Catholic view on Church and state

In the wake of the effusive discussion on divorce, which is threatening to become another intriguing politico-religious issue in Malta, I would like to ponder on the modern Catholic view of Church and state, hoping this may provide a wider context for the controversy.

The issue of Church and state and, more specifically, their separation has been a hot topic in recent centuries as nationalistic movements swept through countries and Church influence on politics became resented. Most modern Churchmen view the separation of Church and state as a good thing.

The concept of separation of Church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organised religion on the one hand and the nation state on the other.

Article 2 of the Maltese Constitution states: (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion. (2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.

Vatican Council II does not exclude the possibility of the “confessional catholic state”. But the establishment of catholicism, for instance, as the religion of the state can be adopted when it is feasible for the country and helps to foster the common and general good of civil society in a better manner than does a “non-confessional state”. At the same time, though, one needs to realise it was clearly the mind of the Council that such an establishment is more a matter of historical circumstances rather than a matter – or even a consequence – of doctrine.

So far as Vatican Council II goes, the issue of Church and state may no longer be treated in terms of “union” or “separation”. Furthermore, Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom) and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) have given a new focus to the issue of Church and state in the Catholic theological context. After these two documents, the terms of the issue have rather become “religion and government”, religion in a historical-pluralist sense and government in the constitutional sense.

In effect, the Declaration on Religious Freedom affirms the independence of “Church” and “state”. It actually outlines an ideal state which, on the one hand, is not neutral nor, on the other, secular. It might rather be described as a “lay state” on grounds that, while it is not considered competent to pass valid judgments on spiritual values and, therefore, not even on the intrinsic contents of religious beliefs, it still is assigned the duty to acknowledge and respect such values.

The “lay state” or laïcité, a particular product of French history and philosophy, was formalised in the 1905 law providing for the separation of Church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power. This model of a secularist state protects the religious institutions from some types of state interference but with public religious expression also to some extent limited. This aims to protect the public power from the influences of religious institutions, especially in public office. Religious views that contain no idea of public responsibility or which consider religious opinion irrelevant to politics are less impinged upon by this type of secularisation of public discourse.

Commentators, however, have posited that the form of Church-state separation enacted in France in 1905 and found in the Spanish Constitution of 1931are of a “hostile” variety, noting that the hostility of the state towards the Church was a cause of the breakdown of democracy and the onset of the Spanish Civil War. In fact, President Nicolas Sarkozy has criticised “negative laïcité” (as in Spain) and wants to develop a “positive laïcité” that recognises the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society and allows for faith in the public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups.

In line with the thought of recent Catholic theology on religious freedom and the teaching of recent popes, Vatican Council II locates the competence of the state basically in the common temporal welfare. Within this perspective, in answer to the demands of justice, public powers must acknowledge the fundamental equality of all citizens in their dignity as human persons. According to the present Catholic view, the state is in duty bound to promote the common temporal welfare on a basis of equality for all and sundry, whatever their religious creeds might be.

In effect, the modern Catholic view on Church and state makes a discreet political commitment to constitutional government, that is, the juridical state inspired by the awareness of the dignity of the human person and the recognition of his rights. In other words, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church has adopted the concept of public order. In its threefold sense – political, moral and juridical – this concept has been proposed by Vatican Council II as the criterion which governs the action of law and the power of the state in regulating or limiting the exercise of religious freedom.

Rev. Dr Shields is a clinical psychologist and theologian whose doctoral dissertation – Religious Freedom: New Directions In Catholic Theology – emphasised moral theology and psychology of religion.