A Tocquevillian in the Vatican

February 8, 2006

Upon Joseph Ratzinger's election to the Papacy in April 2005, many commentators correctly noted that Benedict XVI's self-described theological “master” was St. Augustine. The fifth-century African bishop is widely acknowledged as a giant of the early church whose life and writings are counted, even by his detractors, among the most decisive in shaping Western civilization. Pope Benedict's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est , is full of citations and themes drawn from Augustine's texts.

The encyclical's publication appears, however, to confirm that another, more contemporary thinker has influenced the way that Benedict XVI views religion in free societies and the nature of the state. That person is the nineteenth-century French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville.

The author of classic texts such as Democracy in America , Tocqueville's own relationship with Christianity is best described as “complex.” Raised in a devout French aristocratic family, Tocqueville was appalled at the French Revolution's assault on the Catholic Church — an attack involving looting of church property and violence against clergy and laypeople alike. But Tocqueville also disapproved of the post-Revolutionary clergy's tendency to attach itself to political absolutism. On a personal level, Tocqueville oscillated between doubt and faith for most of his life.

What Tocqueville did not doubt, however, was religion's importance in sustaining free societies. This theme is addressed at length in Democracy in America . More importantly, it has attracted Joseph Ratzinger's attention. Upon being inducted into the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques of the Institut de France in 1992, then-Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that Tocqueville's “ Democracy in America has always made a strong impression on me.“

Describing Tocqueville as “ le grand penseur politique ,“ the context of these remarks was Ratzinger's insistence that free societies cannot sustain themselves, as Tocqueville observed, without widespread adherence to ” des convictions éthiques communes. “ Ratzinger then underlined Tocqueville's appreciation of Protestant Christianity's role in providing these underpinnings in the United States. In more recent years, Ratzinger expressed admiration for the manner in which church-state relations were arranged in America, using words suggesting he had absorbed Tocqueville's insights into this matter.

What has this to do with Deus Caritas Est ? The answer is that Benedict XVI has taken to heart Tocqueville's warnings about “soft-despotism.” In Deus Caritas Est , he writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person — every person — needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need (DCE no.28).”

As someone who experienced Nazism, Benedict XVI needs no lessons about totalitarianism. As a confirmed Augustinian, he is rightly sceptical of any proposal for heaven-on-earth. The words above, however, indicate Benedict's awareness of Tocqueville's insistence that even free societies can find themselves almost imperceptibly allowing the state to subsume those autonomous associations that, according to Tocqueville, gave America its dynamic character and limited government power.

There seems little doubt that Pope Benedict is concerned about the state's potential to sap Christian charities' autonomy — not through abruptly absorbing their work but by slowly diluting their distinct identity. In principle, Deus Caritas Est does not object to Christian charities cooperating with the state (DCE no.30, 31). Nevertheless the encyclical firmly reminds Christians that “the specific expressions of ecclesial charity can never be confused with the activity of the State” (DCE no.29) and indicates concern about“the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work” (DCE no.36).

The contemporary identity-crisis of many Christian charities is not mono-causal. Its sources include many Christians' effective lapse into practical atheism, their adoption of moral reasoning more akin to John Stuart Mill than Jesus Christ, and some Christian charities' direct involvement in political activism, the latter explicitly disapproved by Deus Caritas Est .

Yet the Tocquevillian theme subtly woven into Deus Caritas Est surely provides Christian charities with an opportunity to reflect upon the wisdom of associating too closely with the state. This might involve asking questions about the effects of church taxes levied in countries such as Germany or the prudence of accepting government contracts when such agreements require adherence to regulations stating who religious charities may employ and what they may say. If they conclude that such an association undermines their ability, as Benedict XVI states, to be “credible witnesses to Christ” (DCE no.31), then tactful disassociations might be in order.

Better this than compromising the fullness of the Truth and Love that sets us free.

Comments

Garet Gunther: Grubb12J@Juno.com

Your article is excellent and well-founded with respect to Alexis de Tocqueville. His book "Democracy in America." was well written, but without a commitment to his own morality to show his faith in God, he never understood the true faith of the Huguenot and what those French Protestants did for America. He ocillated as you say indicated most of his life. Can you comment more on any reflection that Tocqueville gave on the Huguenots and Joan of Arc? He seemed to overlook New York and South Carolina where the Huguenots made great impact upon our nation. Thank you. Garet

Jude Chua Soo Meng: smjchua@nie.edu.sg

The Holy Father's Deus Caritas Est is a magnificent work, full of insight. Sam's reflection has brought out one: even when the state can provide all that it does provide, it cannot provide everything. And one such thing it cannot provide is that love which is not reducible to the just provision of human material needs.
One of my greatest take away is his reflection on the relation between religion or faith and the state, brought out also in the section on justice and charity.

There the Holy Father it seems to me is eager to highlight the what faith can do for the state. He distinguishes the state from faith by pointing out their different ends. The state has a more limited end. It is aimed at the just political life. But the question arises what such a "just" political state of affairs is, and in order to answer that question we have to go to practical reasoning, and to reason practically well. At this point we are invited to be immediately attentive to the fact that reason can often go astray, sometimes because of poor cultivation, sometimes because of the deviating effects of powerful emotions: lusts, greed, selfishness, etc.

The point can be made also by asking the question, what is a state? When we try to define fruitfully what a state is, we need to consider what should or should not be put into that concept. If we have a sound grasp of what is important to include in the concept, then in the construction of that concept we may arrive at a concept of the state that positively promotes or defends these important things. Such a concept of the state then becomes the central case concept of the state, against which other peripheral instantiations of that concept may be compared and also criticised. Obviously in that focal or central case concept of the state justice will feature, and its promotion therefore will be included. But again the Holy's Father's "what is justice" becomes relevant. Not only that, if justice is giving each other his due, then the question again arises, what are each of us due? What are the (human) due-rights that each of us are entitled to? What are the human goods, values or needs *worth* defending and promoting in all persons? These questions can only be answered by practical reasoning. And these precisely are the answers that natural law delivers. (A good discussion of this central case or focal meaning strategy I read in John Finnis' Natural Law and Natural Rights, Chapter 1)

But practical reason can be highjacked. Thus the Holy Father speaks of the need to purify reason, to save it from the distortion that it may suffer. So in this also we find the important assistance that faith has--even for those who do not have faith, even for those who live and operate on the basis of (practical) reason.
How can faith "purify reason"? Here the Holy Father does not seem to elaborate. He does mention the need to engage the world through rational argument and speaks of the need to reawaken the spiritual energy that makes justice prevail. Perhaps here there will need to be more discussion. Indeed, I believe there is so much the church and the faith can do for reason, to purify it.
It really depends how and why reason has been assaulted and harmed. For example, a religious family can put children on a good start and free them from the perverting oppressions of ill habits which erase the principles of the practical reason.
The spiritual life preserves our capacity to reason well, and to live out the obligations that reasons have for our lives: here Garrigou-Lagrange OP I found helpful. He points out how even if we had a good grasp of the natural law is may be very difficult, with our nature so harmed, for live them well, and grace which heals our nature becomes an important remedy. Even for those who do not believe, the Church's ethos of defending the reality and objectivity and seriousness of moral truth is a strong foil to the post-modern stance (lyotard) and the empirical stance (Van Frassen). The first resists anyone who wants to be utterly serious about his grand narrative (which may have ethical implications) and the second, when adopted out of context (and is unfortunately often the case), in the tradition of the logical positivists, rejects or at least undermines the importance of (discussing) unverifiable realities--metaphysical truth, moral claims, etc. Nowadays, it's not just a battle of arguments, but also a battle of attitudes, of stances. I've experienced this first hand. Some people just don't want to talk about things that do not produce something they can use. Others want you to talk but don't want you to take yourself too seriously, because they want everyone to have a say. I've found that people who are willing to engage are often people with a religion (catholic or protestant), because from the very start their orientation has been to take reason or at least thinking seriously, and completely. I say to them, thank God you have faith, not because you believe in God (even though that is worth thanking God for), but because you believe you should think, and think seriously.

John: trimcraft@clear.net.nz

I need more convincing that the Roman Pontiff believes Protestantism is a good thing and democracy is the ideal society. Catholic leaders have produced many statements to the contrary which have never been renounced.

Scott Harvey: scottharvey@prodigy.net

I also work for the state government and fully engaged in making sure that essential government services are provided efficiently to all Michigan citizens. I also believe many services provided on the backs of the tax payers are provided for the benefit of some people working in the government and by elected officials that recognize personal gain by keeping constituents dependant on big government..

Andy Zylstra: zylstraa@michigan.gov

Do you think it is possible for a Christian to work for a government agency?
I really get concerned about statements like: "The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person -- every person -- needs: namely, loving personal concern."

Are you saying that agents (employees) of government are incapable of showing "loving personal concern?"

Andy

Acton Commentary