May 2022
The fourth instalment of our serialisation of papers delivered at
the Summer School of Catholic Studies, held at Cambridge in July-August 1935.
Church and State: 4
THE CLAIMS OF THE CHURCH
It has been said that Catholics are strong in principles but weak in facts, non-Catholics strong in facts, but weak in principles. The other papers in this volume will give the lie to the assertion that Catholics are weak in facts or are unwilling to face them. It is the purpose of the present paper to expound the claims of the Catholic Church in terms of principles. However, the general subject, “Church and State,” narrows our subject down to an exposition of the claims of the Church in respect of her social status, i.e., her status as a society. We must consider first the claim of the Church to be a supreme, juridically perfect and independent society, and, secondly, her claims in respect of her relations with the Civil State which, as we shall have occasion to reiterate, is also supreme, juridically perfect and independent in its own sphere.
SOME PRELIMINARIES
As the question of right—ius—is the foundation of all we shall have to say, it is to the point to note that only a person (i.e., an individual intellectual substance) can have rights or duties. But besides the individual person there is the corporate or moral person which we call a society or association of individuals. Such a body has a unity of intelligence and will (the foundation of personality and rights) in the particular purpose for which the individuals associate or unite since it is by such union of wills that the purpose of the association is achieved. No philosophy denies that such bodies—of moral persons, corporations—have rights.
A society is therefore defined as a body of men united, together in order to achieve a common end by the same external means. It is important to bear in mind that the principal element in a society is the end or purpose for which it exists. It is this which specifically distinguishes societies from each other: and it is this which determines the means which a society must and may use to attain its legitimate purpose.
Although the name of societies may be, and is, given to friendly associations whose members meet together merely to enjoy one another’s company and conversation,(1) we will here restrict our attention to societies in which membership entails mutual rights and duties between members and the corporate body. These latter are called “juridical” societies. We may be free to join them or we may be obliged, by natural or positive law, to do so. In the latter case they are called “necessary” societies.
From the point of view of the rights and corresponding duties which are an essential feature of the societies we are considering, it is evident that there must be some power, or powers, on earth beyond which there is none higher and which derives its authority and sanctions from the natural law or from positive divine law. Under such an ultimate power, or powers, there may be, and are, other societies which derive all their authority from such power, or powers, and not directly from the natural or positive divine law. The former—the ultimate and supreme authorities—are called “perfect” or “juridically perfect” societies; the latter “juridically imperfect” societies.
The power, naturally and necessarily inherent in supreme earthly authority, embraces three branches, viz., legislative authority, judicial authority and executive authority. Legislative authority is the power of making laws, i.e., of deciding upon means suitable to promote the end or purpose of the society. Judicial authority is the power to declare the application of the laws to a particular controverted case or to decree sanctions against the violation of the law. Executive authority is the power to carry out the enactments of the laws and to enforce the decisions of the judicial authority. While these powers exist necessarily only in the supreme authority, they may also exist in the societies which derive their power from the supreme authority and in the measure accorded to them by that authority.
The foregoing preliminary explanation of the source and measure of authority in human societies is not based on arbitrary assumptions: a moment’s consideration will show that these principles embody the necessary structure of human society. They are, of course, based on the fundamental conception of man as a social animal. This I do not propose to prove. It has always been taken for granted as self-evident—today more than ever in our complicated modern civilisation. Man cannot lead his life except in co-operation with others. Whether, however, besides the natural law which bids man unite, there is a positive divine law, regulating a particular sphere of man’s activity, e.g., his religious life, must be a matter for historical investigation and proof. We do not assume divine intervention: we prove it.
THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM
The Catholic Church is, by positive divine law, a supreme juridically perfect and independent society.(3) There is no legitimate religious society independent of the Catholic Church.
It is not to our purpose to go so far back in religious apologetics as to prove the divine character and truth of Christ’s mission itself. That we here take for granted and we must simply refer those who may be interested to the abundant literature which already exists on the subject. The question we have to consider is whether Christ simply taught and commanded and left it at that or whether He set up an authority, deriving its powers solely from Him, which would, by His commission, continue His work in His name. If He did in fact institute such an authority, the nature and extent of its power must be sought for in the mandate given it by Him. We aim at showing that He did establish such an authority, independent of every other earthly authority, complete with all the powers necessary to govern men for the purpose of their sanctification and after-death salvation. The proof of this assertion, viz., of the establishment of such an authority by Christ, must be purely historical.(4)
Though it is usual, and necessary, to prove the supremacy and independence of the authority of the Catholic Church by an appeal to definite passages of the historical writings which we call the New Testament, it has always appeared to the present writer that the complete proof and conviction must really come from a complete grasp of the whole history of the early Church as described in the New Testament and other early historical records. We see there the Apostles and their early successors (who in some cases are their contemporaries, as St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp) ruling the Church by power which they claim to be given to them directly from God and quite independently of the civil power—often indeed in definite defiance of the latter. The full force of this argument can only come home to us if we are saturated with a knowledge of the activities of the Church in those early days.
This way of acting of the Church continues unbroken throughout the ages though a superficial knowledge of history may to some appear to indicate a subordination of the Church to the civil power at certain periods: the real explanation of such apparent subordination being, however, that the Church has sometimes, for the sake of peace and to avoid hurt to souls, tolerated usurpations on the part of the State, usurpations which, however, she has always condemned whenever they really impeded her work for souls.
Thus the Church by a living historical tradition, a conclusive argument, has always asserted her supremacy in her own sphere and her independence: and she has always acted accordingly. But we must nevertheless give some indication of the grounds there are in the New Testament for claiming supremacy and independence for the Church together with the threefold social power which we have seen to be essential to a juridically perfect society.(5)
In the first place, the general thesis that the authority of the Apostles and their successors comes direct from Christ is borne out by the words of Our Lord Himself. “As the Father,” He says, “hath sent me, I also send you.” (John 20:21) In other words the power of the Church is derived from God through Christ and is a continuation of the ministry of Christ. Again, the Church is to be guided directly by the Holy Ghost: “But when He shall have come, the Spirit of truth, He shall guide you to the whole truth.” “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your mind all the things that I have said to you.” “I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Advocate, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it beholdeth Him not nor knoweth Him. But ye know Him, because He abideth with you, and is in you. I will not leave you orphans; I am coming to you.” (John 16:13; 14:26; ib., 16-18)
Although our personal individual sanctification is attributed in Scripture to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it is not of this sanctifying presence that Our Lord is here speaking, for it is to be His office to bring to the minds of the Apostles “all the things that I have said to you,” “the whole truth”: and Our Lord’s prayer is “also for those who believe in Me through their word, that they all may be one.” (John, 17:20-21) Hence it is of direct assistance, and consequently authority, to be granted, to the teaching body of the Church that Our Lord speaks. This is still clearer in the words of Christ, commanding the Apostles to preach the Gospel: “All power in heaven and on earth hath been given Me. Go ye, therefore, make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you: and behold, I am with you all days, unto the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28:18-20) Here the Apostles (and their successors, for the work is to go on till the consummation of the world) receive directly from Christ a share of the power which He has received directly from His Father. And He will be with them (thus identifying Himself with their authority) till the end of the world in their task of making “disciples of all the nations.”
Hence to the Apostles and their successors, with greater force than to the seventy-two disciples, do the words of Our Lord apply: “He that heareth you heareth Me: and he that despiseth you despiseth Me.” (Luke 10:16) It is abundantly clear, therefore, from these and parallel passages that the power of the Church is received directly from God through Christ.
We find, in point of fact, that the motto of the Apostles, in carrying out the commission laid on them by Our Lord, was that “God must be obeyed rather than men.” (Acts 5:29.) Christ had predicted: “Ye shall be led before governors and kings for My sake.” (Matt. 10:18) In other ways also did the Apostles show that they exercised a supreme and independent power, independent of the politico-religious Jewish State and of other civil authority. In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), after speeches by St. Peter, St. James and, presumably, others, “the brethren who are apostles and priests” communicated to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia that “it hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to ourselves to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things. ...” Here we see the Apostles identifying their own authority with that of the Holy Spirit, and they exercise that power in favour of those “who are turning to God” quite independently of any other authority whatsoever, they who till that time had been loyal subjects of the Jewish State.
It is very important to note here how the authority of the Apostles is absolutely identified with that of God Himself, the Holy Spirit. It seemed good “to the Holy Spirit and to ourselves.” Yet there can be no question of the Apostles having received on this occasion a special revelation to guide them. It is simply the reassertion of the principle of Christ’s own promise that the authority of His Church should be His own divine authority and that He would be behind it as such. From this (and from the passages we shall presently quote in support of the legislative, judicial and executive power of the Church) it follows that the Church is, within the sphere of her own divinely appointed activity, not only supreme, but absolutely independent of every other earthly power. The fact that her power is received directly from God implies that such power is independent, but this is strengthened by the fact that we see in practice that the Apostles acted independently of every other power.
If the power to guide men to a particular end was given directly to the Church by God and the Church is independent of every other authority, it follows that the Church has the authority to make and enforce such measures as may be necessary or opportune to the accomplishment of this particular purpose: in other words the Church has the power to make laws for her subjects (legislative power) and to enforce them (judicial and executive power). This conclusion from our general principle is fully warranted but there is also explicit historical proof that Christ wished His Church to be furnished with these powers; that the Apostles so understood His teaching; and that they acted in accordance with the supposition of such powers.(6)
In the first place we have the all-embracing mandate given by Our Lord to St. Peter and to the whole apostolic body. “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens;(7)and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in the heavens, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in the heavens.” (Matt. 16:19). The corresponding mandate to the apostolic college is in chapter 18, verse 18. It is interesting to note that St. Peter’s power of binding and loosing is conferred upon him after Our Lord says that His Church is built upon him as the foundation and that the same power is given by Our Lord to the apostolic body after Our Lord has been speaking of the corporate body, the Church. This is to the point in our present subject since it shows the power of binding and loosing to be in the head of the Church as well as in the corporate governing authority of the Church. It is not necessary to prove by a detailed exegesis that “binding and loosing” means the legislative power with the accompanying judicial and executive powers. There is no other meaning which makes sense of the passage. “To bind and to loose” in spiritual things evidently means to place obligations on men’s consciences and to remove such obligations. Hence this power is the full power of ruling men to their final destiny.
The legislative power of the Church also appears in the apostolic Council of Jerusalem to which we have already referred.
The judicial power of the Church, as distinct from the legislative power, is to be seen in the words of Our Lord: “Tell the Church. But if he will not hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.” (Matt. 18:16-17.) In other words, disobedience to the Church is excommunication.
We find St. Paul asserting the apostolic right to command by his own authority in the Epistle to Philemon (v. 8), and in his address to “the priests of the church” of Ephesus he tells them that the “the Holy Spirit hath appointed you bishops” (Acts 20:28) and exhorts them to be vigilant and zealous in their government of the “Church of God.” But the most forcible expression of the apostolic judicial power is perhaps to be found in the Epistles to the Corinthians. In the incident of the incestuous Corinthian he declares the power of the Church that such a one should be “banished from your midst.” (1Cor. 2). He says that although absent “I have already, as if really present, passed judgement in the name of the Lord Jesus upon him who hath thus wrought this deed—you and mine own spirit being met together, along with the power of the Lord Jesus—[deciding] to deliver up such a one to Satan.” (ib., 3-5.) In the second Epistle to the Corinthians he declares: “we are in readiness to punish all disobedience.” (10:6)(8)
Again, in chapter 13, announcing a forthcoming visit to Corinth, he says: “I have already declared to them that were in sin(9)before, and to all the rest, and declare it again . . . . that if I come again I will not spare! This because ye seek a proof of Christ Who speaketh in me.” (vv. 2-3) In conclusion, he writes: “Wherefore I write these things when absent, that when present I may not act severely, according to the power which God hath given me—for building up and not for casting down.” (13:10.) There is no need to explain these various texts from St. Paul: they are sufficiently clear in themselves. It is only necessary to read the texts themselves carefully.
In the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, the Apostle gives directions to these bishops for their guidance in ruling the churches committed to their care. We are not concerned with the details of these instructions, but only to note the fact of the divine independent power which they are to wield.
In reviewing the evidence adduced from Scripture for the power of the Church, it must be borne in mind that the purpose of the power granted to the Church is to bring men to union with God on earth and to eternal salvation, man’s ultimate destiny. In man’s purely temporal affairs the Church is not granted, and does not claim, any jurisdiction. It is necessary to insist upon this and to remember that the power exercised by the Church is real power, albeit of this transcendental nature. We are so inclined to think of power in terms of battleships and magistrates and policemen, that power such as that claimed by the Church is unconsciously looked upon as somewhat unreal until we find (as the world in our time has found) that purely material force is no effective sanction.
We could easily expand the historical proof of the Church’s power by examining the claims of the early Church as contained in historical records other than the Scriptures, but this would lengthen our study unduly.
It follows from the fact that Christ founded a Church, one Church, a supreme authority on earth, which was to act in His name in procuring the salvation of mankind, that there can be no other Christian Church, no Christian authority which is not part of, and subject to, that Church. Baptism is the rite of initiation appointed by Christ which makes men members of that Church. Hence every human being who has been validly baptised is a subject of that Church, owing her his obedience: a rebellious subject perhaps, and even rebellious, it may be, in good faith; but a subject nevertheless. However, since the power of the Church is for the sanctification of mankind, for building up and not for casting down, she does not wish, generally speaking, that her laws should be binding upon those who are baptised, or have been brought up, outside the fold of the true Church: an exception to this general rule is in regard of certain laws which regulate the public or common good.
Since Almighty God has, by revelation, told us how He wishes to be served and worshipped, religions other than the Christian religion are simply false religions. The Church does not claim jurisdiction over the individuals who may follow such religions since, not being baptised, they are not her subjects. But she does claim the right, given her by God, to preach Christianity even in pagan countries. She likewise claims the right to be recognised even in pagan countries as a lawful society and to be accorded legal status and protection as such.
To continue next month.
FOOTNOTES
(1) For much of the material of this lecture I am indebted to the unpublished lectures of my confrère and quondam professor Fr. Julius dos Santos, whose name rather than mine should be at the head of this paper.
(2) Such societies are usually founded upon the basis of some aesthetic or academic interest which the members have in common. But they are rarely purely "friendly” as membership (ordinarily entailing a financial contribution) usually gives at least some definite rights in the management of the society.
(3) That the Church is a juridically perfect society has been denied, in theory and in practice, by many in all ages. In various degrees the claim has been attacked by the German Emperors and their followers, Marsilius of Padua (d. 1343), Gallicanism, Jansenism and practically all modern politicians.
(4) This statement is inserted on account of the misleading atmosphere introduced by Protestant Bible-worship at the Reformation. By setting up the inspiration of the Bible (which we never denied and they now reject) as the ultimate and only Rule of Faith, Protestants seemed to lose the power of considering the Sacred Writings as historical documents, a consideration which must precede the proof of their inspiration. The infallible inspiration of the Bible is one of God's good gifts to men, but the authority of the Church is not based upon that inspiration. We shall in this paper take the authenticity, integrity and historical trustworthiness of the New Testament writings for granted as it would manifestly lead us into a disproportionate digression to prove these things here.
(5) The quotations from the New Testament are taken from the Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures (Longmans) except in the case of the Gospel of St. Luke.
(6) Many Protestant sects have denied that the Church is a juridical society, holding that, as a society, it is invisible.
(7) This kingdom is the "Church" of the preceding verse. See note note h. l. and on Matt, 3:2, in the Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures.
(8)Cf. note h. l. in the Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures.
(9) This evidently means some public offence which would give scandal.