Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Authority Issues -- Is There Sovereignty Beyond the State? Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/authority_issues_is_there_sovereignty_beyond_the_state#33014 Post contents: Despite my regard for other of Prof. Woods' writings (see the latest TAC on Buchanan) I'm afraid this is another of his attempts to justify political and economic liberalism based on what is admittedly, right now, a highly imperfect state of affairs. However Catholic teaching, following the insights of Aristotle, holds that the State, in its nature, is a Perfect Society, and NECESSARY, in principle for the Common Good. One has only to consult St. Thomas's treatise on Law, and the the Magisterium's use of it, and explicit endorsement of St. Thomas's thought in this capacity, to see that the State is necessary for human flourishing, authority appertains to it on the basis of that, and these cannot be denied without attacking the Magisterium. To wit: "Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal happiness. Wherefore the Philosopher, in the above definition of legal matters mentions both happiness and the body politic: for he says (Ethic. v, 1) that we call those legal matters "just, which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness and its parts for the body politic": since the state is a perfect community, as he says in Polit. i, 1. "(ST, IaIIae, q. 90, aa. 2-3) answer that, A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs. "(Ibid) Reply to Objection 2. A private person cannot lead another to virtue efficaciously: for he can only advise, and if his advice be not taken, it has no coercive power, such as the law should have, in order to prove an efficacious inducement to virtue, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x. 9). But this coercive power is vested in the whole people or in some public personage, to whom it belongs to inflict penalties, as we shall state further on (Q. 92, A. 2 ad 3; II-II, Q. 64, A. 3). Wherefore the framing of laws belongs to him alone. Reply to Objection 3. As one man is a part of the household, so a household is a part of the state: and the state is a perfect community, according to Polit. i. 1. And therefore, as the good of one man is not the last end, but is ordained to the common good; so too the good of one household is ordained to the good of a single state, which is a perfect community. Consequently he that governs a family, can indeed make certain commands or ordinances, but not such as to have properly the force of law. "(ibid) Sent at: 2008 12 02