I presented my previous post without comment, but there’s a lot to think about in there so I wanted to write about it.
1 – Kinds of Revolution
Ven. Fulton Sheen presents two kinds of revolution: Self Government, and Violence. This may seem overly simplistic at first glance, but because this is Fulton Sheen lets take a minute to consider if there is some truth to this. His comparisons were the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
Both revolutions ostensibly wanted self government, and both revolutions effectuated this desire by violence. The French Revolution culminated in the rise of Napoleon, an Imperial figure, while the American revolution culminated in the rise of the Republic. Can these two revolutions really be differentiated by Self Government and Violence? I think the difference here lies in something akin to intent. The American revolution established their ideals and then sought to obtain them. The French revolution sought to overthrow the monarchy first, and sought ideals afterwards, which is why it culminated in a dictatorship. Ideals impose restraint, and an idealistic revolution bears the fruit of those ideals. The fruit of a revolution without ideals will be the strongest man still standing controlling the rest.
The devil rebelled against God for want of self government, and was cast out from heaven for it. Violence itself means “to inflict injury by use of physical force” but the devil is a fallen angel, and as such does not have a physical form. A better word might be an etymological antecedent to violence, which is violation, which includes the sense of profanation. The devil profaned himself in his rebellion, and therefore if we could describe violence in this context, it would be a self-inflicted wound.
Following this I would reduce Ven. Fulton Sheen’s thesis to say that the two kinds of revolution are ones in which a people do violence to others, and ones in which a people do violence to themselves.
2 – Kinds of Revolutionary Violence
This is a great way to transition into a discussion of the types of violence which Fulton Sheen describes. He notes three kinds of violence: Elitism, Mysticism, and Satanism. He argues, in short, that Elitism is a powerful minority which does violence to others to enforce it’s prerogatives; Mysticism (or political mysticism) is how Sheen introduces the idea of a “zero sum” argument, wherein today’s revolutionaries demand all or nothing; Satanism is disorder because everything that is from God is good and well ordered.
To reduce these principles further, the three kinds of revolutionary violence are Violence which desires control, Violence which does not compromise, and Violence which sows chaos. I think this is a quietly profound observation by Sheen. Contextualizing control as a kind of violence is a very modern concept; but speaking about it as elitism from a vocal and powerful minority is a brand new concept to me. The American revolution was uncompromising, because where does one find middle ground between the binary options of being “independent” or being “subjects”.
3 – Majority as Custodian of the Minority
This principle subverts the Girardian concept of memetic rivalry. When two factions are rivals, they will often take contrary views and over time will become polar opposites on every issue. If the Majority was informed by a moral obligation to the Minority–this of course, referencing any kind of Majority and Minority–then the custodial dynamic would create benevolence and good will. That is part of the genius of the Electoral College in moderating the zero-sum dominance of the populous states and giving the smaller states a say in the game–thereby requiring some level of care for the minority. If political Majorities felt themselves compelled to care for political minorities, then there would be less political polarization because political majorities would care about the opinions and perspectives and challenges and successes of their corresponding minority. Ask any “rank and file” Republican or Democrat now what they think of the opinions of the other side: in many cases, you will find a desire for conquest or subjugation. This is the end of memetic rivalry, a chaotic and violent catastrophe. It requires moral restraint to deal with Justice and Prudence with ones neighbors.
4 – Patriotism as Virtue
I watched this video and noted the subjects I wanted to write about before Feser posted his article (here) on the same topic. Describing Patriotism as a virtue is a new concept to me. Sheen describes it by saying that Patriotism is aligned to Piety, which he simplifies as love of God, love of neighbor, and love of country. Piety could be rendered as “Love of God, and of that which God loves”. Love of Country is the sum of loving our neighbors, and our Sovereign. Proof by negation, if a man hates his neighbors, can he love his country? If a man hates his sovereign, can he love his country? if a man hates both his neighbors and his sovereign, could he still claim to have the virtue of patriotism? Christ instructs us through the Gospel of John that love of neighbor is the second greatest commandment, after belief in God. So Patriotism follows naturally from that.
Modern concepts of patriotism mirror modern concepts of piety, which is outward expressions of love which appear only loosely connected with love of those ideals. The Pharisee who prays loudly is displaying false piety because he does not practice reverently; the person who waves a flag but does not love his neighbor is displaying false patriotism because he does not love his countrymen.
Sheen’s argument that if one falls they all fall is interesting, but it fits. As the poem by Alexander Pope goes: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mein / as to be hated needs but to be seen / but seen too oft, familiar with her face / we first endure, then pity, then embrace.” If we allow one vice without concern, then there’s nothing stopping other vices from infiltrating our spiritual life.
AMDG
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 