Part 2. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (6)

Thus the Federal government of the United States completely excluded religion from the circle of its jurisdiction, and the separation of church and state became the fundamental law of the country. By virtue of it all religious confessions as if ceased to exist for the state and thereby became equal before it. The state refused to have any dealings with them, and thereby refused both preference for any of them and persecution of others. Protestantism and Catholicism, which had been at war with one another before, with Protestantism as the stronger opponent oppressing Catholics through state laws, were now left to their own internal forces, and in struggle with one another could rely only on their own internal strength and could appeal only to their own resources. Although the forces of the opponents remained unequal and Protestantism immeasurably surpassed Catholicism, it is nevertheless clear on whose side the advantage from such legislation lay. By it Protestantism lost the ability to rely on state force in its struggle against Catholicism and thereby lost one of its strongest means of struggle; Catholicism, on the other hand, was freed from the possibility of external oppression from its opponent and thereby gained as much as its opponent lost. The advantage, and an immeasurable advantage, was on the side of Catholicism; this amendment to the constitution brought it out of oppressed condition, placed it on a level with all other confessions, removed the chains of slavery from it and gave it complete freedom to grow and develop. Catholics highly value and fully understand the significance for themselves of this amendment, and Catholic historians even endeavor to prove that this amendment was adopted by Congress chiefly as a result of a memoir presented to Congress by Catholics with the assistance of Washington, who was allegedly in friendly relations with the Jesuit Carroll.[1] “The importance of this legislation,” says a Catholic historian, “which owes its origin chiefly to the far-sighted wisdom and enlightened patriotism of some of the most outstanding Catholics of that time, cannot even be exaggerated. It was the strongest barrier one could have placed against the rebirth of the spirit of persecution by which almost all colonies had dishonored themselves and which would certainly have raised again its hydra head if the States at a solemn convention had not rejected it as incompatible with the essential character of American government. Only an open field and honest struggle with error—this is all that is required by Catholicism for the development of its strength and its march toward victory.”[2]

American historians like to point to the articles of the constitution by which religion is separated from the state as an example of the magnanimity of Protestantism, which renounced its state advantage and thereby granted Catholicism equal rights with itself. Catholic historians, on the other hand, deny this magnanimity and attribute the formation of the law to fortunate circumstances.[3] And they are in large measure right. In the direction of legal recognition of freedom of conscience, especially regarding Catholics, various political, social and intellectual causes were at work. We have already seen what significance in this regard was the position of Canada at the beginning of the struggle for independence, how from the desire to attract it to their side the colonial congress made a sharp turn from its intolerance toward Catholics to the promise of them full religious freedom. Its loss for the union was a bitter lesson. When at the end of the war Canada nevertheless refused to join the new republic and the Americans had to withdraw their troops from it, “they made this withdrawal with great reluctance,” says a historian contemporary to the events. “Americans were not only grieved by the failure of their favorite plan to attach it as the fourteenth member of their confederacy, but also feared the most serious consequences from the restoration of British dominion in this region.”[4] Congress was very clearly aware that its immoderate expressions regarding the Roman Catholic religion in 1774 had led to such a loss, and by granting actual freedom to Catholics hastened to correct its grave error. Another cause working in the same direction was the desire on the part of the statesmen of the United States to attract and secure foreign emigration. Already in 1774 Congress noted that the population of Canada “was daily multiplied by Catholic emigrants from Europe”; and when by the condition of the peace treaty of 1783 Canada was to remain under British dominion, it was obvious that to retain for the government of the United States an anti-Catholic character would mean giving growth to this province at the expense of the United States, and that only by granting complete civil and religious freedom to all could the country hope for a turn of the emigrant flow to its shores.[5] Finally, the essential assistance which Catholic powers France and Spain rendered to the colonies in the struggle for independence imposed an obligation to grant freedom to the religion they professed.[6] The persistent struggle for independence, requiring the highest tension of all forces, naturally united the colonists, made them forget their religious disagreements and thereby developed the spirit of tolerance. The complete proclamation and realization of political independence, bought at great cost and with heavy efforts of all regardless of confession, predisposed to the granting of complete freedom and equal rights to all of them as a reward for these efforts. Under the exhilaration of the benefits of political independence, Americans developed a view of their country as a refuge for all the oppressed under European despotism, and this in turn contributed favorably to the resolution of the question of religious freedom. The rapid growth in the number of sects also had important significance as a cause of the separation of state from church, since the diversity of them made difficult any religious legislation, and moreover many of them directly rejected the interference of civil authority in religious matters. Finally, the theory of the civil character of the state, which was dominant in the eighteenth century and whose most prominent representative in America was Jefferson, the famous author of the “Declaration of Independence,” who received his political views from the French philosophers of the past century, was not without influence. The state, according to this theory, is purely a political organism and is in no way connected with religion. This theory, as we shall see below, in moderate form formed the basis of the American constitution.[7]

Most of the causes set forth, which led to the granting of freedom of religious conscience to Catholics, were realized by the latter even in the past century, and one of them, namely the Jesuit Carroll, who later became the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, upon his elevation to the episcopate gave in 1790 an important historical account of these causes. Carroll first surveys the position of the Catholic Church in the colonies before the struggle for independence. “The laws in the colonies,” he says, “were the most severe against its practice. A priest was subject to death for merely entering their territory. Catholics suffered the most cruel punishments for adherence to the religion which their conscience approved; and were not only excluded from every office in government, but could scarcely be permitted to remain in any of these provinces if it were known that they professed the Roman faith. In such a state of things, few Catholics settled in other states; and if they settled, they concealed their religion, and either joined with some other or entered into marriage relations with Protestants and were forced to raise their children in error. Even in Maryland and Pennsylvania the position of Catholics was a state of oppression. The few Jesuits who could be borrowed from the English mission were insufficient even to satisfy the needs of the two provinces in which they first settled; and from other clergy no one yet dared to undertake the dangerous task of bearing the true faith into other provinces. Such was the state of things when there occurred a general uprising against England.” He then turns to setting forth the causes themselves: “Rejecting submission to England, the American states found it necessary to form new constitutions for their future government and, fortunately, free toleration of religion was made a fundamental point in all these new constitutions; and in many of them not only toleration was permitted, but equality of civil rights for persons of every Christian confession. In some, however, the inextinguishable spirit of prejudice and intolerance excluded Catholics from this equality. Many causes combined to produce this happy and just article in the new constitutions. First. Some of the leading men in directing American affairs were, on principle, against all religious oppression, and, being well acquainted with the customs and teachings of Roman Catholics, strongly set forth the injustice of excluding them from any civil right. Second. Catholics equally and with equal zeal united in the rejection of that oppression which first produced hostility with Great Britain; and it would be impolitic as well as unjust to deprive them of common participation in the benefits bought by common danger and united efforts. Third. The assistance or at least the neutrality of Canada was considered necessary for the success of the United States, and the granting of equal rights to Roman Catholics could dispose the Canadians favorably toward the American cause. Finally, France began to show friendly disposition toward the United States, therefore it was considered very impolitic to offend this powerful state by unjust severity against the religion it professed.”[8]

The immense significance of the article of the Federal Constitution and its amendment, separating the state from the church and equalizing the civil rights of all confessions, is thus undoubtedly important for the fate and growth of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and is recognized by Catholics themselves. But a correct understanding of this significance can be established only by clarifying those theoretical principles which formed the basis of the legislation and constantly exercise influence on its practical application, as well as by determining the relationship of the Federal Constitution to the private constitutions of individual states. To the consideration of these questions we now turn.

IX

The relationship of church and state in the Federal Constitution of the United States was expressed in their legal separation from each other. The state renounced legislative power in the field of religion, granting this power exclusively to it itself. But legal separation does not condition factual separation, since in reality the foundations of the church and state come together so closely that they constitute one organic whole not subject to any break without harm to the very goal of the state. Therefore, the question naturally arises: what meaning does this legal separation of church from state have? In other words, into what relationship did the state stand toward the church by virtue of this legal separation? For a clear answer to this question it is first necessary to determine the principles of the relationship of church and state in general.

The existence of church and state is conditioned by two separate aspects of human life, the spiritual and the material. In Christian society the representative of the spiritual aspect is the church and the representative of the material is the state. These two orders exist already at the lower stages of development of human society, but are not understood clearly as two separate orders or as having their own separate and peculiar representation. Only in Christian society do these two orders receive proper distinction and each in its own proper representation stands in a normal relationship to the other. The prototype and very foundation of this distinction of two orders in society lies in the dual nature of man or in the fact that man exists only as soul and body and needs care of both. The church, representing the spiritual order, cares for souls, has concern for the inner life of human society and cares for the satisfaction of the inner spiritual needs and requirements; the state, representing the material order, naturally cares for the satisfaction of the material needs and requirements of persons and society. But man lives not by soul alone, or by body alone, but by the unity of both in their mutual relationship. Soul and body are distinct but not separate. They have their distinctive properties and functions, and one cannot replace the other; but their separation is death, death for the body only, not for the soul, which is immortal. The body is material and, separated from the soul, is dust and ashes, plain earth from which it was formed. The same in a moral sense applies to society, which is not only state, or only church, but the unity of both in their mutual relationship. They are distinct, each has its own distinctive nature, its own laws and functions, and one cannot perform the functions of the other or replace it. But although distinct, in the normal state of society they cannot be separated from each other. The separation of state from church in the moral order would be the same as the separation of body from soul in the physical order. This is death, death of the state certainly, not of the church, which like the soul is immortal. Complete separation of state from church destroys its moral life and leaves society to moral decay and corruption.

The soul, then, is the formative or life-giving principle of the body. The church in the moral order is the formative, life-giving principle of the state or civil society, which has no moral life in itself, since all moral life by its very essence proceeds from the spiritual order. In the physical order life is possible only from God through the mediation of the creative act; so too in civil society moral life can proceed only from the spiritual order, which is established by the Supreme Lawgiver and represented by the church, the guardian and judge both of natural and revealed law. The soul is the noblest and highest part of man, and it is appointed not to exclude the body or usurp its functions, but to guide and govern it according to the higher law; the body should not claim predominance over the soul to bring the law of the spirit into subjection to the law of the members. So too the church, as representing the spiritual order and having care for souls, is the noblest and highest part of society and to it belongs the guiding power over all human society. In the moral order it belongs to it to direct and control civil society through the proclamation and application to action of God’s laws, whose guardian and interpreter it serves and to which it is obligated by the Supreme Lawgiver to subject all its activities and life.