North of the Shire

It seems that there is little likelihood that America will ever return to the structure of its roots, despite what some there would wish or hope for or attempt to engineer. The power structures are too deeply entrenched. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, I believe it is in the nature of mankind to desire a kingdom and for all practical purposes to create one despite the nominal system or ideology. Although that original American ideal was as close to the ideal of subsidiarity in Catholic social doctrine that the world has ever known, it is long gone.

The only other way to achieve the Catholic principles of secular governance in my view is to actually have what we all want; to have a kingdom, and in this case a Catholic king who would impose the principles, or perhaps more correctly, permit the principles of subsidiarity to operate in his kingdom.

As to socialism vs. capitalism, experience shows us that the various forms that socialism has taken in the past tend to see religion and the religious as an enemy and seek to diminish, restrict or eradicate religion and the practice of the Catholic faith. One curious variation of capitalism was the Nazi regime, in which capitalism was circumscribed by a socialist government such that the regime decided who would be successful and who would not. If this was capitalism it certainly was not free-market capitalism, so perhaps the better expression of the American experience up until recently would be free-market capitalism.

The free market system tends to be free in the area of religion as well, so that relatively speaking, it is preferred over socialism as the context for Catholic religious practice. But as we have seen, societies tend to coalesce into the hierarchy of elites and peasants, regardless of our intentions. There remain two questions.

Why not be honest and go directly to the kingdom system of governance and be done with it?

Is this tendency to become a form of a kingdom caused by the wounded side of our nature, as we described in the early part of this series, or does it come from our better nature, because, as we know, God has chosen to give us a kingdom under Jesus Christ the King?

To the first question I would say, why not? I have said it before and I will repeat that if I must live under an absolute ruler, rather than some godless socialist dictator give me a Catholic king any day of the week.

As to the second question; so is our tendency really a close parallel to the Israelites demanding a king? The reason I spent some time in the beginning discussing the concupiscent nature of mankind is to attempt to answer this question.

In the course of human affairs some men always seek power over others. This I believe is a result of concupiscence. Other men seek power to protect themselves and their property from other men. In part, this is concupiscence as well, insofar as their motivation is accumulating property to themselves. Some men are vicious and cruel and enjoy the raw exercise of power over others. This also is obviously a manifestation of the wounded human nature.

On the other side, it is natural for humanity to seek a supreme leader. They do not realize perhaps that what they are seeking is God. They create gods on earth as a substitute to fill that need for God. This was the sin of Israel in asking for a king. Throughout history it is not uncommon for masses of people to idolize some person, to elevate them to the level of superhuman, whether it be in popular culture or in politics or even religion.

As we know, Christ fulfilled this need as the man who was God, not by popular acclamation, but because he was actually God. He is the perfect man, and the only one fit to be King of all men. Thus, our first allegiance is to Jesus Christ the King. In the secular realm perhaps the best way to approach governance is by using the parallel to the real king and insofar as the king is in humble obedience to Christ the King of all kings, his governance will be as close in semblance to the Kingdom of God as is possible here on earth, given the concupiscence of mankind.

There was a philosophy known as the divine right of kings which when taken seriously by the kings of this world in the past, was a call to be responsible for all of the subjects of the kingdom. Of course we know that in an earthly kingdom we are at the mercy of the benevolence or lack thereof of the king in power. Experience has shown us that there have been many men who should not have been king, who were unfit for the office. The entire move toward democracy was to try and mitigate the worst effects of bad kings by countering their power by giving some of the power to freely elected people.

This seems obvious to us today, and indeed we have proceeded to eradicate kingdoms and/or the power and even existence of kings, or at least reduce them to powerless figureheads. But strangely enough, this desire to have a king returns to us as a people, and while we believe we live in democratic countries, we have elites who seize the real power and carry on as if there had never been any change, while many of us try to convince ourselves that we live in a “free” country. Whether or not it would be a good thing to return to kingdoms, it certainly would be good for all to recognize the actual state of affairs in our own countries.

The real structure of power in a kingdom, it seems to me, is apparent to all. The nobles know who they are, the peasants know who they are. In a democratic state this is all hidden, but the structure is the same. In a kingdom, if a serf or peasant wants to do something he must ask the lord he serves. If the lord likes him, the peasant gets what he wishes. In a democracy the ordinary guy (peasant) makes an application and the bureaucrat makes the same decision, often for the same reason, but hides behind the maze we call regulations and bylaws. There is essentially no difference in the structure of the power. In a democracy we pretend we are free but are not if not connected. In a kingdom, with a feudal system there is no pretense.

Personally, I prefer not to live in a delusion. This is not some kind of conspiracy theory, with dark allegations of super-secret societies that are plotting to run the world. It is true that if there were such people they likely would keep it a secret. If they exist, who knows? But we don’t have to go that far or make such exotic explanations. The way that the world works is not new or a big secret. Certainly, there are many who like to live with the fiction that the western world free, in the political, social and financial sense that we routinely use. But even that is not true. The great financial meltdown in the American markets in 2008-2009 showed us the dark underside of the incestuous relationship of the power and money in America, and while more sophisticated it didn’t appear all that different from the great age of industrial barons and monopolies of an earlier time. Does anyone dependent upon the economy of America really think that he is free in any fundamental sense of the word? Of course he is not.

So does that mean we refine our political instincts and philosophies and try to come up with a new system that makes men truly free? That is not my point at all. There will never ever be such a system. The “aristocratization” (my new word of the day) of any society will happen regardless.

Then what is left to decide? We must therefore look at what is good for us as Catholics, look at where we are, and determine the next step that would carry us toward the goal of making our lives more secure to practice our faith. We do that with whatever legal means are available to us. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that the government will take care of our moral obligations for us. That includes helping the poor. And wherever we find ourselves in the power structure, whether peasant or lord, our moral responsibilities are the same.

In essence, it should not matter to the Catholic where he finds himself in the structure of power and money. His goal is not the same as the others. He must concern himself with the Kingdom of God and helping those around him according to the means available. His influence must always be used for the good and the glory of God, whatever influence he has. And he must not be blinded by political ideologies. His faith is in God, not in systems. Moreover, history has shown that many systems tend to come back and bite the man of faith as well as many of his fellow Catholics.

All in all, if I was to make the personal choice of governance I would choose a Catholic kingdom. What that would look like at this point in history I have no idea. At least it would be an honest representation of the reality of the regular power structure and perhaps it would put in check those who seek power for nefarious reasons.