Catholic Whiggery: The Neo-Conservative Betrayal Of Church Social Teaching

by Dr. Peter Chojnowski

In the past 20 years or so, we have witnessed, especially here in the United States, the emergence of what some authors have termed, "Catholic Whiggery." This movement, best exemplified by such authors as Michael Novak and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, is but an attempt at a Catholic version of the more encompassing "Neo-Conservative" movement, which has its origins with anti-Stalinist Trotskyites, who came to be considered "conservatives" during their years of opposition to Soviet Communism during the Cold War.

Led by such intellectuals as Irving Kristol, the "Neo-Cons," as they are called, embraced the "Whig Tradition," which found its modern-day expression in the social and economic writings of Friedrich von Hayek. Hayek, a Libertarian and northern European secularist, attempted to revive and promote the Whig tradition, which advances laissez-faire economics, secular democracy, and religious and cultural pluralism. This Whig tradition could be said to have its ideological origin in the writings of the defender of the English Revolution of 1688, John Locke. (This so-called "Glorious Revolution" was the which overthrew the legitimate Catholic Stuart monarch James II and placed James's Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange jointly on the British throne.)

To understand the "world vision" of these contemporary Liberals (i.e., Libertarians), we must first remember that they themselves trace their ideological origins to the 18th- century Enlightenment. Michael Novak has described the scheme of these Enlightenment theorists and political leaders as follows:

One of the great achievements of the Whig tradition was its new world experiment, the Novus Ordo Seclorum (the New Order of the Ages). Its American progenitors called that experiment the commercial republic. The Whigs were the first philosophers in history to grasp the importance of basing government of the people upon the foundation of commerce. They underpinned democracy with a capitalist, growing economy.1

That such a Liberal ideology could prevail amongst secularists and non-Catholics groping for an alternative to post-World War II Soviet Communism and Fabian Socialism is not terribly surprising. What is surprising is that such an ideological view could be defended by Catholic thinkers who, subsequently, attempt to "discover" a "Catholic Whig tradition" running back in time to St. Thomas Aquinas. That such Catholic Whigs are claiming to base their circumvention of the entire Catholic Social Teaching on the "Whiggery" of certain "late Spanish Scholastics" is well known. Novak himself attempts to make the Angelic Doctor a precursor of this "tradition" by claiming that St. Thomas's belief in "ordered liberty," mixed government (i.e., several different bodies of the State exercising the various powers of Sovereignty and serving as a hindrance to the emergence of tyranny), and his belief in man's powers of "reflection and choice," puts him firmly in the camp of Democratic Capitalism. The untenable nature of this claim, especially in light of St. Thomas's condemnation of usury, his understanding of the common good, and his unequivocal position that monarchy is the best form of human government, causes Novak, in various places in his writings, to rely on the more standard Whig philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith to ground his ideological defense of democratic capitalism, American-style. His laudatory rhetoric in praise of these thinkers and the System they spawned often descends to the level of the blasphemous and the absurd. In an article entitled, "A Theology of the Corporation," Novak cites the memorable and moving last words of the young Abbe d'Ambricourt, "Grace is everywhere," to offer "signs of grace in the [multinational] corporation." In this regard, Novak finds seven such "signs," which he states is a "suitably sacramental number."2

In an appendix to this same article, Novak acknowledges that the Capitalist Idea, which is part and parcel of the Whig ideology, owes its origins to the Enlightenment thinkers Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith, and the "economic development," which they uniquely initiated, was brought about first with the "white race and the Anglo-Saxon peoples, and, indeed, of a few philosophers."3

We can fully understand the inflated claims of this advocate of the enlightened Liberal New Age, when we read that, "The notion that poverty could be diminished was born with John Locke and Adam Smith."4

Those who were against these "few" enlightened, poverty-hating thinkers were "many Continental philosophers and theologians-Latins, Germans, Slavs-[who] opposed 'Manchester liberalism' all through the 19th century, disliking it intensely."5

What is heartening for those who seek to uphold the Catholic Church's Social Teachings against this new Capitalist Messianism of the Catholic Whig is Novak's dismissal of those social teachings with his statement that, "The papal encyclicals treat it [meaning Liberal Capitalist theory] as a Protestant heresy."6

What is at the core of this Liberal ideological view, shared in full by the "Catholic Whigs" of our own time, are the ideas of social, political, religious, and economic individualism and the subsequent non-interventionism of the State. It was the task of John Locke to philosophically ground this Whiggish Liberal world-view, while it fell to Montesquieu to formulate the exact nature of the Liberal Commercial Republic of the post-Enlightenment period. The descriptive part was easy. Montesquieu understood the Liberal regime to be a union of fellow citizens, bound together, not so much by ties of friendship, as by contract. This alliance of contracting parties was intent upon maximizing their freedom of choice through a confederation of convenience. In such a socio-political order, men found themselves cut off from one another or, at best, linked through a market mechanism. What would happen if this Liberal Republic was realized, would be a world in which everything had its price and, accordingly, its sellers and buyers. A marketplace of arms' length transactions would replace political community.

As we can surmise, religion is of no importance in such a commercial republic. This is why Locke restricts religion to the private sphere. Couldn't we say that it is exactly this restriction that distinguishes the Liberal regime from the regimes of Old Europe? This Whig view, which understands government to be constituted by contracting individuals and whose sole purpose is to insure the execution of the contracts made between individuals, cannot but alter Christendom's understanding of what the purpose of civil society is. In his first Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke argues for the civic toleration of all religions (except the intolerable anti-liberal Catholic one) by making the following claim about the nature of civil society itself:

The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of their own civil interests. Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

Locke is even more explicit as regards his understanding of a Liberal political order when he states, in his Second Treatise on Government, that,

The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.

Any idea of a common end of all the members of society and of society as a whole is completely lacking in this political view. The religion of the people, along with their growth in the virtues of faith, hope, and charity are certainly not the concern of the rulers of such a Liberal State. As Locke states in the same text,

If a heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious citizen. The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no. I readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd. But the business of the laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person.

According to this analysis, then, government is only delegated the task of guaranteeing the private relationships and agreements initiated by the individual citizens themselves. Society does not have a corporate task, responsibility, or goal. Any goal which transcends the one of material acquisition and psychophysical contentment is considered beyond the legitimate realm of State interest and concern. "Providing the conditions necessary for the advancement in virtue and the ultimate attainment of Heaven" is out. Christendom is nullified. The past, made up of completely non-Liberal societies, is to be initially vilified and then forgotten. All the Whig theorists advance this same goal, whether Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Lord Acton, or Michael Novak. Indeed, this rejection of the idea of socially and economically significant State intervention in the affairs of the commonweal is the very essence of the ideology of the Whigs, whether neo-Catholic or non-Catholic. Novak himself states this when he writes,

The foundational concept of democratic capitalism, then, is not, as Marx thought, private property [which it would be, of course, for Distributism]. It is limited government. Private property, of course, is one limitation on government. What is interesting about private property is not that I own something, that I possess; its heart is not 'possessive individualism'....Quite the opposite. The key is that the state is limited by being forbidden to control all rights and all goods.7

What is little realized by those who attempt to stand up to the steam roller of Whiggery, whether in its Catholic or non-Catholic versions, is the fact that Locke constructed an entire theory of human knowledge for the express purpose of bolstering the Whig theory of government and society. This theory is called "empiricism" and has shaped the minds of most men in the Anglo-American world since that time. It can be understood as the theoretical foundation of all the Liberal claims about man and the world of men. Fundamentally, this theory claims that human knowledge is limited to the external appearances of things in the world. The very "substantial being" of things, the essence of created things and structures in the natural world, cannot be known by the human mind. Substance, according to Locke, is "I know not what." The importance of this basic philosophical stand cannot be overerestimated. If man, and, more importantly, the embodiment of the society of men, the State, cannot know the "what" of things, he certainly cannot know the "why" of things. Locke allowed that individual men could know the "why" of things by blind faith alone. The State, however, has not the authorization or the competence to speculate as to the "why" of things. Therefore, any theological or philosophical teachings that answer the question "why" are strictly beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. The State is simply relegated to keeping the individual citizens, who come up with their own private "whys," off each other's back and, most importantly, out of each others wallets!


Dr. Peter E. Chojnowski has an undergraduate degree in Political Science and another in Philosophy from Christendom College. He also received his master's degree and doctorate in Philosophy from Fordham University. He and his wife, Kathleen are the parents of five children. He teaches for the Society of Saint Pius X at Immaculate Conception Academy, Post Falls, ID.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Taken from Thomas Storck, "The Social Order as Community" in Caelum et Terra, Fall 1996.

2. Michael Novak, "A Theology of the Corporation," in The Corporation: A Theological Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Reseach, 1981), pp.206-207.

3. Ibid.,p.225.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 209. Cf. For a complementary view, see Paul Johnson, "Is There a Moral Basis for Capitalism?" in Democracy and Mediating Structures: A Theological Inquiry, ed. Michael Novak (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1980), pp.49-58.

©Dr. Peter Chojnowski

Read more...

Was Aquinas A Whig?

by Kenneth R. Craycraft, Jr.

Michael Novak has recently been making the improbable claim that liberalism and Catholicism are not only compatible, but in many important respects essentially the same. To illustrate this, he is fond of asserting that St. Thomas Aquinas is the first liberal.1 Novak takes his cue from Friedrich Hayek,2 who approvingly cites Lord Acton's assertion that St. Thomas (in a long quotation which Acton attributes to Thomas) put forward "the earliest exposition of the Whig theory of revolution."3 Thus, Novak calls St. Thomas a proto-liberal, and calls for a return of the "Catholic Whig."4

Two problems arise in this procedure. First, while language similar to some of that which Acton attributes to Thomas may be found at various places in Aquinas, the "quote" is at best an interpolation, at worst a fabrication. Second, Novak has a great deal of theological, philosophical and historical revisionism to do in order to say that Aquinas would even understand the language of liberalism, much less hold the ideas which Novak attributes to him.

Acton puts the following in quotation marks, and credits "this language" to "the most celebrated of all the Guelphic writers," St. Thomas Aquinas:

A king who is unfaithful to his duty forfeits his claim to obedience. It is not rebellion to depose him, for he is himself a rebel whom the nation has a right to put down. But it is better to abridge his power, that he may be unable to abuse it. For this purpose, the whole nation ought to have a share in governing itself; the Constitution ought to combine a limited and elective monarchy, with an aristocracy of merit, and such an admixture of democracy as shall admit all classes to office, by popular election. No government has a right to levy taxes beyond the limit determined by the people. All political authority is derived from popular suffrage, and all laws must be made by the people or their representatives. There is no security for us as long as we depend on the will of another man.5

Nowhere in the Aquinas can such a passage be found, though some similar sentences and phrases do appear at various places.6 Acton's intended meaning of the passage, however, is foreign to Aquinas' thought.

The first three sentences of Acton's passage echo Aquinas' words in . In book one, chapter six, St. Thomas says that the best rule is the rule of one man: a king. But since this is also easily abused, rule by a king ought to be arranged such that the danger of tyranny is mitigated as much as possible. Thomas says, "Once the king is established, the government of the kingdom must be so arranged that opportunity to tyrannize be removed. At the same time his power should be so tempered that he cannot easily fall into tyranny."7

And if, despite the safeguards, the king becomes a tyrant, it is not unjust to depose him. Aquinas explains:

If to provide itself with a king belong to the right of any multitude, it is not unjust that the king set up by that multitude be destroyed or his power restricted, if he tyrannically abuse the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant; . . . because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.

Though Acton does faithfully convey part of Aquinas' thought, he ignores the very "un-Whigish" premise of the passage, as well as an important qualification to the right to depose the tyrant. First, Aquinas, unlike Acton or any other liberal,9 advocates the rule of one man as "the best" and "to be preferred." Aquinas would not remove the king in order to establish liberal democracy, but rather in order to establish another (just) king.

Second, the tyrant should not necessarily be deposed. "He should be tolerated even in his tyranny on account of the greater evil to be avoided."10 And even if the tyrant can be overthrown, "from this fact itself very grave dissensions among the people frequently ensue: the multitude may be broken up by factions either during their revolt against the tyrant, or, concerning the organization of the government, after the tyrant has been overthrown."11 The disorder of a fractured political community is a greater evil than some kinds of tyranny. In many conceivable cases, "danger to the people from the loss of their king would be more imminent than relief through the removal of the tyrant."12

But for the Whig Acton, no political good is higher than individual freedom. "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end," he asserts. Liberty "is itself the highest political end. It is not for the sake of a good public administration that it is required, but for security in the pursuit" of individual preference.13 For Acton liberal democracy, not monarchy, is the best "regime." Still less could one ever argue that tyranny ought to be endured under some circumstances.

For Aquinas, though, liberty is not the highest good, political or otherwise,14 and democracy is not the best regime. Though giving carefully qualified grounds for deposing the tyrant, Aquinas affirms two very un-Whigish political doctrines: monarchy as superior to democracy,15 and order as precedent to liberty. "The more efficacious . . . a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be," explains St. Thomas. "For we call that more useful which leads the better to the end. Now it is manifest that what is itself one can more efficaciously bring about unity than several. . . . Therefore the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of many."16

Other parts of Acton's alleged quote which faintly echo St. Thomas are found in the treatise on law in the . First, Aquinas says that "all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people,"17 corresponding to Acton's "the whole nation ought to have a share in governing itself." Similarly, Aquinas says that the best regime is one in which "all are eligible to govern," and in which "the rules are chosen by all." Partial democracy is preferred since, "in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, . . . the people have the right to choose their rulers."18 This corresponds roughly to Acton's statement that Aquinas advocates "an admixture of democracy as shall admit all classes to office, by popular election."

Acton is also correct to note that Aquinas advocates a mixed regime:

The best form of government is in a state or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people."19

Elsewhere, after describing what is meant by monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, Thomas says, "Finally, there is a form of government made up of all these, and which is the best."20

Aquinas is not clear, however, that the monarch is "elective" or even "limited" in the way that Acton seems to imply. For Thomas, the monarch is kept from becoming a tyrant by wise safeguards against his power: "the rules are chosen by all."21 But these are constitutional rules concerning the parameters of the king's authority, not about how he assumes office. (And, of course, once in power, the king remains for life or until he is overthrown for abdicating his proper authority for the power of the tyrant.) The example Aquinas gives as an illustration of his point is one in which the king could not be chosen from among any class, or elected by popular suffrage. The strong, life-time reign of the prophet Moses and his successors is Aquinas' model: "Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them ruled over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom."22 Only as a concession to their disobedience were the people given a king so-called from among the people. And even then the proper selection of the king was to be guided by God's own decision.23 Similarly, the kind of monarchy under which Aquinas lived, and which he endorsed in , is one in which the monarch is not appointed by suffrage at all. The people must to the choice of monarch, of course, else they will rebel. But their voice, if expressed at all, is expressed after the fact.

Moreover, the part of ancient Hebrew polity corresponding to aristocracy, the council of elders, was nominated by the people but approved and appointed by Moses. At Deuteronomy 1:13, 15 (to which Aquinas alludes) Moses explains how he had commanded the people to "‘choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads'. . . . So I took the heads of your tribes . . . and appointed them heads over you." The authority of these elders derived from Moses' command, not from the natural authority of the Hebrew population. Natural rule is the rule of one;24 limited, partial suffrage is merely the means toward making that rule most effective. And constitutional limitations of the king's power are merely to guard against tyranny, the worst form of governance.25

Further, while the "language" of the last two sentences of Acton's quote do have approximate references in Aquinas, Acton's context and (seemingly) intended implication radically alter the meaning of the paraphrased Aquinas passages. First, in saying that "all political authority is derived from popular suffrage, and all laws must be made by the people or their representatives," Acton's point seems to be that the democratic part of the regime is the primary and highest part. But under such a mixed regime as Aquinas advocates, rulers are not necessarily appointed by suffrage, nor are all laws derived from the people or their elected representatives. In Aquinas' illustration of the best regime, political authority is derived from God and administered through his proxy, the king-like prophet Moses. Lesser rulers are approved and officially appointed by the monarch. And even after the era of the prophets, political authority is derived from God alone. Acton has changed Aquinas' mixed regime into a plebiscitary democracy.

Similarly, in the context of his remarks Acton seems to make the sentence, "There is no security for us as long as we depend on the will of another man," refer to the inherent evil of rule by a king.26 But in the passage of Aquinas that bears a faint resemblance to Acton's "quote," Thomas is saying nothing about kinds of regime, but rather is explaining relationships of individuals and the laws that govern them. Thomas says:

Now the relations of one man with another are twofold: some are effected under the guidance of those in authority: others are effected by the will of private individuals. And since whatever is subject to the power of an individual can be disposed of according to his will, hence it is that the decision of matters between one man and another, and the punishment of evildoers, depend on the direction of those in authority, to . On the other hand, the power of private persons is exercised over the things they possess: and consequently their dealings with one another, as regards such things, depend on their own will, for instance in buying, selling, giving and so forth. Now the [Mosaic] Law provided sufficiently in respect of each of these relations between one man and another. For it established judges. . . . It also directed the manner of pronouncing just judgments. . . . It also removed an occasion of pronouncing unjust judgment.27

Aquinas is not talking about the will of one ruler, but about the relationships of private individuals within the regime. If our security is based solely on the good will of our neighbors, than "there is no security." But if it is based on the rule of law, apart from whether the law is executed under the authority of a monarch or mixed regime, we are more secure.

Further, Acton's "quote" of Aquinas, that "no government has a right to levy taxes beyond the limit determined by the people," again finds no direct reference, but might be (generously considered) a paraphrase of objection 5 and its reply in the same question (I-II, qu. 105) from which the other parts of the paraphrase come. The objection is that the "Law made unfitting provision with regard to the institution of rulers," since, quoting I Kings 8:11, "‘This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: he will take your sons'," etc. Aquinas replies that this not by divine institution; "rather was it foretold that kings would that right, by framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who preyed on their subjects." Hence Samuel warned the people, using the words of the objection. But Aquinas does not draw from this the conclusion that Acton attributes to him. Thomas concludes the reply, "It may happen, however, that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal." The words Acton attributes to Thomas do not convey his opinions.28

This is further born out in Aquinas' discussion of obedience. Just as a single monarch is the regime suggested by nature, so to is it natural for some men to obey others. "Just as in virtue of the divinely established natural order the lower natural things need to be subject to the movement of the higher, so too in human affairs, in virtue of the order of natural and divine law, inferiors are bound to obey their superiors."29 More explicitly in conflict with the opinion that Acton attributes to him, Aquinas says that some men are indeed dependent upon the will of other men. Some men more naturally approach the supremely rational will of God, and therefore the will of these men may be a "second rule" to the man whose will is less perfectly conformed to God's (less rational), and who therefore obeys the man of stronger will.30 Moreover, while the most meritorious deed is the one done without prompting, to do the deed in obedience to the prompting of another is also praiseworthy.31 In short, Acton, sometimes dependence upon the will of another man the source of security.

Acton's quilted paraphrase, while containing some authentic echoes of Thomas' writing, clearly cannot be called a quote. Moreover, the meaning Acton tries to convey by the paragraph is clearly a departure from Thomas' own thought. While one may or may not conclude that Thomas' thought was a precursor to liberalism, he certainly advocates nothing like a liberal theory of revolution, nor can he be called a Whig. The essential point of Acton and the Whig theory he represents is that liberal democracy is not the least imperfect option among many, but that it is (or, rather, non-regime), in accord with man and his nature. The more refined is liberalism the more just the system; the less pure the less just. Thought of as a continuum, monarchy is the regime.

But for Aquinas, rule by one wise man is the best regime, both because it is consistent with nature and it works best. Since no man is sufficiently wise or above temptation toward evil, other types of regime are mixed with the best regime to arrive at the most workable. But the essential point is that the regime is closest to being most natural when it is headed by the single wise king. For Aquinas, the best regime is monarchy; democracy and aristocracy are mixed with monarchy only because of the possible failure of the king to remain just. Thus to call St. Thomas a Whig is to ascribe to him exactly the opposite opinion of the just regime.

An excellent illustration of the error of calling Aquinas a Whig is his view on "religious liberty," a phrase not coined until long after the 13th century, but the issue of which St. Thomas addresses in the treatise on unbelief in the of the . Presumably, since Novak and others wear the mantle of liberal (or Whig), and count Aquinas as a fellow-traveler, Thomas' ideas about the relation of the unbeliever to the state would be similar to those outlined above. But, like Aquinas' advocacy of a monarchy as the best pure regime (and a mixed regime the best practical one), his thoughts on religious liberty are rather "un-liberal."

By the very nature of religious belief, an unbeliever cannot be compelled to the faith. But this does not mean that we are merely indifferent to non-believers, or tolerant of all their actions. Rather, "they should be compelled, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasion, or even by their open persecutions."32 While belief cannot be compelled, if practicable, non-believers ought to be compelled not to interfere with the religious practice and of the faithful.

But this limited tolerance does not apply to those who, after having professed the true faith, deviate from it in thought or practice. "Such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfill what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received."33 Jews who have not professed faith in Christ "ought by no means to be compelled" to believe. But those who have confessed Christian faith, "ought to be compelled to keep it," as ought converts from heathenism.34 To believe is beyond the control of another, "whereas the faith, when one has received it, is a matter of obligation," and therefore a matter open to compulsion. "Heretics should be compelled to keep the faith."35

Moreover, though prudence may dictate that unbelievers have authority over believers, the rule is that unbelievers do not have authority over believers. Thomas considers two circumstances: where the unbeliever establishes authority over one who already believes; and where an unbeliever under the authority of an unbeliever becomes a believer. The former situation ought never to occur, "for subjects are easily influenced by their supporters to comply with their commands, unless the subjects are of great virtue." Hence, the rule is that the "Church altogether forbids unbelievers to acquire dominion over believers, or to have authority over them in any capacity."36

In the second situation (in which the unbelieving subject converts), pre-existing authority of the unbeliever ought to remain since it is an institution of legitimate human law, derived from reason. Nevertheless, if it is prudent to do so this rule may be done away with by the Church, "who has the authority of God," since by divine law unbelievers forfeit the right of rule over believers. If to do away with this pre-existing authority would "cause scandal" then the Church's authority ought not be exercised in that case.37

Thus, in principle, the unbeliever has no natural right of authority over the believer. However, since authority of unbeliever over unbeliever is natural, and since the divine law which governs the distinction between believer and unbeliever does not abrogate natural law,38 it does not violate natural law for the unbeliever to maintain authority over the convert.39 But the Church maintains the authority to do away with this natural authority if such action is prudent and does not cause scandal.40

In a similar way, St. Thomas argues that the religious rites of unbelievers ought to be tolerated, not as a right but as a point of political prudence. Unbelief and the rites of unbelievers are evil, and "although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which he might prevent" lest by preventing them greater evil occur, or some good be thwarted.41 The rites of Jews ought to have a special toleration, since they bear an imperfect witness to Christianity. But in principle the rites of non-Jewish unbelievers ought not to be tolerated, "except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g., the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith."42

So while Thomas has a notion of religious tolerance (one which in America might yield a great deal of freedom to heretics and non-believers), by no means is this a matter of "human right" or any other kind of right. The Church's position is that no man has a human right not to believe; and the political freedom not to believe is only for the sake of peace. While unbelief might be given wide allowance, this is a matter of concession or toleration, not right or principle. The positive teaching is that unbelief is not a right.43

From these observations, it seems impossible to say that Thomas Aquinas is a liberal. Of course it makes little historical sense to call Aquinas a liberal or non-liberal. As Pierre Manent has recently said:

Despite the authority of Lord Acton, it is not possible to describe Thomas Aquinas as a liberal. Saint Thomas was not a liberal. Nor was he anti-liberal, which goes without saying. He described, analyzed, and pronounced what appeared to him to be the objective order of things and the nature of man, founded on an objective hierarchy of what was good. Now, it was such a "dogmatic" presupposition that was rejected by those authors who developed the liberal viewpoint. The starting point of the idea and of the liberal undertaking was skepticism: the idea of what was good is an uncertain one and that is why men fight. As Hobbes and Locke took pleasure in proclaiming, there is no . . . . It is certain that, by radically criticizing the idea of good, the idea of conscience, and the idea of an objective morality, they undermined a vital presupposition of Christian doctrine.44

Manent rightly sees that liberalism is not the Church's complement, but her rival.

Kenneth R. Craycraft, Jr. is Assistant Professor of Theology at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

1 Novak calls Aquinas the "first Whig," and lists Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Adam Smith, Lord Acton and Friedrich von Hayek as representatives of this political philosophy. See Novak, (Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 1990), pp. 107ff.; "The Return of the Catholic Whig," , No. 1 (March 1990): 38-42; "Thomas Aquinas, the First Whig," Crisis, October 1990: pp. 31-38; and (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1988), pp. 29-30; 80.

2 See Friedrich A. von Hayek, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 457, fn 4. Hayek says, "In some respects Lord Acton was not being altogether paradoxical when he described Thomas Aquinas as the first Whig." (Acton did not mean to be paradoxical at all, it seems, though the quote he attributes to Aquinas is elusive.)

3 Acton, "The History of Freedom in Christianity," in , ed. J. Rufus Fears (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1985), p. 34. (Originally published as [Bridgnorth, U.K.]). It should be noted that, despite Novak's repetition of Hayek's error, Acton does not call Aquinas the "first Whig"; rather, Acton says that the quote he attributes to Aquinas "contains the earliest exposition of the Whig theory of revolution." As the discussion below argues, even this lesser claim is highly dubious.

4 In passing, John Courtney Murray, S.J. also calls Aquinas the first Whig in Murray says that the shorthand phrase, "‘A free people under a limited government' . . . is a phrase that would have satisfied the first Whig St. Thomas Aquinas" (p. 32). I know of no other place in which Murray makes such an allusion, and he gives no explanation here (other than the original publication of this chapter of WHTT in in 1954, reprinted in , Vol. 65, No. 258 (September 1990): 323-358.

5 Acton, .

6 Acton is sufficiently vague in his description that he is immune from the charge that the quote is a fabrication. He says (loc. cit.) that "this language . . . is taken from the works of St. Thomas Aquinas."

7 , p. 55. Citations are from St. Thomas Aquinas, , tr. Gerald B. Phelan (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1938).

8 , pp. 58-59.

9 Hobbes' advocacy of absolute monarchy is noted, but this is based upon a very different view of man and politics than Aquinas'.

10 , p. 55. While one might be tempted to say that the greater evil to be avoided is liberal democracy, Aquinas has chaotic anarchy in mind (if only because the locution "liberal democracy," has not yet been coined).

11 , p. 56. One might note the irony of Aquinas' assumption of the danger of factions compared with Madison's celebration of them in Federalist 10.

12 , p. 58.

13 Acton, "The History of Freedom in Antiquity," Acton, , Vol. I, p. 22.

14 See, for instance, , III:37.

15 This is not to say that Thomas denies the limited goodness of democracy and aristocracy. As I explain below, in the he advocates something like a mixed regime built around monarchy.

16 , p. 41. Aquinas (ibid., p. 42) continues to explain that rule by one is best since it is from nature. "Every natural governance is governance by one. . . . For every multitude is derived from unity. . . . This is also evident from experience; for provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and are tossed about without peace. . . . But, on the contrary, provinces and cities which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice and delight in prosperity."

17 , I-II, q. 105, a. 1.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., q. 95, a. 4. Aquinas also lists oligarchy "government by a few rich and powerful men," as one form of government, corresponding to or law.

21 Ibid., q. 105, a. 1.

22 Ibid. Cf. Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, Ch. XVIII, pp. 237-38: "After the Hebrews had transferred their rights to God, they conferred the sovereign right of ruling on Moses, investing him with the sole power of instituting and abrogating laws in the name of God, of choosing priests, of judging, of teaching, of punishing—in fact, all the prerogatives of an absolute monarch."

23 It is significant that Thomas uses the period of the prophets to illustrate this point. God told the prophet Samuel that the people had rejected Him, not Samuel in their clamoring for a king. Before that, the regime God had chosen (and which Thomas uses to illustrate proper monarchical rule) was of the prophet as God's vicar. "Thus," explains St. Thomas, "by God's orders Josue was set at the head in place of Moses: and we read about each of the judges who succeeded Josue that God ‘raised . . . up a saviour' for the people, and that the ‘spirit of the Lord was' in them. " (Aquinas, , I-II, q. 105, a. 1, ad 1).

24 St. Thomas says (, I:2, pp. 41-42), "Whatever is in accord with nature is best: for in all things nature does what is best. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. . . . [I]n the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things. And this is reasonable. For every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, artificial things imitate natural things and since a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it necessarily follows that it is best, in the case of a human multitude, that it be ruled by one person."

25 "Just as the government of a king is best, the government of a tyrant is the worst" (, I:3, p. 43.).

26 It must be remembered that Acton says his "quote" of Aquinas is the "earliest exposition of the Whig theory of the "

27 , I-II, q. 105, a. 2.

28 Aquinas, in fact, is more worried about democratic tyranny than about monarchical tyranny. See , I:5.

29 , II-II, q. 104, a. 1.

30 Ibid., q. 104, a. 1, ad 2.

31 Ibid., q. 104, a. 1, ad 3.

32 Ibid., q. 10, a. 8.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid., q. 10, a. 8, ad 2.

35 Ibid., q. 10, a. 8, ad 3.

36 Ibid., q. 10, a. 10. This is a simple statement of the chief concern of this essay. Theologians in America seem to have succumbed to this very problem: the commands of liberalism that the church comply with and advocate liberal "virtues" like tolerance, pluralism, liberty as an end, and democracy illustrate the force of Aquinas' argument.

37 Ibid.

38 "The Divine law does not do away with human law which is the law of natural reason." (, II-II, q. 10, a. 10.)

39 Aquinas uses a similar explanation in the question of whether the children of Jews and other unbelievers ought to be baptized against their parents' wills. While by divine law, all men should be believers, by natural justice a child belongs to his father, and therefore ought not be baptized against the father's will before the child reaches the age of reason. (, II-II, q. 10, a. 12.)

40 Aquinas uses the same argument in discussing whether the apostate believer maintains authority over the faithful believer. (, II-II, q. 12, a. 2.)

41 Ibid., q. 10, a. 11.

42 Ibid.

43 This sounds a bit like the later teaching (since condemned) that "error has no rights." But this formulation is not one that Thomas could have made, based as it is on a theory of subjective individual rights (rather than objective right), which came after Thomas, and which developed first into human rights and then political or civil rights. Thomas' teaching might be summarized as "error is not right," which is not different from the rather uncontroversial statement "wrong is not right." The modern project has been to do away with this idea of objective transcendent right, for one of claims of subjective rights. Thus "error" cannot be denied rights because there is no such thing as error.

44 Pierre Manent, "Michael Novak on Liberalism," in , ed. Joseph Klaits & Michael H. Haltzel (Washington, DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1991), p. 209.

This article was taken from the Fall 1994 issue of "Faith & Reason". Subscriptions available from Christendom Press, 2101 Shenandoah Shores Road, Ft. Royal, VA 22630, 703-636-2900, Fax 703-636-1655. Published quarterly at $20.00 per year.

Read more...