From 3fe2dbdf330b30aeb22f644a06925d755bcb2557 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nicol=C3=A1s=20Ortega=20Froysa?= Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 13:52:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add blog post "On Seaparation of Church and State" --- ...0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.cfg | 5 + ...162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.html | 163 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 168 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.cfg create mode 100644 blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.html diff --git a/blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.cfg b/blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.cfg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cfc17f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.cfg @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +filename = 2024-11-25-on-separation-of-church-and-state.html +title = On Separation of Church and State +description = A reflection on the liberal hypocrisy of using the phrase "separation of Church and State." +created = 2024-11-25 +updated = 2024-11-25 diff --git a/blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.html b/blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18b97f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.html @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ +

+Among the liberals of our age, most especially in the American context, one can +often hear the phrase thrown at conservatives “Separation of Church and State!” +to which any integralist may give a shout of agreement only to then wonder why +it is a liberal of all people who is exclaiming such a thing int he first place. +Therefore it is only when the integralist has enquired the liberal as to what he +means by such a phrase that we stare blankly at him and say as did Íñigo Montoya +“You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means.” +For when the liberal explains what he means, he truly means secularism. So let +us first consider the true meaning of this phrase and then go on to demonstrate +how what the liberal truly means by it (secularism) actually contradicts the +literal words of the phrase itself. +

+ +

The Meaning

+ +

+Anyone who is even somewhat familiar with the history of the Church, +particularly during the age of Christendom, knows that the question of the +limits of the authority of the Church and the power of the State were greatly +developed during this period. Yet it was broadly understood that Jesus Christ is +the only true sovereign head of both, but that He had seen it fitting to +establish (just as in the Old Covenant) two distinct institutions: the Church +which would have authority over spiritual matters (also called eternal), and the +State which would have power over temporal matters; thus both combined provide +direction to man in his fullness of body & soul. +

+ +

+It is not that Christ invented the concept of these two institutions, nor even +had the Father done so in the Old Covenant. These are institutions that +naturally occur in human societies (in one form or another) as a consequence of +man being a hylomorphic, body-soul composite. In fact, it is not as though this +model of Christendom is all that different from the model of the pagans with +their god-kings. The difference is that while the pagans had a man who claimed +to be a god as their king, Christendom has God, the only true King, become man +and reign eternally from his Heavenly Throne. +

+ +

+This insight should not scandalize my fellow Christians, for as wrong and even +demonically influenced as the pagans may have been, even the Old Testament is +filled with the testimony of pagans with their natural intuitions of the Truth. +Is it so hard to believe that they may have intuited also the need for a common +headship of the temporal and the eternal? After all, if not for unity in +headship of these matters they would diverge, bringing about the same +consequence as when the body and soul diverge: death. +

+ +

+Even so, this common headship of Christ lies in Heaven, and for the Church +Militant still on pilgrimage through this Valley of Tears, Christ, like any good +statesman or man in a position of authority over a multitude, has deemed it wise +to delegate his power & authority to certain men in two parts, as discussed +above. What is more, it is fitting that to the institution tasked with matters +eternal He should grant the charism of infallibility, as these matters do not +change, while not granting such a charism to the other which governs over the +temporal and is thus in constant flux, and so is called rather to the virtue of +prudence (chief of the political virtues). And so it is that Christendom comes +to embody the true meaning of separation of Church and State. +

+ +

The Protestant Revolution

+ +

+To not make the title of this section and all further mentions of the Protestant +Revolution merely a cheap shot at our Protestant brethren, I will explain this +very intentional terminology, especially because it pertains to the subject of +this essay. +

+ +

+When we speak of reform and revolution it is commonly understood that the former +seeks to maintain an institution in its essence while changing its particulars, +and although Protestants may claim to have done just this thing in their +theology (which is debatable), it is absurd to claim that they have done so as +regards the institution, which is inherently of a political nature, where they +formed perhaps the biggest revolution in Western History by doing away with the +very essential structure which composed the Church: its apostolic hierarchy. +This institution which forms such a vital part of Christendom has thus (in those +places affected by the Revolution) been demolished into something greatly +lacking the political power necessary to serve as a counter-balance to the +State, creating a power vacuum that was naturally filled by the State itself. So +it is that we see the rise once again of unification of Church and State into a +single entity. Although the god-king of pagan societies was not present +necessarily, we certainly saw the unification of headship, not in Heaven in our +Lord Jesus Christ, but on Earth under the authority of kings and princes. +

+ +

+This occurrence should not be surprising considering how previously we had +concluded that rupture between the spiritual and the temporal will only bring +about the death of the polity. Therefore since the Church itself now lacks +headship on Earth, a head must be given to it that will unify the believers of a +polity in the same faith, but since Protestantism generally lacks this (if not +completely so) it is the State that must come to fill the void, not necessarily +out of a greed for power but more fundamentally for the preservation of the +polity. +

+ +

+This new arrangement, however, brings new problems, primarily that allegiance to +any given lord was now intertwined with allegiance to his particular +denomination. The license to theological dissent which the Protestants had +sought was seen as treasonous (and indeed, as it could mean the death of the +polity, one could argue it was). Persecution of heretics began to run wild. +Then, amidst all this chaos, and likely as a result of it, enter liberalism. +

+ +

Liberal Secularism

+ +

The topic of liberalism itself is proper for another essay, but here we shall +only examine those aspects of it which are proper to secularism and the +relations between Church and State.

+ +

+As regards liberal secularism, it sought to put an end to the wars between +Christians by settings aside differences in theology and philosophy while merely +establishing a social foundation of common christian ethics for society and the +State. The hope here would be that because Christians (at the time) generally +agreed on ethics, the Protestant Revolution may find its fullness in a society +where each was given license to hold any theological view so long as they agreed +on these ethical principles. +

+ +

+Two problems can be noticed from this move. Firstly, that this puts philosophy +(and theology) on its head, using something inherently temporal and contingent +on prior philosophical conclusions as the foundation for a society, much more +unstable when said society is governed by the notion of a Social Contract. Since +the higher sciences no longer dictate the moral law it becomes subject to the +shifting whims of the contractors. Yet secondly (and more importantly for our +purposes) it establishes the State as superior to the Church, making the Church +subject to its laws and its whims. And so all churches and religions alike +become naught but denominations of the State-religion of liberalism. +

+ +

+The consequence of this, as we begin to see more and more with each passing +year, is a form of liberal totalitarianism, ironically. For religion is +inherently totalitarian in nature, in the sense that God demands of us a total +resignation of self to his will. But whereas God is all-good necessarily by +nature, and the subjection of one's will completely to Him is not only good but +just, it is not so with the State to which only the temporal ought to be given +(“render unto Caesar what is Caesar's” Mk. 12:17). It is not just for the State +to demand the totality of man's allegiance because man owes his allegiance +firstly to God. And although the christian liberal would have it that man could +hold two allegiances, one public to the State and another private to God, Jesus +Christ has already made clear that “no one can serve two masters” (Mt. 6:24), +and so the liberal too will end up having to choose between God or the State. +

+ +

The Irony

+ +

+The irony of the situation is that while under Christendom the State could allow +itself a certain degree of liberality since the matter of religion belonged to +the Church and the official religion which inspires the State in its rule was +not questioned, no such liberality may be permitted under liberalism as it +threatens the very basis of its regime: its own divine status. So it is that +under liberalism there is no separation of Church and State, but subjugation of +the Church to the State. +