4. The separation of church

and state

been notably relaxed. Only the presence of the Anglican bishops in the House of Lords reminds an indifferent generation of the intimate connection which once obtained between churchmen and statesmen, and of the importance formerly attached to religious considerations in the conduct of affairs of state. But, though religious unity is now held of little account by British statesmen, who have learned to look elsewhere for the foundations of that solidarity among their people which is essential to political stability, they have hitherto made no serious proposals for that complete separation of church and state, which, according to Locke, was the necessary consequence of any consistent policy of religious toleration, and which has actually been brought about in several of the British overseas dominions, notably in the Commonwealth of Australia.1

Modern states have adopted the policy of complete separation of church and state with even greater reluctance than that with which they accepted the principle of toleration. The logic of events forced the British Parliament to disestablish the Church of England in Ireland a half century ago. An intelligent liberal, John Stuart Mill, even thought that the establishment of religious equality in that unhappy country would remove the cause of Irish discontent. Subsequent events have shown how much more important than religious feeling nationalistic sentiment and class consciousness have been in determining the relations between the English and Irish peoples in modern times. In Wales, though the mass of the people had long abandoned their attachment to the Church of England, that church was not disestablished until the World War. In France increasing friction between statesmen and churchmen finally led in 1905 to the termination of the

1 Commonwealth of Australia Act of 1900, Article 116.

2 See Bulletins of Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, 1917-1918, No. 18.

Concordat between the Republic and the Holy See and the complete separation of church and state.

of church

In America church and state were first organized as sep- Separation arate entities in the colonies of Maryland and Rhode Island; and state but the policy of separation did not generally prevail in America until the Revolution. Jefferson had his authorship of the Virginia statute of religious freedom, which disestablished the Church of England in that State, inscribed on his tombstone as one of the three great acts of his life, along with the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791, forbade the Congress to make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but the last of the established state churches, that of Massachusetts, was not deprived of its special privileges until 1833. The complete separation of church and state in that commonwealth was not accomplished until 1917, when a constitutional amendment was adopted prohibiting the grant of public money to any institution not under public control. Thus the policy of state aid to ecclesiastical activities was definitely renounced. Church and state are not yet completely separated in the United States. There is still one State in which none but Protestants may hold the highest offices, and there are several in which the State contributes to the support of ecclesiastical institutions. But the principle of toleration is universally and firmly established.

The policy of the United States has been widely followed among the states whose political development has been influenced by American experience. Among the Latin American states of this description the most notable in this connection is the Republic of Brazil. By the Federal The policy constitution of 1891, the State governments as well as that of the Union are forbidden to establish, subsidize, or

of Brazil

Relations between the

Italy and the Papacy

interfere with the exercise of religious worship or to impose any civil disability on account of religious belief. There is no religious qualification for any office, and no one may be compelled against his will to render any public service to which he conscientiously objects, but those who on the ground of conscience object to the performance of any civil duty forfeit their political rights. Church and state are absolutely separate and distinct, but a citizen may, if he chooses, put his ecclesiastical above his political obligations. Thus the principle of passive obedience is deliberately abandoned, and the sovereignty of the state in political affairs is expressly limited by the sovereignty of the church in affairs ecclesiastical.

Greater difficulties in adjusting the relations between kingdom of state and church arose in Italy after the consolidation of the nationalist kingdom by the absorption of the States of the Church in 1870. In this instance the refusal of the Holy See to recognize an accomplished fact compelled the Italian monarchy to dictate a one-sided arrangement by the exertion of its political authority to the utmost. The original Italian Constitution of 1848 had provided that the apostolic Roman Catholic religion should be the state religion, although other cults, then existing, were to be tolerated in accordance with law. No religious qualifications had been prescribed for state officials, but the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops were foremost among the classes of dignitaries from whom the king should appoint the senators of the realm. Evidently the original plan had been to govern the state in close association with the church. But the occupation of Rome by the royal forces in 1870 and the resulting breach between the Vatican and the Quirinal prevented any readjustment of the relations between church and state by mutual agreement. The church adopted the policy of ignoring the existence of the state, while avoiding an open conflict by

refraining from any conduct which would directly challenge the supremacy of the state within the field of secular politics. Its loyal members were advised to take no part in the government of the state and even to abstain from participation in the parliamentary elections. The state, on the other hand, defined its relation to the church in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, adopted in 1871.

This measure declared the person of the Supreme The Law of the Papal Pontiff to be sacred and inviolable. It provided that Guarantees attempts upon his life should be punishable like those upon that of the king, and that insults upon his dignity should be punishable as libels. It assured him within the kingdom the sovereign honors usually accorded to him by Catholics, the exclusive use of the Vatican and other church property, and an annual income of generous proportions. It guaranteed the privileges and immunities of ecclesiastics and of diplomatic representatives of foreign powers accredited to the Holy See. It extended to the Supreme Pontiff the use of the postal and telegraph services and provided for the protection of papal couriers within the kingdom. It abandoned any right it might have claimed to supervise the management of ecclesiastical seminaries and left the education of the Catholic clergy entirely to the church. It abolished all special restrictions on the right of the clergy to assemble, and renounced on behalf of the state the right of appointment to the major benefices throughout the kingdom. Bishops were released from the obligation to swear fealty to the king, and the requirement that the publication of ecclesiastical proclamations and official acts be authorized by the government was rescinded. It further provided that there should be no right of appeal to civil tribunals from the decisions of the ecclesiastical authorities in matters of spiritual discipline, and on the other hand that such decisions should not be executed by the civil authorities. But the latter were

of Italian

empowered to determine the legal effect of ecclesiastical decisions in so far as they might concern one's civil rights. The law provided expressly that ecclesiastics, committing acts contrary to the laws of the kingdom or inimical to public order, should be subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts, and that such acts should be treated as null and void. Thus the royal government sought to safeguard the special prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff and assure the essential privileges of the Holy See without compromising the necessary independence of the state in its proper sphere.

Significance The respectful consideration shown to the church by experience the Italian monarchy was no more acceptable to the papal authorities than the aggressive hostility of the Prussian monarchy. But the result of the conflict was very different. Prussia, though a Protestant state, was unable to sustain its domineering attitude. Italy, though more of its people professed the Catholic religion than any other, was able to adhere to its policy of tolerant non-intervention in ecclesiastical affairs, until during the Great War the Papacy abandoned its irreconcilable attitude and acquiesced in the separation of church and state. At the first elections after the restoration of peace faithful Catholics were urged to go to the polls and the Catholic party became one of the important factors in the conduct of political affairs. Thus the modern world received another great object lesson in the futility of attempts to establish either state churches or church-states which are not supported by the opinion of the body of people concerned. State and church alike find their true character in the purposes of their members, not in the pretensions to power of those who undertake to rule them. Sovereignty, ecclesiastical or political, means that degree of authority in church or in state, as the case may be, which people choose to recognize; nor can it mean more, despite