Six Components of Liberal Catholicism that Seek to Destroy the Church: Part 3: Separation of Church and State

To recap, Eminent American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote an enlightening article in the American Ecclesiastical Review (1958) titled “The Components of Liberal Catholicism”. Despite its appearance before the Second Vatican Council, Msgr. Fenton appropriately presented, as in prophetic fashion, the coming attack on the Church from within. Msgr. Fenton summarizes liberal Catholicism into six main categories which together pose the greatest threat to the Church in our modern times: 

1. Religious Indifferentism
2. False concepts of human freedom
3. Advocacy of the separation of Church and state
4. Minimism
5. Subjectivism
6. The evolution of at least some dogmatic teachings of the Church.

We often hear the phrase "separation of Church and State" spoken of with words of elation.  On the contrary, a Catholic must understand that the separation of Church and State is a modern assault on the Dignity of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingship which we all universally celebrate.  Perhaps no other modern idea is so falsely praised as is this erroneous one.

We can learn much by reading the noble words of Cardinal Pie:

"The main error, the capital crime of this century is the pretension of withdrawing public society from the government and the law of God... The principle laid at the basis of the whole modern social structure is atheism of the law and of the institutions. Let it be disguised under the names of abstention, neutrality, incompetence or even equal protection, let us even go to the length of denying it by some legislative dispositions for details or by accidental and secondary acts: the principle of the emancipation of the human society from the religious order remains at the bottom of things; it is the essence of what is called the new era." (Cardinal Pie, Pastoral Works, vol. VII, pp. 3, 100)

"The time has not come for Jesus Christ to reign? Well, then the time has not come for governments to last." (Cardinal Pie, meeting with Emperor Napoleon III)

"Jesus Christ has been constituted the King of kings. Yes, and the true glory, the true nobility of kings, ever since the preaching of the Gospel, is to be the lieutenants of Jesus Christ on earth. Would per chance the kings have been less great since the cross glitters on top of their diadems? Would the throne have been less famous, less secure since kingship is an emanation, a participation of the kingship of Jesus Christ?

"Jesus Christ has been constituted king, and the true dignity, the true liberty, the true emancipation of modern nations is to have the right to be governed in a Christian manner. Would per chance the nations have been falling from their glory? Would their fate have been less noble, less happy since the scepters to which they obey are bound to submit to the scepter of Jesus? Let us repeat it, my brethren: Christianity does not reach its full development, its full maturity, where it does not take on a social character. Such is what Bossuet expressed in this way : 'Christ does not reign if his Church is not mistress, if the peoples cease to pay to Jesus Christ, to his doctrine, to his law, a national homage.' When the Christianity of a country is reduced to the bare proportions of the domestic life, when Christianity is no longer the soul of public life, of public power, of public institutions, then Jesus Christ deals with this country in the manner he is there dealt with. He continues to give his grace and his blessings to the individuals who serve him, but he abandons the institutions, the powers which do not serve him; and the institutions, the kings, the nations become like shifting sand in the desert, they fall away like the autumn leaves which are gone with the wind." (Cardinal Pie, Works, vol. II, pp.259–60)

The Social and Political Doctrine of the Church (i.e. Doctrine of the Two Swords) was well understood by Catholic princes. The Union between Church and State, between the Priesthood and the Empire, was never stronger than during the Carolingian Dynasty, the second Frankish ruling dynasty (751-987 A.D.), founded by Pepin the Short, but named after his son, Charlemagne (Charles the Great). This Union and cooperation between the Church and Christian Princes continued during the Ottonian Saxon Dynasty (936-1024 A.D.), ruled successively by Otto Ist, Otto II, Otto III, and (Saint) Henry II. Pope Leo III restored the Western Roman Empire, when he crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor on Christmas Day, in 800 A.D. In 962 A.D, Pope John XII restored the Roman Empire again, when he crowned Otto Ist Emperor. The actual term “Holy Roman Empire” dates from 1254 A.D.

The Doctrine of the Two Swords teaches us that Christ, being both God and man, is King of
the Universe, and as such, His Kingship, which includes both individual souls, as well the whole of society, should be officially recognized by all nations. Accordingly, His Spouse, Holy Mother Church, is Queen, while the Sovereign Pontiff exercises that Kingship on His behalf. He does so in two ways:]

1. He exercises a Direct Power in the Spiritual Field, by means of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy(bishops and priests);

2. He may apply an Indirect Power in the Temporal Field, which is entrusted to laypeople, particularly to the natural leaders of men, such as emperors, kings, knights, heads of state, political leaders, magistrates, chiefs of tribes, heads of families. The Hierarchy doctrinally guides these natural leaders but will admonish them, and even condemn them, if necessary, as they did to erring princes in past ages. By this Authority, and because Catholic leaders once respected this Indirect Power, past popes were able to depose the two above-mentioned German Roman Emperors. This power was last used by Pope St Pius V, when he excommunicated Queen Elizabeth Ist, thereby relieving the English of all allegiance to her.

Bishop Williamson declares similar sentiments on the necessity of the primacy of the Catholic religion.  We conclude with these words from January 14, 2012:

Number CCXXXV (235)		14 January 2012
STATE  RELIGION III
To claim that States need not profess or protect the Catholic religion is a classic liberal error, and one of the major errors of Vatican II. Liberalism said, so to speak, “Let us not attack Catholicism head on, but let us divide and rule. Let us divide the individual   man from society by pretending that man is not a social animal, and then we can pretend that religion is purely an individual affair. This will enable us to take over society, and once we have made it liberal, we can turn it back on the individual as a mighty weapon to liberalize him too, because of course man is a social animal !   If any individual then wants not to be liberal, he will have great difficulty in resisting his society that we have liberalized.”  Not so ?  Look around !  Then let us answer   three more objections to the doctrine that, for the salvation of souls, every State should be Catholic. Your Excellency, Our Lord himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Mt. XXII, 21). Here Our Lord   is clearly separating Church from State. Therefore no State should get involved in Catholicism or any other religion Answer, no, Our Lord is not here separating Church from State !  He is making the common sense distinction   between what the individual owes to the State (taxes, etc.) and what he owes to God (worship). Our Lord is absolutely not saying that the temporal State owes nothing to the eternal God. In fact the State, as being the collective temporal authority of a collection of human beings, owes to God in its acts of authority what they owe to him as social beings, namely the social observance of his natural law, and to that Church which natural reason on its own can see to be true, as much social recognition and promotion as will not get in the way of the salvation of souls. But discerning which is the true religion is something for the individual to do. How then can the State as State be obliged in principle to be Catholic ? Answer, the State is nothing but the moral (i.e. non-material) association in a political body of a greater or lesser number of physical (i.e. material) human beings. But every one of these human beings, merely by the upright use of his natural reason, whether or not he has the supernatural virtue of the Faith, is capable of discerning that God exists, that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Catholic Church is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. If then any given State does not discern which is the true religion, that is not because its citizens cannot discern, but because for a variety of reasons they will not, or do not want to do so, by making an upright use of their God-given reason. In fact they can discern, and before God they will all bear a greater or lesser responsibility, perfectly measured by him according to their circumstances, for failing to do so. But, your Excellency, if you insist on every State’s obligation to be Catholic, you are merely going to make a lot of martyrs for evil.  It is for the glory of God and the eternal salvation of souls that every State should be Catholic. To men therefore too ignorant or corrupt for this truth to do anything but alienate them, one may, without minimising the principle, hesitate to proclaim it, but that does not make it any less true. True principles are no less true for sometimes requiring in practice a measure of prudence in the way they are to be told. Surely readers of this “Commentary” can be told the whole   truth ! Kyrie eleison.