TOLERATION
771
TOLERATION
and State proceed hand in hand and in perfect har-
mony to promote by their common efTorts the tem-
poral and eternal hapiiiness of their common subjects.
As it is unnatural for a married couple to live sepa-
rated, although separation may be defended in partic-
ular instances as the better or less harmful arrange-
ment in view of quarrels which have arisen, so also the
ideal relation between Church and State is to be
found, not in the separation of the two, but in their
harmonious co-operation (cf. Pius IX, Encyclical
"Quanta cura" of 8 December, 1864; Syllab. prop.
5.5). As a practical proof of the internal advantages
of a separation in i)riiici])le, it is usual to point to the
example of the United .States, which has extended the
blessing of its liberal Constitution in recent years to
its newly-acquired colonies of Porto Rico and the
Philippine Islands. But, while it may be granted with-
out reserve that both Church and State seem to pros-
per exceedingly well in their friendly juxtaposition,
it would be rash to speak of the situation as ideal. It
must, however, be acknowledged that no other land
in the world has so honourably maintained the ami-
cable separation of Church and State, -while in some
European countries the law of separation was unfor-
tunately only a pretext for a more ■(•iolent attack on
the rights of the Church. Not without good reason
did Leo XIII in his Brief of 1902, addressed to the
American hierarchy, express his approval of a wise
and patriotic adaptation to the national and legal
conditions of the United States. He could do this
with a good conscience, although in his Encyclical
"Immortale Dei" of 1 November, 1885, he had de-
clared the harmonious union of the two highest
powers the ideal situation, and had referred to con-
cordats as the means of arranging questions bordering
on both jurisdictions. If the United States forms the
sole honourable exception to the rule, this is due partly
to the fact that the State neglects neither the religious
factor at large nor Christianity, as is shown by the
strict laws concerning Sunday observance. Christian
monogamy, and the celebration of Thanksgiving Day.
What F. Walter WTote fifty years ago is still true
to-day: "Even in the United States of North Amer-
ica, to which people so readily appeal, religion is not
regarded as a matter of indifference to the State, but
is presupposed as the State's complement " ("Natur-
recht und Politik im Lichte der Gegenwart ", Bonn,
186.3, p. 495).
(2) By a CathoHc State we understand a commu- nity which is composed exclusively of Catholic sub- jects and which recognizes CathoUeism as the only true religion. In this ca.se al.so the relations between Church and State may be different, according as the two powers are clo.sely united for offence and defence, or, while each maintains its independence, are less compactly joined. The first kind of union finds its truest ex-pression in the "religious state", a distinctive feature of the Middle Ages, while the second or looser union may be realized in a constitutional state that admits various denominations and yet retains its Christian character. In view of the difference of the fundamental ideas on which the.se two forms of state are based, the principles of political tolerance are sub- ject to important modifications.
(a) Every religious State, Catholic or Protestant, presupposes by its very existence that all or nearly all the citizens have the same faith, otherwise it would be contrary to natural justice and practically impo.s- sible. In certain cases such a State must take drastic measures to expel or exclude all elements which do not fit into its framework. Thus a Protestant religious State was forcibly instituted in England under Queen Elizabeth by clearing the country of all Catholics, and the Diet of I'psala in l.')93 strove to preserve the strictly Lutheran character of Sweden by making the immigration of Catholics punishable with death. The situation of the Cathohc religious State in the Middle
Ages was somewhat, though not entirely, similar. The
medieval idea required that the State should lend the
secular arm to the Church for the maintenance of all
her doctrines, laws, and ordinances, and that in re-
turn it should receive from the Church spiritual sup-
port in all purely secular affairs. Thus State and
Church formed the two all-embracing members of the
one Christian body, assisting and supporting each
other in the broad field of all secular and ecclesiastical
interests. Empire and papacy, like body and soul,
formed an organic whole. Citizen and Catholic were
interchangeable terms. The rebel against the Church
was regarded as likewise a rebel against the State, and
conversely the ]jo!itical r(n-olutionary was by that
very fact an enemy of the Church. Whoever was
stricken with excommunication finally incurred also
imperial ban, and the imperial ban brought excommu-
nication in its train. It is true that many advantages
must be conceded to the religious State. We see an
imposing and elevating idea rendered concrete in the
supreme dominion of tlie Christian spirit throughout
the civic, national, and religious life, in the organic
connexion of the secul.ar and the religious government,
and in the strengthening of the state authority by the
Church and of ecclesiastical authority by the State.
These great advantages, however, must not cause us
to overlook the numerous drawbacks which this mys-
tical marriage of Church and State involved. First
of all, in consequence of the fusion of (he objects of the
State and of religion, the Cathohc religious State was
compelled to adopt an attitude of fundamental intol-
erance towards all errors of faith, which became so
many crimes against the State. Viewed from the his-
torical standpoint one may justly doubt whether the
bloody persecutions resulted in greater blessings and
advantages or in greater want, hate, and suffering for
Christendom (cf. De Laveley, "Le gouvernement
dans la democratic", I, Paris, 1892, pp. 157-62). It
is certain that the odium for all those severities and
cruelties had to be borne, not by the State which in-
flicted them, but rather by the Church, since she
seemed to stand behind ail these measures as the
secret motive force, even though she did not know,
much less justify many of them. We endeavoured
above without partiality to appraise these accusations
against (he Church at their true value. To refer
briefly to another gloomy .aspect of this question, the
ecclesiastical right to meddle directly in purely secular
affairs might easily become a dangerous prerogative,
inasmuch as the infliction of excommimication for
purely political offences must necessarily have
brought ecclesiastical jienalties, especially when they
were unjustly inflicted, into grea( discredit among
princes and peojile. On the other hand, the right of
protection exercised by the sovereign in ecclesiastical
matters, often withou( or even against (he wish of the
popes, ha<i for its unavoidable consequence the loss of
public respect for both authorities. The proverbial
contest between impcrixim and snccrdntium, which
practically runs through the whole history of the
Middle Ages, redounded in fact to the advant.age of
neither. A third disadvantage, arising essentially
from the religious State, may not be pas.scd over in
silence; this consists in the danger that the clergy,
trusting blindly to the interference of the secular arm
in (heir beiialf, may easily sink in(o dull resignation
and spiritual torpor, while (he lai(y, owing to the re-
ligious surveillance of (he S(a(e, may develop rather
into a race of hypocrites and pietLsts than into
inwardly convinced Christians. A Catholic clergy
which relies on State assistance for its pastoral ac-
tivity lacks that glowing zeal for .souls which springs
from heartfelt convictions, and (he vi(ali(y and sin-
cerity of religion are grie\-ously impaired wlien prac-
tices of piety are made compulsory by the State. The
last and most serious disadvantage associated with the
religious State hes in the immanent danger that the
