Talk:Relations between the Catholic Church and the state

Ustashi

I find the following addition dubious:

Notice the absence of a mention of Bosnian Muslims. Unlike Serbs, they were considered Croatian brothers whose ancestors converted to Islam

Given the quotation immediately preceding this:

"…Some will be sent to Serbia and the rest will be forced to change their religion to Catholicism. Our new Croatia will therefore be free of all heretics, becoming purely Catholic for the future years."

… it seems a bit unlikely. I'd really like to see some citation. At least in most times and places, Roman Catholics have not considered Muslims to be their "brothers" in the struggle against Eastern Orthodox heresy. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Major points for article revision

In looking over this article, there are several observations I would like to make:

1. It seems to me that there are some glaring ommissions and that the material included here is either intentionally or unintentionally pointed in one direction--that is, a series of episodes which depict the Catholic Church as anti-Democratic, and anti-modern. There are plenty of episodes, particularly in the past 40 years, which point in exactly the opposite direction.

Episodes of pro-democratic efforts by the Catholic Church include:

• the fall of Soviet Communism.
• the fall of Ferdinand Marcos in the Phillipines.
• the fall of Pinochet in Chile.
• the fall of Baby Doc in Haiti.
• promoting human rights in South America in the 1970's and 1980's (Liberation theology is not the only story in this era and region)
• limiting the nuclear arms race in the Cold War in the 1980's
• promoting the Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950's and 1960's

All of the above are modern examples of pro-democratic movements.

Episodes of progressive efforts by the Catholic Church inlude:

• the child labor reforms of the early 1900's in the United States and Europe
• the education reforms ofthe early 1900's in the United States and Europe
• the labor safety reforms throughout the twentieth century in the U.S. and Europe
• shaping and organizing the present Immigration Reform Movement in the United States.

2. There is a complete lack of reporting on the Vatican diplomatic corps here. What is it? What is its mission? How has it influenced world affairs? Some important modern episodes in the Vatican's diplomatic mission include:

• Third World debt relief efforts
• Third World development efforts
• Vatican diplomatic relations in the Middle East including Israel, Palestine, Iraq and other Arab or Muslim nations.
• The role of the Vatican diplomatic mission to the United Nations
  • Vatican's role in United Nations international development policy in relation to madatory programs of contraception, abortion and sterilization especially at the major United Nations meetings on population at Cairo in the early 1990's and on women at Beijing in the late 1990's.

3. This article is also silent on the contributions of the Catholic Church to emergency aid, development and health care in the Third World, especially at the major meetings on population at Cairo in the early 1990's and on women at Beijing in the late 1990's.

4. Catholics almost always use the term "Catholic Church" when talking about their Church. The constant use of the word "Roman" rather than simply "Catholic Church" suggests to me that most of the editors on this article have not been Catholics thus far. This in itself is not a problem, but confirms for me a certain negative slant which runs through the article.

5. While the article's name has been changed once which was an improvement, I would suggest that it be changed again to something more manageable, academically sound and one which might serve as a model for other similar articles about other Churches. I would suggest Church-State relations (Catholic Church) or something similar. Such a title is clear, compact and specific and reflects the language of academe in a way that the current title does not even come close.

6. Another conclusion which the excessive use of the term "Roman" suggests to me is that the editors up to this point have a certain lack of familiarity with the East. By this I do not mean the Eastern hemisphere but Eastern Christianity. Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are members of the Catholic Church as is the Latin Rite but are not "Roman Catholics." While China is included in the article Catholics they are members of the Western or Latin Rite. There is an entire history of the Eastern Catholic Churches and their relations with civil authorities which is completely missing here.

7. There is a gross lack of referecing in this article. It appears to be written by editors who were simply writing off the top of their head from a vague and almost sophomoric sense of general knowledge. Lines like this:

Early Christians were persecuted as early as 64 A.D. when Nero supposedly ordered large numbers of Christians executed in retaliation for the Great Fire of Rome.

contain loaded terms such as "supposedly." What is this supposed to mean? Is there a doubt about whether Christians were persecuted "as early as 64 a.d." or that "Nero ordered large numbers of Christians executed" or that this persecution was tied to the "Fire of Rome." Such a loaded term creates a doubt in the reader's mind about the very facts that are being reported. This doubt is unexplained and unreferenced. This lack of complete reporting then leads the reader to wonder if there really is some doubt of the facts around the Nero incident or whether it is just an example of poor writing. This will likely make a reader question the value of WP as a source rather than take away something useful about his inquiry.

8. There is a complete lack of historical context here. It appears that Medieval kings just popped up out of nowhere after the fall of the Roman Empire. This is about a 6th grader's concept of history. After the fall of Roman Empire and following the conversion of the invading Franco-Germanic tribes, the Catholic Church stood as the only competant civil authority. As the Franks become more politically sophisticated, militarily powerful and educated, the Church conferred much of its civil authority to the Holy Roman Emporer (Charlemagne) and in turn to a variety of political structures. It is important to convey the fact that the Church preceded the feudal system, did not create it (it evolved from the military based tribal chieftain structures), but attempted to "Christianize" by imbuing it with moral responsibility, restraint in the use of force (just war theory) and the treatment of the poor and weak (chivalry). "Divine Right" is actually a much later development and only became a significant concept the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries in the wakes of the Protestant Reformation, the Wars of Religion, the Age of Enlightenment and the democratic revolutions of the 18th and 18th centuries. So, as a reporting of history, this article fails grossly.

9. As an article with a complex subject matter covering a vast array of historical eras, nations and even civilizations, not to mention a constantly evolving political philosophy/theology this article almost glibly skips along the surface of a select number of historical episodes. To report on this topic responsibly, it needs to be informed by and in turn inform the reader of the principles, philosophical and theological teachings, and the Church's own ecclesiology which guided its hand in relation to civil authorities over the course of centuries. This is far from a monolithic singular approach. Currently there is nothing in this article to contextualize from a philosophical/theological perspective the episodes it reports on.

10. Editors of this article need to decide what precisely this article is about. Is it a history article? Is it a political science article? Is it an article informed be the religious content upon which it is reporting? It can be all of these things if well-designed, but takes a kind of master plan so that sections build upon and inform eachother. This is difficult to do when editing is accomplished just 2 cents at a time by drive-by writers. I would be glad to offer a provisional outline for the comment of other editors.

This article could be a fascinating read. It is going to take a lot of work. 129.74.202.206 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) try this again Vaquero100 00:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm probably one of the main people who systematically adds in "Roman" here and elsewhere. Yes, I am perfectly aware that within the Church this qualifier is rarely used, but we are not writing for an audience strictly, or even primarily, within the Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches also style themselves "Catholic" as do many Anglicans (especially the Anglo-Catholics) and even the Neo-Lutherans. Sorry if I missed anything in that list. "Roman Catholic" is simply more neutral, especially in institutional matters where these others are clearly not included. - Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I'm fully familiar with Latin Rite churches, but institutionally they are a separate phenomenon (possibly deserving of a separate article). I think that anything that doesn't acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope doesn't belong here. Otherwise, we would be stuck with (for example) the whole political history of Anglicanism in this article, clearly a different topic. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of my interspersed remarks should be taken as disagreeing on your general points. This article has been a magnet for anti-Catholic bigots and (less frequently) Church apologists, in the worst sense of that last word. We could certainly use some steady hard work here by someone more interested in creating an encyclopedia article than a polemic.

I think the article should certainly be historically ordered. It should certainly include (for example) the contributions of the School of Salamanca to the theory of rights and of international law. There is an almost infinite potential to improve the article.

Conversely, I disagree strongly with the present proposal to delete the article. It is a valid topic, just not a good article. I am removing the template asking for deletion. If someone wants to take this to AFD, I can't stop you, but I cannot imagine a decision to delete coming out of that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As Vaquero states below, capital-C Catholic is the proper term to use for those Churches in communion with the Petrine See. Roman Catholic refers to a specific Rite within Catholicism, and is therefore not appropriate when speaking of the whole of Catholicism. There are, for instance, interesting Church-State relationships in Lebanon and the Ukraine involving Eastern-Rite Churches. There is a minor debate within Eastern Orthodoxy as to whether they ought to drop the Eastern. I wouldn't object if they did, though certainly most Christian groups would regard themselves as orthodox. Gabrielthursday 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may add- "... in an ideal society the Catholic Church would be recognized as the official religion of the state." Except the Catholic Church is not a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.133.177 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive and Sandbox

This article is getting out of hand. I wanted to PROD, but there was and objection. Hence, I have archived discussion and placed unfinished sections of the article in a sandbox . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jessemonroy650 (talk • contribs) 27 July 2006.

Name change

I realize that I threw a lot at this talk page with my last entry. How about we tackle a basic question, first. I proposed in point 5 above the title Church-State relations (Catholic Church). This could be a template for other Churches which have very different relations with various states.

Also, regarding the issue of Roman, I have done extensive research on this topic from a WP policy perspective, which is presented here: CC vs. RCC. The concensus appears to be changing on WP on this topic as Canon law (Catholic Church), Catholic devotions and other similar article titles were upheld in recent weeks.

It is seems to me that the cheesy present title just invites the anti-Catholic types because it is unacademic. Once standards of responsible reporting are raised, those folks seem to go away (at least in my experience).

Also, regarding Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, they are in fact Catholic and under the jurisdiction of the pope but are not Roman. This is in part why Roman Catholic Church is a misnomer and inaccurate when referring to the entire Church in communion with Rome. Those particular Eastern Catholic Churches have their own history in relationship to Civil governments apart from either the Orthodox or Western (Roman) churches. Vaquero100 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted: "The Catholic churches of Communist China"

"The Catholic churches of Communist China

The Catholic Church is illegal in the communist People's Republic of China. Anyone who swears allegiance to the Pope can be subject to harassment and imprisonment. Many priests and cardinals have languished in jail for years, and still do, because they are loyal to the Catholic Church. For all intents and purposes, religious freedom does not exist in mainland China.

There is a government-approved "Catholic" church, but not one that is recognized by the Vatican.

Pope John Paul II elevated two bishops to be cardinals but did not release their names, nor did they attend the recent conclave that chose Pope Benedict XVI. Speculation is that they are Chinese and would be subject to repression if their identities are known."

I deleted this, since after thoroughly reading it over many times, there is not a single "political tie" to be viewed. It states only persecution of church members (If this is included, than we must also include an article on every single country that opposes/oppresses Catholics?). Hence, I do not believe that it belongs in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

"Chicken Butt"? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.219.69 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pius VII

The 18th and 19th century Church is often characterized as anti-democratic, however it would be good to point out the 1797 statements made during the Christmas sermon of pope Pius VII (aka cardinal Chiaramonti), who was the first ever pro-democracy pope.

A quite ordinary virtue will suffice to preserve and to maintain other forms of government, ours requires something more. Strive to attain the full height of virtue and you will be true Democrats, fulfil faithfully the precepts of the gospel and you will be the joy of the Republic”

ADM (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't fit the article's thesis. The point of this article is pretty explicitly intended to show that "the Catholic Church, in all times and places, is always the supporter of despotism." Things that would contradict, or even just complicate, that message are only grudgingly allowed in if that. (And the Catholic Church, in its role as "the Black Hand of Despotism", is apparently able to support concepts like "The Divine Right of Kings" before they existed and in direct contradiction to the fact the Church often went against kings in the Middle Ages) IOW this article borders on being ahistorical propaganda, but this is not unusual for articles concerning the relationship between Abrahamic religions and politics.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody is either very naïve, or doesn't care to acknowledge the Catholic Church's support of oppressive states (as long as it gets the preferential treatment it regards as its due, of course). A single quote (and taken out of context, at that) from a single Pope does that change this reality. The Church opposed particular kings in the Medieval-to-Early Modern period only when they didn't toe the line -- when they tried to lessen its influence and privileged status (see, e.g., Henry II of England) -- or when it favoured one nation over another for diplomatic reasons; that doesn't change the fact that it was strongly supportive of feudalism and monarchy in general, long before the concept of the "divinely appointed monarch" had crystallised as a rationale for the latter. The medieval teaching that the universe was ordered as God wished it was used to discourage serfs from trying to improve their lot in life. It was essentially an "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" situation -- the Church received various privileges in return for using its spiritual authority to support obedience to the state.

If anything, the section on fascism is watered down. Pius XII is notorious for his cosy relationship with Hitler (a skilled manipulator who used Germany's churches for his own purposes). To the extent that there was any opposition to the Third Reich's policies by the upper echelons of the Church, their dispute was with the Nazis' interference in church affairs; the Holy See never showed any sign of being troubled by the Final Solution or the despotic nature of the Nazi regime.

I'm surprised by the lack of a section on the present. Current church-state issues include, for example, the persistence of Concordats (often signed under-the-radar, and some very recent, like the Polish one), or the policy of threatening Catholic elected officials with excommunication if they oppose the incorporation of certain Catholic doctrines into civil laws (they're very selective about this, targeting those who support women's and gay rights while ignoring supporters of the death penalty or opponents of labour rights). The IRS (the agency in the US responsible for enforcing the tax code) recently issued a warning to the Council of Catholic Bishops that they were imperiling their privileged tax exempt status by their lobbying activities.

Religion gets treated with velvet gloves (on Wikipedia and in general), but it seems that whenever somebody dares to point out (truthfully) its dodgy past and present, some apologist will immediately start crying, "help, I'm being oppressed!" "Telling both sides" is not NPOV when the "sides" are fact vs. fiction. 174.111.242.35 (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Croatia

I think that whatever a criminal and corrupt person as Mile Budak said abot evil things that he did can not be directly (if can be at all) conect with Catholicism and with Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josinj (talk • contribs) 10:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

General lack of citations

in reading this it stuck out to me that there were very few citations. I added a few "citation needed" tags, but got tired because almost every sentence is making a claim that is not cited.

Smartedits5 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Catholic Church and politics

Greetings fellow Wikipedians! Information from this article is likely relevant to the article Catholic Church and politics. I'm flagging this here in case anyone with time and knowledge or interest in this topic wishes to add some of this information to Catholic Church and politics, which would be greatly appreciated and help round out that article some more. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)