CIVIL
797
CIVIL
however, is prone to go wrong, and many and bitter
have been the conflicts between the two powers.
While no Catholic would maintain that in these
struggles the Church was always in the right, modern
historians of the scientific school freely admit that
the civil power was generally the aggressor. One
cause of conflict was the jurisdiction over many
merely temporal matters which the Christian em-
pi ct is of Rome granted to the popes and to bishops.
During the Middle Ages bishops continued to claim
and to exercise this jurisdiction, which was some-
times enlarged, sometimes curtailed, by local cus-
toms and laws. In various ways the pope became
paramount lord of whole kingdoms during the same
period. Thus, by the voluntary act of King John
and his barons, England was made a fief of the Holy
Sic ami became fur a time tributary to it. When
flu' Church had once lawfully acquired such rights
as these, it was natural thai she should wish to retain
them; indeed.no churchman could lawfully surrender
the justly acquired rights of his church, even in
temporal matters, wit limit just cause and the leave
of the Holy See. Still, the double jurisdiction led
to strife between the two powers, and by degrees the
State in most European countries not only deprived
tin- Church of the jurisdiction in temporal matters
which she once possessed, but made large inroads
into the spiritual domain which belongs exclusively
to the Church. Conflicts also arose over mixed
. such as legitimacy, which belonged to both
jurisdictions, and in consequence of the claim of the
Church to an indirect and incidental jurisdiction in
matters temporal. Thus the Church claims au-
thority over the education of her children even in
subjects which do not pertain directly to religion,
and in all probability in the same way she obtained
in England the power which she once enjoyed over
testamentary dispositions. This is a matter of the
greatest importance in the history of English law.
Owing to it the English law of property at the present
day is divided into halves, that of realty and thai
of personalty. The division is due to the fact that
the Church, on account of her authority over pious
causes and legacies to charitable purposes, early
obtained jurisdiction over all testamentary disposi-
tions of personalty, while the realty was left to the
civil courts. There was a controversy among
theologians and jurists as to the extent of the Church's
power over temporal matters. All admit that, her
ority does in some way extend to temporal
indeed, the proposition that she has no direct
in indirect temporal authority was condemned by
Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. To explain the
nature of that power three systems have been devised
by theologians and jurists.
(a) Theory of Direct Power. -One school, which comprised such men as John of Salisbury and his friend St. Thomas Becket, maintained that the pope had direct power over temporal as over spiritual matters. All power was given to Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, and He made over the plenitude of the power which He had received to His vicars, the Human pontiffs. Consequently the popes are the supreme rulers of the world in both spiritual ami temporal matters, they keep the spiritual power in their own hands, while they dele- gate the temporal to emperors ami kings. These, therefore, are directly responsible for their acts to the pope in whose name they govern. It is possible
to quote expressions from papal documents which seem to support this opinion. Gregory VII, Inno- cent III. ami other popes, used phrases which are capable of being interpreted in that sense; but if the of those documents be considered, and espe- cially if the teaching of these popes on other occasions be taken into account, they must be explained in another way. Thus Innocent III, writing to the
Patriarch of Constantinople, says that "not only the
Church universal but the whole world was left to
Peter to govern." But his aim is to show the uni-
versality of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction in con-
trast to that exercised over particular churches by
other spiritual rulers. In his celebrated Decretal
"Novit," Innocent III defends himself from the
imputation of desiring to usurp or curtail the juris-
diction or power of the King of France: "Why", he
asks, "should we desire to usurp the jurisdiction of
another, when we are not competent to wield our
own?" He explains that he had summoned the
French king before his spiritual tribunal to answer
for a sin. a matter which belonged to the ecclesiastical
court. Similarly, in his Decretal " Per vcnerabilem",
the same great pope says that he is well aware that
Christ said. "Render to Caesar the things that are
Ca-sar's and to God the things that are God's", but
that, notwithstanding, in certain causes the pope
exercises temporal jurisdiction casually and in-
cidentally.
(6) Theory of Indirect Power. — Hence there was another opinion defended by Hugo of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and others, according to which the power granted by Christ to the Church and to the pope was spiritual, and had reference only to religion and the salvation of souls. The Church had no merely temporal jurisdiction of Divine right; Christian emperors and kings were supreme within the limits of their temporal authority. However, inasmuch as all must give way when there is ques- tion of the salvation of souls, " For what doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" and, " If thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee"; so all im- pediments to salvation must be removed. He, there- fore, who has the care of the salvation of souls should have the power to remove any impediment to salva- tion, even if it be caused by a Christian emperor or king. Resides. Christian emperors and kings are children of the Church, and as such subject to the supreme rulers of the Church. The first Christian emperors acknowledged this; great saints and bishops like St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom taught it and acted on it; the popes of the Middle Ages were only following precedent when they acted in like manner. Bellarmine, one of the chief exponents of this theory of the indirect power of the popes over temporal affairs, says that it was the common opinion of theologians; Suarez, another great upholder of the same view, in his volume against James 1 of ting- land, says that it was the more received and ap- proved opinion among Catholics. In our time this opinion has become generally accepted, and Leo XIII seems to adopt it in his Encyclical quoted above on the Christian constitution of States. "Whatever", he says, "in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by rea- son of the end to which it is referred, to the salva- tion of souls or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church."
(r) Theory of Directiw Power. — A third opinion was held by Fenelon, Gosselin, and a fewothers, that the pope has only a directing and guiding, not a constraining, power over temporal affairs. These writers taught tli.it the church should instruct hurt, warn, and admonish temporal rulers; she may
declare that a civil law is unjust, but that she has no
coercing power even indirectly in temporal matters. This position of the < iallican School is now- abandoned by all Catholics, and has lie.-,. me obsolete From what has been said it will be clear what are the nature, the extent, and the limits of civil allegiance accord- ing to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Accord- ing to that teaching citizens are religiously bound to reverence and obey their civil rulers in all " which belong to the sphere of civil government.
