Before the Second Vatican Council, a dispute arose concerning the division of the powers of the Church, which had an immediate impact on the question of religious freedom. Joaquín Salaverri argued that the powers of the Church should be directly modelled on the threefold office of Christ, concerning the functions of teaching, governing and sanctifying (order, jurisdiction and magisterium), while Lawrence R. Sotillo defended the classical medieval view that there are just two powers in the Church - those of order and jurisdiction. Theologians such as John Courtney Murray followed St. Robert Bellarmine in arguing for the indirect power of the pope in temporal affairs (which allows for the separation of church and state). While others, such as Joseph Clifford Fenton backed Lawerence R. Sotillo in arguing for two powers, and in doing so, rejected any potential revision to the Church teaching on religious freedom. In order to advance his theory of the potestas indirecta, Bellarmine argued that there are three powers in the Church, and in doing so, supplied the basis for the concept of an ordinary exercise of the papal magisterium, which demands the assent of religious obedience. If there are only two powers in the Church, then the teaching power and ruling power are collapsed together under the power of jurisdiction. This means there can be no essential difference between doctrine and discipline, which leads to the conclusion that doctrine must be strictly enforced through the rule of ecclesiastical discipline. If there is no separation of the church and state, and the pope has a direct power in temporal affairs, then in the restored Respublica Christiania envisaged in integralist thought, the state can justifiably use coercion to suppress other religions, and ban secular freedoms such as civil divorce, criminalize homosexuality, etc.