Back in 1789, Jean-Paul
Marat, convicted thief, quack scientist, physician-by-purchase, and a prime
mover behind the French Reign of Terror, stated his basic principle of social
reconstruction: “When a man is in want of everything, he has a right to take
from another the superfluity in which he is wallowing: nay, more, he has a
right to cut his throat and devour his palpitating flesh.” (Jean-Paul Marat, as
quoted in Warren H. Carroll’s The Guillotine and the Cross. Manassas,
Virginia: Trinity Communications, 1986, 36.)
As we saw in the
previous posting on this subject, Marat seemed to have the fundamental
principle of what became known as socialism down to a T.
 |
| Jean-Paul Marat (before Charlotte Corday cut his throat) |
In other words, Marat had a
highly developed enthusiastic instinct, as Msgr. Ronald Knox called it in his magnum
opus, Enthusiasm (1950).
Enthusiasm or “ultrasupernaturalism” — which Knox defined as an excess
of charity that causes disunity (and worse), is (possibly to oversimplify a
bit) the sense that the end justifies the means.
One result of this is the fixed
belief that the “ungodly” — defined as anyone who opposes you or disagrees with
you, whether or not God is involved — have no rights, or at least none that
need be respected when push comes to shove.
This point is so important, and so crucial to understanding the “enthusiastic”
mindset, that Knox opened and closed his 600-page book, the work of a lifetime,
by making special note of it.
A traditional concept of proof
is not needed to condemn the ungodly, and the definition of “proof” is consequently
extremely flexible. At the same time, the
rules of evidence are elastic and can be stretched to the point of complete invisibility;
actual evidence in many cases seems to be rather difficult to see, if not
completely absent.
 |
| Msgr. Ronald A. Knox |
On examination, it is
difficult to figure out exactly what the specific offense is in the case of the
rich. If being rich is wrong, then even
the wealthy who use their riches in approved-of ways are guilty; as Fulton
Sheen liked to point out, right is still right if nobody does it, and wrong is
still wrong if everybody does it. If the
rich could only have gotten their wealth in criminal ways as socialists often
assert, all the charity and philanthropy in the world isn’t going to change the
fact that being rich is a criminal offense.
On the other hand, if it is
lack of charity or philanthropy that is the crime, then anyone — rich or poor —
who fails to give away wealth in approved ways is a criminal. Whether someone actually has the means to be
charitable becomes completely subjective on the part of those doing the judging.
 |
| Cardinal Pell |
Nor are the rich
the only victims of enthusiasm. The
recent exoneration of Cardinal Pell in Australia after the “evidence” used to
convict him was shown to be a trifle, er, flimsy, shall we say, is a
graphic example of this sort of thing. Cardinal
Pell was originally convicted not because he did anything wrong, but because he
is unpopular with certain individuals and groups. He offended against “sound popular feeling.”
This sounds relatively
innocuous, until you realize where it necessarily ends up. As George Holland Sabine (1880-1961)
explained the extreme (at the time) case of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but
which sounds remarkably similar to what prevails today in places around the
world . . . such as Australia and the
pages of certain American newspapers,
[J]udicial discretion was
extended practically without limit. The law
itself was made studiously vague, so that all decision became essentially
subjective. The penal code was amended
in 1935 to permit punishment for any act contrary to “sound popular feeling,”
even though it violated no existing law. (George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Third Edition. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1961, 918.)
To the
enthusiast, then, actual guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant. What matters is what you think, feel, or
believe about something. If you voice
your position, the enthusiasts tend to shout, “Thought Police,” while if you
don’t join them enthusiastically, you get Pelled.
 |
| Pope Francis |
One may disagree
with some of Pope Francis’s positions (and you don’t even have to be Catholic
or Christian to voice your — respectful — opinion), but no one should have any
problem with what His Holiness said, probably in direct reference to Cardinal
Pell’s ordeal:
In these days of Lent, we've been witnessing the persecution that
Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent.
Let us pray together today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust
sentence because of someone had it in for them.
From a Christian
point of view, it is particularly appropriate that Cardinal Pell’s vindication
came during “Holy Week,” when Christians (except for those still using the
Julian calendar!) celebrate the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of One whom
they believe to be the Son of God. For
all others, it is still appropriate for it to come at this time — or any time;
justice needs no special season.
Yes, the scandals
in the Catholic Church — or anywhere else, for that matter — must be corrected,
but that does not mean that two wrongs make a right. Injustice even — or especially — against
someone or something you dislike intensely is still injustice. It is, in a sense, even more hideous an injustice
as you are often tempted to take pleasure in the wrongs done to those you
hate. It’s even undemocratic. Didn’t someone once remark that democracy
means a system that protects you from me?
No, the end does
not justify the means, even if the end sought is the socialist Kingdom of God
on Earth, or the Christian Reign of Christ the King in Heaven.
#30#