Ask the Scholar
Page 2 of 3
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The occasion in question was not "a joint discussion", but
First, there is the extreme but very ancient view that
an address by me at a private club, after which you as an
Church and State are identical. They are different faces
invited guest were given the privilege of the floor. The
of the same coin. This may take the form of theocracy
ethics of your action in publicizing and personalizing a
(Church over State: Calvinism) or Erastianism (temporal
private meeting is your affair and that of the club in ques-
rulers over the Church: Luther's view and Tudor England).
tion, not mine. In any case, this aspect is secondary. What
is important is that of the four points attributed to me in
Second, there is the classical Roman Catholic doctrine of
your entirely unauthorized press release, three of the four
the two swords, temporal and spiritual rule, each related
are incorrect and gravely misleading. When I called you,
to the other but at the same time occupying a distinct and
pointed out these errors, and requested a retraction, you
special sphere. Without this kind of concept and situation
unqualifiedly refused. I must accordingly set the record
there could have been no conflict between Church and State
straight in the only manner open to me and in doing so
in the Middle Ages. The Pope would simply have ruled as
must expose the superficiality and imbalance of your grasp
undisputed lord of the Western World. Instead he occupied
upon the questions underlying the issue of American repre-
for centuries a very troubled and difficult position.
sentation at Vatican City. I note, seriatim, the statements
attributed to me.
Third, there is, as I hold, the traditional and distinctive
American view that there shall be no establishment of any
1. I did not confess myself lone exception to the uni-
Church-embodied religion, but that the State holds itself
form opposition of non-Catholic groups". You confessed
under the Authority of God and welcomes the influence
this on my behalf in your opening remarks, opining that
and benefit of religious faith and practice. This view I
I must be lonesome since the Presiding Bishop of the Epis-
identified as the one I personally accept as the truest and
copal Church and its National Council had gone on record
the soundest.
against President Truman's proposal. The fact, of course,
is that a few non-Episcopal Protestant Clergymen, a sub-
Fourth, there is the reversely extreme view that State and
stantial section of the Episcopal Clergy, and a still larger
Church should be separated by an insurmountable and im-
proportion of "Protestant and other American" laymen
pervious wall of partition. This is the concept of the mod-
favor representation at the Vatican as an expedient and
ern secular state, exemplified in France. It would appear
wise measure.
to be the ideal visualized by the Supreme Court in its Mc-
Collum Decision. It is for you, Doctor Dawson, and the
2. I did not charge or in any way state that the Protestant
sixteen million Baptists you claim to represent, to say
Clergy aspire to "clerical control over government". What
whether you believe this to be the meaning of the separa-
I did state was that the extraordinary unanimity of official
tion of Church and State. I personally believe that it is
Protestant reaction to President Truman's proposal sug-
not the central and still largely operative and instinctively
gested a clericalism as definite and as professional in its
held American tradition.
roots as that alleged to exist in the Roman Catholic Church.
It may be worth recalling that John Milton, hailed by you
4. In stating that what the United States does "with the
as the classmate of Roger Williams at Cambridge, once
President's proposal as to a Vatican Ambassador" is a test
wrote: "Presbyter is priest writ large".
of our political maturity, you quote me correctly. What I
meant by this is well illustrated by your next sentence (the
3. I not only did not "identify" myself "with the Roman
last in the long quotation above). Can the United States
Catholic view of church-state relations", but I made, in
as the Nation of destiny in the most critical period mankind
answer to a thoughtful question regarding my view of
has known since the Fall of Rome, accept and work with
Church and State, a careful four-fold analysis. I stated
the powers existent and available in our world? Or must
that there are four main positions.
we seek to rewrite history and to purify the received insti-
Page data
- Page
- 2
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 3ea80938c28a8c72
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 269702910
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "269702910",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/269702910",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Pamphlet, Letter from Charles Lowry to Dr. Joseph M. Dawson",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/269702910",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750313/750313-17-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750313/750313-17-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750313/750313-17-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 3,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "269702910",
"label": "Pamphlet, Letter from Charles Lowry to Dr. Joseph M. Dawson",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/269702910"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "269702910",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/269702910",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Pamphlet, Letter from Charles Lowry to Dr. Joseph M. Dawson",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/269702910",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750313/750313-17-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750313/750313-17-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750313/750313-17-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 3,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/269702910",
"naId": 269702910,
"levelOfDescription": "item",
"productionDates": [
{
"day": 5,
"logicalDate": "1952-01-05",
"month": 1,
"year": 1952
}
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 2,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750313/750313-17-002.jpg",
"mediaId": "3ea80938c28a8c72",
"ocrText": "The occasion in question was not \"a joint discussion\", but\nFirst, there is the extreme but very ancient view that\nan address by me at a private club, after which you as an\nChurch and State are identical. They are different faces\ninvited guest were given the privilege of the floor. The\nof the same coin. This may take the form of theocracy\nethics of your action in publicizing and personalizing a\n(Church over State: Calvinism) or Erastianism (temporal\nprivate meeting is your affair and that of the club in ques-\nrulers over the Church: Luther's view and Tudor England).\ntion, not mine. In any case, this aspect is secondary. What\nis important is that of the four points attributed to me in\nSecond, there is the classical Roman Catholic doctrine of\nyour entirely unauthorized press release, three of the four\nthe two swords, temporal and spiritual rule, each related\nare incorrect and gravely misleading. When I called you,\nto the other but at the same time occupying a distinct and\npointed out these errors, and requested a retraction, you\nspecial sphere. Without this kind of concept and situation\nunqualifiedly refused. I must accordingly set the record\nthere could have been no conflict between Church and State\nstraight in the only manner open to me and in doing so\nin the Middle Ages. The Pope would simply have ruled as\nmust expose the superficiality and imbalance of your grasp\nundisputed lord of the Western World. Instead he occupied\nupon the questions underlying the issue of American repre-\nfor centuries a very troubled and difficult position.\nsentation at Vatican City. I note, seriatim, the statements\nattributed to me.\nThird, there is, as I hold, the traditional and distinctive\nAmerican view that there shall be no establishment of any\n1. I did not confess myself lone exception to the uni-\nChurch-embodied religion, but that the State holds itself\nform opposition of non-Catholic groups\". You confessed\nunder the Authority of God and welcomes the influence\nthis on my behalf in your opening remarks, opining that\nand benefit of religious faith and practice. This view I\nI must be lonesome since the Presiding Bishop of the Epis-\nidentified as the one I personally accept as the truest and\ncopal Church and its National Council had gone on record\nthe soundest.\nagainst President Truman's proposal. The fact, of course,\nis that a few non-Episcopal Protestant Clergymen, a sub-\nFourth, there is the reversely extreme view that State and\nstantial section of the Episcopal Clergy, and a still larger\nChurch should be separated by an insurmountable and im-\nproportion of \"Protestant and other American\" laymen\npervious wall of partition. This is the concept of the mod-\nfavor representation at the Vatican as an expedient and\nern secular state, exemplified in France. It would appear\nwise measure.\nto be the ideal visualized by the Supreme Court in its Mc-\nCollum Decision. It is for you, Doctor Dawson, and the\n2. I did not charge or in any way state that the Protestant\nsixteen million Baptists you claim to represent, to say\nClergy aspire to \"clerical control over government\". What\nwhether you believe this to be the meaning of the separa-\nI did state was that the extraordinary unanimity of official\ntion of Church and State. I personally believe that it is\nProtestant reaction to President Truman's proposal sug-\nnot the central and still largely operative and instinctively\ngested a clericalism as definite and as professional in its\nheld American tradition.\nroots as that alleged to exist in the Roman Catholic Church.\nIt may be worth recalling that John Milton, hailed by you\n4. In stating that what the United States does \"with the\nas the classmate of Roger Williams at Cambridge, once\nPresident's proposal as to a Vatican Ambassador\" is a test\nwrote: \"Presbyter is priest writ large\".\nof our political maturity, you quote me correctly. What I\nmeant by this is well illustrated by your next sentence (the\n3. I not only did not \"identify\" myself \"with the Roman\nlast in the long quotation above). Can the United States\nCatholic view of church-state relations\", but I made, in\nas the Nation of destiny in the most critical period mankind\nanswer to a thoughtful question regarding my view of\nhas known since the Fall of Rome, accept and work with\nChurch and State, a careful four-fold analysis. I stated\nthe powers existent and available in our world? Or must\nthat there are four main positions.\nwe seek to rewrite history and to purify the received insti-"
}