OCR Text |
Show Uncle Jaeii aiid. Ri rHInhtHM V Orestes JL ai yvjyiW4 Brownson. The dialogue of last weeks is continued. contin-ued. The nephew is enlightened still more on the subject of temporals and( spirituals and concedes his weakness' and erroneous impressions of the subject sub-ject discussed. The nephevv begins' with his usual "if." - "But if the two governments are equally necessary to the government ot society according to the divine ordination, or-dination, why do you assert that the state is subordinate to the church?" "Because t'ne temporal by the law of God is subordinated to the spiritual, and because the state, which represents repre-sents the former, cannot but be de jure subordinated to the church, in case she represents .the latter. 1 do it also, because otherwise I must practically subject the church to the state. As all human acts have temporal relations, the absolute independence of the state in regard to the spiritual power would give it authority, under pretext of governing gov-erning the temporality of temporals, : to extend its power over the whole spiritual order. The state might think that monastic vows, celibacy, religious houses and such like things, affecting as they certainly do questions of poli- tical economy, are incompatible with the temporal good of the community, so it would, under pretense of governing govern-ing the temporality, proceed to forbid them; it might be annoyed by the num- j ber of holidays instituted by the spir- j itual power, and proceed to suppress them, as we have lately seen in the kingdom of Sardinia; it may take it into in-to its head that it is contrary to its dignity and welfare of the empire to , allow the church to have the supreme control of ecclesiastical seminaries, or the bishops and clergy within its dominions do-minions to have a free correspondence with the spiritual chief of the church, and therefore forbid all communication with Rome except through the secular administration, and proceed to place the ecclesiastical seminaries under the control of the state, as did Joseph II of Germany; it may regard the spiritual spirit-ual dependence of the state on a power whose chief does not happen to reside within its dominions as contrary to its temporal dignity and independence, and therefore separate the national church from the center of unity, as did Henry VIII and the parliament of England in the sixteenth century, as Louis XIV seemed for a moment disposed to do ir. the seventeenth and as the French people peo-ple actually did by their constitutional church in the eighteenth it may allege that to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy su-premacy of the pope is incompatible with loyalty to the republic, and therefore there-fore forbid the profession and observance observ-ance of the Catholic religion within its dominions, as you and your rightly-named rightly-named Know Nothing friends are attempting at-tempting to do here, and as was long-done long-done in every Protestant state in Europe. Eu-rope. If you will believe English history, his-tory, the devout English government did never fine, Imprison, exile, massacre massa-cre or hang at Tyburn, Catholics as Catholics, but only as traitors to the throne. If we' may believe its apologists, apolo-gists, it always respected religious liberty, lib-erty, and has persecuted Catholics only on-ly because, being Catholics, they could not but be traitors. Moreover, the government may say, that holding and I professing such views as yours, my dear Dick, is incompatible with the temporal welfare of the state, which I think is perfectly true, and for that reason forbid you to hold them, and subject you to pains and penalties if you punish them. If we allow it to be independent in the face of spiritual power, as all thse things certainly have temporal relations, we cannot deny de-ny its right to 'govern them as it J pleases, and therefore we necessarily , subordinate theirj"spiritual relations to their temporal relations, and thus the spiritual to the temporal, which, in j principle, is' the subordination of the soul to the body, eternity to time, God to man." , "But I might retort and say, since you extend her authority over all human hu-man acts, the church might under pretense pre-tense of governing spirituals, appropriate appropri-ate .to herself the Whole government of temporajs; and this seems to be what is supposed by some to be. necessarily the result of the views of your friend, the editor of Brownson's Review." "We have seen what would result, nay, what has resulted and is every day resulting, from the assertion that the temporal power is independent of the spiritual. See now what would result, if we asserted the mutual independence of both powers. The church says, and says truly, that all these things ordered or-dered or forbidden by the state are spirituals; the state says, and says truly, that they are all temporals, for they all have a temporal relation both are independent each of the other; each is equally supreme, and each commands com-mands the contradictory or the other. Here is a decided conflict of rights and duties. Two coequal authorities, both from God, commanding contradictory things! Tell me which I am to obey, since to obey both is impossible, or how I can with a good conscience disobey dis-obey either? Here is a very grave practical difficulty, and every man of common sense knows that it can only be removed only by denying the relation rela-tion of equality between the two powers, pow-ers, and asserting the subordination of one in authority, as well as in excellence, excel-lence, rank or dignity, to the other. You Protestants subordinate the spiritual spirit-ual to the temporal; we Catholics subordinate sub-ordinate the temporal to the spiritual. One or the other must be done, and nobody no-body with any just claims to a religious relig-ious comprehension can doubt which is the true course." "But you have not yet met my objection." ob-jection." "The church claiming only spiritual jurisdiction, and knowing precisely and infallibly where the distinction between be-tween the spiritual and the temporal lies, neither will nor can encroach on the daman of the State." "What security have you of that, when yol hold the state to be subordinate subordi-nate to her?" "When the question is asked by a Catholic, I answer, I have the security of the fact that she is God's church, and is indorsed by him, which is a good security I think, as there is to e given or as any reasonable man can ask. If the question be asked by a non-Cath olic, I answer, that I claim for her the presumption of innocence till guilt is proved. .- eighteen centuries she has never ii single instance encroached on the domain of the temporal, and if he has not in that long period, it is not likely that she will in anv future time. In return, I remind you that, if you do not subordinate the state to her, you must subordinate her to the state. What security , have you to give me that the state will never encroach on the domain of the spiritual? I am as much entitled to security for the good behavior of the state as vou are to security for the good behavior of the church, and you cannot offer to me the guarantee of past good behavior, or the presumption of innocence till guilt is proved, for unhappily the guilt is but too notorious, and proofs of innocence. I think, are but forthcoming. The encroachments en-croachments of the temporal on the spiritual have been with the state the rule, and its submission the exception. You need not attempt an answer, for there is no answer to be given.' To avoid the conflicts of rights and duties, and to solve the difficulties on both sides we must assert both church and state indeed, but the state in subordination subor-dination to the church the temooral ; in subordinaion to thv spiritual, not the spiritual to the temporal: for the temporal tem-poral as for the spiritual, and bv the law of God is to be referred to a spiritual spirit-ual end. Both moving on in harmonv. with this subordination, that is. the church as- the superior and the state as the inferior, things will go on as God intended, and this is what th church always teaches us. With the church alone society would want its exclusive arm; with the state alone it would want mora ity, and we should have civil desnotism; without either we should have both spiritual and temporal tem-poral anarchy, what our revolutionists are laboring to introduce. With both moving on haimoniouslv, and In mutual mu-tual concert, or, if I may so speak, reciprocal commerce, you have both spiritual and temporal order, peace of conscience and freedom of action. Here would be no absorption of the state by the church, nor of the church by the state. Both would be retained as distinct, dis-tinct, though not hostile nor separate powers, each operating according to its ow"n constitution, and fulfilling its own mission in its own order." "But that doctrine presupposes the state to be Catholic, as well as the church." ' "Undoubtedly. I cannot understand ! how there can be perfect harmony and j concert of action between the two powers pow-ers where one is of one religion and the other of another or none, and as a j Catholic I cannot, of course, believe that the government of society is normal nor-mal and complete unless both powers 1 are Catholic. I certainly hold that the state ought to be Catholic, for a nation 1 should profess the true religion col- lectively as well as individually." "However, the state here is not Catholic." Cath-olic." "So much the worse." "That may or may not be; but it is not, and it is not likely to be either in your day or mine." (To be continued.) |