Nation and State: an article in the style of St Thomas Aquinas

Deinde considerandum est de divisione inter gentem (vel nationem) et civitatem secundum beatum Thomam de Aquino. Circa hoc quaeritur: utrum gens vel natio est causa materialis communitatis politicae?	We must now consider the division between nation and state according to St Thomas Aquinas. Under this heading it is asked: whether the nation is the material cause of the political community?
Et sic proceditur. Videtur quod beatus Thomas haud dividit gentem ex civitate tamquam causa ex effectu, immo non dividit essentialiter gentem ex civitate. Quia dicitur (1a 2ae q.95 a.4) quod ius positivum dividitur in ius gentium et ius civile, id est ius civitatis. Sed ius gentium non definit ut ius proprium singularum gentium vel nationum; sed ius quod “omnes fere gentes utuntur” (ibid., obj. 1; cf. Isid. Etym. 5.6; Grat. Decr. D.1 c.9). Patet enim quia, secundum beatum Thomam et Isidorum et Gratianum quoque, ius gentium est ius quasi universale servatum in universo orbi terrarum. Atqui gens (vel natio) non est aliquid universale, sed distinguitur gens una ex gente altera sicut unus homo ex altero. Ergo divisio gentis ex civitate non congruit divisioni iuris gentium ex iure civili secundum beatum Thomam.	Objection 1: It would seem that St Thomas does not at all divide nation from state as cause from effect, nor does he even make any essential division of nation from state. For it is said (1a 2ae q.95 a.4) that positive law is divided into law of nations and civil law, that is, the law of a state. But he does not define the law of nations as a law which belongs to individual nations; but as the law which “nearly all nations use” (ibid., obj. 1; cf. Isid. Etym. 5.6; Grat. Decr. D.1 c.9). For it is evident that, according to St Thomas and Isidore and Gratian as well, the law of nations is a sort of universal law observed all over the world. A nation, however, is not something universal, but one nation is distinct from another nation just as one man is distinct from another. Therefore, according to St Thomas Aquinas, the distinction between nation and state does not correspond to the distinction between law of nations and civil law.
Praeterea, si gens vel natio esset distincta essentialiter ex civitate, ius gentium esset ius non factum a civitatibus, sed gentibus. Sed in D.1 c.9 Isidorus dicit: “Ius gentium est sedium occupatio, edificatio, munitio, bella, captivitates, servitutes, postliminia, federa pacis, induciae, legatorum non violandorum religio, conubia inter alienigenas prohibita” (Isid. Etym. 5.6). Sed federa et induciae fiunt a civitatibus, vel proprie ab civitatis auctoritatibus pro civitate. Inde ius gentium, quod haec civilia continet, est ius a civitatibus factum. Ergo gens non dividitur essentialiter ex civitate apud beatum Thomam, quoniam beatus Thomas, Isidorum secutus, verbum gentes utitur pro civitatibus.	Objection 2: Moreover, if the nation was essentially distinct from the state, the law of nations would be a law made not by states but by nations. But in D.1 c.9 (trans. Thompson and Gordley) Isidore says: “The law of nations deals with occupation of habitations, with building, fortification, war, captivity, servitude, postliminy, treaties, armistices, truces, the obligation of not harming ambassadors, and the prohibition of marriage with aliens” (Isid. Etym. 5.6). But treaties and armistices are made by states, or more properly by governing authorities on behalf of a state. Hence the law of nations, which deals with these matters of state, is a law made by states. Therefore nation is not essentially divided from state in St Thomas, since St Thomas, following Isidore, uses the word ‘nations’ for ‘states.’
Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit Abrahae in libro Genes. (12:2): Faciamque te in gentem magnam.	On the contrary, the Lord says to Abraham in Genesis (12:2): And I will make of thee a great nation.
Respondeo dicendum quod, communitas politica vel civitas habet quattuor causas, scilicet causam efficientem formalem finalem et materialem.	I answer that, the political community or state has four causes, namely an efficient, formal, final, and material cause.
Unde causa efficiens civitatis est auctoritas: aut delegatio vel acceptio auctoritatis a populo, aut tributio auctoritatis a Deo, aut alius actus conferens vel praeponens vel designans unum agentem auctoritatem populo.	And so the efficient cause of the state is an authority: either the delegation or acceptance of an authority by the people, or the assignment of authority by God, or some other action conferring or setting up or marking out one agent as the authority for a people.
Causa formalis civitatis est regimen: ut beatus Thomas dicit (1a 2ae q.95 a.4), Aristotelem secutus, sunt “diversa regimina civitatum,” scilicet regnum, aristocratia regimen, populi regimen.	The formal cause of the state is the regime: as St Thomas says (1a 2ae q.95 a.4), following Aristotle, there are “various forms of government,” namely monarchy, aristocracy, democracy.
Causa finalis civitatis est cooperatio multorum hominum ad persequendum bonum commune vel bona coniunctim. Ergo, causa efficiens civitatis dicitur alio modo consensus populi ad persequendum bonum commune sub aliqua auctoritate.	The final cause of the state is the cooperation of many men in the pursuit of a common good or of several good things together. Therefore, the efficient cause of the state is, to speak in another way, the agreement of a people to pursue the common good under a certain authority.
Causa materialis civitatis est gens vel natio, sed non exclusive. Possunt enim coniungi aliae hominum congregationes in regimine sub auctoritate ad persequendum bonum commune tamquam civitas; ut urbs, regnum, imperium sunt varia civitatis genera, etenim ecclesia est quasi civitas vel communitas politica. Unde gens vel natio est civitatis una possibilis materia, sed non excluditur alia materia; et omnis materia civitatis comprehenditur in verbo ‘populus,’ ut habet beatus Thomas (1a 2ae q.105 a.3) cum dicit: “si statim extranei advenientes reciperentur ad tractandum ea quae sunt populi, possent multa pericula contingere; dum extranei, non habentes adhuc amorem firmatum ad bonum publicum, aliqua contra populum attentarent.” Ergo causa materialis civitatis proprie est populus.	The material cause of the state is the nation, but not exclusively. For other kinds of social group can be joined together into a regime under an authority to pursue a common good as a state; for instance a city, a realm, and an empire are different kinds of state, and indeed the Church is a sort of state or political community. Hence a nation is one possible matter of a state, but other matter is not excluded; and every kind of matter for a state is included in the term ‘a people,’ as Thomas has it (1a 2ae q.105 a.3) when he says: “if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” Therefore the material cause of the state is properly the people.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ius gentium olim, apud Romanos, significabat ius a praetoribus applicandum ad gentes subditos civitatis vel imperii Romani (Gilby, p. 110–11). Exinde recepit significationem iuris quod omnes fere gentes utuntur; sed non necesse est excludere significationem veterem, quae refert distinctionem inter gentem et civitatem, sicut civitas Romana superabat gentes multas.	Reply to Objection 1: The ‘law of nations’ formerly meant, among the Romans, the law which the praetors used in governing the subject nations of the Roman state or empire (Gilby, p. 110–11). From there it later received the meaning of ‘the law which nearly all nations use’; but it is not necessary to exclude the old meaning, which does indicate the distinction between nation and state, for the Roman state subdued many nations.
Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc loco Isidorus loquitur indistincte de institutis gentium vel civitatum, quoniam distinctio non pertinet ad intellectum iuris gentium in dicendi modo moderno. Sed patet ex illo Genes., Faciamque te in gentem magnam, quod gens non identificanda est cum civitate, quoniam civitas Iudaeorum, scilicet regnum, periit, sed non periit gens Abrahae, scilicet Iudaei; nec peribit usque mundi consummationem.	Reply to Objection 2: In this passage Isidore is speaking indistinctly about things established either by nations or by states, since this distinction is not relevant to understanding the law of nations in the modern sense of the term. But it is evident from that passage of Genesis, And I will make of thee a great nation, that the nation is not to be identified with the state, since the Jews’ state, namely the Kingdom, perished, but Abraham’s nation, namely the Jews, did not perish; nor will it perish until the end of the world.

The Credo of the People of God (1968): Paul VI’s Rejection of Contemporary Errors

The Credo of the People of God is a profession of faith made publicly by Pope Paul VI on June 30th, 1968. It has been of help to me in recent months and I would like it to be better known. I will only give a very brief introduction to it here; there is a longer one, very much worth reading, at The Josias: https://thejosias.com/2018/06/26/paul-vi-credo-of-the-people-of-god/

(Credit goes to The Josias and the author P.J. Smith for introducing me to the Credo. Thanks!)

I urge you to read the whole Credo, before or after reading this. It is a source of consolation and strength. It can be read at the link above, or on the Vatican website here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html

A brief introduction to the Credo

Pope Paul VI pronounced this creed in St Peter’s Square on the feast of Sts Peter and Paul, at the conclusion of the Year of Faith of 1967–68, “surrounded by cardinals, bishops, religious, and laity.”[1] His stated intention was to “confirm our brothers in the faith,”[2] in accordance with Jesus Christ’s mandate to St Peter (Luke 22:32): But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. His particular concern, as stated in his homily preceding the Credo, was to repeat “in substance, with some developments called for by the spiritual condition our time, the creed of Nicea.”[3] The ‘developments’ contained in the Credo are meant to make it “to a high degree complete and explicit, in order that it may respond in a fitting way to the need of light felt by so many faithful souls.”[4]

The need of light which Paul VI perceived was evidently occasioned most of all by “the disquiet which agitates certain modern quarters with regard to the faith,” and “disturbance and perplexity in many faithful souls.”[5] “We see even Catholics allowing themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty.”[6] In these circumstances, so familiar to Catholics who have been troubled indeed with “disturbance and perplexity” by the apperance of change and novelty with regard to the faith, Paul VI pronounced this Credo which can serve as a banner for faithful Catholics. Again, read the whole thing.

A few highlights: errors of ecclesiology

Each person will perhaps find certain statements that resonate more than others, and address errors or novelties which have given him or her particular perplexity. For example, the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception, and assumption into heaven are affirmed in para. 14–15; the Council of Trent’s teaching on original sin in para. 16; the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice and the sacramental rôle of the priest in para. 24; transubstantiation in para. 25 and the “very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see” in para. 26; purgatory and the bodily resurrection in para. 28–29.

The sections of the Credo which helped me the most, personally, are statements which reject errors about the Church, i.e. errors of ecclesiology. These are some of the errors which I thought, until recently, were contained in the documents of Vatican II and post-conciliar magisterial teaching. As such, these errors have caused me a great deal of trouble, to say the least. I received great consolation from reading these passages in the Credo and seeing them explicitly rejected.

In para. 19, on the Church, the Credo affirms that the Church, “built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter,” is “the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs.” It goes on to state that this Church founded by Jesus Christ “is indefectibly one in faith, worship, and the bond of hierarchical communion.”[7] In other words, it identifies the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church: “one flock with one only shepherd.”[8] It reaffirms that this Church is “necessary for salvation,” while also affirming what Pius IX taught:

Those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavour to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.[9]

Two paragraphs are especially outstanding: para. 20 and 22. Paragraph 20 rejects all attempts to overthrow the infallibility of the pope or the necessity of belief in the Church’s dogmas. It contains a synthesis of the teaching of the First and Second Vatican Councils on the magisterium:

We believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium (Vatican I, Dei filius, c.3). We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he teaches ex cathedra as pastor and teacher of all the faithful (Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, c.4), and which is assured also to the episcopal body when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, c.25).

Finally, paragraph 22 rejects the heresy which proposes that the Church of Christ is broader than the Catholic Church headed by the pope, and includes e.g. Protestant bodies who are not part of this Catholic Church.[10] Para. 22 is essentially a rewording of a notable section of the Second Vatican Council’s document Lumen gentium, chapter 8 — the famous ‘subsists in’ chapter.[11] The Credo is happily phrased so as to exclude some pernicious misunderstandings of that chapter:

Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ, of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 8), and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity (Lumen gentium, 15), we entertain the hope that the Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock and with one only shepherd.[12]

The wording of this paragraph makes clear that non-Catholic Christian bodies are “outside the organism (compaginem) of the Church of Christ,” the “one flock” with “one shepherd,” by being not in full communion of the “one only Church,” which, this paragraph makes clear, is to be identified simply with the Catholic Church headed by the pope. A key word in this passage is the Latin compaginem (nom. compago or compages), which in the Vatican’s English text is translated ‘organism.’ I do not have the resources at hand to do a deep study of precedents for the ecclesiastical use of that Latin word, but looking it up in standard Latin dictionaries I find such meanings as ‘structure’ and ‘framework.’ In all, this paragraph does a great deal to reassure me by rejecting the erroneous interpretation of Lumen gentium which would redefine the Church of Christ to be something broader than the Catholic Church.

Conclusion: a personal expression of gratitude

Of the human agents involved in leading me into the Catholic Church, Pope Paul VI is one of the most significant. At the time when I was trying to determine the truth of the Christian faith, and then evaluating the claims of the Catholic Church, Paul VI’s teaching in Humanae vitae stood out to me as a firm and clear witness to the truth about sexuality — truth which I had by that time, with the help of God’s grace, been able to reach largely through the light of natural reason and experience. Paul’s VI’s witness strengthened the credibility of the Catholic Church in my eyes, when compared with the tendency of Protestant groups to follow the world’s lead and adopt a false and damaging outlook on sexuality. It seemed to me at the time that the pope of Rome was just about the only authority figure on the world stage who was still defending and teaching true wisdom — even merely human wisdom — about sexuality.

With the Credo of the People of God, I now count Paul VI also as one of the most significant human agents involved in preserving me within the fold of the Catholic Church. Since being received into the Church, I have had great difficulties — like many adult converts — understanding the current situation in the Church, and orienting myself in relation to practical matters like parish membership (based on geography or liturgical preference?) and choice of books and catechisms (pre- or post-Vatican-II? Catechism of Pius X or John Paul II?). This ultimately culminated in a crisis about theologico-ecclesial positions: sedevacantist? SSPX? FSSP? or none of the above?

The essence of the dilemma has been stated succinctly in this way: “Does the religion of Vatican II represent a substantial or merely an accidental change of the Roman Catholic religion?”[13] What became the heart of the problem, for me, was the impossibility of regarding the ‘religion’ of Vatican II and the post-Vatican-II mainstream as anything but a substantial change of what went before, i.e. of the Roman Catholic religion.[14]

Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God has helped change that. For I firmly believe and uphold that the ‘religion’ professed by Paul VI in this Credo is the Roman Catholic religion. It is in evident continuity with the doctrine of Vatican I, Trent, and, in short, with Catholic and Apostolic Tradition. And at the same time the faith professed in this Credo is also in substance the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

At this end of this post I have reached a conclusion which surprises me, since I did not have it in mind when I set out. Paul VI is one of my greatest benefactors in the faith. I hope that his Credo can be a help to others as well. Indeed, I would like it to become a banner that faithful Catholics can rally around.

Benedictus Deus sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.

---

[1] P.J. Smith, “Paul VI: Credo of the People of God,” The Josias, 26 June 2018. https://thejosias.com/2018/06/26/paul-vi-credo-of-the-people-of-god/

[2] Paul VI, Solemni hac liturgia (Credo of the People of God), 30 June 1968, para. 3. http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., para. 7.

[5] Ibid., para. 4.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., para. 21.

[8] Ibid., para. 22.

[9] Ibid., para. 23.

[10] “This heresy posits a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and broader than it — a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either “fully” (by Catholics) or “partially” (by heretics and schismatics).” Anthony Cekada, “Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism, and Frankenchurch,” 2005. Link omitted.

[11] “This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care ... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.” Vatican II, Lumen gentium, c.8, quoted from The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Texts Referred to in The Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 769 (1), p. 315.

[12] Paul VI, Credo of the People of God, para. 22.

[13] Donald Sanborn, “Video: The Syllogism of Sedevacantism,” 21 Dec 2013. Link omitted. Let me state clearly that I respect the honesty, clarity, and intellectual integrity of this argument while firmly rejecting its conclusion. In my opinion, Sanborn’s arguments merit calm and logical refutation — which I believe my own rejection of them is based on — but I am not myself capable of presenting such a refutation in writing at present.

[14] Not discussed in this post is religious liberty and Vatican II’s document Dignitatis humanae. This is commonly cited by sedevacantists as the most overt and clear contradiction of previous magisterial teaching. The issue has been very ably dealt with in an article by Thomas Storck: “Catholics and religious liberty: What can we believe?” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Jan 1997, 49–56 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dGhvbWFzc3RvcmNrLm9yZ3x3d3d8Z3g6NmNlZTdkNzIyN2ZhMzJhYw) In my opinion, Storck’s interpretation of Dignitatis humanae in continuity with previous teaching is completely successful. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Storck for this, which has also helped me very much.

The Church's Civilizing Task: Marriage in Medieval Europe

Henri Bourassa, in a beautiful discourse given in Montréal in 1918, spoke — among other things — about the “civilizing task” of French-Canadian Catholics.[1] In speaking about the civilizing task which belongs to French-Canadians, he was urging his compatriots to make their own a task which the Church has worked at in many times and places. Under this rubric of ‘the Church’s civilizing task,’ I intend to discuss several historical examples from Western Europe in the Middle Ages.

One of the major long-term efforts of the Church during the Middle Ages was to civilize the Germanic peoples who invaded and carved up the western Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. This task encompassed secular or worldly elements of civilization as well as moral improvement and religious practice. In other words, in civilizing these barbarians the Church used Her influence and assets for both their temporal and eternal benefit. It should also be noticed that, although non-Christian peoples and states have, without the help of the Church, attained many of the benefits of civilization — things proper to ‘life in cities,’ as the word denotes, such as literacy and writing, ease of long-distance travel and communication, access to surpluses of wealth and leisure, sewage systems, etc. — the Church still possessed, towards those peoples, a kind of ‘civilizing’ task, from the Christian point of view, involving their moral improvement, formation in the true religion, and most importantly their initiation into the state of grace through the Sacraments. Thus the Church worked for the improvement and salvation of the highly civilized society of the Roman Empire in the first four centuries of the Christian era. During the early Middle Ages in Western Europe, however, the Church preserved, re-built, and ultimately extended the remnants of Roman civilization among the barbarians, even while She laboured for the more important moral and spiritual priorities.

The anti-Christian outlook on history typically blames the Church for exactly those faults of the European peoples which the Church has laboured most persistently, often effectively, to correct. A good example is the treatment of women, and particularly a double standard in sexual morality permitting male infidelity while setting female fidelity as a strict norm. The Franks, for example — the Germanic people who took over the Roman provinces of Gaul in the fifth century, and eventually constructed the kingdom of France — commonly practised polygyny. In other words, Frankish men, especially high-ranking warriors and kings, would marry multiple wives. They likewise commonly practised concubinage, keeping live-in mistresses alongside their legitimate wives. Charlemagne, according to his biographer Einhard, although he only had one wife at a time, had concubines and illegitimate children from them, whom he provided for while excluding from the monarchy.[2] He had about eighteen children in all, probably six or seven from concubines. This was all open and acknowledged. The Church opposed both polygyny and concubinage, “upholding instead a Christian ideal of life-long monogamous marriage with fidelity of both partners to the marriage vows.”[3]

This is, simply put, the Christian standard of sexual morality, and nothing else — as St Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, wrote around 1450: “Although the world’s laws do not punish husbands who have intercourse with unmarried women in the same way they punish adulterous women; nevertheless the law of God and the Church punishes them equally.”[4] I can easily multiply examples of ecclesiastical writers in the Middle Ages upholding this strictly equal standard. Gratian, around 1140, wrote (in the most influential textbook of canon law ever written): “nor is it lawful for anyone, by their example [i.e. of Abraham or Jacob], to seek fruitfulness in anyone, apart from the conjugal debt.”[5] In support of this he quotes the Church Father St Ambrose (fourth-century bishop of Milan): “Let none coax himself with the laws of men. Every debauchery is an adultery, nor is anything lawful to the husband which is not lawful to the wife. The same chastity is due from both husband and wife.”[6] To those following this law — so severe according to the world’s standards — St Antoninus applies the blessing contained in Psalm 127: Blessed are all they that fear the Lord: that walk in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labours of thy hands: blessed art thou, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife as a fruitful vine, on the sides of thy house. Thy children as olive plants, round about thy table.[7]

In addition to the blessings of obeying “the law of God and the Church,” the Church’s efforts to modify standards of behaviour had beneficial social consequences. For example, some historians argue that it encouraged the greater diffusion of property (as opposed to vast estates consolidated within one family), and that “the Church’s regulations encouraged a more equitable distribution of women in the society; if elite males retained numerous women in their households then obviously other men would have less chance of finding a wife.”[8] Perhaps, indeed, these are part of God’s blessing given to they that fear the Lord.

This is not to say that the Church succeeded in eliminating adultery. Surely not, nor indeed should this be expected, since the Church embraces the good and the bad, the wheat and the tares; and, of course, the Church offers forgiveness of sins and salvation even to those who commit mortal sin after baptism, through the Sacrament of Penance. But, although we cannot realistically produce a numerical graph of adultery rates — for example pre- and post-800 AD — historians recognize that the Church’s centuries-long teaching effort and moral authority did modify standards of behaviour. By the eleventh and twelfth centuries, while a man might have affairs or visit prostitutes, he would have only one lawful wife, and would not keep a group of concubines in the castle, as Charlemagne and other earlier Frankish kings were accustomed to do.[9] This was no longer publicly acceptable. As Ambrose himself said (quoted by Gratian): “It is more tolerable if the fault lies hidden, than if guilt is incurred as if by right.”[10]

This is just a single example of the Church’s civilizing task and the good fruit it has borne through history. When modern would-be defenders of women point to the Church and blame Her for a double standard in expectations of conjugal fidelity, they are actually condemning a ‘secular’ element of the society in which the Church is operating. This secular element may be a holdover of the traditional morals of a pagan society, as in the Germanic barbarians of the early Middle Ages; or it may result from a formerly Christian society throwing off Christ’s yoke, as in twentieth-century Europe and America. Either way, the Church rejects it, and stands as the guardian and advocate of the law of God and the Church: “The same chastity is due from both husband and wife.”

---

[1] “Les Canadiens français, leur tâche civilisatrice,” ch. 7 in Henri Bourassa, La Langue, gardienne de la Foi (Montréal: Bibliothèque de l’Action Française, 1918). https://archive.org/details/bourassalalanguegardiennedelafoi

[2] Einhard, Life of Charlemagne, ch. 18–20, in Early Lives of Charlemagne by Eginhard and the Monk of St Gall, ed. and trans. A. J. Grant, The King’s Classics (London: Chatto and Windus, 1907), 32–36. https://archive.org/details/earlylivesofchar00einh

[3] Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300–1475, 6th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999), 169. Italics theirs.

[4] “Licet enim leges saeculi non puniant ita maritos cum solutis se miscentes, sicut adulteras mulieres; tamen lex Dei et ecclesiae aequaliter punit.” Antoninus Florentinus, Summa, 3.1.1.4, in Sancti Antonini archiepiscopi Florentini ordinis praedicatorum Summa theologica in quattuor partes distributa ..., ed. Pietro Ballerini (Verona, 1740), 3:17.

[5] Gratian, Decretum, C. 32 q. 4 c. 2 d.a., in Gratian: The Concord of Discordant Canons and the Ordinary Gloss, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, forthcoming).

[6] Ambrose, On Abraham, book 1 c. 4, quoted from Gratian, Decretum (trans. Silano), C. 32 q. 4 c. 4.

[7] Ps 127.1–3, trans. Douay-Rheims. http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21127.htm

Likewise, the Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215 under Pope Innocent III, stated in its first canon: “Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.” Lateran IV (1215), c. 4, in H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary (St Louis: B. Herder, 1937). https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp

[8] Tierney and Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 170.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ambrose, On Abraham, book 1 c. 7, quoted from Gratian, Decretum (trans. Silano), C. 32 q. 4 c. 4.

Pagan Rome, Christian Rome (translated from Bourassa, La Langue)

Pagan Rome, Christian Rome

Of this task, the Church has never fallen short. Docile to God’s designs, the humble fisherman of Galilee, poor, ignorant, timid to the point of trembling before the handmaid of a simple proconsul only a moment earlier, Peter comes to plant the Cross of Christ, and his own, opposite the throne of Caesar. His brother in God, the apostle to the gentiles, seals with his blood, at the gates of imperial and pagan Rome, the supernatural orthodoxy of his teaching in all the Churches of Europe and Asia. From this pair of tombs long unknown or scorned — like that of their master — by all that Rome and the world reckoned of science, wealth, and strength, suddenly arises the irresistable power of the Spirit who will rule all flesh. On the ruins of pagan Rome, mistress of the world, dominator of peoples, harsh towards the conquered, pitiless towards the weak, there rises up little by little Christian Rome, mistress of the world in her turn, but through the mere strength of truth, faith, and love; mistress of souls and hearts, liberator of consciences and of peoples, protector of the oppressed, hope of the weak and the conquered. She does better than to cut down the power of Rome the idolator; she transforms and puts to use everything good and noble in Rome’s heritage. From temples devoted to the cult of every vice deified, she makes basilicas and churches consecrated to the one true God, just and good. From circuses watered with the blood of Christ’s witnesses, she makes places of pilgrimage where the sons of the martyrs come and pray to convert the sons of their executioners. By Roman roads she sends her legions of apostles to the peaceable conquest of those nations whom Caesar could conquer and constrain by force, but whom only Christ will subjugate by love, and whom the Church will use to rebuild Latin and Christian civilisation atop the debris of the shattered Roman empire. From Roman laws, purified, spiritualised, she extracts a part of her own canon law, foundation of the law of Christian peoples. Finally, from the Roman tongue, firm, noble, rich, but tarnished by the corrupt inspiration of contumacious flesh, troubled by the mad confusions of pride, and reduced to ignoble slavery to the courtesans of Caesar, she makes the language of prayer; the language of invocations to the Virgin Most Pure, the angels, and the saints, conquerers of pride, of concupiscence, and of the world. In this tongue which recounted to men the vile vices of mythical gods, She speaks to God only of kindness, of justice, of sanctity. The language of idolatry, of blasphemy, of lust, becomes the language of the most sacred mysteries, the language of the Sacraments, the language of absolution, the language of the Mass, the language of the consecration, the language which speaks that prayer at every moment of the day and night, on every point of the globe, which commands God to come down on the earth to nourish souls, to enflame hearts, to light up spirits, and in a word, to bring God to life in man!

The structure of marriage: a lifeline from Catholic Quebec

In the civil code, you possess a precious heritage. Yours is indeed a great and noble responsibility: the thought of seeing to it that the administration of that code is worthy of its conception and shall reflect no discredit on the genius and ability of the great jurisconsults who produced it. Would that this excellent and scientific body of law, so detailed and so logically complete, were better known throughout the other provinces of Canada!

–Justice Anglin, 1922

Excerpts from the Civil Code of Lower Canada as enacted as the law of Quebec in 1866. When Quebec was a Catholic country — indeed, reading this, and seeing the carefully structured order of marriage in Quebec law, may we say that Catholic Quebec inherited the status of France as eldest daughter of the Church?

https://books.google.ca/books?id=x8YDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false

Title fifth. Of marriage.

Chapter first. Of the qualities and conditions necessary for contracting marriage.

A man cannot contract marriage before the full age of fourteen years, nor a woman before the full  age of twelve years.

There is no marriage when there is no consent.

A second marriage cannot be contracted before the dissolution of the first.

Children who have not reached the age of twenty-one years must obtain the consent of their father and mother before contracting marriage ; in case of disagreement, the consent of the father suffices.

Chapter fifth. Of the obligations arising from marriage.

Husband and wife contract, by the mere fact of marriage, the obligation to maintain and bring up their children

Children are bound to maintain their father, mother and other ascendants, who are in want.

The obligations which result from these provisions are reciproeal.

Maintenance is only granted in proportion to the wants of the party claiming it and the fortune of the party by whom it is due.

Chapter sixth. Of the respective rights and duties of husband and wife.

Husband and wife mutually owe each other fidelity, succor and assistance.

A husband owes protection to his wife ; a wife obedience to her husband.

A wife is obliged to live with her husband, and to follow him wherever he thinks

fit to reside. The husband is obliged to receive her and to supply her with all the necessaries of life, according to his means and condition.

Chapter seventh. Of the dissolution of marriage.

Marriage can only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the parties ; while both live, it is indissoluble.

Les hommes violents: pouvons-nous les abolir?

Il est bien connu que les hommes, c’est à dire les êtres humains du sexe masculin, font la plupart des crimes violents: le viol, l’incendie, le cambriolage, etc.

Mais il est peut-être moins connu, au moins peu reconnu, que les hommes ont fait la plupart des lois qui interdisent les crimes violents, et ils ont infligé les punitions aux criminels.

C’est impossible d’abolir l’un sans d’abolir l’autre au même temps. Et s’efforcer d’abolir ‘la violence’ du sexe masculin, ce n’est que l’abolir des hommes qui s’intéressent aux bonnes mœurs. Mais c’était ces hommes-là qui faisaient les lois et qui pendaient les criminels. Et bien alors, abolir la violence masculine: c’est se donner aux mains des violents.

Christ loves the French

The France of yesteryear, the France who prayed, the France who sustained the Church, the France who wrote fewer books, but better, the France who bore more children, for God, for the Church, and for the homeland — it is that France who gave us birth in the love of Christ, the Church, and the Pope.  What is left of that France has just saved all of France from assassination.  Will it save her from suicide?  Let us hope for it, let us wish it, let us ask it every day from Christ, who loves the French.  It is what we can best do for the French nation.

–Henri Bourassa, 1918

La France d’autrefois, la France qui priait, la France qui soutenait l’Église, la France qui faisait moins de livres, mais de meilleurs, la France qui faisait plus d’enfants, pour Dieu, pour l’Église et pour la patrie.  C’est cette France là qui nous a enfantés dans l’amour du Christ, de l’Église et du Pape.  C’est ce qui reste de cette France-là qui vient de sauver la France tout entière de l’assassinat.  La souvera-t-elle du suicide?  Espérons-le, souhaitons-le, demandons-le chaque jour au Christ qui aime les Francs.  C’est ce que nous pouvons faire de mieux pour la nation française.