Sapientiae Christianae by Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII (b. 2 March 1810 – d. 20 July 1903), born Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi Pecci, began his pontificate on 20 February 1878. His papacy is the fourth longest in the history of the Church. He is known for having composed the Prayer to Archangel St Michael and for the encyclical “Humanum Genus” on freemasonry published on 20 April 1884.

As humanism and materialism were (and still are) promoted by freemasonry and its tentacles, spiritual matters get neglected if not outright attacked and trampled on. The encyclical “Sapientiae Christianae” published on 10 January 1890 addresses how Catholics should live and their duties to society as Christians. The document is approximately 9,400 words in 43 paragraphs.

Leo XIII begins with the basic principles, that ultimately “[t]o contemplate God, and to tend to Him, is the supreme law of the life of man”. Society does not exist as man’s end, it exists for this higher end.

Therefore, political government should facilitate this with its laws founded on morality. Without morality, only “force” remains to maintain order.

But force is very feeble when the bulwark of religion has been removed, and, being more apt to beget slavery than obedience, it bears within itself the germs of ever-increasing troubles. The present century has encountered memorable disasters, and it is not certain that some equally terrible are not impending.

Jesus Christ commanded the Apostles to “preach the Gospel to every creature” and so it is imposed on people to believe what they teach. In other words, eternal salvation is tied to the Church.

Natural law requires us to love and defend our country “but we have a much more urgent obligation to love … the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever”. Ultimately, both duty to the State and Church come from “the same eternal principle” since God is the creator of both.

The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted.

In such circumstances which one has to pick one or the other even though they should be compatible,

[i]t is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; “we ought to obey God rather than men.” [Acts 5:29] … No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church.

Of course, those who call this “sedition” do not rightly understand or apply law.

Law is of its very essence a mandate of right reason, proclaimed by a properly constituted authority, for the common good.

Christians are taught to respect and obey human laws insofar as they are consistent to the higher divine law, “that human laws be never set above the divine law”.

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the Supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime … Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws.

Leo XIII then points out that one of the tactics of materialism and naturalism is the overestimation of man’s power which takes the place of God. Paragraph 12 is reproduced below in full.

But with what bitterness and in how many guises war has been waged against the Church it would be ill-timed now to urge. From the fact that it has been vouchsafed to human reason to snatch from nature, through the investigations of science, many of her treasured secrets and to apply them befittingly to the divers requirements of life, men have become possessed with so arrogant a sense of their own powers as already to consider themselves able to banish from social life the authority and empire of God. Led away by this delusion, they make over to human nature the dominion of which they think God has been despoiled; from nature, they maintain, we must seek the principle and rule of all truth; from nature, they aver, alone spring, and to it should be referred, all the duties that religious feeling prompts. Hence, they deny all revelation from on high, and all fealty due to the Christian teaching of morals as well as all obedience to the Church, and they go so far as to deny her power of making laws and exercising every other kind of right, even disallowing the Church any place among the civil institutions of the commonweal. These men aspire unjustly, and with their might strive, to gain control over public affairs and lay hands on the rudder of the State, in order that the legislation may the more easily be adapted to these principles, and the morals of the people influenced in accordance with them. Whence it comes to pass that in many countries Catholicism is either openly assailed or else secretly interfered with, full impunity being granted to the most pernicious doctrines, while the public profession of Christian truth is shackled oftentimes with manifold constraints.

Notice that those who work in the political sphere pass laws that strengthen their anti-Christian influence and weaken the Church.

Given the circumstances, “each one is bound in conscience to watch over himself” and to learn about the faith.

We declare it to be very profitable and consistent with the requirements of the time, that each one, according to the measure of his capacity and intelligence, should make a deep study of Christian doctrine, and imbue his mind with as perfect a knowledge as may be of those matters that are interwoven with religion and lie within the range of reason.

And “when necessity compels”,

…not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.”

Authority is obviously important and to avoid contradicting himself, Leo XIII clarifies that even those who are not in authority can speak up as long as it is proper to their position and circumstances.

No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith.

Whilst expressing an opinion is permitted up to a point, this does not exclude doctrines and principles in which the faithful should be united.

…the main point is that a perfect harmony of opinion should prevail; in which intent we find Paul the Apostle exhorting the Corinthians with earnest zeal and solemn weight of words: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfectly in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” [1 Corinthians 1:10]

Human reasoning is not a bad thing but it cannot be the “sole guide”.

In the case of those who profess to take reason as their sole guide, there would hardly be found, if, indeed, there ever could be found, unity of doctrine. Indeed, the art of knowing things as they really are is exceedingly difficult; moreover, the mind of man is by nature feeble and drawn this way and that by a variety of opinions, and not seldom led astray by impressions coming from without; and, furthermore, the influence of the passions oftentimes takes away, or certainly at least diminishes, the capacity for grasping the truth. On this account, in controlling State affairs means are often used to keep those together by force who cannot agree in their way of thinking.

Note that in the political realm, some type of “force” to varying degrees according to case is used to obtain unity. The pope does not state this is automatically wrong, just that it is the reality.

The Church is different in the sense that that is the nature of it in the first place. It is necessary that there is some guarantee from God regarding knowledge. This is done through the pope in a specific and limited fashion, and one is obliged to give “assent” to doctrine.

The difficulty, however, is matters that are not formally doctrine/dogma. Tradition, for example, can be a grey area and although Leo XIII does not use the word, he does mention that there are other things which one is obliged to believe.

Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.”

The “governing powers are wholly free to carry out the business of the State” which the Church cooperates with insofar as “she strongly urges to the practice of piety”. The “spiritual power” belongs to the Church since “it was not to Caesar but to Peter that Jesus Christ entrusted the keys of the kingdom of Heaven”. The Church “possesses the right to exist and to protect herself by institutions and laws in accordance with her nature” but, of course, is not against civil government.

[T]he Church, the guardian always of her own right and most observant of that of others, holds that it is not her province to decide which is the best amongst many diverse forms of government and the civil institutions of Christian States, and amid the various kinds of State rule she does not disapprove of any, provided the respect due to religion and the observance of good morals be upheld.

Although the Church and State operate separately, the latter is subject to the former morally and in spiritual matters.

Therefore, they who are engaged in framing constitutions and in religious nature of man, and take care to help him, but in a right and orderly way, to gain perfection, neither enjoining nor forbidding anything save what is reasonably consistent with civil as well as with religious requirements. On this very account, the Church cannot stand by, indifferent as to the import and significance of laws enacted by the State; not insofar, indeed, as they refer to the State, but in so far as, passing beyond their due limits, they trench upon the rights of the Church.

For those who participate in public affairs, “they should avoid two criminal excesses: so-called prudence and false courage.”

Some there are, indeed, who maintain that it is not opportune boldly to attack evildoing in its might and when in the ascendant, lest, as they say, opposition should exasperate minds already hostile. These make it a matter of guesswork as to whether they are for the Church or against her … They moan over the loss of faith and the perversion of morals, yet trouble themselves not to bring any remedy; nay, not seldom, even add to the intensity of the mischief through too much forbearance or harmful dissembling. These same individuals would not have any one entertain a doubt as to their good will towards the holy see; yet they have always a something by way of reproach against the supreme Pontiff. On the other hand, not a few, impelled by a false zeal … affecting sentiments which their conduct belies, take upon themselves to act a part which does not belong to them. They would fain see the Church’s mode of action influenced by their ideas and their judgment to such an extent that everything done otherwise they take ill or accept with repugnance. … To act in such manner is not to follow lawful authority but to forestall it, and, unauthorized, assume the duties of the spiritual rulers, to the great detriment of the order which God established in His Church to be observed forever, and which He does not permit to be violated with impunity by any one, whoever he may be.

The pope comments further regarding prudence, that those who rule are meant to help the individual.

There is, however, a difference between the political prudence that relates to the general good and that which concerns the good of individuals. This latter is shown forth in the case of private persons who obey the prompting of right reason in the direction of their own conduct; while the former is the characteristic of those who are set over others, and chiefly of rulers of the State, whose duty it is to exercise the power of command, so that the political prudence of private individuals would seem to consist wholly in carrying out faithfully the orders issued by lawful authority.

As for subjecting oneself to those in authority, one should refrain from speaking against them even if there is cause. Of course, others in authority can.

Every one has to regulate his mode of conduct according to this constitution of the Church, which it is not in the power of any man to change. … Among the prelates, indeed, one or other there may be affording scope to criticism either in regard to personal conduct or in reference to opinions by him entertained about points of doctrine; but no private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge which Christ our Lord has bestowed on that one alone whom He placed in charge of His lambs and of His sheep.

Leo XIII then warns of punishment even though God does not desert the Church.

…there is no reason why she should be alarmed at the wickedness of men; but in the case of nations falling away from Christian virtue there is not a like ground of assurance, “for sin maketh nations miserable.” [Proverbs 14:34] … There are, in truth, very many signs which proclaim that just punishments are already menacing, and the condition of modern States tends to confirm this belief, since we perceive many of them in sad plight from intestine disorders, and not one entirely exempt.

Given the “vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride”, the situation, even at that time, was beyond human effort. It is “necessary that God come to the rescue”.

Nonetheless, the pope concludes with a reminder to practice Charity, which is the “main foundation of the Christian life” without which other virtues cannot exist. Charity is, of course, towards God first even though “the love of God should not be severed from the love of our neighbor”. And related to that, “faith” matters as there is “one faith”.

…let all minds be united in faith and all hearts in charity, so that, as it behooves, life may be spent in the practice of the love of God and the love of men.

Of particular note, he mentions the importance of the family and the education of children, which the enemy aims to corrupt and destroy.

The family may be regarded as the cradle of civil society, and it is in great measure within the circle of family life that the destiny of the States is fostered. Whence it is that they who would break away from Christian discipline are working to corrupt family life, and to destroy it utterly, root and branch. From such an unholy purpose they allow not themselves to be turned aside by the reflection that it cannot, even in any degree, be carried out without inflicting cruel outrage on the parents. These hold from nature their right of training the children to whom they have given birth, with the obligation super-added of shaping and directing the education of their little ones to the end for which God vouchsafed the privilege of transmitting the gift of life. It is, then, incumbent on parents to strain every nerve to ward off such an outrage, and to strive manfully to have and to hold exclusive authority to direct the education of their offspring, as is fitting, in a Christian manner, and first and foremost to keep them away from schools where there is risk of their drinking in the poison of impiety. … If in their [children’s] early years they find within the walls of their homes the rule of an upright life and the discipline of Christian virtues, the future welfare of society will in great measure be guaranteed.

Note the emphasis on the authority that parents have over their children and the importance of teaching children in their “early years”.

Pope Leo XIII (1878)

---

Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!

---