Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Papal Wisdom on Social Issues: Leo XIII on the nature of Civil Power
This question indeed has been one of the most hotly contested questions since the beginnings of Christendom. The nature of the State, the nature of the Church, and how those members of the Church are to act in relation to the State. This is a very relevant issue inside America, as some have used the wording of the First Amendment to justify an absolute separation of God from the State, something the Founding Fathers(despite all their flaws) never dreamed of advocating. Let us look at exactly what Leo XIII teaches in Diuturnum on the origin of civil power, and a Christians duty in it. As before, Leo XIII's words will be in quotation marks, and my comments will be denoted by my name.
"4. Although man, when excited by a certain arrogance and contumacy, has often striven to cast aside the reins of authority, he has never yet been able to arrive at the state of obeying no one. In every association and community of men, necessity itself compels that some should hold preeminence, lest society, deprived of a prince or head by which it is ruled should come to dissolution and be prevented from attaining the end for which it was created and instituted. But, if it was not possible that political power should be removed from the midst of states, it is certain that men have used every art to take away its influence and to lessen its majesty, as was especially the case in the sixteenth century, when a fatal novelty of opinions infatuated many. Since that epoch, not only has the multitude striven after a liberty greater than is just, but it has seen fit to fashion the origin and construction of the civil society of men in accordance with its own will. "
Kevin Tierney: As we saw in his condemnation of Americanism, Leo XIII starts out with an inherently basic truth. As before, the starting point can be implied as the fall of Adam, which gave us consequences. Adam, in his arrogance, strives to be independent of God's authority, but this of course does not work. Likewise, in the political sphere, men have tried since time immemorial for this same type of rebellion, to have no authority to tell them what to do. Obviously, if one can tell you what to do, that denotes structure. If it's one thing those who are of the liberal slant hate, it's people "imposing their viewpoints on others." They have tried and tried, but their approach does not work. Leo XIII establishes the point that a government authority is absolutely necessary.
"5. Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,[2] say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle. "
Kevin Tierney: This is one of the primary errors of liberalism in it's many sorts, that the basic power does not come from God. Those advocating full blown democracy state the rights come from the people, hence in the end, the representative is merely the slave of the people. On the other hand, we have communism, which emphasizes the state as the start of all power. The people essentially become the slaves of the state. If a government has the power to grant rights, one must also realize, it has the power to take it away. We see two opposite extremes of the same principle, that the authority of civil power is a result of natural consequences.
The Catholic says no. There is a dignity inherent in humanity. Christ himself took on flesh, so humanity is not in and of itself evil. God created humanity in his image. It likewise follows that if God created, those rights come from not the mere musings of man, but from God. Likewise, so does the civil power. God throughout history has given us solid principles on how the state is to function, proving that he did indeed create the state. There are many, even of the "conservative stripe" who assert that the State in and of itself is inherently evil. Leo XIII says no, the natural and necessary principles based on mankind fallen nature, necessitate the recognizing and creation of the State, and the right to rule that state.
This is a truth that is under attack in today's culture. Four years ago, in an article about civil rights, the popular children's magazine Scholastic states the following quotes:
"civil rights are the freedoms and rights that a person has as a member of a community, state or nation."
"In the U.S., these rights are guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution and acts of Congress."
This is an inherent misreading of the Constitution, not to mention an inherent misunderstanding of the proper order of the State. While this encyclical is on civil power, I think it is necessary to take it right down to the individual power, and demonstrate his basic civil rights are absolutely independent of what government thinks.
These two quotes above fall prey to the same danger: If the rights are contingent on anything else other than God, this contingent can take it away. Let's take a basic civil right that essentially teaches us murder is unjust. And given yesterday is Martin Luther King Jr. Day in America, let's reflect on this by using an African American as the focus of our study.
By saying that the person is given civil rights because of his membership in a community or state, if the African American were not allowed to be in such, these civil rights would not apply. He could be murdered due to skin color, because he was not part of a certain group, confraternity, or state. One's life cannot be taken unless there is absolute reason and grounds for it. The man has no choice over his skin color, therefore, this would be an unjust punishment, and hence a violation of his civil rights, no matter what the community or state teaches. The same goes for the second example. Since this is a natural issue(skin color is not something that the person determines) he cannot be killed for that skin color, that would be murder. By saying those rights are protected by Congress and the Constitution, that makes them the source of our rights, yet also makes them the denier at the same time. They could wake up tomorrow, and decide we are not worthy of those rights. In short, the civil rights of man can change from day to day, and are not a solid truth. This is what our children are learning today in public schools when the issue of government is raised.
"6. It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.
7. There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.[3] ":
Leo XIII states a very strong point here, that some may tend to miss. While the Church teaches the authority of the ruler comes from God and not from something else, this does not necessarily mean that man can elect a person to rule, and this authority that God has given, is what is given to the man. The authority does not depend on the person ruling, a logical outcome of the fact that God is the one who created the social order. The Church does not say "Monarchy is the only government" or "The idea of a republic is inherently disastrous to the Catholic truth." This is why I say, if Americanism can be a problem with numerous liberals, believing the Church must conform to America, there are those on the opposite extreme who say a republic is automatically harmful, and monarchy is really the only way. Both are serious errors on both sides of the fence in the debate between Catholics today on the issue of Church and State, and it's relation to each other.
"But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude. And this also is a powerful argument, that those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience that it is clearly a sin in the latter not to obey. But no man has in himself or of himself the power of constraining the free will of others by fetters of authority of this kind. This power resides solely in God, the Creator and Legislator of all things; and it is necessary that those who exercise it should do it as having received it from God."
Kevin Tierney: Back to simple, central truths. Leo XIII points out that no just ruler can believe the power comes from anyone but God. If the power is from God, this ruler must act justly, looking to maintain the social order, and help it to function as it was originally created by God. Indeed, every tyrant of the 20th century has been sure to deny this truth. The Nazis felt free to say Jews don't have civil rights because we say so. The communists did the same thing. Militants Isalmist tyrants(such as Saddam Hussein) also believed that in the end, he was the one who decided who did, and did not have civil rights, based on their fidelity to his regime. A nation which acknowledges God as the one who guarantees civil rights, and the basics of civil authority, is checked from such tyranny. Leo realizes the danger is here a few paragraphs later.
"12. Those who believe civil society to have risen from the free consent of men, looking for the origin of its authority from the same source, say that each individual has given up something of his right,[15] and that voluntarily every person has put himself into the power of the one man in whose person the whole of those rights has been centered. But it is a great error not to see, what is manifest, that men, as they are not a nomad race, have been created, without their own free will, for a natural community of life. It is plain, moreover, that the pact which they allege is openly a falsehood and a fiction, and that it has no authority to confer on political power such great force, dignity, and firmness as the safety of the State and the common good of the citizens require. Then only will the government have all those ornaments and guarantees, when it is understood to emanate from God as its august and most sacred source. "
Kevin Tierney: Already, we can see the error of the liberals, and the viewpoint of Scholastic magazine, which teaches our children about basic rights and their source. Leo XIII didn't have the communism or Militant Islamism or Nazism the 20th century witnessed. Yet sound logic and reason dictate to us the absurdity of their positions based on man's fallen nature.
Leo XIII: 13. And it is impossible that any should be found not only more true but even more advantageous than this opinion. For the authority of the rulers of a State, if it be a certain communication of divine power, will by that very reason immediately acquire a dignity greater than human -- not, indeed, that impious and most absurd dignity sometimes desired by heathen emperors when affecting divine honors, but a true and solid one received by a certain divine gift and benefaction. Whence it will behoove citizens to submit themselves and to be obedient to rulers, as to God, not so much through fear of punishment as through respect for their majesty; nor for the sake of pleasing, but through conscience, as doing their duty. And by this means authority will remain far more firmly seated in its place. For the citizens, perceiving the force of this duty would necessarily avoid dishonesty and contumacy, because they must be persuaded that they who resist State authority resist the divine will; that they who refuse honor to rulers refuse it to God Himself.
Kevin Tierney: I believe it would follow that if the God-given authority currently resides in certain people, those people who currently possess this authority are worthy of respect and reverence, out of doing one's duty. This does not mean they have to be liked. Bill Clinton, the scoundrel that he was, was still Mr. President. The authority is always to be respected, even when the person is not.
"15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men." And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. "
Kevin Tierney: Beforehand detailing that we are to submit to the authority of the civil power, we now know that in certain cases, such submission and obedience is indeed impossible, when it contradicts the natural law of God. He also notes that those who do refuse to acknowledge those laws which contradict divine law are not unpatriotic or disobedient, but indeed, are in the right. Authority must have justice. Part of that justice is adhering to God's standard of law in the basic essentials of life. Take abortion. There has really be no law that mandates abortion, but a Supreme Court who claims it is a "choice." We Catholics are not setting ourself up against legimiate authority, but a ruling class that long ago overstepping it's constitutional, and indeed, very authority God originally gives. We are not in dissent wrongly. Therefore, we will continue to call abortion what it is, unlawful murder(if the principle applies to blacks, it also applies to unborn babies of any color, yet you don't see Jesse Jackson championing the civil rights of those which cannot donate to him.) By refusing to acknowledge this law as valid, we are affirming the role of civil power, against a power-hungry machine whose ultimate goal is to set itself independent of God, independent of any high authority.
"23. On the other hand, the doctrines on political power invented by late writers have already produced great ills amongst men, and it is to be feared that they will cause the very greatest disasters to posterity. For an unwillingness to attribute the right of ruling to God, as its Author, is not less than a willingness to blot out the greatest splendor of political power and to destroy its force. And they who say that this power depends on the will of the people err in opinion first of all; then they place authority on too weak and unstable a foundation. For the popular passions, incited and goaded on by these opinions, will break out more insolently; and, with great harm to the common weal, descend headlong by an easy and smooth road to revolts and to open sedition. In truth, sudden uprisings and the boldest rebellions immediately followed in Germany the so-called Reformation,[29] the authors and leaders of which, by their new doctrines, attacked at the very foundation religious and civil authority; and this with so fearful an outburst of civil war and with such slaughter that there was scarcely any place free from tumult and bloodshed. From this heresy there arose in the last century a false philosophy -- a new right as it is called, and a popular authority, together with an unbridled license which many regard as the only true liberty. Hence we have reached the limit of horrors, to wit, communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin. And yet too many attempt to enlarge the scope of these evils, and under the pretext of helping the multitude, already have fanned no small flames of misery. The things we thus mention are neither unknown nor very remote from us. "
Kevin Tierney: Who can doubt that Leo XIII again proved a prophet in the wilderness? He spoke that the dangerous philosophies of the French Revolution, the denial of God in the founding of state, would have horrible consequences. The tyrants of the 20th century all embraced these central ideas, all leading to the rejection of God's authority. Where there was no God in state, there was no God to stop state. In these areas, the state became God, and did whatever it pleased upon it's mere pleasure.
This question indeed has been one of the most hotly contested questions since the beginnings of Christendom. The nature of the State, the nature of the Church, and how those members of the Church are to act in relation to the State. This is a very relevant issue inside America, as some have used the wording of the First Amendment to justify an absolute separation of God from the State, something the Founding Fathers(despite all their flaws) never dreamed of advocating. Let us look at exactly what Leo XIII teaches in Diuturnum on the origin of civil power, and a Christians duty in it. As before, Leo XIII's words will be in quotation marks, and my comments will be denoted by my name.
"4. Although man, when excited by a certain arrogance and contumacy, has often striven to cast aside the reins of authority, he has never yet been able to arrive at the state of obeying no one. In every association and community of men, necessity itself compels that some should hold preeminence, lest society, deprived of a prince or head by which it is ruled should come to dissolution and be prevented from attaining the end for which it was created and instituted. But, if it was not possible that political power should be removed from the midst of states, it is certain that men have used every art to take away its influence and to lessen its majesty, as was especially the case in the sixteenth century, when a fatal novelty of opinions infatuated many. Since that epoch, not only has the multitude striven after a liberty greater than is just, but it has seen fit to fashion the origin and construction of the civil society of men in accordance with its own will. "
Kevin Tierney: As we saw in his condemnation of Americanism, Leo XIII starts out with an inherently basic truth. As before, the starting point can be implied as the fall of Adam, which gave us consequences. Adam, in his arrogance, strives to be independent of God's authority, but this of course does not work. Likewise, in the political sphere, men have tried since time immemorial for this same type of rebellion, to have no authority to tell them what to do. Obviously, if one can tell you what to do, that denotes structure. If it's one thing those who are of the liberal slant hate, it's people "imposing their viewpoints on others." They have tried and tried, but their approach does not work. Leo XIII establishes the point that a government authority is absolutely necessary.
"5. Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,[2] say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle. "
Kevin Tierney: This is one of the primary errors of liberalism in it's many sorts, that the basic power does not come from God. Those advocating full blown democracy state the rights come from the people, hence in the end, the representative is merely the slave of the people. On the other hand, we have communism, which emphasizes the state as the start of all power. The people essentially become the slaves of the state. If a government has the power to grant rights, one must also realize, it has the power to take it away. We see two opposite extremes of the same principle, that the authority of civil power is a result of natural consequences.
The Catholic says no. There is a dignity inherent in humanity. Christ himself took on flesh, so humanity is not in and of itself evil. God created humanity in his image. It likewise follows that if God created, those rights come from not the mere musings of man, but from God. Likewise, so does the civil power. God throughout history has given us solid principles on how the state is to function, proving that he did indeed create the state. There are many, even of the "conservative stripe" who assert that the State in and of itself is inherently evil. Leo XIII says no, the natural and necessary principles based on mankind fallen nature, necessitate the recognizing and creation of the State, and the right to rule that state.
This is a truth that is under attack in today's culture. Four years ago, in an article about civil rights, the popular children's magazine Scholastic states the following quotes:
"civil rights are the freedoms and rights that a person has as a member of a community, state or nation."
"In the U.S., these rights are guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution and acts of Congress."
This is an inherent misreading of the Constitution, not to mention an inherent misunderstanding of the proper order of the State. While this encyclical is on civil power, I think it is necessary to take it right down to the individual power, and demonstrate his basic civil rights are absolutely independent of what government thinks.
These two quotes above fall prey to the same danger: If the rights are contingent on anything else other than God, this contingent can take it away. Let's take a basic civil right that essentially teaches us murder is unjust. And given yesterday is Martin Luther King Jr. Day in America, let's reflect on this by using an African American as the focus of our study.
By saying that the person is given civil rights because of his membership in a community or state, if the African American were not allowed to be in such, these civil rights would not apply. He could be murdered due to skin color, because he was not part of a certain group, confraternity, or state. One's life cannot be taken unless there is absolute reason and grounds for it. The man has no choice over his skin color, therefore, this would be an unjust punishment, and hence a violation of his civil rights, no matter what the community or state teaches. The same goes for the second example. Since this is a natural issue(skin color is not something that the person determines) he cannot be killed for that skin color, that would be murder. By saying those rights are protected by Congress and the Constitution, that makes them the source of our rights, yet also makes them the denier at the same time. They could wake up tomorrow, and decide we are not worthy of those rights. In short, the civil rights of man can change from day to day, and are not a solid truth. This is what our children are learning today in public schools when the issue of government is raised.
"6. It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.
7. There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.[3] ":
Leo XIII states a very strong point here, that some may tend to miss. While the Church teaches the authority of the ruler comes from God and not from something else, this does not necessarily mean that man can elect a person to rule, and this authority that God has given, is what is given to the man. The authority does not depend on the person ruling, a logical outcome of the fact that God is the one who created the social order. The Church does not say "Monarchy is the only government" or "The idea of a republic is inherently disastrous to the Catholic truth." This is why I say, if Americanism can be a problem with numerous liberals, believing the Church must conform to America, there are those on the opposite extreme who say a republic is automatically harmful, and monarchy is really the only way. Both are serious errors on both sides of the fence in the debate between Catholics today on the issue of Church and State, and it's relation to each other.
"But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude. And this also is a powerful argument, that those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience that it is clearly a sin in the latter not to obey. But no man has in himself or of himself the power of constraining the free will of others by fetters of authority of this kind. This power resides solely in God, the Creator and Legislator of all things; and it is necessary that those who exercise it should do it as having received it from God."
Kevin Tierney: Back to simple, central truths. Leo XIII points out that no just ruler can believe the power comes from anyone but God. If the power is from God, this ruler must act justly, looking to maintain the social order, and help it to function as it was originally created by God. Indeed, every tyrant of the 20th century has been sure to deny this truth. The Nazis felt free to say Jews don't have civil rights because we say so. The communists did the same thing. Militants Isalmist tyrants(such as Saddam Hussein) also believed that in the end, he was the one who decided who did, and did not have civil rights, based on their fidelity to his regime. A nation which acknowledges God as the one who guarantees civil rights, and the basics of civil authority, is checked from such tyranny. Leo realizes the danger is here a few paragraphs later.
"12. Those who believe civil society to have risen from the free consent of men, looking for the origin of its authority from the same source, say that each individual has given up something of his right,[15] and that voluntarily every person has put himself into the power of the one man in whose person the whole of those rights has been centered. But it is a great error not to see, what is manifest, that men, as they are not a nomad race, have been created, without their own free will, for a natural community of life. It is plain, moreover, that the pact which they allege is openly a falsehood and a fiction, and that it has no authority to confer on political power such great force, dignity, and firmness as the safety of the State and the common good of the citizens require. Then only will the government have all those ornaments and guarantees, when it is understood to emanate from God as its august and most sacred source. "
Kevin Tierney: Already, we can see the error of the liberals, and the viewpoint of Scholastic magazine, which teaches our children about basic rights and their source. Leo XIII didn't have the communism or Militant Islamism or Nazism the 20th century witnessed. Yet sound logic and reason dictate to us the absurdity of their positions based on man's fallen nature.
Leo XIII: 13. And it is impossible that any should be found not only more true but even more advantageous than this opinion. For the authority of the rulers of a State, if it be a certain communication of divine power, will by that very reason immediately acquire a dignity greater than human -- not, indeed, that impious and most absurd dignity sometimes desired by heathen emperors when affecting divine honors, but a true and solid one received by a certain divine gift and benefaction. Whence it will behoove citizens to submit themselves and to be obedient to rulers, as to God, not so much through fear of punishment as through respect for their majesty; nor for the sake of pleasing, but through conscience, as doing their duty. And by this means authority will remain far more firmly seated in its place. For the citizens, perceiving the force of this duty would necessarily avoid dishonesty and contumacy, because they must be persuaded that they who resist State authority resist the divine will; that they who refuse honor to rulers refuse it to God Himself.
Kevin Tierney: I believe it would follow that if the God-given authority currently resides in certain people, those people who currently possess this authority are worthy of respect and reverence, out of doing one's duty. This does not mean they have to be liked. Bill Clinton, the scoundrel that he was, was still Mr. President. The authority is always to be respected, even when the person is not.
"15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men." And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. "
Kevin Tierney: Beforehand detailing that we are to submit to the authority of the civil power, we now know that in certain cases, such submission and obedience is indeed impossible, when it contradicts the natural law of God. He also notes that those who do refuse to acknowledge those laws which contradict divine law are not unpatriotic or disobedient, but indeed, are in the right. Authority must have justice. Part of that justice is adhering to God's standard of law in the basic essentials of life. Take abortion. There has really be no law that mandates abortion, but a Supreme Court who claims it is a "choice." We Catholics are not setting ourself up against legimiate authority, but a ruling class that long ago overstepping it's constitutional, and indeed, very authority God originally gives. We are not in dissent wrongly. Therefore, we will continue to call abortion what it is, unlawful murder(if the principle applies to blacks, it also applies to unborn babies of any color, yet you don't see Jesse Jackson championing the civil rights of those which cannot donate to him.) By refusing to acknowledge this law as valid, we are affirming the role of civil power, against a power-hungry machine whose ultimate goal is to set itself independent of God, independent of any high authority.
"23. On the other hand, the doctrines on political power invented by late writers have already produced great ills amongst men, and it is to be feared that they will cause the very greatest disasters to posterity. For an unwillingness to attribute the right of ruling to God, as its Author, is not less than a willingness to blot out the greatest splendor of political power and to destroy its force. And they who say that this power depends on the will of the people err in opinion first of all; then they place authority on too weak and unstable a foundation. For the popular passions, incited and goaded on by these opinions, will break out more insolently; and, with great harm to the common weal, descend headlong by an easy and smooth road to revolts and to open sedition. In truth, sudden uprisings and the boldest rebellions immediately followed in Germany the so-called Reformation,[29] the authors and leaders of which, by their new doctrines, attacked at the very foundation religious and civil authority; and this with so fearful an outburst of civil war and with such slaughter that there was scarcely any place free from tumult and bloodshed. From this heresy there arose in the last century a false philosophy -- a new right as it is called, and a popular authority, together with an unbridled license which many regard as the only true liberty. Hence we have reached the limit of horrors, to wit, communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin. And yet too many attempt to enlarge the scope of these evils, and under the pretext of helping the multitude, already have fanned no small flames of misery. The things we thus mention are neither unknown nor very remote from us. "
Kevin Tierney: Who can doubt that Leo XIII again proved a prophet in the wilderness? He spoke that the dangerous philosophies of the French Revolution, the denial of God in the founding of state, would have horrible consequences. The tyrants of the 20th century all embraced these central ideas, all leading to the rejection of God's authority. Where there was no God in state, there was no God to stop state. In these areas, the state became God, and did whatever it pleased upon it's mere pleasure.
