Serikali. "Wazo la msingi la muungano huo ni hali ya mambo ambapo serikali inatambua uhusiano wake wa asili na wa kiasili na Kanisa, inadai imani, na inafanya ibada ya Kanisa, inalilinda, haifanyi sheria yoyote kwa madhara yake, wakati, katika kesi ya uhitaji na kwa mwaliko wake, kuchukua hatua zote za haki na za lazima za kiraia ili kuendeleza kusudi la Kanisa, kwa kadiri yote haya yanafanya kwa kusudi la msingi la serikali, furaha ya muda wa raia wake. """ Kwamba hii ni hali ya kawaida na ya maadili kwa ajili ya serikali ya kweli ya Kikatoliki inapaswa kuwa dhahiri kutoka kwa wajibu wa kidini wa serikali ya Kikatoliki kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu. Kwamba katika hali ya kweli wakati mwingine katika wakati uliopita umefanya mabaya kwa Kanisa na Serikali, ni athari ya bahati mbaya, kutokana na udhaifu na uchungu wa vyombo vya kibinadamu vilivyotawala wakati huo katika Kanisa, au katika Serikali, au katika zote mbili. Kwa sababu ya kutaka kujilinda dhidi ya madhara hayo mabaya, Kanisa limekuwa likifanya mikataba na nchi za Kikatoliki kwa karne nyingi, lakini hata hivyo si mara zote kwamba mambo yamekuwa sawa. Kwa maana makubaliano, kama makubaliano mengine yote, hata kama ni imara kwa kanuni, ni imara katika mazoezi tu kama dhamiri ya wale ambao ni wajibu wao kuzingatia. Wale wasio na dhamiri wanaweza kuwaharibu wanapotaka. Kati ya Kanisa na hali ya kutenganishwa na hali ya kutokuwa na uhusiano na Kanisa, au kati ya hali ya kutokuwa na uhusiano na hali ya kutokuwa na uhusiano na Kanisa, hali ya kutokuwa na uhusiano na Kanisa, hali ya kutokuwa na uhusiano na Kanisa, hali ya kutokuwa na uhusiano na Kanisa, hali ya kutokuwa na uhusiano na Kanisa. Kutenganishwa kama huko kwa ajili ya Jimbo Katoliki kungekuwa uhalifu, kama kupuuza wajibu mtakatifu wa Jimbo. Kwa nchi iliyokuwa Katoliki na iliyo katika muungano na Kanisa, kutangaza kujitenga kwa sababu ya kuacha kuwa Katoliki ni tendo ambalo kama suala la haki ya kimakusudi halina msimamo; kwa sababu kwa kweli ya kimakusudi, wajibu wa watu ungekuwa kurudisha imani yao iliyopotea, ikiwa kweli waliipoteza, au kuishi kulingana nayo, ikiwa kwa kweli haikuwa imepotea. Lakini kwa dhana ya kwamba msingi wa serikali umebadilishwa kutoka kwa Wakatoliki kuwa wale ambao, sio kwa udanganyifu wa unafiki, lakini kwa ukamilifu wa imani njema, sio Wakatoliki - hali rahisi ya dhana kuliko ya utambuzi - serikali kupitia dhamiri hiyo iliyokosea inaweza kutafuta kutenganishwa bila kosa la kibinafsi, ikiwa kutenganishwa kulifanywa bila kufutwa kwa makubaliano yaliyopo, bila ukiukaji wa haki za Kanisa au wanachama wake. Kwa upande mwingine, ni muhimu kutambua kwamba katika kesi za hivi karibuni za kutengana nchini Ufaransa na Ureno, yaani. "Utofauti huo, ambao umefanyika katika maeneo ambayo idadi kubwa ya watu bado ni Wakatoliki, umefanywa kwa kukiuka haki na mikataba ya asili na ya kweli, na umesababisha, kama ilivyokusudiwa, jaribio la kuwashikilia kabisa Kanisa na raia wote katika mambo ya dini kwa udhalimu wa utawala ambao unadharau dini zote. """ """Kwa kuwa katika nchi ambazo utu wao umefanyizwa na kila aina ya imani ya kidini, na sehemu kubwa ya imani hiyo ni ya kweli, lazima kuwe na kujizuia kwa serikali kutoka kwa ibada yoyote ya kidini au imani ya kidini, na ulinzi wa jumla na kutia moyo kwa mtu binafsi katika mazoezi ya dini kulingana na kanuni zake mwenyewe za kidini ndani ya mipaka ya Sheria ya Asili, au kukubali kwa ujumla Ukristo, inaonekana kuwa lazima ya vitendo katika nyakati mbaya, wakati umoja wa imani unapokosa sana, na njia ya kuishi ambayo, ikiwa inafanywa kwa dhati, inaonekana kufanya madhara kidogo kwa haki ya madhumuni.""" V. nadharia za kupinga. ... ni ya kupita kiasi zaidi. Kwa kuwa chanzo chake ni kanuni za Mapinduzi ya Ufaransa na kuanzia na wale waliokataa kuwepo kwa Mungu, kwa kawaida inachukua msimamo kwamba Serikali inakataa Mungu: Serikali, inasema, ni ya kutokuamini Mungu. "Kwa kuondoa ufunuo na sheria ya kimungu ya kiburi, ili kurudi kwenye kanuni za asili tu, ilikubaliana na Rousseau na Utilitarians kanuni kwamba haki yote inatokana na serikali, mamlaka yote kutoka kwa mapenzi ya watu wa serikali.""" Msimamo huo ulifuata kwa uhalisi kwamba Kanisa halina haki - hata haki ya kuwepo - isipokuwa zile zinazopewa na mamlaka ya kiraia. Kwa hiyo si jamii kamilifu, bali ni kiumbe cha serikali, ambayo inategemea katika mambo yote, na ambayo lazima iwe chini ya moja kwa moja, ikiwa itaweza kuruhusiwa kuwepo. (Tazama Liberalism.) B. "Liberalism ya ""kuhitimu"" kama ilivyoelezwa na Cavor na Minghetti katika Italia mwishoni mwa nusu ya kwanza ya karne ya kumi na tisa, haipiti hatua hiyo." Ingawa inadai kukubali kwamba Kanisa ni zaidi au chini ya jamii kamilifu na misingi katika Sheria ya Mungu ya Ufafanuzi wa Kikristo, inadai kwamba Kanisa na Jimbo ni tofauti katika njia ya kufuatilia mwisho wao binafsi kwa niaba ya mtu binafsi, kuwa na hakuna subordination chochote moja kwa nyingine. Kwa hiyo, katika mambo yote ya umma, serikali lazima iondoke katika kila jamii ya kidini, na kushughulika na kama ama kama vyama vya kibinafsi zilizopo ndani ya serikali au kama mashirika ya kigeni ya kutibiwa ipasavyo. "Mtazamo wa Liberalism hii mpya ni ""Kijiji huru katika Jimbo huru,"" ambayo kwa kweli ina maana ya Kanisa emasculated na hakuna uhuru zaidi ya mabadiliko ya siasa, ndani na nje, ya Jimbo alichagua kutoa, ambayo katika tukio hilo, kama ilikuwa ya kutazamwa, ilifikia utumwa." (Tazama Italia: Serikali ya Kisiasa na ya Kiraia: (2) Kanisa na Serikali.) "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu cha Theology of the Royalists, Kanisa lilipewa kiasi fulani cha haki za kijamii kutoka kwa Mwanzilishi wake wa kimungu, lakini lilihitaji kutumia nguvu zote za kijamii kwa idhini ya serikali ya kiraia.""" Nadharia hii, inayotokana na Gallicanism (q.v. Kwa kweli, kanisa lilikataa kuwa jamii kamilifu kwa sababu lilifanya mamlaka yake ya kisheria iwe chini ya mamlaka ya serikali. Kwa hatua kwa hatua nadharia hiyo ilipanua madai yake hadi kufanya Kanisa liwe chini ya Serikali kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja, ikitoa mamlaka kwa Serikali kumkataza Kanisa kufanya tendo lolote la kisheria ambalo lingeweza kuathiri Serikali na kumwamuru Kanisa katika hali ya uhitaji kutumia nguvu zake zote ili kuendeleza maslahi ya Serikali.