Vztah státu a církve

Uživatel Dobro, Pravda, Krása dále jen („DPK“) mne nepřímo vyzval, abych napsal o theologickém vztahu výtahu Syllabus Errorum (1864) a prohlášení Dignitatis Humanae (1965).

Předně, jak píše bl. Newman: „the Syllabus then has no dogmatic force; it addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse to the original and authoritative documents, (Allocutions and the like,) to which it pointedly refers. Moreover, when we turn to those documents, which are authoritative, we find the Syllabus cannot even be called an echo of the Apostolic Voice; for, in matters in which wording is so important, it is not an exact transcript of the words of the Pope, in its account of the errors condemned,—just as is natural in what is professedly an index for reference.“

DPK konkrétně cituje například § 77 Syllabus Errorum: „V této dnešní době již není vhodné, aby katolické náboženství bylo považováno za jediné státní náboženství a aby všechny ostatní jakékoliv kulty byly vylučovány.“ Jenže to je jen citace allocutio Nemo vestrum z 26. 7. 1855. A k tomu opět citujme bl. Newmana: „For instance, take his own 16th (the 77th of the "erroneous Propositions"), that, "It is no longer expedient that the Catholic Religion should be established to the exclusion of all others." When we turn to the Allocution, which is the ground of its being put into the Syllabus, what do we find there? First, that the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of "his wonder and distress." And again, taking the Pope's remonstrance as it stands, is it any great cause of complaint to Englishmen, who so lately were severe in their legislation upon Unitarians, Catholics, unbelievers, and others, that the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies. As in the instance in the foregoing section, he does but deny a universal, which the "erroneous proposition" asserts without any explanation.“

Rovněž tak Félix Dupanloup, biskup orléanský, napsal: „The condemnation of absolute freedom of belief, worship, speech, and the press meant that teaching false ideas could not be an ideal. It did not mean that freedom of worship, speech, and the press were not good things as practiced in particular states. It was false to say that the Catholic Church should be disestablished everywhere; but it was not true to say that it should always be established.“ (citováno podle Hales: Pio Nono. A Study in European Politics and Religion in the Nineteenth Century, 1954)

To samé Robert P. Lockwood: „These Catholics looked at the world of the so-called "free states" and saw confiscated church property, nuns and priests driven from their religious orders, clergy shot, bishops arrested, the Church drummed out of any role in education or the public arena, virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric in newspapers and legislatures, and the confiscation of the Papal States by armed force. They questioned if this was the future of a "free Church in a free State."“

Co z toho vyplývá?

1. To, že Syllabus Errorum je dokument pochybné závaznosti.
2. To, že se Pius IX. nesnažil předepsat, který model vztahu státu a církve je jediný možný.
3. To, že Církev odsoudila excessy sekularismu, tj. to, co by šlo nejlépe označit jako laïcité či antiklerikalism, nikoliv sekularism (odluku církve od státu) jako takový.
   

Nesmíme zapomínat na dobový regalism. Příkladem je ius exclusivæ. Ukončení těchto světských zásahů do Církve (které v pravoslaví dosáhly intensity cæsaropapismu) Církev vyměnila za náboženskou svobodu. Po roce 1945 se situace definitivně změnila. Svět se smířil s Církví a Církev se smířila s ním. Negativní odsudky excessů sekularismu nadále nebyly nutné; nutné bylo naopak otevření Církve světu a aktivní positivní zajištění jejích práv v duchu snah, o něž usiloval hrabě de Montalembert na poli školství již ve 30. letech 19. století. Proto taky papež Benedikt XVI. otevřeně říká, že dokumenty Druhého vatikánského koncilu jsou svou podstatou Antisyllabem.