Imágenes de páginas

the great scholastic divines, but which these divines do not set forth in that distinct and prominent light in which we find them in the earlier Fathers, or in which it is necessary, perhaps, to set them forth in order to meet the characteristic errors of our age.

The Marquis of Valdegamas has studied the same subject with equal industry, with equal mental strength and acuteness, and with a higher order of genius. He understands it far better, and treats it far more profoundly; for he knows and accepts Catholic theology, which places him in the position to comprehend the natural truth in its true relations with the supernatural, and prevents him from giving a mutilated or distorted view of either. But he writes mainly for the Catholic mind, and is more intent on showing the errors, absurdities, and fatal tendencies of humanitarian or pantheistic socialism to the understanding of the faithful, than he is on distinguishing for the benefit of its adherents the grain of truth in their system, and using it to lead them up to the Catholic doctrine which accepts and completes it. Nothing in the world can be better than his book to guard the faithful against the errors of pantheistic or humanitarian Socialism, or to inspire them with a hearty love of Catholic doctrine and morals; but it is not precisely adapted to the wants of the Socialists themselves. Ignorant of Catholic faith and theology, they will not always be able to find in his Catholicity the truth they are groping after, and which gives to their speculations a value in their own eyes. We, who happen to know both sides by our own experience, can see that he accepts and vindicates in its true light and place what they really value, and which they erroneously conclude cannot be held in the Church, and persuade themselves can be realized without her, and must be, if realized at all.

The noble Marquis also takes M. Proudhon as the best representative of Socialism, and confines himself mainly to the refutation of the Proudhonian theory. Here we must be permitted to differ from him. If we would study the Socialistic contradictions and negations, Proudhon is our man; but if we would study Socialism in its affirmations, in what it has that is positive, in its truths, or half-truths, we must, we think, take Leroux. Proudhon is by turns a deist and an atheist, a pantheist and a Manichæan, but generally a denier, whose business it is to break



with the whole past, to reject all that has hitherto been regarded as sacred, in a word, to destroy all that has been or is. Would we know whither all false theories, religious, political, and social, lead, we must study Proudhon, who under this point of view is the great man of the Socialistic and revolutionary world. But Leroux has some religious instincts, is not the veritable Apollyon, and attempts to give the positive or affirmative side of Socialism. If we would know the truth which misleads the Socialists, which they misapprehend and misapply, but which nevertheless is the element which commends to their own judg ments and hearts their Socialism, Leroux, not Proudhon, in our judgment, is the great, "the representative man."

We say not this to depreciate the work of the lamented Spanish nobleman. We have heretofore expressed our opinion of his remarkable essay, than which, we are assured by those who are more competent than we are to judge, there is nothing more eloquent in the noble Castilian tongue. We are not, we confess, of his political school. We have more confidence in constitutionalism or parliamentary government than he appears to have had. We hold that parliamentary or constitutional government, though by no means perfect, though not all we could wish, and far enough from being all that its partisans pretend, affords the only political guaranty of liberty, civil or religious, which, after so many social changes and revolutions, is now practicable. Certainly it is to it, not to absolute monarchy, that Catholicity owes the immense progress it has made in Europe during the last fifty years. We have seen nothing in the revolutionary developments during late years to shake our early faith in representative and parliamentary government, and we are satisfied that the Spanish statesman rendered no service to his country by his war against constitutionalism and parliamentary discussion. The great error of the European liberalists is not, in our judgment, so much political as religious. We find no fault with them for seeking what are called checks and balances, or attempting to found government on compromises; for government is a practical affair, and cannot be carried on without an adjustment of opposing interests, which more or less offend theoretic unity. We censure them not for this, but for supposing that these compromises, these balancings of principles and interests, and play

ing off of one against another, can alone suffice for the maintenance of authority on the one hand and individual freedom on the other. We accept them as far as they go, but we expect no valuable results from them when substituted for religion, or even when intended to operate without it. We do not, therefore, agree with the illustrious author, whose loss the Catholic world justly deplores, in his anti-parliamentary politics and monarchical theory.


But aside from his politics, in which he was Spanish than American, we have had in modern times no Catholic writer more free and bold in his speculations, more original and brilliant in his genius, more comprehensive in his thought or spirit-stirring in his eloquence, or in general more remarkable for his depth and soundness. He formed himself by the study of the Holy Scriptures and the great Fathers, rather than the modern theological compendiums, or the great scholastic doctors; and while for that reason he speculates more freely, and writes with more freshness and vigor, he is less exact in his doctrine and less accurate in his language. There are expressions in his Essay, which, if detached from their connection and understood without reference to the obvious intention of the author, are certainly inexact, and perhaps even heretical, as has been shown by the Abbé Gaduel; but if fairly and honestly interpreted by their context and the general scope of the argument, by a liberalhearted criticism which seeks to unfold the large and comprehensive thoughts of a writer rather than to display its own microscopic accuracy, no very grave objections under the point of view of Catholic doctrine can be sustained against the book. In this Essay the author has attempted and executed a work that was much needed in the present time, that of carrying back the faithful to the deepest and most living mysteries of the Catholic faith, and showing the origin and support of human society in God. Starting with the principle already asserted, that God is similitudo verum omnium, or the likeness which all created things copy, and therefore that all things have their ideas or archetypes in his Divine essence, he shows that true human society has its origin in the Divine society of the Everadorable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three perIn this Divine society, whose characteristic, as he not very accurately expresses

sons in one nature

or essence.

it, is unity in diversity and diversity in unity, he finds the original type of all society, and therefore all true human society must reflect this Divine Society, as all creation reflects the Creator. Here is the fundamental conception, the leading thought, of the Essay on Catholicity, Liberalism, and Socialism. This thought, which is profoundly Catholic, as well as profoundly philosophic, reproduces what is deepest and truest in the Platonic philosophy, although it is perhaps foreign to the Aristotelian. We find it in the Holy Scriptures, we find it in the early Fathers, we find it in Catholic theology of all times, but we do not find it always in what passes for philosophy in the schools. The Platonic philosophy is no doubt exposed to dangers from which the Aristotelian is free. It is less rigid in its method; it is more daring in its scope, and opens a wider and richer field to speculation. It gives more play to our emotions, affections, and imagination, and therefore poses us to greater mental aberrations. It brings into play the mystic elements of our nature, and opens us on that side on which Satan can best approach and seduce us. But there can really be no question that it is far profounder than the Aristotelian philosophy, and penetrates to an order of ideas to which Aristotle was a stranger, and which cannot be brought within the comprehension of a rigid Peripateticism. Peripateticism, considering everything under the form of abstract thought, loses sight of life, of the real living universe, and therefore is unable to detect in the natural order the analogies, resemblances, copies, or reflections, without which this supernatural would be in every sense inapprehensible to our intelligence. Hence it never enables us to connect the intelligible and the superintelligible, and embrace the natural and the supernatural as one harmonious whole, having its unity in the Divine Essence. Donoso Cortés has done a noble service to religion and society by reviving, what was almost lost sight of in popular philosophy, the profound thought of the Fathers and the great scholastic doctors, and showing us that even the natural order demands its complement from the supernatural, and that the profoundest mysteries of our faith are the source of all that is true and good, sound and healthy, in our natural life, or, in other words, that the natural has its root in the supernatural, and derives its sap from an order deeper and higher than itself.

He thus connects human society with the Mystery of the Trinity, which is its norma or type. As all in Catholicity has its origin in the Mystery of the Trinity, so all true human society must have its origin and type in Catholicity. This thought reaches far, and must be fully recognized and well understood before we fully comprehend Christian society, and are able to oppose it successfully to the refutation of humanitarian or pantheistic Socialism, so rife in our times. Those who seek to do this must study profoundly the Essay of Donoso Cortés.

But our purpose at present is not precisely that of the illustrious Spaniard. We have already discussed in our pages the errors and dangerous tendencies of Liberalism and Socialism; we have pointed out what they have that is opposed to Catholic faith and theology. We wish now to draw attention to what they have that is true. All systems, however erroneous or false, as we have intimated in the foregoing article, have an element of truth, because the human intellect, being created in the image of the Divine, and made for the apprehension of truth, can never operate with pure falsehood. To rightly comprehend a system is not simply to detect its errors. We understand not even an erroneous system till we understand its truth; and its real refutation lies not so much in detecting and exposing its fallacies, as in detecting, distinguishing, and accepting the truth which it misapprehends, misinterprets, or misapplies. Socialism commends itself to the intellect of its adherents only in the respect that it is true, and to their hearts only in the respect that it is good; for the intellect, St. Thomas teaches, can never be false, nor the will will evil. Both falsehood and evil are privative, neither is positive. Error is in the defect of truth, and evil in the defect of good. We must say this or assert falsehood as a real entity and evil as a positive principle, and thus fall into Manicheism. We must beware of the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity, or total corruption by the fall of human nature. If man cannot embrace pure falsehood nor will what under some aspect is not good, it follows that in every erroneous or mischievous system there is and must be an aspect of truth and goodness, and it is only under this aspect that the system is dear to its adherents. If we wish to

produce a favourable effect on them, and to refute their system for their sake, we must begin, not by denouncing their

« AnteriorContinuar »