The State Needs the Church
Catholicism and Political Authority
Previously, I have given many arguments for an orthodox understanding of the necessity of the Catholic Faith in temporal matters, arguments given here and there by the contemporary magisterium.
First, from the extent of the redemption of Christ. For Christ willed to redeem man in all his aspects, not only as regards his spiritual end (eternal life), but also in his temporal relations, whether they be of family or business or nation. Hence, it is clear that man ought to submit himself to Christ in his private affairs (i.e., personal and family), in his economic affairs (i.e., business), and in his political affairs. Now, the redemption has a two-fold effect depending on the good on which it acts. First, there are those spiritual goods which are not natural to man and must be brought anew to men. Second, there are those natural goods that flow from the principles of our nature and are not brought anew. On these, there is a two-fold effect as well. First, insofar as they have been damaged by original sin, they are cleansed (which will be covered more in the fourth argument). Second, insofar as they have an ordination to a merely natural end, they are elevated to a supernatural end in a new subordination. Due to this elevation and subordination, there must be a new directive principle which has competence in relation to this end, i.e., the Church.
Second, from the extent of the influx of the theological virtue of Charity. For Charity wills the good of the other in a universal way. Now, the good of the other does not merely consist in man’s material or spiritual goods, but all goods, including political. Further, as a theological virtue and not merely a natural virtue, Charity subordinates to a supernatural end and is guided by supernatural principles. Hence, natural reason is not a sufficient guide for how goods ought to be willed by Charity, but there is the guidance of Divine Revelation, whose custodian is the Church.
Third, from the social character of man and thus his worship. Man has an obligation to God to worship him with his entire self, and God has the right to demand from man a complete consecration of himself. Now, man is a “social animal” and fundamentally his action is both private and social. Hence, man has an obligation to worship God both privately and socially: “the duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially” (CCC 2105). Now, the directive principle for the establishment of the true cultus that pleases God is the Catholic Church. Therefore, etc.
Fourth, from the moral impossibility of man to a perfect knowledge of the natural law. Due to a number of different factors, especially due to the effects of original sin, man, while in principle possessing the faculties for the knowledge of the entire natural law, in practice does not come to a full, perfect, complete, or sufficient knowledge of the natural law in order to be able to properly pursue the end of the state, i.e., the common good. Hence, in order to heal such infirmity in natural matters, it is necessary that Divine Revelation not only provide us with knowledge of matters relating to our supernatural end, but even knowledge of matters relating to our natural end. Now, the custodian of such knowledge is the Catholic Church; hence she is needed as a directive principle.
Yet, the most proper and complete reason comes from the moral incompleteness of the state itself in relation to its own principles.
For the end of the state is something moral, i.e., the common good. Just as justice for man has the integral parts of “do good” and “avoid evil,” so also social justice for the state has the integral parts of “be conducive to the common good” and “avoid what is not conducive to the common good.” Now, besides these most general principles, there are also a number of subordinate principles which rule the political order, each of which consists of judgments about those aspects of the common good.
Each of these must be distinctively pursued as questions in the legislative and juridical process. As often happens in states, such questions are posed and determined by some legitimate authority, whether they be an elected legislative body, judicial body, or the common people. None of these means has a necessary relation either to the correct determination of the question or an incorrect determination of the question. Hence, they are neither good nor evil in themselves, but morally neutral.
Due to this moral neutrality, these means of determination cannot in themselves be the principle of objectively determining the questions at hand, but must look to another principle outside of themselves. Yet, as it often happens, such means consider themselves as objectively determining the question at hand, and hence going beyond moral neutrality to per se goodness, which is absurd. Or, they will seek some other method of objectively determining the question. In some cases, the legislative body will seek to simply impose the common opinion of the people. In other cases, the judicial body will seek to simply impose judicial precedent. The people will often follow their passions.
In any of these cases, there is a clear absurdity insofar as means that frequently contradict themselves are seen as per se good rather than simply morally neutral as a means of determination.
From this, it is clear that we ought to seek some other, higher principle as an objective standard to look to in such questions. There are three solutions which are proposed: natural reason, Sacred Scripture, and the authority of the Church.
First, could natural reason take the place of an objective principle in such a case? Yes and no. It is true that the common good is proposed to us naturally and knowable by the light of natural reason. Hence, fideism is incorrect. Yet, it does not follow from this that such a principle is hence a morally sufficient guide for such action. To give an analogy, it is true that the principles of calculus are proposed to us naturally and are knowable by the light of reason. Yet, it would be absurd to conclude from this that each and every man is sufficient to help with your math homework.
Yet, could not the wise be such a guide in this case? Experience has shown us that this as well is not a morally sufficient guide in such matters. It is true in some respect that certain illustrious men throughout history following the light of reason have provided teaching which generally suffices for such an end when utilized. Yet, this places us in the same place as before. Such utilization only occurs in few cases due to the paucity of such men and the lack of evident credibility in cases of scientific moral reasoning.
Second, could Sacred Scripture take the part of an objective principle in such a case? No. Sacred Scripture provides certain juridical and legislative norms (especially in the Mosaic Law) and moral principles that are useful in the pursuit of the common good, yet it is not a sufficient and complete principle in such a matter. For this is not the end for which Sacred Scripture was written.
Third, could the authority of the Church take the place of an objective principle in such a case? Yes. The Catholic Church has been given the proper charisms to teach both in instances of supernatural revelation and in instances of the natural law. Hence, just as the wise may in rare cases provide these principles in a sufficient and complete way, so also does the Church. Yet, it does not fall into the same pitfalls of the authority of the wise. For the authority of the wise lacks evident credibility due to its reliance on scientific reasoning. Yet, the Church possesses such evident credibility from the marks given to her by her Divine Founder. Further, while the wise are often defectible and provide the state will a minimal sufficiency, the Church’s indefecibility allows it to provide an abundant sufficiency.
