No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An Ambrosian Right: Church and State after Evangelium Vitae
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
Extract
Introduction
The question of the relationship which should obtain between Church and State has vexed Christians for two millenia and will probably go on doing so for another two. Nonetheless this problem has become the subject of renewed debate following the publication of the recent papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Towards the end of the encyclical the Pope urges that those in public office are obliged unequivocally to defend the rights of the unborn. A practical conundrum is, therefore, posed for those who exercise public office in lay States and who at the same time consider themselves to be members of the Christian faithful. Put very concretely, the question may be posed like so: Is there a conflict between my responsibilities to the Church and my duties to a democratically elected government which espouses laws that do not cohere with the Church's positions on human rights? At times the potential conflict of allegiances that may result poses the broader theological problem of the autonomy of the lay sphere. More specifically, in the case of Evangelium Vitae, it raises the problem of the relationship between the civil law and the moral law and the claims of the magisterium to interpret the latter as a criterion of legitimacy for the former. In the short space available to us we cannot hope to explore both of these questions comprehensively. The following thoughts are offered as reflections on the current problems which vex the theological and legal statement of the Church's relationship to the State and of the allegiancgs of the faithful owed to the civil legislature.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1996 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 Cfr. Ambrose, Ep. 11 (PL 16,944‐947), 40 (PL 16,1101‐1113).
2 Cfr. Ambrose, Ep. 21 (PL 16,1002‐1018).
3 Cfr. Brox, Norbert, A History of the Early Church, London: SCM, 1994, 60Google Scholar.
4 Cfr. Brox, A History of the Early Church, 61.
5 Cfr. Gelasius, Ep. 12 (PL 59,60).
6 Cfr. Brox, A History of the Early Church, 63.
7 Cfr. Berman, Harold, Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983, 94–113Google Scholar. For reviews, see Soria, J.L., “Religion, History and the Growth of Law ”, in Studia Canonica 28 (1994) 487‐519Google Scholar; Reid, C.J., “The Papacy, Theology and Revolution”, in Studia Canonica 29(1995)433‐480Google Scholar.
8 Cfr. Tiemey, Brian, The Crisis of Church and Slate, 1050‐1300, with Selected Documents, Englewood Cliffs N.J., 1964, 49‐50Google Scholar.
9 For the Latin text of the Dictatus Papae see Hoffmann, Karl, Der Dictatus Papae Gregors VII, (Paderbom: 1933), 11Google Scholar. For the English translation see Morrall, J. B., Church and State through the Centuries, (London: 1954), 43‐44Google Scholar.
10 Cfr. Congar, Yves, “The Historical Development of Authority in the Church: Points for Christian Reflection,” in Problems of Authority: An Anglo‐French Symposium, (ed. Todd, John M., London ‐ Baltimore, 1962), 139‐14Google Scholar; Southern, R. W., Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, Harmondsworth, 1970, 34Google Scholar.
11 Cfr. Kasper, Walter, “The Theological Foundations of Human Rights,” in The Jurist 50[1990] 148‐166Google Scholar.
12 Cfr. Murray, John Courtney, “On the Structure of the Church‐State Problem,” in The Catholic Church in World Affairs, (ed. Gurian, Waldemar and M. A. Fitzsimons), 23‐24Google Scholar; ID., “On Religious Liberty,” in America 109 (January 30, 1963), 706Google Scholar; ID., “A Theologian's Tribute,” in America 107 (June 15, 1963), 854Google Scholar; ID., “The Problem of Religious Freedom,” in Theological Studies 25 (1964) 503‐575CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Cfr. Murray, “The Problem of Religious Freedom,”512.
14 Cfr. DS 1613/2730; 1614/2731.
15 For a discussion of the debate between Gladstone and Newman on Catholic loyalties, see Bastable, James D., “Gladstone's Expostulation and Newman” in Gladstone and Newman. Centennial Essays, ed. Bastable, J. D., Dublin: Veritas, 1978, 9‐26Google Scholar.
16 Cfr. Murray, “The Problem of Religious Freedom,” 523‐524.
17 Cfr. Murray. “The Problem of Religious Freedom,” 528.
18 Cfr. Murray, “The Problem of Religious Freedom,” 530.
19 Cfr. Murray, “The Problem of Religious Freedom,” 566.
20 Cfr. Murray, , “A Theologian's Tribute,” in America 107, June 15, 1963, 854Google Scholar.
21 For a restatement of natural law theory applied to jurisprudence, see Finnis, John, “Natural Law and Legal Reasoning,” in the collection, Natural Law Theory. Contemporary Essays, ed. George, Robert P., Oxford: Clarendon, 1992,134‐157Google Scholar.
22 Cfr. Pope John Paul JJ, Evangelium Vitae, §73, [tr. Lib. Ed. Vat. 1995}, 105.
23 For a presentation of the present status of the teaching of this pontificate on fundamental rights, see Droits de Dieu et droits de ľhomme, Actes du IX Colloque national des Juristes catholiques, Paris, des 11‐12 novembre 1989, [Paris: Tequi, 1989], 5f.
24 Cfr. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I‐II, q. 93, a. 3, ad 2um.
25 Cfr. Augustine, De Libera Arbitrio, 1,5, 11, in PL 32, 1227.
26 For an application of this principle see Beyleveld, Deryck & Brownsword, Roger, Law as a Moral Judgment, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994,120‐157Google Scholar.
27 Cfr. Woodrow, Alain, “The Pope's Challenge to Western Democracy,” in The Tablet 249 [1995] 448‐450Google Scholar.
28 Neil MacCormick discusses a similar situation with regard to the formation of the Union and the issue of slavery, in “Natural Law and the Separation of Law and Morals,” in Natural Law Theory, 115.