For man’s productive effort cannot yield its fruits unless a truly social and organic body exists, unless a social and juridical order watches over the exercise of work, unless the various occupations, being interdependent, cooperate with and mutually complete one another, and, what is still more important, unless mind, material things, and work combine and form as it were a single whole. Therefore, where the social and individual nature of work is neglected, it will be impossible to evaluate work justly and pay it according to justice.
A subtler principle of a “traditional” social order is the organic state.
Modernity is plagued with individualism (self interest and competition as the main guiding norms independent of a common good) in some places, and statism / collectivism (subsuming all social organisms, even the family, into a superstructure) in others.
Popes and Christian writers saw the answer in St. Paul’s description of the primitive Church as a body – a hierarchy of members linked to a common good in mutual concord.
[6] And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all. [7] And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. [8] To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; [9] To another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit; [10] To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches.
[11] But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will. [12] For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. [13] For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [14] For the body also is not one member, but many. [15] If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
[16] And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? [17] If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? [18] But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. [19] And if they all were one member, where would be the body? [20] But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.
[21] And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. [22] Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. [23] And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. [24] But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour, [25] That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
[26] And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it. [27] Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. [28] And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? [30] Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12
The Church is not meant to be a collection of individuals operating for their own self-interest. The Church is also not supposed to be a homogeneous blob of units that form one hive collective. In ecclesial history, the heavenly communion of saints, and the Church today, there is a diversity of offices, functions, and persons all operating (ideally) towards relation with God and each other. Human civil society, as the lay Church, ought to mirror this natural organism. Hierarchy, diversity of office, cooperation, and value placed on the dignity of each function are just a few principles that can be drawn out. This is what is meant by the “organic”state – the state functions and is thought of like a body.
Familes are the fundamental natural unit in this ordering of things
Leo XIII advocated an organic state, one modeled after the human body, in response to the friction between capital and labor.
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.
Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum
Pope Pius XI gave more explicit and specific formulations to the organic corporate conception of state in Catholic social teaching
For justice alone can, if faithfully observed, remove the causes of social conflict but can never bring about union of minds and hearts. Indeed all the institutions for the establishment of peace and the promotion of mutual help among men, however perfect these may seem, have the principal foundation of their stability in the mutual bond of minds and hearts whereby the members are united with one another. If this bond is lacking, the best of regulations come to naught, as we have learned by too frequent experience. And so, then only will true cooperation be possible for a single common good when the constituent parts of society deeply feel themselves members of one great family and children of the same Heavenly Father; nay, that they are one body in Christ, “but severally members one of another,”[71] so that “if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with it.”[72] For then the rich and others in positions of power will change their former indifference toward their poorer brothers into a solicitous and active love, listen with kindliness to their just demands, and freely forgive their possible mistakes and faults. And the workers, sincerely putting aside every feeling of hatred or envy which the promoters of social conflict so cunningly exploit, will not only accept without rancor the place in human society assigned them by Divine Providence, but rather will hold it in esteem, knowing well that everyone according to his function and duty is toiling usefully and honorably for the common good and is following closely in the footsteps of Him Who, being in the form of God, willed to be a carpenter among men and be known as the son of a carpenter.
If the members of the body social are, as was said, reconstituted, and if the directing principle of economic-social life is restored, it will be possible to say in a certain sense even of this body what the Apostle says of the mystical body of Christ: “The whole body (being closely joined and knit together through every joint of the system according to the functioning in due measure of each single part) derives its increase to the building up of itself in love.”[52]
Recently, as all know, there has been inaugurated a special system of syndicates and corporations of the various callings which in view of the theme of this Encyclical it would seem necessary to describe here briefly and comment upon appropriately.
The civil authority itself constitutes the syndicate as a juridical personality in such a manner as to confer on it simultaneously a certain monopoly-privilege, since only such a syndicate, when thus approved, can maintain the rights (according to the type of syndicate) of workers or employers, and since it alone can arrange for the placement of labor and conclude so-termed labor agreements. Anyone is free to join a syndicate or not, and only within these limits can this kind of syndicate be called free; for syndical dues and special assessments are exacted of absolutely all members of every specified calling or profession, whether they are workers or employers; likewise all are bound by the labor agreements made by the legally recognized syndicate. Nevertheless, it has been officially stated that this legally recognized syndicate does not prevent the existence, without legal status, however, of other associations made up of persons following the same calling.
The associations, or corporations, are composed of delegates from the two syndicates (that is, of workers and employers) respectively of the same industry or profession and, as true and proper organs and institutions of the State, they direct the syndicates and coordinate their activities in matters of common interest toward one and the same end.
Strikes and lock-outs are forbidden; if the parties cannot settle their dispute, public authority intervenes.
Anyone who gives even slight attention to the matter will easily see what are the obvious advantages in the system We have thus summarily described: The various classes work together peacefully, socialist organizations and their activities are repressed, and a special magistracy exercises a governing authority. Yet lest We neglect anything in a matter of such great importance and that all points treated may be properly connected with the more general principles which We mentioned above and with those which We intend shortly to add, We are compelled to say that to Our certain knowledge there are not wanting some who fear that the State, instead of confining itself as it ought to the furnishing of necessary and adequate assistance, is substituting itself for free activity; that the new syndical and corporative order savors too much of an involved and political system of administration; and that (in spite of those more general advantages mentioned above, which are of course fully admitted) it rather serves particular political ends than leads to the reconstruction and promotion of a better social order.
Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno
Class struggle was to be alleviated through worker associations, guilds, and/or co-operative bodies (often composed of both emoyers and workers, or of tradesmen and professionals in a specific area). These groups could then set common guidelines, and compete while also cooperating. This was known as “corporatism.” This sort of corporatism was integral to Dollfuss’s Austria, and other attempts at traditional renewal through authoritative civil intervention and reform.
We asked ourselves the question how this State could be reconstituted in the simplest and most natural way possible. We took as our model the peasant’s house and family. Just as there the farmer discusses with his family and with his servants questions concerning administration and the daily work to be done, so in public advisory bodies there should reign a spirit of intelligent collaboration. And as in the peasant’s home the farmer must rule the household, so the public administration needs a ruler. And as in the peasant’s household that rule must not be arbitrary if progress is to be made, so also in the government of the State there must be no arbitrary rule.
Engelbert Dollfuss, Speech in Graz, Austria April 15, 1934.
Julius Evola and Plineo Oliveira both saw this conception of social order perrenially in all great human societies
The statolatry of the modern age has nothing to do with the traditional political view; the impersonal State, when regarded as a heavy juridical and bureaucratic entity (e.g., Nietzche’s ‘cold monster’), is also an aberration. Every society and State is made of people; individual human beings are their primary element. What kind of human beings? Not people as they are conceived by individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a different rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social hierarchy based on the values of creating, constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these, it is possible to establish the true State, namely an antiliberal, antidemocratic, and organic State.
Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins
Analogously, to say that human society is principally constituted of individuals is a similar absurdity. Society is composed primarily and essentially of families. These, in turn, are formed by human persons. The family is the primary matter of society. Before all else, in human society we encounter persons living in a family. Only secondarily does the individual appear…
The social body, like the human body, is diversified. It has a head that thinks and commands – the Church, universities and political corps; it has arms that provide for its sustenance and well-being – farms in the countryside and guilds in the cities; it has legs to move – in the past, horse and oxen ranchers and today, transportation associations. It has institutions to care for the sick and provide protection for the people – hospitals, fire departments, police and guard units; it has schools and art institutes to instruct the people and raise the general cultural level.
These institutions are normally called intermediary societies. Like the members of the human body, they are primarily turned to the external life of society and have an important role to play in it. The healthier, stronger and the more independent these parts are, the less intrusive is the State.
These institutions that provide for the external needs of society rely on the health of the internal organs of the social body. The organs that provide life for these members are the family, the region, and the nation.
Plineo Oliveira, “What is Organic Society?”
The Catholic writer Christopher Buffin de Chosal, in his book The End of Democracy, contrasts the organic state with the liberal-democratic state.
Popular sovereignty is first of all a contradiction in terms. It is impossible for the people to exercise sovereignty, for they are inevitably divided amongst themselves in their race for power. Unity is a characteristic inseparable from sovereignty. To transfer sovereignty to the people is to condemn it to such a fragmentation that it loses all reality. Democratic society is not only divided according to the orientations, ideologies and political factions, but it is also an individualistic society. It is not an organic society in the sense that the Ancien Regime was with its corps and privileged orders. It is atomized and unorganized. The people in it do not represent a whole which is capable of embodying sovereignty, but a multitude of disparate, even conflicting, element. Even if they were validly represented by political parties, the people would be incapable of exercising sovereignty through the mediation of groups who oppose each other and vie for power…
The concept of an organic society was abolished at the time of the French Revolution. The corps and orders were suppressed, the privileges were abolished, and everything which allowed the people to protect themselves from the power of the state was banished in the name of liberty. What were the people given in exchange? Sovereignty. They were given the false power promise that they would no longer need to defend themselves from the state since they themselves were the state. But if a people organized into corps and orders are incapable of exercising sovereignty, how much more so a people comprising a formless mass of individuals!
Christopher Buffin de Chosal, The End of Democracy pg. 21-22, 24
And to render the question clearer, we must observe that as there is a certain end for which nature makes the thumb, and another, different from this, for which she makes the whole hand, and again another for which she makes the arm, and another different from all for which she makes the whole man; so there is one end for which she orders the individual man, and another for which she orders the family, and another end for the city, and another for the kingdom, and finally an ultimate one for which the Everlasting God, by His art which is nature, brings into being the whole human race. And this is what we seek as a first principle to guide our whole inquiry.
Jesus cannot be surpassed by the changing of times, because God’s eternity encompasses all eras of history and the biographies of each person…There is one God, there is only one mediator between God and the human race: Christ Jesus himself human
Cardinal Ludwig Mueller
Every year, the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS) hosts a large nation-wide conference for the formation and education of college students from across the country. Last year, at SEEK 2019, FOCUS drew tens of thousands of students. Speakers such as Fr. Mike Schmitz, Dr. Edward Sri, and Sarah Swafford spoke on a number of topics.
FOCUS is understood to be more of a ‘conservative’ and orthodox organization by many Catholics. However, this characterization lacks a nuanced understanding of FOCUS. Their highly up-to-date pastoral approach parallels that of many Jesuits, and they have highly adapted their structure and methods to be effective on college campuses. The study materials and goals of the fellowship are simple, basic, but are extremely important for students to hear. Additionally, the elementary themes of ‘Jesus is God,’ ‘Go to Mass,’ and ‘You are loved by God’ within FOCUS are frequently stepping stones towards Catholic traditionalism. The talk by Cardinal Mueller at SLS 2020 is an example of Catholic traditionalism stemming from FOCUS.
Cardinal Ludwig Mueller, formerly the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave the homily for the Mass of Mary the Mother of God. His words took the simple teachings of FOCUS, such as follow Jesus, got to Church, and be Catholic, and expertly built on them. His eminence used the elementary teachings of FOCUS to counter emotionalism, modernity, relativism, modernization of the Church, and other issues we face in the West today.
The Cardinal initially pointed out the centrality of Christ and the Faith. He showed that this Faith is not tied to our emotions,
We do not believe in a superficial optimism of Faith, which we hope will remain kind to us. No one will be spared the sufferings of this world. Everyone has to bear his or her cross. Instead, in work and leisure, in happiness and pain, in life and death a Christian puts his hope in Christ alone, for we know that all things work for good-for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose.
His eminence proceeded to discuss the issues in the contemporary Church, and the problem with consumerism,
Today, however, many Christians are anxious and concerned looking at the state of traditionally Christian societies in the west, and at the scandals in the Church, does Christianity still fit into our time? Does the Faith have a future? The crisis in the Church is man-made, and has arisen because we have cozily adapted ourselves to the spirit of life without God…This is why in our hearts so many things are still un-redeemed, and consequently long for substitute gratification. Consumerism…really is a virus which attacks the lives of Faith as Pope Francis recently said.
Ibid.
Cardinal Mueller read a segment of a homily from Leo the Great, who was a Pope in the middle of the fifth century,
I would like to evoke the Christmas homily which Pope St. Leo the Great preached over 1500 years ago. In the midst of migration of peoples, and dissolution of all order, as the Roman Empire was falling apart, Leo speaks to the personal Faith of each Catholic. With these words, I would like to address every Catholic today who has become unsettled in the crisis of the Church. He says, ‘Christian: acknowledge your dignity, and becoming a partner of divine nature, refuse to return to the old baseness by degenerate conduct. Remember the head and the body of which you are a member. Recollect that you were rescued from the power of darkness, and brought into God’s light and kingdom. By the mystery of baptism, you were made the temple of the Holy Spirit. Do not put such a great guest to flight from you by base acts.’
Ibid.
Mueller stated that we cannot ally or be friendly with the evils of the modern age. He particularly attacked the attempts of some to relativist and modernize the Church,
You cannot escape the deadly poison of the snakes if we strike friendship with it, but only if we prudently keep our distance and have the antidote ready at hand. The poison paralyzing the Church is the opinion that we should adapt to the zeitgeist, the spirit, of the age and not the spirit of God. That we should relativize God’s commandments, and reinterpret the doctrine of the revealed Faith. Instead, as St. Paul’s says, ‘The Church of the Living God is the pillar and foundation of truth.’ Yet some people today would like to reconstruct the Church as a convenient civil religion, and make it more worldly-more secular. Many voices and opinion-makers in the post-Christian society approve such self-secularization of the Church. But that in no way means that they accept the Faith in Jesus Christ. Never mind that even a few Church leaders are confused about this. People trying to instrumentalize the Faith and the Church for their political agendas are not coming closer to the Faith-The Faith which they are in fact abusing. We can grow closer to the Faith in Christ only if, together with St. Peter and all the Church, we are looking to Jesus, and confess, ‘you are the Christ the Son of the Living God.’
…Today however many believe that the Church needs its modernization. Conversely, anyone opposing modernization…is called ‘traditionalist.’ Let me give you an example of how this works: Protecting human life from contraception to natural death is discredited as a conservative right wing political position, while at the same time killing innocent unborn children is declared a human right, and therefore deemed modern and progressive.”
Ibid.
Cardinal Mueller that the Faith is objective; it is not about subjective emotions and personal experience. The Catholic Faith is concerned with truth, particularly Christ who is the truth,
Faith in God is concerned with the contrast between true and false, and about the distinction of good and evil. What matters most deeply is that Faith is true because Christ is the truth. Only truth gives life, even and especially when it is challenging.
Ibid.
For some however the Church is lagging behind by 200 years compared to where the world is today…And allegedly progressive Catholics play the model students of the ‘enlightenment’, promising they will quickly catch up to the lessons of atheistic criticism of religion. Should the Church adapt the revelation of God in Jesus Christ to where people are today? Can the Church be loyal to her foundation, and her founder, if she mutates into a religion of humanity-civil religion?
Ibid.
The allegedly peaceful agnostics of today generously allow the simple people to keep their religion, but only because they are eager to use the potential of meaning the Church possesses for their own purposes. They do not hold revealed Faith to be true, but they would like to use it for building the new religion of world unity. In order to be admitted to this meta-religion, the only price the Church would have to pay is giving up her truth claim. No big deal, it seems,as relativism dominant in our world anyway rejects the idea that we could actually know the truth, and presents itself as guarantee of peace between all world views and world religions. And in fact, a Catholicism without the dogmas-dogmas of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the supernatural of grace, without the holy Sacraments, without Sacred Apostolic Tradition without the sound doctrine of the revealed faith is a fata morgana for which even a number of people in the Church are longing. But there is no such meta-religion, because there is no religion which is somehow higher than the Church’s Faith in Jesus Christ.
Ibid.
Jesus Christ is not the representation of some supra-temporal truths and ideas. He is the way, the truth, and the life in person
You [Venerable Brethren] represent the hierarchy, social inequalities, authority, and obedience – worn out institutions to which their hearts, captured by another ideal, can no longer submit to.
Pope St. Pius X
Equality has been embraced by the contemporary Western world as the ideal for human social order. Hierarchies are seen quite often as evil, and inequality has become a bad word. However, hierarchy is inescapable. Differences between human beings imply hierarchy. According to Fr. Chad Ripperger,
There is a metaphysical principle that is self evident, and basically this principle states this: If in a particular category of being, there are two things that are different there is, by necessity, an inequality…for example, in a family you’re in the category of family relations. Now, this means that when you are talking about the parents to the children, when it comes to the category of being a human being, they are equal. But, when it comes to the category of governance of the family, they are not, because the children are below the parents.
The Catholic distinctions between men and women, bishops and laymen, and rulers and subjects clearly, then, imply inequality. The Catholic Faith, and even a minimal observation of human social order, indicates hierarchy in all of humanity’s organizations. Catholic civilization for thousands of years rested on a hierarchical constitution. However, human hierarchy does not eliminate the elementary dignity possessed by all equally.
Equal Dignity
To preface any discussion of hierarchy, a Catholic should reach a proper understanding of equality. The Catholic Church, in recent decades, has repeatedly stressed the equal dignity of human beings. This equality rests on the fact that humans have a rational soul,
1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1934
The Catechism still acknowledges that there are differences in other categories of being, and, therefore, that there are hierarchies in human social order,
1937 These differences belong to God’s plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular “talents” share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures
Ibid. 1937
While not repudiating hierarchy in human order and the Church, the Catechism does condemn sinful forms of inequality,
1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: ‘Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.’44
Ibid. 1938
The Church Hierarchy
To perpetuate His mission, sacraments, teaching, and visible leadership, Jesus entrusted His Church to twelve Apostles.
[13] And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles).
Luke 6 DRA
In creating this differentiated category, Our Lord created an inequality between his ordinary disciples and the Apostles. These twelve men were surely equal to the disciples in so far as they were human beings and followers of Christ. However, the Apostles were differentiated from the disciples in authority and power,
[18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 18 DRA
Among the twelve Apostles, there was a further distinction between Peter and the rest,
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 16 DRA
Peter was set apart from other eleven Apostles, and designated to be a special ‘key-bearer’ and rock upon which Christ would build His Church. Peter, in so far as he was a human being, still possessed equality with everyone. Peter was also still equally a disciple and an Apostle. Several early church fathers pointed out categories wherein Peter was equal to the other Apostles, while still maintaining his inequality to the eleven as their head,
And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained;’ John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.
Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church
St. Cyprian observed that the apostles had an equal ability to forgive sins on behalf of Jesus Christ. Surely, Paul’s power to absolve sins would not be lacking equality with Peter’s. However, Cyprian sets Peter apart as the origin of unity among the twelve. St. Cyprian also viewed the Church as being founded on Peter, and Peter as having a primacy.
Pope St. Leo the Great noticed basic equality among priests and bishops as stemming from a common equality among the Apostles. However, this great Pope and church father stated that there is hierarchy of rank in the clergy,
The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.
Leo the Great, Letters, 14:12
While all priests, bishops, and popes are equal in their power to consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are differentiated in authority. Confession to a Pope would not forgive your sins more powerfully than absolution from an ordinary parish priest. However, the Pope possesses supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, while your ordinary parish priest does not. The categories of equality between Pope and priest are just as apparent as the areas in which they are unequal.
Marriage: A Simple Example
Marriage is a straightforward illustration of the Catholic understanding of hierarchy and equality. Since all human persons have an equal fundamental dignity, every member of a family has the same basic dignity. According to the Constitution on the Church in the Second Vatican Council,
Firmly established by the Lord, the unity of marriage will radiate from the equal personal dignity of wife and husband, a dignity acknowledged by mutual and total love.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes 49
While husband, wife, and children all have an elementary equality in dignity, there exists hierarchy in other categories of their being. Pope Pius XI restated the apostolic teaching on the hierarchy between husband and wife,
Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]…
For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
So, while husband, wife, and children all have the same basic dignity, they lack equality in governance and authority. The family possesses both hierarchy and equality between persons.
Hierarchy in Civil Society
The Catholic social order that reigned for thousands of years is infamous for being quite hierarchical. To this day, the Church teaches that human societies are fundamentally hierarchical. Wherever there is a gathering of people, according to the Church, there must be authority figures. This creates a hierarchy of rulers and the ruled,
If therefore, it is natural for man to live in the society of many, it is necessary that there exist among men some means by which the group may be governed. For where there are many man together. and each one is looking after his interest, the group would be broken up and scattered unless there were also someone to take care of what appertains to the commonwealth
On the Governance of Rulers, p. 35. St. Thomas Aquinas
1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”15
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1897. 15 – John XXIII, PT 46.
Additionally, St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates that there are further gradations in civil society,
[I]n what pertains to all mankind, one man is not able to do all things which are needed in a society, and, accordingly different people work at different tasks. This diversity of men in different functions happens in the first place, by Divine Providence which has so distributed the types of men that nothing necessary for life will ever be found wanting. But this also comes about from natural influences by which different men have different inclinations for this function or that manner of life. Because many things are needed for man’s livelihood for which one man is not sufficient for himself, it is necessary that different things be done by different men, that some, for instance, should cultivate the land, that some build houses and so forth.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Quodlibetales, Quodlibetum 7, q. 7, a. 17, c., quoted by Rev. B. w. Dempsey, “Property Rights,” Summa Theologica, III, 3361.
Social order contains a diversity of offices and functions. This is a differentiation in particular categories of being, and thus human society is clearly hierarchical,
As explained above, one hierarchy is one principality—that is, one multitude ordered in one way under the rule of a prince. Now such a multitude would not be ordered, but confused, if there were not in it different orders. So the nature of a hierarchy requires diversity of orders.
This diversity of order arises from the diversity of offices and actions, as appears in one city where there are different orders according to the different actions; for there is one order of those who judge, and another of those who fight, and another of those who labor in the fields, and so forth.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q. 108
A traditional Catholic view of civil society is quite hierarchical. Not only is there a hierarchy of governance, but there is also inequality of function. Those who work in agriculture are fundamentally differentiated from those who are magistrates. This differentiation implies inequality. Hierarchy, rather than being condemned, should be embraced by Catholics in the civil order.
We shall then tell them [young people] that equality [should] set itself within the framework of a hierarchy, founded on the diversity of office and merits
Full title: The Assumption of the Virgin
Artist: Francesco Botticini
Date made: probably about 1475-6
In Heaven, there is a hierarchy among angels, saints, and God. According to St. Thomas Aquinas,
Hierarchy means a “sacred” principality, as above explained. Now principality includes two things: the prince himself and the multitude ordered under the prince. Therefore because there is one God, the Prince not only of all the angels but also of men and all creatures; so there is one hierarchy, not only of all the angels, but also of all rational creatures, who can be participators of sacred things
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q. 108
The old Catholic Encyclopedia reinforces the idea that there is a hierarchy in heaven,
There is, consequently, a necessary gradation among hierarchs; and this gradation, which exists even among the angels, i.e. in the heavenly hierarchy (on which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is modelled), must a fortiori be found in a human assembly subject to sin, and in which this gradation works for peace and harmony
Church hierarchy and human society are reflections of the divine order. Because all things have their origin and end in God, and because God’s heavenly kingdom exudes perfection, human social orders ought to imitate heaven. St. Thomas Aquinas states this principle explicitly,
Human government is derived from Divine government, and should imitate it.
Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas
Bishop Barron explains that every time we pray the ‘Our Father’, we are praying that human and social order will become like the divine heavenly order,
‘Thy Kingdom come’…We are saying, ‘May Your way of ordering things be our way of ordering things,’ so ‘on Earth as in Heaven’; the way things are ordered rightly in heaven may they become the right order of Earth
Every society and State is made of people; individual human beings are their primary element. What kind of human beings? Not people as they are conceived by individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a different rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social hierarchy based on the values of creating, constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these, it is possible to establish the true State, namely an antiliberal, antidemocratic, and organic State.
A loose definition of tradition needs to be reached before continuing to articulation of a specifically Catholic traditionalism. Tradition is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary in a few ways. First, tradition is viewed as inherited custom, religious practices, actions, thoughts, or behaviors. Secondly, it is defined as beliefs, information, customs stories, or bodies of beliefs relating to the past that are handed down. Additionally, tradition is defined as cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions. These are effective ways to understand tradition in general. However, the specific application of the term in a Catholic traditionalist context excludes some types of traditionalism.
If a Catholic desires to embrace traditional Christian society, and most of the beliefs and customs that go with it, he must clarify or modify the word traditionalism. In this way, a Catholic traditionalist makes clear that he does not hold to just any body of tradition. Certainly he is not a pagan, a Jew, or a protestant. Further, a Catholic traditionalist does not want to conflate his beliefs with the false ideas condemned by the Church under the categorical name ‘Traditionalism’ (Read more about this in the old Catholic Encyclopedia here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition)
Tradition’s Role in the Catholic Faith
Every faithful Catholic, in a sense, is a traditionalist. The good and orthodox Catholic is loyal to 20 centuries of passed on teachings, customs, beliefs, and religious practices in the Catholic Church. Jesus entrusted his teachings, religious practices (like the sacraments), and all other aspects of His tradition to the Apostles. The Apostles were instructed to carry out the ministry of sacraments, teaching, and other aspects of the tradition of Christ,
[19]And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
Luke 22 DRA
[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Matthew 28 DRA
The twelve, with Peter at their head, were also given authority to carry out these tasks,
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 16 DRA
[17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven
Matthew 18 DRA
The model of tradition in the Catholic Faith clearly includes Peter and the leaders of the Church being stewards with divinely appointed authority. In Acts 15, the Apostles and other leaders of the Church make an authoritative and binding decision on a matter of traditional religious observance. Clearly, tradition in the Catholic Faith requires the principle of authority, embodied in the persons of bishops and Popes, for its safeguarding.
While Christ and the Apostles certainly stood opposed to the false traditions of the Jews, the Christian tradition was, of course, expounded and passed on. After Jesus Christ entrusted the Apostles with his traditions, the Apostles passed these on via writing and other modes of transmission,
[13] Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.
1 Thessalonians 2 DRA
And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 DRA
The tradition passed on by the Apostles was not only teachings and a body of beliefs, but also ritual and religious practice in the form of sacraments,
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
1 Corinthians 11 DRA
[14]Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
James 5 DRA
The Apostles did not leave anarchy in the universal Church. They left an orderly authority structure to succeed in their ministry of safeguarding the tradition,
[4] To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Saviour. [5] For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee
Titus 1 DRA
[1] A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work…[4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. [5] But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
1 Timothy 3 DRA
Perhaps the earliest extra-biblical Christian document, the Didache, references the orderly constitution of the Church
Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers.
The Didache (1st century)
The bishops and deacons, according to other portions of the Didache and the New Testament, were in charge of teaching, administering sacraments, and other sacred functions.
Some of the early bishops and Popes, who succeeded the Apostles in authority over the Church, explained how the original Apostles left men in charge,
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle (96 AD)
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaens (107 AD)
Fr. Philip Hughes, a Jesuit and historian, completed numerous volumes on church history. Fr. Hughes confirms and summarizes well the thesis that an authority-guided tradition defined the early Catholic Church,
The opponents of Gnosticism were the bishops of the churches where it showed itself, and their single weapon against the subtle danger was the assertion that Gnosticism was at variance with what they themselves had received. Christianity thus shows itself, in its first meeting with doctrinal controversy, as a religion that is, essentially, strictly traditionalist.
A Popular History of the Catholic Church
Pope St. John Paul II sums up best how tradition and authority were integrally connected in the early days of the Catholic Church. Citing St. Irenaeus, a bishop in the second century, the Pope states that authority is essential in preserving tradition,
The mission entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles is to last until the end of time (cf. Mt 28:20), since the Gospel which they have been charged to hand down is the life of the Church in every age. It was precisely for this reason that the Apostles were concerned to appoint for themselves successors, so that, as Saint Irenaeus attests, the apostolic tradition might be manifested and preserved down the centuries.
Pope St. John Paul II, Pastores gregis
Pope St. John Paul II continues by expounding on the very word ‘tradition’. He states that tradition grows and develops,
In this way the word handed down – Tradition – has become ever more consciously a word of life, and at the same time the task of proclaiming and preserving it has progressively continued under the guidance and assistance of the Spirit of Truth, as a continuous passing on of all that the Church herself is and all that she believes.109 This Tradition, which comes from the Apostles, makes progress in the life of the Church, as the Second Vatican Council has taught. There is likewise growth and development in the understanding of the realities and words handed down, so that in holding, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on, there comes about a unique harmony between the Bishops and the faithful.
Ibid. par. 7
Loyalty to tradition, in the Catholic Faith, does not mean attempting to turn back the clock to the Catholic Church of the first or second centuries. Rather, it is a continual growth, development, and guarantee of the future. Pope Francis said this quite simply,
…the roots, the tradition, are the guarantee of the future
Pope Francis Audience in the Paul VI hall on December 13, 2017
Traditional Society Overthrown
As shown above, every faithful Catholic is a religious traditionalist. They are all defined by traditional rituals, beliefs, and being members of one of the oldest traditional religious structures in existence. Additionally, a faithful Catholic recognizes the successor of Peter as their authority within this traditional framework.
For over a millennia, the true Faith influenced almost every aspect of life in a Catholic Europe. Families, workers’ associations, governments, and all other aspects of the hierarchy of Christendom were informed by the Catholic Church and Christ’s Kingship. This came about organically after hundreds of years of martyrdom, evangelization, and conversions of the European peoples. Kings, elders, families, and Catholics at all levels recognized Christ as their King and the Church as their mother. A truly Catholic political, cultural, social order came about.
This beautiful view of Catholic Christendom must be tempered by a healthy acknowledgment of fallen human nature. A thousand years of Catholic society did not prevent kings, bishops, Popes, and other significant figures from falling short of their calling. Atrocities, illegitimate wars, heresy, and other injustices still took place in Catholic nations. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, there has been no perfect golden age in human history. However, an era in western history where Christ’s Kingship was the public norm is certainly significant. This era should be looked to, with some degree of confidence, for guidance in social, political, and other matters.
Catholic traditionalism is a loyalty to those traditional structures, customs, and principles that were integral in European Christendom. This traditionalism would not be an attempt to exonerate every mistake made in the middle ages. Wherever Christ was recognized as King, the Church was obeyed and held in esteem, and society was formulated in accordance with God, Catholic traditionalism embraces pre-revolution Europe. The Catholic social order, with its principles of hierarchy, authority, custom, and tradition, is embraced by a traditionalist who holds the Faith. This traditionalism is simultaneously a rejection of the order (or lack thereof) of things following the various revolutions against Christendom (The French and Sexual Revolution being prime examples).
A fundamental and radical change took place between the enlightenment and the current era. Revolutions erupted against Church and State in Europe, and liberal nationalism became the new norm. Where once all aspects of the social order in Europe were part of a broader Christendom, secularism and anti-traditional ideas were implemented.
The Popes responded with repeated authoritative condemnations of the revolutions. One of the first notable condemnations of the novel ideals of the revolutionaries was Mirari Vos, issued by Pope Gregory XVI,
The holiness of the sacred is despised; the majesty of divine worship is not only disapproved by evil men, but defiled and held up to ridicule. Hence sound doctrine is perverted and errors of all kinds spread boldly. The laws of the sacred, the rights, institutions, and discipline — none are safe from the audacity of those speaking evil. Our Roman See is harassed violently and the bonds of unity are daily loosened and severed. The divine authority of the Church is opposed and her rights shorn off. She is subjected to human reason and with the greatest injustice exposed to the hatred of the people and reduced to vile servitude. The obedience due bishops is denied and their rights are trampled underfoot. Furthermore, academies and schools resound with new, monstrous opinions, which openly attack the Catholic faith; this horrible and nefarious war is openly and even publicly waged. Thus, by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corrupted and a tremendous blow is dealt to religion and the perversion of morals is spread. So the restraints of religion are thrown off, by which alone kingdoms stand. We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities, and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching.
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
Pope Gregory went on to condemn the sedition’s against legitimate princes and kings, and the endeavors of many to separate the Church from the state. These events were bringing about the collapse of the ancient Catholic social order.
After Gregory XVI, there were numerous repudiations of the ideals that threatened the traditional Catholic social order of what was left of Christendom. The Catholic Encyclopedia lists these attempts of the Supreme Pontiffs to counter liberalism,
…the most explicit and detailed condemnation, however, was administered to modern Liberalism by Pius IX in the Encyclical “Quanta cura” of 8 December, 1864 and the attached Syllabus. Pius X condemned it again in his allocution of 17 April, 1907, and in the Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of 3 July, 1907, in which the principal errors of Modernism were rejected and censured in sixty-five propositions. The older and principally political form of false Liberal Catholicism had been condemned by the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, “Mirari Vos”, of 15 August, 1832 and by many briefs of Pius IX (see Ségur, “Hommage aux Catholiques Libéraux”, Paris, 1875). The definition of the papal infallibility by the Vatican council was virtually a condemnation of Liberalism. Besides this many recent decisions concern the principal errors of Liberalism. Of great importance in this respect are the allocutions and encyclicals of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. (Cf., Recueil des allocutions consistorales encycliques . . . citées dans le Syllabus”, Paris, 1865) and the encyclicals of Leo XIII of 20 January, 1888, “On Human Liberty”; of 21 April, 1878, “On the Evils of Modern Society”; of 28 December, 1878, “On the Sects of the Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists”; of 4 August, 1879, “On Christian Philosophy”; of 10 February, 1880, “On Matrimony”; of 29 July, 1881, “On the Origin of Civil Power”; of 20 April, 1884, “On Freemasonry”; of 1 November, 1885, “On the Christian State”; of 25 December, 1888, “On the Christian Life”; of 10 January, 1890, “On the Chief Duties of a Christian Citizen”; of 15 May, 1891, “On the Social Question”; of 20 January, 1894, “On the Importance of Unity in Faith and Union with the Church for the Preservation of the Moral Foundations of the State”; of 19 March, 1902, “On the Persecution of the Church all over the World”. Full information about the relation of the Church towards Liberalism in the different countries may be gathered from the transactions and decisions of the various provincial councils. These can be found in the “Collectio Lacensis” under the headings of the index: Fides, Ecclesia, Educatio, Francomuratores.
Pope Leo XIII provided a balanced approach to understanding the revolutions against Christendom. While recognizing the advances of science and industry, Leo XIII pointed out the injustice and degeneracy brought about by the changes against the old Catholic order,
That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world,should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvelous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals,and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy.
Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum
Pius XII articulated how the revolution progressed and destroyed the unity of the traditional order,
It is to be found everywhere and among everyone; it can be both violent and astute. In these last centuries, it has attempted to disintegrate the intellectual, moral, and social unity in the mysterious organism of Christ. It has sought nature without grace, reason without faith, freedom without authority, and, at times, authority without freedom. It is an “enemy” that has become more and more apparent with an absence of scruples that still surprises: Christ yes; the Church no! Afterwards: God yes; Christ no! Finally the impious shout: God is dead and, even, God never existed! And behold now the attempt to build the structure of the world on foundations which we do not hesitate to indicate as the main causes of the threat that hangs over humanity: economy without God, law without God, politics without God.
Pius XII, Allocution to Catholic Action Oct. 12 1952
The ongoing tension between the revolution and tradition, and the destruction of traditional values, was lamented by Pope St. Paul VI,
The conflict between generations leads to a tragic dilemma: either to preserve traditional beliefs and structures and reject social progress; or to embrace foreign technology and foreign culture, and reject ancestral traditions with their wealth of humanism. The sad fact is that we often see the older moral, spiritual and religious values give way without finding any place in the new scheme of things.
Pope St. John Paul II also mourned the death of traditional Christian society and culture,
4. Whole countries and nations where religion and the Christian life were formerly flourishing and capable of fostering a viable and working community of faith, are now put to a hard test, and in some cases, are even undergoing a radical transformation, as a result of a constant spreading of an indifference to religion, of secularism and atheism. This particularly concerns countries and nations of the so-called First World, in which economic well-being and consumerism, even if coexistent with a tragic situation of poverty and misery, inspires and sustains a life lived “as if God did not exist”. This indifference to religion and the practice of religion devoid of true meaning in the face of life’s very serious problems, are not less worrying and upsetting when compared with declared atheism. Sometimes the Christian faith as well, while maintaining some of the externals of its tradition and rituals, tends to be separated from those moments of human existence which have the most significance, such as, birth, suffering and death. In such cases, the questions and formidable enigmas posed by these situations, if remaining without responses, expose contemporary people to an inconsolable delusion or to the temptation of eliminating the truly humanizing dimension of life implicit in these problems.
On the other hand, in other regions or nations many vital traditions of piety and popular forms of Christian religion are still conserved; but today this moral and spiritual patrimony runs the risk of being dispersed under the impact of a multiplicity of processes, including secularization and the spread of sects. Only a re-evangelization can assure the growth of a clear and deep faith, and serve to make these traditions a force for authentic freedom.
John Paul believed that an evangelization effort, and a conservation of traditions that still existed, was the remedy to the erosion of traditional Christian life. A dramatic description of the destruction of traditional Catholic Europe was made by Pope St. John Paul II,
About 150 years after Descartes, all that was fundamentally Christian in the tradition of European thought had already been pushed aside. This was the time of the enlightenment…when pure rationalism held sway. The French Revolution, during the Reign of Terror, knocked down the altars dedicated to Christ, tossed crucifixes into the street, introduced the cult of the goddess Reason. On the basis of this, there was a proclamation of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The spiritual patrimony and, in particular, the moral patrimony of Christianity were this torn from their evangelical foundation. In order to restore Christianity to its full vitality, it is essential that these return to that foundation.
Pope St. John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, 52-3
Pope John Paul II also viewed traditions as being important to maintaining a strong Faith,
The phenomenon of urbanization therefore presents great challenges for the Church’s pastoral action, which must address cultural rootlessness, the loss of family traditions and of people’s particular religious traditions. As a result, faith is often weakened because it is deprived of the expressions that helped to keep it alive.
Pope Francis has highlighted how revolutionaries sow their own destruction by eroding tradition,
To be modern, some believe that it is necessary to break away from the roots. And this is their ruin, because the roots, the tradition, are the guarantee of the future
Nor can we ignore the fact that, in recent decades, there has been a break in the generational transmission of the Christian faith in the Catholic people. It is undeniable that many feel disappointed and cease to identify with the Catholic tradition, that there are more parents who do not baptize their children and do not teach them to pray, and that there is a certain exodus towards other faith communities. Some causes of this break are: the lack of spaces for dialogue in the family, the influence of the media, relativist subjectivism, the unbridled consumerism that stimulates the market, the lack of pastoral support for the poorest, the absence of a cordial acceptance in our institutions and our difficulty in recreating the mystical adherence of faith in a plural religious scenario.
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium
Kings once had to at least pay lip-service to the Church, and would participate in grand religious ceremonies to the edification of all. Not every law had to be codified; unwritten laws and traditions bound men to virtuous behavior. Traditional religious practices and customs have been removed from the mainstream of western culture, and those traditions that remain are only to be found in obscurity and the third world. In the wholly Catholic social order of Christendom, beauty in cathedrals, art, music, and architecture glorified God. Catholicism so permeated the culture and social life that the term ‘folk Catholicism’ is used by historians for that period of Europe. Community at every level was firmly rooted in tradition. Not only was the nuclear family the fundamental cell of society, but so too was the extended family and local community valued. Localism and subsidiarity were the norm.
Although, the revolutions have long since passed, their effects have solidified into the disordered society we live in today. Civil leaders can scoff at the Church when it promulgates teachings. Centralization has replaced subsidiarity, while power has become the focus. Gone are the days of exercising authority in service to the ruled. The Catholic Faith, which predominated all aspects of the social order in Christendom, is now relegated to Sunday liturgies alone. The West’s culture, music, and media are almost completely centered around vice, sinful behaviors, and disgusting sexual acts. Atheism, secularism, scientism, and materialism are the norm in businesses, universities, and other institutions. Freedom has been totally perverted into license, and every sort of degenerate sin and abomination is now granted rights. Far away, now, is a social order that is based in authority, hierarchy, tradition, and which is all oriented upwards toward Christ the King. The authentic rights, freedom, and dignity of persons, families, workers, civil authorities, and the Church have all but been completely expunged.
On this Earth, since the 19th century, there has been the worst conditions for young people’s development, because Freemasonry was in full swing, the worst group of anti clericals and satanists
The malaise of the modern world lies in its relentless denial of the metaphysical realm.
Rene Guenon, in Oliver Leaman’s The Biographical Encyclopedia of Islamic Philosophy
For radical traditionalist Julius Evola, America exemplifies the non-traditional and the triumph of the revolution,
America … has created a ‘civilization’ that represents an exact contradiction of the ancient European tradition. It has introduced the religion of praxis and productivity; it has put the quest for profit, great industrial production, and mechanical, visible, and quantitative achievements over any other interest. It has generated a soulless greatness of a purely technological and collective nature, lacking any background of transcendence, inner light, and true spirituality. America has [built a society where] man becomes a mere instrument of production and material productivity within a conformist social conglomerate
Charles Coulombe, a Catholic historian and writer, also views American values as being non-traditional,
The idea of course, is that every good American is a liberal…If you believe one religion is better than another, you are un-American. If you believe that every ethnicity and people have differing, one hopes complimentary, abilities and weaknesses, you are a racist. If you believe in gender roles, you are a sexist, and quite possibly a cis-hetero-patriarch. All these rather grotesque developments come from that same root.
With the context of what tradition and traditionalism are in the Faith, what the old order was, and what the revolution against Christendom overthrew, a Catholic Traditionalism can be formulated
The values, principles, and order of a traditional Catholic social order are not present at all in any recent decades,
We have in fact entered upon the final phase…, the darkest period of this dark age, the state of dissolution from which there is to be no emerging except through a cataclysm, since it is no longer a mere revival which is required, but a complete renovation
Rene Guenon
Those Catholics who wish to embrace the old ways of Christendom cannot simply reboot a social order of 50 years ago. A total renovation of ideals, principles, and lifestyle must take place. However, not every one of these Catholics is a traditionalist in their social, cultural, and political attitudes.
Tradition goes much deeper than the 1950s, deeper even than the Industrial Revolution. And the civilization that emerged with it.
Scott Hanh, The First Society
Catholic traditionalism should not just be the revival of traditions or customs that arose in Catholic Europe-although that is certainly a part of what should be done. Rather, this traditionalism should embrace in totality the Catholic principles and ethos behind those folk traditions and Catholic customs. New traditions and customs can then arise out a of a new Catholic family, community, and social order. Neither should Catholic traditionalism be an attempt to turn the clock back to the thirteenth century.Instead, one should embrace the tenants of old Catholic societies. These will form a foundation, roots, for growth and progress of tradition.
Below are tenants that Catholic traditionalists should embrace. This is not, obviously, a perfect list. However, this is an attempt to outline some basic precepts. Every one of the tenants of Catholic traditionalism below is essential. Many of these principles can be inferred from each other. For example, since the social order ought to be organically modeled from the human body, hierarchy and authority naturally follow as crucial.
Christ’s Social Kingship: Jesus Christ must be recognized as sovereign ruler of everything. No individual, family, community, parish, business, institution, or action should be devoid of submission to the Lord of all. This means no separation of Christ’s moral laws, Church, or teachings from the individual, family, community, business, state, or any organization. Everything should be grounded in higher divine principles. This tenant of Catholic traditionalism is the antithesis of materialism, secularism, and separation of God and Church from any aspect of the social order.
[8] But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Hebrews 1 DRA
Human government is derived from Divine government, and should imitate it.
Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas
For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all.
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei
In this particular meaning, a civilization or a society is “traditional” when it is ruled by principles that transcend what is merely human and individual, and when all its sectors are formed and ordered from above, and directed to what is above.
Julius Evola Revolt against the modern world
In the same way that Jesus Christ and His bride the Church must be at the center of our hearts, so must they also be at the very center of society. The common good, both in terms of our earthly duties and our heavenly destination, demands it. This claim doesn’t just implicate our modern secular elite, it also calls the wisdom of the American Founders into question. Partisans can argue forever about whether “the Founders” were more Enlightenment atheists or devout Christians-the truth is certainly somewhere in between-but everybody knows they weren’t intending to give the Catholic Church pride of place in their new country. In fact, the Church’s claims to be the bearer of truth and the custodian of the sacraments were considered threatening to their political project precisely because those claims imply a central role for the Church in civil affairs.
Scott Hahn, The First Society
Authority: Tradition is always guided and ordered by principles of authority. Particularly important is Christ’s universal authority. It is not traditional to be rebellious, seditious, or disrespectful of authority. All authority comes from God. Specific loyalty to the Pope, local bishop, and priests must be given. There should also be submission to just civil laws, and parental authority. Service-based authority should be lived out by fathers, priests, and those who hold office. A strong belief in paternal and monarchical rule in the Church, family, and community is crucial. Authority ought to work for the common good, fight evil, promote the good, recognize the Church and God, act in accordance with divine law, and be an ordering force in the hierarchy for unity. An understanding of the Divine origin of authority is essential to any office. Catholic social order was characterized by honor for authority figures and their offices. This tenant of tradition stands opposed to revolution against God, king, pope, bishop, priest, father, or other authority figures in one’s life.
[1] Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. [2] Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. [3] For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. [5] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
[6] For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. [7] Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.
Romans 13 DRA
Although all virtuous men are worthy of honor, there are gradations of respect and honor due. Those who rule the community are worthy of the highest honor, while those in authority of any kind or who contribute more to the common good than others, are deserving of more honor than those who do less.
Mary Anne Francis Biesel, The Concept of Social Stratification According to Saint Thomas Aquinas Pp. 45
When this [civil authority] loses the support that recommends it, nay sustains it, in the conscience of the people, namely the persuasion of its Divine origin, dependence and sanction, it loses at the same time its greatest power to obligate, and its highest title to be respected.
Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous without the presence of those who, invested with legal authority, preserve its institutions and do all that is necessary to sponsor actively the interests of all its members. And they derive their authority from God
Pope St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
Hierarchy: All human societies and communities have hierarchy, but hierarchy does take a multitude of forms. There exist hierarchies of authority. In businesses, there are the managers and the managed; executives and non-executives exist within companies. In families there are parents and children, in towns there are mayors, councilmen, and everyday citizens. In all sovereignties there are rulers and the ruled. There exists hierarchies of priestly dignity. The lay people in the Catholic Church are members of the lowest grade of priesthood-the priesthood of all believers. There are also ministerial priests, who possess a grade of Holy Orders, and bishops who posses the fullness of priestly dignity in the Church Militant. Christ, of course, is at the top of this hierarchy. According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is usual to distinguish a twofold hierarchy in the Church, that of order and that of jurisdiction… . Christ did not give to all the faithful power to administer His sacraments, except in the case of baptism and matrimony, or to offer public worship. This was reserved to those who, having received the sacrament of order, belong to the hierarchy of order. He entrusted the guidance of the faithful along the paths of duty and in the practice of good works to a religious authority, and for this purpose He established a hierarchy of jurisdiction. Moreover, He established His Church as a visible, external, and perfect society; hence He conferred on its hierarchy the right to legislate for the good of that society
Van Hove, A. (1910). Hierarchy. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved November 25, 2019 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm
There is a metaphysical principle that is self evident, and basically this principle states this: If in a particular category of being, there are two things that are different there is, by necessity, an inequality…for example, in a family you’re in the category of family relations. Now, this means that when you are talking about the parents to the children, when it comes to the category of being a human being, they are equal. But, when it comes to the category of governance of the family, they are not, because the children are below the parents.
These sorts of hierarchies do not negate the equal fundamental dignity all people possess by having a rational soul capable of following God. However, it does mean there is differences in gradation within society of roles, authority, and other non-fundamental dignities. Additionally, while it is a natural and traditional component of human society to have hierarchy, there are unjust inequalities that can be present among people. The traditional tenant of hierarchy stands in firm opposition to modern conceptions of human equality and egalitarianism.
[4] For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: [5] So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Romans 12 DRA
Order: All things in the family, society, government, culture, Church, and whole of humanity ought to be ordered correctly. This means they will possess authority and hierarchy, and all those in the authority, or part of the hierarchy (this includes laymen), ought to work toward a just ordering of things. This order must be one of peace, charity, and equity in full conformity to both the natural and divine positive laws. Part of order is unity (see below). This traditional and Catholic conception of order stands in firm opposition to the disorder of modern society. Post-revolutionary countries lack proper order in authority, hierarchy, Christ’s Kingship, and quite a bit more.
If the Revolution is disorder, the Counter-Revolution is the restoration of order. And by order we mean the peace of Christ in the Reign of Christ, that is, Christian civilization, austere and hierarchical, fundamentally sacral, antiegalitarian, and antiliberal.
Plineo Oliveira, Revolution and Counterrevolution
‘Thy Kingdom come’…We are saying, ‘May Your way of ordering things be our way of ordering things,’ so ‘on Earth as in Heaven’; the way things are ordered rightly in heaven may they become the right order of Earth
Unity: Unity is essential in the family, state, Church, and all other parts of the hierarchies of humanity. There ought not be any schisms between parents, children, bishops, kings, and princes. Part of the order of Heaven, and the essence of God, is unity. This ought to be part of the order in Catholic traditionalism. Just as Peter’s chair is the chair of unity for the Church, so all authorities ought to be especially the principles of unity for their jurisdictions. The Angelic Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas, viewed this as a reason for monarchical rule. The disunity of modern society comes in the form of radical individualism, atomization, and the lack of recognition of common legitimate authorities (Christ, the Church, and parents among others)
[25] That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
1 Corinthians 12 DRA
You can not then deny but you know that, in the city of Rome, the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, wherein might sit of all the Apostles the head, Peter, whence he was called Cephas, that in that one chair unity might be preserved by all; nor the other Apostles each contend for a distinct chair for himself, and that whosoever should set up another chair against the single chair might at once be a schismatic and a sinner
St. Optatus, 4th c. Bishop of Milevis, Book 2 Against the Donatists
So the most important task for the ruler of any community is the establishment of peaceful unity. Thus the Apostle, when stressing the unity of the faithful, adds (Ephesians, IV, 3) “Be ye solicitous for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” So, therefore, government is the more useful to the extent that it more effectively attains peaceful unity. For that is more fruitful which better attains its object. Now it is clear that that which is itself a unity can more easily produce unity than that which is a plurality: just as that which is itself hot is best adapted to heating things. So government by one person is more likely to be successful than government by many.’
St. Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas: Selected Political Writings, tr. J.G. Dawson (Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1954), p. 11.
Organic State and Organization: All parts of the state and society ought to be organized organically as they all form one whole body. Human hierarchies, authorities, societies, organizations, and institutions are not simply conglomerations of individuals acting for their own interests. The Church, the state, the family, and other elements of the social order are all compacted together as parts acting for a whole. All must act with an orientation toward their common King, Christ, and for the common good of His creation. First Corinthians elaborates an organic conception of the body of the Church extensively and beautifully. God wills a plurality and diversity within the Church and humanity, but all of these parts ought to act for the whole. This principle is opposed to unrestrained individualism, profit seeking, class warfare, division, and other aspects of the post-revolutionary West.
[12] For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. [13] For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [14] For the body also is not one member, but many. [15] If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
[16] And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? [17] If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? [18] But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. [19] And if they all were one member, where would be the body? [20] But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.
[21] And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. [22] Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. [23] And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. [24] But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour, [25] That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
1 Corinthians 12 DRA
Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.
Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum
A state is organic when it has a center, and this center is an idea that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious way; it is organic when it ignores the division and the autonomization of the particular and when, by virtue of the system of hierarchical participation, every part within its relative autonomy performs its own function and enjoys an intimate connection with the whole.
Gender Roles: Hierarchy, authority, unity, and the organic constitution of families requires a Catholic and traditional understanding of the male gender and the female gender. Men are the active principle in marriage, and are the source of authority. They are the head of the household. Women are the receiving principle in marriage, and are the helpers of their husbands. Modern western man, having become effeminate, is contributing greatly to the decline of civilization. Removing women from their role as mother in the home has undermined their traditional and dignified position (See: https://jokerturtle.home.blog/2019/10/31/pope-leo-xiii-woman-is-by-nature-fitted-for-home-work/ ) Contemporary egalitarian society has proclaimed the absolute equality of men and women, and has sought to make them interchangeable in roles. This is contrary to Catholic traditionalism.
Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [Ephesians 5:22, 24]
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord.[Colossians 3:18]
In like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives.[1 Peter 3:1]
Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.
Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum
Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children.
Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno
the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions.
Pope St. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio
Family: The family is essential to human society. As with all aspects of the human social order, families must possess Christ as King, authority, hierarchy, unity, order, an organic constitution, and traditional gender roles. A family built on these principles will thrive, and, God-willing, rear many children to become saints. Families are eroded in modern society when all the aforementioned principles are attacked and destroyed. Further, families are directly attacked by the violation of their rights. Parents possess the right to educate, raise, and steward their children, and this is often usurped by the over-centralized modern state. Children are taken from their parents, often voluntarily, to be educated in secular schools and to be formed by evil cultural influences. A massive percentage of families are fractured by divorce, and those families that remain often disintegrate through the geographical movement of their members. A traditional Catholic social order would value not just the nuclear family, but also the extended family. Grandparents, uncles, cousins, and even dead ancestors must be valued, respected, and esteemed
The family, founded upon marriage freely contracted, one and indissoluble, must be regarded as the natural, primary cell of human society. The interests of the family, therefore, must be taken very specially into consideration in social and economic affairs, as well as in the spheres of faith and morals. For all of these have to do with strengthening the family and assisting it in the fulfillment of its mission.
Pope St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
The fourth commandment is addressed expressly to children in their relationship to their father and mother, because this relationship is the most universal. It likewise concerns the ties of kinship between members of the extended family. It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2199
Grandparents, who have received the blessing to see their children’s children (cf. Ps 128:6), are entrusted with a great responsibility: to transmit their life experience, their family history, the history of a community, of a people; to share wisdom with simplicity, and the faith itself—the most precious heritage! Happy is the family who has grandparents close by! A grandfather is a father twice over and a grandmother is a mother twice over…
Let us therefore propose to all people, with respect and courage, the beauty of marriage and the family illuminated by the Gospel!
The future passes through the family. So protect your families! Protect your families! See in them your country’s greatest treasure and nourish them always by prayer and the grace of the sacraments.
New patterns of behaviour are emerging as a result of over-exposure to the mass media… As a result, the negative aspects of the media and entertainment industries are threatening traditional values, and in particular the sacredness of marriage and the stability of the family…
The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis, as are all communities and social bonds. In the case of the family, the weakening of these bonds is particularly serious because the family is the fundamental cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite our differences and to belong to one another; it is also the place where parents pass on the faith to their children…
The individualism of our postmodern and globalized era favours a lifestyle which weakens the development and stability of personal relationships and distorts family bonds.
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium
Local Community: As a form of extended family, strong local community is crucial to a proper ordering of society. Local communities, properly integrated in a Catholic and traditional way, can be incredible procurers of tradition, culture, and folk Catholicism. Communities composed of specific Catholic subgroups-men, women, fathers, mothers, veterans, elders, businessmen, workers, etc.- are particularly effective. These communities work to expand the influence of these various roles, and improve local cooperation. Fraternal organizations, worker guilds, prayer groups, and numerous other associations promote authentic Catholic community. Localism was always valued by traditional Catholic societies, but was always tempered by solidarity with the whole of a country and humanity. The principle of subsidiarity is a key element of Catholic social order. The Catholic parish also is an obvious focal point of local civilization. Local communities are often weak in modern society; they share no common recognition of Christ’s kingship, organization, or social life.
If what I’ve said so far about marriage and sacraments and grace is true, then it would seem that it can be no better for the community to be indifferent to religious truth than for the individual to be indifferent to religious truth…
The key concept is integration. An integral Catholic community models the comprehensive integrity of the Faith by admitting no separation between its spiritual services and its social services. We should neither accept being sequestered to the “religious sphere” of life nor try to act like a secular nonprofit; both courses acquiesce to an unacceptable status quo. In forming integral communities, we become prophetic signs of contradiction, and we model the kind of community that should, well, integrate all humanity
Scott Hahn, The First Society
Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists
Joseph De Maistre
Other Church institutions, basic communities and small communities, movements, and forms of association are a source of enrichment for the Church, raised up by the Spirit for evangelizing different areas and sectors. Frequently they bring a new evangelizing fervour and a new capacity for dialogue with the world whereby the Church is renewed. But it will prove beneficial for them not to lose contact with the rich reality of the local parish and to participate readily in the overall pastoral activity of the particular Church
…Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve…
An innate tension also exists between globalization and localization. We need to pay attention to the global so as to avoid narrowness and banality. Yet we also need to look to the local, which keeps our feet on the ground. Together, the two prevent us from falling into one of two extremes. In the first, people get caught up in an abstract, globalized universe, falling into step behind everyone else, admiring the glitter of other people’s world, gaping and applauding at all the right times. At the other extreme, they turn into a museum of local folklore, a world apart, doomed to doing the same things over and over, and incapable of being challenged by novelty or appreciating the beauty which God bestows beyond their borders.
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium
Ethnicity and Race: While human beings share a common fundamental dignity and solidarity, there exists plurality and diversity within mankind. Differences between cultures and peoples ought to be valued and protected. Traditions and cultural traits specific to an ethnic group ought to be preserved, so long as they are not in contradiction to laws of God. Contemporary society erodes mankind into consumer-workers, and destroys races, cultures, and homelands through disordered mass migration.
Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.
St. Augustine, Commentary on Galatians
God, therefore, had great and wise reasons when He created diversity among peoples and when He gave the commandment of sincere love for one’s own nation to the hearts and souls of men.
Bl. Cdl. Stepinac, Letters
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. What We object to is the voluntary and systematic antagonism raised between national education and religious duty. That is why we tell the young: Sing your hymns to freedom, but do not forget the freedom of the children of God.
Pope Pius XI, Mitt Brennender Sorge
“The Church of Jesus Christ,” as Our Predecessor Pius XII observed with such penetration, “is the repository of His wisdom; she is certainly too wise to discourage or belittle those peculiarities and differences which mark out one nation from another. It is quite legitimate for nations to treat those differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs…Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being. The wise development, the encouragement within limits, of that genius, those qualities, does no harm; and if a nation cares to take precautions, to lay down rules, for that end, it has the Church’s approval. She is mother enough to befriend such projects with her prayers provided that they are not opposed to the duties incumbent on men from their common origin and shared destiny.”
Pope St. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra
It is also quite natural for nations with a long-standing cultural tradition to be proud of their traditional heritage. But this commendable attitude should be further ennobled by love, a love for the whole family of man.
On the other hand, as I noted above, one cannot underestimate the capacity of the characteristic culture of a region to produce a balanced growth, especially in the delicate early stages of life, in those who belong to that culture from birth. From this point of view, a reasonable way forward would be to ensure a certain “cultural equilibrium” in each region, by reference to the culture which has prevalently marked its development. This equilibrium, even while welcoming minorities and respecting their basic rights, would allow the continued existence and development of a particular “cultural profile”, by which I mean that basic heritage of language, traditions and values which are inextricably part of a nation’s history and its national identity.
The ideology of liberal individualism promotes a mixing that is designed to erode the natural borders of homelands and cultures, and leads to a post-national and one-dimensional world where the only things that matter are consumption and production,
Customs, Tradition, and Catholic Culture: In the old order of Christendom, cultures, traditions, and customs flourished among all levels of human community. Families, associations, local communities, and countries were bonded by various common practices and traditions that all were Catholic in some way. Customs of piety are especially beautiful. Additionally, modes of dress, special holy days, and types of art are great ways for a culture to express their Faith. Traditions, passed down in the form of rituals, or as oral stories, sayings, or legends, build up unity and help pass down Catholic culture. These traditions also contain unwritten laws, which are more important than those inscribed by magistrates. Modern western society possesses little to none of the old customs, traditions, and cultural traits of the Catholic social order.
…a very remarkable fragment of Greek jurisprudence. Among the laws which govern us,’ says this passage, some are written, others are unwritten.
Joseph De Maistre
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.
GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy
It doesn’t really matter what one writes into a constitution. The important thing is what the collective instinct eventually makes of it.
Oswald Spengler
It is precisely because the glory of Spain is so intimately connected with the Catholic Religion that We feel doubly afflicted in witnessing the deplorable endeavors that for some time have been continually repeated to deprive this beloved nation, with her traditional faith, of her most beautiful titles of civil grandeur.
Every country, rich or poor, has a cultural tradition handed down from past generations. This tradition includes institutions required by life in the world, and higher manifestations— artistic, intellectual and religious—of the life of the spirit. When the latter embody truly human values, it would be a great mistake to sacrifice them for the sake of the former. Any group of people who would consent to let this happen, would be giving up the better portion of their heritage; in order to live, they would be giving up their reason for living.
A nation has a “fundamental right to existence”, to “its own language and culture, through which a people expresses and promotes … its fundamental spiritual ‘sovereignty”’, to “shape its life according to its own traditions, excluding, of course, every abuse of basic human rights and in particular the oppression of minorities”, to “build its future by providing an appropriate education for the younger generation”.[330]
John Paul II, Address to the Fiftieth General of the United Nations (5 October 1995), 8: L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, 11 October 1995, p. 9.
Freedom, Rights, and Dignity: The revolutionaries often proclaimed that they had brought freedom, rights, and dignity, where before there was oppression and lack of respect for individuals. This is false. The Church possesses the true notion of these aspects of humanity. Freedom is the ability to do the good; freedom is not a license or permission to do evil. A right is a just claim over something or some action, and justice requires the recognition of those rights which people possess. Rights are not a just claim to some sin, because sinful actions are inherently unjust. Human dignity is grounded in the individual’s soul from God. This true conception of human dignity means that sin, degeneracy, and vice are contrary to human dignity (rather than being allowable for the sake of individual dignity)
For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas
But the very dignity of man postulates that man glorify God in his body and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations of his heart.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Baltimore Sunday, 8 October 1995
True freedom is not advanced in the permissive society, which confuses freedom with license to do anything whatever and which in the name of freedom proclaims a kind of general amorality. It is a caricature of freedom to claim that people are free to organize their lives with no reference to moral values, and to say that society does not have to ensure the protection and advancement of ethical values. Such an attitude is destructive of freedom and peace.
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE DAY OF PEACE 1 JANUARY 1981
The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2).
CCC, 1700
The Oxford Companion to Law tells us that the term ‘right’ is a much ill-used and overused word. Its correct definition is a just claim or title. So, if you have a right to anything you have a just claim or title to it. The word ‘just’ is of the greatest possible importance, for where a claim is not just, there can be no true right to make it. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that a just man is one who renders to others what is their right or due. So, that is what justice is-justice is rendering to others what belongs to them as their right or their due. Catholic teaching, clearly expressed in the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, is that no man can lay claim justly to anything that is contrary to the eternal or natural law of God.
Authority, Ladies and Gentleman, and strong customs are precisely what guide freedom of choice to be exercised well, so as to become the freedom of excellence
Catholic Economics and Workers Rights: The Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned unlicensed liberal capitalism, and stressed the duty of employers to respect and protect the dignity and rights of workers. The Church, and traditional Catholic society, provide teachings and examples for restraining the market, protecting workers, giving a just wage, and other economic principles. All traditional Catholics should act in accordance with these principles. In keeping with the conception of an organic state, Catholics ought to act economically with the universal destination of goods in mind. Catholic traditionalists should embrace third-position economics, and oppose contemporary economic immoralities.
Prior to the advent of the civilization of the Third Estate (mercantilism, capitalism), the social ethics that was religiously sanctioned in the West consisted in realizing one’s being and in achieving one’s own perfection within the fixed parameters that one’s individual nature and the group to which one belonged clearly defined. Economic activity, work, and profit were justified only in the measure in which they were necessary for sustenance and to ensure the dignity of an existence conformed to one’s own estate, without the lower instinct of self-interest or profit coming first.
Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, “productivity,” and “consumption.” And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential…
Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins
However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations
This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)
Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)
But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development.
Pope St. Paul VI, Populorum Progressio
If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
Pope St. John Paul II, Centessiumus annus
And the “poor” appear under various forms; they appear in various places and at various times; in many cases they appear as a result of the violation of the dignity of human work: either because the opportunities for human work are limited as a result of the scourge of unemployment, or because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family.
Pope St. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens
For the sake of the common good, it [the seventh commandment] requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity.
CCC, 2401
Traditional Art, Music, Dress, and Architecture: Christendom achieved a high degree of beauty in paintings, hymns, chants, cathedrals, and other endeavors. These forms of art were expressions of the deep belief in the beauty of God and creation. Since revolutionary societies reject God, they often are characterized by art lacking beauty, disordered architecture, degenerate music, and immodest forms of dress. The contrast is readily distinguishable to any Catholic traditionalist. All the forms of art and music that glorify God, exemplify beauty, and are constructed with order should be promoted in the home, parish, liturgy, community, and state. (See: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/traditional-architecture-expression-divine)
All artists who, prompted by their talents, desire to serve God’s glory in holy Church, should ever bear in mind that they are engaged in a kind of sacred imitation of God the Creator, and are concerned with works destined to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their piety and their religious formation.
Sacrosanctum Concilium
Pietyand Devotions: Revolutionaries and contemporary Catholics alike are often united by a disdain for traditional modes of piety, and old Catholic devotions. These expressions of Faith, belief, honor, and veneration are often seen as outdated and wrong. Many forms of piety are manifestations of beliefs in traditionalist principles that are hated by the modern. A good example is women veiling, which (among other things), symbolizes the subjection of women.
For encouraging, promoting and nourishing this interior understanding of liturgical participation, the continuous and widespread celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, the use of the sacramentals and exercises of Christian popular piety are extremely helpful. These latter exercises – which “while not belonging to the Liturgy in the strict sense, possess nonetheless a particular importance and dignity” – are to be regarded as having a certain connection with the liturgical context, especially when they have been lauded and attested by the Magisterium itself,[103] as is the case especially of the Marian Rosary.[104] Furthermore, since these practices of piety lead the Christian people both to the reception of the sacraments – especially the Eucharist – and “to meditation on the mysteries of our Redemption and the imitation of the excellent heavenly examples of the Saints, they are therefore not without salutary effects for our participation in liturgical worship ”
Redemptionis Sacramentum
Julius Evola summed up traditionalism well, and encapsulated all the above principles, when he remarked,
My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal
This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests….Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.
False Traditionalism: What Catholic Traditionalism is Not
False or pseudo Catholic traditionalism is any traditionalism that runs contrary to the laws of God.
Christ and the Apostles condemned traditions in so far as they contradicted God. Therefore, the first way a Catholic traditionalist would identify a false tradition is by seeing how it stacks up in relation to the Scriptures, Church Fathers, Saints, and Teachings of the Church. If a tradition runs contrary to the Church, the natural law, or the divine positive law, it can have no part in authentic Catholic traditionalism.
The beliefs, culture, information, and social attitudes of classical liberalism, which were condemned by the Catholic Church when they were being implemented in the West, certainly constitute a tradition under the above definition. Paganism and false religions are also possess tradition. Incorrect beliefs about God, Christ, the Divine, religion, and customs associated with these false religions, are certainly passed down. Our Lord Himself condemned false traditions that contradict God’s commandments,
[7] And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. [8] For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these
Mark Ch. 7 DRA
The Apostles, especially St. Peter and St. Paul, also condemned false traditions,
Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ
Colossians 2:8 DRA
Another form of traditionalism that would be false is a Catholic traditionalism that is disloyal to the Pope. Many traditional Catholic movements are plagued by disloyalty to the Holy Father. Pope St. John Paul II identifies this as a pseudo-traditionalism,
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.
This false traditionalism violates the principle of authority. Catholic tradition is stewarded and guarded by the successors of Peter. If a Catholic traditionalism is disobedient or disloyal to the Pope in some way, it is non-traditional in as much as it is rebellious against the Holy Father.
True Catholic traditionalism is also not an obsession with one point in Church or human history. There did not exist a perfect golden age with no flaws, and trying to turn the clock back is often no more than impractical nostalgia. Instead, traditionalism must embrace those principles, tenants, structures, and elements of Catholic social order that once were the norm, and seek to apply them today. Pope Francis has stressed that tradition is not a museum to look at a past age, but, rather, is the root that guarantees the future.
The roots, the tradition, are the guarantee of the future
“Human government is derived from Divine government, and should imitate it.”
Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas
Dante Alighieri, while being primarily known for his work The Divine Comedy, was a political figure of the middle ages. His lesser known writing De Monarchia contains multiple powerful arguments in favor of a universal monarchy-a worldwide empire to pursue the common good of humanity.
Dante’s Arguments
Dante held that the actualization of the entire capacity of humanity’s intellect was the function of the human race. This, he said, was most possible with universal peace,
Consequently we perceive the nearest way through whichmay be reached that universal peace toward which all our efforrs are direcred as their ultimate end…
Dante Alighieri, De Monarchia
Having emphasized the need for universal peace, Dante went on to show that a ruler is needed to obtain an end,
…when several things are ordained for one end, one of them must regulate or rule, and the others must submit to regulation or rule…
If we consider the individual man, we shall see this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others; in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, the one called the pater-familias, or some one holding his place, to direct and govern…If we consider the village, whose aim is adequate protection of persons and property, there is again needed for governing the rest one chosen by them or another, or one risen to preeminence from among themselves by their consent…Again, if we consider the city, whose end is to insure comfort and sufficiency in life, there is need for undivided rule in rightly directed governments, and in those wrongly directed as well…
Dante Alighieri, De Monarchia
Dante continued by escalating his analogy to the level of the individual kingdom, which requires a ruler. He cited Our Lord in saying ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.’ Dante concluded,
We are now agreed that the whole human race is ordered for one end, as is already shown. It is meet, therefore, that the leader and loes be one, and that he be called Monarch, or Emperor. Thus it becomes obvious that for the well-being of the world there is needed a Monarchy, or Empire
Dante Alighieri, De Monarchia
This is not the only argument by Dante. He states that there is a relation between parts and the whole: If an order is present in the parts, then, as that order relates to the whole like in the parts, the aforementioned order should be present in the whole in a greater way. Example: Since an army has leaders of individual parts to accomplish objectives, so should the entire army have one leader to accomplish objectives of the whole. Since the individual parts have rulers, then even more so should the whole of the army. Dante stated,
For example, in the army there is an order among its divisions, and an order of the whole with reference to the general. The order of the parts with reference to the third entity is superior, for partial order has its end in total order, and exists for the latter’s sake. Wherefore, if the form of the order is discernable in the parts of the humman aggregate, it should, by virtue of the previous syllogism, be much more discernable in the aggregate or totality, because total order or form of order is superior. Now, as is sufficiently manifest from what was said in the preceding chapter, it is discernable in all units of the human race, and therefore must be or ought to be discernable in the totality itself. And so all parts which we have designatrd as included in kingdoms, and so kingdoms themselves, should be ordered with reference to one Prince or Principality, that is, to one Monarch or Monarchy
Dante Alighieri, De Monarchia
The Natural Law Argument
That there should be a worldwide sovereign can also be known from natural law. Pius XII the Second Vatican Council, and the Catholic tradition clearly teach that the entire human race is bound by moral and juridical bonds. Additionally, they indicate that all within mankind must tend toward the common good of the whole human race. Moral and juridical bonds, and care for the common good, are addressed primarily by civil authorities. Therefore, it follows that the entire world ought to have a universal authority
Pius XII taught that individual states aren’t the final ultimate authority, and that there are juridical and moral bonds above them all,
71. The idea which credits the State with unlimited authority is not simply an error harmful to the internal life of nations, to their prosperity, and to the larger and well-ordered increase in their well-being, but likewise it injures the relations between peoples, for it breaks the unity of supra-national society, robs the law of nations of its foundation and vigor, leads to violation of others’ rights and impedes agreement and peaceful intercourse.
72. A disposition, in fact, of the divinely sanctioned natural order divides the human race into social groups, nations or States, which are mutually independent in organization and in the direction of their internal life. But for all that, the human race is bound together by reciprocal ties, moral and juridical, into a great commonwealth directed to the good of all nations and ruled by special laws which protect its unity and promote its prosperity.
73. Now no one can fail to see how the claim to absolute autonomy for the State stands in open opposition to this natural way that is inherent in man – nay, denies it utterly – and therefore leaves the stability of international relations at the mercy of the will of rulers, while it destroys the possibility of true union and fruitful collaboration directed to the general good.
If the entire human race is a commonwealth bound by moral and juridical bonds, then it would be fitting for there to exist a universal political entity. A worldwide civil authority would lead individual nations in addressing issues of a juridical and moral nature. Pius XII indicates that some conclude the temporal hierarchy with individual states. This view of the individual nation’s government as the final authority ‘breaks the unity of supra-national society.‘
The Second Vatican Council recognized the increasing need to address the universal common good that involves the whole human family,
26. Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family.
Given the need to being peace to all nations, and to address the common good of the entire universal family, universal political authority is necessary. A civil authority’s reason for existing is to work for the common good of a society,
1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1910
So, then, if there exists a universal common good of the entire human race, and civil authorities exist for the attainment of the common good in their spheres, a universal political authority ought to be established over all peoples.
All States must tend to the common good of all mankind. Mankind, i.e., the human race, has unity of origin, unity of nature, and unity of territory or habitation, which is the whole world. Hence all men, all groups or communities of men, and all States must tend to the common good of all mankind…
International society fosters peace and harmony among nations, because the enforcement of international law belongs to a superior authority, just as the enforcement of laws governing the relations between individual persons is reserved to the political authority. Hence States can, without recourse to war, settle their quarrels according to the principles of justice.
Another article, “The ghost at the Brexit feast”, gives an argument for universal political authority within the confines of the principle of subsidiarity,
The basic reason for supranational government is this: some problems are bigger than individual nation-states. Indeed, in an increasingly interconnected world—globalized, we suppose, is the unfortunate word for it—individual nations are simply not competent to handle certain issues. Consider, for example, international crime—the drug trade, sex trafficking, or any of a whole host of similar evils. Certainly, it is possible to address the issue in each country, but we have seen that that simply does not work. Drugs are produced in one country, trafficked across several countries, and sold in another country still.
Numerous Popes have explicitly applied this idea in calling for a universal political authority. Pope St. John XXIII wrote,
132. No era will ever succeed in destroying the unity of the human family, for it consists of men who are all equal by virtue of their natural dignity. Hence there will always be an imperative need—born of man’s very nature—to promote in sufficient measure the universal common good; the good, that is, of the whole human family.
133. In the past rulers of States seem to have been able to make sufficient provision for the universal common good through the normal diplomatic channels, or by top-level meetings and discussions, treaties and agreements; by using, that is, the ways and means suggested by the natural law, the law of nations, or international law.
134. In our own day, however, mutual relationships between States have undergone a far reaching change. On the one hand, the universal common good gives rise to problems of the utmost gravity, complexity and urgency—especially as regards the preservation of the security and peace of the whole world. On the other hand, the rulers of individual nations, being all on an equal footing, largely fail in their efforts to achieve this, however much they multiply their meetings and their endeavors to discover more fitting instruments of justice. And this is no reflection on their sincerity and enterprise. It is merely that their authority is not sufficiently influential.
135. We are thus driven to the conclusion that the shape and structure of political life in the modern world, and the influence exercised by public authority in all the nations of the world are unequal to the task of promoting the common good of all peoples.
Pope St. Paul VI praised the work of the United Nations, and went so far as to imply that the UN reflects in the temporal the place the Church holds in the spiritual,
Your Charter goes even farther, and our message moves ahead with it. You are in existence and you are working in order to unite nations, to associate States. Let us use the formula: to bring them together with each other. You are an association, a bridge between peoples, a network of relations between States. We are tempted to say that in a way this characteristic of yours reflects in the temporal order what our Catholic Church intends to be in the spiritual order: one and universal. Nothing loftier can be imagined on the natural level, as far as the ideological structure of mankind is concerned.
Following in the footsteps of Pope St. Paul VI, St. John Paul II gave a UN General Assembly speech
As a universal community embracing faithful belonging to almost all countries and continents, nations, peoples, races, languages and cultures, the Church is deeply interested in the existence and activity of the Organization whose very name tells us that it unites and associates nations and States. It unites and associates: it does not divide and oppose. It seeks out the ways for understanding and peaceful collaboration, and endeavours with the means at its disposal and the methods in its power to exclude war, division and mutual destruction within the great family of humanity today…I would like to express the wish that, in view of its universal character, the United Nations Organization will never cease to be the forum, the high tribune from which all man’s problems are appraised in truth and justice.
Pope Benedict XVI made the same call for a supra-national universal temporal authority,
67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146]and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making.This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace also called for a world political authority,
Consistent with the spirit of Pacem in Terris, Benedict XVI himself expressed the need to create a world political authority.13 This seems obvious if we consider the fact that the agenda of questions to be dealt with globally is becoming ever longer. Think, for example, of peace and security; disarmament and arms control; promotion and protection of fundamental human rights; management of the economy and development policies; management of migratory flows and food security; and protection of the environment. In all these areas, the growing interdependence between States and regions of the world becomes more and more obvious as well as the need for answers that are not just sectorial and isolated, but systematic and integrated, rich in solidarity and subsidiarity and geared to the universal common good…
The purpose of a public authority, as John XXIII reminded us in Pacem in Terris, is first and foremost to serve the common good. Therefore, it should be endowed with structures and adequate, effective mechanisms equal to its mission and the expectations placed in it…
Pope Francis, in his encyclical on care for the planet, reaffirmed this call for a universal temporal authority,
The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. As Benedict XVI has affirmed in continuity with the social teaching of the Church: “…there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”
Subsidarity: How Nations Still are Distinct and Have Individual Governance and Race
A universal monarchy or governance would not consume the individual national governments and identities of the world. In the Catholic Church, many objectors to the universal headship of the Pope argue that it eliminates the need for individual bishops or priests. Similarly, those who are against federal governments often raise reasonable concerns about federal overstep.
These concerns, whether in manners ecclesiastical or civil, can be met with a beautiful principle of Catholic social teaching-The principle of subsidarity. Here are some definitions of this idea:
Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate level that is consistent with their resolution.
Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them
Pius XI Quadragesimo Anno
The Catholic ecclesial structure is a beautiful example of subsidiarity. Day to day operations of the Catholic parish are handled by individual priests. When their bishop is required for some matter, he intervenes. Despite bishops having the supreme authority in their dioceses, they do not conduct every day to day task of a parish. The Pope, as successor of Peter, supreme and universal jurisdiction in stewarding the universal Church. However, almost every Catholic parish will never be directly interacted with by this papal authority. As the authority of priests is not destroyed by that of bishops, so the authority of bishops is not eliminated by that of the Pope.
Was this principle of subsidiarity admitted by the great proponents of universal monarchy? It was a given for Dante who wrote,
But it must be noted well that when we assert that the human race is capable of being ruled by one supreme Prince, it is not to be understood that the petty decisions of every municipality can issue from him directly, for municipal laws do fail at tomes and have need of regulation, as the Philosopher shows in his commendation of equity in the fifth book to Nicomachus. Nations, kingdoms, and cities have individual conditions which must be governed by different laws…But rather let it be understood that the human race will be governed by him [the universal Monarch] in general matters pertaining to all peoples, and through him will be guided to peace by a government common to all…Moses himself wrote in the law that he had done this; for when he had taken the chiefs of the children of Israel, he relinquished to them minor decisions, always reserving for himself those important and of larger application; and in their tribes the chiefs made use of those of larger application according as they might be applied to each tribe
Dante De Monarchia Ch. 14
Alan Fimister argues in his important book on Catholic Social Teaching and the European Union,
Secular utopian federalism and Catholic solidarism differ markedly, in that the former seeks the replacement of the sovereign nation state with a new sovereign federal entity whereas the latter seeks to build a supranational edifice whose final justification is supernatural upon the essentially natural foundations of enduring nation states.
The Roman Empire, a model for universal temporal rule, as described by an ancient also affirms the principle of subsidiarity,
But thou, 0 Roman, learn with sovereign sway To rule the nations. Thy great art shall be To keep the world in lasting peace, to spare humbled foe, and crush to earth the proud. (Drydan trans.)
Ibid.
Another,
The Roman Empire is to operate on the principle of subsidiarity: each place will be bound to the universal through piety toward the local. This is to be achieved through the proper ordering of religion in which all the minor deities receive their due, but are subordinated to the universal god of law and reason: Jupiter. Hence Jupiter can say that the Romans will exceed the gods in piety (XII,839), for it is only through Rome’s pacification of the world that the gods themselves will be reconciled.
Ibid.
The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, having suggested practical steps for implementation, also stressed the need for subsidarity in the world political authority,
A supranational Institution, the expression of a “community of nations”, will not last long, however, if the countries’ differences from the standpoint of cultures, material and immaterial resources and historic and geographic conditions, are not recognized and fully respected. The lack of a convinced consensus, nourished by an unceasing moral communion on the part of the world community, would also reduce the effectiveness of such an Authority…
In the tradition of the Church’s Magisterium which Benedict XVI has vigorously embraced(16), the principle of subsidiarity should regulate relations between the State and local communities and between public and private institutions, not excluding the monetary and financial institutions. Likewise, on a higher level, it ought to govern the relationships between a possible future global public Authority and regional and national institutions. This principle guarantees both democratic legitimacy and the efficacy of the decisions of those called to make them. It allows respect for the freedom of people, individually and in communities, and allows them at the same time to take responsibility for the objectives and duties that pertain to them.
According to the logic of subsidiarity, the higher Authority offers its subsidium, that is, its aid, only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them(17). Thanks to the principle of solidarity, a lasting and fruitful relationship would build up between global civil society and a world public Authority as States, intermediate bodies, various institutions – including economic and financial ones – and citizens make their decisions with a view to the global common good, which transcends national goods.
As we read in Caritas in Veritate, “The governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together”(18). Only in this way can the danger of a central Authority’s bureaucratic isolation be avoided – an isolation that would risk its being delegitimized by an excessive distance from the realities which underlie its existence, and easily falling prey to paternalistic, technocratic or hegemonic temptations.
Andrew Willard Jones, Marc Barnes, and Jacob Fareed Imam of Postliberal Thought explain well the principle of subsidiarity,
Local politics may be the place where law is most properly made and enforced, but proper local law must be itself an instantiation of larger, more general law; this steady expansion ends only with the natural law, with the human participation in divine reason. This means that the smaller can be judged by the larger. But it does not mean that the smaller is a delegation from the larger. The town has every right to rule itself in justice through its own law. The king, however, has the obligation to make sure that they do so. Such hierarchy is almost nothing like the modern understanding of command structures. In this hierarchy, that which is higher has both less power and a wider scope for that power. He commands more of less, but that less is more fundamental. Such hierarchy culminates in the pope, who has no weapons, who controls not a single body, but who speaks with authority in matters of faith and morals, the most universal, and so judges everybody.
Liberal Nationalism: Contrary to Universal Sovereignty
In the face of the modern left’s attacks, and the growing erosion of European homelands, many in the far right turn to nationalism. There hope is to preserve their national identity and a patriotism. The concerns about preserving homelands certainly are legitimate (See: https://jokerturtle.home.blog/2019/11/02/cardinal-sarah-on-mass-migration-and-erosion-of-homelands/ ), but classical liberal nationalism is not the answer.
The article “What The Nationalists Get Wrong: A Defense of the Particular and the Universal” also discusses how the liberal nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries eliminated subsidiarity-based structures (from the lowest levels up to the universal sovereignty),
Uniform ethnicity and ideology were posited as the source of national unity even as they were, in fact, being invented. The nation was brought into being in history as timeless and natural. Once it was there, it was hard to see that it hadn’t always been. But, in fact, the nationalities of modernity were constructed as an integral aspect of the process of state-building. Nationalism was the univocal ideology that served to collapse the complex analogical hierarchies of pre-modern social order which stretched from the village to Christendom as a whole. The unity of nationalism is the unity of a flattened social order. It is the unity of mass politics, of mass media, of mass education, of mass economy. It is the unity of the ununified, of the rootless, of the commodified.
Ibid.
In the place of the traditional hierarchy of Catholic society, which was firmly established from every married couple all the way up to universal Christendom, the classical liberals placed the state as supreme,
In this new “unity,” everyone becomes a peer, citoyen, and the refusal of recognition of political authority except at the national level translates to a refusal of recognition of hierarchical relationships at any other level. Its function is to isolate individuals from each other and from humanity as a whole so that they might become more effective citizens, workers, and soldiers…
…this means the steady destruction of the family, the community, the city. Above them, this means the nation’s independence from the natural law, from universal demands of justice, from universal calls to charity and solidarity, ultimately from the universal spiritual power of the Church…
Ibid.
It certainly is no wonder, then, that western states today are fully manifesting themselves as the only hierarchy,
Nation-states were built as an alternative to Christendom. The nation-state broke both the institutional bridges between kingdoms that culminated in the papacy and the ideological commitment to Christianity as a universal bond.
Ibid.
The authors of the fine article cited above argue that Catholics, who want to return to tradition, must uphold all aspects of the old hierarchy: The family, the local community, villages, cities, individual sovereign nations, and, finally, the universal sovereignty. The Church, too, should be involved with, and not separate from, all aspects of this hierarchy.
Universal Solidarity Requires the True Faith
Separation of Church from family, community, state, and all other organizations is disordered. (See: https://jokerturtle.home.blog/2019/11/05/separation-of-church-and-state/ ) The same arguments against separating the Church from the individual government apply to supra-national political authority. According to Pope St. Pius X,
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.
At times one hears someone say: “I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, but I don’t care about the Church…”. How many times have we heard this? And this is not good. There are those who believe they can maintain a personal, direct and immediate relationship with Jesus Christ outside the communion and the mediation of the Church. These are dangerous and harmful temptations. These are, as the great Paul VI said, absurd dichotomies. It is true that walking together is challenging, and at times can be tiring: it can happen that some brother or some sister creates difficulties, or shocks us…. But the Lord entrusted his message of salvation to a few human beings, to us all, to a few witnesses; and it is in our brothers and in our sisters, with their gifts and limitations, that he comes to meet us and make himself known. And this is what it means to belong to the Church. Remember this well: to be Christian means belonging to the Church. The first name is “Christian”, the last name is “belonging to the Church”.
Dear friends, let us ask the Lord, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, for the grace never to fall into the temptation of thinking we can make it without the others, that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves on our own, of being Christians from the laboratory. On the contrary, you cannot love God without loving your brothers, you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church, and we cannot be good Christians if we are not together with those who seek to follow the Lord Jesus, as one single people, one single body, and this is the Church.
Likewise inseparable are Christ and the Church – because the Church and Mary are always together and this is precisely the mystery of womanhood in the ecclesial community – and the salvation accomplished by Jesus cannot be understood without appreciating the motherhood of the Church. To separate Jesus from the Church would introduce an “absurd dichotomy”, as Blessed Paul VI wrote (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 16). It is not possible “to love Christ but without the Church, to listen to Christ but not the Church, to belong to Christ but outside the Church” (ibid.). For the Church is herself God’s great family, which brings Christ to us. Our faith is not an abstract doctrine or philosophy, but a vital and full relationship with a person: Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God who became man, was put to death, rose from the dead to save us, and is now living in our midst. Where can we encounter him? We encounter him in the Church, in our hierarchical, Holy Mother Church. It is the Church which says today: “Behold the Lamb of God”; it is the Church, which proclaims him; it is in the Church that Jesus continues to accomplish his acts of grace which are the sacraments.
“a Christian without history, a Christian without a people, a Christian without the Church is incomprehensible: it is something invented in a lab, something artificial, something lifeless
Your vocation is a fundamental charism for the journey of the Church, and it is impossible for a consecrated man or woman not to “think” with the Church. “Thinking” with the Church begot us at Baptism; “thinking” with the Church finds one of its filial expressions in faithfulness to the Magisterium, in communion with the Pastors and the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, a visible sign of unity. Proclaiming and witnessing to the Gospel, for every Christian, are never an isolated act. This is important: for every Christian the proclamation of and witness to the Gospel are never an isolated act of an individual or a group. No evangelizer acts, as Paul vi recalled very well, “in virtue of a… personal inspiration, but in union with the mission of the Church and in her name” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, n. 60). And Paul VI proceeded: It is an absurd dichotomy to think of living with Christ without the Church, of following Jesus outside his Church, of loving Jesus without loving the Church (cf. ibid, n. 16).
[8] But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8
Because Jesus Christ is the divine and legitimate kingly authority over every atom and molecule of creation, families, communities, and even states must submit to Christ and His moral order. In the context of this truth, the Successors of Peter have repeatedly condemned the separation of Church and State. The Church affirms the principle that states, in the due order of justice, are bound (similar to the conscience of the individual) to recognize the Catholic Church, be unified with Her in some way, and to adhere to Her moral teaching.
In the years since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has been very outspoken against infringements on legitimate religious freedom. There are numerous examples in the 20th and 21st centuries of both the Church and other religious groups being persecuted unjustly. The states founded on western liberalism, communism, and socialism have all attempted to infringe on people’s ability to follow God-which is a true freedom and right. The Church has responded by upholding the freedom of an individual to follow God, as best as he knows how, without impediment.
Additionally, the Church has always been in favor of the separation of the ecclesial hierarchy and civil authority as distinct entities; Christ Himself made this distinction. This separation has been referred to as ‘Gelasian Diarchy’, the ‘Two Powers’, and recently by Popes as ‘separation of Church and State’. This must be interpreted, in light of tradition, as a simply a making of the distinction between the spiritual ecclesial hierarchy, and the temporal civil hierarchy. The origin, purpose, end, and nature of the Church hierarchy all preclude it from being equated with a civil entity, and vice versa. The Church ecclesial leadership is an entity. The State is an entity. They are distinct in origin, nature, and in their spheres of influence. There is a physical separation of the two. Civil and ecclesial authorities should not interfere with the legitimate operations of each other.
However, this distinction of Church and State as entities does not contradict the duty of the state to recognize Christ as King. By reason and authoritative Church teaching, it is made manifest that states are bound to profess and submit to Christ. This means that a state must also submit to the teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals. Since Christ is King of every state, and the Church is the pillar and foundation of God’s truth, states must work in union with the Church wherever Her teachings are relevant.
Church and State in Catholic History
As Christianity gained ascendency, it was given recognition by the state. The Edict of Thessolonica in 380 AD made the Catholic Faith the religion of the Roman Empire,
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians
Edict of Thessolonica
The early Church fathers of this time understood the Church to have a primacy over the state. For this reason, St. John Chrysostom said,
The Church is above the State, in the same way as the soul is above the body and heaven above the earth, and indeed far more.
Gregory of Nazianzen expressed this more directly,
Take not amiss my freedom of speech: the law of Christ subjects you to my power and to my throne; for we bishops also exercise a sovereignty, and, moreover, I add, a greater and more perfect sovereignty; or is perchance the spirit to be inferior to the flesh, the heavenly to the earthly?
Ibid.
St. Isidore of Pelusium stated,
The government of the world rests on kinghood and on priesthood: although the two differ widely – for one is as the body, the other as the soul – they are nevertheless destined to one end, the well-being of their subjects.
Ibid.
The teachings of the Popes consistently emphasized the States duty to submit in spiritual matters to the Church.
Pope Gelasius wrote to the Emperor Anastasius,
There are two powers by which the world is principally governed: the consecrated authority of the bishops and the authority of the king. Of these two, the burden of the bishops is the heavier, since they have to render account for kings themselves before the judgment-seat of God. If thou, by thy dignity, hast precedence amongst men, still must thou bow thy neck in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors; thou hast to direct thy course according to their judgment, not to lead them according to thine own pleasure. Still more hast thou to submit to the Bishop of the Roman See, set over all by the voice of Christ, and ever acknowledged with reverence as her head by the Church.
Gelasius, Famuli vestrae pietatis
Pope Symmachus declares,
If thou be a Christian prince, thou must hearken patiently to the voice of every bishop. When the dignity of emperor is compared to the dignity of bishop, the difference between them is as great as between the charge of things human and of things divine.
In the hour of death, no one calls for the assistance of an earthly king, but for that of a priest; priests are the fathers and teachers even of kings and princes, and Constantine himself considered them as his judges
Ibid.
This recognition of the Living God and His Church would continue for centuries as the norm. Delicate balances and cooperations were sought between Church and State. There were certainly times when both clergy and and civil authorities acted against religious freedom, and instances wherein the state infringed on the Church, but the principle of Christ’s social kingship was (in theory) recognized. According to the Church historian, canonist, and first Cardinal-Prefect of the Vatican Archives, Cardinal Joseph Hergenrother,
Throughout the Middle Ages, it was maintained as a doctrine that two powers have come down from God, the spiritual and the temporal, both indispensable to mankind, and appointed to work together in peace. Concord between the two was recognized as the foundation of the well-being of peoples and kingdoms, and discord as their ruin. The Church and State, distinct in aims and means, in extent and compass, are nevertheless to work together for the well-being of mankind, mutually supporting and aiding one another. But although both powers are coordinate and independent in their own domain, still a certain order of precedence must exist between them, since they do not precisely coincide; and in case of conflict preference must be given to one over the other; and in this case, the preference was given to the Church…The principle put forward by St. Augustine was maintained, i.e. that without true justice, which is the foundation of kingdoms, no government can endure; but that true justice exists only where the true faith reigns, where Christ is king.
Even though the Church and State were not separate in this period of the Faith, the two entities maintained relative independence and distinction. Cardinal Hergenrother recounts Pope Innocent III’s decree for a French king,
The principle of the Decree is that directly the Church has to pass judgment as to the violation of the moral law, indirectly as to the temporal matters involved. The Pope was not directly concerned in the execution of the sentence of the French feudal court, nor in the sentence itself, but grievous offences against the moral law fall under the judgment of the Head of the Church, who has power to proceed against the culprit with spiritual punishments. This is a power given not by men but by God, the power of binding and loosing given to St. Peter and affecting all Christians without respect of persons; even kings are subject to it, and all the more because, with this exception, they acknowledge no superior. The Pope has not to speak of temporal matters as such, and can only touch them indirectly when they are connected with a violation of the moral law. The Pope in this case is merely a subsidiary judge.
Ibid.
At this time, the state was part of the Church in a sense. The temporal authority was composed of professed Catholics. Understood in that way, the Church can be said to have an indirect civil power through her members that hold temporal authority. The Cardinal also demonstrates that, while the Church does not have direct temporal power, it does have indirect temporal power,
This indirect power of the Church in matters temporal in general, and in relation to the dethroning of princes in particular, is not a temporal but a spiritual power. It is exerted in matters temporal only in so far as they intrench upon religion, and in this way cease to be purely temporal. Thus Innocent IV said that the Church passed judgment in a spiritual manner on temporal matters (spiritualiter de temporalibus); and in his contest with Frederick II he declared that he was making use not of the temporal but of the spiritual sword.
Ibid.
The reflection of Pope Leo XIII, in his 19th century Encyclical Immortale Dei, paints a beautiful picture of the old Catholic order of Church and State,
There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favour of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is-beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.
Immortale Dei, Par. 21
Christ grants authority to Pope Gregory XIII and Philip II of Spain
Modern Separation of Church and State: Condemnd by the Supreme Pontiffs
As (classical) liberal and enlightenment ideas began to spread, separation of Church and State became attractive to many Europeans. The Popes responded.
Pope Gregory XVI gave the first systematic condemnation of liberalism and its tenant of separation of Church and State,
Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty
Mirari Vos, Pope Gregory XVI
Pius IX, by Encyclial letter in 1864, condemned the ‘evil opinion’ of eliminating Church guidance of State,
Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world — not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests
Quanta Cura, Bl. Pope Pius IX
The Syllabus of Errors, assembled by Bl. Pope Pius IX, lists and condemns errors of his time,
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
Syllabus of Erros, Pope Pius IX
The old Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the binding authority of the Syllabus of Errors,
Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.
A cartoon from 1870 by Thomas Nast about the alleged Catholic threat to the Republic’s separation of church and state. Pius IX is pictured in support of the mending of Church and State
Pope Leo XIII wrote voluminous amounts of social teaching. In his EncyclicalOn the Christian Constitution of States, Leo wrote quite a bit on Church and State. First, the Pontiff argued civil power is from God,
But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. “There is no power but from God.”(1)
Immortale Dei, (1)- Rom. 13:1.
Following this demonstration, Leo continued down the logical path. He clearly shows that God, and his manifestly true and knowable religion (the Catholic Faith), is owed honor and protection by the state,
6. As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -it is a public crime to act as though there were no God.So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honour the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favour religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety.
Ibid.
Leo XIII qualified this teaching by maintaining the independence of the Church from the State, and the distinction of the two entities,
Hence, it is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man’s guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion; of teaching all nations; of spreading the Christian faith as widely as possible; in short, of administering freely and without hindrance, in accordance with her own judgment, all matters that fall within its competence…
The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right
Ibid.
Leo XIII then contrasted the Catholic teaching of the State with the contemporary liberal position,
So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law…A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals.
Ibid.
Pope Leo XIII then explicitly affirmed Gregory XVI’s condemnation of Church and State articulated in Mirari Vos (See above). Leo XIII restated the independence of the Church, and its right to religious freedom from the State,
Again, that it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favour different kinds of religion; that the unrestrained freedom of thinking and of openly making known one’s thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens, and is by no means to be reckoned worthy of favour and support. In like manner it is to be understood that the Church no less than the State itself is a society perfect in its own nature and its own right, and that those who exercise sovereignty ought not so to act as to compel the Church to become subservient or subject to them, or to hamper her liberty in the management of her own affairs, or to despoil her in any way of the other privileges conferred upon her by Jesus Christ.
Ibid.
Leo XIII explicitly stated the above teachings to be those of the Catholic Church, not just his opinions as private theologian. Further, he indicated certain practical exceptions for protection of non-Catholic religions,
36. This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State… the Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, “Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.”
Ibid.
Pope Leo XIII attacked the modern separation of Church and State in other encyclicals as well. In his Encyclical on Human Liberty, Leo wrote,
There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State…
…Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect…
… Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs, and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which We disprove the principle of separation of Church and State are conclusive; with this super-added, that it is absurd the citizen should respect the Church, while the State may hold her in contempt.
Libertas, Par 18, 21, 39
In Leo’s Encyclical Human Genus, the Pope stated that Freemasonic sects upheld the false teaching of Separation of Church and State,
13. In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result – namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church.
Humanum Genus
In his enyclical letter on the Church and State in France, Leo condemns the Church and State as the separation of divine law from civil law,
28. We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself. As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man’s rights spring from his duty toward God.
AU MILIEU DES SOLLICITUDES
Finally, Pope Leo XIII also states that the distinction between the Church and State as entities, and their mutual independence, does not equate to Separation of Church and State,
30. The Church alike and the State, doubtless, both possess individual sovereignty; hence, in the carrying out of public affairs, neither obeys the other within the limits to which each is restricted by its constitution. It does not hence follow, however, that Church and State are in any manner severed, and still less antagonistic, Nature, in fact, has given us not only physical existence, but moral life likewise…Therefore, they who are engaged in framing constitutions and in enacting laws should bear in mind the moral and religious nature of man, and take care to help him, but in a right and orderly way, to gain perfection, neither enjoining nor forbidding anything save what is reasonably consistent with civil as well as with religious requirements. On this very account, the Church cannot stand by, indifferent as to the import and significance of laws enacted by the State; not insofar, indeed, as they refer to the State, but in so far as, passing beyond their due limits, they trench upon the rights of the Church.
Sapientiae Christianae
While the large number of teachings by Pope Leo XIII certainly bear considerable weight and authority, and his arguments are certainly convincing, the Church did not stop affirming Her doctrine on Church and State. Pope St. Pius X, in the face of France’s secularization of public life, wrote,
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only…Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. “Between them,” he says, “there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.
VEHEMENTER NOS, Pope Pius X
Pius XI reinforced this teaching by instituting the Feast of Christ the King,
We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations….
…we deem it in keeping with our Apostolic office to accede to the desire of many of the Cardinals, Bishops, and faithful, made known to Us both individually and collectively, by closing this Holy Year with the insertion into the Sacred Liturgy of a special feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ…
It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings…
To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.”[28] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ…If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ…
When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony…
That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ.
Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI
In response to the removal of the Catholic Faith from public life in Spain, Pius XI wrote forcefully against Separation of Church and State,
But if the pretension of excluding from public life God the Creator and Provident Ruler of that same society is impious and absurd for any people whatsoever, it is particularly repugnant to find this exclusion of God and Church from the life of the Spanish Nation, where the Church always and rightly has held the most important and most beneficially active part in legislation, in schools, and in all other private and public institutions. If such an attempt results in irreparable harm to the Christian conscience of the country, especially to its youth, whom they would educate without religion, and to families, profaned in the most sacred principles, no less harm befalls that same civil authority. When this loses the support that recommends it, nay sustains it, in the conscience of the people, namely the persuasion of its Divine origin, dependence and sanction, it loses at the same time its greatest power to obligate, and its highest title to be respected. That this inevitable damage follows a regime of separation is attested by not a few among the very nations that, after having introduced it in their regulations, very soon realized the necessity of remedying the error, either modifying, at least in their interpretation and application, the laws persecuting the Church, or endeavoring, in spite of separation, to come to a pacific plan of coexistence and cooperation with the Church.
Pope Pius XII continued the teaching of the Church against separation of the spiritual and temporal in civil matters. According to John Courtney Murray, in an article for Georgetown University,
Pius XII also condemns separationism: “The Church cannot approve the complete separation of the two powers as a matter of principle, or as a thesis.” Here again he is in the tradition of Leo XIII, defending the same principle, rejecting the contrary principle. But the context is significant. It has to do with Concordats, which are, he says, “an expression of cooperation between Church and state.” The “two powers” are the spiritual authority of the universal Church, represented by the Holy See, and the political authority within a given regional or national society. Pius XII here preserves the perspectives of the entire Allocution, which are those of the universal Church as it confronts the individual states that are actual or potential members of an international community.
The Church’s teaching seems clear in the decades before Vatican II. Severing the state from the Church and Christ’s spiritual authority is a sin against justice, and therefore the state must recognize, and be in accordance and unity with, the Church. However, as one reads the concilliar and post-concilliar documents of the Second Vatican Council, things can become a bit murky. Separation, independence, and autonomy become common words used to denote the distinction between Church and State as entities. Therefore, the following quote from Pius XII is helpful to understand Church teaching in the age of Vatican II,
Let your cities be a living part of the Church. In Italy, there are those who get upset, because they fear that Christianity will take away from Caesar what belongs to Caesar. As if giving Caesar what belongs to him was not a command from Jesus; as if the legitimate healthy secularism of the state were not one of the principles of Catholic doctrine; as if the continuous effort to keep the two Powers united, always according to the right principles, was not the tradition of the Church
Pope Pius XII is in favor of the state being secular and separate from the Church in the sense that the ecclesial and civil are two distinct powers. However, the ‘tradition of the Church’ and ‘right principles’ still lead the Church, according to Pius XII, to keep the two powers united.
Church and State Since Vatican II
Some Catholics, while acknowledging Separation of Church and State was rejected by the Catholic Church and her Popes for centuries, argue that the Faithful are no longer bound to hold this belief. These Catholics state that the traditional teaching on Church and State was abrogated at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. This is false. The Church has focused her emphasis on religious freedom, and the distinction between the two entities, but has continued to maintain that states should cooperate with the Church. Further, the Church has continued to teach that states are subject to the moral law.
The backdrop for Vatican II must be considered before diving into the documents of the Council. By the time of this Council, the old Catholic states had been superseded by secular liberal states. Therefore, a condemnation of Separation of Church and State would be superfluous, since there was not much a of a union of the two in the first place. Further, the real issue facing the Church at this time was persecution by secular states. Socialist, Communist, and even Liberal states at this time were finding creative ways to persecute the Faithful. In this context, the Second Vatican Council withheld from commentary on Church and State union. Rather, the Council focused on condemning state oppression of religious freedom.
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.
Dignitatis humanae, Par. 2.
The document on religious freedom, however, firmly states that it leaves prior teaching on moral duties of societies toward God untouched,
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Ibid. Par. 1
Not only does the Council claim to not be changing traditional Catholic social teaching, but it also gives room for that teaching in certain places. Dignitatis humanae leaves open the possibility of a state giving recognition to the Catholic Church, and also remarks that states must promote conditions that foster religion,
Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men’s faithfulness to God and to His holy will. (6)
If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.
Ibid. Par. 6
The Vatican Council’s teaching also states clearly that a civil authority must legislate in accordance with God’s moral order,
However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
Ibid.
Another Council document, Gaudiem et Spes, states that State and Church should cooperate,
“Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation (§76).”
Gaudium et Spes
The Popes since the Second Vatican Council are claimed to repudiate Separation of Church and State. An example is the following quote of Pope St. John Paul II,
In fulfilling this task, the clear distinction between the civil and religious spheres allows each of these sectors to exercise its proper responsibilities effectively, with mutual respect and in complete freedom of conscience
This statement does not run counter to the countless teachings of John Paul’s predecessors in the Apostolic See. All Pope St. John Paul II has done is, in the context of Turkey (a historically non-Catholic state), emphasize the distinction between Church and State-not their separation. Further, it makes sense that the Pope would stress religious freedom given Turkey’s history with the Christian religion.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church speaks on the independence of Church and State, and their distinction as unique entities. However, it claims that States have a duty to be subject to the moral law, and that cooperation between Church and State is important,
425. The mutual autonomy of the Church and the political communitydoes not entail a separation that excludes cooperation.Both of them, although by different titles, serve the personal and social vocation of the same human beings.
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
It is of course true that the purposes of the Church and the State are of different orders, and that both are perfect societies, endowed therefore with their own means, and are autonomous in their respective spheres of activity. But it is also true that both the one and the other undertake to serve the good of the same common subject, man, called by God to eternal salvation and put on earth so that he might, with the help of grace attain unto salvation through his work, which brings him well-being in the peaceful setting of society”.[924] The good of people and human communities is served by a structured dialogue between the Church and civil authorities, which also finds expression in the stipulation of mutual agreements. This dialogue tends to establish or strengthen relations of mutual understanding and cooperation, and also serves to prevent or resolve eventual disputes.
Ibid. Par. 445
The political commitment of Catholics is often placed in the context of the “autonomy” of the State, that is, the distinction between the political and religious spheres[1194]. This distinction “is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to the inheritance of contemporary civilization”[1195]. Catholic moral doctrine, however, clearly rejects the prospects of an autonomy that is understood as independence from the moral law: “Such ‘autonomy’ refers first of all to the attitude of the person who respects the truths that derive from natural knowledge regarding man’s life in society, even if such truths may also be taught by a specific religion, because truth is one”[1196]. Asincere quest for the truth, using legitimate means to promote and defend the moral truths concerning social life — justice, freedom, respect for life and for other human rights — is a right and duty of all members of a social and political community…
Ibid. Par. 572. [1194] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 76: AAS 58 (1966), 1099-1100. [1195] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (24 November 2002), 6: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2002, p. 11. [1196] Ibid. p. 12.
Even today there are states that uphold the traditional teaching against total separation of Church and State. Lichtenstein, a tiny state between Switzerland and Austria, still holds the Catholic Faith to be their official religion,
The Catholic Church, as written in the Constitution of Liechtenstein, is the official state religion of Liechtenstein. The constitution declares that the Catholic Church is “the State Church and as such shall enjoy the full protection of the State.”
Some hold that the Popes following the Second Vatican Council have contradicted Church teaching against separation of Church and State. This is erroneous. Here is one such example-a quote from Pope Benedict XVI,
The Catholic Church is eager to share the richness of the Gospels social message, for it enlivens hearts with a hope for the fulfilment of justice and a love that makes all men and women truly brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. She carries out this mission fully aware of the respective autonomy and competence of Church and State. Indeed, we may say that the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions.
If one reads this quote with a mind for continuity, they will find that it is fully in line with prior church teaching. The Popes have stressed the independence, autonomy, and distinction of Church and State, while simultaneously condemning separation of Church and State. Christianity introduced the idea of an ecclesial spiritual authority as a separate entity from the civil state. Prior to Christianity, this was not the way things were done. In the bronze age, priest-kings were quite common. The Old Testament also has examples of the leader of religion being the leader of the state. The Roman Emperor, too, was both pontiff of spiritual and temporal matters. When Pope Benedict XVI was still Cardinal Ratzinger, he demonstrated his awareness of this novelty of Christianity
[W]e must take a clearer look at the relationship of the Church to the political sphere. For this Christ’s words remain fundamental: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt 22:21). This saying opened up a new section in the history of the relationship between politics and religion. Until then the general rule was that politics itself was the sacral…
This equation of the state’s claim on man with the sacral claim of the universal divine will itself was cut in two by the saying of Jesus we have quoted above…
At the same time it must be said that it is precisely this separation of the authority of the state and sacral authority, the new dualism that this contains, that represents the origin and the permanent foundation of the western idea of freedom. From now on there were two societies related to each other but not identical with each other, neither of which had this character of totality. The state is no longer itself the bearer of a religious authority that reaches into the ultimate depths of conscience, but for its moral basis refers beyond itself to another community. This community in its turn, the Church, understands itself as a final moral authority which however depends on voluntary adherence and is entitled only to spiritual but not to civil penalties, precisely because it does not have the status the state has of being accepted by all as something given in advance…
But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the justification of morality
The above quote provides a hermenuetic for understanding Pope Benedict’s statements on a ‘legitimate separation of Church and State’, and the ‘respective autonomy’ of the two entities. Benedict and John Paul II have both frequently emphasized the separation of the ecclesial body and the civil body as simply the distinction between the two entities (as introduced by Christ)
Our Lord split the Church and State into two entities by bringing a kingdom ‘not of this earth,’ and entrusting it to Peter and the Apostles. The ecclesial hierarchy was not made the civil authority of the universe, and did not demand obedience in all temporal affairs. Voluntarily, believers in Jerusalem placed their possessions ‘at the feet of the Apostles’, granting their spiritual leaders temporal authority over them. This mirrors the events that transpired with the formation of Church property and the papal states. However, Jesus founded a Church, a hierarchical organism that would not rise and fall with every nation, to be supreme in matters of religion. State affairs were left to Caesar, and an individual state would no longer be considered a divine kingdom of God(s). Many states have tried to be permanent divine kingdoms, but they are all now dust.
Pope Benedict did not believe that this physical separation between the entities of Church and State eliminated their cooperation,
The Church’s witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.
In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularismwhich finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.
Pope Benedict also commented that the American separation of Church and State has been dentriental to the Faith,
Within the context of the separation of Church and State, American society has always been marked by a fundamental respect for religion and its public role, and, if polls are to be believed, the American people are deeply religious. But it is not enough to count on this traditional religiosity and go about business as usual, even as its foundations are being slowly undermined. A serious commitment to evangelization cannot prescind from a profound diagnosis of the real challenges the Gospel encounters in contemporary American culture.
…Perhaps America’s brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things “out there” are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ.
The previous Pope, while observing that their is some religiosity in America, points out (in the context of separation of Church and State) that America has a harmful secularism that separates faith from everyday life.
Civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect…
Pope LEo XIII
6/7/1982 President Reagan Nancy Reagan Pope John Paul II at the Papal Library Vatican Pontifical Palace in Italy
2104 “All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.”26 This duty derives from “the very dignity of the human person.”27 It does not contradict a “sincere respect” for different religions which frequently “reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,”28 nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians “to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith.”29
2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is “the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.”30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them “to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.”31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33
2106 “Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits.”34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.”35
2107 “If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well.”36
2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with “legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.”40
Catechism of the Catholic Church, accessed through https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm 27 DH 2 § 1. 28 NA 2 § 2. 29 DH 14 § 4. 30 DH 1 § 3. 31 AA 13 § 1. 32 Cf. DH 1. 33 Cf. AA 13; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 3,17; Pius XI, Quas primas 8,20. 34 DH 2 § 1. 35 DH 2 § 2. 36 DH 6 § 3. 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799. 38 Cf. DH 2. 39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3. 40 DH 7 § 3.
There is very little we know about both St. Linus and St. Anacletus. These two early prelates might not have been Successors of St Peter-they may have functioned as auxiliary bishops. Therefore it seems fitting to make one post about both of them.
Linus
Linus is, according to St. Irenaeus, mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his second epistle to Timothy,
Make haste to come before winter. Eubulus and Pudens, and Linus and Claudia, and all the brethren, salute thee.
2 Timothy 4:21
Linus, then, was one of the ‘brethren’ of Paul. This is important because it adds historical credibility to those early fathers who indicate Linus was ordained by Paul.
The Liber Pontificalis, a collection of papal biographies assembled in the fifth century, says that Linus was an Italian. The biography (which might not be historically accurate) says Linus ‘was from the province of Tuscany.’ This text also says Linus reigned as Pontiff for around 11 years, and was buried near Peter. The Liberian Catalog, which was assembeld in the third and fourth centuries, says that Linus was Pontiff for 12 years.
Rev. Alban Butler writes about Linus,
St. Linus, succeeding St. Peter after his martyrdom, sat twelve years,3 and is named among the martyrs in the canon of the Roman mass, which is certainly older in this part than the sacramentary of Gelasius, and of the greatest authority in this point. It is not indeed impossible that he might be called a martyr on account of his sufferings for the faith, without dying by the sword. St. Linus was buried on the Vatican hill, near the tomb of St. Peter. 1 This saint distinguished himself among the illustrious disciples of the apostles, who were formed upon their model to perfect virtue, and filled with the holy spirit of the gospel. How little are we acquainted with this spirit of fervour, charity, meekness, patience, and sincere humility; without which it is in vain that we bear the honourable name of Christians, and are a reproach and scandal to so sacred a profession!
Lives of the Saints
Dom Gueranger also has an entry for St. Linus,
The lives of the first Vicars of Christ are buried in a mysterious obscurity; just as the foundations of a monument built to defy the ravages of time are concealed from view. To be the supports of the everlasting Church is a sufficient glory: sufficient to justify our confidence in them, and to awaken our gratitude.
Dom Prosper Gueranger, Liturgical Year
Anacletus
Pope Anacletus is also said to have reigned about 12 years by the early sources.
On Anacletus, Dom Propser Gueranger enscribes,
It was also during his pontificate that the Eternal City had the glory of receiving within its walls the beloved disciple, who had come to fulfill his promise and drink of his Master’s chalice. “O happy Church,” exclaims Tertullian, “into whose bosom the Apostles poured not only all their teaching, but their very blood; where Peter imitated his Lord’s Passion by dying on the cross; where Paul, like John the Baptist, received his crown by means of the sword; whence the Apostle John, after coming forth safe and sound from the boiling oil, was sent to the isle of his banishment.”
Dom Gueranger, Liturgical Year
The Succession from the Apostles
It is abundantly clear that the Apostles left bishops to govern each Church. Clement of Rome, Pope at the end of the first century, states,
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians
Irenaeus of Lyons writes around 180 AD,
We are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men to our own times
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies
The earliest sources, while in universal agreement that Peter (and Paul) left bishops as their successors in Rome, are in conflict about who followed Peter first.
Irenaeus says that Linus and Anacletus followed Peter, and then Clement was bishop,
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies
Tertullian, in the third century, seems to indicate that Clement followed Peter. However, this text might reconcilable with Irenaeus. Clement was ordained by Peter, but then may have waited until after Linus and Anacletus to reign. Tertullian writes,
For in this way Apostolic Churches declare their origin [succession of bishops]: as, for instance, the Church of the Smyrnaeans records that Polycarp was placed there by John; and the Roman Church that Clement was ordained thereto by Peter.
Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics
The pre-Nicene, and probably third century, Poem Against the Marcionite heretics says,
Of whom the first whom Peter bade to take his place and sit upon this chair in mightiest Rome where he himself had sat, was Linus the great, elect, and by the Mass approved. And after him Cletus himself the fold’s flock undertook; as his successor Anacletus was, By lot located; Clement follows him…
Poem Against Marcion
This poem clearly testifies that Linus was the successor of Peter first. The only difficulty with this text is that it has two Popes between Linus and Clement: Cletus and Anacletus. Every historian I have read on this states that this a simple error. Anacletus was sometimes called Cletus, and some mistakenly thought he was two different people.
Eusebius, the first ecclesiastical historian, wrote in the third century (he bases his information off of the second century papal lists of Hegesippus and Irenaeus), and he holds that Linus and Anacletus were both bishops before Clement
After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle…Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus.
Eusebius, Church History Bk III
The fourth century Apostolic Constitutions have a very unqiue view. They seem to indicate that Linus was a bishop in Rome from Paul, and then Peter ordained Clement,
Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul;and Clement, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter
Apostolic Constitutions
This text can also be reconciled with the older view of Irenaeus. It still has a sequential order of Linus first and Clement after him (oddly skipping Anacletus). Perhaps Paul ordained Linus, which is why Linus is mentioned at an earlier date by Paul in 2 Timothy, and then later Linus came to Rome and became the second Pope (after the death of Peter obviously). Which apostle ordained Linus and Clement has no bearing on whether they later became Popes. Peter may have chosen Linus as his successor, even though Linus was previously ordained by Paul (not Peter). It is fully compatible with The Apostolic Constitutions to say Linus was Pope after Peter’s death. The only odditity here is the lack of a mention of Anacletus.
St. Jerome, also a fourth century source, indicates that there was a divergence of opinion in his day,
Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says, ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle.
Jerome, On Illustrious Men
St. Epiphanius, also from the fourth century, wrote,
In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list.
The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Bk 1, Against Carpocratians, Sect. 6
St. Optatus, a bishop of Milevis in the fourth century, states also that Linus and Anacletus had seperate pontificates. He does, however, mistakenly have Clement before Anacletus,
To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus
Optatus of Milevis, Book 2 Against the Donatists
The ancient Roman Canon of the Mass, which was extant around the time period of Augustine, has a list of Popes,
…We honor Linus, Cletus, Clement…
Roman Canon
These primary sources leave us with both historical certainties and historical quandaries. They show that the Peter and Paul definitely left a successor in the Roman Bishopric, but they leave unclear who was the immediate successor of Peter. Were Linus and Anacletus indeed sequentially bishops of Rome after Peter and Paul? This would conflict with (possibly) Tertullian and, according to Jerome, the latins of the fourth century. However, if we accept the position that Linus and Anacletus were merely auxillary-type (not monarchical) bishops, then we run up against the earliest sources (Irenaeus, Hegesippus).
The resolution is not too challenging. Tertullian’s text and The Apostolic Constitutions can be reconciled with the view that Linus and Anacletus were Popes before Clement (see above). The early fathers that explicitly hold Clement was the first were many latins of Jerome’s day. However, the earliest sources (Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and the Poem Against Marcion), the East (Represented by Epiphanius), North Africa (represented by Optatus), and many Roman sources (the Roman Canon, the Liberian Catalog, and the Liber Pontificalis) all attest to Linus and Anacletus having distinct pontificates prior to Clement I.
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry favors the earlier sources:
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority.
Bryan Cross, in an article for Called to Communion, forcefully indicates that Linus was successor of Peter,
Indeed, undoubtedly there are mistakes and discrepancies in the patristic writings. But none justifies calling into question the veracity of St. Irenaeus’s list, or the claim by all nine lists we have, i.e., (1) from St. Hegesippus through St. Epiphanius, (2) from the ancient Roman Canon of the Mass (3) from St. Irenaeus, (4) from Julius Africanus (who composed the five books of his Chronographiai between AD 212 and 221, and which Eusebius claimed to have in its entirety) through Eusebius, (5) from St. Jerome, (6) from the third century Poem against Marcion, (7) from St. Hippolytus in the Liberian Catalogue, (8) from St. Optatus, (9) and from St. Augustine, that there was a succession of bishops in Rome from St. Peter…And all of the nine lists list St. Linus as the first after St. Peter.
The most likely and common opinion seems to be that Linus and Anacletus both were individual Popes. Clement could have indeed been ordained by Peter, as Tertullian opines, and not held the Chair of Peter until after the death of Anacletus. This opinion is mentioned by Epiphanius,
But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened — I suspect this but cannot say it for certain — he could have been compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the deaths of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.)In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus…
The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Bk 1, Against Carpocratians, Sect. 6.
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.
Deuteronomy 32:8
In an interview with a French magazine, as reported through The Tablet, Cardinal Sarah warned that the West was being eroded by mass migration,
If the West continues in this fatal way there is a great risk that, due to a lack of birth, it will disappear, invaded by foreigners, just as Rome was invaded by barbarians.
It is better to help people flourish in their culture than to encourage them to come to a Europe in full decadence…it is a false exegesis to use the Word of God to promote migration.
If Europe disappears, and with it the priceless values of the Old Continent, Islam will invade the world, and we will completely change culture, anthropology and moral vision.
The position of Cardinal Sarah is not one of bigotry or hatred. This Prince of the Church expresses concern for how migration hurts the migrants themselves. Cardinal Sarah does not want immigrants to be corrupted by a Europe ‘in full decadence.’ Simultaneously, the good Cardinal voices concern for the erosion of the European homeland, its culture, and the remaining vestiges of Christendom therein.
At a speech in October of 2017 Cardinal Sarah stated,
The ideology of liberal individualism promotes a mixing that is designed to erode the natural borders of homelands and cultures, and leads to a post-national and one-dimensional world where the only things that matter are consumption and production,
At this same speech, Cardinal Sarah placed his opinions on migration in line with those of the Holy Father,
Echoing Pope Francis, the cardinal said European nations must take part of the responsibility if they have destabilised the countries that migrants are travelling from, however that does not mean changing themselves through mass immigration.
Ibid.
Cardinal Sarah is explicitly against the currents in liberal globalism that ruin differenced between peoples,
Men do not resemble one another. Nature, too, is multifariously rich, because he ordained it so. Our Father thought that his children could be enriched by their differences. Today globalization is contrary to the divine plan. It tends to make humanity uniform. Globalization means cutting man off from his roots, from his religion, from his culture, history, customs, and ancestors. He becomes stateless, without a country, without a land. He is at home everywhere and nowhere.
The Cardinal continues by identifying harmful influences of capitalism in this universalizing,
Capitalism tends to reduce humanity to one central figure: the consumer. All economic forces attempt to create a buyer who can be the same anywhere on the globe. The Australian consumer must resemble the Spanish or the Romanian consumer exactly. Cultural and national identities must not be a hindrance to the building of this interchangeable man. The standardization of consumer products is the perfect reflection of the aridity of this soulless civilization.
Ibid.
In an interview found on Youtube (which you can watch with English captions using the ‘Auto-Translate’ feature), Cardinal Sarah expressed somewhat nativist views,
I think that every people would like to live in his heritage, in his country, in his region, in his culture, and in his story. No one would like to be moved out of place. There was always migration in the world [for various reasons]…I think God would like us to stay in the country he gave us. I am African and I live in Africa. That does not mean we do not have any contact between peoples…But every people has the right to stay in his territory…what I find unfortunate is that we do not take correct, concrete measures to stabilize every people in his own country-help him grow in his country. My vision is that everyone is helped to flourish to live in his country, and not be moved [especially] without security…The children are out of place when they do not know what their culture is. Of course, this brings a great cultural instability, a great religious instability, a great instability from the anthropological point of view, because someone who has no roots, who has no place to put is head is someone threatened with constant instability. And so, for me, I think the question of migration is a question which should be approached with a lot of wisdom, a lot of respect, especially respect for identities, and so that there is no human trafficking or human slavery
Is Cardinal Sarah’s Opinion Compatible with Catholic Teaching?
Cardinal Sarah was not the first significant Catholic to express this view: Peoples ought to preserve their homelands and live within their cultures. St. Augustine, in his commentary on Galatians 3:28 said,
Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule
Augustine, Commentary on Galatians
Blessed Cardinal Stepinac, a prominent cleric during the 1930s and 1940s, expressed the opinion that it was fitting for the “sons of the nation” to rule in their homelands,
God, therefore, had great and wise reasons when He created diversity among peoples and when He gave the commandment of sincere love for one’s own nation to the hearts and souls of men.
Cdl. Stepinac, Letters
Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical to the Germans, said,
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. What We object to is the voluntary and systematic antagonism raised between national education and religious duty. That is why we tell the young: Sing your hymns to freedom, but do not forget the freedom of the children of God.
Mitt Brennender Sorge Pius XI
There are two important takeaways from these excerpts. Pius XI stated race is a ‘fundamental value of the human community’ and is part of ‘an order of the world planned and created by God.’ This means that, while you should not elevate race above loyalty to the common good or God, race is absolutely an integral part of a community. Further, Pius XI states that the Germans could, in theory, establish an ethnic state if they maintained loyalty to God above all.
Pope St. John XXIII quotes Pius XII as defending the right of nations to defend their differences
“The Church of Jesus Christ,” as Our Predecessor Pius XII observed with such penetration, “is the repository of His wisdom; she is certainly too wise to discourage or belittle those peculiarities and differences which mark out one nation from another. It is quite legitimate for nations to treat those differences as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs…Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being. The wise development, the encouragement within limits, of that genius, those qualities, does no harm; and if a nation cares to take precautions, to lay down rules, for that end, it has the Church’s approval. She is mother enough to befriend such projects with her prayers provided that they are not opposed to the duties incumbent on men from their common origin and shared destiny.”
John XXIII, Mater et Magistra
Pope St. Paul VI affirmed that nations can value their traditional heritage, but he clarified that it must not infringe on solidarity with others,
It is quite natural that nations recently arrived at political independence should be quite jealous of their new-found but fragile unity and make every effort to preserve it. It is also quite natural for nations with a long-standing cultural tradition to be proud of their traditional heritage. But this commendable attitude should be further ennobled by love, a love for the whole family of man.
Paul VI, Populorum Progressio
Pope St. John Paul II affirmed the right of sovereign nations to control migration to protect the common good of native inhabitants. The Pontiff stated also that it would be beneficial for a region to preserve basic aspects of its heritage and national identity,
In the matter of controlling the influx of immigrants, the consideration which should rightly be given to the common good should not ignore this principle. The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life… On the other hand, as I noted above, one cannot underestimate the capacity of the characteristic culture of a region to produce a balanced growth, especially in the delicate early stages of life, in those who belong to that culture from birth. From this point of view, a reasonable way forward would be to ensure a certain “cultural equilibrium” in each region, by reference to the culture which has prevalently marked its development. This equilibrium, even while welcoming minorities and respecting their basic rights, would allow the continued existence and development of a particular “cultural profile”, by which I mean that basic heritage of language, traditions and values which are inextricably part of a nation’s history and its national identity.
The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church recognizes national sovereignty, and the right of people’s to preserve their identity,
The international community is a juridical community founded on the sovereignty of each member State, without bonds of subordination that deny or limit its independence.[887] Understanding the international community in this way does not in any way mean relativizing or destroying the different and distinctive characteristics of each people, but encourages their expression.[888] Valuing these different identities helps to overcome various forms of division that tend to separate peoples and fill them with a self-centredness that has destabilizing effects.
435. The Magisterium recognizes the importance of national sovereignty, understood above all as an expression of the freedom that must govern relations between States.[889] Sovereignty represents the subjectivity [890] of a nation, in the political, economic, social and even cultural sense. The cultural dimension takes on particular importance as a source of strength in resisting acts of aggression or forms of domination that have repercussions on a country’s freedom. Culture constitutes the guarantee for the preservation of the identity of a people and expresses and promotes its spiritual sovereignty.[891]
Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, Par. 434-435. [887] Cf. Pius XII, Christmas Radio Message on a Just International Peace (24 December 1939), 5: AAS 32 (1940), 9-11; Pius XII, Address to Catholic Jurists on the Community of States and of Peoples (6 December 1953), 2: AAS 45 (1953), 395- 396; John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), 289. [888] Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Fiftieth General Assembly of the United Nations (5 October 1995), 9-10: L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, 11 October 1995, p. 9. [889] Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), 289-290; John Paul II, Address to the Fiftieth General Assembly of the United Nations (5 October 1995), 15: L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, 11 October 1995, p. 10. [890] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 15: AAS 80 (1988), 528-530. [891] Cf. John Paul II, Address to UNESCO (2 June 1980), 14: L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, 23 June 1980, p. 11.
Even a statement of Pope Francis would seem to imply that the erosion of different ethnic, cultural, and national identities would be a sort of devastation,
Today, in fact, we see a tendency to “homogenize” young people, blurring what is distinctive about their origins and backgrounds, and turning them into a new line of malleable goods. This produces a cultural devastation that is just as serious as the disappearance of species of animals and plants.
Post-Synodal Exhortation Christus Vivit
Pope Francis has also observed and lamented the decline in birth rate of the European peoples,
Don’t they realize that the declining birth rate in Europe is enough to make us weep?
The Holy Father said, in the context of the refugee crises, that differences in identities (cultural, religious, or otherwise) leads to strife,
If many identities – whether cultural, religious – are living together in a country, there will be conflicts, but only with respect for the identity of the other
The Pope, in an interview, voiced opposition to aspects of contemporary globalism. He offered an alternative, more Catholic, globalism that preserves diversity,
It’s true, globalization saved many people from misery, but it condemned many others to die of hunger, because with this economic system it becomes selective. The globalization that the Church thinks of does not look like a sphere in which every point is equidistant from the center and in which, therefore, the particularity of peoples is lost. It is, rather, a polyhedron, with its different facets, in which each nation keeps its own culture, language, religion, identity. The present “spherical” economic globalization, especially the financial, produces one thought, a weak thought. And the human person is no longer at its center but only money.
Pope Francis has also stated that a country can control its borders. If you put his previous statements, and that principle, together you get a very traditional view of immigration,
Can borders be controlled? Yes, each country has a right to control its borders, who enters and who leaves, and countries that are in danger—of terrorism or the like—have more right to control them more . . .
According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.
The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good. That means that a moral person cannot consider only what is good for his or her own self and family, but must act with the good of all people as his or her guiding principle.
While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land.
Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized.
For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation’s immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.
Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.
The second principle of Catholic social teaching may seem to negate the first principle. However, principles one and two must be understood in the context of principle three. And all Catholic social teaching must be understood in light of the absolute equality of all people and the commitment to the common good.
A country’s regulation of borders and control of immigration must be governed by concern for all people and by mercy and justice. A nation may not simply decide that it wants to provide for its own people and no others. A sincere commitment to the needs of all must prevail.
Pope St. John Paul II and Cardinal Sarah both indicate the preservation of a native culture, heritage, and identity is important to a region (specifically, in the case of Cardinal Sarah, Europe). Both these clerics connect this to the common good. Given that a state, according to the USCCB, can control migration to protect the common good, it would seem European nations should do just that. European civil authorities, who must protect the common good, should safeguard their thousands of years of native ethnic, cultural, and traditional heritages. Since Pius XI seemed to, in theory, sanction a ethnic state (if it maintained a view of race that was properly ordered), the easy solution to Europe’s problem appears to be a sort of charity-based nativism.
However, John Paul II also stated that a culture that is dead cannot be artificially maintained,
Clearly, though, the need to ensure an equilibrium in a region’s cultural profile cannot be met by legislative measures alone, since these would prove ineffectual unless they were grounded in the ethos of the population. They would also be inevitably destined to change should a culture lose its ability to inspire a people and a region, becoming no more than a legacy preserved in museums or in artistic and literary monuments. In effect, as long as a culture is truly alive, it need have no fear of being displaced. And no law could keep it alive if it were already dead in people’s hearts.
Given that European countries are dominated mainly by cultures of death, consumerism, and nihilism, it is easy to see how mass migration has easily displaced the native heritage. Legal protections of native identity, culture, and ethnicity are not enough for the West.
Pope Leo XIII, who reigned from 1878-1903, wrote the Encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labor regarding economics. In this masterpiece of Catholic Social Teaching, Leo XIII recommends women stay in the home,
“Finally, work which is quite suitable for a strong man cannot rightly be required from a woman or a child. And, in regard to children, great care should be taken not to place them in workshops and factories until their bodies and minds are sufficiently developed. For, just as very rough weather destroys the buds of spring, so does too early an experience of life’s hard toil blight the young promise of a child’s faculties, and render any true education impossible. Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family. As a general principle it may be laid down that a workman ought to have leisure and rest proportionate to the wear and tear of his strength, for waste of strength must be repaired by cessation from hard work.”
Pius XI, who, in his own Encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno, wrote glowingly of Rerum Novarum,
“On the basis of the long period of experience, it cannot be rash to say that Leo’s Encyclical has proved itself the Magna Charta upon which all Christian activity in the social field ought to be based, as on a foundation.”
Pius XI also indicated in this writing that woman had a special calling to home life,
It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the negleIn the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.[46] That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs.
In his encyclical on Christian marriage, Pius XI reiterated this point against those ideological forces that were undermining the Catholic home life,
The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: – physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family. “
Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii
Pope St. John Paul II honored Leo XIII’s RerumNovarum in his Encyclical Centesimus Annus,
“It is an Encyclical that has the distinction of having been commemorated by solemn Papal documents from its fortieth anniversary to its ninetieth.”
His praise continues,
“I wish first and foremost to satisfy the debt of gratitude which the whole Church owes to this great Pope and his ‘immortal document.'”
The saintly Pope also expressed similar teaching to Leo XIII in his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio,
“On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. ”
While John Paul II stated that women should not be discriminated against unjustly in entrance to civil society, he stressed the primacy of their role as mothers and wives. He continues,
“Therefore the Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value…While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family. Furthermore, the mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. “
This teaching falls squarely in line with that of Leo XIII. John Paul II and other popes in recent times have praised the contributions of women in social and public life. They have opposed all forms of unjust discrimination in the workplace perpetuated against women. The importance of a mutually self-sacrificing and mutually submitting love between spouses has been stressed. However, this does not negate the pre-eminent calling of wives and mothers to home life. It also does not undermine the leading role of husbands as the head of the wife.
The view of women as being suited to home-work in a special way is not confined to modern Popes. St. John Chrysostom (bishop of Constantinople from 349-407 AD, early church father, and Doctor of the Church) discussed the role of women in the home extensively in his homily on marriage and family life,
“When your bride sees your manner of life, she will say to herself, ‘Wonderful! What a wise man my husband is! He regards this passing life as nothing; he has married me to be a good mother for his children and a prudent manager of his household.'”
The wife as manager of the household is truly an important role. Chrysostom also said, “The love of husband and wife is the force that welds society together.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent says,
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent. Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
Jokerturtle's Catholic Stuff 