Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Libertarians in Heaven Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/blessed_libertarian#13598 Post contents: And to those who think that Sid and I fight all the time, I would add that I generally agree with his genealogy here. We probably have differences with terminology, e.g. as to exactly what is "far right" or that awful term, "clerical fascism," but at least for England and the USA I think he has it essentially correct. On the continent I think we would have more substantial differences. One addendum: One of the criticisms made of the Church in the 19th century (or at least its praxis) is that it tended to subinfeudate itself to the "throne" to the point that the two--altar and throne--became almost indistinguishable in the minds of many. Superficially, that view is certainly understandable. After all, kings were seen for 1500 years as representing the temporal portion of the Gelasian "two swords" of governance (i.e., the spiritual, by the Churhc; and the temporal by the state). At Rheims kings were annointed with a blessed oil, a kind of sacramental; the Holy Roman emperors (up to 1806) occupied a primogeniture position among heads of state in Christendom (despite the descendants of Clovis in "la belle France"). Of course, among the Catholic population, as well among Catholic intellectuals, a defense of the faith meant, equally in practical terms, the defense of the monarchy and the king, whose role was to administe secular and temporal justice and secure the common good in his sphere. Thus, the counter-revolutionaries of the first generation (1799-1815) post the Revolution, almost inevitably identified the battle for the "sword" of the faith with the "sword" of the throne, and legitimately so. A second generation of counter-revolutionaries, better called "traditionalists" (not in the theological or fideist sense), men like Jaime Balmes, Louis Veuillot, and others, understood that it was not simply a question of the FORM of government, but the DUTIES or obligations of the state vis-a-vis the Church and religion, that was critical. A Venetian (or Florentine) Republic or an elective Polish monarchy could fulfill the Gelasian mandate of the "two swords" as well as "los Reyes Catolicos" in Spain or "son majeste Chretien" in France. The key, of course, was that the state undertake its responsibilities. As its powers came also directly from God (and Leo XIII reminded Catholics in his encyclicals, particulary Immortale Dei and Diuturnum), it had a solemn obligation to administer justice and secure the common good and in so doing reflect, in its proper sphere, the truths of the faith (e.g., thus to encourage the faith, support religious teaching in the schools, support Catholic institutions in society, discourage public immorality and attacks against the Church, etc.). Indeed, as Leo XIII reminded Catholics, the primary common good in civil society is the flourishing of the Catholic faith socially and civilly. The mistake of 19th century so-called "Catholic" liberals was to advocate as the overarching goal of the Church for a "free church in a free state." Beginning with Pius VII, and continuing forcefully with Gregory XVI (Mirari vos), Bl. Pius IX (Quanta cura and the Syllabus), Leo XIII (Immortalte Dei, Diuturnum, Libertas praestantissimum), St. Pius X (Pascendi gregis dominandi and Notre Charge Apostolique)), Pius XI (Divini Redemptoris, Quadragesimo anno), and Pius XII (Humani generis), you have a constant and formal condemnation of this liberal tendancy. The Church is not bound to any set FORM of statehood (althought St. Thomas argues convincingly for a tempered monarchy in DE REGIMINE PRINCIPUM), but she has insisted, as a realizable ideal, that the state power as it receives its authority directly from God, administer justice and the common good, reflecting the truths that the Church teaches socially and civilly. Of course, as Leo XIII made also clear, in the modern world it has become apparent that the age of Catholic monarchs and Catholic states may seem like ancient history. In such cases, the Church required as a minimum, full rights to evangelize and teach and perform its essential functions. The difference between this and the liberal idea is that for the Church the IDEAL remained a moral unity between the "two swords," that they indeed work together to achieve a common goal, from two perspectives, one secular, the other religious, but which cannot be disjoined without damage to society and the work of the Church. The minimum is/was just that: a minimum, but never the ideal or desired goal. As Pope Leo wrote the Primate of Spain,the ideal remains, formally and doctrinally, a Catholic state and a Catholic society, where the state takes seriously its obligations. Thus, even in our secularized times, you saw JP II pleading with the Irish not to remove the clause in their constitution that states that Ireland is a "Christian" nation, and only a week or so ago, Benedict XVI on relay TV addressing over 1 million Spaniards, asking them almost directly to defeat the Socialist Zapatero government, to oppose gay marriage and abortion, and to restore LAWS that would do as much. Despite the unsettling praxis of the past 40 years (I was in Spain when Vatican officials put pressure on General Franco and the Spanish state to renounce all its hitheto obligations in regard to religion in the public square; you cannot imagine how appalling that was), government owes its authority to God, and, whether it wishes to acknowledge it or not, it has obligations to secure the common good, chief of which is to create conditions favorable to the propagation and flourishing of the faith. Since Pius XI and Quas primas, many theologians would state that this is de fide (i.e., the social sovereignty and kingship of Christ in society). So, indeed, the old defenders of "altar and throne" were not wrong. They understood that the "throne" exercised its responsibilities (or should do so) with a secondary authority from God, and, as long as it did so (importan caveat!) was deserving of obedience. And they understood also, perhaps instinctively, that the Church was assisted in its mission by temporal authority which understood its obligations in secular matters. And the USA in 2007? Interesting question.... Sent at: 2008 09 07