A common theme I continue to discuss is the nature of government and authority. It is only through a proper understanding of government, authority and the common good that we can begin to understand our political obligations.
The essence of government is to resolve controvertible issues according to some conception of the good; government necessarily must use its authority and power to resolve political issues. Authority is simply the capacity to make moral demands that subjects are obligated to obey. Thus the government’s authority is distinct from its power. Modern politics conflates authority and power. Without authority what results is the cult of diversity, inclusion, equity and idolatry of the self, and without the natural law and God, authority is nonexistent and all power is arbitrary and oppressive. Thus secular liberalism necessarily results in a sociopathic, self worshipping populace unable to make basic distinctions. If we are to escape the incoherent insanity of liberalism, we cannot avoid the natural law, subsidiarity and proper authority rooted in God and His Church. Only then can we practice a politics of love.
As I mentioned earlier, authority is the capacity to make moral demands, thus all political authority — in direct contrast to the modern liberal affirmation — is derived from the natural law and God's authority:
Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,(2) say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.
6. It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.
7. There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.(3)
8. But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples.
As stated, the type of government, be it a monarchy, aristocracy, democracy or republic, is up to the people and their respective nations to choose, but whatever the chosen procedure, the proper use of all political authority must be aimed at the common good of the citizens. However, the principle of subsidiarity can help us further understand how this authority should be delegated. Subsidiarity simply means that authority should begin with lesser and subordinate institutions:
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.
The most fundamental and basic “body social” is the family. Contrary to liberalism, the atomized individual is not the fundamental political unit, but rather the partnership of one man and one woman in the Sacrament of Marriage. Thus authority is first delegated to families, where
The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity.
The higher authorities (e.g. local, state and federal governments) should help furnish and support the family. There is obviously room for disagreement on what is possible for “lesser and subordinate organizations” to accomplish and thus when the higher levels of authority should act, but what is clear is that the higher level of authorities, if necessary, should aid the lesser and subordinate organizations and never “destroy and absorb them”.
Now that we have discussed how authority should be delegated, it is important to understand the common good. The ultimate good of all individuals is to know God and avoid sin. This is developed through habitual participation in the virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience, humility, faith, hope and love and above all, participation in the divine life via the Beatific Vision. More generally, the common good is understood as "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." Now to love is simply to “will the good of another” and thus a politics of love would help each individual fulfill both his material and spiritual end. Out of love, we are obligated to participate in public life:
1913 "Participation" is the voluntary and generous engagement of a person in social interchange. It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person.
1914 Participation is achieved first of all by taking charge of the areas for which one assumes personal responsibility: by the care taken for the education of his family, by conscientious work, and so forth, man participates in the good of others and of society.31
1915 As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life. The manner of this participation may vary from one country or culture to another. "One must pay tribute to those nations whose systems permit the largest possible number of the citizens to take part in public life in a climate of genuine freedom."32
Furthermore, our civic involvement must be “guided by a Christian conscience”. It is the proper task of every individual to infuse “the temporal order with Christian values, all while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order”. Lastly, the Second Vatican Council has made it clear that “the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good”.
From the principle of subsidiarity we know that a vast majority of this participation in public life is the responsibility and duty of husbands and parents. We have learned that a husband is “the chief of the family and head of the wife”, but what we did not discuss is how the authority of fathers is properly executed. God has instructed husbands to “love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church” (Eph. 5:25). Thus, a politics of love begins with the authority, responsibility and servitude of husbands; it is the duty of a husband to provide for his wife and family. Parents have the duty to cultivate virtue in their children and participate in the Sacraments (e.g. Baptism). The higher authorities should aid parents to this end. Unfortunately, the federal government has “destroyed and absorbed” much of family and local authority.
Rather than providing aid and support for the family, the higher authorities have weakened the family through “no fault divorce”, unlimited access to abortion and contraceptives and the removal of Biblical teaching in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, the United States Supreme Court usurped the authority of families and local communities by making the long standing American tradition of public school prayer illegal. Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, SCOTUS usurped the authority of local and state governments to encourage and enforce sexual moral norms. The most egregious abuse of authority is Obergefell v. Hodges, where SCOTUS denied the existence of marriage thus fundamentally underming the family. The rulings by activist judges has “destroyed and absorbed” much of the proper authority delegated to families and local communities. The point here is not that every local or state government should prohibit every moral negative precept or mandate every moral positive precept, but simply that the federal government (i.e. higher authority) is behaving tyrannically when it interferes with the rightful authority of local and state governments to do so. Prudence is the virtue to understand proper moral prohibitions and mandates. In fact, Saint Augustine says as much when he said “laws written for the people's governance rightly permit [venial sins], and [only] God's Providence punishes them.”1
As I stated earlier the majority of public participation takes place within the family and local communities. However, a true politics of love at all levels of authority must be developed through an understanding of Integralism. Integralism "is a tradition of thought that rejects the liberal separation of politics from concern with the end of human life, holding that political rule must order man to his final goal. Since, however, man has both a temporal and an eternal end, integralism holds that there are two powers that rule him: a temporal power and a spiritual power. And since man’s temporal end is subordinated to his eternal end the temporal power must be subordinated to the spiritual power". Thus the higher authorities (e.g. state and federal government) must aid each individual to his eternal end. This is largely done through aid and support of the family and local communities. However, there are situations where the higher authority can accomplish what the lower authorities cannot. For instance, national unity as expressed in national holidays (e.g. Advent / Christmas, Lent / Easter, Thanksgiving, Independence day) is the duty of the federal government. Again, prudence is the virtue that will guide our understanding of what to prohibit and mandate and at what level of authority it will take place.
Outside of the family and local community, there is certainly respectable disagreement on how “Integral” our politics should be. There is respectable disagreement on the relationship between law and virtue. In the Summa Theologiae, Saint Thomas Aquinas approvingly states “human laws do not by strict command prohibit every vicious action, just as they do not command every virtuous action.” On the other hand, no human law should formally or materially cooperate with evil (i.e. vicious action) nor should it prohibit or obstruct virtuous action. A further question is to what extent can law make virtuous citizens.
Commenting on Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, Timothy Gordon distinguishes “accidental virtue” from “true virtue”.2 Accidental virtue is simply going through virtuous motions without understanding or commitment to the virtue itself. For example, a rich business man who donates to charity for the tax write-off is only accidentally acting charitably. True charity comes from acting charitably because it is good to do so. Thus to what extent can the law create true virtue? We know that virtue is habitual and thus "accomplished through a consistent sequence of freely willed acts”.3 Thus in the strict sense only the individual, through his own free choice, can achieve true virtue. The law it seems can only produce accidental virtue. However, we can see an analog with lex orandi, lex credendi (Latin: "the law of what is prayed [is] the law of what is believed"). The Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs us that
The Church's faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.46
We can see that not only do we pray as we believe, but we believe as we pray. Thus participation in the sacraments and the habitual act of prayer will eventually affect how we believe. Similarly, habitual participation that begins as accidental virtue will affect how one believes and overtime will become true virtue. Thus the law can act as a guide to help develop accidental virtue which over time can become true virtue. Furthermore, lax law unfortunately provides the means of developing bad habits (i.e. vice). For example, easily accessible and free porn has created a porn addiction problem, especially among teenagers. Since porn is freely and widely available, parents need the aid of the higher authorities to help combat this addiction. This is one of numerous examples.
We have seen that not every moral negative precept should be prohibited nor should every moral positive precept be mandated, but what about laws that do not strictly coincide with the natural law or the magisterium of the Church? There is a legal distinction between malum prohibitum, which is conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute as opposed to malum in se, which is conduct that is evil in and of itself. Conduct such as murder, theft, perjury, slander, libel and adultery are intrinsically evil acts. On the other hand, an example of conduct that is wrong by virtue of a statute are traffic laws. Clearly there is nothing intrinsically wrong with driving on the left side of the road or inherently good in stopping at red lights. It is custom that determines what is licit and illicit in this specific situation. However, the general purpose of traffic laws is for the safety and thus common good of the citizens. I reiterate that all law necessarily exists to resolve controvertible issues according to some conception of what is good. In this particular example, the good is public safety. It should also be clear that in this case subsidiarity requires communication between local, state and federal governments. In sum, whether malum prohibitum or malum in se, the law is for the common good.
Lastly, a complete politics of love requires patriotism. Within Christian Tradition, patriotism is simply a positive connection to our ancestors, history and culture and most importantly a form of gratitude. Thus patriotism involves a special love for and reverence toward one’s own country. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:
A man becomes a debtor to others in diverse ways in accord with the diverse types of their excellence and the diverse benefits that he receives from them. In both these regards, God occupies the highest place, since He is the most excellent of all and the first principle of both our being and our governance. But in second place, the principles of our being and governance are our parents and our country, by whom and in which we are born and governed. And so, after God, a man is especially indebted to his parents and to his country. Hence, just as [the virtue of] religion involves venerating God, so, at the second level, [the virtue of] piety involves venerating one’s parents and country. Now the veneration of one’s parents includes venerating all of one’s blood relatives... On the other hand, the veneration of one’s country includes the veneration of one’s fellow citizens and of all the friends of one’s country. (Summa Theologiae II-II.101.1)
Patriotism is a virtue rooted in sacred Scripture as an extention of "honor thy father and thy mother”. The Catechism explains:
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. Finally, it extends to the duties of pupils to teachers, employees to employers, subordinates to leaders, citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it.
Although our love is universal in the sense that we will the good of all individuals —we will the Repentance and Salvation of all — it is most prominent in our immediate and extended family. Similar to how authority is delegated to the lesser and more local institutions, our love begins with the family and expands outward to our local communities, nation and then to all nations and the whole of humanity.
Love is more fundamental than politics, but our participation in public life must be guided by our love of family, community and nation. This love cannot be understood independently from the natural law, the magisterium and ultimately God. Lastly, patriotism can be thought of as willing the good of one’s own country. Thus in a time when our country is promoting, advancing and defending grave evil — homosexuality, transgenderism, pornography, hedonism, abortion, greed, oikophobia and Pride — a politics of love is especially necessary. We can begin with a prayer:
God our Father,
You guide everything in wisdom and love.
Accept the prayers we offer for our nation.
In your goodness, watch over those in authority so that people everywhere
may enjoy freedom, security and peace.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Timothy Gordon, Catholic Republic: Why America Will Perish Without Rome, (Sophia Institute Press, 2019), 161
Timothy Gordon, Catholic Republic: Why America Will Perish Without Rome, (Sophia Institute Press, 2019), 151
Ibid