There may be some typing mistakes.
After dealing with the terrible danger of being infected by collectivism, a danger which is a logical consequence of the shift of emphasis from eternity to this world, we want now to deal briefly with another disastrous consequence of this shift of emphasis: the “democratization” of the Church.
Here, too, as with collectivism, we sense the thoroughly mediocre atmosphere of today's world, instead of that holy light which comes from above and transfigures this world. And to radiate this light is one of the glorious characteristics of the holy Church. It is her task to confront in the light of Christ all those new problems which emerge from various situations. She must ever and again let us hear the voice of Christ and she should never adapt herself to the spirit of the times. For we should never forget that if the Church is in this world, she is not of this world. In spite of all the imperfections of her members she bears witness even in her external structure that she is of divine origin. 70
The Church is not only the bride of Christ, but also the mother of the saints. Through all the changes of history she has kept her identity as the one who proclaims and protects the revelation of Christ. What we want to show here is that. if we are not intoxicated by the holy radiance of the Church. if this does not awaken us to a burning love for her, then we can no longer understand that laws hold for her that are different from those which would hold even in a perfect world, and that what is good and useful in a natural sphere is not necessarily applicable to her.
Democracy, rightly understood, is undoubtedly something good for the state. The primary value of democracy lies in its respect for the inalienable human rights of the individual person, in its radical opposition to any kind of totalitarian interference by the state with those rights which man has directly received from God and which concern the shape of his private life. The totalitarian conception of the state is linked to the idea that the individual person exists primarily for the state, that the state surpasses in value the individual person. But true democracy starts with the dignity of the individual person, and sharply opposes the view of man as a mere means for the state. Communism, and earlier Nazism, embody the full totalitarian antithesis to any true democracy. In Mussolini's Fascism we find in a mild form, and not so consistently carried out, the thesis of Hegel that the state is a higher reality than the individual person, that the human person is primarily to be considered as a member of the state, that the value of the person depends on what it can accomplish for the state. Needless to say, anything colored with totalitarianism goes hand in hand with collectivism. Democracy rightly understood, which does not refer primarily to the political form of a state but to the right relation of the state to the individual person, is opposed to any collectivism, and recognizes the fact that the person is by no means mainly a member of the state and by no means exhausts his being in belonging to the state.
Although this anti-totalitarian feature of democracy is its first and most important feature, democracy also involves a participation of all citizens in the government of the republic. It not only affirms sacred human rights of the person, it also grants the person certain political rights. Maritain has written much on this and on the value of this aspect of democracy. In this respect democracy also represents an antithesis to an authoritarian state. But the antithesis to totalitarianism is of course much more important — this is the greatest value of democracy. Totalitarianism is a horrible error, a monstrosity in the eyes of God, and utterly incompatible with the Christian revelation. Democracy as an antithesis to an authoritarian state may be better and, unless extraordinary situations temporarily require an authoritarian structure, more pleasing to God. But all authoritarian governments, such as the monarchies of earlier times or certain oligarchies, as in Venice, cannot as such be called a monstrosity in the eyes of God, nor can they even be called incompatible with the Gospel. Only a prejudiced man can regard as purely negative the state of St. Louis, king of France, which did not contain any trace of totalitarianism.
We have to emphasize expressly the fact that merely political democracy, that is, a certain form of state in which the government of the republic is entrusted to a parliament chosen in a general election, in no way necessarily keeps the state from falling into totalitarianism and violating the sacred rights of the individual person. A politically democratic state can easily become totalitarian. And if then the human rights of the individual are violated by the state, what difference does it make whether this violation was committed by a single person or by a majority? The suffering of the individual is equally great, as is the wickedness in the eyes of God.
It hardly needs to be mentioned that the Church understands the value of the individual person, and the superiority of the immortal soul of the individual over any natural community. The teaching of holy Church represents the most extreme antithesis to any totalitarian spirit, and she has anathematized the idolatry of the state.
But what interests us here is the question of how far the Church can be democratic in her structure in that second sense of democracy which is opposed to authoritarian procedures. And here we encounter the ridiculous demand that in our democratic time the Church be made democratic in her external structure, in her Canon Law, and in her administration. One overlooks the radical difference between the holy Church and natural communities such as the state; one is hindered by secularization and this-worldliness from seeing that what is possible, and perhaps even justified and desirable in the structure and administration of the state, is impossible in the Church and would contradict her meaning and nature and thus be a catastrophic evil. The holy Church is “authoritarian” because of her supernatural divine origin, although this term takes on here a completely new meaning, quite different from its meaning when applied to the state.
The authority of the Church is sacred. All genuine authority, whether of parents or of the state, is a partial representation of God. But in the case of the Church the representation of God is not just grounded in the kind of community which the Church is; it was explicitly established by Christ, the Son of God. His words, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church,” as well as the words which follow and are addressed to the Apostles, “Whatever you will bind on earth, will be bound in heaven... ,” show clearly the direct, explicit authority which God has committed to the Church, and which gives her a sacred character which no natural authority has. This authority is situated in areas completely different from those in which natural authorities are situated, in areas which as such have a sacred character. But above all the representation of God in the Church is totally different from any other representation of God, and is incomparably more direct than any other. This direct sacred authority has an absolute character. Especially the theoretical authority of the holy Church as the one who proclaims and protects the revelation of Christ — in matters of faith and morals — has an absolute character, and excludes any democratization. No believing Catholic can doubt that the Church has an infallible magisterium, that everything promulgated ex cathedra by the pope alone or with a council in matters of faith or morals, is absolutely true. As soon as some proclamation in matters of faith or morals is de fide, then we say, Roma locuta, causa finita (Rome has spoken, the matter is closed).
In the case of practical (as distinguished from theoretical) authority, which refers, for instance, to the ordinances of the pope, the protection of the Holy Spirit is not promised in the same way. Ordinances can be unfortunate, ill-conceived, even disastrous, and there have been many such in the history of the Church. Here the Roma locuta, causa finita does not hold. The faithful are not obliged to regard all ordinances as good and desirable. They can regret them and pray that they be taken back; indeed, they can work, with all due respect for the pope, for their elimination. But as long as such ordinances stand the faithful must obey them unless they violate the moral law and thus offend God.
This practical authority, too, is limited to certain areas; the representation of God is here, too, a partial one; this authority has a limited competence which may not be exceeded. But it, too, is essentially authoritarian, and every attempt to democratize this practical authority is wrong, and just betrays that one has lost the sense of what is the true essence of the Church. The idea that one can make the Church more accessible to the spirit of the times by this “democratization.” or that this “democratization” represents improvement. has sometimes a pernicious, sometimes a naive character — but it is always an illusion. One can call for the democratization of the holy Church only if one has lost all sense for the true nature of this sacred institution. Only if the Church were merely a humanitarian institution. if her main task were limited to this world, to a realization of the ideal of Auguste Comte, could one meaningfully speak of a democratization.
But the authoritarian character of the structure of the Church should never lead to the idea that physical force can be used to bring about submission to her. Any physical force is contrary to the nature of the holy Church. The physical force which the state, even the democratic state, unavoidably uses, contradicts the nature of ecclesiastical authority. It makes sense, and is possible, to compel respect for state law by means of physical power — but it is totally wrong to want to compel the faith in others. First of all, external force cannot succeed in compelling the faith; and secondly, it is clearly wrong and displeasing to God to try to do this. Even if this has happened in the history of holy Church, it has not happened because she was too authoritarian and undemocratic, but because some of her members, caught up in a naturalistic mentality, did not see clearly enough the radical difference between a natural community, such as the state, and the holy Church. Their intention was in itself noble — they had a burning zeal for the eternal salvation of their fellow man. But they tried to achieve conversion by unsuitable means, and in the process they were even betrayed into doing what is morally wrong.
NOTES
70. Cardinal Journet, as well as Jacques Maritain in his last book, have discussed the difference between the Church as the bride of Christ, as herself a person, on the one hand, and the individual human members of the Church, on the other. The Church has never sinned, however many of her members have seriously sinned, including not only laymen but also members of the clergy and even popes. But our subject here is a different one.
