Political Animal

[TerrorDæmonum]

Summary of key points:

• Man is a political animal by nature, but the kingdom of God is not of this world
• Be not solicitous (it is a sin)
• No temporal goods are our last end and we should always be mindful of this in all things, regardless of our vocation
• In particular, do not worry about politics.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity

It is noted that man is a political animal by nature. In short, the ancient Philosopher observed that the union of male and female individual created the family, and the union of families (or an extended family) creates a village, and the union of villages creates the state. The family is the basic component of society and that the development of the state is completely natural for humans.

He also notes that those who do not have a state, that is, those who exist on their own are either beasts or gods:

But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state.

This draw to be political, to create states out of families, is seen as essential to humanity: it is part of our nature and the development of the state is natural. To not do it is seen as unnatural or supernatural (above nature), and it is clear that the Kingdom of God is not of this world and those who follow God must give up this world.

Were it not for the sacramental nature of marriage, Christianity would be quite divorced from this world in every way:

The Sacrament of Matrimony

Nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony

1 Q. What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

2 Q. By whom was Matrimony instituted?
A. Matrimony was instituted by God Himself in the Garden of Paradise, and was raised to the dignity of a sacrament by Jesus Christ in the New Law.

Even though the unmarried state and with greatest detachment from this world is conducive to the greatest spiritual perfection, this calling is not for all, and the greatest spiritual perfection we find in life is when we submit to the Lord and go where we are called, following our vocations. To pursue a state that is not within our vocation is a grave situation:

The Sacrament of Holy Orders

13 Q. If one were to enter the ecclesiastical state without a divine vocation would he do wrong?
A. If one were to enter the ecclesiastical state without a divine vocation he would commit a great wrong and run the risk of being lost.

So, most people are called by God to live in the world, perhaps to be married and to raise a family, and to grow in grace in this manner, rather than to seek spiritual perfection in solitude and asceticism, but the hazards of living in the world are grave. We are commanded not to be solicitous for temporal goods and the future, yet, one who has a family and a business can hardly avoid this venial sin entirely, and would be tempted to mortal sin at least to some degree.

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.

It is a very humbling thing, to know one is in a position where one's inherent weakness will cause one to be quite imperfect.

And it is with a firm understanding of the end of man, that is, our purpose in existence that we must proceed:

Q. 126. What do we mean by the "end of man"?

A. By the "end of man" we mean the purpose for which he was created: namely, to know, love, and serve God.

Forsaking this end, and putting lesser things above it, is a grave sin, and it is possible to do this with anything: putting one's temporal goods above eternal goods, putting one's family above God, or even putting one's own life above God.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

(Note: the use of hate in this way is an expression of the time and language. It is not a command to hate, but a relative comparison: love God, hate everything else in comparison.)

In scripture we see that most people are very political minded. The publicani have a significant presence in the Gospels, but these men were just government contractors, mainly, to collect revenue for the Empire. They were not that numerous, but society in general at the time reviled them for their abuses. Matthew was a publican:

And when Jesus passed on from hence, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me. And he rose up and followed him. And it came to pass as he was sitting at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners? But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill.

The Pharisees are also prominent, but they were religious leaders, and their doctrines were not generally condemned, but supported:

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

It was their hypocrisy that was condemned repeatedly, not their teachings.

It is interesting to note that the common person at the time would have seen publicans, prostitutes, pagans, and other sinners as being the most worthy of rebuke, but scripture records the most rebuke of the Pharisees, and has repeated praises for those who would have been condemned, even though the evils of those people were recognized:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

And their state and ignorance were precisely the reason they were called to follow him, but those who were initially called had hardened hearts and resisted. Why did they resist? Repeatedly, we see them putting their political and temporal goods over the spiritual. They wanted power and money and recognition (Matthew 23). They were mindful of the Roman Empire and even tried to trap the Lord by finding political ammunition to use against Him:

And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men.  Tell us therefore what dost thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?

The pagan Roman Empire, which had immoral functionaries collecting their taxes, and which supported idolatry using public funds, and had public cults which idolized even living people (Emperors) were not seen as worthy of too much attention. One could even pay taxes to them, for one was merely giving them their own property back. The Kingdom of God is not of this world, but this is not what the leaders saw:

But some of them went to the Pharisees, and told them the things that Jesus had done.  The chief priests therefore, and the Pharisees, gathered a council, and said: What do we, for this man doth many miracles?  If we let him alone so, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

They were political, focused on this world, and temporal goods. This lead to their downfall. We should not follow them.

There are those with political vocations, to be leaders of men. There are saints who were kings of nations. That is their vocation. If it is not one's own, it would be dangerous to pursue that end. Politics is for politicians. Everything has a time and a place, and we should be every mindful of this. Prudence must reign.

In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Things to consider:

Thomas Hobbes's work, Leviathan, outlines a political view that puts the power of the state above all else, including religious matters. This is a good example of political thinking in its fullest.

Even ancient philosophers and pagans recognized that the poorest and lowest in society and the highest kings had the same birth and death. The supposed interaction of Diogenes and Alexander illustrates this quite well.

Scripture records the Wisdom:

For none of the kings had any other beginning of birth. For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out.

Political power is futile and pursuit of it is dangerous. The attention we give to politics should only be what is prudent for our state in life and we should pay no more attention to it than that. For most people, this is very little attention at all.

But Jesus calling them, saith to them: You know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles, lord it over them: and their princes have power over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever will be greater, shall be your minister. And whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all. For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

The temptation to be inordinately political is strong, but it must be resisted. These earthly kingdoms are constantly coming and going and earthly leaders come and go, but the kingdom of God is eternal. We should not be distracted or drawn into political divisions.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The full part of The Politics by Aristotle that is referenced:

Part II

He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say, "It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians; " as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one.

Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right when he says, "First house and wife and an ox for the plough," for the ox is the poor man's slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas 'companions of the cupboard,' and by Epimenides the Cretan, 'companions of the manger.' But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled 'with the same milk.' And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood. As Homer says: "Each one gives law to his children and to his wives."

For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be like their own.

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the "Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, " whom Homer denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.

Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.

Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.

[Jayne]

It is noted that man is a political animal by nature. In short, the ancient Philosopher observed that the union of male and female individual created the family, and the union of families (or an extended family) creates a village, and the union of villages creates the state. The family is the basic component of society and that the development of the state is completely natural for humans.

He also notes that those who do not have a state, that is, those who exist on their own are either beasts or gods:

Thanks for writing on this subject.   I would like to add that, even among those with a religious vocation, it is not unusual to form communities with structures and rules for governance.  Being a hermit is rare and sometimes acts as a stage before forming a community.  For example, St. Benedict was originally a hermit but a religious community formed around him.

Religious communities combine elements from man's nature as a political animal with spiritual elements directed towards achieving spiritual perfection.  Even those who are choosing to remove themselves from the world can become involved in the internal politics of their community due to man's nature as a political animal. 

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph,
I like the format of the article, with the brief summary of the main arguments at the beginning.

There are those with political vocations, to be leaders of men. There are saints who were kings of nations. That is their vocation. If it is not one's own, it would be dangerous to pursue that end. Politics is for politicians. Everything has a time and a place, and we should be every mindful of this. Prudence must reign.

The Syllogism is then: Major: Some men have the vocation and are called to be leaders of men.
Minor: If one is not called to this state, it would be dangerous to pursue it.
Conclusion (I think): To pursue politics ( at least excessively), is incompatible with most people's state of life and can be dangerous for their salvation.
Correct?

[TerrorDæmonum]

Joseph,
I like the format of the article, with the brief summary of the main arguments at the beginning.

Thank you. I strive to present things well, as I am not original in anything.

The Syllogism is then: Major: Some men have the vocation and are called to be leaders of men.
Minor: If one is not called to this state, it would be dangerous to pursue it.
Conclusion (I think): To pursue politics ( at least excessively), is incompatible with most people's state of life and can be dangerous for their salvation.
Correct?

Correct. Inordinate attention to anything is sinful, but can become mortally sinful if pursued further. We are commanded to not be solicitous of earthly matters and the future. Politics is intensely temporal in nature and not an end in itself, and should never be placed higher than our last end. Inordinate attention to politics is not usually mortally sinful, but it can become so easily and we should keep our minds fixed on the eternal as much as possible.

[james03]

Even though the unmarried state and with greatest detachment from this world is conducive to the greatest spiritual perfection,

You have to be very careful with this statement.  St. Thomas taught that it was a failing for a man to remain single if he is not in the religious life.  Doesn't mean that the man is sinning, or even that the man did something wrong, it just means something went wrong.

Fr. Ripperger discusses this in his talk on State in Life at around 41 minutes.  Fr. Ripperger advises people in this state should (ed.) be under a vow of Chastity.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wi2b8KNRCw[/yt]

[TerrorDæmonum]

You have to be very careful with this statement.

It is not an area that is a major concern within this topic. It is not a matter of sin and the statement I wrote was true. I do not need to be "very careful" with it in this thread.

Article 4. Whether virginity is more excellent than marriage?

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Virgin. xix): "Both solid reason and the authority of Holy Writ show that neither is marriage sinful, nor is it to be equaled to the good of virginal continence or even to that of widowhood."

I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Corinthians 7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking "on the things of God" [Vulgate: 'the Lord'], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace the married life have to think "on the things of the world," as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence.

Whether or not it is better for any individual is a matter of vocation and that was addressed in the post.

[james03]

Whether or not it is better for any individual is a matter of vocation and that was addressed in the post.

This is incorrect according to Fr. Ripperger who is referencing St. Thomas in his talk.  According to Fr. Ripperger God intended only 2 States: people are to enter the religious life, or get married.  If they aren't married and not in the religious life, it is a failing of some kind.

[Ragnarok]

Doesn't mean that the man is sinning, or even that the man did something wrong, it just means something went wrong.

I would disagree intently. Remember that "sin" means to miss the mark. If you know with certainty that you aren't called to a religious vow, I think you are sinning from what you're true calling is.

The religious vow, remember, is a "supernatural" calling. By it's very nature, you are called to do something that is "above nature". It's not "natural" to desire celibacy over the married life.

Personally, subjectively speaking, I'm of the opinion that it's way better for a person to get experience dating or even a married life than to become an ascetic without that experience. That's the life of a great number of Saints - the Apostles, Saint Augustine, Saint Francis, Saint Bernadette, etc.

The consequences of Original Sin may prevent men to become married in ways that aren't their fault, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the ideal of God for us. "Man and woman he created them". I think that's especially true with how screwed up gender relations are right now in the West, with both genders being expressly at fault for that.

A man may be given alcohol as a child and grow up a deep alcoholic in ways that aren't his fault. It doesn't mean that alcoholism isn't a sin.

I will generally say that 80% of the time, non-religious celibates are expressly guilty of not doing enough to find a mate.

Now of course, most men don't want to confront this reality, because often it might destroy the faux reasons for their religiosity - resentment. Be prepared to meet Satan if you are unwillingly walking this path.

[TerrorDæmonum]

That issue of vocation is another topic. It might be interesting.

It is not an error in this post on politics or the relative comparison of those vocations and states and not a matter of sin, so it is another subject for another thread.

[Michael Wilson]

Joseph,
I have to make a few notations on what you wrote:

Summary of key points:

1.   Man is a political animal by nature, but the kingdom of God is not of this world
2.  Be not solicitous (it is a sin)
3.  No temporal goods are our last end and we should always be mindful of this in all things, regardless of our vocation
4.  In particular, do not worry about politics.

1. Man is a political animal; True. But what does this mean?
Here is Rev. A Phillipe C.SS.R. In Christ King of Nations pg. 2

Man is made in order to attain his end which is with God. Man must understand that he was created for this and that he must wish to attain it. Now God has placed man in such conditions that man cannot live outside of society. Therefore, in as much as man is a social being, he must have God as his final and supreme end..

If man must attain to his final end in society, society must be organized in such a way as to help man to reach his final end:
ibid. pg. 9:

A. Undoubtedly. Man is crated in such a way as to be made for society. By his very nature and the conditioning of his existence, he is called to live in Society. Jesus Christ became man in order to lead man to the eternal beatitude. Therefore the Divine Redeemer must have an effective influence over all conditions by which He must lead man to his end. But man, being made for society, must tend towards his last end as a social being, that is, by means of society for which he is made. This society cannot be a final end, but only a means. In order to be a means, society must be sanctified, and must sanctify. This is not possible other than by the Blessed Humanity of Christ, and in Christ. Therefore it is obvious that a special relation must exit between the Blessed Humanity of Christ and the social order established in the world.

Therefore Catholics should work in the measure possible, and according to one's own state and condition, to establish the social order in accordance with God's plan. Why? Because in the measure that society conforms or does not to God's plan, depends the salvation or condemnation of souls. In a Catholic society, many will be saved, that would otherwise be lost; and in a society in which Our Lord has been expelled or in which the social order is not in accord with God's will, many will be lost.
Catholics cannot remain indifferent to the salvation of their neighbor. So Catholics who seek to work for the establishment of a Catholic social order are not "solicitous" for purely material things, but for those very things that God wants us to be about i.e. His greater honor and glory and the salvation of souls.

[james03]

That last quote is rather beautiful.

Man must work to establish the Social Reign of Christ the King.

I suspect Libertas by Pope Leo XIII addresses this topic.

[Michael Wilson]

James,
yes, "Libertas" and "Immortale Dei"; as well as Pius XI in "Quas Primas".