The Two Swords | http://undergroundthomist.com

Query:

I have a short question for you.  What should the commitments of the faithful be towards papal temporal authority?  In particular, may I disagree with what Pope Boniface’s bull Unam Sanctum said way back in 1302 about the superiority of the spiritual to the temporal authority?  Keen to hear your thoughts.

Reply:

Unam sanctam scandalizes a lot of people.  I do understand it to be binding on the faithful when understood correctly.  This is difficult, and I am way over my head here.  However, it seems to me that most of the difficulties people have with Unam sanctam come from failing to distinguish those things it holds to be true in principle, which are always and everywhere the same, from the juridical arrangements these true principles require, which may vary.  People read its remarks about the superiority of the spiritual to the temporal power as though it were about the latter.  I think it’s mostly about the former.

Concerning what is true about government in principle, I reconstruct the teaching of the bull as follows:

1.  There are two different “swords” or powers, temporal and spiritual, which are, and should be, wielded by two different sets of officials, civil and ecclesiastical.

2.  However, it is logically absurd to maintain that neither power has greater authority than the other in any sense, because then we wouldn’t know what to do when their orders come into conflict, as they inevitably will.

3.  Which power then is superior?  Here’s the scandalous part:  Spiritual authority is superior to temporal authority – I think for two reasons.  One reason is that our spiritual good is incomparably greater than our temporal good.  The other is that the spiritual power is more incomparably more reliable within its own domain, because of its charism.

4.  But the term “superior” gives rise to endless difficulties, and theologians are not usually very good at the kinds of distinctions which political philosophers demand.  What does the bull actually mean by the superiority of the spiritual to the temporal authority?  One part of the meaning is that civil officials have the spiritual obligation to exercise their authority on behalf of the Church and for its protection.  The other is that ecclesiastical officials have the spiritual right to stand in judgment on civil authorities and declare when they have erred.

Now concerning the juridical arrangements these principles require, matters are more obscure.  A careless reading of Unam sanctam may give impression that the spiritual obligation and right to which I have just referred are always to be given civil or constitutional effect, so that, for example, the Church may put an erring magistrate in prison.  “Do this, do that!  Jump!” But I don’t think that reading is even close to correct, and here’s why.

In the first place, I take the point about the authority of the Church to declare when civil officials have erred to include only moral and doctrinal errors, not poor prudential judgments.  So, for example, the Church may condemn the WW2 German government for carrying out the Holocaust and for persecuting the Church herself, and she may even absolve her members of obedience to tyrants.  But she has no business telling the government how best to reduce air pollution.  She may demand that illegal immigrants be treated with fairness and compassion, but she may not demand, in the name of fairness and compassion, that states neglect to enforce their borders, or that they are not to deport any violators.

In the second place, we must distinguish between two states of affairs:  Do the citizens and temporal authorities acknowledge the truth of the faith, or deny it?  As a matter of principle, it is far better for them to acknowledge it -- as was the case during the era during which Unam sanctam was promulgated.  But it is also a matter of principle that if the state and citizens are recalcitrant, they must not be compelled to acknowledge its truth.  As St. Hilary of Poitiers said, “God does not want an unwilling obedience.”  The proper way to bring about the agreement of citizens and state to the faith is evangelism, moral persuasion, and witness, even at great sacrifice and risk.

And in the third place, the circumstances in which the faith finds itself make a difference.  Suppose the citizens and temporal authorities of a certain land do acknowledge the truth of the faith.  It still doesn’t follow that the Church should have civil power in that land.  In many cases, perhaps almost always, the spiritual authority of the Church will have greater effect when it is backed up only by spiritual sanctions.  I don’t say that this is so in every case whatsoever:  For example, I am sure Gideon acted rightly in pulling down the Asherah poles and destroying the altars of Ba’al.  But most of the time, giving temporal enforcement powers to the spiritual authority would harm the Kingdom of God rather than advancing it.

So is the spiritual power superior in principle?  Yes.  But does that mean it ought to have an actual political check?  Not necessarily.

I may be way off, and I say all this subject to correction.