404

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

ing of the Redeemer. The Great Antiphons, which almost coincide
with the feast of Our Lady’s Expectation and its octave, express
the longing of the people of God for the Messias. Such should be
the attitude of the priest, officially deputed to pray in the name
of the Church. As he repeats those beautiful invocations : “0
Wisdom . . . O Sun of justice . . . O King of nations . . . come
and teach us . . . come and redeem us . . . tarry now no more,
his heart should be stirred to its depths with the desire to bring
salvation to the world of today which is beset with sin and unhappi­
ness just as much as the world into which Christ was born. Only
the truth and the grace of Jesus Christ can remedy the sad condi­
tions that oppress mankind today ; but unfortunately there are so
many who will not turn to Christ, believing in their pride that they
can solve the problems that harrass the human race, because of
this deplorable situation the priest must strive all the more zeal­
ously to bring light and healing and comfort to those who are the
victims of ignorance and sin and misery. Each Christmas, to the
soul of every priest, privileged to raise the immaculate Host aloft
thrice, come divine graces in rich abundance. It should be his fond­
est wish to be the instrument of similar divine graces for all those
who are committed to his priestly solicitude. This he will be enabled
to do most effectively if he endeavors to imitate the faith and the
love of Mary in her expectation of the Birth of her Divine Son.
Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.

1 he Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.

Congregational Singing

We . . . exhort you, Venerable Brethren, to promote with care con­
gregational singing, and to see to its accurate execution with all due
dignity, since it easily stirs up and arouses the faith and piety of large
gatherings of the faithful. Let the full harmonious singing of our
people rise to heaven like the bursting of a thunderous sea and let
them testify by the melody of their song to the unity of their hearts
and minds, as becomes brothers and the children of the same Father.
—Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, Nov. 20, 1947
(NCWC translation, p. 65).

CATHOLIC ORIENTATIONS ON CHURCH
AND STATE
Readers of this Review are by now well aware of certain new
"orientations in contemporary Catholic thought on Church and
state,” prevalent among those who are intent upon a major revision
of the older and stricter teaching on the subject. To support its
position, this school of thought on Church-state relations requires
and endeavors to impose — somewhat magisterially — an outré
notion of the state (thus seeking victory by a kind of coup d’état,
as it were). From the tone of the polemic in behalf of such views
one could get the impression that these, and in particular the afore­
said conception of the state, are endorsed by the ablest modern
Catholic experts in the sociological and other pertinent fields, and
can even claim a basis in the teachings of the more recent Popes.
It may therefore prove enlightening to review one of the latest and
most authoritative treatments of questions relevant to the present
controversy, by an internationally renowned expert in the social
sciences and in socio-political philosophy, one, moreover, whose
knowledge of papal teachings and whose sensitivity to their finest
nuances are undisputed.
This authority is Fr. Oswald von Nell-Breuning, S.J., one of the
editors1 of, and chief contributor to, the new lexicon, Beitrdge zu
einem Worterbuch der Politik, now in course of publication.2 As to
this work, its title indicates and its publisher and editors modestly
avow that it is but a preparation for some future comprehensive en­
cyclopedia of the social sciences and socio-political philosophy. In
the judgment of competent reviewers, however, the Beitrage thus
far published already constitutes an imposing work and realizes the
aim, stated in publisher’s and editorial prefaces, of achieving a lexi­
con which would be scientifically up to date and faithfully responsive
1 He shares the main editorial burden with Dr. Hermann Sacher, him­
self editor of the fourth and fifth editions of the celebrated Staatslcxikon
of the Goerresgesellschaft.
2 Freiburg-im-Br. : Herder, 1947 ff. The following parts (Hcftc) have
appeared to date: I. "Christian Teaching on Society” (1947); II, "Christian
Teaching on the State” (1948); III, "The Social Question” (1948); IV,
“The Economic Order” (1949) ; VI, "Woman” (1950) ; V, “Systems of
Social Order,” Fascicle 1: A-L (1951).

405

406

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL. REVIEW

to the teachings and directives of the Popes, past and present.3
All in all, this new publication provides further reason to rejoice
that the “Verlag Herder” has been able to carry on despite the
ravages of World War II, and to salute it on its 150th anniversary.4*
Our interest lies with Fr. v. Nell-Breuning’s teachings in the
course of Parts I, II, III, and V/1, insofar as they bear on crucial
issues of the current Church-state discussion. From the following
outline of some of these teachings, the reader may be able to glean
that the Church-state “orientations” of the learned German Jesuit
are not those of the new school, that he upholds the older doctrine
on the subject, be it as to the concept of the state, be it as to the
contention that, Per se, the state should be a “Catholic state.” Two
rubrics suffice to guide our review: “The State” and “The Lay
State.”
The State

What is the state? We have heard an answer from the new
school. Its tenor is that one may no longer, with scholastic writers,
define the state as societas naturalis, perfecta, completa? as societas
civilis (— politica) perfecta,6 or with them identify the state with
3 See, for example, Heinrich Rommen’s extensive review in Theological
Studies, XI (1950), 652-58, on Parts I-IV. A brief appraisal by E. Welty,
O.P., Herders Sosialkatechismus (Freiburg-im-Br. : Herder, 1951 ft.), I,
305, describes the work as an excellent achievement, distinguished by deep
and comprehensive knowledge both of fundamental principles and of modern
conditions, views, and tendencies; by great familiarity w'ith the Christian
teaching on society, especially with the encyclicals and other utterances of
the Popes; by a courageous tackling of all, including the difficult and
delicate, questions of the day.
4 In this connection it is fitting to mention the richly informative anni­
versary-supplement of the Herder-Korrespondenz·. 1. Beiheft, 5. Jahrgang,
Sept. 1951.
° A “natural” society—one springing from human nature ; “perfect”—i.e.,
self-sufficient and independent in its own order, possessing in and by itself
all the resources and means needful for its own end ; “complete”—i.e., having
an end complete and supreme in its own order. For fuller explanation, see
the manuals of Ethics, Public Church Law, Ecclesiology, etc. Not infre­
quently, “complete” is omitted from the definition, in w'hich case “perfect”
does double duty.
6 Ci. J. Güenechea, S.J., Principia iuris politici, 2 vols. (Rome: Gregorian
University, 1938-39), I, 20 f.; cf. also 131 ff.

ORIENTATIONS ON CHURCH AND STATE

407

the body politic, political society. For, it is maintained, you must
distinguish—and the distinction is long over-due in Catholic
manuals—the state from the body politic;78the state is rather "that
particular subsidiary functional organization of the body politic,
whose special function regards the good of the whole,” "a set of
institutions combined into a complex agency of social control and
public service,” "a rational force employed by the body politic in
the service of itself as a body. ...”
Such is the state according to the mind of at least some repre­
sentatives of the new school? Would they have us understand that
the state should have been thus conceived ail along, or is it that the
state has undergone a change in its very essence? The import of
this question, the reason for asking it, and perhaps its answer, will
come to light in the next paragraphs, as we begin our study of Fr.
v. Nell-Breuning’s thought on the state.
What is the state, according to Fr. v. Nell-Breuniug ? It is im­
portant to note that he himself insists on a more precisely formu­
lated question : "What is the supra-temporal essence of the state?”
—as distinct from: "What is the character of (say) the modern
state ?”9 For, as he points out,10 the idea of the state, the state in the
purity and perfection of its idea, and the actual reality of states,
these are two things not to be confused. The idea of the state trans­
cends time and place, is (objectively) everywhere and always one
and the same ; it can be known more distinctly and clearly, or it can
be misconstrued and distorted, but it itself is immune to change.
So long as human nature remains one and the same, the "natural”
societies, family and state, remain in their essence one and the
same ; the varied concrete states known to history and to the pres­
ent are but more or less imperfect expressions of the one and
unalterable idea of the state. Our author brings out the same point
elsewhere, as when he declares that according to Christian social
7 Whence it is now forbidden to speak, as reputable authors have spoken,
of the state as the “body politic of a people” ; and there is a further reason
for the prohibition—in the new school the “body politic” and the ‘‘people”
are one and the same thing.
8 Cf. AER, CXXIV, 5 (May, 1951), 330, note 6; 341, note 11; 344, note
14; see also America, LXXXV, 11 (June 16, 1951), 294. Presently we shall
meet similar ideas in the thought of a European leader of the new school.
» Cf. BIVP, II, 3 (= Beitràffe . . . , Heft, II, col. 3).
10 Ibid., col. 10, under the rubric, “Staatsidee und Staatswirklichkeit.”

408

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

philosophy the state has its foundation in human nature, whence
its essence and essential meaning and purpose are withdrawn from
arbitrary human decision.11
Such emphasis on an immutable essence of the state is most
opportune and welcome. It is clear that Fr. v. Nell-Breuning would
not hold with Canon Jacques Leclercq, a European leader of the
new school (his thought on Church-state problems has not been
without influence in the U.S.A.), if, as it seems.12 the Louvain
sociologist is of the following mind :
The modern state is something essentially—and therewith also con­
ceptually—different from the ancient state, from the medieval state or
that of the 17th century. . . . Democracy and state are. sociological, not
philosophical categories, that is, they stand in the stream of time, not in
the world of ideas !...
The transformation of the state in our day docs not embrace only
the constitution, the forms of government, the measure of state inter­
vention. The role of the state in society as a whole, its relation to the
citizens, and to the other societies they constitute, has changed. The
essence of the state has become fluid {Das IVesen des Staates ist in
Fluss geraten), and therefore the concept of the state classic in Catholic
philosophy is, along with all the conclusions one draws therefrom, no
longer pertinent (trifft nicht me hr ins Schwarze}. . . . The state is
evolving more and more into an institution for technical services, and
state office-holders are becoming technical functionaries.... Hence,
under present conditions, and above all under those of the foreseeable
BWP, I, 49. Worth remarking, perhaps, is Fr. v. Nell-Breuning's re­
peated use of "essence of the state,” which shows a calm disregard for the
possibility that some might find this or related expressions glib, and tending
to connote a transference of the state into the order of substance.
12 Cf. Jacques Leclercq, “Lo Stato di domani,” in the Italian periodical
Humanitas, 1950, I, 58-67. The present writer has not seen the article itself,
but is relying on the extensive abstract given in the unsigned article, "Wohin
treibt die Entwicklung des modernen Staates?" Hcrder-Korrcspondenz. IV,
10 (July, 1950), 464 ff. The latter article, after asking the question, “Gibt
es einen Wescnsbegriff vom Staat ?" offers in answer a free summary of the
Humanitas article (with occasional references to a distinguished American
stalwart of the new school, associating his thought with that of Leclercq
in several instances). Since several issues of the Hcrder-KorrcsHmdem:
have reported the views of the new school with evident predilection, and
since the same sympathy is equally' obvious in the article cited above, we
may reasonably suppose that the latter is a faithful reflection of the Humani­
tas article.

ORIENTATIONS ON CHURCH AND STATE

409

future, the state is no longer what the Scholastics viewed it to be, the
highest and most thorough (intensivste, i.e., complete) natural com­
munity, the societas completa; it is, instead, pre-eminently a technical
apparatus, used by a multitude of human individuals and communities,
societies, to realize their ends. . . .13

Worth pointing out here are the different ways in which the above
views can be exploited by the new school. For one thing, if the
state is subject to change in its very essence, then, contrary to the
older and conservative teaching, there can be no perennially valid
formulation of what, per se, should be the relations between Church
and state.14
Then further, if this “coup d’etat” of “the-state-is-(purely)-asociological-not-philosophical-category” cannot be brought off, or
if it seems too bold, all is not yet lost. For, the overthrow’ of the
traditional teaching on Church-state relations can still be attempted
by yet another “coup d’état.” One can, namely, take the line that,
anyway, the state is (w’hether it was always this, or whether it just
got that way, these questions can be left up in the air15) an institu­
tion for technical services, a technical apparatus (or, if you will, a
“subsidiary functional organization of the body politic . . . ,” “a set
of institutions combined into a complex agency of social control
and public service”). For, if this is the state, purely a technical
apparatus, then obviously it is not within the competence of the
state to choose between the churches, or to support the truth and
moral values—to judge as to these things no more belongs to the
state than it does to any other technical administration or adminis­
trative apparatus. To be sure, the state would, in a sense, owe some
measure of material assistance to that which is the true Church ;
not, however, because it is the true Church (for of this the state
“knows nothing”), but rather and simply because its members·
13 Herder-Korrespondenz, IV, 10 (July, 1950), 467, under the rubrics
“Wandel des Staatsbegriffs notwendig.”
14 Compare the article just cited, p. 467.
15 This much, at any rate, seems clear from AER, CXXIV, 5 (May,
1951), 330, note 6: We are to take it that the state-not-body-politic-but-setof-institutions was a fact in the days of Leo XIII. For the note ends with
the reflection that it was not necessary for the Pope, in his argument with
Continental Liberalism, to observe this nicety of political vocabulary.

410

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

constitute a notable group of citizens who, as such, have some
claim upon the services of the technical apparatus, the state, toward the realization of their ends. And, for the same reason, the
state would owe similar assistance to the religious societies of other
citizens.16
Thus, in one way or the other, do the new views as to the state
come to the rescue of the new school. L'nfortunately, however, such
views find no confirmation in the teaching of IT. v. Nell-Breuning.
For him, as has been seen, there is such a thing as a supra-tem­
poral, immutable, essence of the state. And. as we now come to say,
when he undertakes to define it, when he seeks to formulate the
state in the purity and perfection of its idea, he seizes upon the
Scholastic definition of old, “as apposite as it is concise”; socielas
naturalis, perjecta, completa.''-1
His appended explanation of the definition may be passed over,
since it accords with the usual one of the Scholastics.18 But, before
we move on to other matters, one remark will not be amiss. Seeing
that here and elsewhere it is “the state” that Fr. v. Xell-Breuning
terms a natural society, one deriving from human nature and there­
fore from God, the author of human nature, we may conclude that
he would greet the assertion, “the state is a creature of God,” as a
16 Compare Herder-Korrespondenz, IV, 10 (July, 1950), 467.
17 BWP, II, 4; this definition recurs again and again, as in BH'P, I, 4, 36.
In this definition of the state our author is faithful to the language of the
Popes, who still refer to “the state” in terms of “a perfect society”—and
this on occasions when they may reasonably be considered to have been
observing “the niceties of political vocabulary.” Thus, for example, Pope
Pius XII, in his Allocutions to the Roman Rota, Oct, 2, 1944, and Oct. 29,
1947: AAS, XXXVI (1944), 289 (“Fra Chiesa e Stato, come rilevammo
nella menzionata Enciclica sul Corpo mistico di Cristo, sebbene ambedue
siano nel pieno significato della parola società perfette, vi è tuttavia una
profonda differenza”) ; AAS, XXXIX (1947), 494 (“Chi volesse intendere
cosi la retta dottrina che la Chiesa e lo Stato sono duc distinte società per­
fette, andrebbe errato”).
18 The reader may, however, welcome his lucid explanation of what is
meant when it is said that the state is a “natural” society : “one to which
an inescapable need of their nature impels men, so that, though the estab­
lishment of these or those states, with this or that form, is left to their free
decision, men are not free as to whether to live or not to live in a state at all.”

ORIENTATIONS ON CHURCH AND STATE

41 1

quite literal truth,1920
21
though to ears of the new school rhe statement
is'aT“resounding generality,"2"—another such.-’’
After applying the social principles of subsidiarity and of soli­
darity to the society which is the stale.22 Fr. v, Nell-Breuning then
deals with a topic of special interest to us. the double aspect of the
state.23*As must be realized by now, he refuses to equate the state —
as does the new school—with “a set of institutions" and the like.-1
On the other hand, he does not deny that the state i>, under any
aspect, institution or “set of institutions.” It is hoped that the fol­
lowing summary will not do injustice to hi> thought on this point.
Up to the present stage, our author says, the state has been con­
sidered chiefly as (that which it is first of all and essentially25) a
society or community of persons. There is, however, another aspect
to the state. The state exhibits a double aspect, insofar as every
state is both “Personengemeinschaft," community of persons, and
“Anstalt,” institution: twO sides of one and the same state.
Before discussing the latter aspect of the state, Fr. v. NellBreuning first enlarges on the state as community of persons.26
So considered, the state again exhibits a twofold aspect, insofar as
19 Cf. J. Güenechea, op. cit., I, 61; H. Rommeii, ‘'The State in Catholic
Thought,” St. Louis : Herder, 1945, p. 366.
20 The assertion becomes, of a sudden, a “resounding generality” by
the magic of the new school’s distinction between body politic and state, or,
what amounts to the same thing, by the new school’s magisterial reservation
of the term “state” for “a set of institutions”; and after this scholarly leger­
demain has thus transformed the state into an abstract entity, the challenge
can then be issued : “. . . in what sense are the institutions of the Presi­
dency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court ‘creatures of God’?” Cf. AER,
CXXIV, 5 (May, 1951), 330, note 6, last paragraph, and 344, note 14.
21 The resounding phrase, “resounding generality,” is by now a familiar
one in literature of the new school. It has been applied, for instance, to the
dictum that “Error has no rights”; Leo XIII and Pius XII, it would then
appear, indulged in “resounding generalities.”
22 BIEF, II, 4-7.
2.3 BIVP, II, 7-10.
24 Cf. also J. Messner, Social Ethics (translated from the German by J.
Doherty), St. Louis: Herder, 1949, p. 492.
25 As he emphasizes elsewhere, BIVP, II, 15.
20 Understood, of course, not as a collection of unrelated individuals, but
as coalescing from the manifold societies and communities within the state,
in such wise, however, that the individual persons are nonetheless immedi­
ately members of the state; BWP, II, 7.

412

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

it is, first of all, a “Genossenschaftsverband,” then again, “Herrschaftsverband.” In the first instance, the state presents itself to us
as a union of free selves, a fellowship of freely collaborating per­
sons, coextensive with all the members of the state. These are the
bearers of the life of the state ; they stand responsible for each
other and for the whole ; it is in their free and responsible co­
operation in the common tasks that the genuine life of a state con­
sists. This side of the state finds expression in the conciousness :
“We are the state.” But the state is also a “Herrschaftsverband,”
which wishes to convey that it is also a union of persons subject to
authority. For, since the state is charged with establishing and
maintaining the juridical order, it must and does have authority
and power to command, and at need compel, the citizens;27 whence
these, though they are the sole subjects or bearers of the life of the
state, are nonetheless at the same time objects of the power of the
state, i.e., “subjects,”—and this even in the most perfect democratic
state imaginable.
But while the state is first of all and essentially a community of
persons, it also has its “institutional” side : it is “Anstalt.” Indeed,
says Fr. v. Nell-Breuning, the institutional aspect of the state has,
in modern times, taken on such proportions that it has almost
obscured the state as a community of persons ; so much so that, at
mention of the word “state,” the majority think only of the imper­
sonal apparatus of the state, its offices, bureaus, institutions, rather
than of the fact: “We are the state.”
Throughout this section Fr. v. Nell-Breuning insists on the para­
mount importance of a proper balance between these various
aspects of the state : between the two aspects proper to the state as
a community of persons, and again between the state considered as
a community of persons and the state considered as institution.
This importance he illustrates from the doleful lessons of the past28
(he, too, is alert to the affirmations of history). Indeed, it is a
lesson of the quite recent past (National Socialism) which inspires
his conclusion : “More forcefully than any socio- or politico-philo­
sophical reflection does this experience make it clear to us : com­
munity of persons and institutionality —or in other words—state
27 Whence the state is “Rechts—und Machtorganization” ; on this cf.
also BWP, II, 23.
28 Cf. also BWP, V/1, 211, f.

ORIENTATIONS ON CHURCH AND STATE

413

as society (Staatsgesellschaft) and state as institution (Staatsanstalt) are an indissoluble unity, form the one and indivisible state.”
Much else in Fr. v. Nell-Breuning's teaching on the state
clamors for mention here, as e.g., his readiness to view the state as
a “moral person.”20 By now, however, enough has been said to
show that, when this modern authority talks about the state, he is
content to use the terms which have long been in honor in Catholic
circles, and which are employed by the conservative school of
thought on Church-state relations. It remains for us to suggest,
briefly, that his accord with the latter school extends even further,
to the very subject of Church-state relations.
The Lay State

In his review of Parts I-IV of the Beil rage, Dr. Rommen re­
marked upon the absence of any treatment of the topic of relations
between Church and state, and expressed the hope that a later con­
tribution would cover the subject. There are, however, in those
first portions of the lexicon, many passages, in a variety of con­
texts, which already reveal much of Fr. v. Nell-Breuning’s thought
on Church-state relations ;29
30 and, in any case, the article desired
by Dr. Rommen appears to be now at hand, in the most recently
published (1951) portion of the Beitràge, wherein Fr. v. NellBreuning treats of “Laicism.”31 What interests us most is his
position on the question of the “Catholic” state. The following sum­
mary will show him to hold that, per se, the state should be a
“Catholic” state, i.e., should, for example, acknowledge the Catho­
lic Church to be what it claims to be and is, the Church established
by Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
This conviction of his is already insinuated in his discussion of
the “Christian State,”32 where, among other things, he endeavors
to determine the notion of a truly “Catholic” state (katholischer
Glaubensstaat). This, our author says, is one whose citizens profess
the Catholic faith, and whose entire activity has as its norm the
moral values proper to the Catholic faith and Catholic philosophy ;
29 Cf. BWP, II, 25-26.
30 Ci., e.g., the various materials in the course of BPf’P, I. 12-19; II, 17-23,
121-26; III, 8-11, 182-83.
31 “Laizismus,” BWP, V/1, 189-98.
32 BWP, II, 20-21.

414

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

a state which, acknowledging the tenth of the Church’s claims of
divine origin and mission, accepts the Church’s teaching on and
interpretation of the natural moral law (e.g.. as regards the indis­
solubility of marriage, the unborn child’s right to life, etc.) ; a state
which when its undertakings and institutions require the ministra­
tions of religion, e. g., for the spiritual welfare of convicts, seeks
these from the Catholic Church.33

All this is what is meant when it is said that the Catholic religion
is the “religion of the state.’’ Where the underlying supposition is
not verified, i.e., where the members of the state are not truly
united in the Catholic faith, then, Fr. v. Xell-Breuning agrees, a
“Catholic” state is impossible, and the declaration of the Catholic
religion as the religion of the state can then mean no more than
this, that the Catholic religion is to enjoy the protection of the state
and a more or less privileged position.
Does Fr. v. Nells-Breuning hold that, per sc, it is a matter of
religious obligation that the state be truly a “Catholic” state, in the
sense described above? If his mind on this point is not already
evident enough from the foregoing, it is unmistakably revealed in
the course of his article on “Laicism.”34 There he comes to discuss
the distinction urged by some French Catholics and others, between
the “état laïque” and the “état laïciste.” The former, which may be
termed the “lay state”—in opposition to the “laicist state,” is de­
fended by these Catholics as compatible with, and even required
by, Catholic principles on Church and state, especially as laid
down by Leo ΧΙΠ.

Fr. v. Nell-Breuning finds nothing false in the doctrine of a “lay
state” insofar as it wishes to be an affirmation of the distinction
between Church and state, and of the state’s autonomy in its own
sphere—for this is pure Leonine doctrine. But, we are also given to
understand, it is not the leonine share of Leonine doctrine. The
theory of the “lay state” contains “onlyr half of the Catholic teach­
ing on Church-state relations, as developed by Leo XIII; and so,
by its inattention to the other and at least equally important half,
33 Cf. also filVP. II, 19, where it is remarked that, for its exercise of
divine worship, the state is dependent on the Church.

MBWP, V/1, 189-98.

ORIENTATIONS ON CHURCH AND STATE

415

it is always in danger of degenerating into a half-truth, and of
gliding over into the laicism of the laicist stale.’'35
This other half of the teaching of Leo XIIT, overlooked by the
theory of the “lay state," and rejected in theory or in practice by
the “laicist state,” is then sketched by Er. v. NTell-Breuning, along
the following lines. Just as the individual human being, so too is the
state bound by God’s moral law ; the Church is the divinely ap­
pointed teacher and interpreter of this moral law, whose teachings
and interpretations thereof are, therefore, binding on everyone,
including the state—and, indeed, on principle and without excep­
tion, every state. Just as the individual human being, so too is the
state, in the final analysis, possessed of a supernatural last end.
Whether the state knows of and acknowledges this, its inclusion in
the supernatural order, docs not alter the objective fact, any more
than the inculpable or culpable unbelief of the individual human
changes anything in his supernatural destination. Finally, notwith­
standing the clean-cut distinction between Church and state, they
have manifold relations with each other. Since, in the final analysis,
there is only one last end, to be served by the Church immediately
and by the state mediately, it is incumbent upon the two to promote
and assist each other, in view of the fact that they have, ultimately,
a common last end. The Church knows that it has a responsibility
for the well-being of the state, a responsibility to be discharged by
assistance, not by interference ; at the same time, the Church also
knows that its own well-being is a responsibility of the state.30
Guided by this papal teaching, Fr. v. Nell-Breuning takes his
stand with the conservative school of thought on Church-state
relations when, speaking on principle, he says: “That state alone
does justice to the Church, which recognizes and acknowledges the
Church for what it is, the foundation of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God; but such a state would be a Catholic state (katholischer
G laub ensstoat) ,”37
Our sketchy review of Fr. v. Nell-Breuning’s thought on
Church-state relations ends here. By reporting the teaching of this
eminent authority on the. subject, the review was intended to sug­
gest that an uncritical acceptance of the newer theories, as though
Ά5 Ibid., 194.
™ Ibid., 194-195.
Ibid., 195.

416

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

the older thesis were quite obsolete and abandoned, would be
precipitate and unwise. The conservative teaching is still very much
alive, and is being ably represented and defended by such other
European authorities as Fr. A. Messineo, S.J., sociological expert
on the staff of the Roman Jesuit organ, La Comité Caltolica™ and
by Fr. E. Guerrero, S.J., editor of the Spanish Jesuit publication,
Razon y Re™ While the mention of these Spanish and Italian
writers on Church and state may strike a neuralgic nerve some­
where in the new school, we refer to them in the belief that there
.are others who can read Latins without tears.
George

W.

Shea

Immaculate Conception Seminary
Darlington, N. J.
38 Of his several articles in the course of 1950 and the first half of 1951.
we mention but two: “Democrazia e liberta religiosa,” La Ciz'iltà Cattolica,
CII, Vol. II (April 21, 1951), 126-37; “Democrazia e laicismo dello Stato.”
La Civiltà Cattolica, CII, Vol. II (June 16, 1951), 585-96.
39 Again we mention but two of many articles : “Las Conversaciones Catolicas de San Sebastian,” Razon y Fe, December, 1949, pp. 398-418 (see espe­
cially pp. 412-16) ; “El Estado laico como ideal cristiano,” Razon y Fe,
November, 1950, pp. 341-54.

The Preaching

of

Sacred Scripture

Let priests, therefore, who are bound by their office to procure
the eternal salvation of the faithful, after they have themselves by dili­
gent study perused the sacred pages and made them their own by prayer
and meditations, assiduously distribute the heavenly treasures of the
divine word by sermons, homilies and exhortations; let them confirm the
Christian doctrine by sentences from the Sacred Books and illustrate
it by outstanding examples from sacred history and in particular from
the Gospel of Christ Our Lord ; and—avoiding with the greatest care
those purely arbitrary and far-fetched adaptations, which arc not a
use but rather an abuse of the divine word—let them set forth all this
with such eloquence, lucidity and dearness that the faithful may not
only be moved and inHamed to reform their lives, but may also conceive
in their hearts the greatest veneration for the Sacred Scripture.

—Pope Pius XII in Divino afflante Spiritu, Sept. 30, 1943 (Rome and
the Study of Scripture [St. Meinrad, Ind., 1946]), pp. 102 f.

PROLONGED FASTING AND THERESA NEUMANN
The recent book by Miss Hilda Graef,1 arguing strongly against
the supernatural character of “the case of Theresa Neumann,’’
evoked widespread and lively comment. Some of the comment has
been sharply opposed to Miss Graef's conclusions; more of it has
been in general agreement with her outlook. While it might seem
that the case has, for the time being, reached a stage where nothing
Can be settled merely by further discussion, there is at least one
point that does merit consideration. Not only is it, in many respects,
the crucial point in the particular case of Theresa Neumann ; it is
also a point which is of wider interest than her particular case and
has more than a little apologctical significance. It is the question of
prolonged complete fasting, sometimes technically called inedia.
As is generally well known, it is claimed of Theresa Neumann
that she has been living for years without eating or drinking. More
exactly the claim is that since August, 1926, she has taken no
nourishment of any kind, excepting only Holy Communion. From
August, 1926, to September, 1927, she took no liquid other than a
few drops of water after Communion to help her swallow the host,
and since September, 1927, she is said to have taken no water or
liquid at all.
Questioning the supernatural character of Theresa’s fast, Miss
Graef proposes two main alternatives. The first is that the fast is
not even a reality. In defending this possibility, Miss Graef con­
tends that it would not necessarily involve deliberate fraud on
Theresa’s part, that Theresa might be taking some nourishment
while in a somnambulant state and therefore without herself being
aware of it.2 Miss Graef does nevertheless quote, presumably with
approval, the opinion of another author that Theresa might be en­
gaging in deliberate, though well-intentioned, fraud, a “pious
fraud.”3
The other main alternative proposed by Miss Graef is that
Theresa's fast, even though real, is not beyond the powers of
1 The Case of Therese Neumann (Westminster, Maryland : The Newman
Press, 1951).
2 Ibid., p. 51.
s Ibid., pp. 63 f.
417