tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post2372596124859952323..comments2023-06-22T01:54:06.783-07:00Comments on The Foolishness of God: On Separation of Church and StateLiberteurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-48590173130589955022013-07-23T16:12:16.380-07:002013-07-23T16:12:16.380-07:00Oh by the way, on your conscription question:
I d...Oh by the way, on your conscription question: <br />I don't think the government should have the right to force <i>anyone</i> to fight a war against their will. If this country is invaded, I'm sure there would be no problem getting volunteers to defend their homeland (unless, of course, the invading nation has MORE freedom that what we have now!)Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-71716236513818364222013-07-23T16:08:43.924-07:002013-07-23T16:08:43.924-07:00failing to exercise ruling that way, leads inevita...<i>failing to exercise ruling that way, leads inevitably to the very level of degeneracy we see, and that it will only continue to get worse.</i><br /><br />I don't agree. The degeneracy we see today is not a product of an overly free society. I don't believe you can make that connection. It would be easier to find a connection between <i>over-governance</i> and degeneracy. Go back and compare the level of governmental intervention vs. the level of degeneracy. You'll see that they increase <i>together</i>. <br /><br />There's a reason for that: <br />An over-reliance on government takes away accountability and responsibility, and it undermines the churches and other organizations that hold sway in the absence of a strong central government.<br /><br />I submit to you that, had there been welfare, social security, medicare, and other cradle-to-grave entitlements at the founding of this country, the degeneracy would have been <i>epidemic</i> from the very start! It was our <i>freedom</i> (and the responsibility/accountability that goes with it), AND the profound influence of the churches, that made us decent - not the government.<br /><br />I'll remind you also - lest you think I'm changing the subject by bringing up entitlements - that every entitlement program was created "for the common good".<br /><br /><i>It may be that not allowing men to rule with a purpose to accommodate the eternal order in temporal affairs (because they can do a lot of evil with such power) is a lot like not allowing a young man any power or room to make mistakes, because his mistakes would cause evil. Sure, those specific evils are preventable by not giving him room to try. But it that is a guarantee that the young man never grows into maturity, into responsibility, into having the capacity to do great good with the scope of action allowed him.</i><br /><br />So what you're saying is that if we give <i>more</i> power and <i>more</i> authority to politicians and regulators - they will eventually learn from their mistakes and use that power wisely?<br /><br />Ha! I've got a couple Arizona cruise tickets to sell you!Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-82275390689411911412013-07-22T19:45:54.571-07:002013-07-22T19:45:54.571-07:00Here's what I mean about needing rulers ruling...Here's what I mean about needing rulers ruling with attention to the eternal order. I think it extremely probable that the only reason we have, during the last 30 years, governmental organs that <i>most of the time</i> will act to prevent harm to citizens and most of the time act to protect the common welfare is that both the people and the institutions (including structure of the institutions and the "institutional memory") are borrowing off the residue of a Christian notion of society and government. I fear that as that Christian sense of governing in the civil order goes away, we will see corruptions of both practice and theory of governing, so that it will come to look more and more like the rule of the strong over the weak, with hardly even a pretense of justice or "one law for everyone". We see a certain amount of this already, when we see high officials getting mere hand-slaps for actions that other people would be thrown in jail for. <br /><br />You say that we have had non-Christian societies before, so Christian sensibilities for how to govern the temporal order are not critical. That may be true to an extent, but no society has had NO RELIGION at its core for how to govern civil affairs, so this is pretty much a new experiment, trying to do without it now. And, furthermore, all prior non-Christian societies had explicit reference to truths that are a large part of the natural law, even if they didn't call them that. In the current state of affairs, there is a major element of society that rejects even that much basic morality, and explicitly rejects natural law. It seems worthy of doubt that a civil government can remain intact with neither a religious perspective under it nor any reliance on the main body of natural law. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-34612423335973568352013-07-22T19:28:47.102-07:002013-07-22T19:28:47.102-07:00Daniel, I agree that men and society, as unregener...Daniel, I agree that men and society, as unregenerate, are often not worthy of great power over men. <br /><br />Consider, though, the possibility that taking what power they have away (power to do evil) is, itself, making the problem worse. <br /><br />If, as I think, civil (temporal) society <i>of its own nature</i> needs the hand of rulers conscious of the eternal order and reflecting that order in their determinations IN SOME MATTERS, then it is at least possible that failing to have that condition, failing to exercise ruling that way, leads inevitably to the very level of degeneracy we see, and that it will only continue to get worse. <br /><br />It may be that not allowing men to rule with a purpose to accommodate the eternal order in temporal affairs (because they can do a lot of evil with such power) is a lot like not allowing a young man any power or room to make mistakes, because his mistakes would cause evil. Sure, those specific evils are preventable by not giving him room to try. But it that is a guarantee that the young man never grows into maturity, into responsibility, into having the capacity to do great good with the scope of action allowed him. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-74362287878319796992013-07-22T15:55:32.972-07:002013-07-22T15:55:32.972-07:00I am not trying to be cantankerous, but you seem t...<i>I am not trying to be cantankerous, but you seem to be saying " I see your point A, that's why I prescribe not-A."</i><br /><br />Well, I am not prescribing "not-A" but rather "as little A as possible". You say that rulers can't rule temporally without affecting eternal things, and I agree. <i>From that agreement</i> I then argue that <i>for that very reason</i> we have to seek to limit them as much as possible. The LAST thing we want is unregenerate men ruling over eternal things - right? How best to accomplish that? Allowing and even <i>encouraging</i> them to rule over eternal things? Or strictly limiting them to temporal things (knowing that - even then - there will be some bleed over)?<br /><br /><i>What gives the state the right to enshrine THESE morals over men's objections, but doesn't permit the state to enshrine OTHER religious and moral perspectives at the same time?</i><br /><br />Like I said, it's a most common denominator. It's the elusive version of natural law that the religious and non-religious can agree to. I'm not saying it's perfect or even "the best". It's the best <i>we can hope for</i> in this life, where unregenerate men rule over others of differing consciences.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-14708194878080494592013-07-21T12:42:20.148-07:002013-07-21T12:42:20.148-07:00Me: I think that the temporal rulers cannot avoid...Me: <i>I think that the temporal rulers cannot avoid making decisions that affect people in reflection of their final (next life) end.</i><br /><br />You: <i>This is why it is better, IMO, to strictly limit government to civil matters - and even then to a few simple principles that we all can agree to.</i> <br /><br />I am not trying to be cantankerous, but you seem to be saying " I see your point A, that's why I prescribe not-A." <br /><br />It's not that I think the civil rulers, those who rule in the temporal order, are men who SHOULD restrict themselves to only "civil" matters that only affect men with regard to our temporal end, but that they don't so restrict themselves. It is, rather, that they CANNOT POSSIBLY, even if they want to, restrict themselves to determinations that affect men only with regard to our temporal end. <br /><br />Just to take a very straightforward example: suppose we are invaded by a foreign power, and the rulers draft men into the army to defend the country. Most full-fledged libertarians (not the anarcho-libertarians who repudiate government and all of its capacity to wage war) seem to think that if the government rightly "ignores" what men are doing for (or not doing for) their end in the next life, then the draft notices will go to all men in the right age, <i>including parish priests, including missionary priests, including cloistered monks, men who have taken vows to live in community apart from the world, and whose obligations under canon law are to not be those who draw blood as either soldier or executioner.</i> <br /><br />Either the state must accommodate these men and say "oh, we didn't mean EVERYONE, you who have put yourselves under those religious obligations are exempt", or it ignores their religious obligations. To me, you seem to be saying the state should do the latter, it should demand that they serve as soldiers. But that means that it IS NOT leaving men free to pursue their religious duties as they see those duties. The state, by completely ignoring a specific concrete claim about final ends, end up <i>demanding</i> of men something that conflicts with their duties regarding that final end. <br /><br /><i>We have to break free from the mindset that the government is the arbiter of virtue and goodness in society</i> <br /><br />We cannot break free of that and still have a government. Your own range of permissible governmental rules shows that: your range enshrines a particular set of moral constraints - not harming others - rules that are (a) not agreed by all as universally valid, and (b) according to some, stem from principles of morality that, in the long run, are closely associated with the Judeo-Christian perspective on life (they are not wholly free of religious sentiment). <br /><br />What gives the state the right to enshrine THESE morals over men's objections, but doesn't permit the state to enshrine OTHER religious and moral perspectives at the same time? Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-11951357374869788262013-07-21T09:25:00.719-07:002013-07-21T09:25:00.719-07:00I wasn't thinking of a situation where every c...<i> I wasn't thinking of a situation where every citizen and ruler is a veritable walking saint.<br /></i><br />Nor did I assume you were. We were talking only about rulers. But, even if we lower the standard for our rulers from "Christians of pure heart and sound doctrine" to simply "virtuous", whatever form of government we agree on <i>will be at the disposal of ALL rulers, virtuous or not!</i><br /><br />So we could, when the rulers are virtuous, grant them the authority to enact "laws of virtue", and then watch in horror as their non-virtuous successors, with that same authority, enact <i>perverted</i> "laws of virtue" according to <i>their</i> twisted sense of what constitutes "the good". This is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves <i>today</i> here in America.<br /><br />So, no, I don't think we can trust men to remain virtuous, nor do I think we should assume that they will. We <i>should</i> assume, rather, that men will NOT remain virtuous and design our government to mitigate that. The framers of our Constitution had that in mind when they formed this government - having just broken free from tyranny themselves. They were decent, virtuous men but they put safeguards in the Constitution against tyranny, against the centralization of power in a few individuals, because they had seen first hand how that power corrupts and distorts men's hearts. <br /><br /><i>I think that the temporal rulers cannot avoid making decisions that affect people in reflection of their final (next life) end</i><br /><br />This is why it is better, IMO, to <i>strictly limit government</i> to civil matters - and even then to a few simple principles that we all can agree to.<br /><br />We have to break free from the mindset that <i>the government</i> is the arbiter of virtue and goodness in society and realize that there are other institutions that are better at it - and that don't have to use force or coercion to achieve it. In the end, no matter the form of government, a society gains or loses virtue from within - not from without. A strong church is more important than a virtuous government. My fear is that a strong government will undermine and weaken the influence of the church on society.<br /><br />We see that happening in Europe, (and beginning to happen here), where the government "takes care of" the poor. In the past, it was churches and charities that would feed and clothe the poor - and expose them to religion, charity and volunteerism in the process. Now, through the government's "virtuous acts of charity", the churches and charities are weakened, people no longer give money to them ("my taxes do that"), and no longer volunteer ("the government does that"). Thus, churches and charities become ineffectual and the secularization of the society advances - partly at least because of the government's "acts of virtue". No one can argue that it's NOT good to feed the poor, the issue is whether or not it is within the sphere of <i>government</i> to do so.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-38838403907646470862013-07-20T13:05:59.012-07:002013-07-20T13:05:59.012-07:00Well, in a Christian world, with men of pure heart...<i>Well, in a Christian world, with men of pure heart and sound doctrine as rulers - yes, it would be a good thing for rulers to be concerned with eternal things.</i> <br /><br />Well, we have moved slightly closer to agreement with each other, but I think there is still a pretty wide gap. In my view, the sense of "virtuous" that I wanted in asking about the state that has virtuous and alert citizens and virtuous rulers was a general level of virtue that one could actually expect to see in some real people culture, regime here in this life, and perhaps that we have already seen, though only rarely: that of Rome in 250 BC, or parts of Greece in 500 BC, or Switzerland in 1400 AD, perhaps (the Swiss have had an amazing run of stability)? I wasn't thinking of a situation where every citizen and ruler is a veritable walking saint. <br /><br />Secondly, I really doubt the following is just plain <i>possible</i> <br /><br /><i>My call then, for the government to divorce itself from spiritual and eternal matters</i>. <br /><br />I think that the temporal rulers <i>cannot avoid</i> making decisions that affect people in reflection of their final (next life) end, they either do it positively by enacting measure intended specifically to affect people so, or they do it negatively by enacting measures that (because they utterly ignore man's final end altogether) have the effect of constraining man's actions and religious options in ways they will object to. <br /><br />Have to run out, more later. Yes, I am the Tony posting at Ed's blog.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-44668763640165820022013-07-20T10:01:04.982-07:002013-07-20T10:01:04.982-07:00Just noticed this over at Ed Feser's blog (I a...Just noticed this over at Ed Feser's blog (I assume you are the "Tony" participating in the discussion there?)<br /><br />Feser quoting himself: <i>according to natural law theory, “there is common ground among all human beings, and particularly between religious believers and non-believers, on which moral disagreements can be rationally adjudicated.”</i><br /><br />I've heard a similar statement made about natural law by Judge Andrew Napolitano (a Catholic libertarian). So it would appear, at least according to the views expressed by these gentlemen, that what I'm advocating for is in keeping at least with a certain interpretation of natural law.<br /><br />Now I know that Feser's no longer a libertarian and he's said that the reason for this has to do with natural law, so I was a bit surprised to see that quote from him (and indeed he walks it back slightly by clarifying that he didn't intend that as a "definition" of natural law - just a feature of it).<br /><br />Regardless, I think there just might be (and if not, there <i>should be</i>) a version of natural law which religious and non-religious alike can agree to. And, furthermore, I believe that a government based on <i>that</i> natural law would look a lot like what I've argued for here.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-64601708531383912013-07-19T16:31:26.107-07:002013-07-19T16:31:26.107-07:00Well, in a Christian world, with men of pure heart...Well, in a Christian world, with men of pure heart and sound doctrine as rulers - yes, it would be a good thing for rulers to be concerned with eternal things.<br /><br />That will <i>never</i> happen though (at least not in this age).<br /><br />And, our experience shows that, even when rulers are Christian, it is <i>still</i> dangerous to give them authority over men's spiritual lives. America was populated with people fleeing persecution from the British state church which, depending on the monarch, varied from Catholic, to Protestant, to a mixture of both. The one thing they <i>all</i> had in common was that they were <i>mandatory</i>. So under one monarch, Catholics were persecuted, then under another, Protestants. <br /><br />This is the danger when men, with the civil sword at their disposal, rule over others <i>in spiritual matters</i>.<br /><br />My call then, for the government to divorce itself from spiritual and eternal matters, is NOT motivated by an aversion to the Good but rather by a zeal for religious freedom. <br /><br />My belief is that some form of libertarianism would accomplish that. I think the guidelines I spelled out are probably a "most common denominator" which all men can agree on (except those deluded by some murderous ideology). If we can all agree on a basic code of conduct - don't harm others, don't take advantage of the weak, respect other's property, etc. - then we can let the various churches disciple the spiritually inclined while leaving every man free to decide for himself whether he wants to follow God or not.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-14837751503060662222013-07-18T19:05:44.893-07:002013-07-18T19:05:44.893-07:00OK, I think we have some progress here. I will ad...OK, I think we have some progress here. I will admit that in a world where we don't have thomistic philosopher-kings, and most men are venal if not downright evil, the form of government that will be right for those conditions is not an autocratic monarchy. <br /><br />Will you admit, also, that the "ideal" form of government, in some sense of ideal that is not the working ideal that will apply here or for the foreseeable future, is a government that DOES take thought for the way man is related to the eternal order (if only we could find some thomistic philosopher kings)? <br /><br />If those are BOTH true, then what would follow would be something like this: to the extent that the citizens are far from virtue (and thus will neither restrain evil in their rulers nor limit their own demands on the government), and their rulers are far from wisdom and virtue, the governmental forms ought to restrict the powers of the government narrowly. <br /><br />To the extent that the citizens are virtuous and will exercise vigilance over themselves and the rulers, and the rulers are wise and virtuous themselves, the governmental forms <i>legitimately</i> may extend powers to the government that allows the rulers to make decisions with regard to man's relationship to the eternal order, as expressed in the temporal ends of life. <br /><br />The crux of the debate is about that "legitimately" above. If your position is that it is <i>(theoretically) legitimately allowable but extremely imprudent</i> at this and most times, and my position is that it is allowable but only partially imprudent at this time, we are not nearly as far apart as if your position is that it is always (in principle) an illegitimate way to order the governmental format. Since your examples in your last post refer to the actual character of actual rulers, I think it is fair (but correct me if I am wrong) to read into your comment the former: theoretically legitimate but extremely imprudent. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-77183182191904805432013-07-18T16:47:16.303-07:002013-07-18T16:47:16.303-07:00Though all men have human nature, not all men have...<i>Though all men have human nature, not all men have grace. So, while all men are subject to the ruler of the temporal order, the church doesn’t (directly) rule all men.</i><br /><br />If I understand you, you're saying here that the <i>main</i> reason the church should not rule over the <i>civil</i> sphere is because, in this life, the civil sphere pertains to <i>all men</i> - not just the regenerate. Is that correct?<br /><br />If so, then we are on the same page as far as that goes. <br /><br /><i>Hence, the temporal ruler needs to perceive the eternal order which frames the temporal order though he does not rule (directly) with respect to the next life,</i><br /><br />Therein lies the rub. The temporal rulers of this world, for the most part, are either not aware of the eternal order, or entertain some perversion of it. Take the Islamic ruler whose perception of the eternal order includes martyrdom as a means to the highest eternal reward. Or your Moloch priest who perceives child sacrifice as a keystone of the eternal order. Or the atheist who doesn't even believe in an eternal order.<br /><br />And, even if they don't think about the eternal order, most rulers have a perverted sense of "the good". How many rulers would you guess have had a decent concept of "the good"? We're not ruled by Thomistic philosopher kings you know! Hitler thought "the good" involved racial purity. Stalin thought "the good" was achieved through purges of "the bad". Leftists think "the good" involves the redistribution of wealth, abortion on demand and cradle to grave entitlements. Corporatists think "the good" involves favorable regulations for maximum profit and minimum competition. I could go on and on. All of these have had, or do have, the civil sword enforcing their version of "the good".<br /><br />You see, when you have <i>unregenerate</i> men, ruling over others according to their concept of "the good" all you end up with is unregenerate men telling us what's "good for us"! <br /><br />This is why I would strip the temporal government back to its bare essentials: keeping peace between men, protecting the weak from the strong, and leaving everyone else alone to live their lives according to their own conscience.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-25489711158908150402013-07-18T14:32:13.715-07:002013-07-18T14:32:13.715-07:00Though all men have human nature, not all men have...Though all men have human nature, not all men have grace. So, while all men are subject to the ruler of the temporal order, the church doesn’t (directly) rule all men. All men are called (by their nature) to live in harmony in their local community of men – in a temporal order. Only those who have received faith and grace can properly live the mystical life of union with God even starting here. <br />So the Church, which is intended to bring men to act in pursuit of their goal in the next life, operates here and now because (a) the actions that get us the goal in the next life are actions in this life, and (b) because the “next” life is begun, indistinctly and imperfectly, with the life of grace here and now. But that final end is distinct from the proper object of the ruler of the temporal order. The temporal ruler rules with respect to that sense of “the good” that pertains to all men in this life, and that all men (at least theoretically) can understand and reach for. And yet that temporal “good life” is a goodness that is understood in reference to the divine order of creation, the life of the natural moral virtues and natural fulfillments of human nature. <br /><br />The church rules with respect to that sense of “the good” that pertains to men in the next life, which <i>good</i> is achieved by actions in this life. Hence, the temporal ruler needs to perceive the eternal order which frames the temporal order though he does not rule (directly) with respect to the next life, and the church rules man in regards to this life <i>as it pertains to</i> the mystical life with God, achieved fully in the next life but participated imperfectly in this life.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-87535591106855710222013-07-18T14:31:37.008-07:002013-07-18T14:31:37.008-07:00The eternal order provides the foundation for both...The eternal order provides the foundation for both the existence and the framework of the temporal order. So the temporal order is, always, <i>in relation to</i> the eternal order. It’s like the interior wall of a house. You can’t MAKE a house be a house just using sheetrock. The sheets need to be attached to a frame, and that frame needs to have a foundation. But when you are inside the house, <i>all you see</i> is the sheetrock, and by golly you better have a good sheetrock installer if you want it all to be neat and tidy and orderly. And that installer has to be able to see and understand the framework to work with it and provide an orderly interior. But the sheetrock installer doesn’t create or put up the framing studs or lay out their design, he just uses them. The sheetrock installer simply perceives and <i>accepts</i> the framework as is and works within it for the purposes of the interior alone. <i>The temporal ruler perceives and accepts the eternal order as is and works within it for limited temporal purposes.</i><br /><br />So while the orders are distinct, the temporal rests on the eternal in a really significant way. <br /><br />Man’s END GOAL<i>with respect to the eternal order</i> refers more especially to man’s end goal after death than to his activity within this life. And the ruler who takes special care to orient man with respect to his end in the next life is doing something distinct from the ruler who regulates man within the goals pertaining specifically to this life.<br /><br />The second distinction is that of who is ruled by the distinct rulers. I mentioned above that man could not know certainly about his life in the hereafter – not naturally, that is. Through revelation, though, God gives us certain understanding of that future goal. Not only that, but with supernatural grace, in a certain imperfect way, for those who have received grace, <i>we actually start to live that supernatural life</i> here and now. This is, I think, the entire foundation of that the mystical experience of God that we have that is more than merely obeying commandments, it is “Christ in me to will and to do”. <br /><br /><i>I take a more mystical view I guess. My view is that "God is spirit" (as are the angels and demons) and therefore the "spiritual" is that which deals with that unseen realm in which they dwell. Man's spirit is the part of him that communes with God. I take the scripture that says "ye must be born again"</i>Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-66175616495571482202013-07-18T14:28:30.865-07:002013-07-18T14:28:30.865-07:00I think we can agree that, if you follow the reaso...<i>I think we can agree that, if you follow the reasoning of natural law to its logical end, the pursuit of God and of eternal good is central to man's happiness and well being.</i> <br /><br />I would modify that slightly, and that’s where the different conclusion comes from: <br /><br /><b>If you follow the reasoning of natural law to its logical end, the pursuit of God and of “the good” as understood under the eternal order ordained by God is central to man’s happiness and well being, including his happiness and well being in this life.</b><br /><br />Man using reason alone cannot be certain that we will have a life after death – meaning a human life with both body and soul. So, when I changed your formulation to “the good” I am thinking primarily of the good insofar as the good can be understood by man who, using reason, knows there is a God who is the source of reality and of the basic moral law – the same foundational prescription that tells us what it is to be “man” in fulfilled human living: man as working, man as playing, man as contemplating, man as resting, singing, worshiping, celebrating, etc. All of these are under “the good” but do not constitute “the good” specifically referring to life after death. Hence there is a sense of the good life that is the good life lived here before death, a life lived under a sense of “the good” without enlightenment by grace and knowledge of the afterlife. And yet that sense of good is STILL oriented toward God and within his eternal order <i>as that order impresses the natural order</i>. For example, part of man living the good life insofar as that life pertains <i>strictly</i> to this life is worship of God in thanks and submission, and contemplation of “the best and highest things”, i.e. contemplation of God as an object of natural delight to the mind. Or again, part of man’s living the good life here and now is telling and living the truth (rather than being a liar), because speaking truth is the ordinate response of the intelligent mind to <i>seeing</i> truth. So man’s “pursuit of God and the good” is necessary for the achievement of the temporal good that is the special object of the temporal ruler. <br /><br /><i>If temporal government is only necessary because man has sinned and "sees through a glass darkly", shouldn't those who "see clearest" (i.e. those closest to God) be the leaders?</i> <br /><br />(1) I think man would need government even if there were no sin. Direction is needed any time there is a multitude, and it is possible for some to see the ends or the means more clearly than others. I take it that even in a non-lapsarian world, mankind would have varying levels of capacity for wisdom and prudence, some that some would need direction and others would direct. <br /><br />(2) I think that the states of man both before and after the fall of Adam and Eve involved a lack of total vision: in the “after” state we know so well, our mental vision is clouded by an intellect in rebellion against the will and against uncomfortable truth. But even before sin, Adam and Eve did not see clearly the full range of results of their actions, nor were they <i>directly and immediately</i> endowed with the Beatific Vision. They could pay attention to one truth to the exclusion of another truth. Thus it is possible to foresee the need for rulers even without sin. <br /><br /><i>I guess I don't get how you escape from a theocratic form of government IF you feel the eternal is relevant to temporal order. I mean, just how relevant is it? Is it only relevant peripherally? Or is it central?</i> <br /><br />Let me make a pair of important distinctions. The first is the difference between the “orders” and the “objects” of the rulers. <br />Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-7092159698583547532013-07-16T16:17:34.262-07:002013-07-16T16:17:34.262-07:00Hi Tony,
I can find no fault with your reasoning ...Hi Tony,<br /><br />I can find no fault with your reasoning except that I don't know how you draw this conclusion from it:<br /><br /><i>In no wise should the Church BE man's temporal governor, but nor should that governor ignore the eternal order as irrelevant to his own purposes.</i><br /><br />If temporal government is only necessary because man has sinned and "sees through a glass darkly", shouldn't those who "see clearest" (i.e. those closest to God) be the leaders?<br /><br />If the eternal order is 'relevant' to civil order, wouldn't those who know the most about the eternal order be the ones most qualified to lead?<br /><br />I guess I don't get how you escape from a theocratic form of government IF you feel the eternal is relevant to temporal order. I mean, just how relevant is it? Is it only relevant peripherally? Or is it <i>central</i>? <br /><br />I think we can agree that, if you follow the reasoning of natural law to its logical end, the pursuit of God and of eternal good is central to man's happiness and well being. So how do you square <i>that</i> with the statement "in no wise should the Church BE man's temporal governor" since the church is the <i>one</i> entity that can lead man to God?Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-67629035442410492182013-07-15T20:31:02.926-07:002013-07-15T20:31:02.926-07:00So it seems to me that man is designed to have rul...So it seems to me that man is designed to have rulers who rule "in the temporal order", that is, whose object and whose goods they have under their care are those goods OF the temporal order, things which are good with respect to this life but not necessarily goods that persist ultimately into the eternal order. Ultimately God will rule in the eschatological end, but He withholds that resolution of the Divine Economy of the universe while we work out our time of growth and trial. Before that end man has his own rulers for the temporal order. <br /><br />But of course the goods that are goods IN the temporal order are of (at least) 2 kinds: goods that are apparent goods, things that appear under the aspect of pleasing, satisfying, fun and delightful, but are opposed to man's final end, i.e. goods that are so-called "good" only by appearance, failing to be properly ordered with respect to man's final good, God, only because man sees unclearly now. And then goods in the temporal order that are truly in keeping with his order to his final good. This is why man's temporal order, though DISTINCT from the eternal order, is <i>subordinate</i> to the eternal order in some measure, as the incomplete to the complete, or as receiving its own due ordination as FROM the eternal. Thus, man's temporal government, though distinct from the eternal government, is not utterly unconnected to the purposes of the eternal law. Because even those goods that are <i>properly</i> under the care of man in his temporal government are properly goods only insofar as duly ordered with respect to man's final end, even temporal government must be careful of and pay attention to man's final end. <br /><br />In no wise should the Church BE man's temporal governor, but nor should that governor ignore the eternal order as irrelevant to his own purposes.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-71481074139249130522013-07-15T20:28:27.454-07:002013-07-15T20:28:27.454-07:00I think that the order of the 7 days of creation, ...I think that the order of the 7 days of creation, as well as a multitude of other things, shows that God makes orderly things. Natural things move under natural laws, animals operate well by instinct. Since man was designed for social community, a complex of many men, and where there are a multitude ordained to some common purpose, there is necessarily a rule, a fit ordering principle to set the multitude to work hand in hand, it is then a necessary result that man is designed in such a way that he live under a rule or law also, but in this case a law of reason - he is directed to his ends not by force or instinct but by reason. This is, at root, what is meant by "natural moral law", an edict of reason stemming from the divine law, but that natural law is GENERAL in some respects rather than particular. (For instance, because man is social and the family is the natural unit of society, it is according to natural law that man marry under <i>public</i> vows by which he formally attests to his interior intention, but the natural law does not prescribe the specific form of the public vows or ceremony.) And thus there is need for <i>human</i> laws, to make particular the direction of general moral laws in the midst of concrete situations. Thus man, even without sin, is designed as subject to laws, first Divine law (as all things are), secondly natural law, and thirdly human law to particularize natural law that provide only general direction. <br /><br />Even without sin in the temporal order, then, it is natural that those who see the due ends more perfectly, or the suitable means more readily, should assist the community by leading, counseling, and directing the actions of those who are less apt, whose vision "through a glass" is a little darker than others - for the mutual benefit both of the less apt and for the entire community. Without sin, those who would thus lead would do so without pride or other sins leading to self-gain, and those who would follow would do so without envy or distaste, and this mutual order would be mutually enjoyable. <br /><br />Given the sin of Adam and Eve, and the introduction of the effects of sin - disordered passions, clouded intellects, nature at odds with man, man opposed to man, etc, it became unavoidable that limited natural goods would become matters of contention. But it did not change the fact that man is designed that some rule and some be ruled, even if (for example) the roles should be held alternatingly, or in other ways. Every community, in order to remain COMMON, must be willing to submit to a common authority: even a board of directors of a volunteer group must have a chairman to decide "we have debated long enough, now we vote", or "the vote is taken, the AYEs have it, the matter is closed." Without such an authority, every community in which it is possible for men to dispute appropriate means to ends (i.e. all human communities) would perforce split up when each could not convince the opposing party, they would cease to be a community. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-33437647078786396822013-07-15T19:51:59.725-07:002013-07-15T19:51:59.725-07:00I don't think your sense of "spiritual&qu...I don't think your sense of "spiritual" is as far from mine as you think, but I'll get there a bit later. <br /><br /><i>If I follow your thinking correctly, (and I may not, but if I do) then there's no reason to have any separation between church and state. The two should be one thing. If temporal man and eternal man cannot be divided (and I agree they can't), of what purpose is separate governance for the temporal and the eternal?</i> <br /><br />Of course I have said repeatedly that I think they need to be distinct. But I think also that it is necessary to say more about that. <br /><br />I think both you and I will agree that at the end of time, when Christ comes again, there will be no more need of any government other than that of God's rule alone, without any "secular" or "civil" authority that is "independent" of the Divine structure of rulership. At least, I suspect that if there is any sense of man ruling at all, it would be so imtimately bound up in the direct vision of God by both the ruler and the ruled that for practical purposes it would be like God ruling directly. <br /><br />But when God established man on this Earth, He did not (yet) establish the eschatalogical <i>final</i> version of the Kingdom. From the Bible, we see that He intended there to be first a period in which man is allowed to change, grow, and be tested. DURING THAT PERIOD, man is <i>in a sense</i> left to his own rule - man rules over the Earth - "have dominion over...etc." I don't think I am running into any area here where you disagree with me, I think I am just describing the order God put in place with the creation of man. <br /><br />It seems to me that implicit in that order so created was that God allowed man room to make judgments about the "things of this world" without the benefit of seeing, directly and completely and unavoidably, how each choice or option would definitively fit with the eternal end, but left man with room for choosing proximate ends that might, or might not, lead well to the true eternal end - this is why man has the capacity to sin. <br /><br />This is, I think the <i>fundamental</i> basis for something we can refer to as the "temporal order" - the ordination under which man must choose day-to-day goods which serve ends which are ends <i>for this life</i> but are not inherently ends in themselves, or ends with respect to eternity, only ends for this time. This is the ordination whereby "man is left in the hand of his own counsel", as Sirach 15:14 says. This temporal order, then, is the time of testing where man sees the things of God through a glass darkly, not clearly, and must choose whilst in that unclear vision, in the hand of his own counsel. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-81148425951276484022013-07-15T16:03:54.185-07:002013-07-15T16:03:54.185-07:00If I follow your thinking correctly, (and I may no...If I follow your thinking correctly, (and I may not, but if I do) then there's no reason to have <i>any</i> separation between church and state. The two should be one thing. If temporal man and eternal man cannot be divided (and I agree they can't), of what purpose is separate governance for the temporal and the eternal?<br /><br />But don't we start to run into problems when we try to figure out how to use this church/state in dealing with the unspiritual and sinners? What does the church/state do with those who refuse to repent? How do we handle unbelief? The church has teachings about excommunication etc., but how do you "excommunicate" someone from the nation? Deportation? Would we deport all sinners?<br /><br />You see, that's the problem - it's not that man is two separate things - it's that the church and the state are two separate things. Sure, some of their goals overlap, but so what? Does the church NEED the state? Because that's kinda what you're saying here. MAN needs the state, but the church does not.<br /><br />So yes, I reject your premise, and its underlying principle that because man is both temporal and eternal - the state needs to concern itself with the eternal things (the things of God).<br /><br />As for my definition of "spiritual", it IS different than yours. I take a more mystical view I guess. My view is that "God is spirit" (as are the angels and demons) and therefore the "spiritual" is that which deals with that unseen realm in which they dwell. Man's spirit is the part of him that communes with God. I take the scripture that says "ye must be born again" as meaning that the spirit of man is dead without God - thus only alive (reborn) through communion with God. Much of this is based on the fundamentalist Pentecostal experiences I had after leaving the Catholic church, but it is entirely biblical as well.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-43563632505501713372013-07-15T02:39:49.012-07:002013-07-15T02:39:49.012-07:00Granted, then, that logically a man might be inter...Granted, then, that logically a man might be interiorly free without the STATE having to pursue that sort of freedom as its object, it is still the case that MAN cannot be free in that interior sense without pursuing virtue as a necessary condition for fulfilling his temporal end. <br /><br />I submit that because man is inherently a social being, ordered toward relationships to others <i>fundamentally</i>, he cannot attain the virtues without SOCIETY being organized so as to promote and encourage the virtues: man needs the assistance of many during his life, as is clear from the need for parents, teachers, etc. <br /><br />Secondly, I submit, that society cannot be, or remain, organized in that way without the (at a minimum) explicit <i>cooperation</i> of the state toward supporting social custom, social arrangements, that protect and promote virtue. Even if the state does not make laws mandating acts of the virtues (apart from those protecting life and property) the state must UNAVOIDABLY have arenas in which it requires, permits, and/or forbids acts that <i>intersect with</i> the activities of customs designed to promote and protect man in his virtues. If the state simply IGNORES virtue in man in these intersections as being "outside its concerns" the state cannot help but undermine customs and practices intended within society to promote virtues. <br /><br />This is not a complete argument, it is the outline of one. But I am called to work, so I have to cut out here. Try to consider what the full argument would look like.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-73084279392310179552013-07-15T02:38:41.772-07:002013-07-15T02:38:41.772-07:00I understand that you reject the premise, but the ...I understand that you reject the premise, but the problem is the premise isn't simply an assumption, that premise is the conclusion of a long chain of reasoning, which you haven't tried to deal with. <br /><br />You seem to be working with an assumption, rather, that the state and the church have such different spheres of concern that it is natural and possible to keep them apart so that they are complete strangers to each other. But my thesis is that for MAN to have 2 such divergent spheres is impossible, because a man is a single, unified, integrated and coherent being whose purposes are likewise aligned, coordinated, integrated so that what serves his civil purposes either serves or detracts from his religious purposes and vice versa, and they cannot be irrelevant to each other, or even strangers to each other without losing something essential to both. <br /><br />You also seem to be operating on a different definition of "spiritual" than I would take as standard. Classical terminology would call "spiritual" those acts and aspects of man that spring from the part of him that is different from brute animals - his spirit. But that means his rationality, his operations of intellectual knowing and of loving, these are <i>spiritual</i>. If the state cares about, for example, men having adequate knowledge of the law to obey it properly, it cares about his spiritual side. If the state cares about legislators being prudent enough to make good laws designed to protect the general peace, it cares about virtue because prudence is a virtue, and is a spiritual reality. <br /><br />I surmise that this sort of "spiritual" is not the distinction are trying to use to separate the civil government from the Church, but I cannot grasp what IS the distinction you are trying to use. <br /><br />To go back to my earlier distinction between the temporal end of man and the eternal end, clearly man's orientation to know, love and serve God and be united with him in the next life is pretty much the fundamental concern of the Church. That's her reason for existing. The temporal end of man could be stated something along the lines of "to live the complete life normal to humans, which is a life in which man directs himself within several communities (the state and family are the 2 natural ones, and the many artificial ones of business, charity, etc) based on appropriately ordered love of self and others' goods." <br /><br />I don't insist that this is a perfect definition of man's temporal end, you can suggest an alternative one. But I think it is clear that whatever is used, it is going to need to have within it a nod to an appropriate ordering of the goods of life. But the interior disposition which renders man ready to do that "freely" is that of the moral virtues - using "free" in the sense of Jesus' and St. Paul's use of "free". Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-86860174959339809032013-07-14T11:54:18.199-07:002013-07-14T11:54:18.199-07:00Tony,
Perhaps I should clarify... I'm talkin...Tony,<br /><br />Perhaps I should clarify... I'm talking exclusively about <i>political</i> freedom here. I realize that there are other kinds of freedom - the highest of which is the spiritual freedom from the bondage of sin - but that's not the kind of freedom the civil state need concern itself with. <br /><br />The church? Yes. The state? No.<br /><br />Now I accept that the case can be made that all of this is connected. Sure, a person without God and in spiritual bondage to sin is not "free" even though no political system constrains him. But that just isn't what I'm talking about here. If <i>that</i> was the kind of freedom a civil government was meant to pursue then we'd be forced to the conclusion that the <i>only</i> legitimate form of civil government is a Christian theocracy. I reject that conclusion because I reject that premise.Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-87185626802182770832013-07-14T08:21:41.442-07:002013-07-14T08:21:41.442-07:00Thus a man who through grace and practice has acqu...<i>Thus a man who through grace and practice has acquired the virtue of courage is readily prepared to immediately spring into courageous action when it is needed, not needing to take time to overcome interior distaste for it.</i> <br /><br />I meant to add, this IS MORE FREE than the man with the vice of cowardice, at least as Jesus and St. Paul speak of freedom. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2802903789794976991.post-13002584940403706692013-07-14T08:12:28.955-07:002013-07-14T08:12:28.955-07:00Because we are born with the condition of disorder...Because we are born with the condition of disorder in our souls, we all start with interior obstacles to right action - at a minimum, the disorders of having strong inclinations to pleasure, comfort, and ease, inclinations that are not restrained by reason. So all men have obstacles, positive inhibitors to do that which is truly fulfilling, the acts which are in accord with right reason and God's divine law. By grace we can overcome these disorders in the soul, but grace acts in concert with nature: a person reduces the size of the obstacles, and grows in readiness to the right acts, by <i>practicing</i> the acts of the virtues. Thus a man who through grace and practice has acquired the virtue of courage is readily prepared to immediately spring into courageous action when it is needed, not needing to take time to overcome interior distaste for it.<br /><br />It is insufficient for <i>society</i> (accepting your distinction between society and the state) for men to only obey the law out of servile fear of punishment, for in that case they will only obey when they think they might get caught, and will not obey when they think they can get away with it. This makes for a very poor society. A better society (even one that isn't ideal) has men who obey the law nearly all the time out of virtue, or at least out of general respect for law and the social good as a whole. So it should be a goal of society to have virtue in its men. This means that society should have methods and means of assisting men to achieve virtue: schools that show how to grow in the intellectual virtues; and families, churches, schools, and other entities that teach men how to grow in the moral virtues. <br /><br />Even if the laws do not undertake these objects as direct goals of law, <i>it is impossible for society</i> to do so without the INDIRECT assistance of law - at a minimum, by accommodation, by "making space" for virtuous action. I mentioned having official holidays like Christmas. That's an accommodation by the state by which it allows society to push forward in its citizens the (natural) virtue of piety toward the creator. Similarly with having Sunday be a non-work day. <br /><br />Under your view of the state, Daniel, you seem to dismiss even the possibility of state accommodation of social mechanisms that promote the virtues needed for a healthy civil society. <br /><br /><i>So, I think a better question is: Do we want the state to</i> to cooperate with the needs and goals of society in producing men of good will and virtue?Tonynoreply@blogger.com