The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-12-20

on spiritual and temporal power as eX-
ercised by the church during her long
history. The uncle replies by explain
ing the nature of the temporal power
and proves what he had already stated
by appealing to history. The nephew
opens the debate saying:
CONVERSATION x.
What you have said, my dear uncle,
may. for aught 1 know, suffice for the
| question concerning the temporal au-
thoritv of the church, as between you
aud your Gallican friends. But that
does not suffice for me. 1 prefer the
views of the Gallicans to those of the
papists. because L think them more
liberal. more advanced and approach
ing Professionalism; but whether they
or papists are the truer Catholics is to
me a matter of perfect Indifference.
What | want is that you should show
that the authority you claim for the
church does not destroy the autonomy
of the state and absorb the civil power
in the spiritual"
Il have done that already"
You have asserted it, but you have
not shown it to my satisfaction.
| Bear in mind, then, that the power
which L assert for the church over tem-
| porals is spiritual, not temporal. /
| claim for her no temporal or civil Ju-
| risdiction The power which l main
| tain for the sovereign pontiff, as vicar
| of Jesus Christ, or by the institution of
| Christ. does not lie in the same order
+ with the civil power. The prince does
not hold from him suzerain, and is
not accountable to him as lord para
mount in the temporal order. The
! papal power is not temporal power
or Jurisdiction over the temporal OF
| princes and states, but simply spirit
ual jurisdiction. Temporals have
! twofold relation; the one to temporal
end-terrestrial happiness; the other
| to a spiritual end-celestial and eternal
beatitude The church has jurisdic-
| ton over them only under the latter
relation; the state, only under the for
mer. Under their relation to the tenn
poral end, the state has independent
and supreme jurisdiction, and is there
fore Independent and supreme in its
own order. Consequently, my doctrine
does not destroy the autonomy of the
state or absorb it in the church.
But you subordinate the state to the
church, not in dignity and rank only,
but also in authority.
! Certainly l do; but subordinate and
identity, in my philosophy, belong TO
different catagories. Man is subordln-
| ate to God, and owes him submission IN
all things. Has man therefore no au-
| tonomy? Is he absorbed in God, or IS
! God by this fact declared to be man
| OF course not, for man in obeylng acts
| from his own center, and 1t is he, with
| the divine concurrence, that acts IN the
obedience, not God. Does my learned
| nenhew need to be told that where
there is identity there is and can be
| no subordination, for nothing can be
subordinate to itself? The assertion
of the subordination of the temporal to
! the spiritual necessarily implies that
! two powers are distinct. Moreover,
| even when the church intervenes IN
| temporals, according to the doctrine L
am defending, she does not intervene
| directly; she intervenes indirectly,
! through the civil power, by directing
| it TO refer them to the spiritual end.
1t is it. not she, that so refers them.
Still as you extend her jurisdiction
| to all temporals,I cannot see what you
leave for the state to do but the DID
ding of the church"
| Even if as you supposed, since L. aa-
NIT that the state holds from no other
and therefore that none but it can do
what the church bids it do in that or
| der. I should neither absorb it in the
! church nor destroy its autonomy IN
| temporals. But you forget that !
claim for the church no temporal Jurls-
diction over the temporal, L claim 1or
| her only spiritual jurisdictions: -
$50 you constantly repeat, but as you
confess that it extends to all acts OF
man in the temporal order, as well as
in the spiritual, cannot see what dill
| ference it makes. What dlfference
does it make whether you call her Ju-
risdiction spiritual or temporal, since
| it is precisely of the same extent ano
covers the same acts in either case
eff the difference were only differ
ence in name, it would amount &c
nothing. l suppose / am capable OF UNI
derstanding so much. AS you put the
! case if can make no difference in the
world whether you call it the one OF
the other. and you might have pre-
| summed that ] could know as muc1
without your telling me. You might
should suppose, have concluded, WheI
Won found me insisting with so mucE
emphasis on the distinction, that 1t mac
for me a real significance, although a
significance not apparent to you. IL Il
not ALWAYS safe to infer that a man Is
n fool because we fail to catch MS
sense. I have already told you over
and over again that temporals have
two-fold relation, the one to tempora
good and the other to spiritual GOOD
IF after the example of most Protest
ants were to identify the churcf
with the state, should be obliged Y
saw that the state has jurisdiction o
temporals under both of these rela
tons: if. as you suppose, | 1dentlnet
the state with the church and claimed
! for her real temporal authority owe
the temporal, l should subject tempo
rails under both of these relations u
tho nanaI power Now, it so happens
! that 7 do neither. When, therefore,
4 tell vou that / defend for the church
only a spiritual jurisdiction, your con
cl,1sion ought to be that | defend 10
her jurisdiction in regard to temporai'
only in the respect that they are re
lated or to be referred to splrltua
end The distinction is real, not mere
! w verbal as you suppose, and neces
/ sarilv implies a real distinction be
tween the two powers -
ITO make this plain to the dulles
J understanding, suppose prince hoid
! that it is for the temporal prosperlt.
of his subjects that railroad be con
structed from his capital to the sea
I hoard Now if the church had tempo
raj jurisdiction, she could say to MIN
no Won shall construct a canal, not
railroad. or, you shall construc
neither. but as the construction o
either is nor per Sc contrary to the iaN
of Cos If si,t is assumed to have onl.