All Soul’s Day
Around the second of November, I would like to avoid naming here the living, or rather to be concerned with them only insofar as they themselves are concerned with men who had already departed from life. A melancholy memory is not a simple dream, and nothing deep down is more useful to those who remain than the strong tenor of those who have left.
But perhaps it would be suitable, while on this subject, to make a distinction. There is the universal cult of the dead, of all the dead, of those who had existed, provided that they had belonged to the human race; and there is, closely related, the particular cult, more reserved, prouder, and, in my sense, more beneficial. That renders to the elite among the dead, those whom the positivists call, a little verbosely, “the great types of humanity”, and the Catholics, more briefly, the “saints”. The first of these cults presents a great drawback; in teaching us to venerate all of defunct humanity, it trains us logically to venerate, en bloc, all of living humanity, that is to say, to make us accept and even venerate the worse faults that it commits even though we recognize them as much in ourselves as in our neighbours. The second cult shows the opposite benefit; by obliging us to hold the dead as our models, it forces us to select from among these scattered people, hence, indirectly, to make a critique of our own characters: by applying our minds to consider those great dead men, it opens us up to the way of personal exaltation and perfection.
The consequence is that human solidarity, to use that term, must belong much less to the crowd of our predecessors, than to the persons of the past who have realized, in a great way, the fine natural traits of man. Those who pass up the opportunity to serve their great memory, pass up an undoubted opportunity to help themselves, to correct themselves, and to improve themselves.
That said, what to think of the cold and sad silence that has greeted these last few weeks—in the newspapers, in the reviews, everywhere finally where they pride themselves on their thought and style—the great news of the discovery of a newly published book of Bossuet? Regarding the second tract on the États d’oraison (“States of Prayer”), if it had taught nothing new of the opinions and sentiments of the illustrious bishop, if it had been only a sketch, a pale appendix to some known works, it still would have been necessary to honour in it, after two hundred years, some unheard contemplative words of a voice which fills the world. This indifference of the critics and the public, had, moreover, no excuse, and the six chapters published the other day in la Quinzaine by the fortunate author of the discovery, Abbot Levesque of Saint‐Sulpice, was worthy of attention and of commentary for the same reason that Relation sur le quiétisme (“Relation to quietism”), so fine, so piquant and solid, especially because of the first tract of États d’oraison whose eloquence equals the power of the ideas.
The honour of our times will have been to render to Bossuet his rightful place. We have displaced him from it. First, by literary rancour: reread Paul Albert and the other critics of romanticism, and you will see how much this great man baffles them. It is that, if it is not right, at least it is possible to contend that a Jean Racine or a Jean de La Fontaine have united a marvellous vigour to their supreme perfection: to deceive the inane, or perhaps by innate taste in reserve, these two poets have disguised their strength under elegance and grace. But this force bursts out divinely in Bossuet. I do not know which imagination was more powerful than his or more allied, for example, to that of Homer; he joins to it a sentiment, an almost dramatic passion: nevertheless, order is never weakened in him. It is not necessary to be astonished if true strength is naturally harmonious and there is always something weak or morbid, even vertiginous, in disorder. The most fanciful of men—Plato, Aristophanes—were the most reasonable, the most sensible, and the finest.
After the romantics, Bossuet bored Renan. Pardon the word, let us rather not apply it to the person of Renan, but to the adjuncts, the dependants, if you like, to the low offices of this illustrious writer: there were in him some parts corrupted by Hegelianism. Bossuet’s unswerving logic resisted it. I imagine that it would still resist it if, by some miracle, Bossuet returned among us. Everything that the Germans said against the principles of reason is something confused. They always mixed the orders. All the same, in a superior order, our reason would be defective, there remains an order, the human order, where, in spite of all, it exercises itself supremely. That is what the author of La Synthèse subjective discerned with true genius. The influence of Comte has led the wise public back to Bossuet; as for those who don’t have time for reflection, the fortunate intervention of Mr. Brunetière produced around the same time the same happy effect.
So that the most harmonious of men is admired with unanimity.
The silence maintained on the new treasure added to the old treasure by M. Levesque is therefore doubly inexplicable. From where I am writing, I can, by turning a little, see the complete set of Bossuet’s books stacked up on the shelves familiar to me, and I have on this table, the Histoire des Variations, that I can open at my liking, assured of meeting in it the perfection of life from its first pages. Nevertheless, I would not know how to compare for its vivacity, the beautiful freshness of pleasure, that emotion already old to the emotion that the newly discovered chapters have given me.
A statue recently pulled out of the ground, even from an inferior age, touches and moves for an instant with more force than the most beautiful things known. Judge if chance brings to daylight a masterpiece from Phidias’ school! We have here a masterpiece from Phidias himself. Space is lacking to justify my sentiment in regard to the profound and subtle ideas exposed in the second tract of the États d’oraison. But I am sure that we will tremble at the simple sound of the eloquence, its rhythm, and its performance.
In the chapter Que la foi se perd dan l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu (Faith is lost in the incomprehensibility of God):
It is a doctrine common among the holy Fathers and among theologians, mystical as well as scholastic, that we know God by negation rather than by affirmation; that is to say, that we know well what he is not, but we do not know what he is: so, in order to reach the lofty knowledge of the Divine Being, it is necessary to reject all our ideas and form our consciousness a little closer to the way we form a statue, by removing, from the marble from which it is formed, first one piece and then another, because it is the analogy which they use following the author of the Divine Names. So, they say, in order to know God, it is necessary to deny, in a certain sense, everything that we think of Him and everything that we say about Him, not as false, for it would be an impiety and an atheism to deny that God is holy, eternal, almighty, the “I Am”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and, in these three persons, one God: we don’t deny, therefore, these things as false, not pleasing to God! But we reject them in some fashion as still poorly proportionate and suitable to the immense perfection of the Divine Being: so that whatever effort that we make to know Him well, however sublime are the ideas that are presented to our spirits or the thoughts that we try to form from then, we deny that they are equal to his high and impenetrable majesty.
In the chapter Théologie and contemplation of saint Augustine (“Theology and Contemplation of Saint Augustine”):
But among the Fathers where this divine theology seems to me the most highly expressed, it is St. Augustine where he says to God: “I sought you outside, and you were within, I found you there without your entering by any of my senses. You didn’t come there with colours or exquisite tastes; you didn’t run there with odours or with pleasant sounds and chants. If you are a light, you are a light without a cloud, without sunset, and without body: you are nothing that I see, that I touch, that I sense, that I imagine in my mind, of that which I am: for my spirit, my mind, which is what I find most excellent in myself, learns, unlearns, forgets, loves certain things and then is disgusted by them; and God is not all that because He never changes. In rejecting, then, all those things and all those sense images, and opening only the eyes of the soul, it sees in itself, without any form, a justice which judges it and which it judges not, but by which it judges everything; a truth that slips away, for as little can one come near the sense of it as to touch it.
That is only a translation, a summary, a paraphrase; and genius breaks out in each word. Bossuet, moreover, excels in summaries. And he is perhaps the only classical Christian among whom the crudest citations of the Bible and of the Fathers, even though extremely numerous, do not subsequently result in a blemish in style. He establishes and transforms everything. His example can let us judge the value of modern theories of invention and originality.
But let us cite once more, a single sentence that ends on a charming inflexion: Faith makes it known to the soul that it is made in the image and likeness of God; this links two things: one, that it is pleased to gather its thoughts to contemplate in them the image of God; the other, that is can not stop in itself, but it is gently attracted and elevated to God, of whom it is the beautiful and living image. Yet, it is a mistake to blame oneself for admiring similar things in Bossuet. His spirit is too far above the sentences thus sketched out! But strength consists in finding the whole in its least objects and, thereby, according to a view loved by Hugo, even the small appears great.
—From Barbarie et Poésie, originally published in Revue Encyclopédique, October 31, 1896. Newly translated for this site by Charles Salvo.
Comments
“Eloquence may be suitable for exhortation, reason may be effective in persuasion, but examples are more forceful than words, and it is better to teach by deeds than words.”
Saint Leo the Great
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This is double talk that would do Leo Strauss proud. Send this atheist jerk back to France with the other obnoxious nationalist socialists.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Maurras was a true conservative. He wanted to preserve the French people and their ancestral traditions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for publishing this translation of one of Maurras’
later essays. It gives a true flavor of this master
stylist and incredible French thinker.
RE: Peter’s comment...we do need another St. Bartholomew’s
Day action....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Correction: I should have said “earlier essays,” and
not “later.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Ramus When you think truth is atheism you reveal far too much about yourself.
Please stop flashing us.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Maurras’s vast learning comes through even in
translation but it may be necessary to look at his
French in order to appreciate his rich vocabulary. He
was also multilingual and knew Latin, Spanish, and
Italian as well as his native Provencal. Pace Peter,
I’m not sure in what way he was a “national
socialist,” although he was certainly no libertarian.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Warmest thanks to Charles Salvo. Let this essay be the start of his “The English Charles Maurras Reader”! Let it be followed by “The Bossuet Reader”.
To fault Maurras for his Judeophobia, Germanophobia, and his Comte-philia – and these are faults – is to practice the fallacy, so beloved of trial lawyers, of falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, and the fallacy of composition, to see the tree and not the forest. To fault him for his atheism is to practice the heresies of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. For faith, in fact, is the result of God’s gratuitous Grace – operating and cooperating Grace – and of nothing else.
For the same reasons, of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre every authentic Catholic is ashamed, as is every authentic Calvinist is ashamed of Cromwell at Drogheda. For to force the faith is also Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian, and anyone, be he Pope or be he Presbyterian Moderator, who preaches otherwise preaches heresy, dishonors the Grace of God, and spits in the face of Christ. The Synods of Carthage and Orange, and the Councils of Trent (Sixth Session on Justification) and Vatican II (Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis humanae) tell us how one gets faith, and how one doesn’t. It isn’t by coercion. I am aware that cooperating Grace isn’t a Calvinist principle, and instead is a Catholic, Arminian, Wesleyan one. This doesn’t change the obligation not to force the faith, given the “T”, the “U”, the “L” the the “I” in the the Synod of Dortrechts’s T.U.L.I.P.
I particularly like Maurras’ emphasis on regionalism and confederation, as opposed to the central statist nationalism of Delcassé, Clemenceau, and dishonest Abe Lincoln. However much he revered France, Maurras was a Provençal first, and a Frenchman 2nd. He extended his love to the western Mediterranean, and to Greece.
Also Maurras is the last defender of Royalism who discussed and defended it with something more than quixotic sentiment. All the more reason to hope for an English translation of Enquête sur la monarchie and Mes idées politiques.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not sure in what way he was a “national socialist,” although he was certainly no libertarian.
Dr. Gottfried, I had said nationalist [and] socialism, as separate from the Friends of Adolf. I have avoided the F word too. My criticism is from the right, not the left.
Had CM won, France would have been left with a managerial state of the sort James Burnham described. Over time it would become another therapeutic welfare state run by New Class paper pushers, just as Spain, Ireland and Portugal are today.
To fault him for his atheism is to practice the heresies of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. For faith, in fact, is the result of God’s gratuitous Grace – operating and cooperating Grace – and of nothing else.
Sid, “cooperating Grace” is semi-Pelagian grace.
Of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre every authentic Catholic is ashamed...
Not so. Scroll up a bit to see Mr. Cathey calling for a sequel. It is sad to see that the politics of prudence are a mile long and inch deep.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
RE: the St. Bart’s Day massacre. What happened had nothing to do with “forcing” anyone to accept the faith against their will. It had everthing to do with the queen of France (and some others) taking action to preserve, at least as they saw it, the integrity of the French nation. For anyone interested in reading about the massacre and the position of the Church and the pope regarding it, I recommend, once again, The Catholic Encyclopedia (older version) entry remains unsurpassed. It may be
found at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13333b.htm
(Just so Sid will know in advance, The Wikepedia entry
is horribly tendentious and omits some very important
details; it cannot be relied on at all.)
It is infallible teaching of the Church that Our Lord is Lord of all creation, and thus indirectly of all nations and states, and that, according to Quas primas (Pius XI), societies and nations should in their laws assist in creating an environment where free-will conversions are made easier. This Pope Pius XI called “the social reign of Christ the King.”
By the same measure, NO one may be legitimately forced to accept the faith.
If you will carefully read the pastorial declartion,Dignitatis humane, you will find that, in the first section there is a ringing endorsement of the traditional doctrine of the Church regarding the injunction that not only all men but also all states publicly recognize that personal AND social sovereignty. More, this is the consistent teaching of the Church over centuries, and most recently of Greogory XVI, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII (several times), St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
The problem is that Dignitatis humanae also, later in the doucment,
seems to set error on equal footing with truth. The Church has constantly tuaght over the centuries that there is no metaphysical “right to believe erroneaously.” That is, as Pius XII put in in 1953, “error has no rights.” “Error” may be on occasion tolerated for a great (social, political) good. But, and this is of signal importance, error can found no “rights.”
I think Sid misunderstands the doctrine here. Once again, I repeat,
we are NOT talking about forcing anyone against his or her
conscience to embrace the Faith. Conscience is inviolate.
But, by the same token, we cannot found a true “right” on
or in an erroneous conscience. And just as all men are subject to
the sovereignty of their Creator, thus human institutions,
states, nations, and society as a whole are subject to
Our Lord’s sovereignty. To deny this is to, at least
indirectly, to deny the Lordship of Christ.
Every individual has an obligation to believe as his or her
conscience instructs; but he or she also has a solemn
obligation to search for the truth and correct and erroneous
conscience.
Back to St. Bart’s: much has been written derogatorially
about the Church and Pope Gregory XIII. Wiki repeats those
same half-truths and outright errors. The well-researched
article in The Catholic Encylopedia corrects those
lacunae and errors.
In any case, my original use of the phrase was simply
meant in a quasi-humorous way...but since additional
comment was made, I wanted to clarify this.
And Charles, I did greatly appreciate the translation
of the essay by Maurras.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Sid, ‘cooperating Grace’ is semi-Pelagian grace.” A Calvinist misunderstanding. The ability to respond freely to Grace comes from Grace. To deny free will—or a will freed by Grace—makes God the author of evil, and thus one defames God. Just as the Lutherans misunderstand works de gratia and merit de gratia.
Sorry, but “taking action to preserve, at least as they saw it, the integrity of the French nation” and “creating an environment where free-will conversions are made easier” is just a euphemism for coercion. Coercers would do better just to talk straight and simply say that they support dropping people out of helicopters into the ocean, genital electric shocks, and the stake, lighter fluid, and matches. (I’m not saying that Boyd Cathey would support these thing, mind you.) I commend to Boyd Cathey the work of Father Brian Harrison, especially his cutting to shreds Davis’ book so hostile to Dignitatis humanae. Google it. I also thank him who alerted me to this essay by Harrison.
I wish Boyd Cathey would comment on Maurras’ Royalism and Maurras’ connections to Carlism, Frederich Wilhemsen, and Russell Kirk—some things Dr. Cathey may be very qualified to write about. We’d all might learn something. And it would be better than a writebacker trying to imitate either Leonard Feeney’s distorted brand Catholicism or Titus Oates’ distorted brand of Calvinism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The St. Bart’s Day massacre… had everthing to do with the queen of France (and some others) taking action to preserve, at least as they saw it, the integrity of the French nation.
The French Revolution was blowback. Leftist social control is the daughter of Roman Catholic political fantasies. France destroyed its bourgeoise and created a tyranny that turned Christendom into a burlesque. The encyclopedists took the old call for toleration and made it a call for liberty, an idea they only knew from books. These Frenchmen did not understand “liberty” without the authoritarianism of their history, so they created a monster. So there were no good guys in the French Revolution, just different brands of evil.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Coercers would do better just to talk straight...
Roman Catholicism is the mother of coercion and the destroyer of conscience. She promoted absolutism yesterday, tried to preserve feudalism past its sell-by date, and promotes managerial statism today.
Leonard Feeney’s distorted brand Catholicism or Titus Oates’ distorted brand of Calvinism...
I have no use for Feeney, obviously, but at least he tried to pull the sadly misguided Jansenists out of the RCC memory hole. That Maurras is made a hero and Pascal a goat sickens me.
BTW, Titus Oates was an Anabaptist. By your standards, he was simply a proud defender of the British constitution.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I enjoyed reading this essay, but also found it a bit puzzling. The title is “All Soul’s Day”, and, indeed, today is, of course, that day, on which we pray for the souls of those detained in Purgatory because they owe a debt of temporal punishment for their sins. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm)
But Maurras says nothing of them, unless we count them among the “saints”, since in a sense they are, their salvation now being guaranteed, but that does not seem to be the sense in which Maurras is speaking. They would then be included among those he refers to as the “universal cult of the dead, of all the dead, of those who had existed, provided that they had belonged to the human race.” But here he makes no distinction between the damned and those in Purgatory. It is puzzling. Surely such a cultured man had read Dante! The only explanation I can think of is that his lack of belief has waylaid him here. His understanding of “saint” is more positivistic (the great types of humanity”) than Catholic.
That said, who can object to the holding up of great man for emulation, even those who have not attained the honors of the altar, especially in an age, such as our own, so sunken in democratic mediocrity?
The quote from Bousset on “negative theology” is wonderful, and it is equally wonderful that Maurras could appreciate such things! Can you imagine a contemporary scientific atheist like Christopher Hitchens rising to such heights?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
BAH! I say that to myself a couple times a week
to myself in a forceful tone after reading this site.
Trinitarians. When will humanity be freed from
this mythology? To think God is good and all
goodness in humanity comes from God. . . Once again
I find myself praying for the revolution. We must not
attack directly the perveyors of religion-based
government. We must attack it’s supporters and the
system that supports such quackery, and it will become
topheavy and fall on it’s own.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Trinitarians. When will humanity be freed from this mythology?
Well, like I said, the French Revolution was blowback. People were sick of all the intrigue, wars and persecution. So they looked for a way to run society based on principles common to all men, regardless of creed.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Roman Catholicism is the mother of coercion and the destroyer of conscience.
Rope. Piss. Up.
Look, we know you hate the Catholic Church. If your mephitic antipathy is so obsessive that you can not restrain yourself from repeatedly making it clear to those of us who are Catholic then please seek professional psychiatric help.
The idea I am coerced by the Church is laughable.
The idea conscience is destroyed by the Church is, by the mere existence of the Sacrament of Confession, an idea that makes you appear psychotic.
If you can’t restrain yourself, and you refuse to see a shrink, consider adding “The Catholic Church Sucks” to your S/N and be done with it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Can you imagine a contemporary scientific atheist like Christopher Hitchens rising to such heights?
Hitchens wins either way. Both sides seek a managerial welfare state to remake society along idealistic lines. Besides, the French “Right” would have been co-opted or defeated eventually, thus passing power to the “Left.” The social democrats would then easily transition from “Catholic Social Teachings” to therapy and multiculturalism. The lone peep of opposition would be the ritual battle over abortion and contraception. No biggie.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
<i>please seek professional psychiatric help</1>
I thought the authoritarian personality myth was only for liberals and neocons.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Democracy works only in a town hall environment.
This top-down national governmental system will
come to an end. The french did reasonably well
after the horrors of Napoleon. Things for the
people of france and the world have gone even
better after the empirical system came to an end.
The trouble begins and ends with the system of
rentiers, which butresses nationalism. When this
comes to an end for Europe and the U.S., all things
will be corrected. For a time.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid, please, please, get your theology right...Fr. Feeney
interpreted “extra ecclesiam, nullus salus” in an univocal
manner, not recognizing the three media of belonging
to the church (simple baptism, baptism via martyrdom, and
baptism of desire, either implicitly or explicitly). His
view has nothing to do with what I wrote. Neither does
coercion (as I have stated here, and elsewhere til my
face turns blue!).
I’ve read Harrison’s book, and Michael Davies (as well
as several other theologians) has much the better of
him. I will repeat what Ives Congar said...there is a
real and formal difference in what Dignitatis humanae
says, and what previous popes, and in particular, the
Blessed Pius IX, have taught. My last word on this topic.
It is useless to debate with you on this....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Maurras was a reductionist who only wanted the form of the faith to serve as a
cultural prop, while allowing the spiritual substance
to drain away in an ideological and aesthetic haze.
Is it any suprise his project failed? Faith is a
relationship. Maurras viewed it as a tool. Maybe the
charge of traitor works after all.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Democracy works only in a town hall environment.
Maybe so, Rich, but if sovereignty vests with a New Class (or a monarch) who answer only to a church, be it in Rome or Brussels, that’s tyranny.
[Feeney] has nothing to do with what I wrote.
That’s part of the problem. There are multiple Holy Traditions: a Ratzinger version, a US Bishops version, a Wanderer version, a Thomas Woods version, an Oscar Romero version, a Martin Scorsese version, a Nicholas Gruner version, a Chesterbelloc version, an SSPX version, a Ted Kennedy version, a Norberto Rivera version, a Paul Shanley version, a WCC version, a Dignity version, a charismatic renewal version, a Dorothy Day version, a Jansenite version, an Anglo-Catholic version, an Old Catholic version, an IRA version, a TFP version, a neocon version, a Kirkian version, and a Feeney version.
There’s too many contradictions: What is free will? How do I get heaven? What about democracy? What about social justice? Are the Jews perfidious? What about immigration? What about the old scholastic doctors? What about Wal-Mart? Do Christians worship the same God as Bin Laden? What about the EOs? What do good Christians say to Billy Graham? Are all religions more or less good and praiseworthy? Does economic justice matter? How do we analyze the US political system?
That mess doesn’t include all the nit-picky issues of liturgy, interpretation and ecclesiology. Maybe all truth cannot be reduced to propositional form, but no Holy Tradition exists that is coherent enough that one can say “Oh, yes, this is the truth.”
Merely invoking “Mystery” is not enough. Since the institution is broken, one must look elsewhere. That means Scripture, which shows itself as the only rule of faith and practice.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Alright all you LAZY Catholics, who learned a bunch of nothing in CCD! Y’all better learn some Catholic Dogma REAL FAST! And some Calvinist dogma too, and how to refute it. (Start with St. Bob Bellarmine, who wiped the floor with little Johnny Calvin.) Because in the person of Peter Ramus, NATHAN HAS COME TO JUDGEMENT! It want do anymore to sit on your butts and quote a Catholic encyclopedia a century old, or the “consistent teaching of the Popes” (as if Paul IV of Cum nimis absurdam didn’t belong in the dock at Nürnberg, or sharing a bench in the glass booth in Jerusalem), or misquote Church documents, or pretend that Vatican II isn’t Magisterial. So MOVE IT!, MOVE IT! MOVE IT! and know your Faith around here!
Mr. Ramus, I have welcomed your presence here to keep Catholics on their toes. BUT WATCH OUT! The Tisos, Tetzels, Torquemadas, Dollfußes, and the more-papal-than-the-Pope who haunt these pages will fiercely demand your removal, call you “highjacker” (and thus proving they flunked the analogy section of the SAT), whine for you to “give it a rest”, and use every rhetorical and logical fallacy found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies, and even make up some fallacies never heard before in song or rhyme. (but I bet you can handle it!) Just don’t try to defend Cromwell or the Salem Trials, and I’ll not defend Guy Fawks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Just a few quick comments.
To this day, as irreligious as they are, the French bring flowers to cemeteries on “Le Jour des Morts”. So that’s what put it on Maurras’ mind. However, he was opposed to the indiscriminate “all” soul’s day because it seemed too egalitarian to him, apparently unmindful that the purpose is to pray for the dead, not to praise them.
It is certainly disorienting to read an unbeliever (at least at the time the essay was written) become so excited about an obscure work on apophatic theology by a forgotten French bishop. And as Prof. Gottfried points out, Marraus’ prose is mesmerising. Thus, the motivation for the translation.
As for Comte, the alleged founder of sociology … unfortunately, when I studied sociology at university it was all Marx and no Comte. Unfortunate, because Marx was a revolutionary and Comte a preserver, and if “intellectuals” needed a “scientific” worldview, the now ignored Comte would have been a better choice. At least he didn’t reject Catholic morality and social organisation. On the contrary, he felt that, having understood the laws of society and morals, positivists would therefore be more moral than Catholics. His last (failed) project was the creation of a new religion of positivism that resembled the Catholic religion, at least in its externals.
This is what Maurras learned from his teacher, which is consistent with his other teacher, Joseph de Maistre, who claimed that man is intrinsically religious. Unlike Comte, however, Maurras was perfectly happy with the Catholic church and rejected the church of positivism. Not only was it the historic religion of the French peoples, Maurras saw in it the perfection of pagan classical culture. Protestants also claim to see that, but have the opposite reaction.
Maurras wrote (in his argument with Sagnier): “All my favourite ideas—order, tradition, discipline, hierarchy, authority, continuity, unity, work, family, corporation, decentralisation, autonomy, organisation of workers—had been preserved and perfected by Catholicism.”
So he loved the church, even if not for all the right reasons, thus there is no question of any cynical “use” of the church for political ends. He even accepted its moral and social teachings. From a positivist point of view, the dogmas of the church are not provable empirically – and this is church teaching, too – so Maurras rejected them, i.e., he lacked faith. On the other hand, empirically the visible church does exist, and has for quite some time – that can be objectively studied, even loved.
It is also a de fide Church teaching that the moral law, at least in principle, can be known by any man. So it is not unfair to say that Maurras, and even Comte to an extent, came to know that moral law despite their lack of faith. I suppose in theological terms, we could say they were aware of the Logos, but could not see that the Logos had become flesh.
As for Sid’s proposed project to print the works of formerly influential but now forgotten French intellectuals, we can recommend the Introduction to the Monarchy book, “The Future of Intelligence”, “Order and Disorder”, as well as selected texts for the Maurras Reader. “My Political Ideas” will need to be a separate work. Since he has ideas on how I ought to spend my time, I can suggest how he could spend his money, since those European investments must be doing quite well – will he publish these little readers?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for the explanation Mr. Salvo.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Charles,
Let me add my thanks to you for resurrecting this little
essay and offering it on this site. I also deeply appreciate,
once again, the good comments and queries of abellio.
As I have written previously, Maurras’ works were known
(in translation and in the original) outside of France.
I acquired copies of Mes Idees Politiques and Enquete
sur la Monarchie (in translation) in Spain when finishing
my doctorate. Of course, that was a number of years ago,
and I wonder if the same would be true today.
Apparently, the period 1890 to 1914 was one of great
cross-polination among European writers and thinkers on
the Catholic Right. The subject of my disseration, Juan Vazquez
de Mella, knew Maurras, Barres, Toniolo, Antonio Sardinha
(founder of Portuguese Integralismo), Karl von Vogelsang,
and others, at least via correspondence. The impetus given
to Catholic social theory and economics (by Leo XIII)
and the rebirth of scholarly Thomism produced a re-reflowering
of the faith, intellectually, capable of competing with and
answering the most sophisticated attacks of contemporary
socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Like Maurras in France, Mella was, during the the first half of the
twentieth century, considered a supreme Spanish literary
stylist. Even more so, he was known far and wide as an
orator of incredible talent and ability. Maurras was
aware of this, and the two corresponded. Mella, like Maurras,
was a defender of the historic faith of his native country.
He was also a devout believer in Spain’s historic mission
as the “buckler of Christendom” against the Infidels:
he celebrated Lepanto, Charles V, and Philip II; and not
only them, but the Contra-Reforma of St. Ignacio Loyola,
St. Francisco Javier, and countless others. He found strength
regularly in the metaphysical poetry of Jorge Manrique,
in the painting of Zuburan and El Greco, in the spirituality
of St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, and in the
historic civilizing role of “the people of St. James.”
In this he resembled Maurras and the sincere devotion he
had to Ste. Jeanne d’Arc, and later to Ste. Therese of
the Infant Jesus.
That today much of Europe has turned its back on this
inheritance and this rich tradition is both a cause for
sadness and for great alarm. As the great Spanish turn
of the 20th century polyglot, Menendez y Pelayo, once
wrote: “This is your tradition, you have no other.”
And once it is extinguished, the historic mission of
Christian Europe will be over....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
who wiped the floor with little Johnny Calvin.
Here’s the problem: the classic debate is out-of-date because the RCC of Trent evolved into The New Fourth International. We have a globalist pressure group calling for mass immigration, anti-racism, social justice, universal human rights, Latin American solidarity, and the destruction of Western civility. If your concern is the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting, you are being mistreated and exploited. Meanwhile, the true Catholic tradition lives on without being chained to a negligent bureaucracy.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In this he resembled Maurras and the sincere devotion he had to Ste. Jeanne d’Arc...
You just set up an easy target for neocons to shoot down. You also push away virtually the entire English-speaking world, including Catholics. And when Alain de Benoist dies, will you reinvent HIM as a devout Catholic too?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I thank Mr. Salvo for his writeback. He has added new details to our understanding of Maurras, especially with respect to Comte. As for publishing: Would that I owned a press and were a publisher!
I thank also Boyd Cathey for adding information on Maurras. I have no knowledge of Spanish, so may I ask, Is there a translation of Juan Vazquez de Mella available? And where is Boyd Cathey’s dissertation to be found? It sounds interesting; I’d like to read it. There was indeed a flowering of Thomist, Aristotlean, Neoclassical, and Real Conservative thought beginning in the last decade of the 19th Century, a flowering that was sadly blighted by the frost of Fascism and Nationalism. This flowering was much more than just a revival, but rather thought that attempted to apply its teachings to modern industrial society. Also, one happy fruit of this thought in Middle Europe was Realist Phenomenology and German-Polish Personalism.
In the same vein, Bossuet himself ought to be better known in the English world. I have in my hand his Politics Drawn From Holy Scripture from the Cambridge political series. Other texts are available in English, more than texts by Maurras. My local university library has little in the original French. Even De Maistre’s principle works – The Pope and the Petersburg Dialogues are out of (English) print.
I’m disappointed that no Catholic stepped up to shoot down Mr. Ramus’ sola scriptura argument. He says that the Catholic tradition is contradictory. And Scripture isn’t? or are we to believe in a canon within the Canon? As for this history: The Church decided the Canon, not vice versa, and that means the Church, with the Deposit of Faith (also a rabbinical principle), is also a locus of authority. The establishing of the 27 book NT canon took four centuries. What is more, the first Christians had only the Septuagint, and thus every Christian had the deuterocanonical works in his Bible until Protestants violated their own principle of sola scriptura and threw books out – largely because, I think, Maccabees offers a proof text for prayer for the dead, and thus for the Purgatory, the very dogma we celebrated 2 Nov. They tried to toss out James as well. Where are the Catholics when Mr. Ramus argues?
Alain de Benoist is a neopagan, something Maurras never was. So much for false analogy. As for Trent as the source of the 4th International – so bizarre is such a thesis that the least of its problems is the post hoc, propter hoc fallacy. Why has no Catholic stood up and pointed this out? As for supposed evil of anti-racism, St. Martin de Porres, ora pro nobis!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
That’s part of the problem. There are multiple Holy Traditions:
Mr. Ramus. Your ignorance and errors about Catholicsm are not Catholicism. There is Tradition and within that Tradition there are many ecclesiastical traditions.
You do not know what the hell you are writing about but that does not prevent you from writing and, despite what others rant, I have not tried to get you silenced - which is prolly an impossibility.
Here is a definition of Tradition
TRADITION. Literally a “handing on,” referring to the passing down of God’s revealed word. As such it has two closely related but distinct meanings. Tradition first means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition more technically also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God’s revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture. Referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, the Second Vatican Council says: “It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 7). (Etym. Latin traditio, a giving over, delivery, surrender; a handing down: from tradere, to give up.)
And here is a source you can read..
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
or here.....
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Catechism.php
Merely invoking “Mystery” is not enough. Since the institution is broken, one must look elsewhere.
There is no mystery you think your personal opinions have supplanted the Church established by Jesus.
And to get to that ideological insanity all you had to do was accept the idea Jesus would establish His Church, tell others who heard it heard Him, send the Holy Spirit upon it to teach it all truth, and be with it until the end of time and all of those promises by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Our Lord and Saviour, would all turn out to be lies.
Well, if we can’t trust Jesus, at least we an trust you, Mr. Ramus.
We can trust you will think and write like an ....
Oh, that’s right. I ma trying to cut-back on the bad language.
Have a pleasant self-righteous day, brother :)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Where are the Catholics when Mr. Ramus argues?
Prolly most are just ignoring him. He gets my goat and I react with anger.
Still, I have tried to respond but when one is dealing with a Mr. Ramus one faces a difficulty. Facts can not penetrate an ideological barrier anymore than reason can reorient the delusional.
Mr. Ramus hates the Church. It is not a matter of intellect but of will. And one’s will will only be changed by the Holy Spirit - if one decides to cooperate with Grace.
Mr. Ramus conflates Tradition with the individual actions of lay Catholics acting in the world.
Quite frankly, such freedom is a thing he appears incapable of understanding.
I think his idea of Catholicism is the Pope is Big Brother and all others ought be Winston Smith.
His ideology is at war with reality and he is lost in the fog of that war.
C’est la vie
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
To my knowledge there has never been a translation of
any of Juan Vazquez de Mella’s works into English [he left
behind some 30 volumes, collected and (re)republished
after his death, including essays, speeches, correspondence,
and other things]. Included are supportive letters from Cardinal
Pacelli (future Pius XII), on behalf of Pius XI, references
to Maurras, Frederic Le Play, and other theorists.
While Stanley Payne (emeritus, University of Wisconsin),
Martin Blinkhorn, and a few others have written on the
1930s-1960s period, few Anglo-American writers have
actually explored the Catholic intellectual background.
Richard A. H. Robinson in THE ORIGINS OF FRANCO’S
SPAIN: THE RIGHT, THE REPUBLIC,AND REVOLUTION,
1931-1936 (Un. of Pittsburgh Press, 197), comes
perhaps closest in giving a summary of Catholic rightist
currents, including Mella’s immense influence on all
varieties of Catholic thought [pp.17-25]
In 2002, along with Professor Alexandra Wilhelmsen and
several Polish scholars, several of us engineered the
publication at the Univ.of Virginia of SPANISH CARLISM AND
POLISH NATIONALISM: THE BORDERLANDS OF EUROPE IN THE
19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES (Charlottesville: Leopolis Press).
This volume was based on a series of presentations we
made at the annual conference of The Historical
Society at Boston University, 1999.
I contributed a portion to that volume,a summary of
the life and philosopy of Mella. [My dissertation, “La Doctrina
Politica y Social de Juan Vazquez de Mella y Fanjul,”
which was written in Spanish at the Catholic University
of Navarra, 1975, has never been translated---except for
that summary].
For those that read Spanish, I can recommend several
works by the late Spanish Catholic traditionalist scholar,
Rafael Gambra, Fr. Osvaldo Lira S.J., Fr. Santiago
Carrajo, and others, published in Spain, Argentina, Chile,
and elsewhere.
Once again, I also recommend the work of the late Charles
De Koninck regarding so-called Catholic “personalism”
and its intrinsic problems. De Koninck’s critique is
devastating, a body-blow to the vaunted personalism
of Jacques Maritain (during his “Christian Democratic”
phase, which towards the end of this life, he recanted
in part). References to De Koninck’s work can be found
on another thread. Also, again, for Spanish readers,
let me recommend Dr. Leopoldo Palacios’ EL MITO DE LA
NUEVA CRISTIANDAD, an overwhelming indictment of the
“democratist” and personalist tendancy among Catholic,
demonstrating what the disastrous results would be (and have been).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Attention Papists and men of good will;
WHY ARE WE RESPONDING TO PETER RAMUS?
He is not arguing in good faith. He has never offered a criticism or defense of the Enligtenenment.Instead he offer banal and cheap talking points without depth or much meaning.
He looks at our operationally athesitic culture and is unwilling or unable to address the role Protestantism played in bringing us to this crisis. Nominalism, the rationalization and conceptualization of Mystery, the exaltation, fragmentation and bifurcation of the individual - these are all fruits of the Enligtenment, which is hailed as both the heir to the Reformation and the father of modernity.
He lauds most if not all of these developments, wraps them up in Red, White and Blue and then ignores the result; the creation of the autonomous (and alienated) self who neither experiences, nor needs God in his daily life.
Faith has been reduced to a personal hobby best left out of the workplace and allowed to enter the “Public Square” only as just another special interest with no real lasting claims.
Until Ramus offers something meaningful or interesting there is no point in engaging him.
TO BOYD CATHEY;
Like most of the people who comment here, I know if we met, we would enjoy each others company. While I enjoy your knowledge of the different flavors “Catholic rightist currents”, your frequent writing on them causes some alarm. I know this is obvious, but Christ and our relationship with Him cannot be reduced to a political action plan or ideology. Don’t you see how some of your comments here might strike others has a dilution or disordering of your Faith? In effect, you too have fallen prey to the modern illness. I guess we all have.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I thank Boyd Cathey and shall look for the titles which he has suggested. One of the reasons that Real Conservatism is so little known and so quickly confused with very disreputable traditions is that its chief thinkers are not available to be read, aside from the fact that Real Conservatism, as a movement, really doesn’t exist in Gringoland, and hardly anymore among the Brits. So Boyd Cathey performs a service.
Did De Koninck only discuss the French Personalist and French Thomist Personalist schools? Did he discuss the German and Polish Personalist school, based on Realist Phenomenology? In the Lincolnlands, the German-Polish school’s chief representatives is John Crosby of the Franciscan U of Steubenville. One of the its chief representatives in Poland was a fellow named Wojtyla. Did De Koninck deliver a “devastating body-blow” to his “vaunted personalism”. Did Leopoldo Palacio “overwhelmingly indict” Wojtyla’s campaign against a thugish regime and indict his support for Solidarity’s democratic movement? And another fellow from Bavaria, currently sitting on the Chair of Peter, well versed in this school, received recently and warmly the representatives of the Christian Democrat International. What did De Konick, Palacio think of that! What did they think of Ketteler, Windthorst, Adenauer, Franz Josef Strauß, Luigi Sturzo, Robert Schuman, and De Gasperi? Just curious. Of course all thse men didn’t believe in using electric shock torture to their enemies’ genitals, in mass genocide (Tiso), in setting up a ghetto in Rome (Paul IV), or in other handy ways to coerce people into “a social order favorable to the Catholic Faith”.
But please distinguish among the various “Personalisms”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
kevin, in a place like this we need contrarians, boat-rockers, challengers, and Devil’s Advocates. We don’t know our own beliefs until we have to defend them. Out of this defense often comes the beliefs clarified and more powerful. Trent was such a defense. So is Mr. Z’s blog today.
One of the great things about England and the Continent is that people there will gladly tell you their beliefs, why they belief them, that your beliefs are stupid, and why—and then buy you another pint. Gringos are famous for their hiding their views, for not being frank, a fact observed by Tocqueville, Cooper, and Emerson. The real danger of democratic regimes is the force of public opinion. A man might stand up to a thuggish dictator. But who will stand up to the entire people and tell them they are wrong? Cleveland was the last such man in pubic office, and he was bitterly hated. Cooper said that we are ruled by an Absolute Monarch: His name: “They Say”, as in “you know what They Say about ...” So Gringos think controversy just isn’t “nice”—the favorite word of the middle class. Some, in the New England Puritan Calvinist tradition, take an alternative view as the sign of a wicked and evil man. Found frequently here, they are outraged when anyone disturbs their “dogmatic slumber”, preferring to rest in sweet sugary contentment with yes-men and like-thinkers—and thus grow intellectually lazy, if not quite ignorant.
Welcome Ramus and Cathey, however correct your own views may be.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
“...in a place like this we need contrarians, boat-rockers, challengers, and Devil’s Advocates.”
Only if;
1)the challenge is made in good faith and open to honest dialogue. Otherwise, it is a form of sport lacking in both charity and clarity.
2)there is actual content being discussed and not mere slogans. Frankly, steel is only hardened against steel, not paper bumper-stickers.
3)re-read, if you can, some of these threads. Do you think there is any real building going on? Some of the replies to
Mukui Waruiru were, given his situation and that of his people, disgraceful.
4)let us all raise our standards and not descend to the kind of argumentation that occurs on cable TV and talk radio.The law of currency normally prevails; the bad drives out the good. I promise to improve my own contributions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kevin,
I am a bit puzzled by your last message, addressed to me.
Normally, I do NOT use these threads to explain my own
“personal relationship to Christ,” at least not usually.
But, and I find it remarkable that you apparently can
ignore this, the Catholic faith has an everyday, over-arching
application, socially, culturally AND politically.
When I write of “Catholic political theory” or “Catholicx
rightists,” it is on that level. My writing on those topics
flows from my faith.
I must say, in all frankness, that your remark that for
a traditional Catholic to explain various political
implications of his belief to be “disordered” or a “dilution”
indicates to me more, perhaps, about you and perhaps
your inability to understand that the faith is not just
a personal gift, but something to be lived, that has ramifications for
ALL of society.
I am by training and education a historian, but also
have a degree and training in theology. Personally, when
I was able, I attended Mass daily (traditional Mass), and
I have been personally active in various pro-life,
pro-adoption efforts, if you wish to know. But faith--
and my faith, in particular--does not just stop there.
It is on that level that I have been discussing it. It is
a pity that you have not seen that, and must resort to
judging my faith....
I mean no offense to you, please understand, but I do
find your comment a bit out of bounds. My faith informs
my interest in history, in political theory, as well as
in such diverse areas as music, architecture, and art.
Sid,
There you go again: your paragraph about De Koninck
starts out with some genuine questions, but, as is usual,
before we get to end we are back with your wild statements
about “fascists” and Msgr. Tiso (who by the way was never charged with
genocide, but rather with “collaboration") and electrical
charges to genitals and coercion!! Obviously, you do not
understand the doctrines of Quas primas and the “social
sovereignty of Christ the King” (which, and I REPEAT
MYSELF FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, SID, has absolutely
nothing at all to do with coercion!!!) Please, please,
just go read Quas primas (or Divini Redemptoris), of
Pius XI (don’t be satisfied with just Mit Brennender
Sorge; Quas primas is its logical completion).
As I stated previously, it is utterly useless to discuss
these topics with you.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Boyd,
“...the Catholic faith has an everyday, over-arching application, socially, culturally AND politically...”
Agreed, our faith should be the primary and ultimate source for guiding all our actions. So, my point is simple; extolling the virtues of regimes and persons who operate in opposition to that understanding is confusing to me.
Maurras was not a believer, let alone a Catholic for most of his life. He reduced our faith to a tool for governance. Petain cooperated with genocide. No matter how great their political or cultural contributions, in the end both of these men acted in flagrant contradiction of the Gospels and Church teaching. They do not deserve your praise.
The great tragedy that has befallen us is the bifurcation between the self and it’s worldly endeavors. This cannot go on for much longer on a civilizational-wide basis. Not sure how there can be dissent on this point without falling into heresy.
Again, I offer these thoughts because I think you are unaware of the implications of some of your comments. Our Lord deserves much better than my flawed discipleship. Doubly so, those who wielded earthly power and did great wrongs in his Name.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Kevin
It is a sad comment that the Church, still reeling from
the assault that the REvolution and Napoleon had met,
was willing to make common cause with someone who, in
calmer times, would have kept at a safe distance.
Maurras might have been a useful ally, and he may have
said things of value. But for too long a period he saw
the Church as a means to an end, never as an end in
itself. He was willing to use it for what he considered
really important.
People like that should be handled gingerly, and when
doing so not fall into the trap, inspired by pride, of
seeking to manipulate someone bent on maipulating you.
As for Maurras and his condemnation, I read in a book
somewhere (unfortunaely it was in a book in a library
in a Maine resort town, so I cannot recall the author)
that one of the charges at his trial was that he had
denounced as Jewish one of his neighbors because of a
dispute, and that neighbor had been seized by the
authorities. I cannot confirm it, but if he did, then
he deserved punishment.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As a catholic I totally agree with Sid Cundiff that we can better know our faith by defending it (this has been true for 2000 years beginning with St. Paul and the patristic tradition) and I like it very much when Sid Cundiff writes back to Ramus in good faith and in a polite manner. Please, let us keep the high-level of debate in this comment box. Don’t let it turn into a rant and insult exchange between catholics and protestants, there’s plenty of that elsewhere and I think Taki’s mag is definitely of a higher level…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kevin,
I think I understand what you are saying, and I must
differ with you on a number of points, while agreeing
with you on some others. Let me quote what I believe to be your central idea:
<<So, my point is simple; extolling the virtues of
regimes and persons who operate in opposition to
that understanding is confusing to me....No matter
how great their political or cultural contributions,
in the end both of these men acted in flagrant contradiction
of the Gospels and Church teaching. They do not deserve your praise.>>
The key phrase here is to determine what is “opposition
to that understanding.”
I think I have been very clear about weighing the “pros” and “cons” of
various regimes. I think you are confusing my political and contextual
judgments with my religious views.Let me recap what I have said (and
I refer back to previous threads):
First, as to Vichy: I have lauded certain elements (e.g.its legislation favoring
Catholic education, public morality, laws favoring the family etc.). But by no
means have I held it up as an unblemished model for Catholics; it’s certainly a
mixed bag. Same with Petain. I do “sympathize with his dilemna,” politically.
But, again, he is not for me a “model” for Catholics; most assuredly I recognize that.
Especially as the War progressed, his ability to manoeuvre, to protect France,
became more and more limited, and that he was nudged into decisions and
the approval of actions that stained his honour. After the war he was not
charged with genocide, but with collaborating with the Germans. Everything
I have read about him seems to indicate that his objective was to preserve what
was left of French independence. In that goal, he eventually failed, and brought
himself down with it. Petain was no great intellect or thinker, and he was not a
good politician. But we know this only post hoc, when he was offered power
in the summer of 1940, he was welcomed by almost all political parties (and
even the USA) as a way to protect what was left of French independence.
My judgment of him has to do almost exclusively with his statecraft as it
existed in an almost impossible position. Still, I will not simply, 65 years later
and in comfortable hindsight, utter a blanket condemnation. The record is much
more mixed.
Second, with Maurras, I do (mostly) admire him, but, once again, I do not consider
him to be a “model” for Catholics; but I do think in his brilliant writings he provided an immense arsenal for Catholics who wished to defend the faith and the history of the faith.
Of course, he had blemishes. Your point here is, it seems to me, that (1) he was
for much of his life an agnostic, and (2) that he basically “used” Catholicism
as a buttress for his French nationalism. I don’t deny that taken as such that this
is partially correct, but only partially so. But Maurras, let me point out, did find his way into the Church, and he GAVE to French Catholicism as much, and probably
much more, than he ever used of it in an utilitarian manner. I firmly believe that Our Lord can use intellects like Maurras to strengthen the faith. And it was through
the writings of Maurras that all sorts of Catholic writers and savants, men like Maritain, Peguy. Paul Claudel, Gustave Thibon, etc. etc. found their way to the Church. Dare I suggest that Our Lord was using Maurras during his agnostic period to strengthen the Church, even as Maurras was using the Church (and its teachings) to strengthen France? We can be critical of this, if you wish, but I don’t think you can deny it.
Third, as to Dollfuss and Salazar, my earlier (and very extensive) posts have dealt
with them. I have just re-read Johannes Messner’s bio of Dollfuss and dipped back into Michael Derrick’s contemporary study of Salazar. Both men weredevout Catholics,
deeply concerned about social justice, deeply read in the social doctrines of the Church, and both faced with situations that required drastic steps. Dollfuss was only in authority for a couple of years, and thus it is hard to judge his record. Salazar, however, led Portugal for 35 years, and the judgment of most historians I’ve read is that for the first half of his tenure his measures were fairly successful, but by the late 1950s the managerial bureaucracy that had arisen became an impediment to economic progress.
The Christian Social ideas of Ignaz Seipel, who preceded Dollfuss, and what
historian Alfred Diamant calls “socialreform,” reflect a century of Catholic teaching and writing about the ‘social question’. Salazar was more of an academic
than Dollfuss (Salazar had been a highly respected professor of economics and
economics minister prior to his ascension to leadership). But both men undertook
during an extremely perilous time to implement ideas that come directly from Catholic teaching on the social order. Pius XI offer his warm approval of both efforts.
Both men deserve praise for their efforts, and perhaps another look at just what they were trying to do.
Finally, one last thought: I agree with you totally that the bifurcation between what you call the “self” (I would say “belief") and worldly endeavours threatens to engulf our society (and Europe is much further advanced in this process, I would suggest). But the key here, it seems to me Kevin, is not stating the problem but understanding just how those beliefs manifest themselves, and even more importantly, understanding what those beliefs are.
Let me give an example: Post-World War II Europe has gone from the perhaps
overly optimistic efforts of Adenauer, De Gasperi, and De Gaulle to bring both economic and moral order (based at least indirectly in Christian ideas) to the continent to today when hyper feminist, “p.c.” devotee Angela Merkel can head a “Christian Democrat” Union and a glitzy “p.c.” managerial elitist (Sarkozy) can claim the mantel in France, and both can accept a Europe that will not even acknowledge its essential Christian heritage.
When I offer brief criticism of this process, I do so both based on my essential beliefs as well as how I see those beliefs should unfold in society. While I can
justly admire the “German economic miracle” and the work of Wilhelm Roepke
(and Ludwig Erhard), I also offer criticisms and see implicit in the “democratic
model” and “apertura a sinistra” serious problems that bore the seeds of the destruction we now see before us, and the secularization and cultural Marxistization of Europe. And if I suggest that societies that place economic prosperity above spiritual values are gluttons for punishment, and hold up the initial emphases of Dollfuss and Salazar, or the Blessed Garcia Moreno in Ecuador, for instance,on the spiritual end of life, I do not think I do an injustice to them, not do I misunderstand the old and true injunction of the
Baltimore Catechism, that the objective of man is to love and serve God--(and Not to raise the standard of living, although I would quite agree that doing so is very desirable, and that a prosperous society, one providing opportunity--economically--for citizens, is and should be a goal of all statecraft).
But unlike 19th century liberalism and the “social democratism” that has manifested itself on this thread, I believe that the salvation of souls is prior to any of this.
One last thought: perhaps you would like to know some of the figures that I DO consider to be Catholic models, in particular as relates to statecraft? Well, I would certainly include the Blessed Charles of Habsburg, whose unselfish efforts to end World War I are a model for us all. I would also include the Blessed Garcia Moreno of Ecuador, who was martyred for his efforts to bring the faith to that country. I would also include the thousands of
priests, nuns, and bishops who were massacred by the Trotskyites, Anarchists,
and Republicans in Spain (many of whom have been beatified and canonized of late).
The Blessed Cardinal Stepinac of Zagreb, Engelbert Dollfuss (whose cause has been introduced), and others....
In any case, this is where I come down. I am quite aware of what I say and the implications that follow from it. Be assured.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Boyd Cathey:
If we are speaking of Spanish political writers, is there any chance we might see more of Alvaro D’Ors translated into English?
I know you are aware he was Fritz Wilhelmsen’s favorite Spanish political thinker. Another one of the same ilk (if you know what I mean) would be Angel Lopez Amo, whose book Poder Politica y la Libertad was called by Federico Suarez the finest book of political thought in Spain in the XXth Century. Anyone translating him, I would hope?
All the best.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Boyd,
“I think you are confusing my political and contextualjudgments with my religious views...”
Indeed I am. The boundaries between the two are, in reality poorly marked and often invisible. All the more so in a discussion that from a reflection on All Souls Day.
“Dare I suggest that Our Lord was using Maurras during his agnostic period to strengthen the Church, even as Maurras was using the Church (and its teachings) to strengthen France?”
You may, but I don’t agree. Maurras was just another manifestation of the radical, schizophrenic break between self and faith that has been the mark of modernity. His legacy serves as a warning against insincerity towards the essence of the faith.
You rightly brought Charles Peguy into the conversation. He famously said “Everything begins as a mystique and ends as a politique.” I know the process may be tragically inevitable, but resist we must. We can try by guarding the claims of our faith from being consumed or degraded by those people, parties or programs that place the temporal over the eternal.
On that, I think we agree.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Woody.
How your comments about Alvaro d’Ors and Angel Lopez Amo
bring back memories! D’Ors taught at the University of
Navarra when I was there, and I was privileged to call
him a friend. Another American (James Miller)did his dissertation on
Lopez Amo (unfortunately, never translated). D’Ors died
earlier this year (along with my advisor Federico Suarez
Verdeguer). These men were giants indeed, tremendous scholars,
and faithful sons of the Church. Alexandra Wilhelmsen and
I have discussed possible translations, but, alas, I know
of nothing right now.... Perhaps when I retire?
Kevin,
We shall have to disagree, profoundly, on Maurras and the
designs of Providence. I still believe you are (potentially)
limiting the role of Providence here and the mystery of
how God can communicate with men--even using brilliant
agnostics like Maurras.
Part of the difference between us may be that we begin with
differing views on principles. I see much more, including much
more that is essentially spiritual and positive, in Maurras than
you do, even while he was admittedly “using” the Church
and its teaching as a means of defending France.
In any case, I do agree that we must always be on our
guard against utilitarianism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Dr. Cathey,
I had not known you had been at Navarra until you mentioned it here, but that seems to have been a special time of the “giants”, one might say, there; although I would think (from reputation and knowing a few of its recent gradates) that Navarra is still quite good.
I noticed that in an earlier string there was a reference to the festschrift for Fritz Wilhemsen: it is “Saints, Sovereigns and Scholars” (1993) (Peter D. Lang). It is from that volume that I read Fr. Suarez’s recommendation of Lopez Amo’s Poder Politica y la Libertad. In addition, in that same piece, Fr. Suarez points out the pre-Revolutionary France was much freer in fact that since, citing among other works, Frantz Funck-Brentano’s book on the Ancien Regime in France. It is an expensive book but worth the price.
The only two pieces by or on Alvaro D’ors in English of which I am aware are his little essay “The Professor”, available from the archives of the INtercollegiate Review at http://www.isi.org (from Spring 1992, I believe), and Fritz’s Introduction to the Political Thought of Alvaro D’Ors, from the Political Science Reviewer, if memory serves, which also resides in a kind of hidden area at isi.org but can reached by Googling for Wilhelmsen and D’Ors (one has to watch carefully for the url given, it is something like “mmisi...").
All the best,
Woody
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Woody Jones,
Again, I thank you for your message, so full of interesting
bits of information.
Yes, I was at the University of Navarra, 1972-1975, on
a Richard Weaver Fellowship (after having spent a years
as Russell Kirk’s assistant in Mecosta, Michigan). I
first met the Wilhelmsens via the Dr. Kirk, Triumph
magazine, and the Christian Commonwealth Institute (at
El Escorial in 1971). I had the great privilege of studying
with Fr. Suarez who was without a doubt the world’s foremost
expert on Juan Donoso Cortes and Catholic counter-revolutionary
thought generally. D’Ors, Rafael Gambra, and Francisco Elias de
Tejada I came to know---Gambra especially well because
of his interest in my doctoral topic and his devotion to
the traditional Latin mass. Fortunately, I was in Spain
before the generation of the 1936-39 “Cruzada” had passed
away, and thus was able to interview and get to know
any number of individuals who played a large role in that
critical period of Spanish history, including Eugenio
Vegas Latapie, the poet/writer Jose Maria Peman, and
others. It was a fascinating and enlightening time.
I do remember the D’Ors piece in THE INTERCOLLEGIATE
REVIEW; I’ll look it up again. Thanks for the reminder.
As well, the Political Science Reviewer item.
Ediciones RIALP published all of the works we’ve been
discussing, Lopex Amo, D’Ors, a goodly selection (in one
volume) of Vazquez de Mella, etc. I don’t know if those
items remain in print or not. Along with the Biblioteca
de Autores Cristianos (Pontifical Univ. of Salamanca),
they made available a wealth of material....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathey,
Many thanks again for the references to those great Spanish authors. I will try to find them on the RIALP site (although I looked recently for books by Calvo Sere and found none, I think--it may no longer be opportune for them to publish that kind of thing in Spain, in which case the ABEBooks of the world will have to serve. ) Nnetheless, I find RIALP to be very interesting. More Suarez spiritual works can be found there than are available in English. Yes, and I have seen the actual “rose of Rialp” as well, in Rome.
All the best,
Woody
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As for Trent as the source of the 4th International – so bizarre is such a thesis that the least of its problems is the post hoc, propter hoc fallacy.
Sid, you always misquote me. I said the RCC of Trent evolved into The NEW Fourth International. It is a globalist pressure group calling for universal human rights, Latin American solidarity, and the destruction of Western civility.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I first met the Wilhelmsens via the Dr. Kirk, Triumph magazine, and the Christian Commonwealth Institute
Triumph was when right-wing Catholics admitted that they hated America as much as their left-wing brothers. They just hated their own church even more, even as they devoted more time and treasure to it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks Dr. Cathey and Mr. Jones for a very interesting and enlightening exchange. I have read Dr. Wilhemsen, but know very little about these others except Rafael Gambra.
Here are the links to the articles mentioned by Mr. Jones for anyone who is interested:
The Professor
http://www.mmisi.org/ir/34_02/dors.pdf
The Political Philosophy of Alvaro D’Ors
http://www.mmisi.org/pr/20_01/wilhelmsen.pdf
A question: Do either of you know of a place in the US where you can buy BAC editions?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.