The evils of 'religious test' in our democracy

Media

Part of The Cabletow

Title: The evils of 'religious test' in our democracy
Creator: Recto, Claro M.
Language: English
Year: 1960
Rights
Fulltext: The Evils of 'Religious Test’ in Our Democracy (Speech delivered by Sen. Claro M. Recto on the occasion of the conferwent upon him of the Degree of Doctor of Humanities (honoris causa) by the Central Philippine University (Iloilo) on Feb. 19, 1960). Mr. President, Members of the Faculty, Ladies and Gentlemen: Two years ago I had the honor to speak before the Free and Accepted Masons of the Philippines on the subject of Church and State under the Constitution. It was an after-dinner affair and could not, on such an occasion. treat the subject as comprehensively as its importance requires. This evening, as this great institution of learning has been pleased to confer upon me one of the highest distinctions within its gift, for which I am verv grateful, I shall take leave to elaborate on the same topic, convinced as I am that the conditions that prompted my previous discussion arc threatening to he the ever dominant factors in the relations between Church and Stale in this country, in their most perilous as' pec.: the game of power-politics which may culminate in the establishment of a slate church. 1 do not propose to rcpca: what I said licfore the Masons but shall endeavor to bring out new points and make the necessary ampliI icaiions and qualifications of my previous statements. In the light of the provisions of our Constitution on the separation of Church and State, which are mere reproductions of their American counterparts as may be seen in McKinley’s instruction to the Schurmann Commission, the Philippine Bill of 1902, and the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, better known as the Jones Law, the first question that comes to mind is, should such provisions be understood solely in the sense that the State shall not interfere in the free exercise of religion, or should they be taken, as they should, to mean also that the Church is likewise enjoined from interfering in lhe affairs of the State? The answer is that both the Church and the State are enjoined from interfering with each other’s affairs. McKinlev’s instruction to the First Philippine Commission — unquestionably one of lhe most enlightened documents in Philippinc-American relations—provide not only that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion'’ and that "the free exercise and enjoyment of religiousprofession without distinction or preference shall lorever be allowed,’’ but they contain the definite pronouncement that “the separation between* State and Church shall be real, entire and absolute." This last sentence has been carried explicitly either to the Philippine Bill of 1902, to the Jones Law, or to the Constitution. Such precaution, in my opinion, was not deemed necessary. The injunctions in 123 the American Constitution which were incorporated first in the Jones Law and later in our Constitution that "no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights” and that "no public money shall be appropriated, applied or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or systems of religion,” proclaim, although expressed differently, the same principle which is, that the "separation between State and Church shall be real, entire and absolute.” In other words, there Senator Claro M. Recto President, Constitutional Convention should be not only freedom of the Church from the State in matters spiritual, but also freedom of the State from the Church in temporal or civil affairs. The U.S. Supreme Court spoke most appropriately in this respect in Everson v. Board of Education. 330 U.S. 1: 'The structure of our government has for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil liberty." No other construction should attach to this particular provision of our Constitution, regardless of the difference in the relative positions of the Church and State in the two countries at the respective times of the adoption of their Constitutions. In other words, the same reason for protecting a minority religion from the interference of a powerful State should also apply for the protect ion of lhe State against interference from a powerful church to which the great majority of the national population- belong. To use a popular expression, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or ought to he. “Not simply an established church” — the U.S. Supreme Court says — "but any law respecting an establishment of religion is forbidden... The purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing onlv a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonics, but to do away entirely with such relationship. . . The object was broader than merely separating church and state; it was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or supplement for religion. . . Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church, neither can it pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another, and neither can, 124 THE CABLE TOW April 1960 openly, or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice-versa.” (Sverson v. Board of Education, 67 S. Ct. 506.) “The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.” (Watson v. Jones, U.S. Supreme Court, December Term, 1871.) But it is on the particular injunction of the Constitution that “no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.'’ that I wish to focus my attention this evening. The fact that this injunction, as well as others intended for safeguarding the principle of separation of church and state, is addressed to the State and to its legislative department in particular, docs not preclude the moral obligation on the part of all religious denominations, especially the most numerous and powerful Church, to abide by the spirit of the constitutional command by abstaining from such political activities as would naturally imply exertion of moral pressure, through the use of the pulpit or the confessional or other means of moral suasion, for applying certain religious tests to political programs and qualifications of candidates for office. Such church or religious denomination as would engage in such activities would be guilty of a an infringement of this particular precept of the Constitution, perhaps not in the legal sense lor lack of appropriate implementing legislation, but unquestionably in the moral sense, which for religious leaders should prove no less compelling. It is to be deplored that in recent years the most numerous Church in this country, not satisfied with the hold it has on the fealty of four-fifths of the nation as no government has ever enjoyed or will enjoy here, has made use of its privileged position by demanding from candidates to public office, particularly the elective ones, certain religious tests and pledges of allegiance. The immediate purpose, of course, is to acquire through p» licy-making government officials, control of the public affairs and ultimately to establish here a truly theocratic state, which, according to Lord Acton, a liberal Catholic and great English scholar, is “the most dangerous form of absolutism.” We have been witnessing from time to time die organization of sectarian professional groups. We already have a lawyers sectarian association, and only recently certain local physicians who, claiming to believe that they should consider religion in the practice of their profession, have grouped themselves into a sectarian association of physicians. We may will expect to see a sectarian association of apothecaries organized one of these days, and other similar ones, until there shall not be a single profession or occupation without its own sectarian association. I do not say all this in any spirit of levity or irreverence; rather I want to bring out the possible motive behind the formation of these religio-professional groups. 1 believe it pointless, for example, to qualify an association of* lawyers, or pharmacists, or doctors, as a sectarian association unless lhe intention is to convey the impression that theirs is a better breed of lawyers or doctors or druggists, than any other because of some special divine dispensation bestowed upon them; it smacks too much of sanctimonious smugness. Political motives must lie behind all THE EVILS OF RELIGIOUS TEST 125 this, for it is easy to see that a good number of these organizations would present a formidable front in any election. I do not condemn the formation of associations by professionals, but 1 entertain serious misgivings about any sectarian appellation being appended to the names of their organizations. At the time the most numerous Church in this country moved onto the political stage, a young Filipino priest, reputediv an intellectual in his own religious order, made in the course of a public address at the Luncta, with the evident placet of the corresponding hierarchy — quitacet consentire vicletur — the most daring proposal that there should be a Union of Church and State, with the Church assuming naturally the leadership in the unholy partnership. Such a proposal would require the appropriate amendment of the Constitution, which is most likely to happen should the most numerous Church obtain the necessary control of the legislature. In the last three elections the most numerous Church made its influence felt. There was a small chosen group of ambitious political upstarts — the youth elite, so to speak — who took to the field with the unmistakable blessings and patronage of their Church hierarchy. Although this group did not carry officially its sect’s banner, it was to all intents and purposes just that, with no pretenses at being anything else. It was identified with the Church in question and it received the latter’s unqualified and unstinted support through pulpit and confessional and through religious schools and associations all over the country. Priests and nuns in charge of private schools were particularly aggressive in their new found militancy. The haloed candidates of this group were presented to the electorate as the holiest among the holy, and, since they carried the standard, albeit unofficial, of their Church, the implication was that, at least for the voter that belongs to it, they were the only ones fit, under bulls and encyclicals, for public office. The irony of all this is that while the government is enjoined by the Constitution from imposing or requiring religious test for any office, it is a religious establishment, the most numerous in the country, that is doing so,. Although this religious establishment did not fare as it had expected in the last three elections, there is no doubt that its incursions into the political field should not be taken lightlv. If these inroads are not curbed now, the day is not far off when we shall sec the halls of congress being used to proselytize the nation and the people legislated into one religious faith. An established church, which is another name for union of Church and State, consecrated by appropriate constitutional amendment, would be the tragic result. It is still time for us, Filipinos, irrespective of religious beliefs, not only to remind ourselves of the teachings of Christ and the fathers of the Church throughout the centuries, but to profit by the lessons of the past. Did not Jesus tell the Pharisees when the latter attempted to entrap Him into opposing the power of Rome, to ‘ render unto Caesar the things that arc Caesar's and unto God the things that are God’s?” Did He not say on another occasion that “His Kingdom is not of this world?” Did not Saint Paul say 126 THE CABLE TOW April 1960 in his epistle to the Romans: “There is no power but of God; the powers that be arc ordained of God; whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour?1' Who are we to challenge God’s command? As Bernard Bosanquct says in his ‘The Philosophical Theory of the State,” p. 265: “Only the separation of Church and State, and the division of the Churches against one another, have made it possible for the State to exhibit its own free and ethical character in true fullness, apart from both dogmatic authority and anarchic fanaticism.” And David Dudley Field, a famous American jurist, in a speech he delivered in Chicago in 1893: “The greatest achievement ever made in the cause of human progress is the total and final separation of the state from the church. If we had nothing else to boast of, we could claim with justice that, first among the nations, we of his country made it an article of organic law that the relations between man and his Maker were a private concern into which other men had no right to intrude." Origen, one of the early Fathers— he hved in the 3rd century — admonished that ‘Christians should not take part in the government of State, but only of the ‘divine nation’,” that is, the Church; and rightly so, because “most people regard politics as ‘worldly and unworthy of any really holy man.” This same doctrine, according to Bertrand Russell, “is implicit in Saint Augustine’s City of God,” so much so that “it led churchmen, at the time of the fall of the Western Empire, to look on passively at secular disasters while they exercised their very great talents, in Church discipline, theological controversy, and the spread of monasticism.” Writing to a correspondent in Constantinopole, Gregory the Great said: “What pleases the most pious emperor, whatever he commands to be done, is in his power. . . As he determines, so let him provide. What he does, if it is canonical, we will follow; but if it is not canonical, we will bear it, as far as we can without sin of our own. . . . Rulers should not be criticized, but should only be kept alive to the danger of hell-fire if they fail to follow the advise of the church." Pope Nicholas 1 of the 8th century replied to an angry letter of Emperor Michael Ills “The day of King-Priests and Emperor-Pontiffs is past; Christianity has separated the two functions.” Gelasius, a pope in the fifth century, laid down the principle of separation of Church and State in the following words: “x x x It may be true that before the coming of Christ, certain persons. . .. existed who were at the same time priests and kings, as the holy scripture tells us Melchizedech was. “x x x But, after the coming of Christ (who was Himself both the true king and the priest), no emperor thereafter has assumed the title of priest and no priest has seized a regal throne. ... x x x He separated the kingly duties and powers from the priestly, according to the different functions and dignity proper to each, xxx The soldier of the Lord should be as little as possible entangled in secular business, and that one involved THE EVILS OF RELIGIOUS TEST 127 in secular affairs should not be seen occupying the leadership of the church.” (Master of Political Thought) bv Michael B. Foster, vol. I, pp. 231232.) Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical "Immortale Dei” (November 1, 1885) said: “It is generally agreed that the Founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, wished that the spiritual power to be distinct from the civil, and each to be free and unhampered in doing its own work, not forgetting, however, that it is expedient for both, and in the interest of everybody, that there be a harmonious relationship.” Tornai, a canonist of the twelfth century, spoke in this wise: “Within one commonwealth and under one king are two peoples; as there are two peoples, there are two ways of life; as there are two lives, there are two authorities; as there arc two authorities, there is a two fold order of jurisdiction. . . the two peoples are the two orders in the church, clerics and laymen; the two ways of life are the spiritual and the carnal; the two authorities arc the priesthood and the kingship; the two-fold jurisdiction is the divine law and the human. Give to each its due, and all will be in harmony.” (Masters of Political Thought, by Michael B. Foster, vol. I, p. 233.) Reichersberg, another famous churchman of the twelfth century, who supported the Pope in the Investiture controversy, said; “Just as the emperors sometimes arrogated to themselves functions belonging to the priesthood and the church; so they (the priest) on the other hand imagine that their priesthood confers on them also an imperial, or more than imperial power... What then will have become of those two swords of the Gospel, if the apostle of Christ shall be all, or if the Emperor shall be ail. If either the Empire or the priesthood shall be robbed of its strength and dignity, it will be as though you were to take one of the two great luminaries from the sky.” (Id., p. 235.) Don Luigui Sturzo, a distinguished Catholic Italian scholar, speaking of the separate functions of Church and State, says; “Every attempt to overstep such limits, from cither side, has violated the laws of nature and those of revelation.” (Church and State, vol. I, p. 28.) Lord Acton in his “Political Philosophv,” pp. 43-44, remarked: “If a Church is united with the State the essential condition of freedom vanishes. It becomes officialized. And those who govern the Church are tempted to divert its influence to their own purposes. Similarly, the support of the Church dangerously increases the authority of the State, by giving a religious sanction to the behests of the State. This increases the danger of despotism.” Under the terms of the Lateran Treaty with Italy, which was concluded in 1929, the Holy See not only agreed that Catholic organizations would abstain from politics, but it declared that “it wishes to remain, and it will remain extraneous ro all temporal disputes between nations and to all international congresses convoked for the settlements of such disputes unless the contending paries make a concordant appeal to its mission of peace; 128 THE CABLE TOW April I960 nevertheless it reserves th righ in every cases to exercise i'.s moral and spiritual power.” In the “Report on Church and State" (Messages and Decisions of Oxford (1957) on Church, Community, and State, pp. 27-40), it was declared that “The Church as the trustee of God’s redeeming Gospel and the State as the guarantor of order, justice, and civil liberty, have distinct functions in regard to society. The Church’s concern is to witness to men of the realities which outlast change because they are founded on the eternal will of God. The concern of the state is to provide men with justice, order, and securin' in a world of sin and change. As it is the aim of the Church to create a communin’ founded on divine love, it cannot do its work by coercion, nor must it compromise the standards embodied in God’s commandments bv surrender to the necessities of the day. The State, on the other hand, has the dun' of maintaining public order, and therefore must use coercion and accept the limits of the practicable." The "New Catholic Dictionary,” published with the “nihil obstat” of the ecclesiastical authorities concerned, contains the following significant statements: “Religion and politics were unfortunately inextricably mixed. Church and State were so united that disloyally to one was disloyalty to the other. One could not be a heretic without being a traitor. It is to be hoped that ■we have progressed beyond such a condition.” (p. 362.) The position of the most numerous Church in the Philippines has, for reasons known to all, been most enviable. And it acquired the privileged position that it enjoys, without engaging in politics, without attempting to carry its militancy to the field of temporal affairs within the exclusive province of the State. All the above is a far erv from the following pronouncements, of dubious wisdom and logic, of a well-known organ of the hcirarchy of lhe most numerous Church in the Philippines: ‘The Church — as far as our Constitution and civil laws are concerned — has every legal right (even if she does not always use it) to be in politics, partisan {politics. “At least the Church has as much legal right as any other group; as much as the iglesia ni Kristo, the Aglipayans or the NPM (National Progress Movement). All of us Filipino Catholics — clerics and lavmcn — are citizens of this country, and therefore we are legally entitled to participate in Philippine politics. Wc have a right to good government — and therefore, like all other citizens, we have a right to 'meddle' — if wc may still use that term — in our own politics, from presidential elections to the election of barrio lieutenants. We need not apologize for ‘meddling’ — for this is no meddling, this is rightful participaI venture to foretell that, in the liglit of the events of the recent past, unless the hierarchy of the most numerous Church withdraws definitely and completely from lhe field of newly founded activities, the nation will eventually find itself sucked into the maelstrom of a religio-political war with the said Church on one side and on the other a j>owerful alliance not THE EVILS OF RELIGIOUS TEST 129 only among those who belong to other religious denominations, but also a sizable portion of its faithful who, because of nationalism or civil libertarianism, would refuse to follow their spiritual leaders in such a purely mundane crusade. It is irrelevant whether the numerous Church or its allied opponents emerge victorious in such a battle, for the outcome will be the same as in the ones between Hildebrand and Henry IV and their respective successors, and between the thirteenth-century popes and the Hohenstaufen: "the usual outcome," in the words of Toynbee, “of all wars that arc fought out to the bitter end: the nominal victor succeeded in dealing the death-blow to his victim at the cost of sustaining fatal injuries himself; and the real victors over both belligerents were the neutral tertii gaudeittes,” in our case the tertii gaudentes. the happy onlookers, if I may be allowed to translate those Latin words frcelv, would be the enemies of our nation and people, the real beneficiaries of such a tremendous national misfortune. "The tragedy of the Hildcbrandine Church” — proceeds Toynbee — "is a prominent example of spiritual regression precipiated by a church’s becoming entangled in mundane affairs and committed to secular modes oF action as an incidental consequence of its trying to do its own business. There is, however, another broad road leading to the same spiritually destructive worldliness. A church incurs the risk of falling into a spiritual regression in the ven' act of living up to its own standard motives that are found partially expressed in the righteous social aims of mundane societies, and these mundane ideals may be achieved all the more successfully by those who are aiming, not at these ideals as ends in themselves, but at something higher.. .” It shows “how Hildebrand was dragged over the precipice by an apparently inevitable concatenation of causes and effects. He would not be a true servant of God if he did not throw himself into the struggle to reclaim the clergy from sexual and financial corruption; he could not reform the clergy unless he tightened up the organization of the Church; he could not tighten up the organization of the Church without arriving at a demarcation of jurisdictions of church and state; and since the functions of church and state were, in the feudal age, inextricably entangled, he could not arrive at a demarcation satisfactory to the Church without encroaching on the sphere of the State in a manner which the state was justified in resenting. Hence a conflict which began as war of manifestoes had rapidly degenerated into, a war of force in which the resources of each side were ‘money and guns’.” If the numerous Church in the Philippines emerges triumphant in such a struggle the immediate result will be its establishment as lhe State Church and the destruction of our republican form of government. In such an event we must be prepared for “the oppressive measures” such as those "adopted, and the cruelties and punishments such as those inflicted, by the government of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform to their religious beliefs and modes of worship to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that wav io control the mental 130 THE CABLE TOW April I960 outward conformity to a prescribed standard," when in many instances “they were seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny,” but ‘‘in no instance were they seen the guardians of the liberties of the people,” because ‘‘rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries,” if I may borrow the words of the US Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, in Zorach v. Clauson, 334 U.S. 306, and in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1. And we must be prepared also for a situation similar to that which obtained in the world in the early part of the fourth century when — as wc are told by Chester C. Maxey in his ‘‘Political Philosophies,” pp. 98, 97-98, 110-111— "Christianity was proclaimed lhe official and only lawful religion of the empire by the Emperor Theodosius.” and “had departed far from the simple creed of Jesus and the robust theology of Paul,” because ‘‘by masterly tactics in the arena of politics it had captured an empire, had become the most formidable engine of religo-political authority the world has ever known... The Christian conquered, but not the Galilean... Tile church, despite its spiritual ideals, had become so encumbered with material possessions and so preoccupied with the management of its vast properties that it was lor all practical purposes a secular concern. As such, it was involved in almost every move of the stormy politics of the period. . . xxx.” In this respect we are reminded by Bertrand Bussell in his "History of Western Philosophy,” that "When lhe State became Christian there were disputed elections, and theological quarrels..., and also quarrels for worldly advantages..., they were corrupted by the wealth and power that they owed to the benefactions of the pious.” (Pp. 329, 332, 398-399.) As Fred Hamlin puts it in his book "Land of Liberty", when a Christian State was established, they would completely forget the principle which they had invoked. The martyrs died for conscience, but not for liberty. Today the greatest of the Churches demands freedom of conscience in the modern States which she does not control, but refuses to admit that, where she had the power, it would be incumbent on her to concede it.” (Pp. 94-95, 4950.) Even Catholic writers and journalists share this view, the brilliant Louis Veuillo; (1813-83) being quoted as having said in a frank statement to the radicals and Protestants of his lime: “When you .are lhe masters we claim perfect liberty for ourselves, as vour principles require it: when wc arc the masters we refuse it to you, as i is contrary to our principles." (Quoted bv W.E.H. Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, vol. II. p, 25.) In the union between Church and State, because of circumstances and conditions such as traditional practices, solemn concordats, or the character and ]x?rsonahiv of the man who happens to he at the helm of one or the other institution, one will necessarily dominate the oilier, and in not a lew cases the Slate has dominated the Church. Thus a situation may develop here parallel lo lhat obtaining at present in Spain where, by virtue of a concordat, the appointment of all Spanish ecclesiastical authorities from canons to the THE EVILS OF RELIGIOUS TEST 131 primate is in the Stale, and where Catholicism is declared to be the only religion of the Spanish people (A. Victor Murray, "The State and the Church in a Free Society,’’ p. 106). Or the one described by Bertrand Russell in his cited work: ‘’There arc thus, from the first, a curious interdependence of pope and emperor. No one could be emperor unless crowned by the Pope in Rome: on the other hand, for some centuries, everv strong emperor claimed the right to appoint or depose popes. The medieval theory of legitimate ]x)wer depended upon both emperor and pope; their mutual dependence was galling to both, but for centuries inescapable. 1 here was constant friction, with advantage now to one side, now to the other. At last, in the thirteenth century, the conflict became irreconciliable. "During the tenth century, lhe papacy was completely' under the control of the local Roman aristocracv. There was, as yet, no fixed rule as to the election of popes; sometimes they owed their elevation to popular acclaim, sometimes to emperors or kings, and sometimes, as in the tenth century, to rhe holders of local urban power in Rome. Rome was a- this time, not a civilized citv. as it had still been in the time of Gregor)' the Great. At times there were faction fights; at other times some rich family' acquired control bv a combination of violence and corruption. “x x x the papacy’ became, for about a hundred years a pcrouisite of the Roman aristocracv or of the counts of Tusculum." (Pp. 392-393, 397, 398.) It is hoped that the hierarchy of the most numerous Church, disregarding the misguided counsel of ambitious politicians within its fold and its ine_ flectivc spokesman in the press will save from certain disaster not only its organic unity and its privileged position in the country, but also the system of government established here under the Constitution, by helping maintain the absolute separation of State and Church, which means complete abstention of the latter from all political controversies, relying solely on the value of prayer and example and on the promise of Christ that He would be with His Apostles “even unto the end of the world,” and remembering with James Madison in his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments,’’ “that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them; and not onlv during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence, and the ordinary care of Providence: nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy must have preexisted and been supported before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence, and the patronage of its (divine) Author; and to foster in those who still reject it a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.” The hierarchy will certainly find it wise and profitable to follow the example of Archbishop Murray of St. Paul who issued lhe following pastoral to the pricsis of his archdiocese: 132 THE CABLE TOW April I960 “*Wc forbid any priest, secular or religious, to discuss in public any question dealing with legislation of a political nature or affecting candidates for political office. If, in relation to such a topic, there seems to be any matter involving a religious or moral problem which a clergyman thinks should be discussed in public, he must first obtain the permission of the Ordinary of this archdiocese after setting forth his view of the question and the treatment it deserves.’' (Archbishop John Murray of St. Paul, as quoted in Church and State in the U.S. by Anson Phelps Stokes, vol. Ill, p. 471.) When shall wc be fortunate to see a Filipino bishop meting out to politician-priests of his diocese punishments similar to that imposed upon Father Edward McGlynn (1837-1900) in 1887, who was removed from his pastorate in New York City by Archbishop Corrigan because of his activities in support of Henry George’s candidacy for mayor? Father McGlynn was later excommunicated because he declined to go to Rome to make submission to the pope. (Schlesinger, Arthur M., The Rise of the City, p. 343.) Allow me to end mv remarks by quoting from Wiiliam Temple: “The Church is a spiritual creation working through a natural medium. Its informing principles is the Holy Spirit of God in Christ, but its members arc men and women who arc partly animals in nature as well as children of God. The nation as organized for acting is the State; and the State being ‘natural’ appeals to men on that side of their nature which is lower but is not in itself bad. Justice is its highest aim and force its typical instrument, though force is progressively less employed as the moral sense of the community develops: mercy can find an entrance only on strict conditions. The Church on the other hand, is primarily spiritual; holiness is its primary quality; mercy will be the chief characteristics of its judgments, but it may fall back on justice and, even, in the last resort, on force. Both State and Church are instruments of God for establishing His Kingdom; both have the same goal; but they have different functions in relation to that goal. “The State's action for the most part takes the form of restraint; the Church's mainlv that of appeal. The State is concerned to maintain the highest standard of life that can be generally realized by its citizens; the Church is concerned with upholding an ideal to which not even the best will fullv attain... Neither State nor Church is itself the Kingdom of God, though the specific life of the Church is the ver}’ spirit and power of that Kingdom. Each plays its part in building lhe Kingdom, in which, when it comes, force will have disappeared, while justice and mercy will coalesce in the perfect love which will treat ever)’ individual according to his need.’’ (As quoted in Stokes’s “Church and State,” vol. Ill, pp. 648-649.) Let it not be said—and these are mv parting words — of any one who has been graduated by this University that, during the years of learning that he spent within these walls he was ever told to support or not to support, under threat of hellfire or excommunication, this or that political program or THE EVILS OF RELIGIOUS TEST 133 this or that seeker of public office, because of religious considerations. And may this University for years to come continue to be one of the most inviolable reservoirs of republican virtues and vital centers of religious tolerance on which alone the principle of religious freedom, correctly equated to that of separation of State and Church, can be firmly grounded, a principle that has found no more eloquent expression than in these noble words: “No one has a right to stand between another human soul and his God." I thank you. A A A Concerned Citizens and School Finance Joining hands in a common effort, a group of public-spirited citizens has come out with a plan to end the recurrent school crises by proposing slight increases in public taxation, the collection therefrom to be used only for school purposes from year to year. The plan calls for a hundred per cent increase in residence tax, 25% increase in estate and inheritance taxes; 25% increase in documentary stamp tax; revival of the collection by the national government of its share of municipal taxes; and the legalization of solicitation of voluntary contributions from public-spirited citizens for school purposes. From the foregoing new sources, an estimated annual income of P65,500,000.00 is hoped to be collected, said amount will accrue to The School Stabilization Fund which is automatically appropriated for the Department of Education to be used in erecting new school buildings, creating new classes, buying textbooks, restoring Grade VII, reviving the single-session plan, providing high schools with guidance counsellors, highly qualified science and mathematics teachers and well-equipped science laboratories. It will be seen that the objectives of the group is to enable the Department of Education to raise the standards of education in the country such that it will be the envy of educators in this part of the globe. The group, composed of educators, businessmen and leading citizens, is working together with Education Secretary Jose E. Romero, who is not sparing his every effort to solve the school problem. According to the leader of the group, the funds collected will be supplementary to the annual congressional appropriation for education. The group has worked and researched on the problem since 1958 and has come out with the proposals which it embodied in a bill for sponsorship and presentation in this session of congress. They have organized themselves so well that after they get congressmen to sponsor it, they will follow up their program by lobbying for the passage of the bill with the other congressmen to insure its passage at this session134 THE CABLE TOW April 1960