Forum: Relationship Between the Church & State
We welcome your view on the current issue. A thorough exposition of the issue through discussion will be helpful. We ask only that you address the issue stated and do so as briefly as possible. Therefore, every comment submitted will be examined accordingly.
Vatican Council II has a great deal to say about the implementation in our own time of the aims or goals of Jesus. It is the first time, in our estimation, that a council has addressed this question, directly.
Prior to Vatican II, the Church had concerned itself, almost exclusively, with
the role of the Church in society, as though no other major party was involved.
Today, it is seen that the Church must work together with that other great social
body, the State.
Gaudium et Spes, the conciliar document on the Church in the Modern
World, opens with the statement that “The joys and the hopes, the griefs
and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any
way afflicted, those too are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the
followers of Christ. . . .That is why this community realizes that it is truly and
intimately linked with mankind and its history.”
In the past, the relationship between the Church and the State was one of antagonism and hostility. That was true even with the European States with which the Church enjoyed close relationships. For many centuries the chief struggle of the
Church with the State was to establish independence, especially for the clergy. Over
the centuries the Church established that independence, with the result being that
in most European countries there were two power centers, sometimes working
together, more often working at cross purposes to one another.
It is only in our own time that this has changed appreciably. And, it is only
recently that the Church accepted the fact that modern democratic governments,
such as that in the United States of America, had no desire to control the agenda of
the Church, despite the fact there might be little love or understanding between the
two power centers.
This adjustment is a major one for the Church. It demands many changes in attitude and structure as well. For example, the clergy have to understand the mission of the Church in and to the world in this context. In the past relationships with the State the Church largely confined its interests to ecclesiastical matters, and these were considered the province of the clergy. With the new understanding of the mission of the Church in and to the world the Church must become active in matters that were previously considered the exclusive province of the laity, with the necessary changes in the Church organization to do so.
For example, in the United States today the economy, health care and a proper approach to immigrants is occupying the time and interest of most citizens. How does the Church play a role in this matter? It certainly does not do so through the leadership of the clergy. How can the proper layleaders be chosen for this leadership task? Will the bishops and priests allow them to exercise true authority within the organization? This is not a simple matter, yet much of the future of both the Church and State depend upon how it is answered.
The Church is an institution that is constantly changing, constantly evolving.
Acceptance of that fact and the speed of change in today’s world present a new
challenge for an institution that was formed over centuries when change was much
less rapid. There is no standing still, and remaining alive, in today’s world.
The Church is made up of people, a product that is and remains Jesus
Christ, and a scholarly arm to do the necessary research. All three are constants,
But the people being people are subject to constant change and growth. All the rest
is, as they say, detail.
What do you think?
