551. After the things which we disputed in the preceding article, it would scarcely be necessary to propose this question. For if, especially with the proper end of the Church presupposed, which is supreme, it is once established that a monarchic form of government flourishes in the Church, and consequently that it is a Kingdom, unless we wish to deny to all kingdoms the character of a perfect society, we must attribute it to the Church. Yet since in the present time the error is fairly common that the Church is like a college depending on civil society, it will not be beside the matter to attack this error directly.
552. Therefore from the error of those who were establishing a democratic form of government in the Church, as in numbers 517 and following, the passage was easy to proclaiming the subjection of the Church to civil society. For if right over sacred things is the patrimony of the people, it ought especially to be attributed to the one who bears the person of the people in the civil republic. More recent politicians and regalists, however, have come by a somewhat different process to the same consequence. For to them the Church is nothing other than a certain college existing in civil society, having itself almost in the way that a society of merchants has itself; hence, just as the latter is a part of civil society and dependent on it, so also is the Church.
553. Hence: 1. The Holy Father Pius IX, in the allocution Multis Gravibusque, December 17, 1860, denouncing this error, at the same time manifests its first source, saying: “We understand this, moreover, to have been derived from the false doctrine of the Protestants, who think that the Church exists in the civil Empire as a kind of College, and consequently possesses no rights except those which have been conceded and attributed to it by the civil power. But who does not understand how greatly this departs from the truth? For the Church was instituted by its divine author as a true and perfect society, which, circumscribed by no boundaries of regions and subject to no civil empire, freely exercises its power and rights everywhere on earth for the salvation of men. Nor indeed do those solemn words of Christ the Lord to the Apostles indicate otherwise: ‘All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth; go, teach all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’” 2. He also assigns a nearer cause: “There are indeed many,” he says in the allocution Singulari Quadam, December 9, 1854, “who, placed in charge of public affairs, say that they are favorers and defenders of religion, exalt it with praises, and proclaim it most suited and useful to human society; nevertheless they wish to regulate its discipline, to govern sacred ministers, to touch the administration of sacred things; in one word, they strive to confine the Church within the limits of the civil state and to dominate it, although it is of its own right and by divine plan must not be contained by the boundaries of any empire, but must be propagated to the ends of the earth and embrace all peoples and nations, so that it may mark out and open for them the path of everlasting blessedness.” 3. In the allocution Maxime Quidem, June 9, 1862, he indicates the very bad consequences of that false principle, saying: “Indeed they are not ashamed to assert… that the Church is not a true and perfect society, plainly free, nor possesses its own proper and constant rights conferred upon it by its divine Founder, but that it belongs to the civil power to define what the rights of the Church are, and the limits within which it may exercise those same rights. Hence they perversely devise that the civil power can involve itself in matters which pertain to religion, morals, and spiritual government, and can even prevent the Sacred Prelates and faithful peoples from freely and mutually communicating with the Roman Pontiff, divinely constituted supreme Pastor of the whole Church, so that that necessary and most close conjunction, which by the divine institution of Christ the Lord himself must altogether exist between the members of the mystical body of Christ and its visible Head, may be plainly dissolved. Nor do they fear to bring forward among the people, with every fallacy and deceit, that the sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff must be altogether excluded from every right and dominion over temporal things.” Compare the condemned propositions in the Syllabus, which are contained in sections 5 and 6.
554. But setting aside for now the refutation of the corollaries, the principle itself from which they flow must here be overturned by us; or rather, we must assert that the Church was instituted by Christ as a perfect society. While by this we understand the nature of the Church more deeply, we at the same time vindicate its independence from civil society. It will help first to disclose briefly what is meant by the name perfect society.
555. That society is called perfect which is so complete in itself that it has in itself the means sufficient for attaining its end. If we unfold this definition a little, it will be plain that these things are required for the notion of a perfect society: 1. that it not be a part of another society; for if it were a part, by that very fact it would not be complete, since a part has its completion only in the whole. 2. That it not have an end subordinated to the end of another society in the same genus; for since the end gives species to a society, as in number 472, if the end of one is subordinated to the end of another, then one society also is subordinated to another, of which therefore it is, as it were, a part. “Just as a man,” says St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, first-second part, question 90, article 3, reply to objection 3, “is part of a household, so a household is part of a city; but the city is a perfect community… And therefore just as the good of one man is not the ultimate end, but is ordered to the common good, so also the good of one household is ordered to the good of one city, which is a perfect community.” 3. That consequently it have in itself the means necessary for its preservation and for the attainment of its end; otherwise it would have to receive them from another, and therefore would not be complete in itself. 4. Finally, what follows from these things, that it be independent in its own genus. For a society is independent which does not have an end ordered to the end of another society, and which has sufficient means in itself.
556. It must only be noted that a society can have sufficient means in itself either in fact or in power. It has them in itself in fact when it must in no way seek them from another society. It has them in power, however, when it must indeed seek them from another, but by its own right, so that the other society has neither the faculty of denying them, nor of judging ultimately whether they are to be granted. But if, on the contrary, some society is forced to seek from another the means necessary for itself in such a way that with this other lies the right of denying them, or at least of settling the dispute whether they ought to be furnished or not, then it has sufficient means in itself neither in fact nor in power, and therefore is not a perfect society. Section II The Proposed Question Is Resolved Proposition XXIV. The Church founded by Christ, with regard both to the end proposed to it and to the positive will of its divine institutor, must be judged to obtain the form of a perfect society. Therefore, possessing its own proper and constant rights, it vindicates for itself that liberty by which, in discharging its office, it is subject to no civil power.
557. Proof I. Since the nature and species of a society, as we have often said, is determined from its end, in order to know whether the Church is a perfect society or not, the end itself must be considered. But if the end is such that from it the Church must be judged a perfect society, then it will be such by its nature. Now: 1. An end supreme by its nature cannot be ordered to another end and be, as it were, a part of it. But the end proposed by Christ to the Church is supreme, namely sanctity in this life and eternal salvation in the future life. Therefore it cannot be ordered to any other end whatever and be a part of it. Therefore the Church itself is a society ordered to no other society and part of no other society; and this implies that the Church is a perfect society. 2. In reality, besides these things, nothing else is required for constituting a perfect society except that it have sufficient means in itself, and therefore that it not depend on another society in the economy of means. But a society ordered to no other and part of no other cannot depend on any society in the economy of means. Therefore, if the Church is such a society, by that very fact it must have sufficient means in itself, and therefore be independent from any other society in the economy of means. The minor is proved. If it depended on another in the economy of means, it would already be subject to it; if it were subject to it, then it is no longer supreme, but ordered to that other. This is confirmed: all other societies, in relation to a society which is ordered to no other, either have no connection with it or are ordered to it. But it is impossible that in the economy of means some society should depend on others which are ordered to it, or which have no connection with it. Therefore.
558. II. From what was established above it is clear that Christ himself immediately constituted those set over the Church and conferred on them full and perfect power. It is better now to examine more deeply the character of that power. For if it is subject to no power on earth, the Church itself from Christ’s institution is ordered to no other society, and for that reason is a perfect society. Now Christ said in Matthew 16.18 and following: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church… And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” But these words present a power independent from any other power on earth. For: 1. suppose that the power of the Church depends on civil society; then civil society could by right impede what the Church establishes. But if it impeded this by right, God would not confirm what the Church establishes. Therefore that universal affirmation would be false, that whatever the Church binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven. 2. On the contrary, if it is true that whatever is bound or loosed by the Church on earth is bound or loosed in heaven, then there can be no power on earth which can impede the statutes of the Church, and therefore the Church will be independent from any other society. For no human power can bind or loose what has been loosed or bound in heaven; and there is no intermediate power between the power of Peter and that of God.
559. III. When the Church is called a perfect society, or a society not ordered to another, it is in reality called such in relation to civil society; for all societies are reduced to the religious or civil, insofar as they partially pursue the end of one or the other. Now the Church cannot be ordered to civil society and depend on it. For it cannot be said that Christ the Lord so constituted his Church that he did not sufficiently provide for it. But this would have to be said if the Church were not a perfect society independent from civil society. For: 1. the supreme civil power in any republic would also have the supreme ecclesiastical power; and therefore there would not be one supreme power of the Church for any nation whatever, and thus the unity of the Church would be done away with. 2. In the first three centuries of the Church, and now also in unbelieving and non-Catholic regions, the Church would be handed over to enemies to be governed.
560. IV. From the Fathers. For St. Ignatius Martyr, in the letter to the Trallians, says: “What else is the Bishop than he who obtains every principate and power in the Church?” If Bishops have every power, kings have none in the Church. St. Gregory Nazianzen, oration 17 to Theodosius: “The Christian law subjects you also, Emperor, to my rule and throne. For we Bishops also bear rule; I add, even a more excellent and more perfect one.” If the rule of Bishops is more excellent, it cannot be subject to the civil power. Hence St. John Damascene, orations 1 and 2 on Images, writes: “Do not attempt, Emperor, to dissolve the ecclesiastical state. For the Apostle says: God placed in the Church some Apostles, some Prophets, others Evangelists, and others Pastors and Teachers; but he did not say Kings.” And St. Athanasius, History of the Arians, number 53: “If that is a decree of Bishops, what does it have to do with the Emperor? But if they are imperial threats, what need is there of men who are called Bishops? When from the beginning of the world has a thing of this sort been heard? When has a decree of the Church received authority from the Emperor, or been held as a decree? Many Synods have been assembled before this, many decrees of the Church have gone forth; but never did the Fathers suggest things of this kind to the Emperor, never did the Emperor curiously investigate ecclesiastical things.” St. Ambrose, against Auxentius, number 35: “Tribute belongs to Caesar; it is not denied. The Church belongs to God; it certainly ought not be handed over to Caesar, because the temple of God cannot be Caesar’s right… The Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church.” Hosius of Cordoba, as cited by Athanasius in History of the Arians, number 44, St. Hilary, to Constantius, book 1, number 1, and others have the same. But Lucifer of Cagliari must not be passed over. In book 1 For Athanasius to the Emperor Constantius he writes: “But you say in this place, Deuteronomy 17.9, that Moses, most devoted to God, just as he made mention of Priests, so also of a Judge. Prove that you have been made judge over us; prove that you have been constituted Emperor for this, and that you might lead us by your arms to fulfilling every will of your friend the Devil. Since you cannot prove it, because it has been commanded to you not only not to dominate Bishops, but even so to obey their statutes that, if you have attempted to overturn their decrees, if you have been caught in pride, you have been ordered to die by death, how will you be able to say that you can judge concerning Bishops? Unless you obey them, already, as far as before God is concerned, you have been punished with the penalty of death.” This doctrine of Lucifer of Cagliari is not his alone. For thus St. Athanasius writes to the same Lucifer: “We have received the letters and books of your most religious and most holy soul, in which we have seen an apostolic image… the magisterium of truth… the doctrine of true faith… the integral tradition of our Fathers, the right rule of ecclesiastical order… You seem to be the temple of the Savior, who, dwelling in you, speaks these very things through you… Believe me, Lucifer, you alone have not spoken these things, but the Holy Spirit with you,” etc. And in the letter to the Monks, besides other doctors, the Supreme Pontiffs Liberius and Julius are cited for the same opinion.
561. V. From the confession of kings themselves. Certainly Louis VII, King of the Franks, as Baronius reports in the year 1162, number 10, writes thus concerning Frederick I, who was resisting the power of the Church: “Does the aforesaid Emperor not know that our Lord Jesus Christ, when he was on earth, committed his sheep to blessed Peter, and through him to all his successors, to be fed? Has he not heard in the Gospel that it was said by the same Son of God to the same Prince of the Apostles: Simon, do you love me? Feed my sheep? Are the Kings of the Franks, or any Prelates, excepted here?” But other Kings and Emperors had already before then issued the same profession of doctrine; and the testimonies are very well known of Constantine the Great, as cited by St. Optatus; Valentinian I, as cited by Sozomen; Honorius, in his letter to his brother Arcadius in the case of St. John Chrysostom; Valentinian III, in the Novel concerning the Ordinations of Bishops in the Theodosian Code; Theodosius the Younger to the Synod of Ephesus; Theodoric, although a heretic, in the Fourth Roman Synod under Pope Symmachus; Justinian, in Novel 83, chapter 1; Charlemagne, canon In Memoriam, distinction 19; Basil the Macedonian, last act of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, in the year 869; and others. Compare Suarez, On Laws, book 4, chapters 1 and 8, and Defense of the Faith, book 3, chapters 6 and following; and Zaccaria, the dissertation entitled Render to Caesar, etc. Wherefore, if certain facts are brought forward from which it seems established that Emperors decreed something in ecclesiastical matters, it must be replied: 1. that this sometimes happened through abuse, and that the Church tolerated it for a time in order to avoid graver evils; 2. but that very often the Church protested, as is clear from the documents brought forward; 3. that sometimes Emperors sanctioned by their laws what had already been decreed by the Church, namely in order to urge execution; 4. or that they did this by delegation of the Church, compare Justinian, Novel 6, section 1, and Novel 123 in the prologue; Bianchi, On External Polity, etc., book 2, chapter 3; 5. since the Church is a perfect society by divine institution, no human fact is able to abrogate its rights.
562. You will say, I: If the Church were a perfect society, it would have to have its own territory. But the Church does not have its own territory. Therefore. I answer by distinguishing the major: it would have to have its own territory, that is, dominion of property, denied; that is, a place in which it has the right of exercising its jurisdiction, granted. Now dominion of property is not necessary; otherwise neither could a King exercise civil power in his whole kingdom. But the Church has a place in which it exercises its jurisdiction by the very fact that it is, as we have shown, a legitimate and necessary society. Hence the same territory belongs at once to civil magistrates, so that they may care for the temporal end of their society, and to the Church, so that it may pursue its end, which is the sanctification of men and eternal salvation to be obtained through it. Now the end of the Church extends to all men, and therefore the Church is a society Catholic by its nature and institution. Therefore the whole earth is the territory of the Church. Wherefore St. Bernard, writing to Eugenius III, the Supreme Pontiff, in On Consideration, book 3, chapter 1, says: “One must go out of the world, if perhaps he wishes to explore things which do not pertain to your care.” And to this pertains, Cardinal Tarquini adds on page 38, the decree of the Congregation of the Holy Office, in the year 1644, published with the approval of Innocent X, by which the proposition was called schismatic and heretical which affirmed that the Supreme Pontiffs, when they send their constitutions into those places which are subject to the temporal dominion of other Princes, make law in another’s territory. This proposition Clement XI again reproved and condemned in the constitution Accepimus, January 11, 1715.
563. You will say, II: If in the same territory a twofold perfect society, ecclesiastical and civil, exercised its jurisdiction, frequent conflicts would arise between the two. But an ordering of this kind cannot be admitted. Therefore. I answer: 1. indirectly. If the argument had any force, as Cardinal Tarquini wisely notes, it would have force for stripping civil society of its power, because it is absurd that more account should be taken of temporal happiness, which is the end of civil society, than of eternal life, which is the end of the Church. I answer: 2. directly. Distinguish the major: conflicts would arise from the very nature of the thing, denied; through the fault of men, subdistinguish: in such a way that there is a reason for composing these conflicts, granted; in such a way that there is no way to compose them, denied. Now that cannot be said to be ordered by nature which produces evil from its own nature. But if evil proceeds from the fault of men, that in no way proves that something is not ordered by nature, since there is no good which man cannot abuse. In this case, right ordering requires only that there be a suitable means for avoiding or repairing the evil. Now the objected conflicts do not arise from the very nature of that twofold power; for each has its own proper end, and one is subordinated to the other. Therefore they arise from the fault of men, especially, namely, of the civil magistrate, since it is known, says St. Ambrose in the letter to his Sister, that “Emperors are more desirous of the Priesthood than Priests of empire.” But the very subordination of one society to the other provides the way of composing conflicts that have arisen.
564. You will say, III: It is an axiom: “a state within a state is repugnant.” But there would be a state within a state if, in the same territory, the Church and civil society, each as a perfect society, were dominant. Therefore. I answer by distinguishing the major: “A state within a state is repugnant with respect to the same end, granted; with respect to a diverse end, subdistinguish: if the question is of ends absolutely opposed, granted; if of ends opposed accidentally, distinguish again; if they are in no way coordinated, let it pass; if they are coordinated, denied.” This difficulty is almost the same as the preceding one. Therefore let it be retained that the end of the Church is diverse from the end of civil society, and therefore that, in the same territory and with respect to the same persons, a different jurisdiction is exercised by each; that those same ends are not opposed to each other, but mutually assist one another, as St. Augustine shows in letter 5, otherwise 138, to Marcellinus, and Leibniz himself in the censuring letter against Pufendorf, section 6; and finally that those same ends are coordinated with each other, and therefore that the exercise of each power can be rightly ordered. And the difficulty vanishes. The remaining difficulties will be solved more suitably where there will be discussion of the coercive power of the Church.