Joseph Cardinal Höffner CHRISTIAN SOCIAL ... - Ordo Socialis

a) Church and state go back „to the same origin, namely, God“ (Pius XII, October 29, l947).
In consequence of the Christocentrism of all creation, all natural-law orders are also related to
Christ.
b) Church and state occupy themselves „with the same man, with his personal, natural or supernatural,
dignity“ (Pius XII, October 29, l947). In many questions such as the sequence of
holy days, marriage law, and the school system, the field of duties of Church and state touch
upon one another („mixed concerns“). „Inasmuch as each of these two powers has authority
over the same subjects--related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing...the
course of each“ must be „in right correlation with the other“ (Immortale Dei).
c) The form of relatedness between Church and state that results from the commission of the
Church to be the guardian and preacher of the moral order is particularly full of tension. On
November 9, l903, Pius X declared that he foresaw „that some will take offence when we
declare“ that we are obligated to protect „the principles of order, authority, justice, and fairness,“
and to do so „in private and public life,“ and also „in the social and political realms.“
Along the same lines, Pius XII says: „It belongs to the indisputable jurisdiction of the Church
to determine in those concerns of social life which approach or already touch the realm of
morality whether the foundations of the current social order agree with the eternally valid
order that God, the creator and redeemer, has made manifest through natural law and revelation“
(June l, l94l).
2. Historically, the relation between Church and State has assumed very different forms:
a) In the system of Church states, such as the ecclesiastical principalities before the French
Revolution and the Papal States, the same person was the holder of spiritual and secular
power. Considerable objections are to be raised against this combination which stems from
German thought, since this system leads to a blurring of the boundaries between the two
realms, and since difficulties and errors in the management of the state threaten to undermine
confidence in the pope and bishops.
b) The system of theocracy (hierocracy) is untenable, since the autonomy of the state is here
mistaken or denied.
c) The state-church system (e.g., Gallicanism, Josephinism) is incompatible with the essence
of the Church, since it violates the autonomy of the Church.
d) The anticlerical separation of Church and state, which often appears in the form of Church
persecution (the pagan Roman Empire, the Bolshevist states), as well as the ‘neutral separation’,
in which Church and state live alongside each other in an almost unrelated fashion
(USA), mistakes the fact that Church and state are essentially related to each other. In an ideologically
pluralistic society, however, the ‘neutral separation’ can be appropriate under certain
circumstances.
e) In countries in which Church and state have been closely intertwined for centuries, a partial
or ‘lame’ separation (U. Stutz) has developed, which does indeed recognize the independence
and autonomy of Church and state, but institutionally connects both realms through, for example,
the recognition of the Church as an official, legal corporation, through the recognition
of the Church’s right to levy taxes, through the establishment of denominational schools,
theological faculties, and so on. This system has been realized in the Federal Republic of
Germany, even if many would like to describe this as a ‘free Church in a free state’ rather
than of a ‘lame’ separation. Incidentally, in a certain sense, the public commission of the
155