565. Since from the matters disputed above the character of ecclesiastical society ought to be well known to us, we can now easily define in what rank the Church of Christ stands with respect to the other societies. In this matter there is a wonderful analogy between the errors concerning Christ the Redeemer, in whom two distinct natures come together in the unity of person, and the errors concerning the Church, in which we perceive a certain continuation of the Incarnation, as in numbers 411 and following, and which, coordinated with the remaining societies, constitutes one supreme economy. (1)
566. But in order that the limits of our question may be defined beforehand, and those things which are of easier solution or do not belong to this place may be dispatched in a few words, it is better to note certain things in advance. And: 1. all societies, as we indicated above, are easily reduced to the Church and civil society. For a society is specified by its end; but the end, or good, toward which men can strive with united powers, is either temporal happiness, and then civil society is had; or eternal happiness, and then the Church is had. Wherefore, since all the other ends are contained under that twofold happiness, temporal and eternal, all societies are comprehended under the two aforesaid. (1) For, “as regards Christ,” says Schrader, in On Roman Unity, book 1, number 50, “some, erring, 1. denied the divine hypostasis assuming, namely the Gentiles with the impious Jews; 2. others denied the human nature assumed, namely the Docetae and Phantasiasts; 3. others overthrew the relation intervening between God assuming and the humanity assumed, a. either by separation, as the Nestorians; or b. by confusion, as the Eutychians, whereby they imagined in diverse ways that the humanity had been absorbed by the deity; or on the contrary c. by corruption, whereby they deprived the assumed humanity now of this, now of that natural perfection and property, or contended that the nature of the assuming Word of God was almost absorbed by the human condition while supplying those parts, as the Apollinarians, Arians, Monophysites, and Monothelites; just as finally 4. others reject the whole economy of Christ among fables and myths.” Similarly, “as regards redeemed humanity gathered into the society of Christians, by some 1. the saving authority of the Church of Christ is denied, to which every society and power of men is subject and subordinated in the business of salvation, compare Suarez, On Laws, book 3, chapter 6, number 3, and book 4, chapters 8-9, as by the paganism of the ancient Gentiles and those unbelievers and impious persons who relapse into it; by others 2. the very society of men corresponding to that civil power is excluded, once civil power is overthrown, for, they say, one must obey God alone, as Judas the Galilean in Suarez, On Laws, book 3, chapter 5, and thus the reformers from the beginning; by others 3. the relation of conjunction intervening between the Church of Christ and civil society is overthrown, concerning which see Suarez, On Laws, book 4, chapter 9, number 3, whether by a. the introduction of separation, according to the Donatist saying: What has the emperor to do with the Church? To this belongs Machiavellianism, concerning which see Suarez, On Laws, book 3, chapter 12, establishing that society should care neither for religion nor even morals, but only for its own happiness and therefore justice; hence there comes forth what they call a society of mere right, in which the law is established as atheistic; or by b. the introduction of a confusion of powers, whereby either they think the temporal power absorbed by the spiritual, concerning whom see Suarez, in the cited place, book 3, chapters 6-11, or they mix the spiritual with the temporal, as in what they call territorialism with Caesarean papism, to which Suarez refers in the cited place, book 5, chapters 8-9, and Defense of the Orthodox Faith against the Errors of the Anglican Sect, book 3, and Becanus, volume 3, On the Primacy of Kings; or by c. corruption brought sometimes upon the civil power, which they declare to be nothing without supernatural piety, as the Waldensians, Wycliffites, Hussites, and the following phantasiasts and mystics, concerning whom see Suarez, On Laws, book 3, chapter 10; sometimes upon the ecclesiastical authority, which they despoil and deprive of its prerogatives and rights over subjects, to which tend the systems of Febronianism, Gallicanism, Josephinism, and manifold court-theory and libertinism; finally by others 4. the whole reason and explanation of Christian society is held as the greatest calamity, and almost plague, of human happiness.” 2. Those societies which are comprehended under the Church, as parts of it, insofar as they have the very end of the Church partially or under some special aspect, are called homogeneous with respect to it; but those which are proper parts of civil society, insofar as they partially pursue its very end as their own, are called heterogeneous societies with respect to the Church. 3. No one can doubt that homogeneous societies are subject to the Church, since parts are subject to the whole whose parts they are. Nor can it in any way be doubted that heterogeneous societies have the same order toward the Church as civil society itself has. Therefore the whole question here is reduced to the relation between the Church and civil society. 4. But civil society is either: a. a society of unbelievers, namely of those who were never subjected to the Church through baptism; or b. of heretics or schismatics, who were subjected to the Church through baptism, but have been separated from it; or c. of Catholics, who both received baptism and remain joined to the Church and obey it. Hence it could be asked what the relation of the Church is to this threefold civil society.
567. But the things which pertain to the societies of unbelievers or of heretics can be indicated at once. For: 1. with regard to unbelievers, it is established that they are in no way of the Church of Christ. “For what have I to do,” says the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 5.12 and following, “with judging those who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? For those who are outside God will judge.” Wherefore: a. the Church can indeed and must announce the faith even among unbelieving nations, as in numbers 489 and 499; but it cannot use those means which it uses or can use toward subjects. b. Any obstacle opposed by unbelieving nations to the preaching of the Gospel is illegitimate and unjust; and therefore, exercising its mission, the Church rightly repeats that saying in Acts 5.29: “It is necessary to obey God rather than men.” c. Therefore only inculpable ignorance will be able to excuse unbelievers if they persecute the ministers of the Gospel; but in itself this persecution is unjust. 2. With regard to heretics, Bellarmine rightly teaches in On the Church, book 3, chapter 4, that they are not of the Church, but pertain to the Church; or, that they are not members of the Church, but are subjects of the Church. This will become clearer below. In reality, everyone is subjected to the Church through baptism, which certainly remains in heretics; nor because they fall into the crime of heresy are they withdrawn from subjection to the Church. Hence the Church could in itself take action against them as against subjects. Compare Suarez, On Laws, book 4, chapter 18; Bellarmine, On the Members of the Church, book 3, chapter 21. I said “in itself,” because power must be distinguished from its exercise. From what has been said, power always belongs to the Church; but its exercise could sometimes be impeded, insofar as, the circumstances being considered, it would turn not to edification, but to destruction. The judgment concerning this matter is left to the Church itself; and experience itself establishes that sometimes the Church has not wished to oblige heretics by its laws. You have an example in Benedict XIV, constitution Singulari, February 9, 1749.
568. It remains only, therefore, that we investigate the relation of the civil society of Catholics to the Church. We consider, namely, a society whose members, while under the rule of the civil magistrate they direct their powers toward seeking temporal happiness, at the same time under the rule of the Church strive to acquire sanctity and eternal life. But since the Church teaches that eternal life is the supreme end, to which all temporal life must be subject, it is necessary for it to profess that temporal happiness is subordinated to eternal happiness. Wherefore the civil society of Catholics is called “an assembly of men who so devote themselves to seeking temporal happiness that they profess that it ought to be subject to the pursuit of eternal happiness, which they believe can be obtained only under the rule of the Catholic Church.”
569. Now a threefold relation of this civil society to the Church can be conceived; for either: 1. it is said to be equal to the Church; or 2. superior to it; or 3. inferior to it. But if the Church and civil society were equal, there could be no subordination of one to the other, just as there is no subordination of one perfect civil society to another of the same order. Hence they would not so much be distinct societies as separated societies. Certain more recent political writers indeed affirm this; and to this pertains proposition 55 condemned in the Syllabus: “The Church is to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” The things which we said in the preceding thesis sufficiently show that civil society is not superior to the Church; and the same will be confirmed from the things soon to be said. It remains, therefore, that the Church be said to be superior to civil society, and consequently that the latter be subordinated to it.
570. This doctrine needs to be clarified before it is established. And: 1. a twofold subordination must be distinguished here, direct and indirect. Direct subordination is had when the inferior society, in all its acts concerning its own proper end, is so subject to the superior society that the latter can make those acts void or valid. Indirect subordination, however, is had when the superior society can exercise jurisdiction over the inferior only insofar as the necessity of its own end and its own preservation requires this. The former subordination cannot belong except to inferior homogeneous societies, nor can it of itself fall upon a perfect society. We therefore assert the indirect subordination of the civil society of Catholics with respect to the Church. 2. This indirect subordination can be considered negatively and positively. Insofar as it is negative, it requires that civil society, even within the limits of its own proper object, can do nothing which redounds to the harm of the Church; in this matter it must acquiesce in the judgment of the Church itself. But insofar as that subordination is positive, it requires that civil society must furnish to the Church those helps which the Church itself judges necessary for, or conducive to, its own proper end.
571. In order that these things may become clearer, let us observe that the Church is indeed a spiritual society by reason of its end, yet it also requires material means, since it is a society of men, who are not pure spirits, as in number 477. But these temporal means, considered individually, sometimes serve the end of civil society without being necessary for the proper end of the Church; and in these the Church has no power. But sometimes those same temporal or material things have a connection both with the proper end of civil society and with the proper end of the Church; and therefore a collision can arise between the rights of each. (1) The error of these writers is thus described by His Eminence Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitiers, in the third instruction, works, volume 5: “The most moderate are certainly those who, accepting the presence and authority of Jesus Christ in the order of private and religious things, exclude him only from public and temporal things. The Word, of whom St. John tells us energetically that ‘he was made flesh,’ they wish to have taken hold of humanity only on the spiritual sides; and while the Creed teaches that ‘he descended from heaven and was incarnate for men,’ that is, for beings essentially composed of a body and a soul and called to social life, they insinuate that the consequences of the incarnation have relation only to individuals taken outside civil and public life. From this comes a formal separation between the duties of the Christian and the duties of the citizen,” etc. Thus, for example, the Church could open to all access to the clerical state, while civil society might except some classes of men, as in the time of St. Gregory the Great, Maurice excepted soldiers, and Marcian excepted certain men detained by fixed public offices. Likewise, the Church can except clerics from certain civil duties, although the political power might wish to subject them to the same. The Church could prohibit mixed marriages, which nevertheless the civil power, judging that they conduce to the wealth or multiplication of associates, might permit. The Church could prescribe certain feast days which nevertheless the republic might not wish to acknowledge, and so forth. In these and all similar cases, if civil society is indirectly subject to the Church, it must finally yield to it. “Attending to these things,” says John, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Edward, King of England, in the year 1281, as cited by Mansi, Councils, volume 24, page 426, “the Catholic Emperors subjected all their laws to the sacred canons, lest they be thought schismatics or heretics. Therefore, since the illustrious peace of the empire pertains to you, most excellent lord king, you also are bound to subject your laws to the canons and to abolish contrary laws.”
572. The Church has often asserted this doctrine; and Bouix, On the Pope, part 4, section 3, reports six Roman Pontiffs before St. Gregory VII and twenty-two who followed him, vindicating for themselves the superiority of which we are speaking. Pius IX also condemned in the Syllabus this proposition, number 24 in order: “The Church does not have the power of using force, nor any temporal power, direct or indirect.”
573. But it is better to weigh more accurately the celebrated constitution Unam Sanctam, issued by Boniface VIII in the year 1302, where the Holy Pontiff: 1. establishes the unity of the Church; 2. infers that its head is one, saying: “Therefore of the one and only Church there is one body, one head, not two heads, as if it were a monster, namely Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter, and Peter’s successor; for the Lord says to Peter himself: ‘Feed my sheep,’ ‘my,’ he says, and generally, not singularly these or those, by which he is understood to have committed all to him.” 3. He distinguishes two powers, which he says are in the Church, but in a diverse way: “We are instructed by the Gospel sayings that in this power there are two swords, namely the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles said, ‘Behold, here are two swords,’ that is, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not answer that it was too much, but enough. Certainly he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter attends badly to the word of the Lord saying: ‘Put your sword back into the sheath.’ Therefore each is in the power of the Church, namely the spiritual sword and the material. But this latter is to be exercised for the Church, the former by the Church. The former is of the priest, the latter by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and sufferance of the priest.” 4. He teaches the subordination of temporal power to spiritual power: “But it is necessary that sword be under sword and that temporal authority be subjected to spiritual power. For when the Apostle says, ‘There is no power except from God, and those which are from God are ordered,’ they would not be ordered unless sword were under sword and, as inferior, were reduced through the other into the supreme… For, Truth bearing witness, the spiritual power has to establish the earthly power and to judge it, if it has not been good. Thus concerning the Church and ecclesiastical power is verified the prophecy of Jeremiah: ‘Behold, today I have set you over nations and kingdoms,’ and the other things which follow. Therefore if the earthly power deviates, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if the lesser spiritual power deviates, it will be judged by its superior; if, however, the supreme deviates, it will be able to be judged by God alone, not by man.” 5. Finally he concludes: “Whoever therefore resists this power so ordered by God resists the ordination of God, unless, like Manichaeus, he invents two principles: which we judge false and heretical; because, as Moses bears witness, God created heaven and earth not in the principles, but in the principle. Moreover, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether of necessity for salvation.”
574. It is now necessary to note a few things concerning this Constitution, against which all the weapons of the adversaries are directed. And first, it is by no means unknown to us that some recent writers in certain periodical collections have raised doubts concerning the authenticity of this Constitution. Yet their doubts ought not move us. For, to pass over the rest here in silence, it is certain that it was approved and renewed by the Fifth Lateran Council. But this Council could not approve and renew any constitution Unam Sanctam issued by Boniface VIII except that which was already known to all, since it had already been inserted in the body of law, whence we have taken it. Therefore, whatever may be the case concerning the autograph, the authority of that Constitution remains altogether entire.
575. Nor, secondly, can there be any doubt for anyone that the Holy Pontiff spoke from the chair, and that this constitution is dogmatic. For: 1. there the Holy Pontiff, as universal Doctor, addresses the universal Church, teaching it doctrinal heads of the greatest moment. 2. He expressly says: “For every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether of necessity for salvation.” 3. The same Constitution was confirmed, as we said, by Leo X in the Fifth Lateran Council, with these words: “Since it exists of necessity for salvation that all Christ’s faithful be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by the testimony of divine Scripture and the holy Fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of happy memory Boniface VIII, Pope, likewise our predecessor, which begins Unam Sanctam; for the salvation of those same souls, and for the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff and of this Holy See, and for the unity and power of the Church his spouse, we renew and approve the Constitution itself, with the sacred present Council approving.” 4. The doctrine which is handed down in the same Constitution is also had from the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215 and the First Council of Lyons in the year 1245.
576. After these things, thirdly, it is strange that some now insinuate what Bossuet had already said, namely that Clement V corrected or restricted the constitution of Boniface VIII, since that Pontiff only vindicated it from the false interpretations of those who, to create ill will, seemed to read in the same Constitution what was not there. This is clear from the very words of Clement V: “Hence it is that we wish or intend no prejudice to be generated for the said king [Philip] and kingdom through the definition or declaration of our predecessor of good memory Boniface VIII, Pope, which begins Unam Sanctam. Nor that through it the aforesaid king, kingdom, and inhabitants of the kingdom are more subject to the Church than they existed before. But let all things be understood to be in the same state in which they were before the aforesaid definition, both as regards the Church and also as regards the king and kingdom named above.” Now Clement V does not teach that the King is not subject to the Church, but that he is not more subject than he existed before the constitution Unam Sanctam. But before this Constitution, from the Fourth Lateran Council, the First Council of Lyons, and so forth, there already existed the same subjection which is declared in that Constitution. Therefore.
577. Now, fourthly, it is no less certain that in the same constitution, as is clear to one reading it, the subjection of the civil power to the spiritual power of the Church is expressly taught. Although that alone is truly and properly defined which is contained in those words, “we define… that every human creature… is altogether of necessity for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” nevertheless it cannot be denied that the examination of the context and of the end for which that definition was issued greatly conduces to attaining the force and breadth of these words. The end, as is historically established, was to restrain the unjust demands of the King of the French, Philippe le Bel; and the context openly treats the subjection of temporal power to spiritual power. Therefore that phrase “for every creature to be subject,” etc., must be understood of the subjection of the King even as he is King, so that in those things which he disposes as head of the republic, he is indirectly subject to the Church. Hence the doctrine set forth concerning the superiority of the spiritual power of the Church before the civil power is not a mere opinion; but, unless it is properly and immediately of faith, which nevertheless could be asserted with very grave foundation, it at least certainly pertains to the deposit of Catholic doctrine. Suarez also openly teaches this in On Laws, book 4, chapter 9; Bellarmine, On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff, chapter 3, and others. (1) Section II The Proposed Question Is Resolved Proposition XXV. If the question is asked concerning the relation between the Church and the civil society of Catholics, that relation: 1. does not consist in separation, whereby civil society would hold itself indifferently in those things which pertain to religion; 2. nor in such subjection that in temporal matters and under the respect of the temporal end, civil society would be subject to the Church; 3. but in that subjection by which, in temporal matters also, when the reason or necessity of the spiritual end concurs, civil society must yield to the Church. Therefore the Church is rightly said to be superior to civil society.
578. The first part is proved. I. By recalling the principles established above. For: 1. man cannot be indifferent concerning the true religion; but for Catholics the one true religion is the Church. Therefore Catholics cannot be indifferent concerning the Church. Now it is one and the same man who is both social and religious. Therefore, even insofar as he is a member of civil society, if he is Catholic, he is subject to the Church. Certainly the true religion, or the Christian religion, pervades the whole life of man and determines his duties even as he is social; but it is absurd to imagine in him, as it were, a twofold conscience, one insofar as he is a private man, the other insofar as he is a citizen. For when the question is of one action concerning the same object and regarding the same subject, it is in the concrete either licit or illicit. Compare what was said in number 20 and following. (1) It is worth adding here the testimony of a man by no means suspect in this matter, even though he by no means reports the full doctrine. Dollinger, History, volume 4, page 91, writes in the English translation: “It is a truth of faith that all men, even kings, are subject to the Pope; if, therefore, they should be guilty of grievous sins, in peace or in war, or in the government of their kingdoms, and the treatment of their subjects, and should thus lose sight of the object to which the power of a Christian Prince should be directed, and should give public scandal to the people, the Pope can admonish them, since in regard to sin they are subject to the spiritual power; he can correct them; and, if necessity should require it, compel them by censure to remove such scandals. For if they were not subject to the censures of the Church, whenever they might sin in the exercise of the power entrusted to them, it would follow that as kings they were out of the Church.” 2. Society itself, considered formally, cannot be indifferent concerning the true religion; but for Catholic society the one true religion is the Church. Therefore it cannot be indifferent concerning the Church. Hence if society is bound to care for the peace, tranquility, preservation, and increase of the republic; if it cannot attain these goods, which pertain to its proper end, without the true religion, then the civil society of Catholics is bound to be subject to the Church. Compare what was said in numbers 36 and following, and 75 and following. 3. Wherefore, since civil societies are members or parts of the Church, they not only ought to contrive nothing against the Church itself, but are bound positively to concur toward its good. Suppose that they neglect it: since they acknowledge no true religion outside the Church, they will in reality neglect every religion. This is all the more so because, with revealed religion rejected, the very principles and duties of natural religion are obscured or perish, as in number 126 and following. Hence to the civil societies of Catholics, to whom the Church is known and who nevertheless contemn or neglect it, those words of the Apostle in Romans 1.18 and following are deservedly applied, alas, our experience establishes this: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men who detain the truth of God in injustice; because what is known of God is manifest in them. For God has manifested it to them… When they had known God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks; but they became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For saying themselves to be wise, they became fools.” 4. Therefore let us conclude with Becanus, who in Duel concerning the Primacy of Kings, book 3, chapter 8, writes: “It must be established against the politicians that Christian kings and princes ought not so to administer their kingdoms and provinces that they cast aside every care of religion and of the Church as though it pertained nothing to them, and usurp that saying of the Donatists, ‘What has the emperor to do with the Church?’ which Augustine so greatly reproves in book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 92. For this is contrary both to the Sacred Scriptures and to the examples of good kings and to reason itself. In the Sacred Scriptures David, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Asa, and Josiah are praised because they either promoted or restored the worship and religion of God. Their example in the New Testament was imitated by Constantine the Great, Theodosius, Honorius, Charlemagne, Louis, and others. On the contrary, those who contemned religion and faith, Jeroboam, Ahab, Ahaz, and Amon, were not only reproved but also punished. And the reason is that kings who are placed in lofty power, just as they themselves are rightly honored by inferiors, so they ought deservedly to honor God himself, from whom they have obtained power and to whom by natural right they are subject, and to propagate his glory and majesty everywhere.”
579. II. The same could be confirmed from the Fathers. But recall the testimonies which we gave in numbers 37, 40, and 82. You will also find others in Bellarmine, On the Members of the Church, book 3, chapter 18. But since here the question is with Catholics, it is pleasing to add what the Council of Trent has in session 25, chapter 20, On Reform: “The holy Synod… judged that secular princes also should be reminded of their office, trusting that they, as Catholics whom God has willed to be protectors of the holy faith and of the Church, will not only permit its right to be restored to the Church, but will also recall all their subjects to due reverence toward the clergy, pastors, and higher Orders… Therefore it decrees and commands that the sacred Canons and all general councils, and also other Apostolic sanctions issued in favor of ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical liberty, and against its violators, all of which it also renews by the present decree, must be observed exactly by all. And for this reason it warns the emperor, kings, republics, princes, and all and each, of whatever state and dignity they may be, that the more abundantly they are adorned with temporal goods and with power over others, the more holily they should venerate those things which are of ecclesiastical right, as the principal things of God and protected by his patronage; nor should they allow them to be harmed by any barons, nobles, rectors, or other temporal lords or magistrates, and especially by the ministers of those princes; but they should act severely against those who impede its liberty, immunity, and jurisdiction.” To this also pertain the things which Gregory XVI taught in the encyclical of September 18, 1832: “Nor could we augur happier things either for religion or for principate from the wishes of those who desire the Church to be separated from the kingdom and the mutual concord of empire with priesthood to be broken. For it is established that that concord, which has always existed favorably and salutarily for both sacred and civil affairs, is feared by lovers of the most shameless liberty.” And Leo XIII recently expressed the same in most excellent words in the encyclical letter Arcanum, February 10, 1880: “No one doubts that Jesus Christ, the founder of the Church, willed the sacred power to be distinct from the civil, and each to be free and ready for conducting its own affairs; with this added, however, which is expedient for both and which is in the interest of all men, that conjunction and concord should intervene between them; and in those matters which are, though for a different reason, of common right and judgment, the one to which human things have been entrusted should fittingly and suitably depend on the other, to which heavenly things have been entrusted… If the civil authority agrees amicably with the sacred power of the Church, it is necessary that a great accession of utility be made for each. For the dignity of the one is amplified, and with religion going before, rule will never be other than just; but to the other there are supplied the helps of protection and defense for the public good of the faithful.”
580. The second part is proved. I. The Church has a right only to those things which pertain to its end, and insofar as they pertain to that end. Therefore, if there are any temporal matters concerning which the civil authority disposes, and these are such that they neither impede the end of the Church nor are required for it, the Church has no right over them; and accordingly civil society, as perfect in its own order, disposes of them without any dependence. The antecedent is clear from the very notion of right, which is power according to reason, as in number 41. But the whole reason of any society consists in its end. Therefore one would dispose without any sufficient reason concerning those things which are foreign to the end.
581. II. But we would delay in vain over the demonstration of this part, since the Church itself expressly asserts the doctrine which is enunciated in it. In reality: 1. Pope St. Gelasius, writing to the emperor Anastasius, says: “As far as the order of public [civil] discipline is concerned, recognizing that the empire has been conferred upon you by heavenly disposition, even the prelates of religion themselves obey your laws.” 2. St. Gregory II, in letter 2 to Leo the Isaurian: “As the Pontiff does not have the power of looking into the palace and of conferring royal dignities, so neither does the Emperor,” etc. 3. The Fourth Lateran Council, chapter 42: “Just as we will that laymen not usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to will that clerics not claim for themselves the rights of laymen. Therefore we forbid all clerics that anyone, under pretext of ecclesiastical liberty, should hereafter extend his jurisdiction to the prejudice of secular justice; but let him remain content with the written constitutions and with customs approved hitherto, so that the things which are Caesar’s may be rendered to Caesar, and the things which are God’s may be rendered to God, by a right distribution.”
582. The third part is proved. I. From the Scriptures. For: 1. It is read in Acts 5.28-29: “By commanding we commanded you not to teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you wish to bring upon us the blood of that man. But Peter and the Apostles answering said: It is necessary to obey God rather than men.” Hence, from this testimony it is clear that the legitimate authority of the Jewish nation wished to impede the preaching of the name of Jesus and the institution of the Church among that nation, and this, as it thought, on account of temporal good and public tranquility, or the proper end of civil society: “you wish to bring upon us the blood of that man.” Yet the Apostles judged that this good had to be put after the other, since it came into conflict with the good of a higher order, the proper end of the Church. Therefore. 2. Moreover, this doctrine is inculcated by all those places of Scripture which teach that every temporal happiness is subject to eternal happiness. Thus, for example, Matthew 6.33 and following: “Seek therefore first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not be solicitous,” etc.; and Matthew 5.29 and following: “If your right eye scandalizes you, pluck it out and cast it from you… and if your right hand scandalizes you, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is expedient for you that one of your members perish rather than that your whole body go into hell”; and Matthew 16.26: “For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?” By all these things we are taught that all goods must be abandoned, and all evils tolerated, when this is necessary for preserving holiness and attaining eternal life, or when the proper end of the Church requires it.
583. II. From the Fathers. St. John Chrysostom, on 2 Corinthians, homily 15: “But here there is also another kind of rule, and indeed one more sublime than civil rule. What is it? That which flourishes in the Church, of which Paul also makes mention when he says: Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For this rule is as much more excellent than civil rule as heaven is than earth; and as great as the distinction is between body and soul, so great also is the distance of this rule from that.” St. Gregory Nazianzen, oration 17: “Let us submit ourselves both to God and to one another and to those who rule on earth: to God indeed for all causes, to one another on account of the bond of charity, to rulers on account of order… But you also, princes and prefects, the law of Christ has subjected to my rule and throne. For we too wield rule; I add, one both more excellent and more perfect, if indeed it should seem fair for spirit to yield to flesh and heavenly things to earthly things.” St. Isidore of Pelusium, book 3, letter 449: “The administration of affairs has been composed from priesthood and kingdom. For although there is a very great difference between the two, since the former is as the soul, the latter as the body, nevertheless they tend to one and the same end, that is, to the salvation of men.” Ivo of Chartres, to Henry, King of England, letter 51: “Because all affairs are not otherwise well administered unless kingdom and priesthood have come together into one endeavor, we admonish your Highness with entreaty that in the kingdom committed to you you permit the word of God to run, and that you always consider that the earthly kingdom ought to be subject to the heavenly kingdom, which has been committed to the Church. For just as the animal sense ought to be subject to reason, so earthly power ought to be subject to ecclesiastical government. And as much as the body is worth, unless it is ruled by the soul, so much is earthly power worth, unless it is informed and ruled by ecclesiastical discipline.” Hugh of St. Victor, book 2, On the Sacraments, part 2, chapter 4: “Earthly power has the king as its head; spiritual power has the Supreme Pontiff. To the power of the King pertain the things which are earthly, and all things made for earthly life. To the power of the Supreme Pontiff pertain the things which are spiritual, and all things assigned to spiritual life. But as much as spiritual life is more worthy than earthly life, and spirit than body, by so much spiritual power precedes earthly or secular power in honor and dignity.” Compare also the things which we gave in number 560.
584. III. From the consensus of theologians. St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, second-second part, question 60, article 6, reply to objection 3: “It must be said that secular power is subject to spiritual power, as the body to the soul; and therefore the judgment is not usurped,” etc. But St. Bonaventure has the same in book 1, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, part 2; and, to omit the rest, the theologians of the Council of Constance have the same in the appendix to the Council of Constance, number 23, to article 12: “Nor is it lawful for such a cleric to appeal from the ecclesiastical judge and forum to the temporal judge and forum, since this is to appeal from the greater to the lesser. For just as spirit is related to body, and the realm of spirit to the realm of body, so proportionally is the ecclesiastical judge related to the earthly judge, and the ecclesiastical forum to the temporal forum, as the venerable Hugh of St. Victor says, and Alexander of Hales, and other doctors and sacred canons.” Compare, if you please, Bouix, On the Pope, volume 3, pages 90-94.
585. IV. From reasons, which we shall indicate from Suarez, who in On Laws, book 4, chapter 9, writes: “Just as man would not be rightly composed unless the body were subordinated to the soul, so neither would the Church be suitably instituted unless the temporal power were subjected to the spiritual… Where there is one body, there must be one head, to which all things may in some way be referred; since otherwise there could be neither peace nor perfect unity in the body. But the Church of Christ is one body, as we have said. Therefore, although in it there are several powers or magistracies, it is necessary that they have subordination among themselves, so that they may in some way be referred to one because of the reason just given. Therefore either the spiritual power is subordinated to the temporal, or the contrary. The first cannot be said; for, as the Pontiff there brings forward from Paul: ‘The things which are from God are ordered’; but it would be a perverse order if spiritual things were subject to temporal things. Therefore the second must necessarily be said.” And in Defense of the Faith, etc., book 2, chapter 22, he says: “Each power, temporal and spiritual, insofar as they exist in the Church, ought to have been so conferred and possessed that they may profit the common good and salvation of the Christian people. Therefore it is necessary that these powers observe some order among themselves; otherwise peace and unity could not be preserved in the Church. For temporal advantages are often opposed to spiritual advantages; and therefore either there will be just war between each power, or one must yield to the other, so that all things may be rightly ordered. Therefore either the spiritual power will be under the temporal, or the contrary. The first neither can be said nor thought according to right reason, because all temporal things must be ordered to a spiritual end. Therefore it must be said on the contrary that temporal power is subject to spiritual power, lest it deflect from its end. For powers are subordinated as ends also are.” But it is preferable to consult these places of the outstanding Doctor, and also the excellent things which Taparelli writes on this matter in Essay, etc., numbers 1419-1429.
586. Scholion. It is useful to solve the principal difficulties. Hence, you will say first: The Church is in the commonwealth, and not the commonwealth in the Church. Therefore the Church depends on the State, and not the State on the Church. I respond by distinguishing the antecedent: The Church is in the commonwealth as a part in the whole, I deny; as the soul in the body, I concede. Certainly, since the Church is broader than any civil society, for it is catholic, the Church cannot be held as a part of civil society, or as materially existing in some civil society. For the same reason, since the end of the Church is supreme, it cannot be contained within the limits of the proper end of civil society; and therefore the Church is not formally a part of civil society. Therefore if it is in the commonwealth, according to the likeness already set forth from the doctrine of the Fathers and Doctors, it is as the soul is in the body. But the soul is not inferior to the body. Therefore. Compare Liberatore, The State and the Church, chapter 1, article 3.
587. You will say secondly: nevertheless that axiom belongs to St. Optatus, who, in book 3 On the Schism of the Donatists, says: “The Church is in the commonwealth, not the commonwealth in the Church.” Therefore. I respond by distinguishing the antecedent: St. Optatus says that “the Church is in the commonwealth,” that is, in the Roman Empire, and insofar as it has the free exercise of its rights in it, I concede; in civil society as such, and insofar as the Church would be a part of civil society and inferior to it, I deny. Moreover, it is impossible that St. Optatus assert that “the Church is in the commonwealth” in the sense that it is subject to it. For the Donatists accused the Catholics of subjecting the Church to the emperor; but St. Optatus, in the same book and in book 1, indignantly removes this calumny. Therefore the common opinion of Catholics and schismatics was that the Church could in no way be subject to civil society. In what sense, therefore, did St. Optatus write that “the Church is in the commonwealth”? The holy Doctor was speaking not of civil society generally, but of the Roman Empire; and he was asserting that the Church was in the Roman Empire insofar as, in that empire, it enjoyed the free exercise of its rights. This is plainly clear from the fact that, reproving Donatus, who had returned curses for thanks to the emperor Constans because of alms sent to be distributed among the poor, he writes: “Already then Donatus was meditating injury against powers and kings, for whom, if he had listened to the Apostle, he ought daily to have prayed. For thus the blessed Apostle Paul teaches: Pray for kings and powers, that we may live a tranquil life with them. For the commonwealth is not in the Church, but the Church is in the commonwealth,” that is, in the Roman Empire, “where there are holy priesthoods, and chastity, and virginity, which are not among barbarian nations; and if they were there, they could not be safe.” Hence he distinguishes the Roman Empire from barbarian nations, among whom nevertheless civil society flourished, and in it religion, the Church, virginity, etc.; but since all these things were not freely exercised among them, for this reason St. Optatus denies that the Church is among them. From these things surely it follows: 1. Against what the Regalists contend, according to the mind of St. Optatus, the Church is not in a civil society in which the rights of the Church are not safe, or in which the Church is subjected to civil power. 2. St. Optatus said that “the commonwealth is not in the Church” because at that time the Roman Empire repelled the force of adversaries not by the patronage of the Church, but by its own armies. That is to say, just as the Church was in the commonwealth insofar as it enjoyed its patronage, so the commonwealth was not in the Church because it did not use the Church’s patronage. Moreover, Catholic doctrine is not to be taken from the opinion of one Father; nor should one of the Fathers easily be presented as contradicting all the others. But we have seen that the common doctrine of the Fathers is that civil power is indirectly subordinated to the Church, although at the same time they teach that civil power does not have a superior insofar as it is independent in its own order, and therefore is not directly subordinated to the power of the Church: this is proper to any perfect society.
588. You will insist: According to St. Optatus, the Church is in the commonwealth precisely insofar as it needs its protection; but a society which needs the protection of another is inferior to it; therefore the Church is inferior to civil society. The response is made by distinguishing the major: The Church needs protection, which, as a means for its own preservation, it rightly demands from civil power in a society of Catholics, I concede; otherwise, I deny. Therefore: 1. Since the Church can rightfully demand the protection of civil society, so that the judgment concerning whether protection should be granted and what kind should be granted belongs to the Church itself, this rather implies the superiority of the Church, as in number 556. 2. Since the Church can demand protection from civil society for its own preservation, the good of the Church, or the Church itself, is the end. But the end is more excellent than the means. Otherwise civil society would have to be called inferior to its army, whose protection and work it sometimes needs.
589. You will say thirdly: Were not: 1. religious affairs and priests subjected to kings in pagan societies? 2. civil society in the legitimate possession of this right when the Church was founded? 3. Therefore, in order that some society might become Catholic, it would be necessary to diminish its rights; but this is odious. I respond openly that difficulties of this kind are futile, and therefore it is enough for them to be scattered in a few words. Hence, to the first I say that whether it can be absolutely affirmed that, among the Gentiles, sacerdotal power was subject to kings may be seen in Lessius, Defense of the Power of the Supreme Pontiff, part 2, section 1, article 12. For us it is enough to observe that it is impious and absurd to draw an argument from the superstition of the pagans against the Church. In reality the end of the Church is supernatural, and therefore exceeds the proper end of civil society; but on the other hand the whole religion of the pagans served the temporal good of the civil principate. Hence it is read in On the Government of Princes, part 1, chapter 16: “The priesthood of the Gentiles and the whole worship of divine things was for the sake of temporal goods, which are ordered to the common temporal good of the multitude, the care of which rests upon the king. Hence the priests of the Gentiles were suitably subjected to kings.” Christ, the founder of the Church, certainly did not designate kings as pastors of the Church. To the second: leaving aside those things which show that the Church, under the generic concept, is older than any civil society; leaving aside also those things which show that after Christ all are bound to embrace the Church instituted by him, and therefore, objectively speaking, societies are constituted outside the Church only by injustice; we observe only that the Church was founded by Christ, who is God, and consequently that civil society could legitimately be despoiled of some right which perhaps it previously possessed. To the third: even if it is granted that civil societies lose some rights if they are aggregated to the Church, still nothing odious follows from this, since at the same time they are increased by the greatest goods, as in number 603. Compare also the objections which we solved above, in number 85 and following.