CHRIST THE KING OF CIVIL RULERS
In the period of almost a quarter of a century that has elapsed
since Pope Pius XI issued his Encyclical Quas Frimas, on the
Kingship of Christ,1 many events have demonstrated the wisdom
and the opportuneness of that sublime pronouncement. The deplor­
able state into which the world has fallen today is a striking con­
firmation of the Pope’s statement, in the opening paragraph of the
Encyclical :

We remember that in the first Encyclical which we sent to all the
Bishops we clearly signified—when we sought the supreme causes of
the calamities by which we saw the human race oppressed and afflicted—
not only that this deluge of evils has overwhelmed the earth because
many men have excluded Jesus Christ and His most holy law both from
their conduct and life and from domestic and public circles, but also
that a certain hope of lasting peace will never dawn among people as
long as individuals and states deny and renounce the rule of Our
Saviour.2
In this Encyclical Pope Pius was concerned chiefly with the
kingly power of Christ as Man. No Christian could doubt Christ’s
supreme authority as God ; but for centuries controversies had been
waged among theologians as to the nature and the extent of
His royal authority precisely in His human nature. There were
good theologians who denied that Christ as Man possesses direct
authority over temporal things and earthly kingdom.3 But this
view is no longer tenable. The Pope asserts quite explicitly:
“Hence, it follows, not only that Christ is to be adored as God
by angels and men, but also that angels and men are to be obedient
and subject to His rule as man.” 4
The Sovereign Pontiff points out the sources of the kingly
power of Christ as Man—the hypostatic union and the work of the
redemption. Then he explains that the authority of Christ the
King embraces a three-fold power, legislative, judiciary and execu­
tive. It is chiefly concerned with spiritual things, but the Pope
1 AAS, XVII (1925), 593-610.
2 Ibid., 593.
3 Cf. Billuart, Tractatus de Justitia, Diss. 3, art. 6.
4 AAS, XVII (1925), 598.
244

CHRIST THE KING OF CIVIL RULERS

245

adds : “He would grievously err who would deny to Christ the gov­
ernment of all civil matters, since He receives from the Father
the most absolute right over created things in such wise that all
things are placed at His disposal.” 5* Evidently, then, Christ in His
human nature, as well as in His divine nature possesses full author­
ity over the material things of earth. Temporal as well as spiritual
power is included in the jurisdiction given Him by His heavenly
Father, and of which He said : “All power in heaven and on
earth has been given to me.” e
The question might be asked : Are men bound to obey Christ
as man, not only insofar as they are individuals, but also insofar
as they are members of a civil society, a state or a nation ? In
other words, are civil rulers in their official capacity, and not
merely as private individuals, obliged to submit to Christ the
King? Must they regulate and direct the people subject to them
according to the supernatural teachings of the God-Man? And,
if there is such an obligation of civic obedience to Christ the King,
what particular duties does it impose on those who govern the
state or nation?
The question is timely and practical. For, in recent years the,
view has been proposed that the civil government is purely natural
in purpose and in authority, that the civil ruler as such has no
direct obligations toward the supernatural law proclaimed by
Jesus Christ. This view appears in a recent study of the ecclesiology °f John of Paris (4- 1306), by Dom Jean Leclercq, O.S.B.7
The author states—apparently with a measure of approval—that
John of Paris ascribed to the state a purely natural scope, sub­
ordinate only to the natural law. He thus summarizes this doctrine,
as enunciated in John’s work De Potestate Regia et Papali:
The regnum is then a strictly natural institution. John of Paris does
not deny any of the consequences of this affirmation. Wherever men
lived, there they were governed by kings, abstracting from all revelation
and from every Christian institution. There were kings in the Old
Testament because there was a genuine civil life. There were true
kings among the pagans, and even after the coming of Christ all tem­
poral rulers, whether Christian or not, realize the same concept of
king. . . . The very character of the king’s function assigns limits to
his power. Destined by God to procure the common temporal good
5 Jbid., 600.
8 Matt., 28:18.
T Jean de Paris et l’Ecclésiologie du XIII siècle (Paris, 1942).

246

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

according to the inclination of nature, the king is bound to forbid all
that is opposed to it. The norm of his actions is the natural law.8

1

I

The practical applications of such a view are indeed far-reach­
ing.9 It would mean that a civil ruler, even if he is governing a
predominantly Catholic people, would not be bound to manifest
officially any special homage to Christianity or to the Church. In
his official capacity he would not be bound to respect any laws
which Christ proclaimed over and above the natural law. He would
not be permitted in conscience to restrict heretical activities or
attacks on the Church, unless they recommend something opposed
to the natural law, such as polygamy or free love or human sacri­
fice. Apart from such a case, he would be bound to give the same
favor to heretical denominations as to the Catholic Church, for he
would not be permitted to investigate officially the claims of the
Catholic Church and acknowledge it as the one true church of
God.
A Catholic who would accept this view could have a ready answer
to those who bring up the discrimination and restrictive measures
j still employed by some governments in Catholic lands against
|· Protestant missionary efforts, as in Spain and in some South
ί. American countries. He could condemn the atttiude of these
j governments as an outmoded interpretation of the relation which
I ; should exist between Church and state, and emphatically declare
’ that learned Catholics, particularly in the United States, dis­
claim it. For, he would declare in pursuance of his accepted prin­
ciple, even the government of a predominantly Catholic land must
abstain from passing judgment on the merits of religions that
i claim to be based on revelation, and may not curtail the activities
i of the various denominations unless they are harmful to public
order and morality as prescribed by the natural law.
However, it is very difficult to see how this opinion can be
V reconciled with the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church,
that governments, through the rulers, must acknowledge the
sovereign dominion of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, and obey and
protect His law. No clearer statement of the obligation of civil

8 Ibid., pp. 94-96.
» I am not concerned with the accuracy of Dom Leclercq’s interpretation of
the views of John of Paris, though I am inclined to believe that objections
could be raised to certain features of it. I am merely discussing the theory
he ascribes to John.

CHRIST THE KING OF CIVIL RULERS

247

rulers to Christ the King could be found than that proclaimed
by Pope Pius XI :
Nor is there any difference in this matter between individuals and
societies, both domestic and civil, for men joined in society are no less
under thé power of Christ than individuals. . . . Therefore, let the
rulers of nations not refuse to fulfill by themselves and through their
people the public duty of reverence and homage, if they wish to promote
and to augment the prosperity of their country, while preserving unin­
jured their authority.10

It should be noted that these words definitely exclude any ob­
jection to the effect that the obedience to Christ demanded of
civil governments means merely obedience to the natural law
of which Christ, as God, is the author. In this passage the Pope
is clearly speaking of Christ as Man, and the law which Christ in
His human nature proclaimed was certainly a positive, supernatural
law, exceeding the demands of the natural law. It should be noted
that just previous to this paragraph the Pope had stated, quoting
Pope Leo XIII,11 that not only Catholics are under the dominion |
of Christ, but even the unbaptized, so that the whole human race >
is under the power of Jesus Christ. This statement emphasizes the î
difference between the authority of the Catholic Church, which I
extends only to the baptized, and the authority of Christ the King,
which embraces all mankind.
The doctrine of the Kingship of Christ is therefore not to be
confounded with the doctrine of the relation between Church and
State. In the course of the centuries there have been many dis­
cussions on this latter subject, and many varied views proposed.
The medieval view that the Pope has direct jurisdiction over all
civil governments is now abandoned. The principle that the Roman
Pontiff possesses indirect jurisdiction is certainly to be admitted,
but it is not interpreted by all in the same way. But the doctrine
that organized civil society, as well as every individual, is subject
to the positive supernatural law of Christ as Man must be main­
tained in view of the clear pronouncements of the Pope. Even
if Our Lord had not consigned His religion to a Church, author­
ized by Him to incorporate all men into its membership, He would
still be a King of all men and of all nations. In the words of St.
John, Christ is “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” 12
10.4^5. XVII
11 Enc. Annum

(1925), 601.
12 Apoc., 1:15.
sacrum, 25 May, 1899.

248

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

To avoid difficulties based on the accepted doctrine as to the
end of civil society, we must distinguish carefully between the
natural good of the citizens and their temporal good. The two
terms are by no means synonymous. The direct purpose of civil
; society is, indeed, to promote the common temporal good—that is,
\ the good of the citizens in the present life. But in view of the elevai tion of all men to the supernatural order, their temporal good em­
braces the practice of the supernatural virtues, as well as of the
natural virtues. Hence, to promote the welfare of its citizens, a
government must concern itself with their observance of the
supernatural law of Christ as well as of the natural law.
The doctrine just set forth is excellently synthesized by Bishop
Wright, of Boston :

By the promulgation of the social rights of Christ the King the Holy
See has proclaimed the existence of a single radical sovereignty in the
temporal as well as spiritual order, a sovereignty resident in a single
transcendental authority to which not merely individuals destined for
an end in the al di la, but even societies, functioning purely in the
al di qua, and with their final causes strictly temporal, must be sub­
ject.13
Bishop Wright goes on to confirm these statements by a quota­
tion from the Encyclical Tametsi jutura prospicientibus of Pope
Leo XIII,14 in which the same doctrine is proposed that was
later asserted in the Quas Primas concerning the headship of Christ
over social groups as well as over individuals.
How is this doctrine to be applied in practice ? Of course, in the
concrete, the particular circumstances of time and place can greatly
.^.modify and restrict the manner and measure of the homage and
obedience that a government can and should manifest to Christ the
King. But here we are concerned with what per se is required for
the fulfilment of this obligation. It is quite evident that, although
“men joined in society are no less under the power of Christ than
individuals,” as Pope Pius XI expressed it, the parallel between
personal and civic duties cannot be followed out in every respect.
A government cannot be baptized, nor is it liable to eternal pun13 John J. Wright, National Patriotism in Papal Teaching (Boston, 1942),
254.
14 Acta Leonis, XX, 304-305.

CHRIST THE KING OF CIVIL RULERS

249

ishment. On the other hand, a government through its lawful
. rulers can express homage, it can adapt its legislation to the moral
principles laid down by the Son of God. However, in its supervi­
sion and regulation of the conduct of its citizens in relation to the
law of Christ, the state must confine itself to matters that affect
the common good.
The government has the obligation to express in some public
manner its dependence on God and on Jesus Christ. A beautiful
exartiplé of such an acknowledgment is found in the opening para­
graph of the Constitution of Ireland : “In the name of the Most
Holy Trinity, from whom is all authority and to whom, as our
final end, all actions, both of men and states must be referred, we,
the people of Eire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to
our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, etc.” Furthermore, at least occa­
sionally there should be religious ceremonies at which the rulers
will assist in their official capacity. These ceremonies should be in
conformity with the belief and worship of the Catholic Church. As
Pope Leo XIII expressed it :
It is a sin in the state not to have care for religion, as 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 are
bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be
His will.16
The civil rulers have the obligation to permit the Catholic
Church to teach its doctrines to the people, whether baptized or
unbaptized. In the event that the Gospel is being announced for
the first time, the rulers have the right and the duty to investigate
the claims of the preachers before giving positive approval. Since
the Church received her commission to preach directly from Christ
Himself, she has the right to announce her message in non­
Christian lands whether the government consents or not. How­
ever, the usual procedure of missionaries to pagan lands has been
to seek governmental confirmation of their mission, when it is
prudently possible to follow this procedure.
The state is bound to promote religion. To quote Pope Leo
XIII again :
All who rule should hold in honor the holy name of God, and one
of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it15
15 Encyc. Immortale Dei, ASS, XVIII (1885), 163.

IB
if

Bi

250

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor
enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden
duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. . . . Wherefore, care
must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded religion,
the practice of which is the link connecting man with his God.1G
However, the civil rulers have no right to force their subjects
to embrace Christianity or to enter the Catholic Church. Pope
Leo XIII enunciates the principle : “The Catholic Church is wont
to take great care that no one shall be forced to believe un­
willingly.” 1T That some medieval princes transgressed this rule
cannot be doubted; but their method was not in accordance with
genuine Catholic principles. Similarly, the civil rulers should not
prevent the private exercise of false religious cults, when no harm
is thereby done to the public welfare. But it is fully within their
' right to restrict and to prevent public functions and activities of false
\ religions which are likely to be detrimental to the spiritual welfare
of the Catholic citizens or insulting to the true religion of Christ.
Nowadays, it is true, greater evils would often follow such a gov­
ernmental course of action than would ensue if complete tolerance
were granted ; but the principle is immutable. It is the same prin­
ciple that our government employs when it prohibits the preach­
ing of ideologies destructive of our constitution, however sincere
may be those who proclaim them.
It is especially in the realm of marriage that the obligation of
the civil government to uphold the law of Christ is manifested,
more particularly with reference to the granting of divorces. Some
theologians have believed that in certain circumstances, as far as
the natural law alone is concerned, a divorce a vinculo with the
authorization of the civil power would be permissible.18 But,
whatever may be said of this opinion, it is certain that by the posi­
tive law of Christ the civil authority now possesses no power to
grant any couple a divorce with the right to remarry.19 The rulers
of a nation are obliged to recognize this fact, and realize that under
no circumstances may they positively grant a citizen the permis­
sion to marry again as long as his legitimate spouse is living.
™Ibid., 164.
17 ibid., 174.
18 G. Joyce, Christian Marriage (New York, 1933), 30.
10 Cf. Gasparri, De Matrimonio (Rome, 1923), II, n. 1136.

CHRIST THE KING OF CIVIL RULERS

251

However, in certain circumstances a Catholic ruler could tolerate a
marriage custom at variance with the law of Christ. Several in­
stances are on record within recent centuries when the Pope,
as civil ruler, tolerated the remarriage of a Jew7, while his wife was
still living, in accordance with the custom of his people, in order
that he might have offspring.20
On the other hand, since the bond of marriage can be broken
under the Christian dispensation in certain extraordinary circum­
stances, with the authorization or dispensation of the Church as in
the case of the Pauline privilege and matrimonium ratum non con­
summatum, the civil authorities are bound to recognize these ex­
ceptions as lawful, and to abstain from inflicting any penalties on
those receiving such concessions. This, too, is a duty of the state
toward Christ, since it is through His authority that these excep­
tions are authorized or granted by the Church. Similarly, the
government is bound to recognize the exclusive right of the Cath- 1
plie Church to establish impediments for the marriages of baptized ’
persons.21 Although the actual institution of a matrimonial impediment is an act of jurisdiction on the part of the Church, yet the
authority to make impediments comes from Christ Himself. For
it was He who established the contract of Christian marriage as a
sacrament, and by that very fact deputed the Church to exercise
authority over the conditions required for the lawful and valid
entrance into Christian marriage.
If the state were regulated only by the natural law, many
strange incongruities would arise in connection with marriage. The
state would be justified in making impediments for the baptized
and could disregard those made by the Church. Thus we should
have the baffling paradox of a person permitted to marry by the j
supernatural authority of the Church and forbidden to marry by the i
natural authority of the state—God being the source of both types !
of authority ! Again, under a civil government which protects the
natural indissolubility of marriage by stringent anti-divorce laws, '
the state as the representative of God would be obliged to reject
the validity of a Pauline privilege which the Church would grant as
the representative of the Son of God !
Sometimes the argument is raised that the Popes in recent

/

-/

20 Cf. M. Rosset, De Sacramento Matrimonii (S. Jean de Maurienne,
1895), I, 521.
21 Can. 1038, 52.

S

252

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

times, when delivering exhortations to the civil rulers of the
world have referred only to obligations of natural law, from which
we may conclude that these represent the whole duty of those
in civil authority. But the answer is simple. The Popes are well
aware that in view of the tragic neglect of the moral law that
characterizes the activities of governments today, there would be a
great improvement of conditions if civil rulers could be induced
to obey even the natural law. It should be noted, too, that when
the opportunity presents itself the Popes have not failed to indicate
that the law of Christ binds those in posts of civil authority. Thus.
Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, asserted:
“In the recognition of the royal prerogatives of Christ and in the
return of individuals and of society to the law of His truth and
His love lies the only way to salvation.”22 Again, at the consecra­
tion of twelve missionary bishops on October 29, 1939, the Holy
Father stated: “Most happy are those states that establish laws
inspired by the doctrine of the Gospel, and do not refuse to render
public homage to the majesty of Christ, the King.”23
.
No one can be so optimistic as to believe that the ideal of a
/
Christian state is going to spread throughout the world in the
j ,j near future, apart from the extraordinary intervention of Divine
*» Providence. Yet, that should not prevent Catholics from prot-V"Maiming unhesitatingly the absolute necessity of a return to Christ
' : on the part of governments as well as of individuals, if there is
to be any lasting peace in the world. This was the message of
Pope Pius XI, at the beginning of his pontificate : “True peace, the
peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready
to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are
willing to observe the teachings and laws of Christ, both in public
and private life.” 24 We must not compromise with the spirit of
the times so far as to admit that the state is bound only by the
natural law. We must unhesitatingly proclaim that the state can; If not attain its destiny, save through Christ the King, even though
/ 7 I that destiny is temporal, not eternal happiness. The words of the
Quas Primas should be our unhesitating message to the harassed
and unhappy world of today :
22 Encyc. Summi Pontificatus, AAS, XXXI (1939), 420.
23 Hom. Audistis, AAS, XXXI (1939), 596.
24 Encyc. Ubi Arcano Dei, AAS, XIV (1922), 690.

CHRIST THE KING OF CIVIL RULERS

253

When once men recognize, both in private and in public life that
Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real
liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord’s regal
office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious
significance; it ennobles the citizen’s duty of obedience. ... If princes
and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they
rule, not by their own right but by the mandate and in the place of the
Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely;
they will make laws and administer them, having in view the com­
mon good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result
will be order, peace and tranquility, for there will be no longer any
cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like
themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on
that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority
of Christ, God and Man.25
Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.
25Encyc. Quas Primas, AAS, VII (1925), 601.
Causa Nostrae Laetitiae

Mary at her birth was not only an object of delight in the eyes of
God, and of admiration to the angels, but she was also a cause of joy
to the whole world.
—Fr. Nicholas O’Rafferty, in Discourses on Our Lady (Milwaukee:
Bruce, 1948), p. 20.
The Timeliness of Thomism

In order to avoid the errors which are the primary source of all the
evils of our times, it is necessary religiously to hold fast, now as never
before, to the teachings of the Angelic Doctor. He has given us a
complete refutation of the erroneous views of the Modernists. As re­
gards philosophy, he has defended, as we have already seen, the value
and power of human reason and has proven by unquestionably valid
arguments the existence of God. As regards dogmatic theology, he has
clearly distinguished the supernatural from the natural order and has
placed in bold relief both the reasons for faith and the nature of Christian
dogmas. In the field of pure theology, he has shown that the articles of
Faith are based not on mere opinion but on truth itself and are, there­
fore, unchangeable.
—Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical, Studiorum ducem, issues June 29, 1923.