Part 2. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (8)

Thus the state finds itself subordinate to the church, and by this very relation to it is obligated in its life and activity to conform to its law. But what exactly is that church which can be the true and authoritative interpreter of the principles of the spiritual order? If there is only one church and in the historical life of a people it has been the morally constructive principle, the foundation of moral and intellectual development, and has answered the moral needs of the people, then it is indeed the true, in a relative sense, interpreter for that people of the principles of the spiritual order, it is the soul of the national organism, and the state should conform to its law as the voice of the people’s conscience. In such a case, the church necessarily becomes established and, as the soul to the body, serves for the state as the morally moving, vital principle. Every movement in it receives a corresponding reflection in the state organism, as every spiritual movement is reflected in the bodily organism. This is soul and body, and their organic unity is their natural and normal relation. But the United States encounters a completely different fact. It has no historical church with which it is bound by organic growth. It does not have a single, authoritative, unified religious consciousness which, proceeding from one central principle, could serve for the state as a unified and unchanging expression of conscience in interpreting the principles of the spiritual order. Here the state encounters a motley diversity of churches which do not agree with each other not only in the particular application of the principles of the spiritual order, but even in the interpretation of the principles themselves. The national religious consciousness has been fragmented into separate independent centers which do not recognize each other and strive to be independent interpreters of the spiritual order. Clearly, the state, as an external organism, cannot obey the voice of all these separate consciousnesses and be obedient to all of them together, since with the contradiction and disagreement of these voices the action of the state organism itself would be paralyzed. The state could exit this difficulty in two ways: either recognize one of the many churches as the true interpreter of the spiritual order and conform exclusively to its voice, or conform only to that common voice which necessarily emerges from the diversity as the resultant of all of them. In the first case, the difficulty would not be removed and would entail countless new difficulties. Each of the numerous churches and sects considers itself exclusively to be the true one, with the rejection of all others as erroneous, and therefore recognition by the state of one of them as true would be equivalent to recognizing as the guiding voice of the people’s conscience that voice which by the majority of private consciousnesses is considered false and rejected as such. Moreover, the state has no right to decide which church is true and which is false, just as the body has no right and cannot decide what in the soul is true and what is false. Thus the other outcome remains, and it is suggested to the state by the very nature of things. By its adoption the very essence of the relation of the state to the church in the United States is determined.

When several forces acting in different directions collide, by a necessary physical law a single resultant force is produced, which gains predominance over all other forces and gives one common direction to all their actions. In intellectual life the same process is observed. Different representations, clashing with each other, produce one common concept, which regulates the organism’s action. Such a resultant also arises from the collision of many moral or religious forces, and in this respect it is served by that common principle which constitutes the moving beginning and final purpose of all of them. The state, as an organism on which the action of all these particular forces is directed, naturally had to submit only to this resultant, and only it could obtain guiding significance in directing its actions. So indeed is it in fact. The resultant of the various moral and religious forces can only be the common moral or religious principle, and it serves as the guiding principle of state life in the United States. The state recognizes a certain common moral code to which it itself submits in its activity and uses coercive force to bring into submission those members who do not agree with it. All churches, sects, or communities which encompass this common moral code or this common civil religion enjoy complete equality and complete freedom before civil law. But if any of them, under the pretext of its teaching, its church law, freedom of conscience, or even divine revelation, openly violates the moral code accepted by the state, then it comes into collision with the state, and the latter will resort to external force to compel submission to this code. The resultant always takes more or less the direction which belongs to the predominating majority of the particular forces. In the United States, if not all, then an overwhelming majority of churches and sects, despite their particular differences, agree on one common principle and have one common foundation in the Christian religion; therefore the resultant of their forces could only be the common Christian principle, and it indeed serves as that moral code which has been adopted by the state. To the extent that the matter concerns this common Christian moral principle adopted by the state as the foundation of its activity, all churches and sects that recognize it exist in vital union with the state, are established churches and sects. Even the Jews, who recognize together with Christians the Decalogue as a common moral code, and communities founded on purely natural religion and recognizing the natural law of conscience, exist in this respect in the same vital union with the state. But if there were to appear such a religious sect which considered the offering of human sacrifices to be a duty of conscience, or if there were to settle in the state a community of Hindus who consider it a sacred duty for every wife to burn herself alive together with her deceased husband and were actually to carry out this religious teaching, then the state would not only not recognize these sects’ right to freedom of conscience equal to all others, but would hasten to forbid them from fulfilling the mandates of conscience in this respect, since they contradict the religious and moral code accepted by the state. By virtue of this same code, the state cannot tolerate, for example, such a sect as practices and advocates polygamy, as violating the Christian moral principle of family life and desecrating the purity of marriage. Proof of this is the long and persistent struggle of the United States government against polygamy as practiced by the sect of Mormons.[1] The bond between the state and church in the realm of the common Christian principle is not limited on the part of the former to prohibitive measures to suppress actions contradicting this principle, but is also expressed in positive facts whereby the state renders positive assistance to the church for the realization of its moral teaching. Recognizing religion as the soul of public and state life, the source of the moral strength of the national organism, the state, to afford it the best possible facilities in accomplishing its mission, grants it privileges and immunities which do not extend to other organs of intellectual and literary life. To this end, the state exempts from all taxes all places of worship and prayer assemblies, which privilege is not granted to any other places of assembly.[2] Religion preaches love and mercy to all the afflicted and conducts extensive charitable activity. The state not only does not prohibit this activity, does not ignore it, but in every way facilitates and assists it, making enormous appropriations from state funds for the support of various church charitable institutions. Religion further preaches the sanctity of Sunday, and the state comes to its aid in this matter, and legally prohibits all actions which in any way lead to violation of the sanctity of Sunday. To this end all commercial, drinking establishments and places of entertainment are closed, under penalty of liability before the court for violation of the statute.[3] The state recognizes religion as the highest moral principle of national life when it requires from its officials and from witnesses in court oaths in the name of Almighty God as Supreme Judge, whereby judicial testimony and the performance of public office are given religious sanction. Finally, the state recognizes its inner connection with religion through solemn facts, as for example when it establishes by law solemn national festivals, such as the so-called “Thanksgiving Day.”[4]

Footnotes

[1] For the suppression of polygamy, a series of laws was enacted, though up to now they have been successfully circumvented by the “latter-day saints.” In his latest official message to Congress on December 6, 1880, President Hayes expressed the necessity of new measures to enforce these laws. “The acknowledged duty and purpose of the people of the United States,” he says, “is the suppression of polygamy, where it exists in our territories, and the prevention of its extension. The authorities of the United States in Utah have made zealous and praiseworthy efforts to enforce the laws against it. Experience has shown that legislation on this subject, to be effective, requires considerable modification and improvement. The longer action is deferred, the harder the desired goal will be to achieve. Rapid and decisive measures are necessary. The Mormon sectarian organization, which supports polygamy, holds all the administrative and executive power of the local legislative body in the territory. By its control of the grand and petit juries, it exercises enormous influence on the administration of justice. Having in its hands the local political power of the territory, the heads of this sect have the ability to exercise their hostility to Congress’s law on polygamy and actually prevent its enforcement. Polygamy will not be eliminated if the enforcement of the law against it depends on those who practice and support this crime. It can be eliminated only by taking political power away from the sect that preaches and maintains it. Congress’s power to enforce laws to protect the territory is evident. There should be no place for half-measures. The political power of the Mormon sect is growing; it now controls one of our richest and most populous territories. It is constantly spreading to other territories; wherever it appears, it establishes polygamy and sectarian political power. The sanctity of marriage and family relations are the cornerstone of our American society and civilization. Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are elementary ideas of free institutions. To restore the interests and principles violated by polygamy and Mormonism, and to fully open to intelligent and virtuous emigrants of all faiths that part of our possessions which has largely been closed to general emigration by the intolerant and immoral institutions, a reorganization of the government of the territory of Utah is recommended.” Hayes’ Message, published in The New York Times, December 7, 1880.

[4] “Thanksgiving Day” is a national religious-political holiday in America, celebrated annually on the last Thursday of November. The date of celebration is appointed annually by the President of the United States by a special proclamation officially issued with the seal of state. The character of these proclamations can be judged by the following proclamation by President Hayes, issued in 1880: “Never in the course of its history since independence has the people of the United States had so many and such general grounds for rejoicing and giving thanks for the mercy of Almighty God, or been so deeply obligated to thank Him for His loving kindness and humbly to beseech the continuation of His care and protection. Health, wealth and prosperity in all our borders; peace, honor and friendship with all the world; the firm and faithful attachment of our people to the great principles of freedom and justice that created our national greatness, to the wise institutions and strong organization of government and society that preserve it—for all these let the thanksgiving of a happy and united people, as if with one voice, ascend in reverent prayer to the Giver of all blessings. I therefore recommend that on Thursday, the 25th of this month of November, the people gather in their respective places of worship to express their gratitude to Almighty God for His bounties and blessings and to offer prayers for the continuation of them. In witness whereof I have set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Given in the City of Washington, the first day of this month of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred eighty, and of the independence of the United States the one hundred fifth. (Seal) President R.B. Hayes. William M. Evarts, Secretary of State.” From The New York Times, November 1, 1880, transmitted by telegraph. Similar proclamations are issued by the governors of individual states. In the latter, and besides “Thanksgiving Day,” there are occasions when governors issue solemn addresses to the people for the performance of some unusual religious acts. In Vermont, for example, Governor Fairnough issued a proclamation last spring by which Friday, April 8, was appointed as a day of general fasting and prayer—to seek Divine mercy upon the crops that have been sown. See Christian Statesman, April 14, 1881. Congress, as the supreme representation of the people, also issued proclamations calling the people to prayer on the occasion of special historical circumstances. A similar proclamation issued on the occasion of the War of 1812 is found in Inquiry into the Moral and Religious Character of the American Government, p. 116.

Part 2. The Struggle of Roman Catholicism for Freedom to Exist and the Significance of the Results It Gained for Its Further Development (Cont.) (8)

Отдел второй. Борьба Римского католицизма за свободу существования и значение добытых им результатов для его дальнейшего развития (продолжение) (8)