The Political Art, the American Regime, and the Magisterium of Rome

Replies to Certain Difficulties Raised During a Critical Examination of the Principles of the American Regime

♣

So, of all countries in the world, America is the one in which the precepts of Descartes are least studied and best followed.  No one should be surprised at that.  The Americans never read Descartes’ works because their state of society distracts them from speculative inquiries, and they follow his precepts because this same state of society naturally leads them to adopt them.

-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

How then can a Christian, inspired and guided by the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption of Christ, strengthen his or her own values and those that are embodied in the heritage of this nation?  The answer to that question, in order to be complete, would have to be long.

-John Paul II, October 3, 19790, during his first pastoral visit to the United States

Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?  Baptismo autem habeo baptizari, et quomodo coartor usquedum perficiatur?  Putatis quia pacem veni dare in terram?  Non, dico vobis, sed separationem.

-Luc. XII, 49-51

 

---

Introduction

Lately on this campus a divisive debate has raged over questions concerning the American regime:  whether it is compatible with the Catholic Magisterium and natural law; whether it is salutary for our nation’s guidance; whether its principles are based on a right understanding of human nature and liberty; whether, in short, the American regime is a regime at all.  Various approaches to these questions have been essayed; Aristotle, St. Thomas, and the Popes have been quoted; and the texts of Hobbes, Locke, Smith and the founding fathers have been examined and called to judgement.

In the ensuing pages, it is our intention to set forth the traditional understanding of the political art, and to answer satisfactorily the most common objections, raised from every angle, against those who deny the government’s legitimacy.  During the course of the discussion, we will make a point of referring the reader to important texts and crucial distinctions that often become clouded in the storms of argument, since ultimately the dispute arises from the equivocal usage of key words.

Because the question at hand is heavily historical, any frank inquiry will carefully consider the instruments and evidences which a past age offers to him for the clarifying of his knowledge.  As a result, we have offered a plentiful selection of colonial writings by famous statesmen, lawyers, educators, and preachers, to illustrate the founding fathers’ conception of their task, their presuppositions, and their ends, as well as to delineate the intellectual custom of an age and people.  For how can a man capture the fine meaning of Cicero’s Orations, or the full import of Augustine’s Epistles, without a measure of historical knowledge?

In order to shed further – and definitive – light on the subject, we have compiled an extensive appendix of papal pronouncements on socio-political questions, organised chronologically for the sake of exhibiting the essential continuity of thought and the development of doctrine characteristic of the Church’s Magisterium.  Of particular importance, the reader will find, towards the end of the book, Leo XIII’s Encyclical Libertas, a close grasp of which is absolutely crucial for understanding the arguments that follow.

Since according to the dictum of Aristotle the truth is difficult for one man to attain, whereas many working together may hope to reach it, we not only expect, but welcome counter-arguments and further questions, which we will ponder and address to the best of our ability.  Much is at stake:  the Truth.  Proponents of strong arguments are not afraid to come out into the public forum, and leave their comfortable rooms and late-night conversations; therefore, let us shun fruitless wrangling and willful assertions; fostering instead public, charitable debate on a subject so grave in its importance and consequences.  “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.” (Ps. 126.)  Most of all, let the arguments and objections be set down in writing in order that calm reflection on explicit theses may alleviate the acrimony of contention and the wasted effort of incidental talk.

At Thomas Aquinas College  //  May 25, 1994  //  Feast of St. Philip Neri