160

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Fr. Roemer is particularly efficient in presenting matters
he has made previous specialized studies, e.g.. in the question
pean assistance for our struggling early French and German missions
in the U.S.A, (pp. 167 ff.) ; in handling the delicate controver between the Jesuits and Capuchins in Louisiana (pp. 48 f.) ; in elucidating
the unhappy Trusteeism conflicts in which one of his own confreres, hr.
Anthony Sedella, was unfortunately implicated (p. 134 ) : and in manag­
ing the canoe—as it were—in which Joliet and Marquette sailed down
the Mississippi, despite at times, the rather violent literary tempest that
shook the pens of a Francis Borgia Steck, and a Joseph C. Short
(p. 40). The author is to be commended for not unduly overemphasiz­
ing the “Quebec Act" as one of the main causes of the Revolutionary
War, but keeping it within the sober bounds of a contributary occasion.
In a compendium such as Fr. Roemer’s work one cannot expect the
last word in matters pertaining to American Church history to have
been written; the author himself did not intend his book as such (see
p.v.). But he has provoked further investigations and healthy research.
He has given to the Catholic American seminarian and to the intelli­
gentsia of our country a well balanced analysis of American Church
history, and is to be highly commended for his noble efforts and sacri­
fice of time. The B. Herder Book Co. of St. Louis have again measured
up to the high standards of their scholastic publications in giving to the
reading public an easily legible text and a pleasing format.
Raphael M. Huber, O.F.M.Conv.

No Abiding City (Westminster, Md. : The Newman Press, 1948. Pp. 74.
$1.50) represents the Lenten conference which the late Fr. Bede Jarrett, O.P.,
delivered in 1932 at Our Lady of Victories. The Newman Press has shown
good judgment in giving an American edition of a work of so solid a man as
Bede Jarrett. He is one who could write solid scholarly investigations and
solid spiritual books and brochures. No Abiding City centers about the
theme that we have not here a lasting habitation, but that our true home is
heaven. It is only in the light of this that the things of earth are seen in
their true perspective. Because we have not here an abiding city, Bede
Jarrett is constantly pointing out the courage with which we should be ani­
mated in facing the realities of life. Likewise he points out the necessity of
a true spirit of independence in regard to the earth and the things of earth in
view of the fact that they are things given us by God to use temporarily in
preparing for the fruition of things eternal. The whole message is one of
confidence and optimism.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND THE RELIGION
OF THE STATE”
What is the veritable Catholic ‘‘thcsi>"
Church-state relation­
ships? More precisely, what, in reality, is the authentic, perennially
valid and unalterable Catholic doctrine concerning lhe relations
between Catholic Church and Catholic slate, the relations which
should per sc obtain by reason of the natute of Church and state
in a Catholic society, so that any deviation from these relations,
while tolerable perhaps as a concession j tin >ι 11 j >t c< 1 by expediency,
could not merit approval on principle? 'I bis qiivsimn. then, con­
fines itself to theory, to principles. and in linn it is to this question
so put (or aspects of it) that the following pages confine them­
selves. That is to say, it is altogether be) ond the scope of this
brief paper to discuss what concessions may be made in practice,
what departures from the principles, the theory, the norm, would
be legitimate and in order in various concrete circumstances.
The answer to be given to the foregoing question is currently a
matter of lively debate among Catholic theologians. On the one
hand, claiming to be the authentic Catholic “thesis,” there is what
its opponents term the “old thesis.” “the nineteenth-century thesis,”
though in substance it is still the teaching generally presented in
manuals of theology and of Jus Publicum Ecclesiasticum, even
those of most recent vintage.1 On the other hand, there are the
views of several Catholic scholars, here and abroad, who, after a
searching re-examination of the “old thesis,” have contended that
it needs radical revision, substantial modifications. Pre-eminent1
1 Cf. the new edition of J. M. Hervé, Manuale Theoloc/iae Dogmaticae,
(Paris: Berche et Pagis, 1949). I. 520-35 ; P. Parente. Theologia Funda­
mentalis (Turin: Marietti, 1946), pp. 172-77; R. Garrigou-I.agrange, O.P.,
De Revelatione, ed. 4 (Rome: Libreria Editrice Religiosa P. Ferrari, 1945),
II, 411-25; A. Vellico, O.F.M., De Ecclesia Christi (Rome: Editiones Comm.
A. Arnodo, 1940), pp. 605-39; E. I.ercher, S.J., Institutiones Theologiae
Dogmaticae, ed. 3, cur. F. Schlagenhaufen, S.J. (Innsbruck: F. Rauch,
1939), I, 244-45, 251; N. Jung. I.e Droit public de Γ Eglise (Paris: Procure
Générale du Clergé, 1948), pp. 109-37; A. Ottaviani, Institutiones luris
Publici Ecclesiastici, ed. 3 (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1948). II, 46-252;
L. Bender, O.P., Ius Publicum Ecclesiasticum ( Bussum : P. Brand, 1948),
pp. 169-200; F. Marchesi, S.J., Summula luris Publici Ecclesiastici (Naples:
M. D’Auria, 1948), pp. 114-130.
161

162

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

among the champions of these more liberal views is John Conrtnev
Murray, S.J., who has brought to bear against the "old thesis"
impressive erudition, remarkable dexterity, and an uncommon
command of language.2 Withal, it must be asked: i las Fr. Murray, to date, successfully vanquished the "old thesis” in ;mv of its
essentials? If one who claims no special competence in the matter
be allowed to venture an opinion, I would say that he has not. For
whatever they are worth, some reasons for this opinion arc respect­
fully submitted in the following pages, as simply and briefly as a
complicated controversy permits.

I
A key issue in the whole debate is the standing, within the frame­
work of Catholic doctrine, of the constitutional concept of "the
v religion of the state.'"3 For the concept itself, we may turn to Fr.
Murray :
As it has historically appeared in the nation-states of post-Reformation
Europe, this concept asserts that the state itself, the organized political
community does more than, recognize the juridical personality of the
Church as a visible religious society in her own right, with autonomous
powers and definite rights over her members ; by itself this recognition
would not make the Church the religion of the state. The concept also
asserts that the state as such makes public profession of Catholicism
as its own one and only religion ; and by consequence it asserts that
no citizen may make public profession of any other religion. In
further consequence, the coercive power of the state is brought to bear
to inhibit the public profession or propaganda of other religions.4
What is under discussion is the state when it is the body-politic
. of a Catholic people. And the problem before us comes to this:
? Is the official and exclusive recognition and profession of Catholic1 4 ism by the state, with whatever logical and juridical consequences
2 Fr. Murray’s major contributions to the subject are: “Governmental
Repression of Heresy,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of
America, Third Annual Meeting (Chicago, June 28-30, 1949M pp. 26-98;
“St. Robert Bellarmine on the Indirect Power,” Theological Studies, IX
(1948), 491-535; “Contemporary Orientations of Catholic Thought on
Church and State in the Light of History,” Theological Studies, X (1949),
177-234; “Current Theology on Religious Freedom,” Theological Studies,
X (1949), 409-32.
3Cf. Murray, Theological Studies, X (1949), 183 f„ 227-234, 422-432.
Ibid., 424.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND ‘'.RELIGION OE STATE”

163

—as regards other religions—may follow from such a constitutional
situation of “religion of the state,’’ permanenti y and unalterably
part of the genuine Catholic “thesis," obligatory from the nature
of Church and state in a Catholic society? “Is it . . . the theolog­
ically necessary, permanently valid, unalterably ideal realization of
Catholic principles on Church-state relationships?’’5
Fr. Murray’s answer is in the negative. He takes the position
that a constitutional situation of “the religion of the state” is at
most obligatory only if and insofar as it is a means necessary to
ensure the freedom of the Church.6 With this as his major prem­
ise, Fr. Murray then argues, in effect: Now, the future may hold
undreamed-of modes of government wherein the freedom of the
Church would be guaranteed without need of recourse to a con­
stitutional situation of “the religion of the state”7*—indeed, such a
mode is already with us, in modern democracy, of the better sort?
Ergo, “the religion of the state,"’ since it is but a particular and
contingent manner of realizing the Church's freedom, does not en­
joy a necessary and permanent status in Catholic doctrine.
With this conclusion in hand, Fr, Murray considers that Cath­
olic principles leave room for a body-politic of a Catholic people
which would be, not a “Catholic state.” but a “lay state,”9 some­
what on the following order, I gather : one wherein, to be sure, the
state would reckon with the reality of the Church,1011would recog­
nize the unique juridical personality of the Church and the exist­
ence, in an order higher than that of the state, of an external spirit­
ual authority that has an independent sovereignty over all its sub­
jects in all that concerns their spiritual and moral life, even as
citizens and rulers,11 wherein there would be right moral and
5 Ibid, 229; cf. 430.
«Ibid., 183, 229 f„ 233, 422 f., 425 f., 430.
7 Ibid., pp. 425 f.
6 Ibid., 189 f„ 223-26, 233 f.
8 Lay; not laicist, laicizing, secularist. Cf. Murray, “Governmental Re­
pression of Heresy,” pp. 30, 63; idem, Theological Studies, X (1949), 188-90,
200, 225 f., 232.
10 Cf. “Governmental Repression of Heresy,” p. 80, and, for an extended
discussion of how this reckoning would work out, see the whole section,
pp. 70-85.
11 Ibid., pp. 89-90; cf. Theological Studies, X (1949), 424.

164

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

juridical relationships between the Church and the state,'- and to
that extent no separation of Church and state,1” wherein, however,
Catholicism would not be “the religion of the state,’' would not be
publicly professed by the state as its own one and only religion, and
in consequence without inhibition by the state ot public profession
or propaganda of other religions.14 Such a relationship of Church
and state, Fr. Murray holds, is called for by a modern democracy,
whose historical emergence is said to correspond to a fundamental
intention of nature15 (and therefore of God), and which would col­
lapse, it is to be feared, if public profession or propaganda of false
religions be inhibited.10
Before accepting all this, one would like, among other things, to
be sure about the validity of Fr. Murray’s initial premise: there is
room for considerable doubt that the theological necessity or non­
necessity of “the religion of the state” depends solely on the latter’s
necessity or non-necessity for the freedom of the Church, To be
fair, Fr. Murray has not simply assumed the truth of this premise.
On the contrary, he has made valiant efforts to dispose of various
conceivable objections against his major premise, i.e., arguments
wishing to vindicate the theological necessity of “the religion of
the state” whether the Church’s freedom be at stake or not. That
these efforts have been successful in every case, I am not sure.
Happily, however, there is no need to go into all that as long as a
simpler course is available—of asking whether Fr, Murray has
considered all the arguments.
Thus, on the question of the theological necessity or non­
necessity of “the religion of the state” one would like to see some
explicit discussion of the possible implications of a “major obliga­
tion which natural law imposes on the State—that is, on organized
society with its agencies of government . . . the obligation to ac­
knowledge God as its author, to worship Him as He wills to be
worshipped, and to subject its official life and action to His law,”
42 Cf. Murray, “Freedom of Religion: T. The Ethical Problem,” The­
ological Studies, VI (1945), 268; idem. Theological Studies. X (1949), 423.
13 Cf. 7heological Studies, VI (1945), 268, and “Governmental Repression
of Heresy,” pp. 89 f,
14 Cf. Theological Studies, X (1949), 234, 424, and “Governmental Re­
pression of Heresy,” p. 84.
15 Cf, Theological Studies, X (1949), 181-83, 231, 233 f.
™Ibid., 182 f.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND ‘’RELIGION OF STATE"

165

which “absolute obligation includes also the hypothetical obligation
of accepting a higher belief, law. and mode or worship, n God re­
veals them as His will.”
As to this obligation itself, whatever ns implications may be,
Fr. Murray undoubtedly concedes it, since the words just quoted
derive from an earlier article of his1' and do but sum up what is
classic and certain doctrine among Catholic philosophersand
theologians,19 doctrine confirmed by the Eopcw, as will be seen
later.
What the philosophers and theologians have to say, relevant to
the matter in hand, can be given only in resume. That man has
the duty not only of individual but also of social worship, is cle17 “Freedom of Religion: I. The Ethical Problem,’’ Theological Studies,
.VI (1945), 266, with note 9b.
18 Cf. V. Cathrein, S.J., Philosophia Moralis, ed. 17, cur. J. Schuster. S.J.
(Freiburg i. Br. : Herder, 1935), pp. 432-434, 438 f. : J. Donat, S.J., Ethica
Specialis, ed. 5 (Innsbruck: F. Rauch), pp. 236 f., 256 f. ; E. Cahill, S.J.,
Framework of the Christian State (Dublin: Gill and Son, 1932), pp. 466 f.,
601, 607; Ryan-Boland, Catholic Principles of Politics (New York: Mac­
millan, 1940), p. 311; H. Rommen, The State in Catholic Thought (St.
Louis: Herder, 1945), pp. 366 f.
1(,Cf. treatises on Moral Theology, Ins Publicum Ecclesiasticum, and
Fundamental Theology. In the latter discipline, the teaching is a standard
thesis of the tract De Pera Religione, and reappears in the tract De
Ecclesia as an argument against separation of Church and state; cf.
Lercher, op. cit., 8 f„ 244; Hervé, op. cit., 30, 523, 526 f. ; Garrigou-Lagrange,
op. cit., 411 f.; S. Tromp, S.J., De Revelatione Christiana, ed. 4 (Rome:
Gregorian University, 1937), p. 37; J. Herrmann, C.SS.R., Institutiones
Theologiae Dogmaticae, ed. 7, cur. Stebler-Raus (Lyons-Paris: E. Vitte,
1937), I, 83, 492; A. Dorsch, S.J., Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis,
ed. 3 (Innsbruck: F. Rauch, 1930), I, 271-272; L. Billot, S.J., De Ecclesia
Christi, ed. 3 (Rome: Gregorian University, 1929). II, <84-86; M. d’Herbigny,
S.J., Theologica de Ecclcsia, ed. 3 (Paris: G. Beauchesne, 1927), I, 140;
G. Lahousse, S.J., De Pera Religione (Louvain: C. Peeters, 1897), pp.
45-48; G. Wilmers, S.J., De Religione Revelata ( Regensburg : Pustet,
1897), pp. 26 f. ; T. Zigliara, O.P., Fropaedeutica ad S. Th eologiam, ed. 4
(Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1897), pp. 203 f. ; C. Mazzella, S.J., De
Religione et Ecclcsia (Rome: Typographia Polyglotta. 1880), pp. 21, 25 f.,
456 f. Cf. also the (Primum) Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae de
Ecclesia drawn up at the Vatican Council: cap. xiii (Collectio Lacensis,
VII, 573b), and the theologians’ adnotationes thereto (ibid., 622d, 623d624a).

166

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

mentary Catholic doctrine.20 In treating of this obligation of social
worship, authors go on to affirm that even the state, qua state, not
simply “society” but the politically organized communit}·, civil so­
ciety as such, is bound to profess religion, the true religion: to
worship God in the way He wills to be worshipped ; and is so
bound by the natural law. It is understood, of course, that the
state is a moral person, able to be the subject of duties, and to ful­
fill them, only through the medium of physical persons, the indi­
vidual members who compose it. Concretely, then, the stale pro­
fesses, exercises religion, worships God, through official acts of
those placed in authority. To satisfy its religious obligations, the
state must worship God not only indirectly, virtually, adminis­
tratively, but also directly and formally.21 That is to say, not only,
for example, by abstaining from whatever is contrary to divine
law, not only by positive furtherance of public religion, not only
by legislation, ex motivo religionis, against perjury, public blas­
phemy, writings inimical to public religion and morality, etc., but
also by official participation in acts of worship properly so-called—
of adoration, thanksgiving, supplication, and the like. The basic
argument for all this, employed to prove the state’s obligation of
direct and formal divine worship in addition to that of worshipping
indirectly, virtually, administratively,22 since it is more full}’ stated
in papal utterances below, may thus be given in barest essence.
The state is a creature of God, for He is the author of man’s
social nature, of all authority in the state, of all the benefits the
state enjoys ; therefore, the state must acknowledge its dependence
on God, by appropriate acts of worship. If the state be, indeed,
“of the natural law,” one can hardly dispute this argument.
Further, one perceives that, if it holds for any state, the argument
holds for all—for all forms, those known and those undreamed-of,
for juridical democracy and for any other new realizations in the
reality of the “state” which historical evolution has brought or
may yet bring about.
20 Cf. Pius XII, Ency. Mediator Dei, AAS XXXIX (1947), pp. 525 f,
530 f. ; English transi., Mediator Dei: On the Sacred Liturgy (N ew York :
Paulist Press), pp. 17 f, 35.
21 Cf. Dorsch, op. cit., I, 271 f. ; Lahousse, op. cit., pp. 45-48; Donat,
op. cit., p. 236.
22 Cf. Dorsch, op. cit., I, 272.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND “RELIGION OE STATE”

16/

To continue the resumé—the state is no less a creature of God,
and therefore no less bound to worship Him, tor all that the actual
order of things is a supernatural order, that a supernatural religion,
the Catholic, has been revealed as obligatory for all men, that a
supernatural religious society, the Catholic Church, has been di­
vinely instituted for the worship of God. Given these facts, the
state, in conformity with its obligation under natural law to profess
the true religion, to worship God as He decrees ("the hypothetical
obligation of accepting a higher belief, law, and mode oi worship, if
God reveals them as His will”), has thou the duty of accepting
Catholicism, its creed, code, cult. The objective duty exists for
all; and where the objective duty is sufficiently known, the duty is
subjective as well. This latter obtains in the case of a Catholic so­
ciety. For in such case the state is not in the position of having to
discover the true religion. It does not have to seek for that which
has been found and is known in advance by the Catholic people of
which the state is the body-politic. It has rather but to acknowl­
edge what the Catholic populace acknowledges, the divine institu­
tion of the Catholic Church.23 That the state finds the Church in
this wise, indirectly, through the medium of the Catholic citizenry,
does not mean that the state has no direct duties towards the
Church. For, in the supernatural order no less than in the natural,
the state remains a creature of God, and, as such, and as a perfect
society really distinct from the Church, has its own duty of divine
homage, of worshipping God as He wills to be worshipped, a duty
which the state cannot fulfill apart from the Church.
Such would seem to be the mind of the representative authors
we have been consulting. What are the implications of all this as
to the question of the theological necessity of “the religion of the
state”? It is difficult to understand why the foregoing considera­
tions should not call for the conclusion that, in a Catholic society,
it is incumbent upon the state to be a “Catholic state,” to declare
and to treat Catholicism as “the religion of the state.” The formal,
official, and exclusive recognition and profession of Catholicism bv
the state in a Catholic society as its own one and only religion, in
short, the establishment of Catholicism as “the religion of the state,”
33 Cf. L. Choupin, S.J., Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires
du Saint-Siège, ed. 3 (Paris: G. Beauchesne, 1928), p. 272; GarrigouLagrange, op. cit., II, 420, rsp. ad obj. 1. Cf. also Rommen. op. cit., p. 367.

168

,

\
J
!|
• 'i

I-J

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

seems necessarily contained in the very notion of the state's duty
to accept and profess the true religion, therefore Catholicism, with
its creed, code, and cult. How else could the state, qua state, in
truth accept and profess Catholicism, together with its tenet that
it alone is the true religion?
If such a conclusion be conceded, one must then face up to the
problem of what ought to be the state’s attitude toward, and deal­
ings with, the heterodox : the problem of what “logical and juridical
consequences,” as regards sects, should flow from the situation of
_ Catholicism as ‘‘the religion of the state.” Before a further word is
said on this subject, let it be noted at once that no Catholic holds
or may hold that the state would be called upon to impose the
: Catholic faith on dissident citizens. Reverence for the individual
conscience forbids this, and the very nature of religion and of the
act of faith. If these be not voluntary, they are nought.-4 Further,
it is agreed to by all that the members of sects must be permitted
the private external exercise of their religion. Neither of these
points, then, enters into the question, when one comes to debate the
problem of the “logical and juridical consequences” of Catholicism
as “the religion of the state.” What is, however, very much in
question, is this : Would the Catholic state be under moral obliga­
tion (per se—as was stated at the very outset, our whole discus­
sion has been moving at the level of principles) to restrict sects
in such matters as the public profession and exercise of their false
religion, in their propaganda, the spread of their heretical doctrines?
It is no secret that the defenders of the “old thesis” answer in
the affirmative. They consider such action by the state inherent in24
24 Leo XIII, Ency. Immortale Dei: “The Church is wont to take earnest
heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his
will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise
than of his own free will.’” The passage is found in the Codicis iuri scanonici fontes (hereinafter designated by CICF), cura Emi Petri Card.
Gasparri editi (Romae: Typis Polyglottis \raticanis, 1926-39), III, 245 f. :
and in DB, 1875; Engl, transi., The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope
Leo XIII (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1903), p. 127.—Ci. also the
Code of Canon Law, can. 752, 1 ; can. 1351. Also, Pius XII, Ency. Mystici
Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, in MAS XXXV (1943), 243; Eng. transi..
The Mystical Body of Christ (New' York: The America Press), nn. 122 f.
See also Pius XII, Allocution to the Roman Rota, Oct. 6, 1946; MAS
XXXVIII (1946), 393 f. ; Engl, transi, in T. Bouscaren, S.J., Canon Law
Digest, Supplement 1948 (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1949), pp. 255-257.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND ‘-RELIGION OF STATE”

169

the logic of the state’s duty to accept and profess Catholicism, a
necessary consequence of the situation of Catholicism as "the re­
ligion of the state.”25* And that it was the mind of Pius XI that
“the religion of the state” entailed some maimer of sectarian re­
striction, is candidly acknowledged by Fr. Murray.20 To counter
certain utterances of Mussolini anent the import of the Lateran
Pacts (Treaty and Concordat), the Pope, in his letter of May 30,
1929, to Cardinal Gasparri. published in the Osscrvut 01'0 i^)III(llll)
on June 5, 1929—two days before the formal ratification of the
Lateran Pacts—forcefully insisted that it be “clearly and lovallv
understood that the Catholic religion, and it alone, according to
the Statute and the Treaties, is the religion of the state with the
logical and juridical consequences of such a situation of constitu­
tional law, especially with reference to propaganda” ; and the Pope
went on to add that full liberty of discussion is inadmissable. since
some forms of discussion can easily trick unenlightened minds and
become a cloak for harmful propaganda.27
What Fr. Murray himself actually holds in his particular matter
is not altogether clear. When he has occasion to refer to such ‘‘con­
sequences,” he is inclined to add some qualifications, as when he
writes, “‘logical and juridical consequences’ that have historically
followed from that concept (“religion of the state”]” ;28 or when he
puts it that these consequences have been “considered ‘logical.’ ”2!>
On the other hand, I have not noted any assertion of Fr. Murray
that such consequences are not, in truth, “logical.” In the light of
the utterances of Pius XI, given above, and of other Popes, to he
quoted presently, such reticence is understandable. Fr. Murray
has been able to avoid facing up to the problem by disputing the
basic supposition of the problem, the theological necessity of “the
religion of the state” :
Finally, the question is not whether, in a “constitutional situation’’
wherein is enshrined the concept of “religion of the state,” there fol25 See, for example, Ottaviani, op. cit., II, 51-57.
2G Theological Studies, X (1949), 227.
27 Cf. A AS XXI (1929), 301; J. Lo Grasso, S.J., Ecclesia et Status
(Rome: Gregorian University, 1939), nn. 831 f. ; America, June 15, 1929,
pp. 219-220.
M Theological Studies, X (1949), 229; italics mine.
^Tbid., 183; italics mine.

170

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

low certain “logical and juridical consequences” with regard to the
suppression of other forms of belief and worship.
For the theologian, the basic question concerns that constitutional
situation itself—is it or is it not the theologically necessary, permanently
valid, unalterably ideal realization of Catholic principles on Church­
state relationships? . . . Surely the answer must be no.30

But what if the answer must be yes? To ask this question has
been one of the reasons for this paper.

II
It is time now that the Popes be heard on the matters under dis­
cussion in this paper. I single out a few of the relevant utterances,
notably of Leo XIII. That this Pontiff more than once approved
the concept of “the religion of the state” is conceded by Fr. Mur­
ray, who contends, however (if I understand him correctly, and
may sum up his views in my own words), that Leo XIII did not
thereby wish to teach the theological necessity of “the religion of
the state”—his approval of the latter was given only because and
insofar as “the religion of the state” was then necessary to ensure
the well-being of the Church, and of the state as well, against the
onslaughts of Continental Liberalism.31 I am prepared to grant
that Leo XIII may have approved “the religion of the state” for
contingent reasons; but I am not prepared to grant that he ap­
proved it for such reasons alone. To my mind, in his vindication
of “the religion of the state” the Pope adduced at least one doc­
trinal reason, of permanent validity, for “the religion of the state,”
and thereby taught the theological necessity of the latter. The
reason? The state, qua state, must worship God, because it is a
creature of God.
In the Encyclical Humanum genus, Apr. 20, 1884, the Pontiff
declared :

To have in public matters no care for religion, and in the arrangement
and administration of civil affairs to have no more regard for God
than if He did not exist, is a rashness unknown to the very pagans. . . .
Human society, indeed, for which by nature we are formed, has been
constituted by God the Author of nature; and from Him, as from their
principle and source, flow in all their strength and permanence the
so Ibid., 229.

31 ibid., 231-33.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND -‘RELIGION OF STATE”

1/1

countless benefits with which society abounds. As we arc each of us
admonished by the very voice of nature to worship God in piety and
holiness, as the Giver unto us of life and of all that is good therein, so
also and for the same reason, nations and States (populi et civitates')
are bound to worship Him; and therefore it is clear that those who
would absolve society (civilem communitatem) from all religious duty
act not only unjustly but also with ignorance and folly.32
More instructive still is the Encyclical Immortale Dei, issued
Nov. 1, 1885 :

As a consequence, the State (civitatem'), constituted as it is, is
clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to
God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which
command every~indîvidual devoutly to worship God in holiness, be­
cause we belong to Him and must return to Him since from Him we
came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For men living to­
gether in society are under the power of God no less than individuals
are, and society, not less than individuals, owes gratitude to God, who
gave it being and maintains it, and whose ever-bounteous goodness en­
riches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be
remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is
to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice—not such religion
as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God en­
joins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only
one true religion—it is a public crime to act as though there were no
God, So, too, is it a sin in the State not to have care for religion, as a
something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit ; or out of
many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the
fancy; for we [better: “they”—civitates . . . debent] are bound abso­
lutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.
All who rule, therefore, should hold in honor the holy name of God,
and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it. . . ,33

Later in the same Encyclical, Leo XIII cites as reprehensible
the views :
The State (civitas') does not consider itself bound by any kind of
duty towards God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make
public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very
many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the
rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the con32 CICF, III, 229; The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII,
pp. 97 f.
33 CICF, III, 236 f. ; The Great Encyclical Letters . . ., pp. 110 f.

172

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW'

trary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public
order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.34
Perhaps most significant of all is the passage in the same Pon­
tiff’s Encyclical Libertas, June 20, 1888:
This kind of liberty (liberty of cult), if considered in relation to the
State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer
any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him;
that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all
stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the
people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it
must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties towards God,
or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both
of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but
that, by the will of God, men are united in civil societ}'; whether its
component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority;
or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services
which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and
has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was
wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own re­
sources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore civil
society (civilis societas, quia societas est) must acknowledge God as
its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and
authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State
to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godless­
ness—namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike,
and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.
Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State,
that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be
recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the
marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. . . ,35
There is room for but one more relevant pronouncement of the
Popes. Pius X wrote in his Encyclical Vehementer nos, Feb.
11, 1906:
That the State should be separated from the Church is an absolutely
false and most pernicious thesis. For first, since it is based on the prin­
ciple that religion should be of no concern to the State, it docs a grave
injury to God, He who is the founder and conserver of human society
no less than He is of individual men, for which reason He should be
worshipped not only privately but also publicly.*30
34 CICF, III, 242; The Great Encyclical Letters . . ., p. 121.
30 CICF, III, 304; The Great Encyclical Letters . . ., pp. 150 f.
30 CICF, III, 662.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND “RELIGION OF STATE”

173

As I see it, these various papal pronouncements bear upon the
state, qua state; not simply on “society" considered as the pre­
political “matter" to which the state imparts a political “form.’
The state, to which man’s God-given social nature impels him, is
a creature of God, and as such is bound by the natural law to wor­
ship God, and in the way He wills. If this be conceded, it should
not be necessary to pursue any further the significance of such
papal utterances for the various points dawiisscd in the previous
section of this paper.

Ill
Intimately connected with the debate about “religion of the
state” and about the matter of “consequences" flowing therefrom,
is the question whether the government of a state can be said to
have the right and duty of suppressing heresy. By suppressing or
repressing heresy is not meant the “extermination” of heretics, or
the application of force or pressure to make the heterodox give up
their convictions. The question has rather to do with the inhibiting
of heretical propaganda, legal restrictions placed upon the public
circulation of heretical doctrines. It is Fr. Murray’s oft-expressed
contention that, in thesi, a government has no right or duty thus to
repress heresy.37 Correctively, the Church would not have the
right, in thesi, to call upon the government to do so. This position
of his is another of the substantial modifications which Fr. Murray
believes should be made in the “old thesis.” And here, again, I am
not sure that he has proved his case. In a paper already grown too
long, it is not possible to discuss whether Fr. Murray has success­
fully explained away various papal pronouncements of an earlier
day, which are advanced as arguments against his position. It
seems enough to follow the simpler course already adopted in the
previous sections—of asking whether Fr. Murray has considered
all the adverse arguments.
Namely, it seems to me that one must ponder the implications,
in the present matter, of Canon 1381, section 3, in the Code of
Canon Law.38 The latter, of course, is an authoritative expression
37 See, for example, Fr. Murray’s “Governmental Repression of Heresy,”
e. g., p. 27.
33 C.I.C., can. 1381 :
1. Religiosa juventutis institutio in scholis quibuslibet auctoritati et in­
spectioni Ecclesiae subiicitur.

174

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

of the mind of the contemporary Church on what she considers to
be her rights. Now, the Canon in question asserts that the religious
instruction of (Catholic) youth in all schools whatsoever (public,
therefore, as well as Catholic), is subject to the authority of and
supervision by the Church (section 1) ; that the local Ordinaries
have the right and duty of vigilance over all schools in their terri­
tory, lest anything be taught or done in these schools contrary to
faith or morals (section 2) ; that the same Ordinaries have the
right to approve the teachers and text-books of religion, .and to
demand, in the interests of religion and morality, that teachers and
text-books be removed (section 3).
As I see it, Canon 1381, section 3, amounts to the assertion by
the Church of her right to call upon the civil authorities, who con­
trol the public schools, to inhibit the spread of heresy. Moreover,
the Church has called upon various states to acknowledge this her
right, as could readily be shown from various modern Concordats.
Now, since the Church may neither demand nor claim the right to
demand, that civil authority do something illicit, it should follow
that civil authority, the government of a state, has, even in thesi,
the right, and, when called upon to exercise it, the duty of “re­
pressing heresy.”
That said, I conclude this attempt to indicate some of the reasons
why I have found it difficult to subscribe to Fr. Murray’s views.
I have, of course, too great respect for the complexities of the
problem, “What is the veritable ‘Catholic thesis’ ?” and too great
a respect for Fr. Murray’s superior grasp of those complexities, to
suppose that the difficulties I have suggested are altogether in­
capable of solution. But, meanwhile, they remain very real diffi­
culties for me, and they move me to say that a recent description of
the “old thesis” as “somewhat obsolescent”39 is somewhat pre­
mature.
George W. Shea
Immaculate Conception Seminary
Darlington, N. J.
2. Ordinariis locorum ius et officium est vigilandi ne in quibusvis scholis
sui territorii quidquam contra fidem vel bonos mores tradatur aut fiat.
3. Eisdem similiter ius est approbandi religionis magistros et libros;
itemque, religionis morumque causa, exigendi ut tum magistri tum libri
removeantur.
39 Cf. the review of Hervé, op. cit., by Sheedy, C.S.C., in Speculum,

THE MARIAN CHARACTER OF THE REDEMPTION
(I) Mary’s consent to the Incarnation by itselj zoould assure a
Marian note to the Redemption.
“God sent the angel Gabriel to a city of Galilee called Nazareth,
where a virgin dwelt, betrothed to a man of David's lineage; his
name was Joseph, and the virgin’s name was Mary. Into her pres­
ence the angel came and said . . . Mary, do not be airaid, thou hast
found favour in the sight of God. And behold, thou shalt conceive
in thy womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call him Jesus. Tic
shall be great, and men will know him for the Son of the most
High. . . . The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power
of the most High will overshadow thee. Thus this holy offspring
of thine shall be known for the Son of God. . . . And Alary said,
Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; let it be unto me according to
thy word.”1
Was Mary unaware of the contents and of the scope of this
celestial message? Could we dare pretend this without wronging
God? Can we assert the same without dishonoring His Mother?
Would not the Incarnation cease to be a mystery of wisdom and
of love if it had had to be accomplished by offending man’s liberty
and by diminishing his responsibility?
Unquestionably, the young Virgin did not as yet know, for the
moment, all the events which must encompass the existence of
her Son ; but she knows exactly the consequences of her acceptance.
She had read, in the Holy Scriptures, the divine promises, in
particular the prophecies of Daniel (6:13-14) and those of Isaias
(53:1-12) concerning the Servant of God, His sufferings, His
ignominious death. Often had she meditated upon the afflictions
and torments of the future Redeemer, foreseen by the Prophet
of the Passion. “But he was wounded for our iniquities : he was
bruised for our sins. The chastisement of our peace was upon him :
and by his bruises we are healed.”2
In the eyes of Mary, to conceive and bear the Messiah did not
mean to engender a future victor who would cover himself with
glory; on the contrary, it meant to become the mother of one
despised, scoffed at, enveloped in opprobrium, and crowned with
2 Isaias 53 :5.

1 Luke 1:26-38.

175