To summarize what
we’ve discussed so far in this series, the world is in crisis, and it’s worse
than anything Fulton Sheen imagined when he wrote Philosophies at War in 1943.
Then, Sheen could look to the Catholic Church to provide an integrated
body of social thought to counter the distortions of capitalism and the insidious
lunacy of socialism.
Pius XII: faith must be grounded on reason. |
That is,
knowledge of God’s existence and of the natural law written in the hearts of
all human beings can be known by the force and light of human reason alone. It’s in Chapter 4.2 and Canon 2.1, if you’re
curious. It was reiterated in the Oath
Against Modernism and Humani Generis,
Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to
Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine” . . . of which the denial of
reason as the foundation of faith is listed first, in § 2.
Thus (at least in
Catholic teaching), faith, morals, and reason must all be in agreement. You can’t, as G.K. Chesterton described the
efforts of the sophist Siger of Brabant, split the human head in two, and
declare that —
. . . [t]here are two truths; the truth of the supernatural world,
and the truth of the natural world, which contradicts the supernatural world. While we are being naturalists, we can
suppose that Christianity is all nonsense; but then, when we remember that we
are Christians, we must admit that Christianity is true even if it is
nonsense. In other words, Siger of
Brabant split the human head in two, like the blow in an old legend of battle;
and declared that a man has two minds, with one of which he must entirely
believe and with the other may utterly disbelieve. (G.K. Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The “Dumb Ox”. New York: Image Books, 1956, 92-93.
The Sophist Siger of Brabant |
When things become
unbearable, however, the Christian capitalist finds he must shift gears, as it
were, and get from the presumed natural highway of his mind, to the supernatural
detour into otherworldliness — hopefully on a temporary basis. He shifts from what he thinks is justice, to
what he thinks is charity, all the while never realizing that this bifurcation
of thought is not only completely unnecessary, it has disastrous consequences. Charity is not true only as a temporary
thing. It is either true all the time,
or not at all.
This is because charity
does not replace justice, even temporarily.
Instead, charity fulfills and completes justice — permanently. The two necessarily go together and cannot be
separated, any more than power and property can be disconnected for any length
of time.
Yet, if the
Christian capitalist is inconsistent by separating justice and charity, the
Christian socialist is completely irrational.
Where the Christian capitalist admits a role, albeit hopefully
temporary, for what he thinks is charity, the Christian socialist rejects a
distorted concept of justice altogether and replaces it permanently with a
perverted idea of charity.
The Christian
socialist (although many who are such tend to deny it) sees the disaster called
capitalism and realizes that this must not be.
He sees that justice à la
capitalism has failed, and concludes either that it is not really justice, or
that charity must take its place. In the
former case, he simply redefines justice in charitable terms, usually some form
of redistribution based on need. In the
latter — and more honest — case he simply dismisses justice and claims to base
everything on charity; “all you need is love.”
This, however, is
just the error of the capitalist all over again, except more extreme and in the
opposite direction. The capitalist tries
to work within a system in which justice and charity take turns, so to speak. Justice is true except when charity becomes
necessary, and charity is true until justice can take over again. Thus, for the capitalist, both charity and
justice are true, but justice is more true than charity. The natural world is what counts for the
capitalist; the supernatural is merely an expedient.
The socialist
does the capitalist one better by claiming, in effect, that justice is never
true, or (at least) has been wrongly defined, and is therefore not true as the
capitalist understands it. Ironically, the
socialist is usually correct that the capitalist misunderstands justice. Unfortunately, he, the socialist, is not
therefore correct. He simply has a
different misunderstanding than the capitalist.
The socialist
then tosses out the capitalist’s type of justice and replaces it with what he calls justice (or charity; it doesn’t
matter which), which in his opinion is always true, even when it’s neither
justice nor charity. Thus, for the
socialist, justice is either not true at all, or is true in a different and
lesser way than charity, which is always true, even when it is not. The natural world is also what counts for
the socialist; the supernatural is confused with the natural in a way that
loses its special character and becomes a perverted version of the natural.
#30#