A Brief Abstraction of the State
The most dangerous constants of our human condition – selfishness, status-seeking, the thoughtless imposition of will – have no solution absent death and full union with Christ. The state does not give meaning or dignity; every person possesses these inherently wholly apart from that place where individuality and family identity are formed. Unity organized by the state is false in any moment when concepts of “justice,” “rationalism,” and “rights” are taken to the uniformity of existence. Pope Pius XI writes in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: “The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands.” There should be, in other words, an order of voluntary associations serving as a barrier between the state and the individual, family, and community. The state is the arbiter and never a servant to a particular class or metaphysical interest. Our spiritual unity should always be grounded in the shared humanity cleansed by our creator and redeemer. The society possessing spiritual-like goals to be overseen by the state is the society that takes idealism into the realm of prohibitive and unforeseen danger.
Comments are closed.
Relevant Links:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html
http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/?q=node/237
“The society possessing spiritual-like goals to be overseen by the state is the society that takes idealism into the realm of prohibitive and unforeseen danger”
So the Church, the Divine Society, is taking us into unforseen danger? The Church tells the state to preserve the integrity of all life; it is trying to interfere with the state and require it to follow spiritual goods. How dare it.
?
One would hope that the Catholic Church would not have spiritual-like goals to be overseen by the state.
What are “spiritual-like” goals to you? What do you mean? Are you trying to imply some sort of Gnostic dualism which removes the spirit from the body, and think that one can treat the body without the spirit, and the spirit without the body? The two are together. To bring food to the poor is to help the spiritual needs of the poor. To bring a country together and admit one’s errors is a spiritual act. These should not be done by the state?
Jonathan, I highly suggest you read the social encyclicals. They make it very clear that the state has a role to play, and is not to be dismissed so carte blanche.
Heck, your interpretation of the words do not follow the words themselves; they are very forced, pure assertion versus actually reading them. The Church points out there is the need for free association and cooperation, and that the best distribution of goods is at the local level, because it is at the local level the people involved would know best how to distribute them. But this is only one half of what the Church says. It’s like talking about the incarnation by only talking about the divinity of Christ and ignoring the fact that he was also human, and pointing to all passages about divinity saying “therefore, Jesus never had to eat.” That’s the kind of artificial construct going on with this pretext out of the whole context of the social teaching.
There is much here that I agree with. There is much more about which I have questions.
Are not “voluntary associations” themselves mini-States which govern, regulate and intervene among peoples? Is not the only distinction between these associations and the State one of degree and proximity? Is not the State itself composed up of the very citizens and individuals who compose families and communities and, de facto, possesses spiritual goals and metaphysical orientations? Is not your understanding of State here subordinate to notion of the modern nation-state and its respective mediating bureaucracies? Is not the same idealism found in Marx found in modern liberal paradigms that suggest that institutions can maintain both neutral spiritual and metaphysical forms and contents despite the fact that they are composed of human persons who, by nature, carry spiritual and metaphysical identities and goals?
Just some questions to ponder.
“They make it very clear that the state has a role to play, and is not to be dismissed so carte blanche.”
Ignoratio elenchi
Ask if there is necessity for clarification, instead of discussion from projection about a claim I did not assert.
“Ignoratio elenchi”
Nice assertion. Of course, I suspect you take that text out of the context of the whole and do not understand that we are talking in relation to the state and spiritual goods.
Policraticus :
“Are not “voluntary associations” themselves mini-States which govern, regulate and intervene among peoples?”
Yes. I am not anti-intervention, and actually quite pro-intervention when it comes to the nuclear family and the raising of children, which is the very foundation of a good society,
“Is not the only distinction between these associations and the State one of degree and proximity?”
This is the chief distinction.
“Is not the State itself composed up of the very citizens and individuals who compose families and communities and, de facto, possesses spiritual goals and metaphysical orientations?”
My argument is no if we refer to the State, and likely yes if we refer to more local mediating institutions. Proximity matters for quite a bit. Think of one of the bureacratic “iron rules” : every institution has two groups of people…those who work for the goals of the institution and those who work for the institution’s inner preservation and prosperity.
“Is not your understanding of State here subordinate to notion of the modern nation-state and its respective mediating bureaucracies?”
Yes. And I would suggest the challenges, and possibilities for damage, are more formidable with international bureaucracies.
“Is not the same idealism found in Marx found in modern liberal paradigms that suggest that institutions can maintain both neutral spiritual and metaphysical forms and contents despite the fact that they are composed of human persons who, by nature, carry spiritual and metaphysical identities and goals?”
I don’t think we would disagree here, but I would be more interested in the question. These questions should be approached from a person perspective.
Henry’s point is that you can’t make a distinction between “spiritual-like” (or spiritual) and “non-spiritual” goals. If you do, then you have a Lutheran conception of the state as the entirely secular overseer of a material realm, governed only by power, and a corresponding conception of the church as the overseer of merely spiritual things. This leads to the privatization of piety and the de-incarnation of the spirit.
The church’s goals must always be personal and, for that very reason, maximal. The just distribution of material goods is a spiritual issue; without food, you are very likely to spend your time suffering hunger and thus not much time praying or loving.
The church can’t concede anything to the state. The church must criticize the state on everything. In other words, the church has to be constantly envisioning and embodying a world with no “state” at all, but rather full justice–the kingdom as foreshadowed and partially realized in the Eucharist.
Against the worshiping community, every single bit of the state, from top to bottom, is judged and found wanting.
As a practical matter, given the present situation, given the real world of real states, I can agree with you entirely that voluntary associations are the only barrier against state authoritarianism.
But your post risks taking for granted the continued existence of the secular state as supreme power, overseeing all such voluntary associations.
The church can provisionally acknowledge such a power. But it must always remember that its true calling is to judge such secular power. It can do so by embodying an entirely different kind of community, which it must, unflinchingly, say is the sacrament, the foreshadowing, of the ONLY kind of community worth living in.
Such a community is not a voluntary association within the state. It is the kingdom that REPLACES the state and disposes of all relations–which are always both spiritual and material at once–according to the demands of justice.
Politicratus,
Are not “voluntary associations” themselves mini-States which govern, regulate and intervene among peoples? Is not the only distinction between these associations and the State one of degree and proximity?
No. A voluntary association is what it says it is voluntary. A man with your education ought to be able to make such a common sense distinction. By being voluntary, it is a much more complete manifestation of the will of it’s membership, if it strays from your worldview or gathers too much power for it’s leadership you simply stop paying your dues. Also a voluntary association generally includes personal and not just financial association, you actually go and help your fellow man, rather than just writing a cheque for someone else to do social work. Voluntary associations do not confer a sense of entitlement on the recipients of aid which by human nature results in dependancy.
Henry,
To bring food to the poor is to help the spiritual needs
When you or I do it out of a love of Christ it does (for us and for the poor). When the state doles it out, it’s an entitlement program and does nothing to help their spiritual needs or OURS.
G. Alkon,
not sure if you are agreeing with Henry Karlson’s point in your explanation of it or not, but I disagree with it:
you can’t make a distinction between “spiritual-like” (or spiritual) and “non-spiritual” goals. If you do, then you have a Lutheran conception of the state as the entirely secular overseer of a material realm, governed only by power, and a corresponding conception of the church as the overseer of merely spiritual things. This leads to the privatization of piety and the de-incarnation of the spirit.
I think that’s a pretty major assertion without basis. It also resembles the fallacy of insufficient options, and once again the catch all pejorative of “Lutheran” conceptions.
I believe that all actions have a spirtual impact, but they do not necessarily have a spiritual goal. When I feed the poor (I meaning out of my personal choice, and preferrably out of my own hand), it has a mostly spiritual goal, and a positive spiritual affect on myself and the recipient. When the state doles out welfare it has an almost entirely material goal and typically a very negative spiritual affect. Now, what part of that is “Lutheran”?
The just distribution of material goods is a spiritual issue; without food, you are very likely to spend your time suffering hunger and thus not much time praying or loving.
I’m not sure I’ve seen this explanation, and it’s seems to be counterintuitive from a Christian perspective. Suffering can be redemptive and certainly voluntary hunger can be very powerful as an aid to prayer. I’m not saying that the converse of your point is true (ie that we should keep them hungy to help them pray). I just don’t think that the goal of feeding them is to help them pray, otherwise we might be inclined to feed only those who might be inclined to pray if they were fed, and that certainly excludes many of those who need feeding.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. that’s not to say that out of necessity, and with due regard to subsidiarity, the state should not feed those who will otherwise starve, but it must not infringe on our responsibility for doing so.
G Alkon
You understood my point, and stated it quite well. To disassociate the spiritual with the physical is to end up forgetting the wholeness of the human person, and to follow through with all kinds of error (just read what Matt says; it is clear he does not understand Christian anthropology).
I do find a bit more of a role for the state than you, beyond this issue; although it is a complicated topic. I would rather say “fulfills” than replaces, because then it points to the fact that the state is a relative good with some justification, because we humans are subcreators and it is an aspect of subcreation, but it also points out the rleative distinction of this good and that it is not an end in itself.
Agreed.
Though calling the state a relative good, eventually to be fulfilled, is risky (even if I acccept the necessity of doing this).
Human government (as opposed to supernatural communion) is a relative good, but there are many types of human government.
The liberal state, as I’m sure you know, gets much of its legal structure from Roman law, which is the conceptual edifice of the Beast that will eventually suffer the second death of total obliviation.