Separation ofChurch and State

"The religious liberty proclaimed by the First Amendmeniis not a piece of religious mysticism, but a practical poUti-cal principle, ethically grounded on the obligations of the

State to the consciences of its ciâzens

and to its own end—social harmony,

John Courtney Murray, SJ. ^.asperity and peace."

With the advent of cold weather, the fires of religiouscontroversy may be expected once again to blaze upcheerily. They die down during the summer, quite under-standably; for—to paraphrase a famous saying—miserywere it, in those scorching days, to be alive, hut to bein controversy were very hell. However, as autnmn wearson to winter, a man can catch his hreath, and perhapsuse a bit of it to blow up some of the dying embers.

The chief embers already brightly glowing are, ofcourse, those of the old "separation of Church and State"issue. They were blown up most recently (.and withreckless success) in Wisconsin, in the debate over bustransportation for parochial-school children. And dozensof articles and speeches will make the blaze hotter andhotter. 1 think, however, that what the whole controversyneeds is a lot more light, rather than more heat.

I hear it said, of course, that we Catholics cause con-fusion and dismay to our Protestant brethren by ourstand on religious liberty. But my initial and frank replyis that we are not tbe prime cause of the confusion. As amatter of fact, the Protestant mind is itself natively con-fused, endemically unclear in this whole matter. Evi-dence of the fact may readily be gathered hy goingthrough the theoretical part of Dr. Bates's recent book.Religious Liberty: An Inquiry. The confusion of thoughtthat pervades the whole book grows almost riotous whenthe author takes up the nature and grounds of religiousliberty. He does indeed make it obvious that Protestantsare most terrifically in moral earnest over the so-called"principle of separation of Church and State," but hefails rather signally to explain what kind of "principle"it is, and what it rests on, demands, implies or excludes.

Similar confusions appear in contemporary discussionsof the first clause in the First Amendment to the U. S.Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercisethereof." These words, it is said, emhody the "principleof separation of Church and State." Then the confusionbegins. Imperceptibly it is assumed that the First Amend-ment is a theological document—a sort of dogmaticdecree that lays down a rule of faith. Thereafter it sud-denly appears that the First Amendment implicitly "estab-lishes," as the obligatory belief of the American people,the doctrine that aU churches are simply voluntary socie-ties, of equally human origin and of equal value in thesight of God, each of them offering to man an equallygood way to eternal salvation. In other words, it appearsthat the First Amendment canonizes Liberal Protestantecclesiology in an extreme form, and anathematizes asun-American all dissenters. From this premise, it ispossible to condemn Catholicism as an alien thing, aheresy from the "democratic faith," because it deniesthe equality of all religions before God. and even denies

that all religions must, of intrinsic necessity and in allcircumstances, be declared equal before the constitu-tional law of every land. It is further possible to accuseCatholics of suporting the First Amendment only "inpractice" (on grounds of expediency) and not "in prin-ciple" (on ground.^ of conviction) ; the reason, of course,Í3 that Catholics deny in principle the ecclesiology sup-posedly contained in the First Amendment.

This whole line of thought is ordinarily not put asbaldly as I have put it; hut one detects its presence. Andit gets the whole controversy off to a bad start. It makesthe First Amendment do the very thing that Congress isforbidden by the First Amendment to do, namdy, to playthe theologian and promulgate articles of faith.

We should, therefore, make some advance toward clar-ity if we could all agree to take the First Amendmentexactly for what it is—not a theological, but a politicaldocument. It does not define a concept of the Church buta concept of the State. Fundanientally, the First Amend-ment asserts that political sovereignty is limited by therights of conscience inherent in man. It has simply anethical and a political content. Its ethical content is thedoctrine that religious conscience is immune from gov-ernmental coercion. And its political content is the asser-tion that the rights of conscience will be most securelyprotected and the political ends of the American Statemost effectively furthered by guaranteeing the equalityof all religious consciences (and, by implication, of allreligious bodies) before the law. It cannot be too muchemphasized that the religious liberty proclaimed by theFirst Amendment is not a piece of religious mysticism,but a practical political principle, ethically grounded onthe obligations of the State to the consciences of itscitizens and to its own end—social harmony, prosperityand peace. One can indeed cast up a theology of religiousliberty, but one may not legitimately read it into the FirstAmendment.

It is historically evident that the First Amendment hada factual premise—the religio-social situation in thenascent republic. All Americans were memhers of the onepolitical community, but not all were members of theone religious community. This fact put a problem togovernment; in fact, governments all over Europe hadbeen wrestling with it for more than a century. But theywere hampered in their efforts by the stubborn perdur-ance of the medieval "one-society" theory. This theorj-held that religious imity was essentially constittitive ofsocial unity, and that community of faith was integralto the common temporal good; in consequence, it heldthat the state was charged with the preservation of re-ligious unity, as the price of its own preservation, andthat dissenters from the official faith could be only"second-class" citizens.

AMERICA DECEMBER 7, 1946 261

In its essence this theory was simply political, nottheological. It was in no wise part of the Christian faith.But at the end of the eighteenth century it was still thecommon property of both Catholics and Protestants. Incolonial Virginia, for instance, baptism into the AnglicanChurch was regarded as a compulsory initiation into citi-zenship, and support of the Establishment was a duty.

It is a tribute to American political genius that thistheory was finally buried, unwept, in American soil. Andits death was accomplished, so far as the national gov-ernment was concerned, hy the First Amendment. Hb-torical experience, in the Colonies as in Europe, haddemonstrated that the attempt to create or restore re-ligious unity by governmental coercion of dissenters wasthe highest political unwisdom. It defeated its own goal—social unity—by introducing religious divisions intosocial life, and thus making them all the more bitter.Consequently, there was put into the First Amendmenta prohibition against the use of government authority tocreate an official American faith and enforce adherenceto it as the bond of national unity. The national politicalcommunity was to achieve its own proper unity, on apolitical level; in order to do so, it was to remain"separate" from the religious community with all itsinner divisions. In turn, the religious community, so faras government was concerned, was to be free to bedivided; but to this end, it had to remain "separate"from the united political community, and not let its owndivisions disrupt the sphere of civic life. In the circum-stances, this "separation" was the only way to socialpeace.

It was, therefore, initially in the name of the state'sown end that the First Amendment uttered its prohibitionagainst a State Church and against state interference withthe rights of conscience. Religious liherty was rightlyregarded as functional to & particular political orderand its unity. In this sense, therefore, the so-called "prin-ciple of separation of Church and State" appears as apolitical principle; for it is related to a political end.

However, the legitimate and necessary political prag-matism of the First Amendment rests, at a more profoundlevel, on absolute and sound ethieal doctrine. The FirstAmendment does more than recognize, as its factual basis,the religious pluralism existent in American society; asits essential ethical basis, it recognizes the dualism in-herent in man himself. Every individual is a civic person.a member of organized society, subject to the authorityof its government, ordained to its earthly end. And everyindividual is likewise a religious person, a creature ofGod, subject to the authority of conscience, and or-dained to an end transcending time. This dualism is in-herent in the very nature of man. And every man hasthe right to have his nature respected for what it is.As citizens of a state, therefore, all men, whatever theirreligion, have the right to be equal in their civic libertiesand in the freedom of their access to all the benefits oforganized society. As religious men, all citizens haveequal right, as against the state, to follow in every ra-tional way the will of God as it is known to them throughconscience.

The First Amendment recognizes this dual set of rights,as flowing from man's dual capacity. Consequently, itforbids government so to legislate as to establish distinc-tions in citizenship on grounds of religious belief; aman's religion cannot he made a civic asset or liability.Similarly, government is forbidden so to legislate asto coerce religious conformity as tbe condition of civicequality; a man's civic status cannot be made to dependon his religion. The civic person and the religious personare to be "separate" in law as they are distinct in nature.

This distinction between ihe citizen and the believeris the basic ethical content of the First Amendment; atbottom, it is ihe principle of the First Amendment. In itsessential political consequences, valid in all social con-texts, it means the limitation of governmental authorityto the area of civic life, and the immunity of the re-ligious conscience from all coercive pressures exertedby any agency of government. And in its further neces-sary consequences in the American scene, given thereligious pluralism of our society, it means constitutionalequality for all religious beliefs and for all the religiousbodies in which they are held. It is the fact of the plural-ism that induces the necessity of the equality; were thereonly one faith, the problem of equality would simply notarise.

However, in the U. S. there are a dozen major faiths,as well as hundreds of smaller sects. All are faiths held

by those who are equallyAmerican citizens, and whoare not to suffer inequalitiesin their citizenship by reasonof their faith. In the face ofthis situation, there is noother course open to govern-ment than to regard thefaiths of those who areequally its citizens as faithsequal in its eyes. Were it todo otherwise, it would in-stahtly confuge religion withcitizenship, br ing religiousconsciences somehow under

pressure, and thus violate the essential principle en-shrined in the First Amendment.

In terms such as these one should construct an ex-planation of the First Amendment that would he properlydevoid of all illegitimate theologizing or false mysticismabout freedoni of religion. What one should basically sayis that the United States, hy virtue of the First Amend-ment, is a "lay" state, in a unique and American senseof the term. And one should add that it is a "lay" statein consequence of ethical principle, and in the light ofthe factual American situation, and for the sake of itsown end. It retains proper authority over the lay lifeof its citizens—their life as citizens; but it has no au-thority over their religious lives. It may not pretend tobe a theologian, or a prophet of the way to eternal salva-tion. In Madison's phrase, it is "not a competent judge ofreligious truths," and it has no power to enforce theiracceptance. As a layman in matters of religion, the Amer-

262 AMERICA DECEMBER 7. 1946

ican stale respects the religious autnuiity inherent inthe consciences of its citizens. The authorities conflict;but the state stands outside their conflict. It cannotsilence any particular religious utterance, because it isthe utterance of one of its citizens; on the other hand, itcannot espouse any religious utterance, because it is theutterance of only one of its citizens.

Nevertheless, it does not profess itself to be atheist oreven agnostic. As a matter of fact, it professes neitherknowledge nor ignorance in religious matters; it simplymaintains reverence for knowledge or ignorance as theseare present in its citizens. It does not deny or doubt thatthere is a religious authority; it simply denies that it isitself a religious authority. And for this reason it respectswhatever religious authority is accepted by any of thosewhose temporal good it serves. Its single aim is to servethem all impartially, regardless of their religion. In thispeculiarly American sense, the United Siatís is a "lay"or "secular" state, and therefore "separate" from theChurch; though in certain public acts it honors God.

One could possibly say, therefore, that the FirstAmendment embodies the "principle of separation ofChurch and State." But the formula is bad in itself andmisleading in its connotations. At least, one should hecareful to add that this "principle" is realized in theUnited States in a peculiarly American form, in conse-quence of a natively American and entirely valid theoryof religious liberty. That is why Catholics support it, notonly in practice (as expedient for themselves) but inprinciple (as sound in itself). When they opposed, andoppose, "separation of Church and State" elsewhere, theyopposed and oppose something quite different in princi-ple—a "lay" state predicated on atheistic or agnosticprinciples, militantly aggressive in its opposition to re-ligion, and deliberately contemptuous of the religiousrealities of an historic situation. Fortunately, in America,when Americans are called on to support "in principle"(he First Amendment, they are not called on to supportthe principles of Deism, or absolute rationalism, orLiheral Protestantism. The First Amendment itself for-hids that such a demand be made on them. It forbids,

too, its own interpretation in such sectarian categories. Initself, it simply puts forward a political solution to thepolitical problem put by the existence of many religionswithin one political community. The solution is based onsound ethical principle. And Catholics support it to thehilt, "in principle." They have, it is true, their owntheology of religious liherty; so do Protestants. Butneither Catholic nor Protestant theology is written intothe First Amendment. If we could all get that much clear,it would be a great gain.

It would be a great gain, too, if it were agreed to dropthe deceptive formula, "separation of Church and State."It is not an American coinage. Its origins were Con-tinental; it was the shibboleth of the bitterly anti-religious factions in the Europe of the nineteenth century.And its currency in America has been given it both hysecularists who want American society free from religion,and by Protestants who desire to make use of the over-tones of religious prejudice attached to the formula. Theconfused polemist can, of course, make use of the formulato great effect: "Catholics support separation of Churchand State in the United States; they oppose it in Spain.You see, therefore, what unprincipled power-politiciansthey are; they act solely on immoral grounds of ex-pediency." The argument has gone over in a big wayof late in the United States; the confused polemists havepopularized their confusion with great success. But thewhole success has been due to the ambiguity of theslogan, "separation of Church and State."

It is rather time to end the ambiguity, and kill all thefalse issues it raises. Why not drop the slogan? Admit-tedly less appeal would be made to latent bigotry if onewere to say that the First Amendment embodies theprinciple of the "lay" state, in a peculii.rly Americanrealization of that institution; and if one were then to goon to explain, historically and philosophically, the princi-ples in the name of which the American state is "lay."However, that is the truth. And I should not like to thinkthat our fair-minded Protestant friends use the slogan,"separation of Church and State," hecause of its appealto the bigoted.

Toward civilizedindustrial relations

"If the debate over industrial relations, which has ragedall during the past year, proves anything, it proves thatthe problem of industrial peace is extraordinarily complex

and that there are no simple solutions

Benjamin L. Masse '° f-^f'^"' "". «"•P'. that can be written into law.

Before John L. Lewis made his fateful, and stupid, de-cision to challenge the Government of the United States,chances were that the Republican-dominated 80th Con-gress would have passed some mildly regulatory laborlegislation and called it a day.

This would not have satisfied the fire-eaters in theParty, but they would have been forced to go along. With1948 in view, cahner heads would have prevailed andnothing would have been done to antagonize needlesslythe 15 million members of organized labor and their

families and friends. When a party has been out of theWhite House for four terms, it implies no cynicism tosay that its primary concern is to get back into office, andthat almost every other consideration will be subordi-nated to this one.

But the coal strike has changed this picture. It is quiteprobable now that the 80th Congress, »wept along on atide of popular feeling, will write some really cripplinglegislation, and it is no longer certain that PresidentTruman will veto it. Indeed, if the Government, to pre-

AMERICA DECEMBER 7, 1946 263