olic Religion, the doctrine which separates us from all other denominations of Christians however near they may approach to us in other respects, the claims of the see of Rome 99 23 The legitimacy of Church sovereignty is, therefore, a part of our inquiry. Whence, we would ask, did Latin Christianity derive the authority to mould the Church of Christ in the sinister image of Cæsar, and insist on similitude between the State and the Church where difference would seem to be the order of reason? It has been well said that Jesus was never found in the council chamber of princes. With human sovereignty He came in touch but once; then in the person of Pontius Pilate it condemned Him to death. "The kingdom not of this world" it would seem has not yet found an institutional form in harmony with the lesson of the Tribute Money and the Sermon on the Mount. If it shall prove that Christianity, in institutional form, is limited to the absolutism of the Papacy, the State establishment of religion, or an American sectarianism that has no bond of unity except the rejection of all voluntary submission to religious authority, it would seem that institutional Christianity is the failure that Father Tyrrell thought.2 24 23 Ibid., p. 206. In the sectarian churches the membership of the church governs, creating offices and establishing jurisdiction. In the other branches of Christendom where the episcopate is preserved, it is not supreme in jurisdiction, although sacred and inviolable in the sacramental order. The jurisdiction of the episcopate is controlled, de facto, by the State in the case of an established religion, or it is controlled by the church at large. Normally it is the church that governs, allocating to the episcopate its jurisdiction within which it exercises its sacramental powers. 24 Autobiography of George Tyrrell, vol. i. p. 213. ened sentiment of mankind, notwithstanding the pretence of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced." 18 It will be urged that all religious societies have political points of contact and may present claims in conflict with the State. Dr. Laski points out that the Scottish Church claimed to be no less a societas perfecta than the State; 19 that the Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei of Pope Leo XIII is very akin to the Presbyterian theory,20 (minus, we assume, the Pope), and that an Apostolic Episcopate, having a doctrinal relation to Christ, argues that State interference is without justification.21 Cardinal Newman held that the powers which Roman Catholics give to the Holy See, the Church of England lodges in her bishops and priests, corporately or individually.22 But neither Calvinism in its absorption of the State, nor Anglicanism in its adulterous union with it, nor the Apostolic Episcopate outside of Rome, ever declared a sole and individual sovereignty an article of faith or denied in the Church the principle of government by consent of the governed. Cardinal Newman made due recognition of the unique claims of the Roman Church in these respects in his reference to "... the distinctive doctrine of the (Roman) Cath 18 The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints vs. United States, 136 U. S. 1. 55. 19 H. J. Laski, Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty, pp. 38, 20 Ibid., p. 50, note 86. 21 H. J. Laski, Authority in the Modern State, p. 197. 22 Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, vol. ii, p. 200, olic Religion, the doctrine which separates us from all other denominations of Christians however near they may approach to us in other respects, the claims of the see of Rome. 99 23 The legitimacy of Church sovereignty is, therefore, part of our inquiry. Whence, we would ask, did Latin Christianity derive the authority to mould the Church of Christ in the sinister image of Cæsar, and insist on similitude between the State and the Church where lifference would seem to be the order of reason? It as been well said that Jesus was never found in the ouncil chamber of princes. With human sovereignty He came in touch but once; then in the person of Ponius Pilate it condemned Him to death. "The kingdom ot of this world” it would seem has not yet found an nstitutional form in harmony with the lesson of the Tribute Money and the Sermon on the Mount. If it hall prove that Christianity, in institutional form, s limited to the absolutism of the Papacy, the State stablishment of religion, or an American sectarianism hat has no bond of unity except the rejection of all oluntary submission to religious authority, it would eem that institutional Christianity is the failure that Father Tyrrell thought.24 23 Ibid., p. 206. In the sectarian churches the membership of the hurch governs, creating offices and establishing jurisdiction. In he other branches of Christendom where the episcopate is preserved, is not supreme in jurisdiction, although sacred and inviolable the sacramental order. The jurisdiction of the episcopate is conrolled, de facto, by the State in the case of an established religion, r it is controlled by the church at large. Normally it is the church hat governs, allocating to the episcopate its jurisdiction within which it exercises its sacramental powers. 24 Autobiography of George Tyrrell, vol. i. p. 213. The modern State, as represented e. g. in the United States of America, makes the consent of the governed the essential condition of government. It requires that all civic questions, moral or otherwise, shall be decided by its people in the exercise of a free moral consciousness and a free individual conscience. Such a consciousness and such a conscience are essential to "the free synthesis of living wills" on which the life and conduct of the modern State depends. That synthesis may be partly obstructed, or wholly prevented, where a religious belief substitutes at certain points (for the exercise of a free consciousness and conscience) an obedience to a religious sovereignty alien to the State, created in its own theory by the act of God irrespective of the consent of those whom it governs. Therefore, an inevitable conflict arises between two sovereignties the State and the Roman Catholic Church. It will be urged that in this conflict the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equality protect the State, but it is self-evident that the Constitution may be changed and that, in the nature of things, Roman Catholics, as they may have the power, would change the Constitution to harmonize with their most sacred beliefs. These indeed would demand their action in favor of such constitutional change. All this is said in full recognition of the fact that other religious societies may from time to time advocate changes in the Constitution in conformity with their beliefs, but their action would not, and in the nature of things could not, conflict with the political and constitutional order of the State, as in their organization each, like the State, derives jurisdiction from the consent of its members, and claims in moral issues no human sovereignty superior to the Civic Primacy of the People organized in the State. The issue that arises is not new in the world. It has been the problem of statesmen for many centuries. It is not new in the United States. In 1869 the most eminent Roman Catholic theologian of his day, Dr. Döllinger,25 wrote: "In the United States, Catholics cannot form a political party. There, too, as an American bishop has assured us, their situation is most unfavourable as regards political influence and admission to office, because it is always cast in their teeth by Protestants that they find their principles in Papal pronouncements, and cannot therefore honestly accept the common liberties and obligations of a free State, but always cherish an arrière pensée that if ever they become strong enough they will upset the Constitution." 26 Almost as an echo to the words of Dr. Döllinger, a Roman Catholic, eminent in the world of letters,2 writes today: "The chief political problem presented by religion has, then, still to be solved in the New World. What the result will be certainly no foreigner could attempt to predict, and probably no American citizen who has 25 Janus (Dr. J. J. I. von Döllinger), The Pope and the Council, p. 26. Dr. Döllinger was excommunicated in 1871; see C. E., vol. V, pp. 94 d, 98d. 26 H. Belloc, The Contrast, pp. 165–166. |