Introduction:
It has long been
a debate whether the church should involve itself in matters concerning
politics or not and it was quite evident within Philippine history when the
Spaniards’ arrival introduced Christianity especially Catholicism. The
introduction has left huge marks on past Philippine-Spanish governance. The
church and the state had a certain kind of tandem back then and this was
criticized by many in the Philippines. One criticism was popularly illustrated
by Jose Rizal in his novels by exposing the church’s alter motives when it was
serving as shelters in the times of storms; though not all of it was purely
evil but the trend in Philippine governance at that time was so reflective of
the church’s movement, whether it be of the church’s goodness emanating towards
the government or that of the church’s evils also. Whether it be for the better
or the worse, the church has a foothold on politics, not only in the
Philippines but also from where she sat, in her mother continent which is
Europe. The church played that role of influencing people on choosing or
commanding the people’s will towards the church’s favored candidate to become a
king especially those whose aims also includes the benefits for the church.
Then there reached a point in history were the people could no more tolerate
the authority of the church and its participation in society wherein the people
started to question and later on called for the separation of it and state, and
to leave it to be giving its concerns for itself rather than outside of it in
the political sphere. The motion of separation was also popularly made known in
the Philippines by the time the Americans came even though the westerners at
that time thought about having a nation under one God. As history continues to
roll, the church did not only face criticisms by the emergence of sophisticated
natural sciences but also in social sciences especially in the emergence of
socialism and liberalism until the church became less arrogant during the
contemporary times. Moreover, it still retained its untainted influence. Until
now, it continues to repress some advancement that go against the holy
institution and also to be repressed by the people due to their participation.
The question of the church’s legitimacy in its participation in politics still
remains debatable and subject to thorough argumentation even though some did
claim of the solution but such cannot be fully universally acceptable.
My aim here in
making this paper is to present the church’s stand and its operation concerning
its involvement in state affairs and to reconcile the issue of the church’s
participation on state affairs with the help of two encyclicals which then
expose the church’s possible stand and help in the reconciliation of the
question given.
I. The Church and State Relations:
The state is
part of man’s nature and Aristotle would say that “it is evident that he state
is a creature of nature and that human beings are by nature political
animals”.[1] People have their own ends and each must move towards their ends.
Man is immersed in a world with companions and he must direct his aims also
with respect to his fellowmen and thus forming a community having goals that
should not overlap both in means and in the end itself. That formation leads to
the birth of the state and it is inevitable because man is by nature a
“political animal”.
Through time the
state is absorbed into the religious context or even at the beginning was one
and the same with religion. Religion acts as a moralizing feature in a society
and it holds back the envisioning of the state into its development especially
in its materialistic progress. As a consequence, such will inevitably lead to
moralistic transformations which will later on be unacceptable to the church’s
teachings. Mostly or maybe all of culture has its politics in correspondence to
religious affairs and the office of religious affairs when later on become
institutionalized as a body (a system called the church), they will serve as
the order in the religious affair which also has its connections with the
state. Therefore, there was a direct involvement of church in state affairs for
it was yet unthinkable to separate the two.
The Catholic
Church through time kept her hold in politics as a necessary participant
because she is the guardian and the espouser of the natural law which also
contributes so much in the early beginnings of the state and the state find
first its laws on the basis of the natural law which has relation to the divine
law wherein the law presides in God and the direction of these laws is for man
to find his end in God which in the process creates the order and solitude in
the society. The law is important because man has lapses and is not perfect
therefore, he has the tendency to commit mistakes. Man being rational has his
powers exercised in and through reason and the actuality is made manifest by
his will. Both faculties of man are subject to error and there is a need to
constantly inform man that he has gone wayward thus, laws must therefore exist.
“Such then being the condition of human liberty (pertaining to those who have
reason and intelligence), it necessarily stands in need of light and strength
to direct its actions to good and to restrain them form evil.”[2] That light is
the law and that law is the natural law where all men in its fulfillment
achieves the good. The church has this kind of “sacred heteronomy”, where the
sacred is over and above the profane and the profane here is referring to the
not holy which is the State. Therefore, the state is under the sacred which is
referred as the church and the holy institution supervises the State’s
formulation of its laws.
In Libertas
Praestantissimum, it is clearly said that the church and the state should be
together. The authority must come from the church since they “defended it
(human liberty) and protected this noble possession from destruction”[3], which
will later on be diminished as the state progresses without church’s aid. The
state here is clearly referred to as that which is artificial and as Hobbes
would say “the artificial man”. The artificiality tends to deviate from what is
spiritual and to what is moral thus, the church prevents this decadence of
morals and of the natural law by making itself a player in the influencing of
state ordeals. The state should not be separated, for “the absurdity of such a
position is manifest.”[4] In this must-be relationship of church and state, the
state is then secured that it is following the law which is God’s law and in
its defiance, it must be held answerable to God. The church’s protection of
human liberty and the church being the “light and strength” serves as that road
that leads the state and particularly every individual to their goal of
happiness which is in God.
As time
continued to progress, the church faced its enormous dilemmas in the
Enlightenment Age where there are revolutions that broke man’s contentment towards
dogmas and doctrines. Such established doctrines are deemed right through the
church’s authority but the new perspectives guided by doubt and rigor later on
challenged the church. Whether it was in the field of the natural sciences or
in its involvement in politics. Two contending issues like socialism and
liberalism do not only contend between themselves but also agitated the church
to make statements on these two radical theories. The church amidst the rise of
competing isms serves as the middle ground or the church is by Aristotle’s
words “virtuous” by which she is standing in the middle, not excessive on both
ends but serves as a neutralizing force.
Liberalism is a
philosophy popularized by Adam Smith and his famous “invisible hand” theory
that men’s pursuit of development in private affairs will benefit also the
public sphere and the government should not intervene in these private affairs.
This is popularly known as “lasses faire”. The individual has been granted with
an enormous power and freedom of self-development which according to Smith will
lead to the development in general not only in the private sense but it will
also involve the public. The problems that arise together with empowerment of
the individual and later on the establishment of companies will later on be
dealt with by the church.
Liberalism at
first has its roots in Rationalism which is “the supremacy of the human reason
which refusing due to submission of the divine and external reason proclaims
its own independence and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source
and judge of truth.” [5] Insubordination of the divine law or anything external
to one’s reason is made possible by giving supremacy to man through
highlighting the crucial faculty of his reason. Man tends to fashion almost
everything according to his individuality and he assumes that he is not subject
to anyone even to the point of saying “not the state” and “not even God.” “For,
when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that
the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any
principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply the free will of
individuals.” [6] This will lead to chaos in society because not even laws or
principles which are external to man are to be of any effect whether it is from
God or the state.
Let us grant
that this liberalism is adopted as a guiding principle for the state especially
when it turns into capitalism which will later on has the confidence by having
the qualifications to become a separate entity. The church, as a consequence,
interferes with this ism which is similar to its interference to a state. Even
the encyclical that I am referring to (which is Libertas Praestantissmum) shows the church’s care or impassiveness thus
the writing of the encyclical itself is a form of reaction to the emergence of
liberalism. The reaction alone is an evident deed of the churches participation
in stately affairs. They reacted such notion and how much more when liberalism
offshoots to capitalism and certain states will allow the existence of such
ideology. The church will also, in all direct proportionality, asserts its
statements against the ill sides like inequality treatment, just wage, labor
and etc. in the society. The immense power given to the individual “is hurtful
to both to individuals and to the state”.[7] Because the individual has his
capacity to become the creator of his own morals, therefore, there is the great
possibility of loose chains the church’s moral authority. Good and evil will be
subject to reevaluation which then has potential destructive consequences when
applied to a society. A certain degree of imposed objectivity will be lost and
everything will be in disorder because each moves according to his will which
is primarily about seeking for his own pleasure. This is also similar to
Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature where every man is in contention with the
other because of overlapping desires.
Going back to
liberalism that does not follow any force or reason external to an individual,
for sure the state is to be sacrificed because it is an external entity. The
church salvages the existence of the state through issuing statements against
its disintegration and by mentioning her point of the state’s necessity as
justified by the natural law. “Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the
state providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to
live properly, that is to say according to the laws of God.” [8] The existence
of the state is supported by the church because the church enacts the necessity
of the rule where the state must necessarily be and that it must be preserved.
The church involves in such a way that it fights for the existence of the state
and protects it. Mere encyclicals cannot have enormous and coercive power to
espouse her message even if people nowadays are not anymore in grappling fear
of answering faults to God which serves to be in the past has a huge coercive
power in commanding the movement of its constituents.
The church on
the one hand supports the state and on the other serves as a check and balance
if the state had gone astray in its course as viewed by the church. This
dilemma of the church and the state is inevitable. “Public officials and church
officials often get tangled in their own turfs” [9], because they were at the
beginning partners and eventually through time the relations were tested. Both
church and state had their origins on the law and morality, so it is unlikely
that both would not intersect in terms of the jurisdiction in their exercise of
functions.
In Mater et
Magistra, the encyclical is addressing the concern about socialism and
socialization which before in Libertas Praestantissimum mainly addresses the
stress to liberalism wherein there is a threat about the contingency of the
state. Moreover, Mater et Magistra concerns itself also in the peculiarities of
socio-economics. In the rise of “socialistic” ideologies which threatens the
church’s stand on the principle of subsidiarity wherein the church gives
importance to individuals as well. The church still gets involve by still
having a statement on the uprising philosophy and it interferes and criticizes
the thought similar with liberalism which then later on it will be standing on the
middle point of these two ideologies.
Society is
formed when people are in “association with each other in various ways for the
pursuance of common interests.” [10] The pursuit of one’s good initializes man
to socialize with others knowing that he alone is incapable or is in need of
help into the achievement of the goal, which other people too are in the same
case. This leads to the very nature of man to form a community or something
which is much bigger - a state.
The church
supports the development of society because it is in the nature of man to
cooperate, and also the church encourages “the public authorities” that they
“must not remain inactive, if they are to promote in a proper way the
productive development in behalf of social progress”.[11] The church gets
involved by its encouragement of the public authorities (which may refer also
to the state) to help in the development of society and that the church is ever
present in the promotion of state interferences to the fulfillment of the
common good. “For the human person cannot find fulfillment in himself”[12], so
he must have that “subsidium” or help in order to elevate man’s standard of
living. As the state intervenes and manages the social life of the individuals,
the church promotes also “the effective protection for each and all of the
essential personal rights” [13], though it might sound contradictory to the
facticity of the church’s horrendous deeds. However, the church is trying to
salvage the individual which is indispensable and must be given his free
self-development. The church in such a way offered a middle path to counter the
possibility of radical state interventions (totalitarianism) and radicalization
of individual liberty (anarchy). The state should in fact support but not to
the extent that “the state [will] refrain from anything that would de facto
restrict the existential space of the smaller essential cells of society”. [14]
Such can be said also in the events when developed countries are giving aid to
developing countries where mostly of the unwanted unemployment rates, poverty
and other social dilemmas are occurring. For the developed countries should
give aid to developing countries as a form of help not as a form of investment,
for as it is said in Mater et Magistra that “the bigger temptation with which
the economically developed political communities have to struggle is that of
profiting from their technical and financial operation . . . with a view to
bringing about plans of world domination”.[15] What the church maintains is
that help others for the improvement of living conditions for “our history –
the personal and collective effort to elevate human condition.”[16] The altruistic avenue should not also
diminish the rights of an individual to his free development and also to help
without further interests.
II. Reflection
and Conclusion
In Mater et
Magistra, where it speaks of the church’s reaction toward socialism, supports
the existence of the state and also the giving of its limitations to its
exercising of intervention both locally and internationally. The church speaks
as a teacher, a somewhat separate entity, writing encyclicals, criticisms or
endorsement of some guiding principles to the development of society. It
participates in the state as a voice in a council which may also have a great
impact on the state especially when the church gathers an ample amount of
sympathizers willing to push the issues further. The holy institution has a
great influence in any place that bears her name and it can create a crowd
either without purpose of doing so or directly, seeing the mass movement as a
possible tool for change. Mass movements which are in the contemporary times,
have an impact to state affairs because they act as a coercive force especially
for the church which is at most times writing and saying (linguistic and
symbolic). Moreover, offshoots from the church can organize and can even by the
mass movement that church so drastically want to make. But in most cases, the
church stands firm in the middle of both contending ideologies and in its
participation in the decision making of the state. Through her principles which
promotes the common good, human dignity and others, it manifests itself as a
key institution that can affect society. In any social issues or even
pertaining to its own, the church is more likely to be welcomed as a sort of a
councilor in a board. It is being a
force that is meticulous to the material development of man and she is such
because she checks always man’s lapses in his individual and collective
development wherein that it should not be just any development at the cost of
others but the development for all, for the common good. As presented earlier,
it is the church’s say towards the rising of the ideologies that which tend to
deviate man from the good. Its means
also in attaining prosperity, costs so many lives and violates human dignity.
Though human dignity may sound so righteous in any sense but it is the church,
which still is the moralizing factor in our development as history progresses.
The Church is that conscience of man which reminds him of quality living and
having mutual respect with the others. Therefore, the church, whether in any
issues, should have a seat in the council because it is this institution that
still promotes the dignity of man when we all are blinded by our progress.
I must therefore
say, as what has the church said in these encyclicals that she is reconciling
ideas to benefit all of humanity. She is welcome to have a place in state
affairs but not to the extent that she is in authority but her voice is
important to the remembrance of those cherished values that are often
forgotten.
[1] Stumpf,
Samuel and Feiser, James. Socrates to Sartre and Beyond 8th Edition. New York:
Mc. Graw Hills Inc. 2008. p 87.
[2] Curtis, Michael. Great Political Theories
vol. 2. New York: Avon Books Inc. 1962. p.399
[3] Ibid. p.399
[4] Ibid. p 403
[5] Ibid. p. 402
[6] Ibid. p.402
[7] Ibid. p.402
[8] Ibid. p.402
[9] Mercado,
Leonardo. “Church and State Relations and Filipino Philosophy”. Pilosophia.
Vol. 33. No. 2. p. 169
[10] Curtis,
Michael. Great Political Theories vol. 2. New York: Avon Books Inc. 1962. p.
405
[11] Ibid. 405
[12] Compendium.
p 102.
[13] Curtis,
Michael. Great Political Theories vol. 2. New York: Avon Books Inc. 1962. p.406
[14]
Compendium.p.114.
[15] Curtis,
Michael. Great Political Theories vol. 2. New York: Avon Books Inc. 1962. p.409
[16]
Compendium.p.105.
Comments
Post a Comment