F.

The State

Human beings are social beings by nature. Every person needs another person. By
ourselves we cannot establish a fully human condition of life. Because of this, we see the need
for a wider community which we may call the political community or more commonly, the State,
in which each individual is expected to make his specific contribution and collaborate with others
for a broader implementation of the common good.

1. Origin and Meaning of the State

Aside from the official teaching of the Catholic Church, there are other explanations
regarding the origin and meaning of the state. These interpretations spring from different
backgrounds or worldviews. Some of them are:

a. As a manifestation of the Divine. Followers of this interpretation see something divine in the
state. Two forms of this thought may be distinguished:
▪ Ruler worship. The ruler, e.g. the king, is believed to be the appearance of god on
earth. Examples of this are during ancient times when emperors were considered
divine; the Incan Emperor as the Sun God; etc
▪ Leaders as “representatives” of God. Only the religious leaders as the “representatives”
of God may exercise governmental authority. Example: the Zealot party at the time
of Christ rejected all independent political and governmental powers. Only the men
of God may rule.

b. As a result of power struggle. Power is what makes up the state. The State is formed
because someone or a group of people who is more powerful or stronger than other people
or groups of people has made it so as a natural consequence of the need to overpower the
other. The concept of the chieftain, the kingship and then the state, originated in this way
when the more powerful exterminated or vanquished the weaker ones but soon realized
that it is more advantageous to force the weak into their service. In the beginning, they
may have different blood, different language or different race but eventually, they come
to be one people with one language, with one set of mores and one national feeling. The
well-known Marxist-Bolshevist theory is an offshoot of this. The said theory mixes
ideology of power with historical materialism. It explains that the state came to exist
simultaneously with private property as the instrument of suppression and exploitation
of the oppressed classes.
a. For the satisfaction of basic human needs (based on utilitarianism). The State arose in
order to satisfy the needs of individuals. People gather together and form a state only
out of utilitarian considerations. There are two forms of this interpretation.
▪ Thomas Hobbes’ (1588-1679) doctrine of the state which considers the natural state of
man as the “war of all against all.” Man in the natural state is a “wolf to man” and
he is permitted to do “what he wanted and against whom he wanted”. But reason
tells man that this condition cannot go on otherwise it will lead to their demise. As
such, every individual saw the need to renounce his freedom with respect to every
other and vested it on a third party who then became the absolute ruler, and thus
the state was born.
▪ Jean Jacques Rousseau’s (1712-1778) theory. He holds that the State arose when people
concluded a state-founding contract in order to escape from the general insecurity
 of their original state which does not give them power over their fellow human
beings and does not provide them with the necessities to live a fuller life.

However, the social teaching of the Church has its own interpretation of the origin and
meaning of the State. This interpretation is both socio-theological and socio-political. The socio-
theological interpretation may be summarized into six points:

a. Leader worship contradicts the Sacred Scripture. Christ said “Give to Caesar what is
Caesar’s but give to God what is God’s (Mk. 12:17)." He rejected deification of the State
as well as theocracy and recognized state autonomy.
b. The leader of the state is not the “presence of God”. Only Christ is the “appearance of
God” never any king nor emperor. It is therefore very wrong to consider emperors and
kings as gods.
c. The State’s power is meant to put order in the society. The State’s power of coercion and
penal authority is founded in the need to put order in the society in so far as evil
tendencies require that the order of the State be maintained against lawbreakers and
malicious persons (cf. Rom. 13:3-4).
d. The power of coercion vested in the State is only in this world. In the coming Kingdom
of God, the State will lose its power.
e. The State can degenerate into an ungodly power. There is a possibility that the State may
go against the very reason of its existence (which is for the common good) and become
the source of terror and evil in the land.
f. The State’s authority is from God. It is God who is the source of the State’s authority in
order to foster and promote the common good (cf. Rom. 13:1-2).

The socio-philosophical point of view on the other hand, considers the State as the highest
social form of a people, grounded in natural law, serving the perfection of its earthly well-being,
and resting on might and right. It holds that the State becomes a necessity because over and
above all other secular social structures, the State serves the community by being the supreme
expression and highest guardian of the common good. The socio-philosophical view also
differentiates an “incidental body/group” of the State which is an unordered mass of people
gathered together simply because they are living in a given area and has no physical and moral
unity, and a “political body/group” which presupposes an explicit “contract” that gives rise to
the State.

Since the State has its foundation in human nature, it The setting up of political
ultimately has its origin in God, the creator of nature, and community and the
its sole purpose is the promotion of the general, political membership of the human
common good. person in such community is
ordained by God, our creator.
There are two main functions of the State:

a. The ordering function. Here the State establishes and protects the legal/external order. It
makes sure that just laws exist and that they are being observed by all and peace and order
are maintained.
b. The welfare function. It is the function of the State to promote the general economic,
sanitary, ecological, cultural, moral, and spiritual welfare of the citizens.
 2. The Principle of Subsidiarity
Another important principle in the social teaching of the Church is the principle of
subsidiarity. The word subsidiarity comes from the Latin word “subsidium” which means help,
aid or support. This principle deals on the responsibilities and limits of government, and the
essential roles of voluntary associations. It also defines, focuses, and exhausts the essential role of
the state and the authorities as the governing element of the society. In Quadragesimo Anno #82-
83, Pope Pius XI mentions the importance of the state’s intervention in other matters and the
individual’s participation in matters and concerns appropriate to the individual. For the Church,
when the State intervenes, it should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. taking into
consideration what private individuals or enterprise can and should do by themselves and
allowing them to do it, otherwise, there is a danger of excessive interventionism. On the other
hand, private initiative or participation of individuals must not be overemphasized so much so
that functions that are meant for the larger higher organization are wrongly arrogated to an
individual or a small private enterprise.

It is indeed true, as history clearly proves, that owing to the change in social conditions, much
that was formerly done by small bodies can nowadays be accomplished only by large
corporations. Nonetheless, just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the
community at large what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so too, it is an injustice,
a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to
itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies. This is a
fundamental principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable, and it retains its full
truth today. Of its very nature the true aim of all social activity should be to help individual
members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them. The state should leave to these
smaller groups the settlement of business of minor importance. It will thus carry out with greater
freedom, power and success the tasks belonging to it, because it alone can effectively accomplish
these, directing, watching, stimulating, and restraining, as circumstances suggest or necessity
demands (Q.A., 82-83).

If participation and personal initiative is the foundation of the individual's basic function
in the society, for the society, it is subsidiarity. Here, we can use the analogy of the relationship
between a child and the parents. There are functions that the parents must do for the child but at
the same time, there are things that are better left to the personal initiative of the child. There are
things that the child should learn to do by himself and are meant to be done by him alone and
there are functions that are reserved for the parents. To confuse one for the other is not good in
the same way that it will be detrimental to the personal growth of the child if parents allow
themselves to assume all the functions including those that are reserved for the child. This
principle may be summarized as “not too much but not too little, no bigger than necessary, no smaller
than appropriate”.
One of the examples of the application of the Not too much but not too little,
principle of subsidiarity is the state’s intervention in the no bigger than necessary, no
issue of labor. To work is both a duty and a right of a smaller than appropriate.
human person. The human person has the right to choose
a job and negotiate the conditions of his job free from state intervention. At this level, the state
has no right to intervene. State intervention includes only the creation of enough jobs for all and
protection of the rights of the workers.
 The same principle may be applied to State intervention in the economy. Here, the role
of the State is to foster and assist personal initiative and to seek the common good with special
consideration to the poor and underprivileged and taking inspiration from justice, equality, and
charity. But then, it is never helpful for the State to take over the tasks and functions that can be
done by individuals or smaller communities. On the other hand, on the part of the communities,
they have the right to demand assistance and a more favorable condition from the state.

3. Political Authority

A necessary consequence of the duties and functions of the State is the need for an
authority or power that will enable it to perform well. This, combined with the reality that the
people who make up the State are varied, demands for the existence of political leaders who will
put order in the usually differing points of view of men and guide the energies of all towards the
attainment of the common good. No State or society exists without an authority. Authority is
the constitutive element of the State.

a. The Concept of Authority

The term “authority” is derived from the Latin word “auctoritas” which has its root in the
verb “augere” which means to increase or to enrich. It may, therefore, be concluded that authority
is the power or the institution meant for the enrichment and promotion of those over whom it is
exercised. This is the true meaning of authority. It is never for the person who has the authority
but for those under that person's power.

Authority also entitles a person to make demands on others for the sake of their individual
good or that of society. There are two kinds of authority:
▪ Personal authority. This authority is derived on the superiority of a person in terms
of intellectual capacity, professional and technical skill, and higher degree of moral
and spiritual life.
▪ Official or social authority. It is based on the will of the society which is often
manifested through an election.

The Sacred Scriptures and the official documents of the Church attest to the necessity of
the existence of political authorities in the society. There has to be an ordering power that will
coordinate the multiple activities and diverse inclinations in the society. St. Thomas Aquinas
holds that a social life cannot exist among a number of people unless under the presidency of one
to look after the common good; for many as such, seek many things, whereas one attends only to
one.

The political authority has its root in God and was given by God in order to serve Him (cf.
Gen. 1:28; Sir. 17:2). There is no authority except from God and those that exist have been
instituted by God (Rom. 13:1). The authority of kings, emperors and state rulers come from God
and are meant to serve Him (cf. Prov. 8:14-17, Sir. 10:4, Jer. 27:6). They are servants of God for
the good of the people over whom they exercise their authority (Rom. 13:1-7). Authority must be
exercised in service for “whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and who ever
would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but
to serve (Mk. 10:43-45). If authority comes from God, it is to be understood that all authority must
therefore, be exercised in accordance with the natural moral law and God’s will.

Political authority may be legitimate or illegitimate. An illegitimate political authority is one

who claims or gets hold of the power unjustly, through the use of force, fraud, and fear, and/or
other unacceptable means. Illegitimate rulers, in principle, do not have any authority over the
citizens, and the citizens, on the other hand, do not owe obedience to them. In fact, they are even
obliged to assist their legitimate authority in resisting the illegitimate ruler.

But there are instances when after some time the illegitimate ruler may acquire legitimacy.
This may happen if the usurper attained peaceful possession of power, and that justice and right
of the citizens are respected and the common good is maintained and promoted. This must also
be subject to the explicit or at least implied consent of the citizens, together with the
acknowledgment that the common good is being served and protected and that the new
government has itself become a basic element in the attainment of that the common good.

A legitimate authority is one who acquired the power through an explicit consent of the
citizens and performs its God given duties. If this is the case, obedience to him is not an
unconditional duty. The citizens have the duty to follow a legitimate and competent authority.
However, this authority must be exercised within the limits of morality, in the name of the
common good, and according to a juridical order. Once the legitimate authority contradicts the
law of God, he loses his legitimacy and the citizens are not bound to obey him.

However, occasional unjustified use of authority or inability of the leader to perform his
duty due to reasons beyond his control, does not automatically remove the legitimacy of a ruler.
Occasional misuse of power does not remove legitimacy but the continuous misuse of one’s
power contrary to the common good. When this is the case, however, the citizens have the right
to resist their tyrannical ruler and strive for his removal or replacement. They are allowed to
utilize legal means available. They may resist passively through non-violent refusal to obey the
law or use active nonviolent means such as mobilization of public opinion, mass demonstration,
general strike, etc.

4. Duties of citizens towards the State

It is not only the state who has duties to the citizens. The citizens too have duties to the
State. They include:

a. Love of one’s country

Love for one’s country is a very basic duty of every citizen. The citizens of a country may
demand protection and promotion of their rights from the state, but they also have the obligation
to love their country and be concerned for their country’s welfare. This love for one’s country
may be manifested in the citizens’ faithfulness to the welfare of his country whether in times of
calamities, pain, hardship or success. It is also manifested in the citizens’ readiness to help the
country in its just causes.

But love of one’s country should not be limited to a narrow nationalism that gives
exclusive attention only to the welfare of one’s country without considering the rights and welfare
of the other countries. Pope John XXIII highlighted this duty of every citizen in the encyclical
Mater et Magistra. He emphasized that richer countries have the duty to help the poorer ones in
the spirit of love and justice.

b. Civic Responsibility and Participation

Another important duty of the citizens that should stem from the love of country is the
duty to participate in the affairs of the state and be a responsible citizen. Without the citizens’
participation and responsible cooperation, the state government cannot continue to exist.
Citizens are expected to be actively involved in the different programs and activities of the
government. Involvement includes assisting the government through one’s work or by sharing
one’s talents or abilities. It also means giving material and/or financial support to the state. It is
necessary for the growth of the government and for the furtherance of the common good.

Let everyone consider it his sound obligation to count social necessities among the
primary duties of modern man and to pay heed to them (G.S., 30).

Civic responsibility and participation may also be manifested by respecting the norms of
the State, e.g. traffic laws, sanitation, participation in election and plebiscites, etc., but more
importantly, in paying just taxes. The duty to pay taxes is an indispensable duty of every citizen.
It is derived from the citizens’ obligation to contribute their share to the necessities of the State.
Without taxes, the State will have no other resource for the maintenance of the machinery of the
government and its institutions and for provision of basic social services.
For Christians, being a responsible citizen necessarily involves living the Gospel and
becoming an agent of social change. This means sharing in the responsibility of making the
Kingdom of God truly present in the society. This calls for a kind of participation that penetrates
the center of socio-political, economic and cultural aspect of the society and plants the seed of the
Kingdom of God in there by becoming a witness of Christ’s love, peace, and justice.

c. Vigilance for the sake of the State

It is the duty of every citizen to be vigilant against any force,
individual or group of individuals, who may try to destroy the
harmony and peace of the community and hinder the State from
attaining its goals. In order to maintain peace and order and promote
the common good and integral human development, every citizen is
obliged to help the state eliminate negative elements in the society
such as corrupt government officials, incompetent and corrupt police
officers, etc. This obligation also extends to situations when there is a
need for a legitimate defense of the State. Citizens may be called to
active military service in times of war. In principle the government
has the right to require military service from its citizens provided the state shows it is necessary
for the common good and performed within the defined moral norms. No citizen is allowed to
obey immoral orders. And in cases when the injustice of their country’s cause is evident, they
may not participate in the military service. Citizens are not obliged to be a part of an evidently
unjust and immoral war.

However, if an individual Christian, based on the dictates of his conscience, could not take
up arms in war, he must still serve the State in some other forms.

It seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who for reasons
 of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided however, that they accept some other form
of service to the human community (G.S., 79).

It has to be pointed, however, that the clergy and religious must be exempted from
combatant service or at least are not supposed to volunteer for it. They should maintain their
lives as representatives of peace and universal brotherhood.

5. Common Good
Basically, the function of the state authority is the promotion and attainment of the
common good, defined as “the sum of those conditions of social life by which individuals,
families and groups can achieve their own fulfillment in a relatively thorough and ready way”
(G.S., 74). Pope Pius XII in one of his speeches described it as that which preserves, develops,
and perfects the human person by facilitating the due fulfillment and realization of the religious
and cultural laws and values which the creator has assigned to every man and to the human race
(Radio Message, Dec. 24, 1942).

In STC, the word “good” usually refers to “general interest”. It does not only refer to the
exterior conditions and material things but it also implies moral and spiritual values. The “good”
is that which perfects, achieves and completes the human person as a rational and free human
being and provides the satisfaction not only of his material and physical needs but also of his
noble aspirations, his intellectual, artistic, cultural and spiritual needs, and thus provides peace,
security, confidence and happiness (Guerry, 1961, p. 127).

Essential Components of the Common Good

The essential components of the common good are:
a. Public external order. Common good includes and presupposes public external order
which would ensure protection of life and property, respect for the human person and
every person’s freedom and rights, security, and the exercise of justice and equality.
b. Public well-being and prosperity. Pope Leo XIII taught in Rerum Novarum that assurance
of public well-being and prosperity is one of the duties of state leaders. In Mater et
Magistra #79, Pope John XXIII pointed out that in the national level the following
points are relevant and should not be overlooked:
▪ to provide employment for as many workers as possible;
▪ to take care of the rights of the workers lest privileged groups arise even among the
workers themselves;
▪ to maintain a balance between wages and prices;
▪ to make accessible the goods and services for a better life to as many persons as
possible;
▪ either to eliminate or to keep within bounds the inequalities that exist between
different sectors of the economy – that is, between agriculture, industry, and
services;
▪ to balance properly any increases in output with advances in services provided to
citizens especially by public authority;
▪ to adjust, as far as possible, the means of production to the progress of science and
technology;
▪ finally, to ensure that the advantages of a more humane way of existence not merely
subserve the present generation but have regard for future generations as well.
 c. Common good requires that not only external order and material prosperity be given
emphasis. Equally important, if not more important, is the intellectual and moral
development of people. The practice of the different virtues, love for what is true and
beautiful, submission to a higher law, loyalty, courage, etc., must be developed among
the citizens. There should also be ample opportunities for spiritual development.
Respect for religion and love of God must be esteemed above all else. This last
component of the common good is very important. Without this, all the other two
components are useless. Even if there is order and material prosperity, they will all
be useless without this last one present.

Conditions for the Attainment of the Common Good

There are also several conditions for the attainment of the common good. They are the
following:

a. Freedom. Freedom is necessary in the attainment of the common good. Individuals

who are not free in their social activities cannot fully exercise their rights or fulfill their
duties, cannot be instruments for the realization of the common good and are
themselves manifestations that the common good is being violated or not yet fully
achieved. But here again, freedom must be properly understood as not the capacity
to do whatever one wishes nor does it consist in the possibility of choosing evil.
Authentic freedom should always be at the service of charity, goodness and justice. It
is choosing what is good. This is why we can say that the more a person does what is
good, the freer that person becomes. If ever that person chooses to do evil, then he is
abusing the freedom that God has given him. God gave us freedom for our own
personal growth and maturity. Every member of the society should respect another
person’s freedom, otherwise, common good will remain a dream.
b. Protection of Basic Rights. The legitimate rights of the human person must be respected
and protected. An essential element of the common good is the protection of the rights
of each person which must be one of the objectives of social authorities. No society
can remain intact and can strive to realize the common good for its members unless it
first gives adequate importance to the basic rights of every human person.
c. Promotion of Every Individual. No individual or group of individuals should be
considered lower in dignity than the others nor be discriminated against by reason of
their race, physical appearance, economic or social status, etc. The fundamental
equality of all human beings must always be highlighted and expressed whether
directly or indirectly at all times and in every aspect of human life.
d. Social Authority. Every human community must have a social authority. It is a natural
consequence in every social group that a leader would always emerge. Social
authority exists for the common good – not to establish it but to safeguard it and also
not go beyond it. The power of the social authority does not go beyond the common
good and it remains legitimate only if it is exercised for the promotion, protection and
administration of the common good, otherwise, it becomes untrue to the very reason
for its existence (Belmonte, 1997, p. 260).
 6. On Politics

One of the conditions to attain the common good is the presence of social authority or to
use another term, the presence of a political authority. Political authority is a necessity in every
society. The Church, through the encyclical Pacem in Terris, teaches this indispensability of
political authority: “A ruling authority is indispensable to civil society. That is a fact which flows
from the moral order itself” (P.T., 83).

But if we are going to talk about political authority, we also have to talk about politics.
Political authority and politics are inseparable. In order to understand one, we have to
understand the other. It is, therefore, necessary that we discuss at this point the Church’s
teachings on politics, its nature and historical development.

a. Historical Aspect of Politics

Graeco-Roman Period
▪ Plato’s Political Idealism – Plato viewed reality as being divided into ideas and
phenomena. True self will be realized only in the ideal. Phenomena are what we
see. They are transient and temporary. The purpose of politics then is to attain the
ideal. Plato reduced politics to ethics. He said that unless the political leaders are
philosophers, the state will never be able to provide the opportunity to contemplate
the ideal. Kings, therefore, should be philosophers and philosophers, kings.
▪ Aristotle’s Political Realism – Aristotle was a realist. He was the exact opposite of
Plato in many ways. For him, reality is what we see and the state is a natural
consequence of being human. Political science, then, becomes the priority over
ethics. It is the highest science for Aristotle. For him, ethics is reduced to politics.

Patristic Period – Middle Age

▪ St. Augustine – St. Augustine followed the idea of Plato. He recognized the pagan
state and their political power but he holds that the state should promote primarily
the Christian ideal. Hence, for him, an ideal state is a state that is Christian ruled by
Christian leaders and all citizens live in accordance with the Christian ideal.
▪ St. Thomas – St. Thomas was an Aristotelian. For him, political authority is necessary
for the attainment of the common good but he added a transcendent end to that of
Aristotle. His idea has an immeasurable influence during his time and in the
following centuries.

Modern Period
▪ Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) – Francisco Suarez was a Dominican theologian and
philosopher who followed the idea of St. Thomas. For him, political authority is a
natural necessity for man but he also cited the importance of the citizen’s will. For
him, politics is simply a natural part of the whole society.
▪ John Calvin (1509-1564) – John Calvin taught that the political authority is necessary
as long as we are physically human. His idea is a reaction to the idea that law is no
longer necessary because Christ has liberated us from its bondage.

It was during the modern period that the necessity of a political authority became more
accepted and popular. This necessity was viewed as a result of the need of man to be fully
realized and because other communities in man’s existence are inadequate to provide the
wholeness of the realization of man’s needs.

The modern period was also characterized by politics that slowly separates itself from the
Christian ethics. It was also during this period that the attempt to give scientific support to
political reality first appeared and solidified. Some of the great thinkers on politics during this
time were Niccolo Machiavelli (1449-1527), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Baron de Montesquieu
(1689-1755) and Jean Jacques Roussequ (1712-1778).

Today, politics is commonly defined as the art of government and public service. It came
from the Greek word “polis” which means city. Every decision or action made by the city or the
state is a political act and to manage a city or state is a political task.

Our Philippine Constitution describes politics as that which is meant for the good of civil
society. In itself, it is good and necessary in any political authority. But, sad to say, it is not
uncommon to see politics being degenerated into an arena where the interests of the powerful
and the rich always tower over those of the weak and the poor. Public office has often become a
means of enrichment, influence, and power for self and family interests. This should not be the
case and this is contrary to what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that morality and
politics should always be interconnected. Although it accepts that politics is an autonomous
science, it becomes involved with morality when one starts to consider that it involves human
action or activity, intention and end, and in so far as it is concerned with the realization of the
common good.

Political authority, whether in the community as such or in institutions representing the state
must always be exercised within the limits of morality and on behalf of the dynamically
conceived common good, according to a juridical order enjoying legal status (G.S., 74).

b. Morality and Politics

Throughout history, there has always been a tension between morality and politics.
Several points of view that reject the relevance of the marriage between morality and politics
came out. These views are contrary to the Church’s teaching regarding morality and politics.

▪ Bourgeoisie mentality. This kind of mentality existed particularly among the

bourgeoisie of the 19th century. It shuns morality because morality is seen as not
important in political matters. What matters most is self-interest. This is a kind of
liberalist mentality.
▪ Marxists/anarchists mentality. This mentality is based on the view that the individual
is unimportant. What matters is the will of the state. The individual is just an
organism that exists for the will of the state. Consequently, morality loses its
importance. Anarchists, on the other hand, while following the same mentality, do
not bow to any other authority not even God’s.
▪ Machiavellian mentality. The Machiavellian mentality also holds that moral
principles can be rejected or sacrificed for the interest of politics.
▪ Hegelian mentality. Similarly, Hegelian thought believes that the will of the state
becomes the norm and consequently, moral principles cease to exist.
 However, the Catholic Church teaches that morality and politics cannot be separated. At present,
the Church’s involvement in the total human development of the people inevitably leads her to
an involvement in politics. This is further justified by the widespread use of politics for the
enrichment of the few. The Church has the mission to guard the people against those who
endanger their total human development. With her mission of “option for the poor” the Church
sees the need to be involved in politics and help effect a balanced distribution of power that will
favor the poor majority.

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God calls the Church to political involvement. In the
Philippines, the CBCP teaches that:

Politics has a religious and moral dimension – this is the general principle we start with. Every
informed Catholic should be aware of this simple inconvertible truth. Our Catholic faith is
concerned with the religious and moral dimension of life, but every human activity that flows
from the normal processes of intellect and will has a religious and moral dimension, since it may
either lead to grace or to sin. . . Being a human activity, politics has, therefore, a religious and
moral dimension which our Catholic faith simply cannot ignore (PEPP, sec. E, 1).

The Church’s involvement in politics should not be viewed as an intention to rule politics
or grab power from political leaders. The Church only intends to take care of the people’s welfare
and morality and guide them towards integral human development. Some people question this
action of the Church. While it is true that the mission of the Church is the proclamation of the
Word of God, this mission is the reason why the Church has to teach the values of the Kingdom
like justice, peace, love, equality, unity, and the promotion of the reign of the Kingdom of God
even in the sphere of politics. The Church’s mission goes beyond the spiritual dimension of the
life of the whole society.

We have to distinguish however, between political action and partisan politics. Political
action involves doing something to influence and affect the policies of the state while partisan
politics has to do with promoting the political platform of a particular political party or candidate,
especially during elections. The Church has the duty to get involved in political action but never
in partisan politics. This is to ensure that Christian ideals are being promoted and maintained
even in the field of politics. But as an institution, the Church has to abstain from partisan politics.
History has shown and the Church has learned her lesson in the past that it is never beneficial for
the Church to be identified with a particular political party or leader.
At present, the Church is involved in political action by raising the consciousness of the
people, motivating them to action, and enabling them to act effectively through skills of organized
action. Her official public pronouncements are attempts to influence state policies for the sake of
the common good. The Church's aim is to influence government policies and actions to ensure
that the welfare and interest of the basic sectors are taken cared of. This may be accomplished
through:
▪ collective action against graft and corruption, human rights violations and socially-
aggressive development projects;
▪ engaging in legislative advocacy, electoral activities, etc.;
▪ monitoring and being involved in government projects.
c. Basis for the Church’s Involvement in Politics

There are five bases for the Church’s mission in politics(NASSA-JP, 1998, pp. 68-69):
▪ The Gospel and the Kingdom of God call the Church to Political Involvement. At the very
center of Jesus’ mission is the proclamation
Because of the public relevance
that “The Kingdom of God is at hand.
of the Gospel and faith,
Repent and believe the Gospel” (Mk. 1:15).
because of the corrupting
This act of repentance and believing in the
effects of injustice, that is, of
Gospel should take effect in our lives by
sin, the Church cannot remain
renewing our lives, by defending and
indifferent to social matters
promoting the values of the Kingdom, such
(Evangelii Nuntiandi, 34).
as justice, peace, truth love, freedom,
equality, mercy, and reconciliation. This we must proclaim and live in all the spheres
of our life, obviously, even in the sphere of politics.
▪ The Church’s mission of integral salvation involves the temporal sphere, not only the spiritual.
As discussed in the earlier parts of this book, salvation includes the human person’s
liberation from all forms of oppression including of course, oppressions brought about
by politics.
▪ Salvation is liberation
from personal and social
sin, including sin in the
political sphere. Social
sins and sinful
structures brought
about by politics
governed by deceit,
dishonesty, greed,
unprincipled
compromises, and self-
interest are conditions
that are present in
many political
situations. Because of
this, the Church has the
duty to bring the
message of salvation to
political sphere by evangelizing it and forming the conscience of people involved in
politics.
▪ The Church has an option for the poor also in the field of politics. The Church has the mission
to see to it that our laws and policies do not favor the rich at the expense of the poor
people.
▪ At the core of the Church’s mission is the integral development of the human person who is
affected by politics. Whether we like it or not, politics can make or unmake a person.
Since Jesus’ mission, which is the basis of the mission of the Church, is the integrity of
the human person, the Church must never allow politics to disregard the dignity and
rights of the human person nor lead the human person to evil.
 Based on the Church’s teaching, the following moral and religious truths should guide
and transform politics (NASSA-JP, 1998, p. 69):
▪ Human dignity and solidarity are first principles of politics.
▪ The common good is the goal of political activity.
▪ Authority and power are divine trust for service.
▪ There should be a mutual collaboration between political community and the Church.

7. Church-State Relations

The relationship of Church and State, or religion and politics, mirrors the interplay of
ecclesiastical and governmental institutions in society. In the past, this interplay has occasioned
a number of theological and philosophical formulations on the relative authority of Church and
State. Christian theology at one time and place or another has swung from viewing the Church
as supreme, with the State merely a vassal of the Church, to viewing the State as supreme, with
the church as possessing purely spiritual power. Most formulations, however, have posited that
although they essentially differ from each other, they are mutually dependent. They complement
one another. Yet, despite this mutual dependence, it is never beneficial to combine them. Here
in the Philippines, we believe that the Church and State should both have their own autonomy
and independence. Though they serve and claim the fidelity of one and the same people, still
they have differences in their views, principles and ends.

a. Distinctness and Autonomy of Church and State

The Church and State are distinct from each other. They have different ends, constitution
and form of government. Pope Leo XIII in his Immortale Dei emphasized their distinct character
when he wrote:

The Almighty . . . has appointed the charge of the human race between two powers, the
ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human things. Each
in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits with-in which it is contained, limits which are defined
by the nature and special object of the province of each.

At the same time, Church and State are autonomous from each other. The Church is not
subordinate to the State nor the State to the Church. They are both independent from each other
in pursuing their own God-given tasks. They both have their own authority who should order
and conduct their own affairs within each other’s limits.

It is generally agreed that the Founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, wished the spiritual power to
be distinct from the civil, and each to be free and unhampered in doing its own work, not
forgetting, however, that it is expedient to both, and in the interest of everybody, that there be a
harmonious relationship ( Casti Conubii, 125).

b. The Relatedness of Church and State

While maintaining the distinctness and autonomy between the Church and State, we
cannot deny that they are also related to each other. They are composed of the same members
and serve the same people.
 Yet, by different title, each serves the personal
and social vocation of the same human beings. This
service can be more effectively rendered for the good
of all if each works better for wholesome
cooperation, depending on the circumstances of time
and place (G.S., 76).

The relatedness between Church and State is

three-fold:
▪ The Church and State have the same
origin, namely, God.
▪ They exercise their authority over the same subjects.
▪ They both embrace the obligation to be the guardian of moral order and maintainer of
justice and fairness.

This three-fold relatedness between the Church and State has been the source of many
tensions and conflicts. Historically, we can find different forms of this relatedness.

c. Separation of Church and State

While it is true that the Church and State are related, they should remain independent
from one another. This is why there is a need for the separation of Church and State. But this
separation must be understood properly. It does not mean indifference or hostility against the
activity of the other. Although it is not the obligation of the State to take care of the spiritual
welfare of its citizens, still she has the duty to provide them with the best arrangement,
opportunities or means to achieve it. She also has the duty to protect and respect the religious
rights of people and to enact laws that are in accordance with the natural moral law. In the same
way, while being true to her mission, the Church must abstain from intervening on temporal and
state matters that are beyond her sphere. But this does not remove from the Church the right to
reprimand the State (or leaders of the state, particularly those who belong to her fold) on matters
of religious and moral importance.

In view of her role and competence, the Church must in no way be identified with the political
community nor is she bound to any political system. For she is at once the sign and the safeguard
of the transcendental dimension of the human person. In their proper spheres, the political
community and the Church are mutually independent and autonomous (G.S., 76).

The separation of Church and State is particularly based on the freedom of the Church
which is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the church and
governments and the whole civil order (Dignitates Humanae, 13).

The Philippine Constitution states in Article II, Section 6 that “The separation of Church
and State shall be inviolable.” But what does the clause “separation of Church and State” really
mean?
 The separation of Church and State refers to the constitutional provision that prohibits any
direct connection between religious and governmental institutions and protects the exercise of
private religious freedom and autonomy. The constitutional provision on the separation of Church
and State is found in Article III, Section 5 which states that:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

This section of the Constitution is commonly considered as a combination of two clauses:

the non-establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The non-establishment clause is generally interpreted as a provision that prevents the

state from establishing a national religion, or favoring any single religion or religions. It is
important to highlight that this provision is a commandment addressed to the State and not to
the Church, and therefore, only the State can violate it. Thus, no clergy or churchman may be
charged of violating the non-establishment clause.

Likewise, the free exercise clause is a provision addressed to the State and promotes the
protection of the Church from any form of prohibition or compulsion from the State. It
safeguards the free exercise of a person’s chosen religion. Thus, it upholds both the freedom to
believe and the freedom to act. The first, freedom to believe, is absolute, but the second is not. The
State is prohibited from coercing a person to accept or deny a particular belief. However, the
moment that a person acts according to his belief, his actions become subject to government
regulations. For instance, a doctor is free to believe that abortion is not immoral but the moment
he performs abortion procedure, the State may already intervene.

Hence, a priest or a church leader who denounces the immorality and injustice in the
government and who in his homily openly advocates a specific political action based on his
religious conviction cannot be charged of violating the provision on the separation of Church and
State. Anybody who will prevent church leaders from performing such action is violating not
only the free exercise clause but also the freedom of speech and expression.

In addition, the Philippine Constitution does not prohibit clergymen from seeking public
office. The prevailing opinion today is that a priest or bishop who runs for public office does not
violate the separation of Church and State. However, on the part of the Catholic Church, priests,
as long as they remain active in their priestly ministry, are prohibited by the Canon Law (again,
not by the Constitution) from assuming any public office whenever it means sharing in the
exercise of civil power (cf. Canon 285).

At this point, it is of particular importance to quote the speech of Pope John Paul II which
he delivered to the Diplomatic Corps in the Philippines on February 18, 1987:

When the Church offers her own specific contribution to the great permanent tasks of mankind
– peace, justice, development, and every worthy effort aimed at promoting and defending human
dignity – she does so because she is convinced that such action is related to her mission. This
 mission is concerned with the service of man: the whole human being, the individual person
who fulfills his or her eternal vocation in temporal history, within a complex of communities and
societies. Her own contribution to the humanization of society and the world derives from Jesus
Christ and His Gospel. With reference to Jesus Christ she strives to bring about a transformation
of hearts and minds so that man can see himself in the full truth of his humanity.
The Church’s action, therefore, is not political, or economic or technical. The Church is not
competent in the fields of technology or science, nor does she assert herself through power
politics. Her competence, like her mission, is religious and moral in nature; and she must remain
within her proper field of competence, lest her action be ineffective or irresponsible. It is the
Church’s practice, therefore, to respect the specific area of responsibility of the State without
interfering in the tasks of the politicians and without participating directly in the management of
temporal affairs. At the same time, the Church encourages her members to assume their full
responsibility as citizens of a given nation and to seek together with their fellow human beings
the paths and models which can best promote the progress of society. She sees as her specific
contribution the strengthening of the spiritual and moral bases of society, and as a service to
humanity she assists people in forming their conscience correctly.

d. Cooperation between Church and State

In spite of the separation, there is a need for the cooperation between the Church and the
State. They serve the same human being and therefore, their conflict will be detrimental to
themselves and to the society as a whole. The State can be more effective in her mission if she
works hand in hand with the Church. Similarly, the Church can fulfill her mission more easily
and effectively if the State provides the necessary independence and freedom the Church needs.
The Church and State must help one another and both provide the atmosphere of harmony and
cooperation for the good of the people they serve.

If the civil power combines in a friendly manner with the spiritual power of the Church, it
necessarily follows that both parties will greatly benefit. The dignity of the State will be
enhanced, and with religion as its guide, there will never be a rule that is not just; while for the
Church there will be at hand a safeguard and defense which will operate to the public good of
the faithful (Casti Conubii, 125).