TOLERATION
772
TOLERATION
claim of the Churoli tn suiirpmacy over the State must
ahnost necessarily call forth the opposite extreme of
Ca;saropapism. The early protectorate of the State
thus develops finally into the complete control and
enslavement of the Church. Such in fact has been
the historical sequence. Not alone in the Eastern
Empire, in which Byzantine Ccesaropapism won its
greatest triumphs, but also in the Western Empire
these unworthy tendencies were all too clearly re-
vealed, especially under the Hohenstaufens.
(b) When various Christian denominations estab- lish themselves in any country, the Catholic State can no longer maintain its former exclusive attitude, but is compelled for reasons of State to show tolerance to- wards the heterodox and to grant them religious free- dom within the limits described above and deter- mined by natural law. If religious freedom has been accepted and sworn to as a fundamental law in a constitution, the obligation to show this tolerance is binding on conscience. The Catholic Church recog- nizes unreservedly the inviolability of constitutions confirmed by oath, of traditional laws, and regular religious compacts, because a breach of the constitu- tion, of allegiance, of a treaty, or of an oath is a grievous sin, and because the Christian moral law prescribes fidelity to the State as an obligation strictly binding in conscience. To justify ethically tolerance towards certain religious practices of heathen subjects, medieval theologians appealed to the principle that tolerance might be always exercised wherever either its refusal would cause more harm than good, or, vice versa, whenever the granting of it ensured greater advantage than disadvantage. Thus St. Thomas teaches (Sumraa theol., II-II, Q. x, a. 11 ) : "Ritus infidelium tolerari possunt vel propter aliquod bonum, quod ex eis provenit, vel propter aliquod maum, quod vitatur" (Heathen worships can be toler- ated either because of some good that results from them or because of some evil that is avoided). In all the centuries the Church displayed an admirable toler- ance especially towards the Jewish religion, since the survival of Judaism offered a living proof of the truth of Christianity. The medieval principle of tolerance is specially applicable to present conditions, since the historical development of the modern State has created throughout the world so uniform a basis of rights that even Catholic States cannot without vio- lation of oaths and loyalty and without violent inter- nal convulsions disregard it, even if they desired to do so. Besides, there is good reason to doubt if there still exists a purely Catholic State in the world; and it is, of course, just as doubtful whether there is such a thing as a purely Protestant State. Cosmopolites have established colonies and settlements everywhere, and to these international law concedes freedom of behef and worship. Consequently, Leo XIII also supported the principle of tolerance, when he declared (cf. Denzinger, n. 1874): "Revera si divini cultus varia genera eodem jure esse quo veram rcligioncni Ecclesia judicat non hcere, non ideo tamen damnat rerum publicarum moderatores, qui magni alicujus adipiscendi boni aut prohibendi causa mali moribus atque usu patienter ferunt, ut ea habeant singula in civitate locum" (If the Church declares that the vari- ous kinds of worship should not have the same rights as the true religion, she does not thereby condemn those rulers who, in order to secure some great good or to avert some evil, permit each cult to exist).
There are, however, a number of States, which in virtue of their constitutions are committed not alone to tolerance and religious freedom, but al.so to parity. By i)arily is utidcrslood the i)l:ii'ing of .'ill legalized or recogiiizcil religious l)oclirs on the same footing before the law, all show of partiality and <lisfavi)ur being equally avoided. Such is the basii' principle of the constitutional State, which, while elliically Christian, allows various forms of belief. On it devolves espe-
cially the duty of placing no obstacle in the way of the
public promotion of religion in sermon and writing
and of extending to the religious practices of all de-
nominations the same legal protection, to the exclu-
sion of any compulsory system that would bind the
citizens to receive certain religious rites (e. g. baptism,
burial) from clergymen appointed by the State. With
freedom of belief are intimately associated the personal
right of changing one's religion and the right of the
parties in the case of mixed marriages to decide as to
the religious education of the children. The State
must likewise recognize and protect the right of the
various denominations to hold property and their
right of self-government, in so far as these rights are
enjoyed by all legally constituted corporations.
Wherever such a State makes contributions or grants
from the budget of public ownership, all recognized
religious associations must receive equal considera-
tion, unless a particular association, in virtue of a
special title (e. g. the secularization of rehgious prop-
erty), has legal claims to exceptional treatment.
Finally, legal equahty must be granted to the adher-
ents of all denominations in both their civic and
national capacities, especially in the matter of ap-
pointment to public office. Concerning Christian
States in which various religions exist, F. Walter,
the well-known professor of public law, made the wise
observation: "The government as such, entirely re-
gardless of the personal belief of the sovereign, must
maintain towards every church the same attitude as if
it belonged to this Church. In the consistent and
upright ob,servance of this standpoint lies the means
of being just to each religion and of preserving for the
State its Christian character" (loc. cit., p. 491).
Such indeed is the admirable theory; wherever devia-
tions from it occur in practice, they are almost with-
out exception to the detriment of Catholics.
I. ConrrrtiiiiL' n lil':i i>f 1 nl'Tation: Pelisson-Foxtanier, Delalohr: '. !' '^ de M. Leibniz et Riponses de M. Petis.^iin i '. I' '_ \ ■ \ wi s. El proleslantismo comparado con el cat"l " .> - ; ,-/, -/,,.s- con la civilizacidn euTopea, I (Barcelona. 1.S42); Lkhmkchl. Gewissens-u, Kullusfreiheit in Stimmen am Maria-Lnach. XI (1876), 184 sqq.; Reinkens, Lessing fiber Toleram (Leipzig, 1884) ; NlLLES, Tolerari potest in Zeitschr. fiir kath. Theol., XVII (1S93), 24.5 sqq.; Lezius, Der Toleranzbegriff Locke's u. Puffendarf's (Leipzig, 1900); RuFFlNl, La liberta religiosa (Turin, 1901); Simar, Gewissen u, Gewissens- freiheit (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1902); Cathrein, Gewissen u. Gewis- sensfriiheit (.Munich, 1906).
II. Concerning Theoretical Dogmatic Toleration: James, The Meaning of Truth (New York. 1900) ; Baldwi.n, Thoughts and Things, or Genetic Logic, I (New York, 1906) ; Schiller, Studies in Humanism (London, 1907); James, Pragmatism (New York, 1907). In answer to the theories there advocated: De Tonoedet, La notion de la verite dans la philosophie modcrne (Paris, 1909); LECLfeRE, Pragmatisme, modernisme, prateslantisme (Paris, 1909); SwlTAiaKi, Der Wahreilshegriff des Prngnutixmus (Brauns- herg, 1910); SAnchez, De tolerantm r,!,,n,i«a (Madrid, 1785), antiquated; Dollinger, Kirche n. K^r.h'i, iMunich, 1861); Merkle, i3ie Toleranz nach kalhuL l'r,i,,ii„. n iDillingen, 1863); De intolerantia catholica seu de senltnlhi: Estrn Ecclesiam nulla salus (Turin, 1808): Hansjakob. Die Toleranz u. Intoleranz der kathol. Kirche (Freiburg, 1899); Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche (Freiburg, 1903); Romeis, Das Heil der Christen aus- sethalb der wahren Kirche nach der Lehre des hi. Augustinua (Paderborn, 1908); Mausbach, Die Ethik des hi. Augustinus, 11 (Freiburg, 1909). Concerning the Inquisition: Lea, .4 Hist, of the hguisition in the Middle Ages (3 vols.. New York, 1888); DoiAis, VInquisiti.m. ses <)ri,;i,,.s, ..„ procedure (Paris, 1906); Vai \\i'\u]' //,;',,.,'(,./; /,',:,;- '( /'/n/ue ct CTitiquc sur le
- .(--. ! I '", HE Cauzons, Hist, de
(■/■ , ; . I I II , I'iii Concerning the Toler- iiiin :i,i I; I. .It- (\i :i -, /'(' -:r,i.^sf}urger Refornuiloren
„, „:. I .,/»i7 (FrcilmrK. IS'.l.il; Idem, Profcsfan/ismMU.
7'i'/' .lahrh. (Freiburg, 1911): Kohler, Reformation
u A' I (Tubingen. 1901); Wappler, Inquisition u.
K!:' <- i'l "• ■ ' ' Zu'u-kiui zitr h'iCurmationszeit (Leipzig, 1908).
IH. Cunrvrun,^ I'luii. il 1 n i.- Toleration: Rickaby, Moral Philosophii ,ir Ell.:. \ /..ar (London, 189.3); DOBNER,
Das me7i.:<chlirfif II.. i i , n, 1S95) ; Lecky, Democracy and
Libcrlii, I t\.:.m\..n I" 1-i , : Vf\t.DMAHH, Die Feindesliebe in 'I' ■:>!l:/.'n I i ^ ,' \ ■ ii T '< 'J ' ; Cathrein, Moralphilosophie , II !i 1,1 I I 'I! -i.iNii I i,,s Ideal der kathol. Sitllichkeil (Uri \ii I'Mj i:m\iii,i'i iilfidehre des Judentums anderen />■.,:,-,, . - - .'" MI r-l.uri;, 1878); MlLAS, Das Kirchen- re.hl .l.-r m„r,„i,l,i„.l. Kir.h: (Ziira, 1897), 604 sqq. Concerning the- Puni^shiiunt of Heretics: Ficker, Die geselzliche Binfahnmg der Tudrsalrafe /Ur Kelzer in MitteiL fitr oslerreirh. Geschichts- forschung, I (\'ienna, 1.880), 177 sqq.; Havet, L'hMsie et le brat sandier au nioyen~dge jusqu'au XIII' sihcle (Paris, 1896); HlN-
