The Doctrinal Issue Between the Church and Democracy

There is in our time a common disposition to dodge the doctrinal issues which, ever since the French Revolution, have been causing tension between the Church and democracy. Even in countries where democratic parties are traditionally dedicated to secularism, the aggressive action of common enemies has urgently suggested, for two decades or so, that some sort of alliance should replace the old conflicts. Many people would like to think that the time has come to ignore divergences that are "merely" doctrinal: enough problems will be left anyway. They argue that with all the difficulties confronting us, the doctrinal ones should be set aside as having no urgent character and perhaps no importance whatever.

Such an approach implies pragmatic postulations that bar the understanding of any issue in which Catholic doctrine is involved. In Catholicism the maintenance of the true principles in dogma and morals is always the most urgent of all tasks. Believers and unbelievers as well must recognize that the prudent management of historical situations never can supersede or render unnecessary the statement of principles and the clear definition of irreducible antinomies. In the long run lucidity is more beneficial to all than confusion. Let it be said that the need for cooperation between the Church and democracy makes it more necessary than ever that troublesome problems of doctrine be examined with entire frankness.

Between the Church and the modern state the doctrinal issues of major significance are three: (1) the general relation of the state to religion (will Church and state be united in some way, or entirely separated?); (2) freedom of belief and expression; (3) the origin and ultimate meaning of temporal power. With regard to the first two points, the positions generally held by democratic thinkers are not connected with democracy in specific fashion. The doctrine of the religious neutrality of the state and that of unqualified freedom of expression can be asserted and put in practice by a monarchical or an aristocratic polity as well as by a democracy. They are, in essence, liberal rather than democratic. In fact, their first and most effective promoters were oligarchically-inclined bourgeois. But the problem of the origin and meaning of temporal power concerns the specific essence of democracy. The thing which is discussed (most of the time, in extreme confusion) under such headings as "origin of power," "government by consent of the governed," and "sovereignty of the people versus divine right," pertains directly to the differentia of democratic government. The literature on this subject is huge. It is often perverted by the deliberate purpose of vindicating historical appetites in terms of eternal truth. Its level is generally very low. The really valuable documents are few and not commonly read.

The main purpose of this paper is to set forth, in comparative fashion, the Catholic teaching on civil authority and a certain interpretation of democracy which, both on the side of its upholders and on the side of the Church, has many times been described as unacceptable to Catholic conscience. Whether this interpretation expresses the essence of democracy or a perversion of it is a question that nobody has a right to beg.

Less than one year after the first meeting of the Estates General, less than six months after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the Church expressed her disapproval of the theory of political authority to which the French Revolution seemed to be dedicated. At the secret Consistory of March 29, 1790, Pius VI spoke with anguish of things that were being done by the Constituent Assembly; he deplored attacks against religion and broken pledges; he traced these events to erroneous doctrines among which he mentioned the theory that none is bound by any laws except those to which he gave his consent.¹ Similar expressions were used in a number of Church documents, the most important of which are the Encyclicals of Leo XIII, Diuturnum (June 29, 1881) and Immortale dei (November 1, 1885), and the Letter of Pius X on the Sillon (August 25, 1910). On the basis of these documents...