In the previous two postings in this series, we outlined
what happens when people begin distorting the concepts of Church and State to
achieve some private end or realize a personal goal or interpretation. This, of course, violates one of the
principal “laws” of social justice, that the common good (that vast network of
institutions within which humanity acquires and develops virtue) must remain
inviolate:
“In all private dealings, in all exercise of individual
justice, the common good must be a primary object of solicitude. To attack or
to endanger the common good in order to attain some private end, no matter how
good or how necessary this latter may be in its own order, is social injustice
and is wrong.” (Rev. William J. Ferree, S.M., Ph.D., Introduction to Social Justice, 1948, cf. Quadragesimo Anno, § 57.)
The problem is that abolishing the concept of natural rights
as inhering in every human being by nature, effectively demolishes the common
good by turning it into a vehicle for imposing individual goods . . . which
often turn out to be not all that good.
In civil society, the State, the innovators have insisted
that rights are a grant from the State to the people, whether the collective,
or individuals deemed worthy of being recognized as persons. In religious society, the Church, the
innovators have insisted that rights are a grant from God (usually through
whatever organized religious body the innovator belongs to) to the people,
again, whether the collective, or individuals deemed worthy of the status of
person.
Yes, God is ultimately the source of natural rights. He is the source of everything.
God is not, however, the immediate
source of natural rights. He is the mediate source of natural rights. God created humanity with natural rights as
part of human nature itself, precisely as the term implies.
Natural rights are not, therefore, a gift or grant
subsequent to the creation of humanity.
They are part of human existence itself.
Even God cannot take away natural rights, for that would change what was
human, to non-human.
Neither any government nor any organized religion obtains whatever
natural rights it has directly or immediately from God. Rather, all natural rights come from God
through the human person, mediately (“reflected”) to our institutions, not
immediately, that is, directly from God.
As Pius XI noted, “Only man, the human person,
and not society in any form is endowed with reason and a morally free will.”
(Divini Redemptoris, § 29; cf. Quas Primas, § 19.)
Confusion over the source of natural rights versus
supernatural rights, and the difference between absolute principles and truths,
and the relative application of absolute principles and truths, resulted in the
development of “modernism.” The chief
tenet of modernism is “agnosticism.”
Pope Pius X defined agnosticism as rejecting or denying that
we can come to knowledge of God’s existence and of the natural law through the
force and light of human reason alone. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, § 6.) Faith based on reason brings us to knowledge
of the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity, but reason alone has
the capacity to bring us to knowledge of the existence of God and of the
natural law.
As is not surprising for something described as “the
synthesis of all heresies” (ibid., §
39), the forms of agnosticism in modernism are seemingly as many as there are
modernists. Among “liberals,” reason is
expanded far beyond its proper role as the foundation of faith and the source
of our understanding of the existence of God and of the natural law. Everything must be explained by reason, or it
can’t be explained.
Among “conservatives,” faith is expanded far beyond its
proper role as bringing us to acceptance and understanding of that which is not
manifestly true and a guide for and illumination of reason. Everything must be explained by faith, or it
can’t be explained.
Making the situation worse is the fact that modernists of
all stripes “mix ‘n match” the liberal and conservative extremes in any way
that suits them at the moment. Applying
reason improperly and beyond its proper sphere, or putting faith and reason in
opposition, denigrates and dismisses reason altogether by admitting
contradictions. Contradiction even, in a
sense, becomes a principle itself.
Aquinas called this “intellectual self-annihilation.” Fulton Sheen translated this as “mental
suicide.”
