Add blog post "On Seaparation of Church and State"

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

blog/posts/0162-on-separation-of-church-and-state.html

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h2>The Meaning</h2>
+
+<p>
+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 &amp; soul.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 &amp; 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.
+</p>
+
+<h2>The Protestant Revolution</h2>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h2>Liberal Secularism</h2>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h2>The Irony</h2>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>