Fascinating question.

Fr. Schall, SJ, wrote a thought-provoking article for June 2007 Homiletics and Pastoral Review: "The culture of modernity and Catholicism."

Lofty name, I know, but BE NOT AFRAID: the periodical is quite brilliant. If any of y'all find your Sunday homilies lacking in, er, inspiration, it includes a homily for every major feast day and Sunday each month as well as articles like this. They're worth checking out on the web.

Schall's article opens with a quote from Pascal (hearts) and this:

“According to the modern project, philosophy or science was no longer to be understood as essentially contemplative and proud but as active and charitable; it was to be in the service of the relief of man’s estate; it was to be cultivated for the same of human power; it was to enable man to become master and owner of nature through the intellectual conquest of nature.”

– Leo Strauss, The City and Man, 1964.

This quote illustrates the point I've been making about the modern project vs. the Aristotelian/Catholic understanding of philosophy and its role in politics.

And the article is quite provocative. Did the Catholic Church during Vatican II fail to address the fundamentals of modern thought? What would it mean for Catholics truly to take on or evangelize modernity's specific culture? What is the culture of modernity? Is it compatible with Catholicisim?

(Ah-ha! Rock on philosophers, rock on.)

The political space

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975). In The Human Condition, she compares the Greek idea of politics with her assesment of modern politics. (If you note her dates, she had ample experience with the very worst of modern politics, living through two world wars and the communist rise.)

For the Greeks, she says, politics is a science that emerges after the fact that humans are social. This seems like a no-brainer, but ever since the darling Enlightenment brought us Hobbes, Locke, and all the other brialliant bulbs of modern thought, politics has been seen as something individuals do prior to coming together socially.

That is, for the moderns, individuals human beings are isolated and self-interested. The private realm is where everything "happens," and at heart humans are the type of thing that are alone with themselves. All social interaction must be regulated by political forces.

For the Greeks, Arendt says, the family and small social structures are natural, not forced. Politics, then, is not regulating individuals who come together out of fear but rather is a particular realm of human action where humans come to gether to act in a specifically human way. It's not about laws enforcing stability, but rather about individuals and social groups coming forward into a common space to be seen, to demonstrate the great virtues, and to find immortality in their great actions.

There is truth in almost any human thought--sometimes it's more hidden than obvious, but it's interesting to consider the truth in both the modern and Greek political philosophies.

Independence Day

Galatians: “For freedom Christ has set you free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”

Freedom is the freedom to choose to do good, to be good. For freedom, Christ has set us free.

Happy 4th of July.

Christianity and politics

For the ancients (Aristotle, Plato, etc...), there was no conflict inherent between church (religion) and those who governed. The rulers of the Greek city-state were guardians of the religious practices of their city; being a good citizen was being a good Greek was being a good religious believer.

With the coming of Christianity--and, to a more limited extent, Judaism--a sudden dichotomy appeared. Now there was the earthly kingdom and the Kingdom of God, the temporal powers and the eternal powers. This was a split made possible by Christ's radical call to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."

Philosophically, this was an enormous problem. Augustine tackles it in City of God. What is the relationship between the city of God and the city of man? What is a Christian to do, who is called to evangelize and serve on earth while belonging solely to the kingdom to come?

There is no such thing as "Christian politics" in the Bible. There is no civil law in the New Testament. The Christian does not see revelation as a revelation of law, but rather as a revelation of truth in the person of Christ. The only law is "to love," which does not translate into any one particular political program. (If you have difficulty finding a candidate to vote for in each election who does not support one nasty program or another, you know what I mean.)

The problem is that, in everyday life, the two kingdoms overlap. My obedience to the state and to the Church do come into conflict at times. Because of Christianity, political thinkers have an endless intellectual and practical problem to tackle (what fun!): how does one run a state in which its religious citizens have a divided allegiance? how do rulers engage or control citizens who care more about the next world than this world?

The two classic solutions are: (1) Build a state church. For example, the Anglican Church of England was a state church in which to be a good chruchman was to be a good Englishman. (2) Tolerate all religions equally.

Now the fun begins. Dead white guys and many more all jump into the fray to defend their favorite model or seek out the best model. And all because God became a man...

The drama of politics

In general, political philosophy is concerned with the distinction between the ruler and the ruled. That is, who ought to be in charge and why? How much power do various rulers have and why?

The interesting question for political philosophy, though, is whether it should be practical or theoretical. Should philosophers concern themselves with what is possible in human politics or with what is the best inhuman politics?

The divide is largely historical. Aristotle, and most philosophers of the tradition, did politics by contemplating the best human society and describing existing human societies in comparison to the best. He was not interested in directing human affairs, but in discovering the nature of human affairs.

Machiavelli (1469-1527) came along and said, no, political philosophy is a matter of finding the most effective way to get the job done. The idea of the best is impractical, because it cannot be realized in the "earthly city," as Augustine would call it. Looking at human nature is not a major concern, either, because whatever that nature is, it is clearly corrupted.

Which side you fall on depends on your answers to a few questions. Is there a human nature that has a determined best? Is there a knowable best human political associations? In other words, is there an end in human politics that humans do not create for themselves?

Without an end, or a best, political philosophy cannot be contemplative (or theoretical). There would be no ideal against which to judge the actual communities and governments we live in. Without an end that is built into human nature, politics becomes a matter of getting power in order to enforce your own, self-determined purposes. (See "ends and purposes," June 2007)

That's the drama of politics.

And one more...

Machiavelli.

I just couldn't resist this picture.

July is politics. Light summer fun.

I've decided to take a little sojourn from the Aristotle introduction to something a little more... spicy.

Here are some of our upcoming characters.

On the top: Hannah Arendt (this is breaking the rule to talk only about the dead white guys, but isn't her loveliness a bit of a respite?)

To your right: Hobbes (isn't he a jolly fellow?)

and most likely, more Aristotle...