This past Sunday
marked the thirty-ninth anniversary of the death of Archbishop Fulton John
Sheen (1895-1979). Ordinarily we would
have posted any reflection on his thought pertaining to the Just Third Way on
that day. We don’t post on Sunday, however,
and yesterday was the day reserved for CESJ’s “electronic apostolate” (so to
speak), and Sheen would have been the first one to appreciate the fact that “the
show must go on.”
 |
| Fulton J. Sheen |
Anyway, what popped
into our head during one of the few free moments we had while rushing around to
various musical events (you do NOT want to be in multiple musical milieux
during Christmas when EVERYONE schedules EVERYTHING for the same day, and there
is no parking for performers) was Sheen’s oft-repeated dictum, “Right is right
if nobody does it, wrong is wrong if everybody does it.”
Now, we have a
few problems with that from the standpoint of social justice, but this is
neither the time nor the place to consider them, and they are not germane to
this discussion. What we want to look at
today is the question about the meaning of right and good. Everybody thinks that everything he or she
wants is right and good, but is that right?
Or good?
This brings in
the question of natural law. Simply put,
natural law is the general code of human behavior. The fundamental precept of the natural law is
that good is to be done and evil is to be avoided.
What is
good? Whatever is consistent with human
nature. What is evil? Whatever contradicts human nature.
 |
| "A small error in the beginning leads to big errors in the end." |
Right away,
however, a small problem occurs. Small,
that is, to people who do not realize its significance or who fail to
appreciate the fact that a small error in the beginning leads to great errors
in the end — a little saying of Aquinas, with which he opened his treatise on “On
Being and Essence” (for those of you into deep philosophical discussions).
Not surprisingly,
of all the errors of the modern world — and there are a great many of them —
perhaps none is so great, or seems so small, as the change in the basis of the
natural law from the Intellect to the Will.
That is, the reason-based position that something is right and good
because God is so changes to the
belief that something is right and good because God — or someone claiming to be
speaking in God’s name — says so.
All things are
subordinate to the natural law. This is
reasonable — that is, based on the Intellect, or reason — for in a reason-based
system, the natural law is God, and therefore can be discerned from God’s
Nature reflected in His special creation, man by the use of human reason alone.
To be subordinate to the natural law,
therefore, is to be subordinate to God.
 |
| H.G. Wells: "the Higher Man of Today." |
In contrast, the
first principle of those who reject God and reason is that all things,
including the natural law (meaning God Himself), are subordinate to whatever is
desired. Where Jesus said, “Thy Will,
not Mine,” those who reject God say, “My will, not Thine.” As Fulton Sheen
noted, this puts man at the center, while God becomes the servant of man:
In the twentieth century man makes God to his own image and
likeness. “Instaurare omnia in homine”
is the motto of contemporary thought, with Swinburne it sings “Glory to man in
the highest,” with Mr. Wells it pleads the cause of “the higher man of today,”
and predicts the day when “men will be like Gods.” (Fulton J. Sheen, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy: A
Critical Study in the Light of the Philosophy of Saint Thomas. New York:
IVE Press, 2009, 320.)
This has profound
implications. The natural law is based
on what can be discerned from human nature through the use of reason. That is because human nature is a reflection
of God’s Nature, which (God’s practical and speculative knowledge being
absolutely perfect) is self-realized in His Intellect.
If something is
contrary to reason, then, it is necessarily contrary to human nature, and vice versa. Being contrary to human nature, it is
necessarily contrary to God’s Nature, and is wrong — always wrong, no
exceptions.
In consequence, those
who reject God also necessarily reject this concept of the natural law. If something is contrary to whatever principle
or desire such individuals or groups happen to assert, it is considered wrong
or evil. This is despite the fact that
what they object to may be in full conformity with human nature as discerned by
the force and light of human reason.
 |
| Leo XIII: charity fulfills, it does not replace justice. |
For example, for
centuries some people have demanded that the distributive principle of charity,
a supernatural virtue (to each according to his needs), must in some way
replace the distributive principle of justice, a natural virtue (to each
according to his inputs). This “charity”
is often erroneously called distributive justice, social justice, or some other
equivocation — terms with legitimate meanings, but that have been twisted and
distorted to fit a predetermined position.
Charity, however,
fulfills and completes, but does not abolish justice. Once the demands of justice have been met and
someone has been rendered what he or she is due according to his or her inputs,
charity takes over to perfect or complete the process and provide whatever else
is needed. (Rerum Novarum, § 22;
cf. Quadragesimo Anno, §§ 4, 110,
125, 137.)
Replacing the
mandate for justice completed by charity with a demand for a “charity” that
contradicts or abolishes justice nullifies the natural law. It does this by undermining the fundamental
precept that good — justice — is to be done. Similar demands are that the other
supernatural virtues of faith and hope replace the natural virtues of prudence,
temperance, and fortitude.
 |
| Chesterton responded to Wells |
Other
justifications to abolish justice or the other natural virtues are not lacking.
These include the greater good of
humanity, the expedience of the State, or anything else that can be asserted as
the Will of God, the People, common humanity, the Spirit of the Age, etc.
Even these,
however, rely on replacing justice due to each individual with love presumably
due to something else. This is usually
Collective Man or humanity as a whole, which presumably overrides the claims of
mere individuals.
Actual, living
human beings thereby become things. As
things have no natural rights, and the condition of being without rights is the
legal definition of slavery, every human being becomes to all intents and
purposes a slave or “mere creature of the State” . . . unless one is of the élite that controls the State. (Cf. G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man. New York: Image Books, 1955, 176.)
So, yes, Fulton
Sheen was correct: Right is right if nobody does it, and wrong is wrong if
everybody does it . . . but it really helps if you know the difference between
right and wrong!
We’re also left
hanging about what to do if an individual is helpless to ensure justice (right)
because he is trapped within an unjust system and cannot do what is right without
incurring ruin for him- or herself and everyone around him or her. That’s something we’ll look at when we take
up this subject again.
#30#