Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: All Soul's Day Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/all_souls_day#8379 Post contents: 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? Sent at: 2008 11 21