WhatisCaesars1 CharlesDeKoninck 1963

AccordingtoCatholicdoctrine,asclarified(explicite)inrecenttimes(forwemustadmit aprogressinunderstandingtheprinciplesofChristianteaching,aprogressfosteredbyalong andgreatlyvariedexperience),thedistinctionbetweenStateandChurchisradical.Theends thatdefinethesesocietiesaredifferentandthesesocietiescanbecalledperfecttotheextent thattheyaresufficientuntothemselves.ThesayingofChristisverycategorical:Renderto CaesarwhatisCaesarsandtoGodwhatisGods.ToCaesarbelongscivilsocietyGod,on theotherhand,istheprincipleandendofanorderwhich,whiletranscendentwithregardto politicalsociety,leavesitsovereigninitsorder,autonomous,complete.Catholicsatleastmust beinagreementonthispointofdoctrine.Moreover,thisiswhatismeanttodayrather commonlybythesecularism(laicit)oftheState. Historically,theproblemofthissecularismhasbeenputintermsoftherelationbetween ChurchandState,especiallybetweentheCatholicChurchandpoliticalsociety.AsIhave suggestedelsewhere,itcouldbeputdifferently,onamoregenerallevel,becauseotherreligions infactexist,aswellasignoranceordenialofreligion.Inshort,wecouldstudythisquestionby comparingthegoodthatcharacterizespoliticalsocietytothegoodswhicharetranscendentand beyondthisgood.ButIdontbelievethatthisistheplacetodiscusstheprobleminthissense. Letusnote,however,thatfromtheCatholicpointofview,theseparationofthesetwocomplete societiesdoesnotpreventtheChurchfromhavingasocialdoctrineofitsown.Thisseparation issuch,inreality,thatthepoliticalsocietydoesnothavetherighttomakeitsownthisdoctrine asdoctrineoftheChurch,supernaturalfaithnotbeingabletobeaconditionofcitizenship. IntheheartoftheChristian,atoncecitizenandreligiousman,thereexists,withoutany doubt,anorderofsubordinationbetweentherespectiveendsofthetwosocietiesofwhichhe formsatthesametimeapart.Butthatisfarfromentailingthatthevisibleauthorityofthe ChurchcandictatetoCaesarinmattersforwhichCaesarmustanswerjustaswell,Caesar cannomoremixhimselfinthethingsoftheChurch.Whensuchinterferenceisproduced,it mustbeattributedtotheignoranceofmen,andnottothedoctrinethattheChristianassuch professes.Thiserrorhas,however,beencommittedinthecourseofhistoryandisyet maintainedinanumberofcountries,CatholicandnonCatholic. ItisremarkableandsignificantthatinthesynopticGospels,whichallthreerelatethe sayingofChrist,Caesarisnamedfirst.Thefactisthatifthedistinctionthatthissayingstatesis notfirstobservedinthetemporalorder,thetranscendentgoodofreligionwillbecompromisedin it.ForitbelongspreciselytotheStatetoensurethatlibertyofconsciencesberespectedbyall
1

TranslatedbyDavidQuackenbush

citizens.ThesecularismoftheStateiswhatguaranteesmyreligiouslibertyintheStateand amongitscitizens. * ** Giventhehumancondition,bothfornaturaltruthsmorefundamentalinthemselves,and thesupernatural,libertyofconscienceswilleventuallyinvolveapluralismthatishumanly inescapable.Wemaywellsaythatthispluralismisnottheidealtheidealsocietyisnomore realthantheidealgasofphysics.Indeed,theidealthatweconceive,comparedtoreality,tothe realizable,canbeveryfalse.TheidealChurch,definingitselfbytheholinessofallitsmembers, wouldbeonetowhichwewouldnothaveaccessandwhichwillnotexistattheendoftime.It isaswellgoodthattherebeschismsamongyouoportethaeresesesse(ICo1119).Which isnottosaythatweshouldcreatethemdeliberately,butrather,onthecontrary,thatwhat dependsonusisonlytolearnfromtheminordertounderstandwithmorediscernmentandto actwithmorewisdom.Fromthepointofviewofaction,theidealisthatwhichcanberealizedin thegivencircumstances,whicharealwayscontingent.Whatisidealtodaywouldhavebeen disastrousinthepast,andinversely. IdonotbelievethatitishenceforthpermittedtomaintainthattheStatecanagainconsent tobetheseculararmofareligioussociety.Evenwhenincertaincountriesthenational commongoodisinvoked,wecannotforgetthatthisgoodremainssubordinatedtothegoodof theinternationalcommunity,whichisfoundedonthelawofnations(ledroitdesgens).We mustavoidscandal,eventhescandaluminfirmorum.TobetheseculararmoftheChurch appearstometobecontrarytothenatureoftheStateascompletesociety,sovereignand autonomous.Tosayarmistosayorgan,tool,instrument.ChristdidnotsayRendertoGod whatisGodsbytheintermediaryofCaesar.Whydenythatsuchavassalageisintruth contraryaswelltotheveryindependenceoftheChurchinregardoftemporalpowers?When theStaterefusestobetheseculararmoftheChurch,itdoesnotrefusetheChurch,butthe menwhotendtooverstepandnotrespectwhatisCaesars.Itdoesnotseemtomethatmy Churchpermitsmetobeunjusttowardmyneighbor,whoeverhemaybe.Thereligiousmajority towhichIbelongisnotabodyofpersonsconfirmedinthegooditremainsamajoritythat alwaysrisksimposingitsnumericalweightevenwhereitoughtnotweigh.AsaCatholic,Iseein thesecularismoftheStateasalutarypowerdedicatedtosuppressingtheinjusticesofwhoever itmaybe.IfwerespectourChurch,wewillrespectaswellthosewhoarenotinit.Woulditnot benormalthataChristianbecapableofseeingtheChurchasthosewhoarenotofitsflockcan glimpseit?Ifwe,Catholics,Christians,arenotcapableofregardingourselvesfromwithout, withtheeyeoftheother,oftheneighbor,ourconceptionoftheChurchisatleasttruncated. Whootherthancivilsocietycouldprotectthelibertyofconsciences?Towhomdoesit fall,forexample,topubliclyandpracticallyaccordthepriorityofpaternalrightinthematterof education?Thepluralisminquestion,andwhichisaransomofliberty,isintimatelytiedtothe priorityofthisright.Civilsocietycandisregardneitherthisrightnoritsprioritywithoutdestroying

thefamily,withoutdoingviolencetothelibertyofconsciencesfromwhichfollows,inpractice, thediversityofbeliefs.Letusevensaythatrespectforthisliberty,andconsequentlyfor confessionalandnonconfessionaldiversity,isthesignofalegitimateandhealthysecularism which,forChristians,isaprincipleofdoctrine.Itfalls,indeed,totheStatetoseetoitthatthose whoareopposedinmattersofreligionshouldbesonotwithinpoliticallifebutatthelevelof religion. ItisunderstoodthattheChurchteachesthelibertyofconsciences,thepriorityofpaternal rightinthematterofeducation,tosuchanextentthattherefusalofthisteachingandofits applicationwouldbringspiritualsanctionsonthoseofitsmemberswhocommittedit.The ChurchtellsmethatitisaquestionofpreceptsofnaturalrightandIfirmlybelieveitbutquiteas firmlyIbelievethatnoonecanbeforcedtosubmithimselftotheauthorityoftheChurchas such,thedignityofafaithfreelyacceptedbeingcompromised.Inotherwords,whenthe pluralistStaterecognizesthepreceptsinquestion,itisnotbecauseonthefaithoftheChurch theyfallwithinnaturalright,butforthereasonthatwithoutthesepreceptsthepoliticallifewould notbeone. DoesthissecularismmeantosaythattheStateisneutralinthematterofreligion?Ifby neutralwemeanthattheStatecannotimposeareligionuponitscitizens,inthissensetheState mustbeneutral.However,wheretheexpressionsignifiesthattheStateplacesitselfonthe wholeabovereligiousdiversitiesorreturnstothepurerelativityofphilosophicalliberalisma dogmaticpositioninitsownwayandatributaryofatotalitarianisminwhichthepartabsorbsthe wholeIwouldfinditinadmissibleitwouldresultinamannerofforcingmetoadoptsucha philosophy.LetusnoteinthisconnectionthatthesecularismoftheStateisinnowaytiedtothe doctrineofphilosophicalliberalism,eventhough,historically,thisphilosophyhasfurnishedthe occasionofposingthequestionofsecularismmoreprecisely. If,now,wejuxtaposethetextsoftheecclesiasticalMagisteriumonthisquestion,nothing iseasierthanfindingitinflagrantcontradictionwithitself.Anditisverytruethat,supposingthat weabstractfromthehistorical,contingentcircumstancesinwhichtheChurchhaspronounced, andthatwetakenoaccountofthediversesignificationofwordsaccordingtothetimeandthe context,theMagisteriumcontradictsitself.Butthetimeshavechanged,andthemeaningof wordshaschanged.Whywouldwesetourselvestodisregardingit? SomewillperhapsprotestthatthesecularismoftheStateimpliesanegativeattitude towardreligion.HowcanthisbeassertedwhentheStateisobligedtoitinviewofthecommon good,ofpeace,andinordertosafeguardthefreepracticeofreligion?Respectforthefreedom ofconsciencestrueorfalseonesisnotalevelingofallconsciencesitissimplytherespect dueeventothepersonwhoseconscienceiserroneousinoureyes. ItisappropriatetocitehereapassagefromthetalkrecentlygivenbyCardinalBeaatthe ProDeoUniversityinRome,onlibertyofconsciences,andwhichappearedonFebruary25in LeDevoir:Anotheraberrationofamisunderstoodloveofthetruthisfoundinthepainfulwarsof

religion,when,inthenameofthetruth,itwasattemptedtoimposewithforcecertainconvictions onothermen,denyinganotlessfundamentalfactoftheloveofthetruth,namely,thelibertyof man. Thislibertymeanstherightofmantodecidehisowndestinyfreely,accordingtohis ownconscience.Fromthislibertyisbornthedutyandtherightofmantofollowhisown conscience,aright,andadutytowhichcorrespondthedutyoftheindividualandofthesociety torespectthislibertyandthispersonaldecision... Toonewhowouldobjectherethaterrordoesnothavetherighttoexist,itsufficesto replythaterrorissomethingabstract,andfromthisfactitisnottheobjectofaright,butman, yes,evenifhemisleadhimselfinvincibly,thatistosaywithoutpowerofcorrectinghimself!He hasthereforethedutyandtherighttofollowhisconscienceandthuslikewisetherightthatthis independenceberespectedbyall.2 * ** Toreturntotheidealsociety.Weareoftenremindedthatintheopinionofphilosopherssuchas PlatoandAristotle,themonarchicalregimewasthebettersolongasthemonarchgoverned withtheassentofhispeople.Buttheyfounditequallythemostdangerous,becauseofthe concentrationofpowerandthepossibilityofmaintainingthispoweragainstthewillofthepeople: thepassagetotyrannyiseasy,whichdestroyspoliticalsocietyassuch.Wecanaskourselves ifChristiancivilsocietyundertheformrealizedincertainepochsofhistorydidnotinvolvesimilar dangers.Themostrecentcenturiesincontestablyindicateso.Atootightconnectionbetween theStateandreligionisapttopresentatthesametimethegreatestmenaceforreligion.This wasthecasewithancientRomeinwhichCaesar,atonceemperorandsovereignpontiff, becamethereforeapersecutorofChristians.Itgoesprettymuchthesamewaywhenthe Churchminglesoralliesitselfintimatelywiththecivilpower.TheMiddleAgesknewregrettable persecutions,atthemomentwhenChristiansocietyappearedtobeideal. Wefindourselvesbeforeafactclearlyestablishedbyexperience,thatifareligion becomesareligionofState,therewillfollowtheconfusionofallegiancesofwhichhistoryoffers ussomanycruelconsequencesasexamples.Further,tryasonemay,ithardlyfollowsfrom thesayingofChristquotedabovethatareligionshouldbetransformedintoareligionofthe State.LetusnotforgetthatChristansweredthustopeoplewho,justastheCaesars,fashioned forthemselvesatheocraticconceptionofthecivilcommunity. IsitnotpossiblefortheStateandworthyofittoacknowledgeapublicstatusfor everymetapoliticalpositionwhichisinpracticecompatiblewiththepublicpeace?Thiswould notimplyineverycasetheslightestapprobationofsuchorsuchopinionorposition,exceptthe
2

(Documentationinappendixoforiginal)

simplepositiverecognitionofarighttotherespectofconsciences,whateverbetheirreputed truth.ItisinthisthattheattitudeoftheStatetowardpluralismispositive.Itwouldbenegativeif inthesematterstheStateaccordedprivilegestoonegrouptotheexclusionofothers.Thusit wouldfailtobealegitimateandhealthysecularism.Inactinginaccordwiththissecularism,the Staterevealsitselfinfacttobeinaccord,withouthavingtoproclaimitpublicly,withtheteaching ofOurLord. Insteadofembitteringourselvesoverpontificaltexts,orbeingtroubledbytheequivocal appearancetheyacquirefromreadingthemasiftheywerewrittenincontemporarylanguage, thereisonthecontraryeveryreasontorejoiceforfinallyitisgiventous,forus,simple Christiansandcitizens,fromthefactofthevicissitudesandthelessonsofhistory,without doubt,andperhapsforyetothergrounds,toknowtheplainmeaningandthepracticalscopeof thesayingofChristthatwemustrepeat:RendertoCaesarwhatisCaesarsrendertoGod whatisGods.