Church and State in Medieval Christendom and Today
Principles, Practice, and Pertinence
The Catholic Church, chosen by God to lead all men through this fleeting life to eternal salvation, provides moral guidance not only for individuals but for society as a whole. Political actions, since they have moral qualities and consequences, thus fall under the general teaching authority of the Church. For many centuries, popes insisted that secular rulers, even in the exercise of their temporal power, acknowledge and adhere to the objective standards of Christian morality. During the past century, however, popes have abandoned their moral oversight of political affairs, fostering increasingly grave and widespread confusion in secular legislation. Historical examples and key texts on Church-State relations, organized as an Appendix at the end of this article, substantiate these claims.
Traditional Role of the Church in Politics
Medieval popes recognized and fulfilled their obligation to provide moral guidance to Catholic rulers, and Boniface VIII gave clear expression of papal policy regarding Church-State relations around the year 1300. Writing in response to immoral political practices adopted by the French king—who had illegally attempted to tax ecclesiastical properties and exercise judicial authority over his bishops—Pope Boniface insisted that Catholic rulers must submit their secular initiatives to the moral guidance of the Church.
In his important encyclical Unam sanctam (Appendix #1), speaking of the relations between spiritual and temporal authority, between Church and State, Pope Boniface proclaimed that the ecclesiastical hierarchy should oversee and elevate the moral standards of Christian politics. When leaders fail to live up to the demands of the Gospel, the Church must rebuke them. Moreover, Christian rulers are bound in conscience to submit to papal correction; otherwise they will neither rule their people properly nor reach heaven.
Theory in Practice
These powerful pronouncements are not empty theory; they express the consistent historical policy of papal intervention in medieval politics. For example, when aggressive Muslim armies threatened the lives and faith of Europeans, medieval popes proclaimed holy wars to unite the forces of Christendom against a dire common foe. Most famously, Pope Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095 and even appointed a bishop to direct the Christian forces in battle. Religious orders of warrior-monks, like the Templars and Hospitallers, emerged in the wake of the First Crusade with papal approval. Popes granted plenary indulgences to those who went on Crusade and threatened to excommunicate any Christian who dared attack a crusader’s lands during his absence. Ecclesiastical support for warfare against Muslim aggression persisted for centuries, culminating in the papally-organized Holy League which defeated the Ottoman navy at Lepanto in 1571.
Apart from defending the borders of Christendom, medieval popes fostered peace between rival Catholic lords. For example, during the bitter Hundred Years War between France and England, popes repeatedly led diplomatic efforts to end hostilities. Over a century after the conflict ended, in 1494, Pope Alexander VI brokered peace between Spain and Portugal, delineating trade and colonization rights to the newly discovered lands in America. In these instances, Christian rulers recognized papal authority to resolve competing claims to temporal power prudently and peacefully. Popes also exercised moral leadership by condemning secular abuses such as the trans-Atlantic slave trade, excommunicating any Catholic who dared to engage in this cruel exchange.
In moments of crisis, medieval popes even guided the internal political developments of individual nations. In 750, Pope St. Zachary inaugurated a new Carolingian line of French kings to replace the grossly incompetent Merovingians. Three hundred years later, Pope St. Gregory VII intervened in German politics to end the buying and selling of episcopal sees (a grave abuse called simony), ultimately excommunicating and deposing the offending king. During the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent III resolved civil war in the German Empire by preserving the inheritance of a vulnerable royal orphan; this same pope also rebuked the king of France for unjustly dismissing his wife, eventually compelling him to take her back as queen. As late as the sixteenth century, popes tried to defend entire kingdoms from tyrannical rule, particularly in England. For example, when Elizabeth I forcefully imposed new forms of heretical worship upon her subjects, Pope St. Pius V excommunicated and deposed her in 1570, urging the English people to choose a new ruler who would promote their salvation and thus the common good.
The above examples indicate that medieval popes consistently employed their spiritual authority to guide both international and domestic politics in Christendom. Although Catholic rulers did not always submit to papal guidance, the principle that Church leaders should define and even enforce moral standards for political action remained firmly in practice for centuries. The noble goal of such ecclesiastical intervention was always the common good of society, both in this life and the next.
Upholding Principles
The spread of Protestantism and later of Enlightenment secularism certainly posed serious challenges for the implementation of Catholic social teachings, and the ability of the papacy to provide effective political guidance suffered further setbacks when Italian nationalists forcibly seized control of Rome in 1870. The Vicar of Christ, no longer free from secular coercion, became “a prisoner in the Vatican,” thus losing his formerly unrestrained liberty to work for the universal good of mankind. Yet nineteenth-century popes such as Pius IX and Leo XIII still refused to compromise Catholic social teachings despite growing pressure from an increasingly hostile world. For example, rather than support the new modern vision of secular politics underpinned by religious liberty, Leo XIII defiantly reasserted the clear logic of medieval Catholic tradition in his encyclical Libertas (Appendix #2). Here he argued that, since the State exists to serve the common good of its subjects, and since the highest good of all men without exception is the salvation of their souls, then the State must promote authentic worship of the one true God. Such worship, of course, only takes place within the Catholic Church, God’s chosen instrument for the transmission of grace and eternal life, endowed from above with divine teaching authority. All nations, and especially all Catholics, are thus bound to recognize, respect, support, and promote the public practice of the Catholic faith guided by the Church hierarchy. Pope St. Pius X, writing to the bishops of France in 1906, asserts this same traditional social doctrine in the face of growing European secularism (Appendix #3).
Compromising Principles
However, starting in the second half of the twentieth century, popes adopted a new approach to politics. They abandoned the traditional ideal of officially Catholic nations which embrace papal guidance. Instead, modern popes have increasingly withdrawn the Church from the political sphere so as to win the support of pluralistic secular democracies as bulwarks against the spread of totalitarianism and atheistic Communism. After all, leading modern democracies like the United States, which defeated Hitler and contained Soviet expansion, celebrate spiritual diversity while rejecting religious impositions on the legislative process. So strong has this notion of separation between Church and State become that even leading American Catholics reject public submission to official Church teachings, refusing to be guided in the exercise of their political duties by the demands of Divine Revelation. For example, John F. Kennedy, who would become the first Catholic President of the United States, assured non-Catholic voters back in 1960 that “the separation of church and state is absolute” and that he would make political decisions “without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates” (Appendix #4) … and by “dictates” he meant the immutable dogmas of the Catholic faith!
Eager to “get with the times” (aggiornamento) rather than cling to “outdated” traditions, popes during and after the Second Vatican Council championed the right of all men to embrace any religion of their choosing (Dignitatis humanae, Appendix #5) and proclaimed the autonomy and independence of Church and State (Gaudium et spes, Appendix #6). These conciliar texts directly contradict previous papal social teachings, such as those of Leo XIII and St. Pius X, in favor of modern pluralist democracies which officially embrace as equal the multiplicity of different religions. The conciliar decree Gaudium et spes even anticipates the Church relinquishing her official status as the privileged religion in predominantly Catholic nations so as to better accommodate “new ways of life and new demands,” so that the “sincerity of her witness” not be called into question … as if the Church had sought official recognition primarily for worldly wealth, power, and influence rather than for the salvation of souls! This radical change in social doctrine, this withdrawal of the Church from the political sphere, has produced dire consequences in traditionally Catholic countries such as Ireland and Italy.
Moral Confusion and Legal Revolution
The recent history of Irish politics provides but one example of the disastrous effects secularization rapidly imposes upon a nation which disavows its Catholic faith along the lines laid out by the Second Vatican Council. Since 1937, Article 44 of the Irish Constitution had proclaimed: “The State recognizes the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.” Then in 1972, this brief reference to a privileged religion was removed through the Fifth Amendment to the Irish Constitution so as to bring Ireland in line with modern secular political norms. Soon actions which for centuries had been condemned morally as sinful and legally as criminal become recognized civic rights: sodomy was decriminalized in 1993, gay marriage gained official legal support in 2015, and abortion (with some restrictions) became a civil right in 2019. A similar process occurred in Italy, which disavowed Catholicism as its official religion in 1984; now homosexual partnerships are set on legal par with sacramental marriages.
Finally, what has the pope said recently about the issues of sodomy and abortion in relation to politics? Pope Francis, while condemning both abortion and sodomy as sins on the moral level, discourages imposing any public consequences on the political level. In 2021, he rebuked efforts to deny high-ranking Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion access to the Eucharist (including U.S. President Joe Biden). Similarly, in a letter published in 2023, Pope Francis insisted: “I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong.”
This approach is clearly in line with the guidance laid out decades earlier during the Second Vatican Council: that the Church, when passing moral judgment on grave matters pertaining to the salvation of souls, must still respect the religious freedom of individual believers and the autonomy and independence of the State. It seems that the ecclesiastical hierarchy today has abandoned the time-honored Catholic tradition of regulating and elevating political activity according to the objective moral standards of the faith for the honor of God and the attainment of heaven. In a world today which insists on each individual’s legal right to gay marriage, transgenderism, birth control, abortion, euthanasia, and recreational marijuana, St. Pius X’s words from Vehementer nos ring prophetically true: “Without close collaboration between Church and State, most bitter disputes over common interests will arise, causing great confusion, obscuring the truth.” Here then are the fruits of modern religious liberty as upheld by the Second Vatican Council: political freedom from papal oversight or correction, political freedom from the laws of God, political freedom to create new laws without reference to an objective moral order…all culminating in unrestrained freedom to be the slaves of sin.
Appendix: Key Texts on the Relations between Church and State
Both spiritual and temporal authority are in the power of the Church, but the latter is to be administered for the Church and the former by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest and the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but with the consent and permission of the priest…Thus temporal authority should be subjected to spiritual power. For the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): “There is no power except from God and the things that are ordained of God.” But they would not be ordained if one power were not subordinated to the other, and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other…For with truth as our witness, it belongs to the spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment on it if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the Church and ecclesiastical power (Jer. 1:10): “Behold, today I have placed you over nations and over kingdoms.” Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power…This authority, however, though it has been given to man and is exercised by man, is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him and to his successors by the One whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself (Matt. 16:19): “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven.” Therefore, whoever resists this power thus ordained by God resists the ordinance of God…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, and we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the so-called “liberty of worship.” This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
But of all the duties which man must fulfill, without doubt the most important and most sacred commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, always guided by His will and providence, and having come forth from Him, we must return to Him. It follows that no true virtue can exist without religion, for virtue is based on morality, and morality is concerned with those things that lead man to God as his supreme and ultimate good. Therefore, according to St. Thomas, religion “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained to the divine honor” and is the rule and guide of all the other virtues.
If it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins and which men can easily recognize by clear exterior signs whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because in a matter of such importance most terrible loss would be the consequence of uncertainty. Wherefore, when religious liberty is bestowed, man gains the power to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties and to exchange immutable good for evil, which is no liberty at all but is a removal of liberty in exchange for abject slavery to sin.
This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God or should desire to recognize him publicly. It implies that no particular form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society…
God has made man for society and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources he might obtain by association with others. Civil society, therefore, must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Thus justice and right reason both forbid that the State be godless or that it adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness, namely to treat the various so-called religions as equals and bestow the same rights indiscriminately upon them all.
Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States…For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs, and although its proximate end is to lead men to prosperity in this life, yet in doing so it ought not to diminish but rather increase man’s ability of obtaining that supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists, and this can never happen if religion is ignored or set aside.
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. In the first place, it commits a great injustice toward God since it rests on the principle that there need not be any agreement between religion and politics. Yet God is the creator and preserver not only of individual men but of the entire social order. He must, therefore, not only be worshiped privately but publicly as well.
Besides, this thesis is an obvious rejection of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of prosperity during this life alone, which is its proximate end, while neglecting the final goal of all its citizens, which is eternal happiness following this short life – implying that the salvation of its citizens is not the State’s concern! However, since the present order of things is temporary and directed to the attainment of man’s lasting good in heaven, it follows that the State must not obstruct this final end but instead must promote it.
This thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands harmonious agreement between religious and civil society. Indeed, since both rule over the same people, albeit in different ways, their exercise of authority overlaps. Without close collaboration between Church and State, most bitter disputes over common interests will arise, causing great confusion, obscuring the truth.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source…Whatever issue may come before me as President – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom…The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right…
The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious…
Freedom or immunity from coercion in religious matters, which is the endowment of persons as individuals, must also be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself. Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles. Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferal of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties. Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word…
If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice…
It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church.… The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster healthy cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order, and while living in the context of human history he preserves intact his eternal vocation…There are, indeed, close links between earthly things and those elements of man’s condition which transcend the world. The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods. It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment on those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it.
TITLE IMAGE: Intérieur de l’église de la Madeleine d’après le projet de Contant d’Ivry, Pierre-Antoine Demachy (1723–1807).
Current Issue
