Church And State

[Resurrexi]

...

[Nihil Obstat]

Your polls leave me wanting a "refuse to speculate" or "other" option.

[Resurrexi]

That's what null vote is for

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1805787' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:47 AM']That's what null vote is for [/quote]
I like to contribute.

A large number of "refuse to speculate" and "other" responses would indicate a need to alter the poll questions or options.

[Resurrexi]

What if I told you that I only wrote one of these questions myself, and that the other two were taken verbatim from a papal document (except that they were originally in statement form)?

Edited March 13, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1805791' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:51 AM']What if I told you that I only wrote one of these questions myself, and that the other two were taken verbatim from a papal document (except that they were originally in statement form)?[/quote]
I voted how I voted. I could explain why if asked.

I assume you'll tell us what the Vatican said eventually?

[Aloysius]

to number two and three, when talking about public worship, yes. the state should still have a check to its power to keep it from tyranny which prevents it from, by the point of a sword, attempting to impose a change of conscience. non-Catholics should be allowed to exist in whichever religion they believe and privately practice, and should never be discriminated against. to number three, this does not mean that every Catholic taking part in the current system of government ought to attempt to do such a thing. the return to such a state of affairs could only be predicated upon a legitimate Catholic state re-emerging in the world. in affecting the current governments of the world, we must secure religious liberty for all for the sake of the protection of the Church herself.

to number one, in a certain sense yes and a certain sense no... but of course no in the sense the Syllabus intended it .. however, the Church should certainly not be burdened by the uglier affairs of state and should have authority above and outside of the state, so it would depend on how one defined "separate", but my position would certainly not be condemned by the syllabus or else it would condemn the medieval church/state relationship.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1805881' date='Mar 13 2009, 05:00 AM']to number two and three, when talking about public worship, yes. the state should still have a check to its power to keep it from tyranny which prevents it from, by the point of a sword, attempting to impose a change of conscience. non-Catholics should be allowed to exist in whichever religion they believe and privately practice, and should never be discriminated against. to number three, this does not mean that every Catholic taking part in the current system of government ought to attempt to do such a thing. the return to such a state of affairs could only be predicated upon a legitimate Catholic state re-emerging in the world. in affecting the current governments of the world, we must secure religious liberty for all for the sake of the protection of the Church herself.

to number one, in a certain sense yes and a certain sense no... but of course no in the sense the Syllabus intended it .. however, the Church should certainly not be burdened by the uglier affairs of state and should have authority above and outside of the state, so it would depend on how one defined "separate", but my position would certainly not be condemned by the syllabus or else it would condemn the medieval church/state relationship.[/quote]


Would other faiths be allowed to prostelatize to Catholics?

[Hilde]

We have a state church, but it's not Catholic.

[johnnydigit]

no/no/yes

[quote name='Hilde' post='1806415' date='Mar 13 2009, 06:42 PM']We have a state church, but it's not Catholic.[/quote]

you have a viking rabbit(hamster?) avatar heh.

[Nihil Obstat]

Should the Church be separated from the State and the State from the Church?
I said yes to this, but I found it to be somewhat vague. If by separation we mean that the Church doesn't run the government, then yes. If we mean that freedom of religion is legal, then yes. You catch my drift.


Should the Catholic religion be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship?
I said no to this. I seem to recall popes supporting freedom of religion.


If practicing Catholics should ever gain control of the government, would they be morally obligated to attempt to make it so that the Church enjoyed the favor of the laws?
I said yes, if favour of the laws doesn't imply that we discriminate against other religions. Favour of the laws could be taken to mean freedom of conscience for doctors and priests and Catholic public figures... again, you catch my drift I'm sure.

[Resurrexi]

Pius IX in his "Syllabus" condemned, among others, the following two errors:

"Ecclesia a statu statusque ab Ecclesia seiungendus est" (DS 2955)
That is, "The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church."

and

"Aetate hac nostra non amplius expedit, religionem catholicam haberi tamquam unicam status religionem, ceteris quibuscumque cultibus exclusis" (DS 1777)
That is, "In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults [i.e. religions] whatsoever."


In addition, Leo XIII made the following statement in "Longinqua" (encyclical on Catholicism in the United States):

"The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority." (Longinqua 6)

Edited March 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

So basically seven people voted for a position condemned by the Church... though they might not have known that at the time.

[dairygirl4u2c]

your conniving use of polling is impressive

Edited March 15, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1807267' date='Mar 14 2009, 09:47 PM']So basically seven people voted for a position condemned by the Church... though they might not have known that at the time.[/quote]
That question asked out of context and with no reference to the wider source is both vague and misleading, and I quite clearly explained what I believed I was voting for.

[Resurrexi]

My question was no vaguer than the original condemnation by the Holy Father.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1807364' date='Mar 14 2009, 10:51 PM']My question was no vaguer than the original condemnation by the Holy Father.[/quote]
The original condemnation was certainly not isolated; it would have followed background statements and clear context, as well as very good development of the exactly what they mean when they say "separation of Church and state". Your poll question had none of the above.

[Resurrexi]

In the Syllabus, Pius IX merely named the error among a list of many others. These kind of lists have actually been very common in the past, e.g. "Exsurge Domine" which condemned a number of Luther's theses. However, there was a reference to the allocution "Acerbissimum vobiscum" at the end of the error, but I have yet to find a complete copy of it, but merely the following excerpt in Denzinger:

1640 We say nothing about that other decree in which, after completely despising the mystery, dignity, and sanctity of the sacrament of matrimony; after utterly ignoring and distorting its institution and nature; and after completely spurning the power of the Church over the same sacrament, it was proposed, according to the already condemned errors of heretics, and against the teaching of the Catholic Church, that marriage should be considered as a civil contract only, and that divorce, strictly speaking, should be sanctioned in various cases (see n.1767); and that all matrimonial cases should be deferred to lay tribunals and be judged by them (see n.1774); because no Catholic is ignorant or cannot know that matrimony is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, and that for that reason, there can be no marriage between the faithful without there being at one and the same time a sacrament, and that, therefore, any other union of man and woman among Christians, except the sacramental union, even if contracted under the power of any civil law, is nothing else than a disgraceful and death-bringing concubinage very frequently condemned by the Church, and, hence, that the sacrament can never be separated from the conjugal agreement (see n. 1773), and that it pertains absolutely to the power of the Church to discern those things which can pertain in any way to the same matrimony.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm relatively sure that the passage you quoted, while very well written and quite true, isn't relevant to separation of Church and state.

At least I don't see anything of particular relevance.

[Resurrexi]

Exactly. The thing is, that the condemnations from the syllabus are supposed to be taken in context from the documents which are referenced. The reference to the condemned proposition "The Church should the separated from the State..." is the allocution "Acerbissimum". However, I can only find that excerpt from the document and not the entire document itself.