- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,214
- 55,964
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
A man whose allegiances depend on the approval (or tolerance) of Caesar is a man who is a slave of the state.
As Catholics grapple with religious impact of civil restrictions imposed in the wake of the Coronavirus contagion, many are prone to invoke the paradigm of “God and Caesar” to delineate each side’s competence. When the Pharisees sought to trap Jesus (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26) by asking whether it was lawful to pay Roman taxes — knowing that a “yes” would alienate him from many Jews while a “no” would give them grist to use against him with the Romans — Jesus was somewhat evasive, replying we should “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” — without necessarily saying what belonged to whom.
Christians may reflexively treat the “God and Caesar” approach as their default way to understand questions of Church and state. They certainly have plenty of history to rely upon. Even theological liberals like John Courtney Murray found underlying inspiration in the model because, in defending the American model of Church/state “separation,” his thought ultimately relies on an assumption implicit in the “God and Caesar” paradigm, i.e., that the reach of Caesar’s realm is inherently limited. The state is not omnicompetent. The state should not get involved in religious issues because its competence does not extend there.
However, Catholic experience in the “culture wars,” particularly over the past two decades, as well as with some of the (over)reach of Coronavirus restrictions, suggests that not just the naïve optimism of Murray’s views but the “God and Caesar” model itself is under increasing stress.
Why? Because we Catholics are assuming two distinct realms with two distinct lords: God’s and Caesar’s. How they intersect and how they should interact may be subject to debate, but we treat both as distinct and real.
Continued below.
Is “God and Caesar” Still a Realistic Model?
As Catholics grapple with religious impact of civil restrictions imposed in the wake of the Coronavirus contagion, many are prone to invoke the paradigm of “God and Caesar” to delineate each side’s competence. When the Pharisees sought to trap Jesus (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26) by asking whether it was lawful to pay Roman taxes — knowing that a “yes” would alienate him from many Jews while a “no” would give them grist to use against him with the Romans — Jesus was somewhat evasive, replying we should “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” — without necessarily saying what belonged to whom.
Christians may reflexively treat the “God and Caesar” approach as their default way to understand questions of Church and state. They certainly have plenty of history to rely upon. Even theological liberals like John Courtney Murray found underlying inspiration in the model because, in defending the American model of Church/state “separation,” his thought ultimately relies on an assumption implicit in the “God and Caesar” paradigm, i.e., that the reach of Caesar’s realm is inherently limited. The state is not omnicompetent. The state should not get involved in religious issues because its competence does not extend there.
However, Catholic experience in the “culture wars,” particularly over the past two decades, as well as with some of the (over)reach of Coronavirus restrictions, suggests that not just the naïve optimism of Murray’s views but the “God and Caesar” model itself is under increasing stress.
Why? Because we Catholics are assuming two distinct realms with two distinct lords: God’s and Caesar’s. How they intersect and how they should interact may be subject to debate, but we treat both as distinct and real.
Continued below.
Is “God and Caesar” Still a Realistic Model?
