The Philosophy of Right
Volume 4
Rights in God's Church
Foreword
The three preceding volumes of the English translation of Rosmini's The Philosophy of Right have dealt with the essence of right (vol. 1), individual rights (vol. 2) and the principles underlying social right (vol. 3). In the present work and the two following volumes, Rosmini undertakes to apply these principles to the three societies necessary for `the perfect organisation of mankind', theocratic, domestic and civil society, all of which are common to the human race.
Rights in God's Church is an examination of the society formed between God and human beings. The society to which Rosmini refers is theocratic in the strict sense, that is, ruled de facto and de jure by God himself. Although the rulers on earth of this society will necessarily be the representatives of God, the society itself is not theocratic in the debased sense of a civil society governed by priests or some kind of hierarchy where the interests served are more likely to be those of the pseudo-rulers than of God. It is a society in which men and women look to God as their Creator on the level of nature or, as in Christianity, share in the life of the Creator-God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, through the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God and Word made flesh, while accepting the visible society established by Christ to continue his work on earth.
It is clear that attempting to deal with such a subject under the general heading `philosophy of Right' raises immediate problems. First, the separation of religion from philosophical thinking, a process accelerated and completed by the Enlightenment, is so endemic in intellectual circles that the very notion of theocratic society in any sense is dismissed out of hand. Second, it is difficult to imagine how philosophy can approach the question of right(s) appertaining to and exercised in religion, which not only demands the service due to God on a purely natural level but also at a supernatural level, where its foundation depends on God's revelation, not on human conclusions. Third, the practical atheism hidden under the fripperies that to a great extent pass for Christianity in Western society is not prepared to tolerate the presence in its midst of a Church with rights to existence, propagation and development.
Each of these problems is faced squarely by Rosmini in the treatise, to which the reader must be referred. But recognition of these problems, and the consequent difficulty experienced by minds totally unaccustomed to such an approach, may be tempered in general by a glance at the indifferent state of any domestic and civil society in which religious society plays no practical part. It is a fact, not a propagandistic assertion, that the withdrawal of interest in the things of God has gone hand in hand with the progressive disintegration of domestic and civil society in nations under the influence of Western `civilisation'. This alone should make us wary of rejecting out of hand any attempt at re-instating religious society as the foundation on which all other societies must rest.
There are, moreover, highly positive reasons for a sympathetic review of Rosmini's position. Many of these will be obvious to adherents of religion and need not be mentioned here. One, however, deserves emphasis. Only religious society has as its end the supreme, unique, true and final good of mankind. The aim of every other, lesser society is only a part of this end and, as such, necessarily fragmented. No other society, therefore, is capable of drawing the human race into one, great family. Without religion, there can be no unity amongst mankind; with religion, mankind may not at any given moment achieve the unity to which it is called - there will always be anti-religious factions amongst humankind - but it will constantly march towards it. Hope will never be abandoned.
| DENIS CLEARY |