Thursday, February 26, 2004
Papal Wisdom, Leo XIII on Human Liberty
In the Encyclical Libertas, Leo XIII tackled one of the most important questions of his day, and indeed, today remains a very important question. That question is from whence does human liberty arise? What are the boundaries of that human liberty? In my previous commentary here I discussed the encyclical Immortale Dei, where Leo XIII began to cover some of the false liberties mankind in his time ascribed to themselves. Therefore, some of this commentary may seem familiar to interested readers. As has been traditionally done here at Culture of Christ, the words of the Pontiff will be in quotation marks, and then I will note with Kevin Tierney my commentary.
"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity -- that he is "in the hand of his counsel" and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. "
Kevin Tierney: We started off with a very precise point before in previous commentaries, and now will be absolutely no exception. Many of my traditionalist colleagues might have problem with such a statement, that liberty and the dignity of man are viewed so highly by Leo XIII. Yet I do not believe this need be so. In Leo's time, many had placed a very high dignity of man, but a false dignity, since it obscured its true source, that being that dignity inherent comes from God, and is best displayed in the mystery of the Incarnation, where Christ himself became man. Leo XIII countered such teaching with man's true dignity, and the source of that true dignity. Indeed, the social aspect of Leo's writings teaches the faithful what to do with that dignity and liberty, to truly bring about good, whereas the errors of the modern state and world used their liberty and dignity for inherently evil purposes.
"Yet there are many who imagine that the Church is hostile to human liberty. Having a false and absurd notion as to what liberty is, either they pervert the very idea of freedom, or they extend it at their pleasure to many things in respect of which man cannot rightly be regarded as free."
Kevin Tierney: We now can see what the purpose of this encyclical will be. To counter the charge that the Church is opposed to human liberty, Leo will outline exactly what human liberty is, its source, and contrast that with what he witnessed in his time, which I would add, has become exponentially worse in our own time, once again, making the Pontiff's warnings very relevant.
"2. We have on other occasions, and especially in Our encyclical letter lmmortale Dei, in treating of the so-called modern liberties, distinguished between their good and evil elements; and We have shown that whatsoever is good in those liberties is as ancient as truth itself, and that the Church has always most willingly approved and practiced that good: but whatsoever has been added as new is, to tell the plain truth, of a vitiated kind, the fruit of the disorders of the age, and of an insatiate longing after novelties. Seeing, however, that many cling so obstinately to their own opinion in this matter as to imagine these modern liberties, cankered as they are, to be the greatest glory of our age, and the very basis of civil life, without which no perfect government can be conceived, We feel it a pressing duty, for the sake of the common good, to treat separately of this subject. "
Kevin Tierney: The old adage remains here, what's true is not new, what's new is not true. This goes especially for the rights and dignity of man. This is not an area of pastoral policies, but of divine truth itself. Leo notes the utter insanity of the "progression" of man's rights. Note that when I say progression, I do not talk about certain things as a movement for civil rights. I am speaking about how these rights exist. Civil rights did not just belong to minorities once Rosa Parks refused to get up and move to the back of the bus. They did not just come about with the end of slavery. They have always been around. Now a possible question is when people recognized as a whole these rights, but that is for another discussion. The Catholic Church had always stood out on the issue of slavery, and indeed, was Western Civilizations strongest voice against it, charging it had gone against the dignity of man.
This is not so with the calls for an absolute separation of Church and State, to where the Church may not have any authority. This is a new right, an utter novelty, which Leo condemns.
"3. It is with moral liberty, whether in individuals or in communities, that We proceed at once to deal. But, first of all, it will be well to speak briefly of natural liberty; for, though it is distinct and separate from moral liberty, natural freedom is the fountainhead from which liberty of whatsoever kind flows, sua vi suaque sponte. The unanimous consent and judgment of men, which is the trusty voice of nature, recognizes this natural liberty in those only who are endowed with intelligence or reason; and it is by his use of this that man is rightly regarded as responsible for his actions. For, while other animate creatures follow their senses, seeking good and avoiding evil only by instinct, man has reason to guide him in each and every act of his life. Reason sees that whatever things that are held to be good upon earth may exist or may not, and discerning that none of them are of necessity for us, it leaves the will free to choose what it pleases. But man can judge of this contingency, as We say, only because he has a soul that is simple, spiritual, and intellectual -- a soul, therefore, which is not produced by matter, and does not depend on matter for its existence; but which is created immediately by God, and, far surpassing the condition of things material, has a life and action of its own -- so that, knowing the unchangeable and necessary reasons of what is true and good, it sees that no particular kind of good is necessary to us. When, therefore, it is established that man's soul is immortal and endowed with reason and not bound up with things material, the foundation of natural liberty is at once most firmly laid. "
Kevin Tierney: Natural liberty is something that must be stressed. The Pope makes a point I believe we should talk about here. I have touched upon this from time to time in my commentary on the nature of civil power, but will focus on this from an individual perspective. Many in today's society wish to exclude God, if not abolish him downright. Yet the question must then be answered, from whence derives liberty? The Christian can say that since liberty comes from us having a soul created by God, our liberty and dignity does not depend on the actions, miss actions of anyone. It depends on God. Therefore, our basic liberties cannot be stripped from us, under any circumstance.
The modern age cannot say this. In it's attempts (and successes in some areas) to do away with God in the matters of state, they must still come with the question, where does human liberty derive from. Something must take the place of God in giving mankind that liberty and dignity. Yet since mankind and it's nature have been corrupted by the fall, man cannot be trusted in himself to secure his liberty. If disagreements came up, man would argue over whose interpretation of liberty was indeed the true one. Therefore, understanding the need for government (contrary to those who view the concept of state inherently evil) they form a government, and then the government ends up saying it is the source of that liberty. If it is the source of that liberty, if you act contrary to it's means, that government may also suspend that liberty. (I add in passing this is exactly what the United Nations says in its Human Rights Declaration, paragraph 29.) Already we see two much contrasted systems of natural liberty, from whence all liberty flows from. These differences cannot be reconciled.
"7. Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin. First of all, there must be law; that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically good and therefore to be chosen, and what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in order to the eventual attainment of man's last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. This ordination of reason is called law. In man's free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man's actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments. "
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo XIII shows the importance of law and its integral connection with liberty. There are some who see law as going contrary to liberty. Yet in the Christian world, we believe in absolutes. Those principles comprise law. Something is evil or good, true and false, etc. Our laws must be built upon this. In our liberty, mankind seeks to do well. Use our liberty to the fullest potential. This in itself shows the intimate connection between liberty and law.
"8. Foremost in this office comes the natural law, which is written and engraved in the mind of every man; and this is nothing but our reason, commanding us to do right and forbidding sin. Nevertheless, all prescriptions of human reason can have force of law only inasmuch as they are the voice and the interpreters of some higher power on which our reason and liberty necessarily depend. For, since the force of law consists in the imposing of obligations and the granting of rights, authority is the one and only foundation of all law -- the power, that is, of fixing duties and defining rights, as also of assigning the necessary sanctions of reward and chastisement to each and all of its commands. But all this, clearly, cannot be found in man, if, as his own supreme legislator, he is to be the rule of his own actions."
Kevin Tierney: Leo introduces the concept of natural law here, that which is written into our hearts, and is essentially common sense. We then see how Leo continues to go back to what he had said before, expounding upon that point. Liberty cannot come from within man. Man is a created object; therefore, his liberty comes from something outside him. If it comes from within man, there can really be no standard of liberty, as our minds are clouded by the fall. If it comes from a higher power, then we may not modify that standard of liberty. This is absolutely forbidden. Only those who are the source of liberty may curtail such liberty. This is why in today's modern state; the concept of State takes the place of the concept of God for the people. (As I noted previously, when the State sets itself up against the Church, it disrupts the order God has created, and a void now exists. Something must fill that void, and the State is the logical outcome of such from this warped perspective.) The state can indeed take away basic liberties if it feels the people use these liberties against the government. One can see the building blocks of the Soviet Union condemned at several decades in advance by Leo XIII, one of the modern state's most prolific critics.
"9. What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals. That human law promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law."
Kevin Tierney: I will not add further comment, since Leo has gone over this many times, I feel I would be repeating myself, so I will let him speak.
"Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: "I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law." If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society. "
Kevin Tierney: If the standard for individuals comes from God, as Leo XIII outlined before commenting on the nature of civil power, so does the standard for rulers and states. Human laws can be followed only in regards to how closely they follow the divine law. This divine law is known to mankind, which is why we naturally understand that one who is innocent cannot be killed arbitrarily. There must be sufficient cause for this. Modern state itself understands this, which is why it labels as "enemies of the state and liberty" those they view undesirable. One cannot do something simply because he feels like it. Leo goes on to condemn the false liberties of our age, and show how they are contrary to true liberty. Much (if not all) of this has been stated before in Immortale Dei and Arcanum, so I would simply refer my readers to those commentaries if they are interested. I would suggest reading these portions of Libertas though, as he strengthens some previous points. I have only taken the most important principles of this encyclical.
In the Encyclical Libertas, Leo XIII tackled one of the most important questions of his day, and indeed, today remains a very important question. That question is from whence does human liberty arise? What are the boundaries of that human liberty? In my previous commentary here I discussed the encyclical Immortale Dei, where Leo XIII began to cover some of the false liberties mankind in his time ascribed to themselves. Therefore, some of this commentary may seem familiar to interested readers. As has been traditionally done here at Culture of Christ, the words of the Pontiff will be in quotation marks, and then I will note with Kevin Tierney my commentary.
"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity -- that he is "in the hand of his counsel" and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. "
Kevin Tierney: We started off with a very precise point before in previous commentaries, and now will be absolutely no exception. Many of my traditionalist colleagues might have problem with such a statement, that liberty and the dignity of man are viewed so highly by Leo XIII. Yet I do not believe this need be so. In Leo's time, many had placed a very high dignity of man, but a false dignity, since it obscured its true source, that being that dignity inherent comes from God, and is best displayed in the mystery of the Incarnation, where Christ himself became man. Leo XIII countered such teaching with man's true dignity, and the source of that true dignity. Indeed, the social aspect of Leo's writings teaches the faithful what to do with that dignity and liberty, to truly bring about good, whereas the errors of the modern state and world used their liberty and dignity for inherently evil purposes.
"Yet there are many who imagine that the Church is hostile to human liberty. Having a false and absurd notion as to what liberty is, either they pervert the very idea of freedom, or they extend it at their pleasure to many things in respect of which man cannot rightly be regarded as free."
Kevin Tierney: We now can see what the purpose of this encyclical will be. To counter the charge that the Church is opposed to human liberty, Leo will outline exactly what human liberty is, its source, and contrast that with what he witnessed in his time, which I would add, has become exponentially worse in our own time, once again, making the Pontiff's warnings very relevant.
"2. We have on other occasions, and especially in Our encyclical letter lmmortale Dei, in treating of the so-called modern liberties, distinguished between their good and evil elements; and We have shown that whatsoever is good in those liberties is as ancient as truth itself, and that the Church has always most willingly approved and practiced that good: but whatsoever has been added as new is, to tell the plain truth, of a vitiated kind, the fruit of the disorders of the age, and of an insatiate longing after novelties. Seeing, however, that many cling so obstinately to their own opinion in this matter as to imagine these modern liberties, cankered as they are, to be the greatest glory of our age, and the very basis of civil life, without which no perfect government can be conceived, We feel it a pressing duty, for the sake of the common good, to treat separately of this subject. "
Kevin Tierney: The old adage remains here, what's true is not new, what's new is not true. This goes especially for the rights and dignity of man. This is not an area of pastoral policies, but of divine truth itself. Leo notes the utter insanity of the "progression" of man's rights. Note that when I say progression, I do not talk about certain things as a movement for civil rights. I am speaking about how these rights exist. Civil rights did not just belong to minorities once Rosa Parks refused to get up and move to the back of the bus. They did not just come about with the end of slavery. They have always been around. Now a possible question is when people recognized as a whole these rights, but that is for another discussion. The Catholic Church had always stood out on the issue of slavery, and indeed, was Western Civilizations strongest voice against it, charging it had gone against the dignity of man.
This is not so with the calls for an absolute separation of Church and State, to where the Church may not have any authority. This is a new right, an utter novelty, which Leo condemns.
"3. It is with moral liberty, whether in individuals or in communities, that We proceed at once to deal. But, first of all, it will be well to speak briefly of natural liberty; for, though it is distinct and separate from moral liberty, natural freedom is the fountainhead from which liberty of whatsoever kind flows, sua vi suaque sponte. The unanimous consent and judgment of men, which is the trusty voice of nature, recognizes this natural liberty in those only who are endowed with intelligence or reason; and it is by his use of this that man is rightly regarded as responsible for his actions. For, while other animate creatures follow their senses, seeking good and avoiding evil only by instinct, man has reason to guide him in each and every act of his life. Reason sees that whatever things that are held to be good upon earth may exist or may not, and discerning that none of them are of necessity for us, it leaves the will free to choose what it pleases. But man can judge of this contingency, as We say, only because he has a soul that is simple, spiritual, and intellectual -- a soul, therefore, which is not produced by matter, and does not depend on matter for its existence; but which is created immediately by God, and, far surpassing the condition of things material, has a life and action of its own -- so that, knowing the unchangeable and necessary reasons of what is true and good, it sees that no particular kind of good is necessary to us. When, therefore, it is established that man's soul is immortal and endowed with reason and not bound up with things material, the foundation of natural liberty is at once most firmly laid. "
Kevin Tierney: Natural liberty is something that must be stressed. The Pope makes a point I believe we should talk about here. I have touched upon this from time to time in my commentary on the nature of civil power, but will focus on this from an individual perspective. Many in today's society wish to exclude God, if not abolish him downright. Yet the question must then be answered, from whence derives liberty? The Christian can say that since liberty comes from us having a soul created by God, our liberty and dignity does not depend on the actions, miss actions of anyone. It depends on God. Therefore, our basic liberties cannot be stripped from us, under any circumstance.
The modern age cannot say this. In it's attempts (and successes in some areas) to do away with God in the matters of state, they must still come with the question, where does human liberty derive from. Something must take the place of God in giving mankind that liberty and dignity. Yet since mankind and it's nature have been corrupted by the fall, man cannot be trusted in himself to secure his liberty. If disagreements came up, man would argue over whose interpretation of liberty was indeed the true one. Therefore, understanding the need for government (contrary to those who view the concept of state inherently evil) they form a government, and then the government ends up saying it is the source of that liberty. If it is the source of that liberty, if you act contrary to it's means, that government may also suspend that liberty. (I add in passing this is exactly what the United Nations says in its Human Rights Declaration, paragraph 29.) Already we see two much contrasted systems of natural liberty, from whence all liberty flows from. These differences cannot be reconciled.
"7. Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin. First of all, there must be law; that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically good and therefore to be chosen, and what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in order to the eventual attainment of man's last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. This ordination of reason is called law. In man's free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man's actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments. "
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo XIII shows the importance of law and its integral connection with liberty. There are some who see law as going contrary to liberty. Yet in the Christian world, we believe in absolutes. Those principles comprise law. Something is evil or good, true and false, etc. Our laws must be built upon this. In our liberty, mankind seeks to do well. Use our liberty to the fullest potential. This in itself shows the intimate connection between liberty and law.
"8. Foremost in this office comes the natural law, which is written and engraved in the mind of every man; and this is nothing but our reason, commanding us to do right and forbidding sin. Nevertheless, all prescriptions of human reason can have force of law only inasmuch as they are the voice and the interpreters of some higher power on which our reason and liberty necessarily depend. For, since the force of law consists in the imposing of obligations and the granting of rights, authority is the one and only foundation of all law -- the power, that is, of fixing duties and defining rights, as also of assigning the necessary sanctions of reward and chastisement to each and all of its commands. But all this, clearly, cannot be found in man, if, as his own supreme legislator, he is to be the rule of his own actions."
Kevin Tierney: Leo introduces the concept of natural law here, that which is written into our hearts, and is essentially common sense. We then see how Leo continues to go back to what he had said before, expounding upon that point. Liberty cannot come from within man. Man is a created object; therefore, his liberty comes from something outside him. If it comes from within man, there can really be no standard of liberty, as our minds are clouded by the fall. If it comes from a higher power, then we may not modify that standard of liberty. This is absolutely forbidden. Only those who are the source of liberty may curtail such liberty. This is why in today's modern state; the concept of State takes the place of the concept of God for the people. (As I noted previously, when the State sets itself up against the Church, it disrupts the order God has created, and a void now exists. Something must fill that void, and the State is the logical outcome of such from this warped perspective.) The state can indeed take away basic liberties if it feels the people use these liberties against the government. One can see the building blocks of the Soviet Union condemned at several decades in advance by Leo XIII, one of the modern state's most prolific critics.
"9. What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals. That human law promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law."
Kevin Tierney: I will not add further comment, since Leo has gone over this many times, I feel I would be repeating myself, so I will let him speak.
"Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: "I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law." If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society. "
Kevin Tierney: If the standard for individuals comes from God, as Leo XIII outlined before commenting on the nature of civil power, so does the standard for rulers and states. Human laws can be followed only in regards to how closely they follow the divine law. This divine law is known to mankind, which is why we naturally understand that one who is innocent cannot be killed arbitrarily. There must be sufficient cause for this. Modern state itself understands this, which is why it labels as "enemies of the state and liberty" those they view undesirable. One cannot do something simply because he feels like it. Leo goes on to condemn the false liberties of our age, and show how they are contrary to true liberty. Much (if not all) of this has been stated before in Immortale Dei and Arcanum, so I would simply refer my readers to those commentaries if they are interested. I would suggest reading these portions of Libertas though, as he strengthens some previous points. I have only taken the most important principles of this encyclical.
