Principles of the Relation and Separation of the Church and the State

I. The Relations between Church and the State

The relation between Church and State is, perhaps more than any other, a
passionate subject. One the one side, there are those who say the Church should stay out
of Political conflicts altogether, keep silent on political issues and confine itself to
religious and pastoral matters. Others criticize the Church for not taking a sufficiently
strong line and urge a greater involvement in major decisions in national and
international politics. It is already a commonplace that any Church statement on a
political issue is met with outraged reaction, violent criticism, or widespread lack of
understanding. Many Christians are therefore asking whether it would be wiser if the
church were to stay out of politics as far as practicable.1
The relation between the Church and the State is undoubtedly one of the most
important subject matters in theology, since in the words of the Indian Jesuit George
Lobo, Religion and politics are two of the most important dimensions of human life.”
Since the time of the ancient Stoic philosophers, there has been a critical awareness of the
relations between religion and world of politics.2
The purpose of this presentation is to situate the study being undertaken in the
current predicament. The current principles put forward by the church are strongly
influenced by the events that took place in the history. An overview of the events that led
to its inception will help facilitate the comprehension of the present guidelines and
principles.3

A. Political Theology
Political theology was an emerging theological movement before the start of
Vatican Council II. As it specializes on the realm of political affairs, it made theological
reflections and formulated principles on the relationship between the church and State.4
One of the most influential thinkers in this discipline is John Courtney Murray. He
taught four perennial principles for Church – State relations that had become the
standard norm during his time.
Murray taught four perennial principles for Church-State relations that had
become the standard norm during his time:

1
Arnel Lagarejos, The Church of the Poor: A New Perspective on the Church, the State, and the Poor, (Pasig
City: Educational Resources Development Center, 1999), 142.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid, 146.

1|Page
 a. An irreducible difference between Church and State5
- to explain this difference further, in his book “We hold these Truths,”
Murray states that the unity of Church and State could result either to
Theocracy6 wherein the State is absorbed by the Church; or to Erastianism.7 In
both cases, the result was some limitation upon freedom. In both cases, either
the State would corrupt the Church, or vice-versa.8

b. An effective primacy in dignity of the spiritual9

- Murray holds that, since God is the author and source of all material
creation, His realm, which is the spiritual, has an innate primacy and greater
importance than all material realities.10

c. The finality of Church-State relations toward a practical cooperation for the

good of the human person who is the source, agent and end of socio-political
structures.11
- at the heart of this principle is the “central Christian concept, res sacra homo,
the human person is sacred.”12
These principles, according to Joseph Komonchak, are aspects of the Church’s elf-
realization in relation to a people’s social self-actualization in the political order. They are
norms for ecclesial conduct in Church-State relations, whether “Church” means spiritual
authority, “people of God,” local church, diocese, family, parish, or individual believer.
They are norms too for what the Church expects from a State and for states in relating
with the Church.13

5
Ibid.
6
Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many
theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law.
Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western
countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. (Encyclopedia
Britannica)
7
Erastianism, doctrine that the state is superior to the church in ecclesiastical matters. It is named after the
16th-century Swiss physician and Zwinglian theologian Thomas Erastus, who never held such a doctrine. He opposed
excommunication as unscriptural, advocating in its stead punishment by civil authorities. The state, he held, had both
the right and the duty to punish all offenses, ecclesiastical as well as civil, wherever all the citizens adhered to a single
religion. The power of the state in religious matters was thus limited to a specific area. (Encyclopedia Britannica).
8
Ibid, 245.
9
Ibid, 147.
10
Ibid, 245.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid, 246.
13
Ibid, 147.

2|Page
Encyclicals
B. Dignitates Humanae: FREEDOM
This letter has given the most basic principle with regards the Church’s relation
with the State with the most direct reference in the statement: “The freedom of the
Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the
Church and governments and the whole civil order.”14 The Declaration itself gives
an adequate explanation of what the freedom of the Church concretely means today.
In an implicit citation from Pius XII, it is said to mean “that stable condition of right
and of fact [which guarantees] the necessary independence [of the Church] in the
fulfillment of her divine mission.”15 The Church claims freedom as a strict right.16

i. Foundation of the Right to Freedom

1. The Theological Foundation

This comes from the mandate of Christ to preach the Gospel and to
observe His commandments.17

2. The Secular Foundation

As summarized by Murray, the secular grounds are the Truth which
is its foundation, the Justice which is its goal, the love or civic
friendship which is its motivating and unifying force, the freedom
which is at once its goal and its method of pursuing the goal of justice.18
The autonomy of the secular order requires that, within this order,
and in the face, and in the face of its constituted organs of government,
the Church should present her claim to freedom on these secular
grounds – in the name of the human person, who is the foundation, the
end, and the bearer of the whole social process.19
As a final note, the Declaration doesn’t have the intention to only bring
advantages to the Church, but it is also valuable for the benefit of the secular
community itself. It is clear therefore that the Council (Vatican 2) renewed the
traditional doctrine on the relations of Church and State by restoring, in continuity

14
Pope Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae, 13,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-
humanae_en.html, Acessed: June 3, 2017.
15
Ibid.
16
Lagarejos, 148.
17
Paul VI, 13.
18
Ibid, 149.
19
Ibid.

3|Page
 with Leo XIII, the principle of the freedom of the Church to its fundamental place
in the structure of the doctrine. The Declaration, in effect, proclaimed the
independence of “Church” and “State.”20

C. Gaudium et Spes
This letter explains the correct notion of the relationship between the political
community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which
Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as
citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which,
in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.21

Principles of the Relationship

1. Transcendence of the Church in Political Matters

The transcendence of the Church links both the universality of her mission and
her freedom in its accomplishment. However, transcendence to the world does not
mean isolation from the world does not mean isolation from the world. The
Constitution points to the notion of the Church as “the leaven”22 and as it were,
the soul of human society, which is to be renewed in Christ and transformed into
the family of God.23” This Gospel teaching provides the principal basis for
legitimate participation by the Church in the activities of the State for the benefit
of the human community. 24
The Church, although “not of the world”25, can only be a leaven of the
world if she is immersed in the world. She cannot affect the life of the world if she
immersed in the world. She cannot affect the life of the world nor transform it fi
she is unconcerned with its happening. Suffice it to say, the words of Christ himself
not only to inspire but also to compel the Church to be in the world, to participate
in its life so as to be able to share her life, and be a leaven that transforms the world
and gives it greater vitality and meaning.26

20
Ibid, 150.
21
Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-
spes_en.htm, accessed June 9, 2017.
22
John 1,3 and 14.
23
Gaudium et Spes, 40.
24
Lagarejos, 151.
25
John 17,11.
26
Lagarejos, 151.

4|Page
 2. Cooperation of Church and State in the service of the human person.
The concrete forms of cooperation are to be instituted “under regard for
circumstances of place and time.”27 The more that both foster sounder
cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances
of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good
of all. This cooperation, both as a matter of principle and in the various forms of
its realization, is required by the dual nature of the human person “not confined
to the temporal order alone; rather, living his life in history, he has a care for his
eternal vocation in its wholeness” 28

3. Freedom of the Church

Echoing Dignitatis Humanae, GS asserts the Church’s Freedom of spiritual
entrance into the order of politics. This mode of entrance is purely spiritual, since
it simply takes the form of moral judgment on political affairs, since the grounds
of judgment have to do with the rights of human person and the salvation of
souls.29
Thus according to this principle, concretized in civil legislation, the Church can
maintain the level of autonomy it requires as a result of its divine establishment.
The State has no duties towards it other than to safeguard the basic freedom of its
citizens, and to support the efforts of the Church in achieving aims that redound
to the public good.30

II. Separation of Church and State

If church has legitimate moral-theological grounds to intervene in the political

sphere, how can these grounds be reconciled with the constitutional mandate of the
separation of Church and State?
Can the Church play an active role in the public order without violating the
“inviolable principle” of separation of Church and State?
In answering these questions, it is necessary to look into the meaning and intent
of the constitutional provision. Taking the Constitution of the Philippines as an example,
it can be noted that,

27
Ibid, 153.
28
Gaudium et Spes, 76.
29
Lagarejos, 153.
30
Ibid.

5|Page
First: The constitutional provision basically means that the State is autonomous and
independent from the Church.
On account of this autonomy, the mandate provides that
1) there can be no official State religion and the State shall not give preference for
any religion;
2) no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights; and
3) no public money or property shall be appropriated for the benefit of any church,
sect or denomination.
Thus, the basic intent of the constitutional provision of separation of the Church
and State is the mutual autonomy of both the Church and State. This means that the
Church and State should not interfere in each other’s affairs, nor seek to control each
other, nor allow themselves to be simply the instrument of each other. This also means
that there is equality of all religions before the law, and there is freedom of religion and
worship by each citizen.
Nowhere in the Constitution is it provided that the Church cannot make public
pronouncements on acts of the State, and on political events and situations, nor that
individual Church officials cannot run for or occupy public office. Nowhere does it says
that the human being is to be split, with his body assigned to the State, and his soul, to
the Church; or that priests are to be confined in the “sacristy” while politicians are
unfettered to do whatever they like. The Constitution does not forbid nor prevent the
Church from influencing the political life of a country. The Church has as much right as
any civic group to express its mind regarding the way the country is being run.

Second: The Distinction between State and Society31

On the basis of this distinction between State and society, a twofold affirmation
can be made about the Church’s role in society.
1. Catholic Theology supports and defends the separation of the Church and
State.
2. The separation of the Church and State doesn’t mean separation of the Church
from society, for this would reduce the Church to a purely private role.
Thus, at the constitutional level, there is no conflict between the theological vision
that calls the Church to activate engagement in the social arena and the political tradition
that provides religious organizations with the opportunity to participate in shaping
society as volunteer associations imbued with the needed moral religious vision.

31
Ibid, 180.

6|Page
Third: The Church fully agrees with the principle of separation of Church and State,
but this does not mean the absence of dialogue between religion and politics, and
between Church State.32

It is essential that the Church initiate explicit public, systematic dialogue about the
relationship of religious communities and the political process. A whole range of policy
changes is permeated by moral and religious themes in contemporary society, from the
debate on abortion to the decisions on nuclear armament, form the care of the terminally
ill to the fairness of budget cuts. The direction our society takes must include an
assessment of ow moral and religious conviction relate the technical dimensions of public
policy.

Fourth: Separation of Church and State denotes that, in nations with mixed religions,
the State cannot give preference to the religion of one group because this would
naturally cause conflicts with the other groups.33
In such instances the best solution for the State is the avoidance of any official
identification with one of the religious groups. A separation of Church and State in this
sense is to be accepted. But since on the other hand, the most fundamental values of
society belong to the central substance of the Church’s proclamation, the Church proves
to be a guarantor of the common good.

Fifth: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.34
To denote the separation of Church and State, it will be enough to observe that
Mark took Jesus’ pronouncement as an endorsement of “the principle that loyalty to civil
authority need not contradict obedience to God.”
To render unto God what is God’s,’’ is never to render uncritical obedience to
Caesar. Rendering to Caesar what is to Cesar’s could sometimes mean rendering critical
confrontation to in order to render to God what is God’s. Hence, the separation of Church
and State cannot be used as an argument against the involvement of the Catholic faithful
and of the Church itself in shaping the political failure of the State.

32
Ibid, 181.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.

7|Page