Heaven and Earth
My last Poli Sci paper,can you tell why I got a B? I cant...
In Heaven and Earth
What is the chief difference between Roman Catholic politics and Protestant politics? To answer this question one must not only examen each sects laws, but the ends which they are to attain. Aquinas places the responsibility of goodness, of virtue in the hands of individual peoples through a series of laws meant to check outward actions and inner desires. Though these laws and commandments are only heard within the heart of the true believer. Luther and Calvin rely more on outside authority or duty. They do not leave matters of virtue up to the individuals discretion.
The Roman Catholic system seems to be loosely based on democratic principles as well as a central leadership. The fact that Aquinas gives a political nod to people en mass suggests that the individual has say in the laws that they must follow. Thus it follows that they would have power and rights to human law at least. So he establishes that firstly man is the master of his own earthly realm.
“ Of different kinds of rule which the Philosopher discusses at Politics III, the foremost are kingship, in which one man governs according to virtue , and aristocracy, that is, the power of the best men, in which a few govern according to virtue. Hence the best ordering of government in any city or kingdom is achieved when one man is chosen to preside over all according to virtue, when he has under him others who govern according to virtue, and when such government none the less belongs to all, both because all are eligible for election to it and because it is elected by all. Such a ‘polity’ is the best form of government in as much as it is a benign mixture of kingship, because there is one man who presides, of aristocracy, because it is the rule of several according to virtue, and of democracy, that is, popular power, because the rulers can be elected from the people and it belongs to the people to elect the rulers.” (Summa art.1,responsio,pg 54)
Aquinas argues that human law not only encompasses the written creed of man kind but it is also a judgement we must all bear upon ourselves. We all must be our own judge for there are so many tiny discrepancies that no law book could ever examine and dole out penance for each one. Aquinas states in the above paragraph his desire for the people to chose their own leaders and he goes even further to suggest that we human beings should also judge ourselves.
“ But since human actions consist in particular things, which are infinite in number, matters having to do with the direction of human actions can only be taken into consideration sufficiently by a wise man looking into each of them individually.” (Art1, abiecto 1, pg 127)
There cannot be a wise man for each and every soul, nor someone with the power to do such a thing as peer into the complex miasma of mans heart. Thus this passage suggests that we all each of us must train and coerce our wisest selves to be our own judge. Though aren’t human actions flawed with the best of intentions, we are all born sinners thus imperfect so human law could not possibly fit snugly in Gods own plan?
The answer is still yes for Aquinas later states that even our flaws work in Gods favor for we cannot hope to comprehend his eternal wisdom. And sometimes by disobeying Him we aid Him.
“ Moreover, whoever obeys God causes his own will to will whatever the Divine will wills. But we are not bound in all things to cause our own wills to will what the Divine will wills, as noted above. Therefore no man is not bound to obey God in all things.”(Art4, obiecto 3, pg 66)
Man is not strong enough mentally or spiritually to fully will Gods plan. Though we falter and fail in his commandments he anticipates this weakness and uses it to the advantage of his plan.
“ Though man is not always bound to will what God Himself wills, he is nonetheless always bound to will what God wills him to will. And man comes to know what this is chiefly through God’s command; and so man is bound to obey God’s commands in all things.” (Art4, ad3, pg 67)
Thus a man may believe he is committing a betrayal but in the greater scope all he is doing is willing what God wants. It may be an evil act with an end that is beneficial for the common good. A Biblical example of such thought can be found within the actions taken be Judas of Iscariot. His betrayal was a direct affront to his God but it also served a greater good, IE the redemption of all mankind by the suffering of Jesus Christ. Without Judas’ betrayal mankinds collective sins would not have been accounted for.
Though Aquinas then suggests that in every man there is the capacity for goodness and reason. And that reason is by its nature a virtue.
“ Hence, since the rational soul is the proper form of man [I.E. since man is by nature a rational creature.], there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason; and thus is to act according to virtue.” (Art 3, responsio, pg 119)
So the Natural law dictates that we are indeed capable of reasoning with the Eternal or Divine law and we are capable of judging our own actions accordingly. Though certainly not all natural inclinations are virtues. For illicit sexual acts and desires may be reasoned as acceptable if a man were to toss it around in his mind long enough. So Natural Law is a duel gift curse, in that it may bring is closer to our God or pry us further away from Him. Though His end will be the same no matter which direction we take.
Though humans are imperfect God gives us an Eternal or Divine law to aid in our human endeavors. Though these Eternal laws are not comprised of all laws.
“ Moreover, nothing wicked can proceed from the eternal law, because, as stated above, ‘the eternal law is that according to which it is right that all things should be perfectly in order.’ But some laws are wicked, according to Isaiah 10:1 ‘Woe to them that make wicked laws.’ Therefore not every law is derived from the eternal law.” (Art3, obiectio2, pg 105)
So nothing wicked can come from the Eternal law which is the logical order placed by God, though human law may add to the divine plan by enacting wicked laws as well. This would suggest that man may indeed have some minuscule role to play in shaping Gods plan, however removed it may be. Though obviously as stated above, man has no will which is not Gods will. So perhaps this is a way for God to justify the breaking of a commandment for the greater good. Again giving man some free agency in his life.
“ Moreover Augustine says that ‘the law which is framed for ruling the people, rightly permits many things which are punished by Divine providence’. But the rational pattern of Divine providence is the eternal law, as stated above. Therefore not even every right law proceeds from the eternal law.” (Art3, obiectio3,pg 105)
So Aquinas comes very close to suggesting that even divine politics resembles something of a democracy by stating that human law may have a positive affect on the common good though it may seem wicked at the present time it is enacted.
War for example. It is not a law or creed but a human endeavor which seems to be a sin in any circumstance.
“ It seems that it is always a sin to wage war.” (Art1, pg 239)
Here is an example of a divine law, thou shalt not kill. A clear commandment even from the first days of mankind. Though through human law this is suspended under certain circumstances that are by its ends for the common and greater good.
“ Those who wage just wars intend to secure peace, and so they are not opposed to any peace except that evil peace which the Lord ‘came not to send” upon the earth (Matthew 10:34). Hence Augustine says “We do not seek peace in order to wage war; rather, we wage war in order to achieve peace .’ “(Art1, ad 3 pg 242)
When we do things like waging war in a right and just manner God excuses or at least suspends the mortal sin we are committing. This we have some free agency to decide what God would deem necessary and depending on our own Human nature, whether we chose the virtuous logic, it will lead us to a just and right decision which is in its core a divine reason. Aquinas places in the hands of the people their own soul, and themselves to answer to if they are faithful to their own Lord.
Though Luther would disagree with Aquinas on the main point of human spiritual responsibility. He states that a spiritual government is needed as well as a secular sword to still the wicked and protect the true believers.
“How the Secular Sword and law are to be employed according to God’s will is thus clear and certain enough: to punish the wicked and protect the just.”(pg 7)
So man is not only cut completely out of his own spiritual life, but he is a lamb, in need of protection from the many hungry wolves. As a Christian we are to turn the other cheek and take evil as it comes to us. Though when such evil threatens those who are weaker or ill disposed to deal with it than we are permitted some strength on the behalf of others.
“ Although you yourself do not need your enemy to be punished, your weak neighbor does, and you are to help him to enjoy peace and to see to it that his enemies are kept in check.” (Pg 14)
Never are to take personal responsibility of our own soul and well-being but to relay on others to do it for us. So Princes are expected to be humble and compliant with Gods will and only use their prospective power for the good of their subjects.
“ A prince should therefore dispense with his might and superiority, as far as his heart and mind are concerned, and attend to the needs of his subjects as if they were his own.” (pg 36)
So Luthers system is solely based on a notion of duty to fellow human beings rather than an emotional governance of a person individual soul. Though Calvin compared to Luther is even more stringent with how power is doled out and the responsibilities of those who hold it.
Calvin believes power is both a protection and a punishment for the people who are subjugated by it.
“ Those who govern for the public good are true examples (FV: mirrors) and signs of his goodness; those who govern unjustly and intemperately have been raised up by him to punish the iniquity of the people.” ( pg 76)
The people are commanded by God to follow any and all leaders to the best of their ability and to freely give these rulers their respect and thoughtful prayers as well. There is not escape from a tyranical rule unless the Prince or Magistrate commands to change the heart of a Christian. I.E. confiscating books and religious paraphernalia. They are not to outright rebel but to resist peaceful the command. They must not step a foot in the evil direction or lift a finger to aid it.
“ If they command anything against [his will], it must be as nothing to us. And in this instance we must ignore all that dignity that magistrates (FV: superiors) possess.” ( pg 83)
Calvin simplifies divine or eternal law even more than Luther seems to be stating that the only difference between the two sets of creeds is whether or not a magistrate or prince follows the King of Kings and is humbled to Him. Calvin does not separate politics and religion as well as Luther does with his notion of duty, and comes nowhere near Aquinas concept of free agency when it comes to spirituality. Instead he places all the power of God into those whom have somehow been raised to power, for they would not be there if God did not will it so.
So Luther is a loyalist, with duty owed to the weaker persons, though this concept may be skewed easily by the people at large. He urges man to pick up the sword in defense of his weaker neighbor but what of his own personage? How can a man truly contribute to a society when he does not know himself, when he is not given the authority by God to be the master of his own destiny at least in his mortal life. What of true free agency then? Calvin as well is flawed for this reason, though his flaw is deeper. He would have all people toil and suffer under the rule of a tyrant for the hardships endured would surly be a lesson sent form God. But does God not forgive and bless each individual with reason and certain natural rights? If Calvin can justify war for a just cause, why not a rebellion?
“ Natural justice and their office equally demand that princes must be armed (FV: use the sword) not only to repress private wrong-doing by means of judicial penalties, but also to defend, by means of war, the territories committed in trust to them when they are invaded by enemies. And wars of this sort the Holy Spirit declares to be legitimate by the testimony of many places in Scripture.” ( pg 63)
Who can tell if an invading enemy is another prince intending to bring common good to his people by obtaining more territory? This leaves far too much interpretation and bickering over the exact meaning of defense and legitimacy.
I believe Aquinas’ views on the nature of politics and spiritual responsibilities suits the world at large best. I agree with his near democracy of the Lord s spiritual government, and this mirrors in the human law the best it can through the imperfection of the human soul. God even makes room for error by enacting His will where a deed may be deemed wicked or sinful. And don’t forget that God said in so many words, what we deem lawful on earth so he shall hold true in heaven.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
acidlikegirl's journal
aggravated
anxious