Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Philosophy
This was an article written for the Aug. 9, 2024 annual meeting of the Society For Aristotelian-Thomistic Studies
You are on the Titanic, after a passing encounter with an iceberg. Your teachers have always told you that saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle are some of the wisest men ever. So what would Wisdom do? This article is an attempt to rummage through the aristotelico-thomist political toolbox, hoping to find something that might help, while the waters of civilizational collapse rise around our ankles, then our knees, then our waists, etc.
We'll proceed in four steps. First, a list of things we won't talk about here (i.e. truths about Man, Science, Ethics, etc., that members of the SATS consider obvious, and at which most everybody else throws rotten eggs and tomatoes). Second, a quick reminder of the actual nature of society: an immaterial order between reasons and free-wills. Third, given this nature, an overview of what builds and destroys it, a.k.a. Bumper-Sticker Political Science. Finally, the actual application of all this to Politics in North America, 2024.
Be forewarned of two pitfalls. First, the author has no academic credentials, and finds even daily life confusing and frustrating. Second, Aquinas said the most important tool in his toolbox is the Cross, so don't expect much from the conclusion of this article, except blood, toil, sweat and tears.
This article makes many assumptions which will remain unexamined here, since the target audience of this article can demonstrate them far more eloquently and scientifically than this author:
- God exists.
- Man has a spiritual soul.
- Reason can attain truth (seldom and painfully, but knowingly).
- Happiness requires acquisition of moral virtues.
- Etc.
Perhaps the author is mis-remembering, but Prof. Warren Murray might once have said that modern "philosophers" tend to secretly insert their assumptions in the first dozen or so sentences of their article, a bit like a magician who inserts a rabbit into his hat before walking onto the stage. So please consider the rabbit inserted.
Pop-quiz: at which degree of abstraction is society? The Second, like mathematics? But societies of angels can exist "a materia signata", no?
Another approach is to ask questions like: "Is the Country's flag a society?" No. You can burn it and the society will continue to exist. "The national anthem?" No. My local priest sings like a cow who has fallen into a cement mixer truck, but even if he tried to sing our national anthem, the country would continue to exist. "The parliament?" No, such buildings have been bombed to smithereens, but the society continued to exist. "A heap of human persons, each of them packaged individually and cryogenically preserved?" No.
Yet another approach is to imagine the same country, the same inhabitants, the same flag, anthem, and parliament, but instead of everybody wanting to be in a democracy, all inhabitants would instantaneously and firmly resolve to worship a tyrant and treat his whims as laws (or vice-versa). Whatever that Country was, it would cease to exist:
"... in omnibus aliis quae consistunt in quadam compositione vel communione, quod quandocumque fit alia species compositionis non remanet identitas"
(we see in all other things that consist in a certain composition
or association that, whenever there is a different species
of composition, the identity is destroyed)
[Sententia libri Politicorum, Liber 3, Lectio 2, #364]
This immateriality is one of the fundamental difficulties of Politics, and the "cornerstone" of this article. We are not talking about easy topics like how to change your car's oil filter, or how to stop the kitchen faucet from leaking, etc. A society is a **very** abstract being, so "manipulating" a society is not like manipulating a box of breakfast cereals. If a society is over there, and it should be over here, the necessary actions to change that society are going to be very different from what we are used to.
So, a very immaterial order. Now, what order? The one that allows the attainment of the goal. This is Heaven in the afterlife, but here below it is civilization, i.e. the superior degree of human perfection unattainable by men, unless they band together to reach this commonwealth.
Normally we could stop Part 2 right here, but we are talking about a society of men, not of angels. So we have to bring back the human body, and everything that comes with it, hence the expression "social ANIMAL":
"Post considerationem creaturae spiritualis et corporalis, considerandum est de homine, qui ex spirituali et corporali substantia componitur."
(Having treated of the spiritual and of the corporeal creature,
we now proceed to treat of man, who is composed of a spiritual
and corporeal substance.)
[Summa Theologiae, Ia, q. 75, pr.]
The author would love to insert here a wise, well-written and exhaustive college textbook on Political Prudence. (The least-bad one this author has found so far is here.) Barring that, could we at least outline some chapters?
Society being an immaterial order between persons (i.e. beings endowed with reason and free-will) to strive for the Common Good, what are some "Do's and Don'ts", behaviors that either build up, or destroy this order?
What comes first? Obviously, that for which the rest is ordained, i.e. the Goal. A bad goal will be destructive for society, whether it be bad by **nature** or by **quantity**:
- Nature: we could insert the whole Question 2 of Ia-IIae here. The nature of the Common Good is not money, or sexual pleasure, or beer, or fame, etc.
- Quantity: the Common Good of society is Common, not restricted to the "good" of a sub-set (usually the tyrant and his underlings):
"Bonum siquidem gregis pastores quaerere debent, et rectores quilibet bonum multitudinis sibi subiectae."
(Shepherds indeed should seek the good of their flocks,
and every ruler, the good of the multitude subject to him.)
[De Regno, Lib. 1, Cap. 2]
You can also do combinations, like quantity = 1, nature = fame, when tyrant abuses his population in order to pay for his megalomaniacal monuments, or quantity = everybody, but nature = "money", like in theoretical Communism where the goal is purely material (actual examples of Communism have a far smaller quantity), and so on.
In order for reasons to unite in pursuit of the commonwealth, they must be informed of... just about everything: what is the goal, what are the means to attain it, who must we collaborate with, etc.
Anything that helps or harms the use of reason could be listed here. Among the many things that help reason: a good school system, good "means of social communication" (printing press, telegraph, Internet, etc.), freedom of speech, debates that are frequent, constructive, about important topics (not which goaltender the Montreal Canadians should be putting on the ice tomorrow night), etc.
Among things that harm reason: any bad academic fashions (postmodernism, communism, islam, etc.), anything which prevents communication (censorship, vague "hate speech" laws which are used to silence political opposition, etc.), a corrupt cast of "journalists" who confuse dissemination of the tyrant's propaganda with actual news, different languages so citizens have trouble communicating with each other, etc.
Error is limitless, so the list goes on.
Unfortunately, knowing that to do is no guarantee it will get done. Here again, long lists could be made of what helps or harms the establishment of the proper order among wills.
For things that help, we could insert everything Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas have ever said about "how to teach moral virtue". Good stable families, good laws, good music and movies, good examples (especially on the part of famous people in that society), good books about moral virtue, etc.
For harmful things, here again the list is limitless. Punishing honesty and rewarding crime. Attacking the family with easy divorce, "free" day-care as soon as children can be ripped from their Mother's arms, vicious taxes on stay-at-home Mothers, etc.
To summarize these two sub-sections on Reason and Will, Saint Thomas Aquinas might have quoted the pithy remark of Sir Winston Churchill:
"The best argument against Democracy, is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
In other words, the only way to "see" what is inside a reason and a will (unless you are God, of course) is to talk to that person. This might allow the assessment of a person's ignorance and perversity, and this in turn can lead to an attempt to compensate for lack of good reasons and wills by restricting governement to those worthy of it. Insert here long discussions by Aristotle and Aquinas about kingship, aristocracy, democracy, etc.
We are persons, but not angels. So more long lists must be added here of things that help or harm our bodies. Book 2 of the **De Regno** talks about good land, good air, good water, etc. We can add everything about economics (spend less than we earn, tax fairly and lightly, etc.), health care, immigration and emigration (and abortion and contraceptives, which also affect population), and so on.
In this fourth and last part, we try to apply Aristotelico-Thomist Politics to our current situation, here in North America in the year of our Lord 2024.
The Bible has many poetic expressions, but is there a scientific interpretation of some of these expressions? Philosophically, what might be "The Beast -- 666"?
Aristotle talks about "separated forms", which could be interpreted as angels by a thomist. But angels have no matter, whereas a beast must be material.
If we try to imagine something large and bad, made of protons, neutrons and electrons, we can think of volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, or even Godzilla. But none of these material objects will have **moral evil**. Even some big dinosaur reconstituted from old DNA will just follow its natural instinct, and try to eat and reproduce itself, as Natural Law requires it to do.
To be really evil, **moral evil** is required. This means persons who try to harm as many people as possible (i.e. all of mankind), in as many ways as possible (i.e. both physically and spiritually). In other words, you need another fundamental particle, as Einstein supposedly said:
"The universe is composed of protons, neutrons, electrons,
and morons."
If we, once again philosophically, tried to imagine "maximum badness", these numerous persons with evil wills would have to intend to do their evil actions, purely for the sake of doing evil (i.e. "seraphic evil").
So adding all these reflexions together, "The Beast" would seem to be a bad Government, with all "badness" attributes at their maximum (i.e. a planetary government, equipped with modern methods of complete control of the population, striving for a "Common Good" defined as seraphic evil, and so on). If (as in mathematical calculus, when we seek the limit when X tends toward infinity), if we wanted to take this political beast to the philosophical limit, then this government would usurp the place of the "ipsum esse per se subsistens" (ST, Ia q. 4, a. 2, co.), the Absolute Good, and demand that it be worshipped by all citizens under pain of death.
Given a theoretical "maximum badness" (the "Political Beast" as imagined above), is this our imminent situation?
The author neither knows when he will die, nor when you will die, nor when mankind will die. But philosophically, some trends seem obvious.
First, the planet has shrunk. In the days of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and even more in the days of Aristotle, a part of mankind could have been destroyed, and nobody else would even have known about it. It was almost as if there were several planet Earths. Political disasters were either small or medium. Nowdays, the "polis" is the whole world. The Internet means you can see and hear what is going on anywhere on the planet, in real time, as if you were looking out of your window. With jet airplanes, any person (and any virus or bacteria) can be anywhere on the planet, in less than 24 hours. Most large countries have nuclear bombs, and together they can easily wipe out mankind in less time than it takes to have a pizza delivered to your door.
Second, no government has ever had so many means to control the population. In the good old days, only crazy science-fiction novels wrote about each house and each street being filled with cameras and microphones, and each person forced to carry a device that allowed them to be tracked at all time, as well as detect who they were with, what they were spending their money on, whether or not they were crossing the street at the intersection, etc. This is now reality.
Third, the author is not sure there is another period in history where moral confusion was so pervasive. Can ethnographers point to some tribe in the past where claiming that girls have a vagina and boys have a penis would put you in jail? Can historians of the Church show a period where the "pope" attacked almost daily the most basic tenets of the Catholic Faith? Historically, were invading muslim armies ever **invited** into the countries they were attacking, and then given taxpayer's money? And so on (please consult the daily news for more scholarly references).
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: The author is willing to argue that the fact Saint Thomas Aquinas never wrote an exhaustive "Political Summa", that the few works we have of him on the topic are incomplete, short, and apparently not guaranteed to be fully written by him, and that the efforts of Aquinas were invested mostly in Theology, is in itself a kind of political answer.
We don't know how Aristotle would have reacted, had he lived **after** the Church was founded. But we do know Aquinas reacted very early, clearly, completely and permanently. The Politics of Aquinas must be viewed with this in mind: he bet all his marbles on the Catholic religion.
It is interesting to compare the skeletal "Bumper-Sticker Political Science" here above with what the Church offers, for the goal, and the immaterial order to be established in reasons and wills.
The correct Goal: Is there another social institution which more frequently insists on the right goal for society? Which has condemned with more force all the wrong goals, both in nature and quantity? For the nature of the goal: see all condemnations of materialism, communism, sexual promiscuity, etc. In quantity: since all men have a spiritual soul created immediately by God at the moment of conception, then there are no "sub-humans" like the Nazis, or "slaves" like Aristotle; the Common Good must be for all men, from conception to natural death.
The right order in reasons: Here again, is there another social institution which has done more for schooling over the centuries? And what about all those religious ceremonies, every day, in every church building, all over the planet, which have indirect political teachings? ("Do your duty whatever the temporal cost", "Sacrifice yourself for your fellow men, just like our Leader did on the Cross", "Don't behave unjustly toward other citizens, because what you do to them, you're doing to God", "Don't start wars; love your enemies", etc.) And let's not forget the Ten Commandments, an excellent overview of Natural Law.
The right order in wills: Even if we leave aside the supernatural help that Sacraments give to help us choose good and avoid evil, there are all the good examples of Jesus and the Saints which are very motivating. Moreover, the constant calls for love and forgiveness, the insistance on Our common Father, the constant reminders about confessing our sins and not those of others, promotes peace (i.e. avoiding wars between peoples and vendettas among a people):
"Bonum autem et salus consociatae multitudinis est ut eius unitas conservetur, quae dicitur pax, qua remota, socialis vitae perit utilitas, quinimmo multitudo dissentiens sibi ipsi sit onerosa."
(Now the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society
lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called peace.
If this is removed, the benefit of social life is lost and,
moreover, the multitude in its disagreement becomes a burden to itself.)
[De Regno, Lib. 1, Cap. 3]
Also, the fear of punishment and the attraction of reward help orient wills toward the Common Good, especially **despite** the apparent happiness of the wicked and misery of the just.
"Considerandum autem restat ulterius, quod et eminentem obtinebunt caelestis beatitudinis gradum, qui officium regium digne et laudabiliter exequuntur."
(Now it remains further to consider that they who discharge the
kingly office worthily and laudably will obtain an elevated and
outstanding degree of heavenly happiness.)
[De Regno, Lib. 1, Cap. 10]
Of course, the list of ways whereby the Church helps the State is much longer than this. But let's end with the ultimate stake driven through the heart of governmental vampires, i.e. the refusal to treat a human government as if it was God, even if this leads to torture and death (technically called "martyrdom", and politically one of the most effective pedagogical methods to put the right order in the reasons and the wills of the other citizens).
Is there anything in the Aristotelico-Thomist toolbox that can help us in this age of societal collapse? The author claims saint Thomas Aquinas would answer: The Catholic Church. So, since the Catholic religion is the most effective solution to sick Politics, and since the Catholic Church is practically dead as we speak, the answer to our initial question would seem to be No.
Given the anecdotes about Aquinas (like chasing away the prostitute with a fire iron, or rushing to the window to see an ox supposedly flying away), if saint Thomas Aquinas was here with us at this SATS meeting and he was asked our initial question, he might mumble something about the first principles for the renewal of the Church, and the disproportion between human forces and the task to be done, then just slightly lifted his big white Dominican robe so he could kneel down and say:
Lord, give us Bishops.
Lord, give us holy Bishops.
Lord, give us many holy Bishops.
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Philosophy