THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

The salvation achieved by Christ, and hence the mission of the Church, is directed to the human person in
his or her integral being.

1. The Church’s mission in the world

The salvation achieved by Christ, and hence the mission of the Church, is directed to the human person in
his or her integral being. Hence when the Church sets forth her social doctrine, not only is she not departing
from her mission, but rather she is faithfully fulfilling it. Moreover, evangelization would not be authentic if it
did not take into account the relationship between the Gospel and personal behavior, both at the individual
and social level. The Church carries out her activity in the world and should be related to it harmoniously,
by respecting the structure and finality of the various human organizations.

Thus the Church has the mission, and also the right, to be concerned about social problems. In doing so
“she can not be accused of going outside her own specific field of competence and, still less, outside the
mandate received from the Lord.” [1]

The Church’s mission in this area is not limited to setting forth ethical guidelines. Rather it entails making
clear the implications of the Gospel for social life, in accord with the integral truth about man, and the
conduct this entails, while urging people to make it a reality in the world.

A deep and essential union exists between Christian life and human development. [2] But this harmony
does not imply confusing the two domains. The goal of Christian conduct is identification with Christ. The
liberation Jesus brings is at its core liberation from sin, which certainly also requires striving to further human
liberation in the earthly domain.[3] This distinction is the basis for the autonomy of earthly realities
The teachings of the Magisterium in this area do not, therefore, touch on technical aspects or propose
systems of social organization. Rather they seek to foster the formation of people’s consciences, without
compromising the autonomy of temporal realities. [4]

Hence the hierarchy does not have a direct role in the organization of society; its task is to teach and
interpret the moral principles in this area in an authentic way. The Church accepts any social system that
respects human dignity, while the faithful should receive her social teaching with an adherence of intellect,
will and deeds (cf. Lk 10:16; Catechism of the Catholic Church , 2032 and 2037).

2. Relationship between the Church and the State

Religion and politics, although distinct in their scope, are not separate realms, since each person is called
to fulfill his or her religious duties in tandem with the social, economic and political duties that fall to each
citizen. Nevertheless, “the faithful should learn to distinguish carefully between the rights and the duties
which are theirs as members of the Church, and those which they have as members of human society.
They will strive to unite the two harmoniously, remembering that in every temporal affair they are to be
guided by a Christian conscience, since not even in temporal business may any human activity be
withdrawn from God’s dominion. In our times it is most necessary that this distinction and harmony should
shine forth as clearly as possible in the manner in which the faithful act, in order that the mission of the
Church may correspond more fully with the special circumstances of the world today.” [5] These words can
be seen as showing Catholics today how to live our Lord’s teaching: Render therefore to Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s ( Mt . 22:21).

The relationship between the Church and the State entails, therefore, a distinction without separation, a
union without confusion. (cf. Mt 22:15-21 and parallels). This relationship will be correct and fruitful if three
fundamental principles are kept in mind: accepting a sphere of moral values that precede and guide the
political sphere; distinguishing the mission of religion from that of politics; fostering the collaboration
between both spheres
a) Moral values should guide political life

The proposal of a so-called “ethical state” that seeks to regulate the behavior of its citizens, is today broadly
rejected, since it frequently leads to totalitarianism or at least implies a markedly authoritarian tendency. It
is not the State’s role to decide what is good or what is evil; rather it has the obligation to seek and promote
the common good, and to do so it will sometimes need to make laws concerning the behavior of its citizens.

This rejection of an “ethical state” should not, however, lead to the opposite error: upholding the moral
“neutrality” of the State, which does not nor can not exist. The State needs to be informed by moral values
that foster the integral development of persons, and that development, in its social dimension, forms part
of the earthly common good.

b) The Church and the State differ in their nature and aims
The Church has received its apostolic mandate from Christ: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ( Mt 28:19-20). With her
doctrine and apostolic activity, the Church contributes to the right ordering of temporal realities, so that
these may help men and women attain their ultimate end and not lead them astray.

The means the Church employs to carry out her mission are, above all, spiritual: preaching the Gospel,
administering the Sacraments, prayer. She also needs to use material means, appropriate to the embodied
nature of human persons (cf. Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:18), means which must always be in conformity with
the Gospel. In addition, the Church should dispose of the independence needed to carry out her mission in
the world, but not political or economic dominion (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church ,
2246; Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , 426). [6]

The aim of the State is the earthly common good of civil society; this good is not only material but also
spiritual, since the members of society are persons with a body and a soul. Social progress requires,
besides material goods, many other goods of a spiritual nature: peace, order, justice, freedom, security,
etc. These goods can only be achieved through the exercise of social virtues, which the State should foster
and safeguard (for example, public morality).

The difference between the religious and political sphere entails that the State does not enjoy a “sacred”
character nor should it govern people’s consciences, since the moral foundation of politics lies outside its
provenance. In addition, the Church does not possess coercive political power; her power is a spiritual one,
and should never seek to impose any single political solution. Thereby the State and Church adhere to their
own proper functions, fostering religious and social freedom.

From here stem two important rights: the Church’s right to religious freedom, which consists in immunity
from coercion on the part of the State in religious matters; and the right of Catholics to freedom of action
with respect to the hierarchy in temporal matters, although with the obligation of following the Magisterium
(cf. C.I.C ., canon 227). Moreover, “by preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields
of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, the Church respects and fosters the
political freedom and responsibility of citizens.” [7]

c) Collaboration between Church and State

The distinction between the Church and the State does not imply (as mentioned above) a total separation,
nor does it mean that the Church should restrict her activity to the private and spiritual sphere. Certainly the
Church “cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on
the sidelines in the fight for justice.”[8] Therefore the Church has the right and the duty “to teach her social
doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which
regard public order when the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls require it.” [9]
Thus, for example, the Church can and should declare that a law is unjust because it is contrary to the
natural law (laws on abortion or divorce), or that certain customs or situations are immoral even though
permitted by the civil power, or that Catholics should not lend their support to persons or parties that set
forth goals contrary to the law of God, and therefore to the dignity of the human person and to the common
good. [10]

Both the Church and those who govern society are seeking to serve mankind (although under different
titles), and they “will carry out this service with greater efficacy, for the good of all, the healthier and better
is the cooperation between them.” [11]

The practical ways of regulating these relations can vary according to circumstances: for example, they will
not be the same in countries with a Catholic tradition as in others in which the presence of Catholics is a
minority.

An essential right that should always be safeguarded is the protection of religious freedom. [12] Ensuring
respect for this right means ensuring respect for the entire social order. The right to social and civil freedom
in religious matters is the source and synthesis of all human rights. [13]
In many countries the constitution or civil laws guarantee religious freedom for all citizens and religious
groups; thus the Church can find sufficient freedom to fulfill her mission and space to carry out her apostolic
initiatives. [14]

Also where possible, the Church can establish agreements with the State, generally referred to as
Concordats, in which specific solutions are agreed upon related to the interaction of the State and the
Church: the freedom to carry out her mission, agreements on economic matters, feast days, etc.

3. Jurisdiction in “mixed matters”

There are matters in which both the Church and the State should intervene according to their respective
competencies and goals (called “mixed matters”); these include education, marriage, social media, and
assistance for the needy. [15] In these matters, collaboration is particularly necessary, so that each one
can achieve its own mission without any impediment by the other. [16]

a) The Church has the right to regulate the marriage of Catholics, even when only one of the spouses is
Catholic; among other reasons, because marriage is a sacrament and the Church is responsible for
establishing norms for how it is administered. While the State has the responsibility to regulate its civil
effects: the division of goods between the spouses, etc. (cf. C.I.C. , canon 1059). The State has the duty to
recognize the right of Catholics to contract canonical marriage.

b) The education of children, also in religious matters, is the responsibility of the parents by natural law;
they are the ones who ought to determine the teaching they wish their children to receive, the school or
catechism class they will attend, etc. [17] Where there is insufficient initiative on the part of parents or social
groups, the State shouldsubsidiarily establish its own schools, always respecting the parents’ right to
choose the orientation of their children’s education.
The parents also have the right to establish and direct schools in which their children can receive an
appropriate education, which given their social value should be recognized and subsidized by the
State. [18] And they have the right that their children receive at school—also when state run—teaching in
accord with their religious convictions. [19]

The State has the right to establish norms related to educational matters required by the common good
(access to instruction for everyone, minimum requirements, recognition of diplomas, etc.). For the State to
reserve education to itself as a monopoly, even if indirectly, is tyranny (cf.C.I.C. , 797).
It always falls to the Church to determine and watch over all that refers to the teaching and spread of the
Catholic religion: programs, content, books, teacher qualifications. This is part of the Church’s right to
defend and guarantee her own identity and the integrity of her doctrine. No one, therefore, can presume to
teach Catholic doctrine (in schools at any level) if he or she is not approved by the ecclesiastical authority
(cf. C.I.C ., 804-805).
c) The Church also has the right to promote social undertakings consistent with her religious mission
(hospitals, communications media, orphanages, shelters), as well as the right that the State recognize these
“Catholic” undertakings with the same conditions as initiatives promoted by other parties (tax exemptions,
qualification of employees, subsidies, possibility of collecting donations, etc.).

4. Secularity and secularism

A very relevant topic today is the distinction between secularity and secularism. Secularity means that the
State is autonomous with respect to ecclesiastical laws, while secularism claims the autonomy of the
political realm from the moral order and divine plan, and tends to restrict religion to the sphere of the purely
private. In this way it violates the right to religious freedom and harms the social order (cf. Compendium of
the Social Doctrine of the Church , 572). An authentic secularity avoids two extremes: the attempt to
transform civil society into the arbiter of morals,[20] and the a priori rejection of the moral values stemming
from culture, religion, etc., which people adhere to freely and which should not be dictated from the seat of
power. [21]

It should also be emphasized that it is illusory and unjust to ask the faithful to act in the political realm “as
if God did not exist.” Every person acts on the basis of his or her cultural convictions (be they religious,
philosophical, political, etc.), whether derived from religious faith or not; these are convictions, therefore,
that influence the social behavior of citizens. .

Acting in the political realm in accord with one’s own faith, if consistent with the dignity of the human person,
does not mean subordinating politics to religion. It means that politics is at the service of persons and
therefore ought to respect moral demands, which is simply to say that it should respect and foster the dignity
of every human being.

5. Pluralism in the social sphere among Catholics

All the above accords with the legitimate pluralism of Catholics in the social sphere. The same good
objectives can be achieved by different pathways; it is reasonable, therefore, that there be a pluralism of
opinions on how to achieve a specific social goal. It is natural that the backers of each solution legitimately
seek to carry it out. Nevertheless, no option has the guarantee of being the only appropriate alternative
(among other reasons because politics to a great extent is concerned with future events, and thus is the art
of the possible), and even less so, of being the only one that accords with the Church’s teaching. [22] “No
one is allowed in the aforementioned situations to appropriate the Church’s authority for his opinion.” [23]
Therefore all the faithful, particularly the laity, have the right that their legitimate autonomy be recognized
in the Church to take part in temporal affairs in accord with their own convictions and preferences, as long
as these are in agreement with Catholic teaching. And they have the duty not to implicate the Church in
their own decisions and social activity, never presenting their solutions as “Catholic” solutions. [24]

Pluralism, while a positive good, should never be confused with ethical relativism. [25] Pluralism is morally
admissible when the goal is a true personal or social good; but not if the decision is contrary to the natural
law, to public order, and to the fundamental rights of the human person (cf. Catechism of the Social Doctrine
of the Church , 1901). But outside these extreme cases, pluralism should be fostered in temporal matters,
as a good for personal, social, and ecclesial life.
Enrique Colom