Book Review: Papal Teaching on Private Property – 1891 to 1981
is circularly flawed. The argument is that Original Sin has resulted in the fall of all, so we need “enlightened” leaders to rule over us and make us good. The problem is, the rulers are never exempt from Original Sin, and in being given power over others, they abuse and tyrannize their subjects – often to a degree that is far worse than the effects of Original Sin on the original individual. The argument is completely self-defeating. Lord Acton said it best…
I would say your description of the Catholic Argument is somewhat inaccurate. For one, Adam was constituted Patriarch over Eve and all creation prior to Original Sin, so it wasn’t OS that necessitated the State. Also, if governance were in some sense intrinsically evil, then the very notion of Kingdom of God is self-refuting. So Original Sin isn’t the full picture by any means. Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei sums up the true Catholic argument:
“Man’s natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence, it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life-be it family, or civil-with his fellow men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God.”
Thus the Catholic argument is God created us to be in some sense dependent on others, to satisfy both social and material needs. This necessitates man is to live in society, and this society naturally demands rules and regulations directed at the common good. The idea that anything, be it schools, society, clubs, traffic laws, etc, can function without some sort of rules and governance is functional atheism and converges on total insanity. Even basic property rights mean nothing if there is no sense of governance.
The question to ask is, do you follow traffic laws only because you’re afraid of being thrown in jail or because you realize there needs to be some sort of order to keep people relatively safe and traffic (ideally) constantly moving? Traffic laws are not based in any sense primarily on Original Sin, since driving is mostly a morally neutral act. The same question can be applied to any set of laws in general.
(Side note: you don’t have “Follow Up Comments” enabled for your blog so I won’t know when/if you respond.)
“Thus the Catholic argument is God created us to be in some sense dependent on others, to satisfy both social and material needs. This necessitates man is to live in society, and this society naturally demands rules and regulations directed at the common good.” Agree 100%.
“The idea that anything, be it schools, society, clubs, traffic laws, etc, can function without some sort of rules and governance is functional atheism and converges on total insanity.” This is nonsensical conjecture, and a non sequitur. Rules and order do not require a monopoly of force by one governing body. Your answers to this argument do not follow. Rules, order, and governance are not exclusive to having one reigning body.
I will search around for the follow-up comments thingy.