This is a fascinating idea, especially given the long and almost universal historical phenomenon of churches supporting authoritarian governments in exchange for reciprocal government support. The "divine right of kings" was preached in Europe, and the monarchies in turn supported the Church with their purse and patronage.
Actually, Catholic doctrine condemned the concept of the 'divine right of kings' when it emerged following the Protestant Reformation (conceived particularly by Anglicans, as a theological justification for national churches not in communion with the papacy).
The notion that churches universally buck-up authoritarian regimes, would have been news to many medieval Catholic theologians, most notably John of Salisbury (d. 1180) Jean Petit (d. 1411), and the Jesuits St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez (d. 1617); and Protestants such as Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Calvin, all who supported resistance to arbitrary authority in defence of natural rights. St. Thomas Aquinas gave the most substantial argument, going so far as to conclude, "
He who kills a tyrant to free his country is praised and rewarded" (
In 2 Sentences, 44.2.2).
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542 – 1621), Doctor and Cardinal of the Church, tells us in chapters 3-6 of his
De Laicis:
De Laicis — Saint Robert Bellarmine’s Treatise on Civil Government
"Individual forms of government in specific instances derive from the law of nations, not from the natural law, for, as is evident, it depends on the consent of the people to decide whether kings, or consuls, or other magistrates are to be established in authority over them; and, if there be legitimate cause, the people can change a kingdom into an aristocracy, or an aristocracy into a democracy, and vice versa..."
If the state infringes natural, inviolable rights - the Christian tradition mandates conscientious civil disobedience (passive, unless violence is unavoidable in self-defence), gathering in 'associations' (i.e. campaigns, trade unions) contrary to the unjust law, and even regime change (i.e. from kingdom to democracy).
It was on this basis that the later Jesuit theologians of the seventeenth century, with explicit papal sanction, contested the Anglican theory promoted by Filmer of the "
divine right of kings" as heresy:
Francisco Suárez - Wikipedia
Suárez denies the patriarchal theory of government and the divine right of kings founded upon it, doctrines popular at that time in England and to some extent on the Continent...When a political society is formed, the authority of the state is not of divine but of human origin; therefore, its nature is chosen by the people involved, and their natural legislative power is given to the ruler.[11] Because they gave this power, they have the right to take it back and to revolt against a ruler, only if the ruler behaves badly towards them, and they must act moderately and justly...If a government is imposed on people, on the other hand, they have the right to defend themselves by revolting against it and even kill the tyrannical ruler.[12]
In 1613, at the instigation of Pope Paul V, Suárez wrote a treatise dedicated to the Christian princes of Europe, entitled Defensio catholicae fidei contra anglicanae sectae errores("Defense of the Universal Catholic Faith Against the Errors of the Anglican Sect").[16] This was directed against the oath of allegiance which James I required from his subjects.
Suárez, Francisco | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)
Francisco Suárez (1548—1617)
Sometimes called the "Eminent Doctor" after Pope Paul V’s designation of him as doctor eximius et pius, Francisco Suárez was the leading theological and philosophical light of Spain’s Golden Age....
His Defensio fidei, published in 1613, defended a theory of political power that was widely perceived to undermine any monarch's absolute right to rule. He explicitly permitted tyrannicide and argued that even monarchs who come to power legitimately can become tyrants and thereby lose their authority. Such views led to the book being publically burned in London and Paris...
One could hold the view that what gives some individuals political power over other people is that God bestowed such authority on them directly. Suárez rejects that view. He insists that men are by nature free and subject to no one (DL 3.1.1)...
