If we are not careful, law and order can be used as a tool to promote tyranny. This happens, for example, when we try to use the rule of law to undermine the common good, to find ways to lift ourselves up above others, or to protect our standing in society, through the establishment of laws which do not cause us any trouble but will cause others all kinds of difficulties, difficulties which will make it next to impossible for others to elevate themselves in society (or even attain basic needs). And, it is easy to note, when we do this, we start speaking as if positive law must always be enforced, that if it has been established, that ends all debates. We say that whatever the law says to be done must be done, and to do so is to do good. It is extremely easy to promote “law and order” when such law and order only inconveniences others. But as soon as some moral principle implies we must change our laws and make sure they promote the common good, many who are in positions of privilege cry out and speak as if they are losing their basic rights. They say they are no longer free, because they are expected to do something for the sake of society (such as take a vaccine during a pandemic). But, those making such complaints have tended to have little to no care or concern when others unjustly lose their freedom. It is worse, of course, when law and order used solely for the sake of private interests and desires. For, when this happens, the government has been subverted, as the purpose of government is to serve the common good. If this does not happen, then, as St. Alphonsus Liguori suggests, the government, and the laws it makes, might not have the moral authority to require our obedience:
For a law to oblige, four conditions are required. I. That the law is for the whole community. II. That the legislator has public power. III. That the law is perpetual. IV. That it should be for the common good; then, it should be honest, just and possible (See the Salamancans, de leg. c.1, punct. 2, ex. n.7, et seqq.). Hence a law differs from a precept, or a command; for a precept is imposed for a particular person, and also by a private person. Next, a precept is for a time, and it ceases with the death of the one who commands it; unless the matter would be more integral, or except the precept were favorable to pious cases, or equally favorable. [1]
Similarly, when we find society having to deal with a great violation of the common good, such as, for example, a mass shooting, if our response is merely to give “thoughts and prayers” instead of focusing on how we can truly change the situation, our thoughts and prayers themselves prove meaningless. Indeed, by our inaction we prove we do not understand prayer and its execution, for, as Vladimir Solovyov explained, prayer must lead to action:
If prayer does not lead to alms-giving and self-denial it is bad and useless, vitiated by partiality and self-esteem, it is not prayer at all; alms which are not a fruit of prayer and joined to temperance are an expression of weakness of character rather than of love, sincere alms-giving is the highest justice and must lean upon heavenly grace; fasting undertaken from vanity our from egoism, as an exercise in self-control, may give strength but it is not strength for goodness, and fasting without generosity (even though prayer be joined to it) is the sacrifice of which it is said, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” It is the union of all three activities that enables divine grace to be effective, and that grace does not stop at joining us with God in prayer, it assimilates us, in charity and temperance, to the all-merciful and all-sufficient Godhead. [2]
Christians are called to move out beyond their own private interests and concerns, to truly work for and promote the common good, both in their spiritual live, but also in their civic engagements. And, in doing so, they will find they are also protecting and promoting their own good, for the common good includes them. They can’t just focus on themselves and say, since their good is connected to the common good, focusing only on their own desires will promote the common good. For, they will promote their private interests in a way which lead to an imbalance in the common good, when they do not believe they have to consider the good of the other.
The best way we have to defend ourselves, and our own rights and interests, is to be concerned about common rights and interests, to make sure everyone is given what we think we should be able to have. If we think society should just be some libertarian landscape where everyone stands up for themselves and themselves alone, society will collapse as it will not lead to the good which is necessary for its continuance. And as Vladimir Solovyov explained, our own innate moral sensibility, our conscience, however ill-formed it might be, will recognize the problem which emerges when the common good is denied and society breaks down:
It is sufficient for such a merely formal equity that each man defends his rights. But if I defend only my own it shows that I am not concerned for the rights as such but only because they are mine: that is, I am defending myself, my own interests. And if everyone stands up only for himself and what is his, common rights and social equity are nothing more than an abstract notion, justice becomes simply the theoretical balance of various, particular forces. Now in fact our idea of justice goes beyond this abstraction; we have a lively moral perception of it which radically modifies the principle and quality of our actions; it causes us to defend the person and rights of others as well as of ourself. And then it becomes clear that right and equity are in themselves worth something to us. [3]
If we give up on trying to promote and engage the common good, we will find our selfishness will affect how we look at the world. Compassion will prove meaningless to us, as compassion has us look to and consider the needs of others, and as we lose our compassion, our heart not only will grow cold, but it will move from indifference to outright hate or fear of the other when we think they interfere with our lives. Even if we know we should love others, and we seek to love them, if we give in to hate and its ways, we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to develop the love which we know we should possess. “If you give hatred a chance, the love and compassion you have developed will weaken and it will be hard to develop any new love and compassion, even if you practice for a long time.” [4]
We can see the reality of this in the way so many Christians have mocked and ridiculed the notion of the common good; they have turned the state into the tool of their petty interests. The more they embrace the state in this fashion, the more they use it to hurt others, others whom they have grown to hate (which is something that can be seen in those Christians who support Donald Trump). Thus, many Christians, who claim to be pro-life, have no problems with the terrible ways migrants and refugees are treated by the state, indeed, many want them to be treated with cruelty because they hate foreigners (or at least fear them and their presence in society). Thus, if pregnant migrant women suffer a miscarriage because of the way they are treated by the state, many so-called pro-life Christians shrug such a loss as if it were nothing. Instead of fixing the problem, they justify it by saying that the state is right in its harsh treatment; they think migrants have no rights and the state has no responsibility for their welfare. But it doesn’t just stop with migrants; they have come to believe no one should interfere with their attempt to fulfill their inordinate passions. They fight any rule of law or any regulation which would require them to change their ways to make things better for society as a whole. Thus, we see many Christians sadly fighting against the changes society needs to make to deal with climate change, and once again, they show little to no concern when they are told climate change actually hurts pregnant women and makes it more likely to cause premature births with all the risks and concerns such births bring. [5] Nor do they care when climate change can be shown to cause all kinds of health risks for adults, such as the recent study which showed the impact climate change has on heart health:
A new multinational analysis of 32 million heart-related deaths over the past 40 years found more occurred on days with severe temperatures, an issue that climate change could make even worse.[6]
What we see, instead of a recognition of the problems of climate change, and the existential threat it brings, is pushback against regulations which are necessary to save the planet, because those regulations require effort and action and not just thoughts and prayers. Thus, we find many Republicans in positions of power doing all they can to subvert climate change action:
Nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers around the country are working to thwart climate action on state and federal levels, fighting regulations that would make clear the economic risks posed by a warming world, lobbying against climate-minded nominees to key federal posts and using the tax dollars they control to punish companies that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past year, treasurers in nearly half the United States have been coordinating tactics and talking points, meeting in private and cheering each other in public as part of a well-funded campaign to protect the fossil fuel companies that bolster their local economies.[7]
The fact that there is little to no response, little to no effort to oppose these actions by Christian leaders represents how far Christians have gone from the pursuit of the common good. Christians have been led to believe Christianity is all about the promotion of their own individual, private interests, and the happiness they find in the fulfillment of their every desire. They have not learned that Christianity, teaching as it does that love is the greatest commandment, expects Christians to engage in acts of love, and thereby, not consider their own private interest and desires above the common good. Christian ascetic discipline, whose foundations and purpose has been lost to many Christians, is meant to teach us that we must restrain ourselves and our desires if and when, left unchecked, they become excessive and cause undue harm to ourselves or others. Such discipline does not mean we should give up on joy; rather, we will find, the more we discipline ourselves to promote the common good, to engage love at the best of our ability, the more we will receive and experience joy, a joy which is far greater than anything we experienced when we engaged the world merely out of selfish self-interest. This is why, though we can talk about our actions as being sacrificial, this does not mean they have to be seen as harsh burdens:
We should note, finally, that burdens do not have to be burdensome. Although sacrifice and inconvenience may be required of us, surely there must be a sense of joy as we exercise faithful stewardship over a creation that contains so many wonders and beauties, a sense of privilege as we care for what God cares for. Indeed, when we come to recognize and fully appreciate the goodness of God’s creation, then the efforts we expend on its behalf and whatever sacrifices we make for it will not be offered grudgingly but willingly and gladly. [8]
Christians used to understand this. But Christianity has, in a way, been subverted. Christians have given into the temptations which Scripture showed Satan gave to Jesus. They have bowed down to Satanic selfishness for the sake of power; they have taken and eaten the bread of others, feasting on it, even though it takes from those in need. They have been led to believe they can do so because God wants what is best for them, and they think what is best is the satisfaction of their own private desires. They have given in to temptation, and so they have received their reward, a small, petty reward which will not last. And, as they seem to represent Christianity in the public eye, is it no surprise that non-Christians decry Christianity as a selfish religion? But it doesn’t have to be this way. Christians need to reengage with the teachings of Christ, to embrace the way of love, and with it, the promotion of the common good. They should recognize that this means they might sometimes have to give up on their own private desires, but in doing so, they will find that they will attain more when the common good is elevated than they would have been able to attain if everyone just looked after and followed their own selfish interests. For, as Alfarbi said, “Human beings are [one] of the species that cannot complete their necessary affairs nor gain their most excellent state except by coming together as many associations in a single dwelling-place.”[9]
[1] St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology. Volume I: Books I – III On Conscience, Law, Sin and Virtue. Trans. Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2017), 250.
[2] Vladimir Solovyey, God, Man & The Church. The Spiritual Foundations Of Life. Trans. Donald Attwater (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2016), 49.
[3] Vladimir Solovyey, God, Man & The Church. The Spiritual Foundations Of Life, 38.
[4] Tsong-kha-pa, The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. Volume Two. Trans. Lamrin Chenmo Translation Committee. Ed. Joshua W.C. Cutler and Guy Newland (Ithaca: NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2004), 78.
[5] “Studies have found that high ambient temperature can increase the risk of preterm births and that ambient air pollution can decrease birth weight in some populations,” Michela Moscufo, Kenton Gewecke, and Ginger Zee, “Climate Change Brings Health Issues, Challenges For Pregnant Women” in ABC News (12-12-2022).
[6] Cara Murez, “Climate Change’s Extreme Temperatures Could Mean More Heart Deaths” in US News (12-12-2022).
[7] David Gelles, “How Republicans Are ‘Weaponizing’ Public Office Against Climate Action” in The New York Times (12-5-2022).
[8] Robert N. Wennberg, God, Humans, and Animals (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 56.
[9] Alfarabi, “Political Regime” in The Political Writings, Volume II. Trans. Charles E. Butterworth (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015), 60.
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In