66                    TRUE

The proper end of the State is to provide for the temporal good, and within its sphere it is sovereign. The Church, guardian of the natural law over the whole earth, has the right to see its laws and doctrines respected by the temporal powers. The State must declare itself officially Catholic and must place all its resources at the service of the preservation and extension of the Faith.

FALSE

In the current stage of human society's evolution, the State has become more conscious of its own autonomy. Thus it can no longer maintain the close relations it formerly held with the Church. In the Christian order of the future, the old, pharisaically Catholic state must give way to a vitally Christian one, that is to say one animated by the evangelical spirit, fruit of the collaboration of all the Christian religions, according to the more or less full message of each, but without the government's affording special protection to any one of them.

Explanation: The refuted proposition logically goes back to the doctrine of the separation of Church and State that is condemned by the Syllabus of Errors, proposition 55,¹ and proscribed again by Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, by St. Pius X in Vehementer, and, more recently, by the Letter of the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries to the Brazilian episcopate.² Moreover, the refuted sentence contains other unacceptable notions. If the full logic of its revolutionary language were accepted, it could be said that the medieval union between Church and State represented a preliminary or intermediate phase which the nations, pushed by the immanent force of evolution, had overcome. But the Church does not hold with evolutionary historical determinism, which denies free will and divine Providence. Nor does it admit the notion that mankind may advance beyond such social relations as are logically deduced from Revelation and from the natural, immutable order of things.

The terms Christian order, Pharisaical, and vital deserve further comment. A Christian order is a temporal order of things founded on the doctrine of Jesus Christ. If the Church alone teaches this doctrine truly, how can a Christian order be organized equally on what the Church teaches and on what heretical sects preach? A concrete example: if this Christian order allows divorce, will the organization of the family be Christian? And if it rejects divorce, can it be said that it was inspired as much by the Christian sects favorable to divorce as by the Catholic doctrine?

The use of the word "pharisaical" to qualify the Catholic State is an insult to the Church. If the union of Church and State has been the only regime ever accepted by the Church; if, despite some irregularities, it was approved, upheld, and practiced by so many popes and by so many kings elevated to the honors of the altar, how can such a regime be qualified as "pharisaical" without insulting the Church and so many saints?

As for "vital": what exactly does this mean? Vital normally means "what is alive." Was not the civilization to which the Church gave rise in the Middle Ages vitally Christian? Is there any hope that an interdenominational "Christian" State can be vitally Christian?

To conclude these remarks, it is fitting to recall that the union between Church and State implies as a necessary characteristic the very real independence of the Church from the civil power in all that relates to matters spiritual or mixed. Mainly in modern times, this regime was warped by the advancing encroachments of the State into the ecclesial domain. It is right to condemn absolutely such encroachments and to demand the Church's freedom without renouncing the principle of its union with the State.

And when the misfortune of circumstances is so deep in a country that separation constitutes a lesser evil than the union which would necessarily be distorted, one must fear for such a country. For nothing which is separated from God and His Church can last. One of the worst effects of the separation of Church and State-even when it is the lesser evil-is the warped popular mentality that results from considering temporal life on a purely natural plane. Profoundly secularized minds are thus formed, and one is obliged to recognize that, under this order of things, it is very difficult to form the soul of a whole people according to the just conception of subordination of temporal life to the service of God.

67                    TRUE

In politics, Catholics should seek not only to promote the common good in the temporal order, but also to obtain from the State recognition of the Church as a public entity, sovereign in its sphere, and endowed with all the prerogatives which belong by right to it as the one true Church.

FALSE

The political duty of Catholics consists exclusively in promoting the temporal good. In favoring the Church, they must limit themselves to asking from the State the same freedoms granted to all private associations.

Explanation: The refuted proposition is influenced by two errors: "the new morality," which, as applied to this topic, consists in considering the temporal common good as an end in itself, entirely independent of any other sphere; and equality between the true Church and the false religions and private associations. Thus the refuted sentence logically leads to the proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus which declares licit "the system of educating youth that is unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life."⁵ It also leads to the error of Proposition 54 condemned by the Syllabus according to which civil authority is superior to the Church.⁶

68                        TRUE

In the selection of immigrants, the first thing to consider is their religion, and not only needs of an economic, technical or political nature.

FALSE

In the selection of immigrants, their religion matters little; only economic, technical, and political factors should be considered.

Explanation:  Unity in the true faith constitutes the highest spiritual good of a nation. It is clear that such a unity can be broken if the borders are opened to streams of immigrants that come to form religious enclaves, as dangerous in the spiritual domain as ethnic enclaves in the political domain. The refuted proposition, which smacks of the same laicism as the preceding statements, prescinds from these considerations. It was directly condemned by the Holy Father Pius IX in the Syllabus, proposition 78, which reads: "Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship" [condemned].

For, in the matter of immigration, the consideration of the religious factor must occupy first place. Even though it is a natural right of overpopulated countries to send emigrants to countries able to receive them, nevertheless, it is necessary that this right be exercised with the precautions required by the superior right of Catholic populations in their fidelity to the Church. In other words, when circumstances oblige Catholic countries to receive immigrants from pagan or heretical countries, a series of complex measures becomes necessary in order to assure that such an influx does not turn to the spiritual detriment of Catholic populations. The Holy See's solicitude concerning spiritual assistance to immigrants can be seen in the Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia of August 1, 1952.⁷

69                      TRUE

Catholics may consent to unite their efforts with other movements, ideologies, or groups if they happen to have the same immediate goal. But this does not authorize a permanent collaboration with other movements with other principles. Since the end, the means employed, and the guiding spirit are different, lasting collaboration with Communists is impossible. Moreover, such a collaboration could seriously harm Catholics and lead the public to dangerous confusions. In their interventions on social issues, Catholics must always avoid giving the impression of fostering class warfare.

FALSE

In the social and economic domain, Catholics must join forces with every group or political movement which helps them against capitalism. Thus they can permit political collaboration with the Communists.

Explanation: The refuted proposition is strictly linked to the principles of laicism and religious indifferentism. It subordinates all spiritual and doctrinal considerations to the simple preoccupation with occasional success and favors the worst enemies of the Church. Let us recall that the Communists were the object of a special condemnation by the Holy Office.⁸