OCR Text |
Show jjiWJIQHTS I Liberty Opposed to License Despotism ) Opposed to Authority Subjection to Individual Slavery Divine Right of j Kings a False Claim Made by James. I . Disproved by a Jesuit European ' ! Republicans Adopt Opposite Extreme : American Theory Steers Clear of Both Begets Harmony. I (Written for The Intcrmouutain Catholic.) !jj Li'wrty is obedience to law. Under our form of p-.vernmont, where obedience to law is exacted, the ! obedience rendered is not to the individual, but to I the law which he represents. Obedience to man as t I distinct from or above the law would be slavery, and I (.lavery it- the child of despotism, as license is the I I (.fcprinff ''f anarchy and the foe of liberty. When I :id where the government derives its jurisdiction j ! from the sovereign will. God, as it must in, order I to be legitimate, then obedience to its laws begets I tru liberty. In other forms where the monarch, J,p he king-, kaiser or czar, rules supreme and makes f I nbedieiice to him instead of the constitution and law ' the measure of one's liberty, the subjects are not 1 fnfmcti. but slaves. Under the reign of Louis XIV, . j vio claimed absolute power when he said. "I am the I I piate." 'there was no individual freedom, no civil i liberty, but despotism in its most odious form. Obe- dienee to his commands viewed from the heights of j I pur vantage ground would be slavery, and a loss of i sil true manhood, because under our form of gov-j gov-j Himi-nt the principal characteristic of every cit-f cit-f kn's civil liberty is in their subjection to the law f t:d not to the individual who represents it. ' . This principle will apply to the church as well : '; i;'otho state. Those who object to the authority I iw. church and the obedience exacted' should in f piseiple object to,.the authority of the state and 1 tap obedience it exacts to its laws, because both rest ' j oh the same basis, namely, that the obedience is j cue primarily 1o the law. In the church, as well as i in the state, the obedience exacted is not to man, . but to the law,' which he represents. The power to i pnern tml the authority to exact obedience are de-I de-I I rived from God, who says, "By me kings reign and law-givers decree just things." But this power I muft rome through the people; that is. the law of I I (tod having established the authority, it remains for II the people to decide who shall be their rulers, and amUo that power. I To this, teachings always held by the Catholic iflrairh. was opposed, after the reformation, what I i known in history as "the divine right of kings,"' j I nd '"passive obedience." This claim by James I t ; Enclatid. and supported by Anglican divines, j 5 , eost the Stuarts the loss of the British crown, j 's l "Remonstrance for the Divine Right of luiics" was so logically and philosophically refuted by that, profound and learned theologian. Suarez, a Trench Jesuit, that no other writer since his time j I j Ms improved on his arguments. ' That the Cath-. Cath-. I l;e church -never sanctioned the claim is evident I the fact that when a Spanish monk under the I 1 JUuewo of Philip II of Spain, preached it from ;! - Pulpit, hr. was compelled by the Inquisition to I T:trart Jt publicly from the same pulpit. It was I bPfible and learned thesis of Duperron, the famous I I French Cardinal, on the states-general of France in ! f I "-tense of the rights of the people and responsibil- j J i;.T of rulers to the people through whom they re- ' I i c'nd their power and authority from God, that : Hokcd "The Remonstrance for the Divine' Rights, , i!11.! 1b' Independency of Their Crown," by James I I '.'whi' h lir-maintained that kings received their J 'tf of kiugshi) immediately from God, to whom 1 aI!J' tluy should render an account of their stew-1 stew-1 ardsmp. This claim would make the the people i-ltiyes by 3( uvin to them the right of resisting, not UiciHtc authority, but tyranny and despotism. f a j-ot f"-v ns, but it clothes the oppressor in re-f re-f I 'p,,'is ";j''mciits.' making his tyranny, as" it were, ' inviolable. In gctti tig rid of '"the divine I jT"r! 0l" European republicans, unrestrained i I ln . :!y' ''b-iiKiring "ihe voice of the people is f j io:rjco ,,f (rod' or ''what is pleasing to the pco-j pco-j t'l1e aT(l- "f law," went into the opposite ex- I "'-' aii.J made the people not only ruler, but God. I (K, t':""rr wus at the bottom of all European rev-I rev-I 'fun'"- J'cnying God. they put the people in his I "ar,e. ;:n! scornc-d the idea of any divine sanction I ;lr ' rights they claimed to govern. With them J n - d. . .. ,,j,e, jnto liccnse, ajid authority into IJI,,rn. ()ur form of government adopts a mid-j mid-j i'lr;'' between these two extremes, giving the i '"r' Ijl-'f'rty, and sanctioning the authority, by I l,.'ln"' :i;-r';, of those who govern. The fathers' of I 'itintiy srlocu-d the form of government, adopt-I adopt-I a .r.i.vt itution which fixed ihe conditions through I i;ni''!l riJb rs were to be elected by the people. When are -hosen'by the people, they rule by divine I T0:': iin' tli? people are bound to obey them, j vm 'j "-''''"'e exacted is not as officials of their own ; I ,utfi' officials of the divine will. Hence any I rich r' 1'1C .aw i? not niy an infringement, on the I I i,,, .'' if'ty guaranteed by the constitution, 1 1 t.0i l; against God. This gives divine sanc- ijjv' ' ''authority of our government, and its staff sta-ff v01' v')I,,l aiwrehal and ' atheistical principles ; tjlf ! -Uirb, vts on a Christian basis. It gives ' fj00r T to agister of the Law to punish evil- -is." ' xs'n "bedit-nce to its laws, and makes re- rur"'? 1" asn- OOR JK,t mae tne Pw'er f tne ' 11, a1u1- simply a trust, and it rests with ' i01'1'' wl".slwll le invested with that trust. 5 ls I-asis of true liberty subject only to 1c- i gitimate authority having a divine "sanction, and steering clear of these two extreme theories of Caesarism and anarchism which mean despotism and license, because obedience to man, without any-divine any-divine sanction to claim such, is slavery on the part of the subject.?, and tyranny on the part of those exacting obedience. American liberty does not mean "we will not obey, or endure subjection," but it means no obedience to individuals as such, only to the state and the authority which represents it. Herein is the characteristic of American liberty which excludes slavery and subjection to authority without loss of manhood. The same reasoning applies to the Catholic church, commissioned by Christ to teach all nations. na-tions. The obedienhec exacted is not to man. Tho character of the Christian priesthood, which was inherent in Christ, is divine. The representative of that divine character, be he Pope o Bishop, is reverenced rev-erenced because of his office, and the precious treasure treas-ure which indelibly marks his character, but obedience, obedi-ence, is to the law which he represents. .To suppose sup-pose that the exercise of his authority is spiritual despotism is to suppose that liberty and authority could not coexist either in civil or religious com-numlh.'s; com-numlh.'s; therefore would we be obliged to deny, both, and have as substitutes despotism and license.' Without the authority of the state and its exercise, no matter how much or how far it interferes with inidvidual feelings or claims, there could be no civil liberty. The church as the representative of the divine di-vine sovereignty introduces legitimate authority, which is the guarantee of liberty and the foe of despotism des-potism and license. - F. D. |