Sem. Mark Cloyd T. Degrano III-A.B. Philosophy Power Relations in Church and State towards a meaningful Human Existence (An inquiry in Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke’s church-state concepts with an excerpt of Paul Riceour’s Meaning of Human Existence in his socio-political writings) The history of the world especially on the western countries where imperialism and monarchial form of government paved the way all throughout the people’s civilization owe much from the Church-State powers; its culture, education, medicine, law, tradition, etc. The Church-State power nourished man’s daily life and built his future. In the Philippines, knowing the fact that we were clothed with the western culture from the time of our discovery by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521, the Church-State power shaped Filipinos’ lives and culture. However, due to the influence of a new era of political ideas a ‘one power’ ruling was divided into two separated human institutions: the Church as one, real and fundamental societal identity and a representative of the Divine to men and the State as the legal, authentic and political body of societal identity. Thus, in the Philippines it is written in its constitution on the separation of the church and the state. This separation of the Church’s and the State’s power was not only an abrupt decision but an intellectual option made by different political philosophers but this paper as stated in the adjectival co-title of the paper limits its course with Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke’s church-state ‘power relations’. The power relation of the Church and the State according to Machiavelli was that “…ecclesiastical principalities are sustained by age-old religious institutions, which are so strong and efficacious that the principalities will maintain their princes in power regardless of how they live or what they do.” This idea is really true because the ‘Church’ in the Philippines stood from 1561 until today. The Church has established universities of high quality of education that have provided the country the best scholars in the field of law, arts, music, and all other branches of the academe. She has made the Philippines something in the face of the world. The Church also has put up hospitals that offered the best medical assistance the people would ever need. We have doctors who were not only conceptually and intellectually equipped but also accoutered with human principles, morals and values. However, despite of the undesirable start of the Philippine Church, through the reformation made by the Holy See, the Church has given the country a new face of ecclesiastical ruling. The Ministers of the Church are no other than the ordained people chosen by the God through the cooperation of the priests and the whole faithful eager to offer God a servant who will stand in behalf of the people and at the same time who will stand in the person of Christ in behalf of God. And these chosen men are endowed with such power and authority to the people of God. Thus, this is supported by Machiavelli in saying “…these are the only principalities that are secure and successful for they are exulted and maintained by God.” The ministers hold power over the people assigned to their care i.e. to made standard way of living, teach them values and morals in accordance with the Gospel and the teachings of the Church (e.g. Apostolic exhortations, Encyclical Letters, Dogma, etc.) and this is true and Machiavelli supports this in saying “religion(Church) is vital for civil order” he said this in his writing, The Discources. This is true because with the help of the moral guidance of the Ministers, they change people’s perspectives and mentality. This guidance teaches values to the soul needed to keep the will and the ego or the ‘I’ of each person. We know for sure what had happened on the administration of Marcos when he declared martial law. Many people died and suffered, demeaned to their rights and privileges. But who rescued this societal crisis? - It was the Church, the EDSA revolution. Thus again, Machiavelli would say in his discourse to Zanobi Boudelamonti and Cosino Rucellai, he said “Religion brought good institutions; good institutions brought good fortune and good fortune brought good successful enterprises”. On the other hand, the state also gives part to the society. Machiavelli said, “The primary foundation of all states- new, old or mixed is good laws and good army.” The State performs the human nature. It administers the public in the humanistic level i.e. in the physical level- the body. It is in the allocation of the material resources that sustains life and its progression. It provides parameter of living in accordance with teachings of the Divine Law. It feeds the body and also limits the body. However, there are actions which the state do against to what is in the Divine law by the which the Church would always take good care of. Hence, that brings moral privation to the people an brings chaos. Thus Machiavelli would again say, “The rulers of a republic/ kingdom must preserve the foundation of their religion.” Now we go at the account of John Locke. John Locke said, “All authority comes from God but the choice who is to exercise the power depends upon the nomination and designation of the people.” Primarily and basically this is philosophically and theologically correct. The Church chooses her own ministers by the formation houses that were built called as seminaries, monasteries, etc. and the State announces its leader through election or voting. We elect our authorities but the single power is not on us but we participate to that power from God. On Locke’s 2nd track on Government, he coined the person who has overall responsibility for the welfare of the community, who has ultimate authority over all individual subjects as the Magistrate. The Church has the magistrate and the State has also the magistrate. However, this doesn’t mean that there is autonomy of powers rather they are in different seats performing the same task which is to uplift man. Thus the nature all of the two divided in identity but one in person. As for my conclusion, I will present Paul Ricoeur’s meaning of human existence. The state and the Chruch are part of the life of man. We need these two institutions for they help us to unfold the potentialities of the material world and bring us to the actualities of the spiritual world. Ricoeur said, “ the State and the Christian commitment to the civilization presents themselves as the greatest chance for the unfolding of the values that are most treasured by man.” Thus, this strongly defends my stand that the church and the state are to be considered as ally in the attainment of people’s meaning of existence. We don’t exaggerate the state’s power nor to that of which in the Church. We are one people, one race and one family. Let us not forget that whatever, state and whatever Church we have now will certainly the harvest of our future generation. If there will be no hand in hand cooperation of these two great sources of human development, how could we ever get to a certitude that life is a gift that in this gift there are things that which we ought to develop and nourish for our sake and for the greater glory of God. Refrences: Paul Riceour, in Leovino Ma. Garcia, “The Meaning of Human Existence in Riceour’s Social Political Writings”, Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture vol. II no. 3 (Manila: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 1998), 27. Niccolo Machiavelli, edited by Peter Constantine, The Essential Writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (New York: Modern Library, 2007), 44. John Locke, by David Wotton, John Locke Political Writings (U.S.A.: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003), 169. Art. II sec. 6, Hector De leon, Philippine Constitution, 6th edition (Manila: Rex Publishing Company, 2010), 34.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:56:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015