McFiggly, you seem to be of good will, but I encourage you to read about the Jansenist crisis and about natura pura at length. What you are saying here sounds very strongly Jansenist and is not Thomistic. God and the world are at enmity, but by the world we mean the effects of Original Sin as they are compounded in the life of the world, the vanity that results from that, and so on. .
In a way then, any one who does not have the Holy Ghost is in a way a threat to order. That might sound Jansenist but allow me to qualify . . .
The world is the realm stained by Original Sin and the vanity resulting from it. As such, in order to "rule the world" the knowledge you need above all is the knowledge of how to manipulate man's vanity. That seems to me to be the fundamental principle of statecraft from time immemorial. In a world where vanity reigns the king is the sorcerer that is able to manipulate the vanity of the people, to make them believe in a false image/idol that sets up an artificial order ruled over by the sorcerer-king and whatever demons he is invoking. That might sound farfetched but in fact it is no different whatsoever to Plato's idea of the philosopher-king who rules by teaching the vain public "noble lies", or Caesar who rules by giving the public "bread and circuses", or the Socialist/Communist dictator who rules through the sorcerer that he gives the title Head of Propaganda, or the modern liberal democracy which is ruled by the Media Cabal. In modern societies the scientist has taken over the role that the sorcerer used to play in old Egypt or Babylon.
Now, I don't think that nature is evil at all. However, what we are discussing is "fallen nature", and it is that "fallen" part where the evil resides. We both know that the only remedy to this venom of the Fall is the Blood of Christ, and as such the Blood of Christ is not just the remedy for the disorder that exists within ourselves, but also the remedy for the disorder that exists between us. In other words, where the Holy Ghost is not, there is not even social order properly speaking. When we talk about civilization and civil order what we are really talking about is a system of idolatries that keep men more or less "in line". A good metaphor here is St. Augustine's City of God and City of Man. The social order in the City of God is Charity; the social order in the City of Man is Domination. The Order of Man is not
Order properly speaking, it is more that Masonic "Order out of Chaos", i.e. Chaos with a crude semblance of Order.
So I suppose what I am saying is that Charity, which is a supernatural virtue, is necessary for order to exist in Man (as an individual and as a species). I
suppose I can see how this position can be conceived of as being dualist. Do you think that the ancient Greek and Roman governments had a kind of "natural order"? For me there governments weren't really order at all because they were predicated upon lies. Their States were propped up by the false gods that they worshipped. I suppose my anthropology is less clear when it comes to a distinction between the natural element in man and the supernatural element. I don't think that I conceive them as being really distinct from one and other. In my eyes all forms of society are supernatural, and my evidence for this is that all forms of society involve some kind of worship of / sacrifice for spiritual entities: whether it's the tribes of Africa and their shamans calling on spirits; or the polytheistic paganism of an Egypt, Greece, or Rome; or the modern society of today which professes to run solely on Reason without any kind of supernatural intervention, but my instinct is that the secret societies and witchcraft covens that have proliferated through our society over the last few centuries have as much to do with its governance as "Science" or "Reason"; or, of course, a society that calls upon the true God. What kind of society is there that is totally "natural"? What kind of MAN is there that is totally "natural"? For me a "natural man" could be an idolator that worships the "spirits of nature" (though it could mean the properly Christian man who fulfils every intention that God had for man when he created him). If you were to talk about the "natural order" being good and constituted by God, well what is the difference between this natural order and the supernatural order?
I admit that I am unschooled and do not have a clear distinction between the Natural and the Supernatural.
You say that you are not flirting with Protestantism, but your thesis belies a non-Catholic anthropology and cosmology akin to that of the Manichaeans or to Calvinists. I think that you are probably well intentioned, so I warn you that you are on unsteady ground here and should go to the books to sort it out.
As for monarchy, of course it is the best form of government. Aristotle, St Thomas, Pius VI, and universal experience all agree on that point. The Israelites had a form of government dependent immediately on divine intervention and foundation. They wanted a natural form of government instead, which shows a certain degeneration on their part. But that doesn't mean natural government is bad in itself, just that it is lesser than what they uniquely had.
I would be interested in reading St. Thomas' and Pius VI's comments on monarchy.
You say that the Israelites had a form of government dependent upon divine intervention and foundation. Well, isn't our form of government also dependent upon divine intervention and foundation? The foundation of our government is baptism by which one joins the Kingdom and the highest expression is the Mass by which one takes part in it in its fullness.
We would commit an error of Early Modern dualism if we were to suppose that something can only be good or evil. There are grades of perfection. Monarchy is lesser than direct divine government as the Israelites had, but God still anointed David and Solomon. It was common in the Middle Ages until the "Enlightenment" to argue that the Kingdom of Israel was the best form of government that all other rulers should imitate.
Again, I do not think that Nature is evil. My conception of the pagans is not that they were "natural", but rather that they were unnatural in that they gave themselves over to idolatry and other perversions which corrupt the order and intention of the human soul.
Literally speaking, the natural world of created things is good. Nature is good. And everything in nature has a proportionate natural end.
I absolutely agree with this, insofar as I have a right understanding of it #. I am not a Gnostic who thinks that the world or the flesh is inherently evil. Nor am I a Calvinist who thinks that man is so depraved that he is no free-will whatsoever. So, is monarchy natural? Read the quote from the 1st Book of Kings that I posted earlier. God talks about the king:
[11] And said: This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen to run before his chariots, [12] And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots. [13] Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers. [14] And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants. [15] Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give his eunuchs and servants.
[16] Your servants also and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses he will take away, and put them to his work. [17] Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants. [18] And you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves. and the Lord will not hear you in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king. [19]
Now, is this God describing a particular king who is bad, or is he describing the very nature of earthly kingship in general? Because if the latter, surely it would imply that kingship is unnatural rather than natural. And, if not the latter but rather the former, then kingship is not inherently natural but only natural insofar as it is performed in the right way.
Topic: Monarchism (Read 3255 times)