I
Principles
of social order and natural rights
Let us first of all establish the
fundamental principles of social order and of the natural rights of nations in
these matters.
God created man, as “all things
visible and invisible,” for himself, for his glory, for his happiness. God has
given to man instincts, aspirations, lights, and laws suited to leading him
towards his supreme end, which is God.
One of these laws is man’s
sociability.
Man is made to live in society; and
society, like each one of the members who compose it, exists for God. It ought
to draw its inspiration from God, to obey God, to tend towards God.
The only universal and complete
society, embracing all men from all times and all countries, the only one
capable of leading men to God, is the Church. Not only the body of the Church, to which we and all Catholics have the
happiness and the signal advantage to belong; but also the soul of the Church, to which all men potentially belong. Not only
the Church Militant, which is composed of all the living; but also the Church
Suffering and the Church Triumphant, whose members — having died in the flesh
but living forever in the immortal soul — are closely united, in God through
God and for God, to the members of the Church Militant. Faithful image of the
One God in three persons who created Her, the Church Militant, the Church
Suffering, and the Church Triumphant together form one and the same society.
All other human associations —
nations, races, social communities of whatever kind — are subordinated to the
uniquely complete society which is the Church. But, being equally willed by
God, in the temporal order they have the right and the duty to exist, to
maintain themselves, to build themselves up, to perpetuate themselves; and the
men who compose them have the right and the duty to faithfully serve the
particular societies of which they form a part. This right of human societies
to exist and the social duty which ensues for individuals ought to be exercised
in comformity with the natural laws which God has given to guide men and
societies, and also with the moral laws of which the Church, instituted by God
and inspired by God, is the infallible definer and the inviolable guardian.
The Church does not have and has
never claimed the right to suppress or to oppress the temporal societies
established in accordance with natural law, nor to disturb their members — who
are her own children — in the legitimate exercise of their social duty.
Conversely, human societies in the course of maintaining themselves, and their
members in serving them and benefiting by them, do not have the right to
violate the laws of the Church, which are the laws of God; to hinder the action
of the Church, which is the action of God; or to shirk the authority of the
Church, which is the authority of God.
To sum up, man belongs to God before
he belongs to himself; he ought to serve the Church before he serves his
country; he ought to defend the rights of God and the Church before those of
his nation or his race; he ought to “obey God rather than men,” the Church
rather than the temporal powers, including his own government, when it orders
him to violate the laws of God and of the Church.
These principles having been set out,
let us endeavour to apply them justly and faithfully to the problem which
interests us at the moment: the preservation of the national or mother tongue
according to the faith, religious action, and the rights of God and the Church
over the particular society of which we form a part.
On a general hypothesis, it follows
from the principles which we have just set out that the right to one’s mother
or national tongue is subordinate, like all other natural rights of man, to the
rights of God and the Church. In theory still, it is quite correct to say that
if a man, or a people, were forced to choose between his mother or national
tongue and his faith or his morals, he should not hesitate to sacrifice his
natural right in favour of his supernatural duty. May we suppose, even
hypothetically, that this case has ever come up, or ever does come up? In an
individual’s life, yes. It may happen that a man, a father of a family, must
give up his mother tongue because that tongue has become for him and his
children, owing to the particular circumstances in which they find themselves,
the vehicle of impiety, heresy, or immorality; and to adopt a foreign tongue
which is necessary for the preservation of their faith and morals. But for peoples,
races, ethnic groups united amongst themselves by community of speech, the
hypothesis appears, if not impossible in theory, nonexistent in fact in the
history of humanity. And for this quasi-impossibility there is an essential
reason.
The natural laws, willed of God,
established by God, may not come into conflict with the supernatural laws.
Without a doubt, the moral or intellectual infirmity of the human being,
consequence of his initial revolt against the laws of God, has often led men
astray in the interpretation and application of natural laws. It can happen
that between the requirements of supernatural laws (intangible like their
author) and the specific application of a natural right — corrupted by the
disturbance of human reason, by the disobedience of pride or of the flesh —
there sometimes does arise a real antagonism
in fact, which obliges the conscience to fight against nature. But the mercy of
God, even his justice — I should almost dare to say his reason — seem to have
spared the conscience of peoples these harrowing conflicts.
II. The Church, protector of national languages
II. The Church, protector of national languages
No comments:
Post a Comment