Deinde considerandum est de divisione inter
gentem (vel nationem) et civitatem secundum beatum Thomam de Aquino. Circa
hoc quaeritur: utrum gens vel natio est causa materialis communitatis
politicae?
|
We must now consider the division between nation
and state according to St Thomas Aquinas. Under this heading it is asked: whether
the nation is the material cause of the political community?
|
Et sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatus Thomas
haud dividit gentem ex civitate tamquam causa ex effectu, immo non dividit
essentialiter gentem ex civitate. Quia dicitur (1a 2ae q.95 a.4) quod ius
positivum dividitur in ius gentium et ius civile, id est ius civitatis. Sed
ius gentium non definit ut ius proprium singularum gentium vel nationum; sed ius
quod “omnes fere gentes utuntur” (ibid., obj. 1; cf. Isid. Etym. 5.6; Grat.
Decr. D.1 c.9). Patet enim quia, secundum beatum Thomam et Isidorum et
Gratianum quoque, ius gentium est ius quasi universale servatum in universo
orbi terrarum. Atqui gens (vel natio) non est aliquid universale, sed
distinguitur gens una ex gente altera sicut unus homo ex altero. Ergo divisio
gentis ex civitate non congruit divisioni iuris gentium ex iure civili
secundum beatum Thomam.
|
Objection 1: It would seem that St
Thomas does not at all divide nation from state as cause from effect, nor
does he even make any essential division of nation from state. For it is said
(1a 2ae q.95 a.4) that positive law is divided into law of
nations and civil law, that is, the law of a state. But he does not define
the law of nations as a law which belongs to individual nations; but as the law
which “nearly all nations use” (ibid., obj. 1; cf. Isid. Etym. 5.6; Grat. Decr. D.1 c.9). For it is evident that,
according to St Thomas and Isidore and Gratian as well, the law of nations is
a sort of universal law observed all over the world. A nation, however, is
not something universal, but one nation is distinct from another nation just
as one man is distinct from another. Therefore, according to St Thomas
Aquinas, the distinction between nation and state does not correspond to the
distinction between law of nations and civil law.
|
Praeterea, si gens vel natio esset distincta
essentialiter ex civitate, ius gentium esset ius non factum a civitatibus,
sed gentibus. Sed in D.1 c.9 Isidorus dicit: “Ius gentium est sedium
occupatio, edificatio, munitio, bella, captivitates, servitutes, postliminia,
federa pacis, induciae, legatorum non violandorum religio, conubia inter
alienigenas prohibita” (Isid. Etym.
5.6). Sed federa et induciae fiunt a civitatibus, vel proprie ab
civitatis auctoritatibus pro civitate. Inde ius gentium, quod haec civilia
continet, est ius a civitatibus factum. Ergo gens non dividitur essentialiter
ex civitate apud beatum Thomam, quoniam beatus Thomas, Isidorum secutus,
verbum gentes utitur pro civitatibus.
|
Objection 2: Moreover, if the nation was
essentially distinct from the state, the law of nations would be a law made
not by states but by nations. But in D.1 c.9 (trans. Thompson and Gordley) Isidore says: “The law of nations deals with
occupation of habitations, with building, fortification, war, captivity,
servitude, postliminy, treaties, armistices, truces, the obligation of not
harming ambassadors, and the prohibition of marriage with aliens” (Isid. Etym. 5.6). But treaties
and armistices are made by states, or more properly by governing authorities
on behalf of a state. Hence the law of nations, which deals with these
matters of state, is a law made by states. Therefore nation is not
essentially divided from state in St Thomas, since St Thomas, following
Isidore, uses the word ‘nations’ for ‘states.’
|
Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit Abrahae in
libro Genes. (12:2): Faciamque te in gentem magnam.
|
On the contrary, the Lord says to Abraham in
Genesis (12:2): And I will make of thee a great nation.
|
Respondeo dicendum quod, communitas politica vel
civitas habet quattuor causas, scilicet causam efficientem formalem finalem
et materialem.
|
I answer that, the political community or
state has four causes, namely an efficient, formal, final, and material
cause.
|
Unde causa efficiens civitatis est auctoritas:
aut delegatio vel acceptio auctoritatis a populo, aut tributio auctoritatis a
Deo, aut alius actus conferens vel praeponens vel designans unum agentem
auctoritatem populo.
|
And so the efficient cause of the state is an
authority: either the delegation or acceptance of an authority by the people,
or the assignment of authority by God, or some other action conferring or setting
up or marking out one agent as the authority for a people.
|
Causa formalis civitatis est regimen: ut beatus
Thomas dicit (1a 2ae q.95 a.4), Aristotelem secutus, sunt “diversa regimina
civitatum,” scilicet regnum, aristocratia regimen, populi regimen.
|
The formal cause of the state is the regime: as
St Thomas says (1a 2ae q.95 a.4), following Aristotle, there are “various forms
of government,” namely monarchy, aristocracy, democracy.
|
Causa finalis civitatis est cooperatio multorum
hominum ad persequendum bonum commune vel bona coniunctim. Ergo, causa
efficiens civitatis dicitur alio modo consensus populi ad persequendum bonum
commune sub aliqua auctoritate.
|
The final cause of the state is the cooperation
of many men in the pursuit of a common good or of several good things
together. Therefore, the efficient cause of the state is, to speak in another
way, the agreement of a people to pursue the common good under a certain
authority.
|
Causa materialis civitatis est gens vel natio,
sed non exclusive. Possunt enim coniungi aliae hominum congregationes in
regimine sub auctoritate ad persequendum bonum commune tamquam civitas; ut urbs,
regnum, imperium sunt varia civitatis genera, etenim ecclesia est quasi
civitas vel communitas politica. Unde gens vel natio est civitatis una
possibilis materia, sed non excluditur alia materia; et omnis materia
civitatis comprehenditur in verbo ‘populus,’ ut habet beatus Thomas (1a 2ae
q.105 a.3) cum dicit: “si statim extranei advenientes reciperentur ad
tractandum ea quae sunt populi, possent multa pericula contingere; dum
extranei, non habentes adhuc amorem firmatum ad bonum publicum, aliqua contra
populum attentarent.” Ergo causa materialis civitatis proprie est populus.
|
The material cause of the state is the nation,
but not exclusively. For other kinds of social group can be joined together
into a regime under an authority to pursue a common good as a state; for
instance a city, a realm, and an empire are different kinds of state, and indeed
the Church is a sort of state or political community. Hence a nation is one
possible matter of a state, but other matter is not excluded; and every kind
of matter for a state is included in the term ‘a people,’ as Thomas has it (1a 2ae q.105 a.3) when he says: “if foreigners were allowed to
meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its
midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the
common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”
Therefore the material cause of the state is properly the people.
|
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ius gentium olim,
apud Romanos, significabat ius a praetoribus applicandum ad gentes subditos
civitatis vel imperii Romani (Gilby, p. 110–11). Exinde recepit
significationem iuris quod omnes fere gentes utuntur; sed non necesse est
excludere significationem veterem, quae refert distinctionem inter gentem et
civitatem, sicut civitas Romana superabat gentes multas.
|
Reply to Objection 1: The ‘law of nations’ formerly
meant, among the Romans, the law which the praetors used in governing the
subject nations of the Roman state or empire (Gilby, p. 110–11). From there it later received the meaning of ‘the
law which nearly all nations use’; but it is not necessary to exclude the old
meaning, which does indicate the distinction between nation and state, for
the Roman state subdued many nations.
|
Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc loco Isidorus
loquitur indistincte de institutis gentium vel civitatum, quoniam distinctio
non pertinet ad intellectum iuris gentium in dicendi modo moderno. Sed patet
ex illo Genes., Faciamque te in gentem magnam, quod gens non
identificanda est cum civitate, quoniam civitas Iudaeorum, scilicet regnum,
periit, sed non periit gens Abrahae, scilicet Iudaei; nec peribit usque mundi
consummationem.
|
Reply to Objection 2: In this passage Isidore is
speaking indistinctly about things established either by nations or by
states, since this distinction is not relevant to understanding the law of
nations in the modern sense of the term. But it is evident from that passage
of Genesis, And I will make of thee a great nation, that the nation is
not to be identified with the state, since the Jews’ state, namely the
Kingdom, perished, but Abraham’s nation, namely the Jews, did not perish; nor
will it perish until the end of the world.
|
Crunchy Notes
Monday, 12 August 2019
Nation and State: an article in the style of St Thomas Aquinas
Friday, 9 August 2019
The Credo of the People of God (1968): Paul VI’s Rejection of Contemporary Errors
The Credo of the People of God is a profession of faith
made publicly by Pope Paul VI on June 30th, 1968. It has been of help to me in
recent months and I would like it to be better known. I will only give a very
brief introduction to it here; there is a longer one, very much worth reading,
at The Josias: https://thejosias.com/2018/06/26/paul-vi-credo-of-the-people-of-god/
(Credit goes to The Josias and the author P.J.
Smith for introducing me to the Credo. Thanks!)
I urge you to read
the whole Credo, before or after reading this. It is a source of consolation
and strength. It can be read at the link above, or on the Vatican
website here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html
A brief introduction
to the Credo
Pope Paul VI pronounced this creed in St Peter’s Square on
the feast of Sts Peter and Paul, at the conclusion of the Year of Faith of
1967–68, “surrounded by cardinals, bishops, religious, and laity.”[1]
His stated intention was to “confirm our brothers in the faith,”[2]
in accordance with Jesus Christ’s mandate to St Peter (Luke 22:32): But I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted,
confirm thy brethren. His particular concern, as stated in his homily
preceding the Credo, was to repeat “in substance, with some developments called
for by the spiritual condition our time, the creed of Nicea.”[3]
The ‘developments’ contained in the Credo are meant to make it “to a high
degree complete and explicit, in order that it may respond in a fitting way to
the need of light felt by so many faithful souls.”[4]
The need of light which Paul VI perceived was evidently
occasioned most of all by “the disquiet which agitates certain modern quarters
with regard to the faith,” and “disturbance and perplexity in many faithful
souls.”[5]
“We see even Catholics
allowing themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty.”[6]
In these circumstances, so familiar to Catholics who have been troubled indeed
with “disturbance and perplexity” by the apperance of change and novelty with
regard to the faith, Paul VI pronounced this Credo which can serve as a banner
for faithful Catholics. Again, read the whole thing.
A few highlights: errors
of ecclesiology
Each person will
perhaps find certain statements that resonate more than others, and address
errors or novelties which have given him or her particular perplexity. For
example, the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception, and
assumption into heaven are affirmed in para. 14–15; the Council of Trent’s teaching
on original sin in para. 16; the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice and the sacramental
rôle of the priest in para. 24; transubstantiation in para. 25 and the “very
sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate
Word whom they cannot see” in para. 26; purgatory and the bodily resurrection
in para. 28–29.
The sections of
the Credo which helped me the most, personally, are statements which reject
errors about the Church, i.e. errors of ecclesiology. These are some of the
errors which I thought, until recently, were contained in the documents of
Vatican II and post-conciliar magisterial teaching. As such, these errors have
caused me a great deal of trouble, to say the least. I received great
consolation from reading these passages in the Credo and seeing them explicitly
rejected.
In para. 19, on the Church, the Credo affirms that the
Church, “built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter,” is “the Mystical
Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical
organs.” It goes on to state that this Church founded by Jesus Christ “is
indefectibly one in faith, worship, and the bond of hierarchical communion.”[7]
In other words, it identifies the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church: “one
flock with one only shepherd.”[8]
It reaffirms that this Church is “necessary for salvation,” while also
affirming what Pius IX taught:
Those
who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His
Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavour to
do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in
a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.[9]
Two paragraphs are
especially outstanding: para. 20 and 22. Paragraph 20 rejects all attempts to
overthrow the infallibility of the pope or the necessity of belief in the
Church’s dogmas. It contains a synthesis of the teaching of the First and
Second Vatican Councils on the magisterium:
We
believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and
that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn
judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium (Vatican I, Dei filius,
c.3). We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he
teaches ex cathedra as pastor and teacher of all the faithful (Vatican I, Pastor
aeternus, c.4), and which is assured also to the episcopal body when it
exercises with him the supreme magisterium (Vatican II, Lumen gentium,
c.25).
Finally,
paragraph 22 rejects the heresy which proposes that the Church of Christ is broader
than the Catholic Church headed by the pope, and includes e.g. Protestant
bodies who are not part of this Catholic Church.[10]
Para. 22 is essentially a rewording of a notable section of the Second Vatican
Council’s document Lumen gentium, chapter 8 — the famous ‘subsists in’
chapter.[11]
The Credo is happily phrased so as to exclude some pernicious misunderstandings
of that chapter:
Recognizing
also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ, of numerous
elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to
Catholic unity (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 8), and believing in the
action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ
love of this unity (Lumen gentium, 15), we entertain the hope that the
Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will
one day be reunited in one flock and with one only shepherd.[12]
The wording of
this paragraph makes clear that non-Catholic Christian bodies are “outside the
organism (compaginem) of the Church of Christ,” the “one flock” with “one
shepherd,” by being not in full communion of the “one only Church,” which, this
paragraph makes clear, is to be identified simply with the Catholic Church
headed by the pope. A key word in this passage is the Latin compaginem (nom.
compago or compages), which in the Vatican’s English text is
translated ‘organism.’ I do not have the resources at hand to do a deep study
of precedents for the ecclesiastical use of that Latin word, but looking it up
in standard Latin dictionaries I find such meanings as ‘structure’ and ‘framework.’
In all, this paragraph does a great deal to reassure me by rejecting the
erroneous interpretation of Lumen gentium which would redefine the
Church of Christ to be something broader than the Catholic Church.
Conclusion: a personal
expression of gratitude
Of the human agents involved in leading me into the
Catholic Church, Pope Paul VI is one of the most significant. At the time when
I was trying to determine the truth of the Christian faith, and then evaluating
the claims of the Catholic Church, Paul VI’s teaching in Humanae vitae
stood out to me as a firm and clear witness to the truth about sexuality —
truth which I had by that time, with the help of God’s grace, been able to
reach largely through the light of natural reason and experience. Paul’s VI’s
witness strengthened the credibility of the Catholic Church in my eyes, when
compared with the tendency of Protestant groups to follow the world’s lead and
adopt a false and damaging outlook on sexuality. It seemed to me at the time
that the pope of Rome was just about the only authority figure on the world
stage who was still defending and teaching true wisdom — even merely human
wisdom — about sexuality.
With the Credo of the People of God, I now count Paul VI
also as one of the most significant human agents involved in preserving me within
the fold of the Catholic Church. Since being received into the Church, I have
had great difficulties — like many adult converts — understanding the current situation
in the Church, and orienting myself in relation to practical matters like parish
membership (based on geography or liturgical preference?) and choice of books
and catechisms (pre- or post-Vatican-II? Catechism of Pius X or John Paul II?).
This ultimately culminated in a crisis about theologico-ecclesial positions: sedevacantist?
SSPX? FSSP? or none of the above?
The essence of the dilemma has been stated succinctly in
this way: “Does the religion of Vatican II represent a substantial or
merely an accidental change of the Roman Catholic religion?”[13]
What became the heart of the problem, for me, was the impossibility of
regarding the ‘religion’ of Vatican II and the post-Vatican-II mainstream as
anything but a substantial change of what went before, i.e. of the Roman
Catholic religion.[14]
Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God has helped change
that. For I firmly believe and uphold that the ‘religion’ professed by Paul VI
in this Credo is the Roman Catholic religion. It is in evident
continuity with the doctrine of Vatican I, Trent, and, in short, with Catholic
and Apostolic Tradition. And at the same time the faith professed in this Credo
is also in substance the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
At this end of this post I have reached a conclusion
which surprises me, since I did not have it in mind when I set out. Paul VI is
one of my greatest benefactors in the faith. I hope that his Credo can be a help
to others as well. Indeed, I would like it to become a banner that faithful
Catholics can rally around.
Benedictus Deus sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.
[1] P.J. Smith, “Paul VI: Credo of the
People of God,” The Josias, 26 June 2018. https://thejosias.com/2018/06/26/paul-vi-credo-of-the-people-of-god/
[2] Paul VI, Solemni hac liturgia
(Credo of the People of God), 30 June 1968, para. 3. http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., para. 7.
[5] Ibid., para. 4.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., para. 21.
[8] Ibid., para. 22.
[9] Ibid., para. 23.
[10] “This heresy posits a “People of God”
and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and
broader than it — a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church
that are possessed either “fully” (by Catholics) or “partially” (by heretics
and schismatics).” Anthony Cekada, “Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism, and
Frankenchurch,” 2005. Link omitted.
[11] “This is the sole Church of Christ
which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, which
our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care ... This
Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists
in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the
bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification
and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts
belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic
unity.” Vatican II, Lumen gentium, c.8, quoted from The Companion to
the Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Texts Referred to in The
Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 769
(1), p. 315.
[12] Paul VI, Credo of the People of
God, para. 22.
[13] Donald Sanborn, “Video: The
Syllogism of Sedevacantism,” 21 Dec 2013. Link omitted. Let me state clearly that I respect the honesty,
clarity, and intellectual integrity of this argument while firmly rejecting its
conclusion. In my opinion, Sanborn’s arguments merit calm and logical refutation
— which I believe my own rejection of them is based on — but I am not myself capable
of presenting such a refutation in writing at present.
[14] Not discussed in this post is religious
liberty and Vatican II’s document Dignitatis humanae. This is commonly
cited by sedevacantists as the most overt and clear contradiction of previous
magisterial teaching. The issue has been very ably dealt with in an article
by Thomas Storck: “Catholics and religious liberty: What can we believe?” Homiletic
and Pastoral Review, Jan 1997, 49–56 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dGhvbWFzc3RvcmNrLm9yZ3x3d3d8Z3g6NmNlZTdkNzIyN2ZhMzJhYw)
In my opinion, Storck’s interpretation of Dignitatis humanae in continuity with
previous teaching is completely successful. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to
Mr. Storck for this, which has also helped me very much.
Friday, 2 August 2019
The Church's Civilizing Task: Marriage in Medieval Europe
Henri Bourassa, in a beautiful discourse given in
Montréal in 1918, spoke — among other things — about the “civilizing task” of
French-Canadian Catholics.[1]
In speaking about the civilizing task which belongs to French-Canadians, he was
urging his compatriots to make their own a task which the Church has worked at
in many times and places. Under this rubric of ‘the Church’s civilizing task,’
I intend to discuss several historical examples from Western Europe in the
Middle Ages.
One of the major long-term efforts of the Church during
the Middle Ages was to civilize the Germanic peoples who invaded and carved up
the western Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. This task
encompassed secular or worldly elements of civilization as well as moral
improvement and religious practice. In other words, in civilizing these
barbarians the Church used Her influence and assets for both their temporal and
eternal benefit. It should also be noticed that, although non-Christian peoples
and states have, without the help of the Church, attained many of the benefits
of civilization — things proper to ‘life in cities,’ as the word denotes, such
as literacy and writing, ease of long-distance travel and communication, access
to surpluses of wealth and leisure, sewage systems, etc. — the Church still
possessed, towards those peoples, a kind of ‘civilizing’ task, from the
Christian point of view, involving their moral improvement, formation in the
true religion, and most importantly their initiation into the state of grace
through the Sacraments. Thus the Church worked for the improvement and
salvation of the highly civilized society of the Roman Empire in the first four
centuries of the Christian era. During the early Middle Ages in Western Europe,
however, the Church preserved, re-built, and ultimately extended the remnants
of Roman civilization among the barbarians, even while She laboured for the
more important moral and spiritual priorities.
The anti-Christian outlook on history typically blames
the Church for exactly those faults of the European peoples which the Church
has laboured most persistently, often effectively, to correct. A good example
is the treatment of women, and particularly a double standard in sexual
morality permitting male infidelity while setting female fidelity as a strict
norm. The Franks, for example — the Germanic people who took over the Roman
provinces of Gaul in the fifth century, and eventually constructed the kingdom
of France — commonly practised polygyny. In other words, Frankish men,
especially high-ranking warriors and kings, would marry multiple wives. They
likewise commonly practised concubinage, keeping live-in mistresses alongside their
legitimate wives. Charlemagne, according to his biographer Einhard, although he
only had one wife at a time, had concubines and illegitimate children from
them, whom he provided for while excluding from the monarchy.[2]
He had about eighteen children in all, probably six or seven from concubines.
This was all open and acknowledged. The Church opposed both polygyny and
concubinage, “upholding
instead a Christian ideal of life-long monogamous marriage with fidelity of both
partners to the marriage vows.”[3]
This is, simply
put, the Christian standard of sexual morality, and nothing else — as St
Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, wrote around 1450: “Although the world’s
laws do not punish husbands who have intercourse with unmarried women in the
same way they punish adulterous women; nevertheless the law of God and the
Church punishes them equally.”[4]
I can easily multiply examples of ecclesiastical writers in the Middle Ages
upholding this strictly equal standard. Gratian, around 1140, wrote (in the
most influential textbook of canon law ever written): “nor is it lawful for
anyone, by their example [i.e. of Abraham or Jacob], to seek fruitfulness in
anyone, apart from the conjugal debt.”[5]
In support of this he quotes the Church Father St Ambrose (fourth-century
bishop of Milan): “Let none coax himself with the laws of men. Every debauchery
is an adultery, nor is anything lawful to the husband which is not lawful to
the wife. The same chastity is due from both husband and wife.”[6]
To those following this law — so severe according to the world’s standards — St
Antoninus applies the blessing contained in Psalm 127: Blessed are all they
that fear the Lord: that walk in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labours of
thy hands: blessed art thou, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife as a
fruitful vine, on the sides of thy house. Thy children as olive plants, round
about thy table.[7]
In addition to
the blessings of obeying “the law of God and the Church,” the Church’s efforts
to modify standards of behaviour had beneficial social consequences. For
example, some historians argue that it encouraged the greater diffusion of
property (as opposed to vast estates consolidated within one family), and that
“the Church’s regulations encouraged a more equitable distribution of women in
the society; if elite males retained numerous women in their households then
obviously other men would have less chance of finding a wife.”[8]
Perhaps, indeed, these are part of God’s blessing given to they that fear
the Lord.
This is not to say
that the Church succeeded in eliminating adultery. Surely not, nor indeed
should this be expected, since the Church embraces the good and the bad, the
wheat and the tares; and, of course, the Church offers forgiveness of sins and
salvation even to those who commit mortal sin after baptism, through the
Sacrament of Penance. But, although we cannot realistically produce a numerical
graph of adultery rates — for example pre- and post-800 AD — historians recognize
that the Church’s centuries-long teaching effort and moral authority did modify
standards of behaviour. By the eleventh and twelfth centuries, while a man
might have affairs or visit prostitutes, he would have only one lawful wife,
and would not keep a group of concubines in the castle, as Charlemagne and
other earlier Frankish kings were accustomed to do.[9]
This was no longer publicly acceptable. As Ambrose himself said (quoted by
Gratian): “It is more tolerable if the fault lies hidden, than if guilt is
incurred as if by right.”[10]
This is just a
single example of the Church’s civilizing task and the good fruit it has borne
through history. When modern would-be defenders of women point to the Church
and blame Her for a double standard in expectations of conjugal fidelity, they
are actually condemning a ‘secular’ element of the society in which the Church
is operating. This secular element may be a holdover of the traditional morals
of a pagan society, as in the Germanic barbarians of the early Middle Ages; or
it may result from a formerly Christian society throwing off Christ’s yoke, as
in twentieth-century Europe and America. Either way, the Church rejects it, and
stands as the guardian and advocate of the law of God and the Church: “The same
chastity is due from both husband and wife.”
[1] “Les Canadiens français, leur tâche civilisatrice,” ch. 7 in Henri
Bourassa, La Langue, gardienne de la Foi (Montréal: Bibliothèque
de l’Action Française, 1918). https://archive.org/details/bourassalalanguegardiennedelafoi
[2] Einhard, Life of Charlemagne,
ch. 18–20, in Early Lives of Charlemagne by Eginhard and the Monk of St Gall,
ed. and trans. A. J. Grant, The King’s Classics (London: Chatto and Windus,
1907), 32–36. https://archive.org/details/earlylivesofchar00einh
[3] Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western
Europe in the Middle Ages: 300–1475, 6th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999),
169. Italics theirs.
[4] “Licet enim leges saeculi non puniant
ita maritos cum solutis se miscentes, sicut adulteras mulieres; tamen lex Dei
et ecclesiae aequaliter punit.” Antoninus Florentinus, Summa, 3.1.1.4,
in Sancti Antonini archiepiscopi Florentini ordinis praedicatorum Summa
theologica in quattuor partes distributa ..., ed. Pietro Ballerini (Verona,
1740), 3:17.
[5] Gratian, Decretum, C. 32 q. 4 c. 2
d.a., in Gratian: The Concord of Discordant Canons and the Ordinary Gloss,
trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
forthcoming).
[6] Ambrose, On Abraham, book 1 c.
4, quoted from Gratian, Decretum (trans. Silano), C. 32 q. 4 c. 4.
[7] Ps 127.1–3, trans.
Douay-Rheims. http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21127.htm
Likewise,
the Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215 under Pope Innocent III, stated in its
first canon: “Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those
united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God,
can merit eternal salvation.” Lateran IV (1215), c. 4, in H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary
Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary (St
Louis: B. Herder, 1937). https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp
[8] Tierney and Painter, Western
Europe in the Middle Ages, 170.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ambrose, On Abraham, book 1 c.
7, quoted from Gratian, Decretum (trans. Silano), C. 32 q. 4 c. 4.
Monday, 18 January 2016
Pagan Rome, Christian Rome (translated from Bourassa, La Langue)
Pagan Rome, Christian Rome
Of this task, the Church has
never fallen short. Docile to God’s designs, the humble fisherman of Galilee,
poor, ignorant, timid to the point of trembling before the handmaid of a simple
proconsul only a moment earlier, Peter comes to plant the Cross of Christ, and
his own, opposite the throne of Caesar. His brother in God, the apostle to the
gentiles, seals with his blood, at the gates of imperial and pagan Rome, the
supernatural orthodoxy of his teaching in all the Churches of Europe and Asia.
From this pair of tombs long unknown or scorned — like that of their master —
by all that Rome and the world reckoned of science, wealth, and strength,
suddenly arises the irresistable power of the Spirit who will rule all flesh.
On the ruins of pagan Rome, mistress of the world, dominator of peoples, harsh towards
the conquered, pitiless towards the weak, there rises up little by little
Christian Rome, mistress of the world in her turn, but through the mere
strength of truth, faith, and love; mistress of souls and hearts, liberator of
consciences and of peoples, protector of the oppressed, hope of the weak and the
conquered. She does better than to cut down the power of Rome the idolator; she
transforms and puts to use everything good and noble in Rome’s heritage. From
temples devoted to the cult of every vice deified, she makes basilicas and
churches consecrated to the one true God, just and good. From circuses watered
with the blood of Christ’s witnesses, she makes places of pilgrimage where the
sons of the martyrs come and pray to convert the sons of their executioners. By
Roman roads she sends her legions of apostles to the peaceable conquest of those
nations whom Caesar could conquer and constrain by force, but whom only Christ
will subjugate by love, and whom the Church will use to rebuild Latin and
Christian civilisation atop the debris of the shattered Roman empire. From
Roman laws, purified, spiritualised, she extracts a part of her own canon law,
foundation of the law of Christian peoples. Finally, from the Roman tongue,
firm, noble, rich, but tarnished by the corrupt inspiration of contumacious
flesh, troubled by the mad confusions of pride, and reduced to ignoble slavery
to the courtesans of Caesar, she makes the language of prayer; the language of
invocations to the Virgin Most Pure, the angels, and the saints, conquerers of
pride, of concupiscence, and of the world. In this tongue which recounted to
men the vile vices of mythical gods, She speaks to God only of kindness, of
justice, of sanctity. The language of idolatry, of blasphemy, of lust, becomes
the language of the most sacred mysteries, the language of the Sacraments, the
language of absolution, the language of the Mass, the language of the
consecration, the language which speaks that prayer at every moment of the day
and night, on every point of the globe, which commands God to come down on the earth to nourish souls, to enflame
hearts, to light up spirits, and in a word, to bring God to life in man!
Tuesday, 5 January 2016
The structure of marriage: a lifeline from Catholic Quebec
In the civil code, you possess a precious
heritage. Yours is indeed a great and noble responsibility: the thought of
seeing to it that the administration of that code is worthy of its conception
and shall reflect no discredit on the genius and ability of the great
jurisconsults who produced it. Would that this excellent and scientific body of
law, so detailed and so logically complete, were better known throughout the
other provinces of Canada!
–Justice Anglin, 1922
Excerpts from the Civil Code of Lower Canada as
enacted as the law of Quebec in 1866. When Quebec was a Catholic country —
indeed, reading this, and seeing the carefully structured order of marriage in
Quebec law, may we say that Catholic Quebec inherited the status of France as
eldest daughter of the Church?
Title fifth. Of marriage.
Chapter first. Of the qualities and conditions
necessary for contracting marriage.
A
man cannot contract marriage before the full age of fourteen years, nor a woman
before the full age of twelve years.
There
is no marriage when there is no consent.
A
second marriage cannot be contracted before the dissolution of the first.
Children
who have not reached the age of twenty-one years must obtain the consent of
their father and mother before contracting marriage ; in case of disagreement,
the consent of the father suffices.
Chapter fifth. Of the obligations arising from
marriage.
Husband
and wife contract, by the mere fact of marriage, the obligation to maintain and
bring up their children
Children
are bound to maintain their father, mother and other ascendants, who are in
want.
The
obligations which result from these provisions are reciproeal.
Maintenance
is only granted in proportion to the wants of the party claiming it and the
fortune of the party by whom it is due.
Chapter sixth. Of the respective rights and duties of
husband and wife.
Husband
and wife mutually owe each other fidelity, succor and assistance.
A
husband owes protection to his wife ; a wife obedience to her husband.
A
wife is obliged to live with her husband, and to follow him wherever he thinks
fit
to reside. The husband is obliged to receive her and to supply her with all the
necessaries of life, according to his means and condition.
Chapter seventh. Of the dissolution of marriage.
Tuesday, 17 November 2015
Les hommes violents: pouvons-nous les abolir?
Il est bien connu que les hommes, c’est à dire
les êtres humains du sexe masculin, font la plupart des crimes violents: le
viol, l’incendie, le cambriolage, etc.
Mais il est peut-être moins connu, au moins peu
reconnu, que les hommes ont fait la plupart des lois qui interdisent les crimes
violents, et ils ont infligé les punitions aux criminels.
C’est impossible d’abolir l’un sans d’abolir l’autre
au même temps. Et s’efforcer d’abolir ‘la violence’ du sexe masculin, ce n’est que
l’abolir des hommes qui s’intéressent aux bonnes mœurs. Mais c’était ces
hommes-là qui faisaient les lois et qui pendaient les criminels. Et bien alors,
abolir la violence masculine: c’est se donner aux mains des violents.
Monday, 16 November 2015
Christ loves the French
The France of yesteryear, the France
who prayed, the France who sustained the Church, the France who wrote fewer
books, but better, the France who bore more children, for God, for the Church,
and for the homeland — it is that France who gave us birth in the love of
Christ, the Church, and the Pope. What is left of that France has just saved all of France from
assassination. Will it save her from
suicide? Let us hope for it, let us wish
it, let us ask it every day from Christ, who loves the French. It is what we can best do for the French
nation.
–Henri Bourassa, 1918
La France d’autrefois, la France qui priait, la
France qui soutenait l’Église, la France qui faisait moins de livres, mais de
meilleurs, la France qui faisait plus d’enfants, pour Dieu, pour l’Église et
pour la patrie. C’est cette France là
qui nous a enfantés dans l’amour du Christ, de l’Église et du Pape. C’est ce qui reste de cette France-là qui
vient de sauver la France tout entière de l’assassinat. La souvera-t-elle du suicide? Espérons-le, souhaitons-le, demandons-le
chaque jour au Christ qui aime les Francs.
C’est ce que nous pouvons faire de mieux pour la nation française.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)