In the year 1950, the American Jesuit theologian Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J. – the architect of the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II – sent a memorandum to one Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI and an official with the Vatican Secretariat of State whom Murray had reason to believe was sympathetic to his cause.
In this memorandum, Murray explained what would become, some fifteen years later, a critical part of the foundation upon which the conciliar propositions were constructed.
The Church’s doctrine on Church-State relationships as Murray wrote was, according to him, in desperate need of being “vitally adapted to modern political realities and to the legitimate democratic aspirations, especially as they have developed in the United States.”
Well aware that the “adaptation” he desired would not be possible unless the Church’s traditional understanding of the nature of the State was first radically altered, Murray wrote in favor of the view that was espoused by the Founding Fathers of the United States.
The American State was not considered to be a person. It was considered to be simply a power, or more precisely, an action—the living action that is public order. This action was conceived to be limited to what concerns the temporal and terrestrial order of man’s social life.
The fundamental question in play in this discussion, a question that one must ask again today, is essentially this:
Is the State truly a nameless, faceless, less-than-personal organism (an “action” as Murray and others maintained), or is it rightly considered a “person” relative to the obligations that are incumbent upon it?
Specifically, the doctrine that Murray sought to change concerns the rights and prerogatives of Christ the King and the State’s duty to serve Him.
Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.” Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. (Quas Primas 18)
If, as Pope Pius XI taught, there is no difference between the individual and the State as it concerns humankind’s obligation to serve Christ the King, then the effort to separate the Church from the State (i.e., to limit the State to “what concerns the temporal and terrestrial order of man’s social life,” as Murray desired) would be tantamount to separating individual persons from the Church; a clearly untenable proposition for any Catholic.
Murray was bright enough to realize this, and so he understood very well the necessity of making the case for undermining the traditional teaching on the nature and obligation of States.
Pope Pius XI, however, wasn’t proposing anything new in Quas Primas; rather, his teaching was founded upon that which was handed down by his predecessors. In addition to Pope Leo XIII, whom he mentioned by name, Pius XI also drew from the treasury of faith handed down by Pope St. Pius X, who said:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. (Vehementer Nos 3)
Murray, by contrast, was arguing that the Church’s doctrine on Church-State relations could and should be changed in light of “modern political realities.”
In other words, in Murray’s view, the same that prevailed at the Second Vatican Council at his urging, the traditional teaching was founded upon a desire on the part of the Church to address what he called an “historical problematic;” the conditions of which had changed.
Murray believed that among the most notable changes in the global political landscape included the coming of age of the American Experiment; a new reality that demanded a new doctrine.
An honest reading of Quas Primas and Vehementer Nos, however, clearly reveals that neither encyclical articulates proposals on Church-State relations that are constructed upon changing circumstances; but rather on objective truths about who God is.
With the tactical vision of a chess Grandmaster, Murray understood that even if he were successful in selling his arguments concerning the nature of the State and the so-called “historical problematic,” the obligations of States toward God were not so easily dismissed since the Divine Law is binding on all mortal lawmakers.
In his memorandum to Msgr. Montini, Murray preemptively attempted to engage this lingering detail by plainly acknowledging that the State’s rule mustn’t contravene the law of God. Ever the committed Americanist, however, he went on to argue that the democratic ideal, with its impersonal, purely secular State, could achieve this harmony “from the bottom up, by the layman acting under the guidance of his Christian conscience.”
And what exactly is this “bottom up” approach?
No matter how much Catholic lipstick our “conservative” friends attempt to put on that pig, it’s nothing other than the inversion of the “top down” model of authority that is founded upon a faithful understanding of the Social Kingship of Christ, He to whom all authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given.
In other words, it amounts to dethroning the Sovereign Lord and crowning Him with thorns all over again.
The remedy?
While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim His kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm His rights. (Quas Primas 25)
Given the post-conciliar hierarchy’s utter unwillingness to do so, it is up to the laity to fill the void left by their shameful silence with refrains of Vivat Christus Rex!
How, exactly?
A good place to begin is at the beginning, helping yourself and your fellow Catholics, the majority of whom have been robbed of their sacred inheritance, to discover the timeless truths conveyed in the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas.
From there, simply ask the Lord for opportunities to proclaim His kingship and know that He most certainly will respond.
These words of Pope Leo XIII also put the lie to the “changed circumstances” argument:
“In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens…. It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages–above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles–and, though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defense, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse”.
(Au Milieu des Sollicitudes, #28)
It’s very simple: where are all the Catholics to form this state? Catholics are now a minority. I think the reality is, the best Catholics can hope for is to be tolerated and to bear influence wherever they can, be that in the home, at work, or in politics, business etc… I think those Vatican II statements are just seeking to acknowledge changed realities: there are no more truly Catholic states. Perhaps there will be in the future. But we can’t expect non-Christian states to recognise a God they don’t believe in and then legislate accordingly. It’s not realistic. Western society has been complacent in its superficial Christianity, with its superficial laws and conventions. It’s all unravelling.
Treefrog, it seems your knowledge of history, among other things, is a bit off.
–
There are no more Catholic states, indeed – and why is that? It seems highly likely that you are not aware that the Vatican itself, immediately after the Council and in the “spirit” of it, heavily pressured many Catholic states to reform their constitutions in an entirely secular manner! In other words, they dethroned Him, quite deliberately, again and again.
–
Do some real research and see what you find.
–
You are correct, in a sense, that the causality is circular in a sense, but you err most seriously when you imply that the Lord says, regarding evil, “If you can’t beat it, join it!”
Christ was a minority as well – then he included 12, and more and more. Everything in Heaven and Earth – in other words EVERYTHING – is under the authority of Christ and thereby all must rightfully pay homage to Christ the King, to Whom belongs all ‘glory and empire forever and ever’, according to St Peter. to think or believe otherwise is to no longer be a Catholic.
–
it is the obligation of all Catholic’s to defend and promulgate the Truth and His Tradition vouchsafed to us; this means that most people will see us as offenders against their trends and trivial relativisms – so be it.
You’re right, salvemur. We are obliged to defend and promulgate the Truth. We must proclaim the Truth calmly, and make sure that in our own small circles, we do not apologize or act embarrassed about the Faith. Your average person must see that we Catholics are not crazies, but very firm believers in the perennial Faith. I believe we need to ask the Lord, as Louie says, for the opportunities to proclaim the Faith. It should keep us always on our guard, and always seeking to learn more through the great encyclicals, holy scripture, and catechism, so that we can give proof for the Faith that is in us.
Agreed, and if I may add, with utmost respect–there is no requirement to be calm. Righteous anger, I find, is more called for in these times Bluntness, firmness , fervor. Charity is the only requirement, in the traditional Catholic sense of the word Charity.
I’ve stated before here that in my long lifetime I have found that more people come to conversion through shock than peaceful discourse. But that’s me.
i think you are right. Our Lord was no fluffy-factor-fulminator. And, if most people are honest I think they would agree, it’s not the fluffy-factor that lifts people out of the mire.
dear salvemur,
brethren,
have you all listened to Louie’s treatment of this topic, this post, on Voice of Catholic Tradition Radio? {on blogroll right sidebar} I’m sure you have, but if not, I’ll try to link you to it.
the stealth operation of the enemy-satan is not overt, it is a covert endeavor
get ready for the Fall, my friends, & I don’t only refer to the season-
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/archbishop-paglia-s-u-n-address-on-international-day-of-families?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zenit%2Fenglish+%28ZENIT+English%29
and then , ther is 2017
Pray, pray much for the Holy Father.
Bl. Jacinta, pray for us.
I went to the link, and nearly sprayed coffee onto the screen when I got to F. Paglia’s public statement about the reps of the “3 great Abrahamic religions.”
It is time to build your Ark and Enthrone your home to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. So that you will not perish in the flood of darkness that engulfs the earth.
I know.
–
“Before Abraham was, I AM”, said Christ.
–
“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”, said St John the Baptist.
–
add to this that the Church has always taught that Abraham, Isaac and Jocob were rescued from the Limbo of the Fathers, when Christ Harrowed Hell after the Crucifixion. http://www.catholicessentials.net/limbo.htm
–
this ‘abrahamic faiths’ business is just another way of ecumaniacally saying, that Christ, ‘doesn’t matter’ – (I do wonder sometimes if recent popes don’t have some sort of not so secret rabbinate-envy). In fact for ordained ecumaniacs, they may as well change scripture to say, before the Word was abraham – after all, ‘truth’ evolves for them, so why not scripture?
“In a scene that is sure to disturb many a conservative and thrill many a liberal, on Sunday Pope Francis addressed a massive crowd of over 300,000 school students from schools all over Italy. He had them all chant together over and over again this saying: “It takes a village to raise a child.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-a-child-did-pope-francis-quote-hilary-clinton
–
I thought it took a Faithful father and mother. I guess out goes the window the ‘old’ concept of parenting and in comes the ‘new’ for upcoming synod. apparently Frankie is visiting philadelphia in september for the World Meeting of Families.
Thanks for the link. I cannot avoid commenting on the forcing of pop music on the laity. Appropriateness aside, the song they play is what I would class as “BYOE” (“Bring Your Own Enthusiasm”). It’s the poor man’s “Hey! Hey! We’re the Monkees!”. It’s as ephemeral as Bergoglio’s homilies. Why should it be imposed on everyone when it has no soteriological significance?
As for appropriateness, there is simply more scope for listening to profane music – if you are a layman. The clergy should be closer to the eternal. If you can’t handle that, and you would rather waggle your hips to Lady Gaga on YouTube, don’t join a religious order. You’re not up to the challenge.
Well said.
12 men, in an attic room in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, were responsible for bringing forth the teachings and message of Jesus Christ His life and His Ministry to a world against overwhelming odds.
Louie’s article make for great reading and it is very thought provoking as always.
“The worst kind of heretic is the one, while teaching mostly true Catholic doctrine, adds a word of heresy, like a drop of poison in a cup of water.” Pope Leo XIII
–
the thing is, we have heretics putting only a drop of water in a glass full of poison this days and people are still drinking it up.
be sure you are sitting down, my friends, and hold on:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/israeli-parliament-lauds-john-xxiii-as-example-of-unity/
Thanks for that magnificent and timely quote salvemur….you always seem to provide exactly the quote that I’m needing at any given moment!
my dear salvemur, especially for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FoBVuXMSNI
that courtesy of Fr. Carota’s excellent blog:
–
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/
what a marvellous piece of footage. thanks for the link, de Maria. it conjures up the times when popes used to think like the Church! they weren’t merchants of cognitive dissonance; it must have been something to have seen heretical prelates fighting the pope and losing rather than heretical popes fighting their Faithful prelates and ‘winning’!
well, there’s another ‘believe it or not’. Pius XII, defender against communism, nazism and modernism, defender of the Faith, proclaimator of Christ the King, who was no apologist for false religions (the chief rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism under Pius XII) is still waiting in the wings, whilst in the novus ordo church tri-truth’s patience-umphant john xxiii defender of communism, ecumenism and modernism, is probably having his feast page plastic surgeoned into novus ordo missals as we speak.
“The Church’s doctrine on Church-State relationships as Murray wrote was, according to him, in desperate need of being “vitally adapted to modern political realities and to the legitimate democratic aspirations, especially as they have developed in the United States.””
.
“Murray believed that among the most notable changes in the global political landscape included the coming of age of the American Experiment; a new reality that demanded a new doctrine.”
.
## I’m not from the US, so perhaps I’m not well-placed to comment – but ISTM that Murray was letting his theology be influenced by the doctrine of US “exceptionalism”. The US is just another sinful, fallible, flawed nation like any other, just like the UK, or any nation under Heaven one cares to name. It seems to think of itself as a religion, or as a chosen people: as though it were exempt from the same teaching that the Church is obliged, by Christ Himself, to teach all the nations.
.
There is need for a “new doctrine” only if man changes, or God changes – but neither has changed. Therefore the obligations of all mankind to God and His Christ remain what they were. Anything that lessens the great gospel truth of the Universal Social Kingship of Christ, has to be resisted – more now than ever.
.
FWIW, the doctrines of the Universal Social Kingship of Christ, and of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, go together: it is probably no co-incidence (not that there are such things) that both have been obscured in the Church, and at the same time. What is really bad is that the Gospel speaks like this, from St. Luke 4:
.
42 When day came, Jesus left and went to a secluded place; and the crowds were searching for Him, and came to Him and tried to keep Him from going away from them.
43 But He said to them, “I must preach the Kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.”
44 So He kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.
—
From St. Matthew 4.23:
.
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
.
http://biblehub.com/luke/4-43.htm
.
So the Kingdom/Reign/Kingship of God is the Good News Jesus Himself preached – it is not an accessory to this Gospel, but is its very heart. And it is this, that is the very soul of the Universal Social Kingship of Christ. So to weaken or obscure the Universal Social Kingship of Christ, is to weaken or obscure the Gospel itself. When one sees this, one is better placed to see the value of what Archbishop Lefebvre was defending, by refusing to obscure or weaken the Church’s perception of this great reality. One appreciates the work of Pius IX and his successors all the more as a result – thanks to them, the Archbishop had very firm foundations to build on.