Church and State in Germany

New church laws in Prussia continue to arouse opposition in the minds: partly silent, partly open. The open opposition is apparently being led very decisively by the Roman Catholic clergy (See No. 34 of the Citizen), and it must be admitted that no matter how many personal motives there are in this opposition, no matter how many ultramontane motives are hidden behind it, much is revealed in it that is worthy of respect; after all, in essence, this is a struggle of the spiritual principle for its independence with state violence. But the entire liberal party sees in this opposition nothing but the struggle of darkness with light, church superstition with state enlightenment, and narrow particularism with the idea of ​​state German unity. It is obvious that such a view of the opposition to the Church is insufficient for an impartial judgment about it. The Liberal Party does not find words strong enough to express its enlightened indignation against the ecclesiastical enemies of the so-called state order, nor does it find measures strong and strict enough to crush these enemies completely. In view of the violent measures against the Church 1 taken by the government, state liberals complain about the weakness and lethargy of these measures. This is what Gustav Freytag 2 advises in the magazine “Im neuen Reich”: “Laws,” he says, “arm the government with the most decisive power, only if it is used to the extreme. First of all, it is necessary to completely prohibit all pilgrimages and all church processions outside the fence of church buildings; the former serve only immorality and superstition, the latter violate the order and peace of civil society. Then must follow the complete emancipation of the school from all influence and supervision of the Church. Married teachers of primary schools can serve as the best assistants to the government when we improve their material life and protect them from any interference from the priest. Next, it is necessary to provide energetic support to the movement of the Old Catholics and wherever they find themselves in the majority, transfer them local churches with all church income. Finally, the criminal laws must be applied to rebel priests and bishops without any mercy. There will be many victims, and others will have to be regretted, but there is nothing to be done. One should not hesitate, even if every single bishop, when they become stubborn, would have to be locked up in Spandau or Magdebug, all stubborn priests removed from their places and the spiritual care of the communities given to traveling preachers alone. To whom such measures seem strange, he still does not understand the full importance of this struggle of the state with an unscrupulous gang of foreign intriguers. This is not a simple struggle between people, in which concessions and relaxations are possible. The struggle is life and death between two of the greatest ideas that humanity has worked on for two millennia. This struggle is being raised not for the first time, but for the third time. In the Middle Ages, the papacy defeated the Germans in the fight against the national state of the Franconian Hohenstaufen kings 3 . In the 16th century, the German imperial power, after long hesitation, entered into an alliance with the pope against the masses; the beneficial effect of the reformation was abandoned, and Germany in the Thirty Years' War 4 became a victim of foreigners. Now for the third time the same struggle begins between freedom and slavery, between conscience and authority, between Christ and the Roman Antichrist, in which the Germans must deliver freedom not only to themselves, but also to all educated (cultured) nations.” Is everything in this description truly true? Is there really only freedom on the side of the state and only slavery on the side of the Church? No, liberals are being deceived, and the matter is not so simple and clear. The state is not looking for freedom and is not concerned about conscience; it, in turn, seeks dominance and also wants to bind, on the other hand, the conscience of the believing masses. Only in order to knit and decide in conscience, the Church relies on the divine calling and faith, and the state can rely on this only in its state autonomy. The Catholic hierarchy has placed its throne high, too high; but the state not only wants to lower it and bring it into moderation, it is as if it itself is planning to shift the power of the church on this throne or to share it with it. The new laws do not only concern external appearances; they invade the inner realm of church life, where everything is held together by the authority of faith alone, and where everything falls apart without it. This is where the beginning of the temptation aroused in believing minds by the new law and the actions of the government towards its implementation is rooted. It is no secret to anyone that the main figures of the legislative branch in issuing the law, the main representatives of state power in its application, the main defenders of these measures in science and journalism are people alien to the people’s faith, and build their worldview and their political theory on principles in which there is no place for this faith. This is where, on the one hand, there is a temptation for the believing population, on the other hand, there is still a noticeable fluctuation in thought in the “court spheres,” which Freytag also mentions in the above article. In this movement of minds, the Lutheran Church stands, as it were, at a crossroads between two opposing impulses. On the one hand, she cannot help but feel that the new laws are intruding into her internal region as much as into the internal region of the Roman Catholic Church; that the most significant manifestations of her spiritual power and her teaching activity are touched even more roughly than before by the hand of a state official, obliged to believe, first of all, in his united state; that the official teacher, whom the government will install in every school, will introduce into the school a new spirit of an easy, non-spiritual worldview, derived from the university template; that the vital issues of dogmatic belief and church discipline for her will be decided in the Berlin courts according to the new views of science on the subjects of religion (so recently the highest consistory decided that Pastor Sidov, who publicly announced that he did not believe in the Divinity of Christ the Savior, could remain the spiritual leader of his flock). But, on the other hand, since the beginning of the Reformation, the Lutheran Church has been burdened by the age-old habit of subordination to the secular government. In the midst of a great struggle, great irritation against Roman violence and in extreme exhaustion of strength, the representatives of the Reformation entered into a political alliance with the secular authorities, began to look for support in it, put themselves under its leadership and then, with the final structure of their Church, had to involuntarily allow it into the very center of their ecclesiastical authority. Creating the beginnings of their new structure, they set up a throne place for secular power and even with some enthusiasm began to exalt it in the Church in spite of the hated power of the Roman high priest. They went to her past the people's flock, for a salary and put themselves, the shepherds, in the position of officials overseeing the deanery of the faith among the people. That is why, from the beginning and to this day, whenever the Lutheran clergy has to defend its vital church power and the independence of its church activities before the state and its theories, it appears before the state in a false position. With all this, a considerable temptation has been aroused in the Lutheran clergy by the new laws. But for now it only leads to a division of minds, to weak protests and reservations from some, to a declaration on the part of others of sincere or hypocritical sympathy for the government, which, looking for moral support for itself, causes sympathetic addresses from the Lutheran clergy in different places in Germany. All these phenomena occurring among the Lutheran Church are pale, indecisive phenomena, incapable of elevating the spirit and striking it with the truth. A remarkable phenomenon in this sense was the congress (Conferenz) of the Evangelical Lutheran clergy, which took place in Berlin on August 27 and 28 last, under the chairmanship of Pastor Eyen. On the first day of the meeting, the subject of the meeting was the discussion of new church laws. It began with a speech by Superintendent General Büchsel. He spoke evasively about the new laws, declaring that since the state did not consult with the Church when publishing them, it would, of course, not communicate with it when implementing them; The Church should take care of the internal purification of its spirit. The next speaker, the oldest member of the congress, Superintendent Lengerich, spoke of the laws with regret, but ended with the fact that these laws came into force, therefore, they must be obeyed, especially since they, in essence, are not as bad as they seem at first glance. At this word the speaker was interrupted by noisy expressions of protest and indignation. He wanted to continue, but the meeting apparently refused to listen to the speeches with which the old man tried to explain and justify the law, although he referred to the well-known “love of King William for the Evangelical Church.” The chairman himself could not resist making a statement that was not sympathetic to the speaker. Then Count Schulenburg, a member of the upper house, who stubbornly fought against the new laws during their discussion, ascended to the pulpit. He began to complain bitterly about the government's falling away from the fundamental principles of the Christian state and about the alliance it had entered into with the party of religious liberals and rationalists. His speech was received with enthusiastic approval. But the next speaker, Kleist-Retzow 5 , the former Chief President of the Rhine Provinces, aroused even more sympathy. He spoke with bile that the new laws were the creation of professors Friedberg and Dov and constituted a disastrous concession to the liberal party, that through them the state, having separated from the Church, wanted to establish its autocracy in the midst of the Church and introduce the pagan principle into the faith of Christ. He ended by pointing to Nebuchadnezzar, who was condemned for his pride to a bestial share 6 ; this reference obviously referred to Bismarck. The next day the meeting discussed the application of the new laws to church government. Evangelical pastor Steffan declared that the real struggle of “faithful Catholics” against state power is a right and legitimate struggle, since the new laws violate the deepest and most essential principles of the Roman Catholic Church. However, all these statements and protests against the new laws did not lead the meeting to any positive result and remained one idle word without action, expressing only fruitless irritation. The meeting only decided to submit an address to the king against the church rationalists of the Protestant Union, against the decision in the Sidov case and against the assumption of civil marriage. These are the results that revealed the “anger” of the Lutheran clergy against the new laws. Soon after, a congress of Old Catholics 7 opened in Constanta. This meeting was watched sympathetically by both the German government and the liberal press of all shades. In the Old Catholic movement the state sees itself as an ally and support at the most needed moment. According to the latest news, the first Bishop Reinkens, chosen by the Old Catholics, has been recognized and confirmed in this title by the government. But the meeting of representatives of the Old Catholic movement did not remain in debt; it itself seeks support in the state, strives to take advantage of it at a favorable moment and hopes to officially take the place of the Roman Catholic Church in the consciousness of the state and in the state organization. At the Congress of Constance, speakers declared unconditional approval of the new Prussian laws and the policies of the Prussian government in the fight against Rome. It would be difficult to expect a different statement. Hatred for the enemy forces you to throw yourself into the arms of your enemy’s enemies and seek alliance and support from them. But we, outsiders and people not involved in the dispute, cannot help but realize that this entire Old Catholic movement would seem to us much more majestic and purer if it had eliminated from among its principles and motives the tempting question of the official patronage of the Church by the state. It is quite natural that the leaders of the Old Catholic movement, trying to arouse sympathy for it, could not remain indifferent to the attitude that the state authorities would take towards them; but there was no direct need for them to justify this desire in principle and to ask for an official union with the state in view of the broken alliance with the papacy. Truly, the word about this subject was golden, no matter how it was expressed. But it was expressed last year, in Cologne, persistently and decisively, with reference to the example of the Reformation, with praise for the Lutheran principle of state subordination to the Church. In Constance, praise was heard for the new German state and its laws on the Church. It is impossible not to respect individually the real leaders of the Old Catholic movement and the strong conviction that animates them. But as a whole, this entire movement does not at the present moment represent the greatness that appears in the Church, which defends its truth through a strong struggle with the world. The smallest herd has a majestic appearance when it gathers to stand for the truth against the overwhelming majority. But the same herd presents an appearance devoid of greatness when it strives to take a place in a strong and safe fence with all the conveniences of external improvement. The Old Catholic Church, having not yet had time to experience persecution, is already in the position of a triumphant Church. The Roman Catholic Church, partly through its own fault, partly as a result of the mistakes of state policy, is preparing to stand on the bloodshed, in the position of a persecuted Church. Which position is more consistent with the dignity of the Church and more fruitful spiritually? Almost the last one. The law of church existence is the same as the law of all spiritual existence. Strength of spirit is gained through testing, struggle, and suffering. The strength of the church spirit is affirmed in confession (martyrion). It is impossible to determine in advance what is destined for the future of Roman Catholicism, how many more fatal, irreparable mistakes it may make, but there is no doubt that the present era of its history is a “time of visitation” 8, an occasion for the renewal of internal strength, for the establishment of church faith and discipline, for the purification of activity. History will show whether the Catholic Church understood the timing of its visit. We are talking about the so-called Kulturkampf (German Kulturkampf - “cultural struggle”) - in 1873, this term began to denote the struggle of Prussian and all-German imperial law against papal power, the struggle of Bismarck and the National Liberals against the Catholic Center Party and the Catholic Church. The initiator of this policy was Prince Bismarck, the main executor was the Prussian Minister of Public Education and Confessions A. Falk. The May Laws (11, 12 and 13 May 1873) established strict state control over schools, appointments to church positions, and relations between the clergy and the congregation. The supervisory authorities, in addition to the general police institutions, were a special state court for church affairs. Not only Catholic but also evangelical clergy were subject to anti-church laws, the fight against which cost priests many years in prison. During 1879–1891, as a result of a fierce struggle between the authorities and the public, most of the May laws were repealed, and some property and money were returned to the Church. Freytag Gustav (1816–1895) – German writer, author of historical novels. The Hohenstaufens were a dynasty of South German kings and Holy Roman Emperors from 1138–1254. The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) is a military conflict that affected all European countries (except Switzerland), including Russia. The war began with a religious clash between Protestants and Catholics in Germany, resulting in a struggle against the Habsburg dynasty in Europe. Kleist-Retzow Hans Hugo von (1814–1892) - German politician, head of the conservative Junker party, one of the founders of the Krestovaya Gazeta, member of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies, Chief President of the Rhine Province, member of the Prussian House of Lords. At the end of Nebuchadnezzar's life (Babylonian king - 605–562 BC); in 597 he captured Jerusalem and took ten thousand Jews captive; in 586 he destroyed the Temple of Solomon) suffered from lycantropia - he imagined himself to be an animal. The Congress in Constance took place in 1873, where, under the leadership of Reinkens, the organization of the Old Catholic Church in Germany was developed, its main parts were: parish communities, dioceses with bishops, the highest authority of church government - the synod. The Congress decided to establish two special commissions to conduct negotiations with various confessions, including Orthodoxy.