Christ the Despot?

Sunday Night Journal — November 20, 2011

Today is the feast of Christ the King. The archdiocese of Mobile has a traditional celebration of this occasion which still involves an actual public procession. I was going to say that that’s probably a rare thing in this country in these days, but I decided to look around on the web first, and it seems that there are at least some others. My wife is the diocesan archivist, and she tells me that photos in the archive and the testimony of older Catholics in the area indicate that it was once a bigger deal than it is now, and included a big parade in which all the Catholic schools took part. Catholics are a minority in this area, but a large one. Even in a time when Protestants in general regarded Catholics with much more hostility than most do now, the local church was not ashamed to take over the downtown streets for a public celebration of its faith.

“King of King, Lord of Lords.” Every Christian believes that. The Catholic Church and, I suppose, the Orthodox in a somewhat different manner, make it more concrete than most Protestants, both theologically and in practice, still rejecting “separation of church and state” in the sense that secular fundamentalists use that phrase. In the fundamentalist sense, no opinion rooted in religious conviction has any legitimate voice in government. As a rule the fundamentalists are not very consistent in that view—they are mostly on the political left, and they are indignant when Christians plead the sacredness of human life as an argument against abortion, but untroubled when we plead the equality of all in God’s eyes as an argument against racism.

The fundamentalists notwithstanding, there is a vast territory between their view that religious views should be absolutely excluded from political debate (not to mention from the actual administration of government) and the theocracy which they accuse us of wanting to impose. When I hear the screech of “theocracy!” from a left-winger trying to shut down religious opinion, I’m never sure whether it’s consciously dishonest or merely irrational.

And yet—there are those on my side in that debate who worry even me a little. When some traditionalist Catholics speak of the “the social reign of Christ the King” I get the feeling that what they really want is “the social reign of me and my friends” They seem to be pretty sure about how the world should be run, and that they would sort things out in a jiffy if they had the power. Of course they pay some deference, at least, to the belief that in a fallen world political and social arrangements will never be perfect, but I sometimes get the feeling that they believe they could do a whole lot better than anyone ever has before, and that the process would be a fairly straightforward implementation of the laws they know to be right. They’re disdainful of secular republics—not altogether without reason, but yet not altogether as appreciative as I think they should be of the real gains in human rights and related matters that have been made in these republics. I have heard that case made quite succinctly: secular governments allow people to do things that endanger their souls; a Christian government would establish laws that prevented these things and thus save souls; therefore the establishment of a Christian government is a moral obligation.

Well, in some sense it is, but not necessarily in the theocratic or near-theocratic sense. It’s the over-confident quality of the prescription that bothers me. It sounds too much like other attempts, beginning with the French Revolution, to enforce an abstract ideal of government on the human race. Or like certain strains of Islam, whose leaders believe that they know God’s will in more or less perfect detail, and that all that remains is to implement it. Of course I don’t think this would-be Catholic authoritarianism is as fundamentally wrong as either the atheistic or the Islamic, because it starts with better premises, but I do think it misguided and that it would, if implemented, be bad for the Church. We don’t need a Catholic utopianism.

I often think, when I watch the behavior of American voters, that democracy really is, from the historical perspective, an unnatural phenomenon that may not last very long. Many people seem to want a king, almost naturally—or maybe not even almost; maybe it is natural, not just in the sense that it comes easily but in the sense that it is part of the nature of man. George Washington reportedly had to resist a movement to make him king. The tendency was especially noticeable in the 2008 election, when many Obama voters clearly saw him as a sort of monarch who would, entirely by his own hand, solve most of our problems. And when you look at our relationship to God it makes sense that the desire for a monarch would in fact be built into us There is certainly no reflection there of the modern idea that the power of the government derives from the consent of the governed. There is no question of who is in charge, and the attempt on the part of the creature to claim equality with the Lord, and to prefer his own will to the Lord’s, is the fundamental source of evil.

Unquestionably, and unlike human beings who take the role upon themselves, God does have, intrinsically, the right to act as an absolute monarch. Just as clearly, though, the gospels do not present this as the way he chooses to act. Christ the King is not Christ the Despot. If we look to medieval civilization for a conception of kingship, we see that our relationship to this king is meant to be not that of his serfs, but of his liegemen and vassals: a sworn fealty, given freely.

It’s not an absolute freedom, of course. There are consequences for choosing wrongly, for defiance, and for oath-breaking. But if God is willing to wait on us, we must be willing to wait on our fellow sinners, and there is only so much a government of any sort can or should do to bypass that process. The social kingship of Christ is something that we can only hope to realize very imperfectly in this world; it can’t be a destination at which we expect to arrive before the end of time.

Having said all that, though, I wonder why I bothered. We are more likely to be wiped out by an asteroid strike within the next thirty years than to witness the imposition on the United States of an authoritarian Catholic government that would ban rock-and-roll and allow no television except EWTN. I suppose it’s just that these views get on my nerves. What is actually happening is that the upper class is working to make Christians of all sorts into a despised minority, and to limit the practice of the faith where it conflicts with contemporary dogma on sex, marriage, and reproduction. Here is a good example of the left-wing fear-mongering about “theocracy.” The pattern—and I don’t say it’s a conscious tactic, but the pattern that emerges—is to paint Christians as a danger to the nation. That’s a very old theme. It’s a little surprising that it would be so effective in a country that is so heavily Christian. But the left-wing position now has the prestige and confidence that mainline Protestantism had a hundred years ago. At the same time, because it is smaller in numbers, and because Christianity is still culturally predominant outside the big cities, the universities, and most of the media, it can pose as the brave rebel. Nice position to be in.

Comments

[Janet]

It's hard for me to imagine a Catholic country with any kind of leadership besides a monarchy. Maybe that's just because it's been that way in the past.

Nowadays, I often hear people talk about how there weren't any images of Jesus as king before the time of Constantine, which is true. The implication, though, is that royal images were imposed by the emperor and not really indicative of the nature of Christ. I guess they never read Revelation. I've heard this both from the pulpit and in class at the seminary. I guess they can't wrap their minds around the fact that a king could be a good thing.

AMDG

[Mac]

Do you mean (first sentence) Catholic in the sense that most people are Catholic and the culture is shaped by it, or that the government is officially Catholic? I'm puzzled because modern Ireland, Italy, et.al. haven't been monarchies.

I haven't encountered that attempt to dethrone Jesus, or at least I didn't recognize it if I did. Seems like another of those futile attempts to get rid of what you don't like. People who do that always want to have it both ways. If the thing they didn't like was obviously there in the early centuries, it's "we've developed since then." If not, "it was added later by bad people."

[Janet]

I knew I was going to be sorry I said that. What I think I mean is that when I think "Catholic country," that Medieval model is what comes to mind.

AMDG

[Mac]

I thought you might mean something like that. Doing a bit of free association, I don't think that's really true for me. My first image is a somewhat chaotic but colorful modern country where almost everybody is Catholic--Latin America or Italy.

[Janet]

But that's just the leftovers of the Medieval culture. I think the difference between the way we think is that people my age and older who grew up in the Church were still to some extent connected to that culture in a way that nobody is now.

AMDG

[ex pat]

I particularly liked this bit

We are more likely to be wiped out by an asteroid strike within the next thirty years than to witness the imposition on the United States of an authoritarian Catholic government that would ban rock-and-roll and allow no television except EWTN. I suppose it’s just that these views get on my nerves. What is actually happening is that the upper class is working to make Christians of all sorts into a despised minority, and to limit the practice of the faith where it conflicts with contemporary dogma on sex, marriage, and reproduction

Like you, I used to obsess about the 'older, Catholic monarchist detailed prescription' view, but these days, as you say, the obvious danger to the world is elsewhere.

[Mac]

Juxtaposing this with the Nancy Pelosi post: the link in that post to what she says ends with her talking about her proposal for federally funded childcare. Even if I thought that was the World's Greatest Idea in itself, I would oppose it now, because along with it would come the attempt to either lock Christian institutions out or force them into line on the s, m, and r questions. I sometimes wonder if this is a conscious strategy. One sort of good thing about Pelosi is that she's so obnoxious that her agenda is pretty open.

[Art Deco]

I often think, when I watch the behavior of American voters, that democracy really is, from the historical perspective, an unnatural phenomenon that may not last very long.

Deliberative institutions have had a continuous history in the Occidental world since the high middle ages, though generally much more prevalent at the local level than at the national level.

[Art Deco]

George Washington reportedly had to resist a movement to make him king.

By whom, when, and where? I have been hearing this contention for 35 years, but never with any specificity. Please note that the rebel United States adopted a constitution in 1781 that provided for only the sparest central executive - a scatter of officials each with a specialized function appointed by the continental congress.

[Mac]

I have no idea. It's one of those things I've encountered over the years from people who seemed to know what they were talking about, but right now I can't even remember any specific instance. Most likely some conservative magazine like National Review or New Criterion. I put the word "reportedly" in there as a slight disclaimer of knowledge of the source.

"more prevalent at the local level than at the national level" Right, the national level is what I'm talking about.

[Marianne]

Maybe the idea that there was a movement to make Washington a monarch grew out of the fact that one of his officers, Colonel Lewis Nicola, wrote him a letter in 1782 that proposed Washington should become king of the United States. See here http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/rule_of_law2.html and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_letter .

[Mac]

Thanks! So there's at least some foundation. "King of the United States" is a rather shocking phrase.

[Louise]

You won't have a king, Maclin, you'll have an emperor, that's the order of things isn't it? Kingdom, Republic, Empire...

[Louise]

Florence was a republic, IIRC.

[Louise]

Like you, I used to obsess about the 'older, Catholic monarchist detailed prescription' view, but these days, as you say, the obvious danger to the world is elsewhere.

Right.

Seems to me that the main purpose in finding out what the ideal is, is to be able to evaluate properly the current state of things.

So, if I say that I believe in the ideal of the Social Reign of Christ, and I do, then that forms a part of my world view for evaluating the current scene. I am certainly not under any impression that such a thing will occur in my life time, or even at all!

But unless I'm mistaken, this notion was very much a part of the Church's teaching. The main reason I hold my own opinion in this regard is because I came to believe that all states are confessional. That impression has not at all lessened, no matter how "diverse" society seems to be. Caesar really does seem to be a moral entity, a person.

I don't really care a great deal about the form of government I'm governed by, although I think I currently favour monarchy (I vacillate a bit). But I really do want to be governed by virtuous men. And men, rather than women, but naturally things would be much better if I were the Queen of Oz, as I said on the marmite thread!

[Louise]

The current - 'ow you say? - "vibe" in the Church from the ordinary pew warmers is that things are pretty good as they are in terms of the form of guvvermint and the more conservative punters would just like to see a restoration of traditional social values as the basis for any social leglisation. Heck, I'd be pretty happy with that myself and even that much seems like a pipe dream!

I guess I can't see how that could really happen, even allowing for the genuine good will (and even genuine virtue) in some of our politicians, with the zeitgeist where it's currently at. I think there were good reasons for the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ.

Forgive me if I've said this before but our PP was once lamenting about how he has been compelled to take the Oath Against Modernism 3 times in his life as a priest. I keep wishing wistfully that there would ever be cause for someone to compel me to take it! Sounds like a lovely way to spend a few minutes. :)

Which reminds me, I really do need to read the Syllabus of errors (is that the right thing I'm thinking of? St Pius X?)

[Louise]

I could be wrong, but I think the Social Reign of Christ is to governance what Distributism is to economics.

At any rate, the Feast of Christ the King (modern calendar) is our wedding anniversary, so it's always an extra special day for us.

[Louise]

But that's just the leftovers of the Medieval culture. I think the difference between the way we think is that people my age and older who grew up in the Church were still to some extent connected to that culture in a way that nobody is now.

For a brief moment, Janet, I experienced a deep feeling of envy.

Maclin, whenever I hear some gliberal breathlessly choking out the word "theocracy!" every time someone in modest clothing questions the absolute wisdom of the zeitgeist, I just want to fall off my chair laughing.

And then I feel sad and think... "I wish..."

[Mac]

If it will make you feel any better, try to imagine what a confessional Catholic, yet modern bureaucratic regimenting, state would actually be like to live in. Every annoying thing that modern governments do would be done in the name of the Church. Every power-hungry politician would make a great show of piety--we had plenty of that with a semi-officially Protestant state, and it didn't do the churches much good in the long run. Etc.

That's a good point about the purpose of the ideal.

[Louise on the iPod]

Yeah actually it would only be St Blog's writ large!!!

[Louise on the iPod]

I recently saw a local production of Richard III and yes there was plenty of cynical, fake piety from him (in the play at least).

I think I just tend to make the assumption that the confessional state would be governed by a monarch who might or might not be much chop.

I just wonder whether in a democracy politics ends up being much more in your face, of necessity. And therefore more a part of everyday life than could possibly be good for anyone.

[Mac]

Right. I was in a hurry when I wrote that, so I didn't fill out the thought, but part of what I was thinking was that a state that was Catholic in a really meaningful sense would probably have to grow out of a culture much different from ours. I was picturing vast bureaucracies, but where every office was required to have a picture of the pope or something. Imagine the IRS (Internal Revenue Service, our massive massive massive tax-collecting agency) operating in the name of God.

[Louise]

In order to ever get to the point where we could realistically achieve a Catholic state, the culture would have to be a very large majority Catholic and would, by definition, be very different from what we currently have.

Even with their fair dosage of worldliness, both our parish and our intentional community (the Disciples of Jesus) are significantly different to the culture generally. They're more personal, friendly and genuinely caring, for a start.

[Louise]

Just going to WYD08 in Sydney reinforced that idea. Catholics en masse behave much better than crowds in the general culture. Not that there aren't any problems at all, but the overall "vibe" is better, kinder and healthier.

[Mac]

That's true in our current situation, but how would it play out if everyone were a nominal Catholic? Presumably it would at least be somewhat better overall--one could expect at least a higher standard of public behavior, less sleazy entertainment, etc.

[Louise]

Good question, I'd have to think about it.

[Mac]

Right, your WYD etc. groups are "self-selected," as they say, more committed than usual Catholics.

There is a well-known thought experiment, I can't remember where it originated, but as a response to the secularist types who are always talking about how scary Christians are: you're in a high-crime neighborhood in a big city, it's night, and you're by yourself. Walking toward you is a group of four or five young men. If you knew they were on their way home from a Bible study group, would it make you feel more or less anxious?

[Louise on the iPod]

Very good!!!