7. Christian churches and the modern world

Introduction
The 16th century was not only marked by the reformations: it also sees the beginning of a scientific and intellectual revolution which leads to a questioning of the values and the role of Churches. At the end of the 18th century, they must face the arising secularization and the emergence of new political models which are no more based on Christianity. A century later, important upheavals generated by industrialization lead the Roman Catholic Church to take into account the "social question”.
Source 1

Syllabus of Errors

The Syllabus complectens praecipuos nostrae aetatis errores (Collection of the main errors of our time), or more simply Syllabus, is a list of false proposals established by pope Pius IX (1846-1878). Every proposal is accompanied with a cross-reference to the texts which develop the motives for these condemnations. This brief text accompanies the publication of the encyclical Quanta cura (December 8th, 1864) which develops the condemnation of the political and philosophic "errors" of its time.

"I. Pantheism, naturalism and absolute rationalism
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations […].
II. Moderate rationalism
11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself […].
IV. Socialism, communism, secret societies, biblical societies, clerico-liberal societies
Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical Qui pluribus (Nov. 9, 1846), Allocution Quibus quantisque (April 20, 1849), Encyclical Noscitis et nobiscum (Dec. 8, 1849), Allocution Singulari quadam (Dec. 9, 1854), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur (Aug. 10, 1863).
V. Errors concerning the church and her rights
20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government […].
VI. Errors about civil society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the church
45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers […].
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church […].
X. Errors having reference to modern liberalism
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

Syllabus of Errors. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

Source 2

Rerum novarum

The encyclical Rerum novarum was published by pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) on May 15th, 1891. Subtitled "On rights and duties of Capital and Labour", it formulates the social doctrine of the Church and brings the answer of the Roman Catholic Church to the economic and social upheavals created by industrialization. Strongly inspired by the activities of "social Christians", the encyclical condemns the labour poverty and the excesses of capitalism, but also the "atheistic socialism". It encourages Christian trade unionism and social Christianity and puts forward the idea of harmony between social classes.

“The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy […].
To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community […].
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity […].
20. Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman […].
Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages axe fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven.”

Rerum novarum.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-

Source 3

The Separation of Church and State

The caricature, published during the debates which lead to the separation of religions and the State (law of December 9th, 1905), represents Jean-Baptiste Bienvenu Martin proceeding to the separation of religions and the State. It summarizes well the key data of the question. The presence of a priest symbolizes more the Roman Catholic Church than the recognized denominations, what indicates that the main part of the difficulties comes from a Roman Catholic Church which attaches great importance to the concordat of 1801. Also, Marianne's face reminds the republican character of laicity, which is one of the pillars of the French republican model. The man who proceeds to the separation is the ministry of Public education and the Churches: this dual function reminds that, in France, laicity issue arises at first inside the school system.

Caricature from Le rire, 20th may 1905. Retrieved from:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Rire_-_Séparation_de_l’Église_et_de_l’Etat.jpg