Open Call for Contributors and Correspondents

Catholics Revolutionaries for Armed Resistance

“No Christian is an enemy, certainly not of the emperor. Since we know that the emperor is appointed by God, it is necessary that he be loved and reverenced, and that we wish him well.”
~Tertullian 

Conspiracy theorist are growing by leaps and bounds, and I must admit to there being a certain appeal to believing things aren’t as they appear, or at least not as “they” would like us to believe things appear. But it has been rather unfortunate to see so many Catholics, and particularly Distributists, sounding more and more like Alex Jones, David Icke, and Jim Marrs, not to mention Dr. Stan from Radio Liberty. 

It was not but a week or so ago that I came across a man asserting that Catholics have a right (or was it a responsibility?) to revolt against the police state. Years before I had said the same thing. Revolution, even armed revolution, was for me a fatalistic reality, bound to happen by the winds of Providence. But as I said, that was years before.

Since that time I have come to my wits, or so I would like to believe. I attribute this, at least in large part, to my enthusiastic study of Catholic Social Doctrine. This beautiful treasure of wisdom, order, and justice had become the centerpiece of my study. Am I an encyclical scholar? Far from it. But my fascination goes well beyond that of the average layperson. 

Now then, what does my passion for encyclicals have to do with a fellow Distributist talking about armed protestation against a tyrannical state? Very little and an awful lot. While my personal enthusiasm is relatively insignificant, what the popes have said most certainly is not. The fact that the popes have written on this very issue is as great a comfort as it is a challenge.

Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical entitled “Immortale Dei,” though it is typically referred to as “On the Christian Constitution of States.” In it he deals with the authority of the Magisterium in temporal affairs. The affair under immediate consideration concern the Church permission of various forms of governance (though not without certain prohibitions), the proper role of the government, a rightful rule of leaders, the appropriate conduct of the citizenry, the so-called freedoms of speech and of press, the moral repugnance of religious pluralism, as well as many other things. For the sake of this entry, I wish only to focus on the appropriate conduct of the citizenry. 

The state and its rulers are described throughout the entire encyclical in manner quite foreign to the American (or even modern) psyche. They are referred to as holding authority from God, worthy of reverence, to deserving of a love similar to that which children give to their parents, and that obedience is to contingent upon the God -given nature of the institution of the state and the office of the ruler. 

Concerning revolution, here is what the pope had to say in section 18 of this encyclical:

“The obedience [of the citizenry] is not the servitude of man to man, but submission to the will of God, exercising His sovereignty through the medium of men… it is felt that the high office of rulers should be held in respect; that public authority should be constantly and faithfully obeyed; that no act of sedition should be committed; and that the civic order of the commonwealth should be maintained as sacred.”

He states earlier on in section 5:

“Then, truly, will the majesty of the law meet with the dutiful and willing homage of the people, when they are convinced that their rulers hold authority from God, and feel that it is a matter of justice and duty to obey them, and to show them reverence and fealty, united to a love not unlike that which children show their parents. ‘Let every soul be subject to higher powers.’ To despise legitimate authority, in whomsoever vested, is unlawful, as a rebellion against the divine will, and whoever resists that rushes willfully to destruction. ‘He that resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase for themselves damnation.’ To cast aside obedience, and by popular violence to incite to revolt, is therefore treason, not against man only, but against God.”

These words are scathing to modern ears, especially those of us in the U.S. who thrive on the ridicule of the government, its laws, and its lawmakers. This is commonplace on the Internet, talk-radio, newspapers, and even around kitchen dinner tables… for those few souls who still eat at one. Just mention President-elect Barack Obama or President Bush in a room full of people. That is, if you really need to waste your time on an experiment that will only validate what you already know to be true, if not from hearsay, then from personal experience.

None of this is meant to preach at anyone. I am the guiltiest of the guilty. I am a talk-radio host who has been blogging about the government, law, and politicians for years! So what is the point of this entry? Simply this: That in light of what the pope has written, Catholic revolutionaries chanting for (or defending the legitimacy of) armed resistance should seriously reconsider their position, especially when their pontifications are plastered for all to see on the World Wide Web.

The Myth of Meritocracy

“The distributive system was guaranteed by the existence of cooperative bodies, binding men of the same craft or of the same village together; guaranteeing the small proprietor against loss of his economic independence, while at the same time it guaranteed against the growth of the proletariat. If liberty of purchase and sale, of mortgage and inheritance was restricted, it was restricted with the social object of preventing the growth of an economic oligarchy which could exploit the rest of the community. The restraints upon liberty were restraints designed for the preservation of liberty.”

Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State.

The room was cold and all eyes were on me. Our teacher had us read an article from The Economist magazine dealing with the radical decline of social mobility and the ever-increasing chasm between those who “have” and those who “have not.” The students, all much younger than I, had said their peace. Some affirmed the all too famous line of “anyone can be anything as long as they put their mind to it.” Others resorted to race-baiting or mere guilt manipulation. I was the only one left to opine.

My answer then would be quite similar to my answer now, only qualified and with more exceptions. I took the side of those who lean in favor of hard work, but who recognize inequalities in nature. Call it a natural aristocracy if you will. What I failed to see what that there may be, as happens to be the case today, various unnatural factors making even the hardest of work fall short of the “you can do it” utopia promised by the apostles of meritocracy.

My position was only as unbelievable as it was unrealistic. Free enterprise, left unchecked, always has and always will result in the ownership of more and more by fewer and fewer. The accumulation of land, capital, and the means of production in the hands of the few makes the hard work of the many of little to no effect. Their lacking capital, land, and the means of production leaves their hard work producing little more than sweat, an hourly wage, and a constant fear of unemployment. Working hard enough may get them, if they are lucky, a 10 cent hourly raise. But it will take a lot more than an extra 10 cents an hour to compete with the big boys.

Conditions get all the worse when considering the arguments made by advocates for meritocracy concerning how Johnny Q can climb his way up the social ladder. He admittedly needs more than a good idea. He may need money, land, and means of production. Unless he was lucky enough to have fallen into a substantial inheritance, he will likely have to resort to the bankers. Need land or tools? Mortgage your home. Mortgaged already? Consider a second mortgage. Stuck with the vast majority of Americans in a rental situation? No problem, just apply for a loan. Yes, it comes with backbreaking usury fees, but after 30 years (if you’re lucky) you should have it paid off. Round and round we go, when merit will pay off, only the Userers would know.

The problem is real, and the answers are as difficult as they are simple. It would be foolish for us to believe that an Ownership Society will be attained by the traditional arguments of meritocracy or the sly tactics of the guilt manipulators. We need practical and relevant answers. We must be honest enough to admit of its difficulty, but optimistic enough to promise its simple splendor. Furthermore, it is without doubt that we must know where we wish to go as well as how we plan to get there. In achieving this, or even in getting started, I think it would do us well to spend as much time putting our pen to the parchment in hope of addressing modern concerns as we do reading men of another era having done the same.