XV – Addressing the Tyranny Problem

I don’t know a more academic way of saying it: The Tyranny Problem has really gotten stuck in my craw. This is a serious issue: Either I’m committing mortal sin by voting, or I must abandon what I perceive as my civic duty. I haven’t yet found a middle ground.

A Step Forward, A Step Back

Psalm 42, Verse 1 in the Douay-Rheims Bible has a line which gave me hope of resolving this problem. It reads as follows:

A psalm for David. Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

The key phrase being ‘Distinguish my cause’. I took this to mean that one could live in an unjust political system, and even participate in it with good intention, and if ones cause is just then God can distinguish (differentiate!) it from the unholy nation in which one is part. However, relying on this one piece of this one verse is insufficient to draw theological conclusions. In fact, this verse isn’t even prone to consistent translation.

On the advice of my friend and brain-trust, I pursued Papal Encyclicals to see if the subject of Democracy is ever addressed. What I stumbled upon was very exciting to me, though it may not be new to learned readers. The document was Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, from 1864. This is a fascinating read, so I encourage everyone to take a look through it before getting too deep in my continued ramblings.

The particular error I found interesting was #55:

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852

This cuts the Tyranny problem at the root: America was founded on the separation of Church and State, and here is a long standing Papal Encyclical noting it as an Error. By extension, American government could be construed^[1] as illegitimate in the eyes of God.

But that poses a new problem: Suppose we accept that idea as true, that American government is illegitimately separated from the Church. How then shall we proceed? What options are available?

After discussion with my friend, here are some imperfect attempts at solving the Tyranny Problem.

Solution by Ignorance

One solution is derived from comparison to Usury. Usury was originally held as a sin (to be clear, usury is still a sin), but after the rise of capitalism it’s been centuries since the Church spoke forcefully on the subject, or provided any clarity. Zippy has written at length on the subject of usury, so I won’t attempt to duplicate his work here. The main thrust is that if the Church could stop enforcing it’s Laws, then the whole Cathedral would start to rot at the foundations.

Similarly with our democratic tyranny. In 1864, the Church clearly was aware of and concerned about modernism and the separation of Church and State as a ‘popular error’ that would inevitably lead people away from Christ. While I have not taken a detailed view of every encyclical, it doesn’t appear the Church has provided any clarity on the subject in a long, long time.

Therefore, because the Church has failed to form it’s body, it’s body has reduced culpability^[2] due to ignorance of proper teaching. We can’t follow a Law we don’t know about.

Solution by Rocks and Hard Places

We have no choice but to live in secular society until such a time as the world sorts itself out. There is no country we can go to, no thing we can do, to flee or undo the entrenched Tyranny in which we find ourselves. Therefore, having no other options, and absent clarity from the Church, we must find a path forward that is in keeping with the teachings of Christ. That path may or may not include participating in civil society with the intent of reforming it.

Further, absent other options, the President of the United States of America is the legitimate sovereign by the laws of the land, and we owe an obligation to the legitimate sovereign. While he himself may be out of union with the Church, that sin rests on him and not his subjects, who for the time being are bound to doff their hat to the King of all Creation and their local governor until the chain of authority is re-established.

Solution by New Options

If America is not a legitimate government, who is the legitimate sovereign of this land? Can we trace it back to the point of error and work forwards? Can we start from scratch and identify a legitimate sovereign? Can we create a political party designed to supplant the current system with one in union with the God? What would that look like?

The Tyranny Problem Remains Problematic

There remains no satisfactory solution to the Tyranny problem. These are all options. I am going to continue my research into Encyclicals and I will see if other Church Fathers have any writings; surely the first encounter with liberalism and modernism wasn’t 1864. St. Joseph, who humbly accepted his station in life and unquestioningly followed the life assigned to him by God, pray for us.

AMDG

---

^{[1] The Syllabus of Errors is not a dogmatic document, and so can and should not be regarded as a final word handed down from God, merely an effort by a Pope to warn against errors seeping into contemporaneous society. Bl. John Henry Newman writes (per wikipedia) that it should be taken in proper context of the source document referenced.}

^{[2] Culpability is reduced if indeed civic duty can be construed as sin but since we don’t know, it’s not wrong to assume the worst.}

XIII -The Tyranny Problem

I was reviewing my posts and I came upon two related statements about tyranny which appeared contradictory. I highlight them here. In one, I argued that Liberalism creates problems for government systems by beginning as if all government were tyranny. In the other, I argued that any government which fails to uphold virtue or which abdicates it’s moral responsibility to the populace is a tyranny. My gut reaction is that these two claims were contradictory. Now i’m not so sure.

Government as a Burden on the People

The liberal view, in the original context as the view held by the framers of the constitution of the United States of America, is that all government is tyranny. This is because, to a Liberal, the base state of man is liberty. Government by definition limits liberty by creating laws and structure in which man is obligated to operate. All the limits on government are designed as limits on tyranny. In the Liberal perspective, tyranny is defined as ‘Sovereign power that limits in any way the liberty of a people’.

Government as a Moral Authority

My view, which I hesitate to label for fear of creating confusion, is that government has a responsibility to uphold and promote virtue; failing to do so, that government is Tyranny. Stated succinctly, tyranny is defined as ‘Sovereign power that abdicates it’s moral responsibility to the people’. Government may limit liberty if it is just in so doing.

Irreconcilable Conflict of Terms

To a liberal, my definition is tyranny. To me, the liberal definition is not inherently tyranny but inevitably leads to it. A perfectly formed Christian population^[1] could support a liberal system, because there would be no question about the values of that population. But if you make the reasonable assumption that people will not all have uniform moral values, then the liberal system breaks down. My view does not inevitably lead to tyranny unless the leaders are not perfectly formed Christians. This can be controlled for, but only at the expense of maximum liberty. Is the goal of government to maximize liberty or to maximize virtue? It cannot be both, and each, to the other, is tyrannical.

The Zippy Catholic Dilemma

This is where we get into some pretty troubling territory. By my own statement, I hold our current system of government to be tyranny because it is not working to maximize virtue. In fact, Zippy took this a step further by pointing out that our very own liberal government is complicit in perpetrating the biggest mass murder in human history. He at other points discussed how he refused to vote, because he refused to participate in said political system, and further held voting as material participation in mortal sin.

I understand his point. The part of me that wants to avoid sin and end mass murder is strongly moved by this. The part of me that wants to offer Charity to my fellow man wants to continue to participate in the system and hope for change. The Dilemma is this: If you acknowledge something is Tyranny, what is your obligation to separate yourself from that Tyranny? Can we distinguish ourselves from a nation which is not holy? I do not feel satisfied with doing nothing, which is how I characterize Zippy’s position of not voting. I consider that a Benedict option of American politics. But in doing something, Zippy would consider that as material participation in mortal sin.

I would frame the problem as a syllogism thusly:

Participation in Tyranny can be sin.
Not participating in Tyranny cannot change Tyranny.
Therefore: [???]

I open it to all readers to consider how best to resolve the dilemma.

AMDG

---

^{[1]This is the subject of a future article I’m stewing on. For simplicity’s sake, i’m going to refer to a ‘Perfectly Formed Christian Population’ as a pretend utopic nation, Edeny. So to restate my sentence: The Liberal System works in Edeny; or it would work if America were populated by Edenites.}

(b) – I’ve Discovered a Contradiction

From Article V:

“I have rights, you can’t do this” does not carry as much weight as “You can’t do this because it is unjust”. The former is confounded by the additional fact that no one can agree what exactly our rights are; whereas the latter can be much more objective by working within the framework of existing law. Liberalism, however, intentionally hamstrings Government and prevents it from acting in the interests of society, because Liberalism is structured as if all government was tyranny.

 

From Article VII: 

The main innovation here is viewing Government as a moral authority: not to define what is right, but instead to preserve and promote what is right. As a Christian and a Catholic, I believe what is right is an objective standard, I believe in Natural Law. So a government which does not abide or promote Virtue, Natural Law, etc, is, in fact, Tyranny

I don’t know the consequences of it yet. But i see that this might be self contradictory. Or maybe not. I need to explore this.

VII – “At What Point Then is the Approach of Danger to be Expected?”

How does one live in a society wherein the Government grants privileges and God handed down Natural Law. The world I have described is one in which we, as individuals, do not have a lot of control. How does that work?

The Divine Right of Presidents

In order to understand our role within society, we must understand the Governments role within society, and more so, how to see past the facade of what it looks like and see what it is.

The way to begin to approach this is to consider what government really is. We as individuals are caretakers of souls which God made just for us. Within our families, we are collectively called to help preserve our families souls. Within our communities, we are called to shepherd as many souls as possible towards God. So follow that chain all the way up: Government is responsible for the souls of every citizen with allegiance to that government.

Lets restate this following Zippy’s methodology: Power is the capacity to make certain things happen. Authority is the moral capacity (I might paraphrase that to moral power) to oblige a subject to do certain things. So Governments have Power, and the Authority (as a moral responsibility) comes from the fact that they are, by definition, caretakers of souls.

Continuing: Enforcement is power associated with Authority to punish those who disobey authority. Tyranny is the false pretense of Authority. I will also go so far as to say Tyranny is the misuse of authority or an abdication of moral responsibility.

The main innovation here is viewing Government as a moral authority: not to define what is right, but instead to preserve and promote what is right. As a Christian and a Catholic, I believe what is right is an objective standard, I believe in Natural Law. So a government which does not abide or promote Virtue, Natural Law, etc, is, in fact, Tyranny.

The Tyranny of the Mob

Part of the problem is that we contextualize ‘Government’ as a monolithic thing which moves and acts as a singular unit. Government is composed of groups of people. In fact, it nests fractally all the way down so as to make it impossible to hold one person responsible for any act of Government. This is true in American government and in any Liberal Democracy the world over. Liberal democracy exists to eschew individual responsibility and promote monolithic collective responsibility.

As an Individual, our actions have immediate and realizable consequences. If those consequences are hidden from us or disguised, then we lose the Moral Hazard of decision making. When we can hide in a group to promote immorality, this is the classic Tyranny of the Mob. Every individual abdicates their moral responsibility because there are no consequences for moral or immoral behavior.

This works upstream from the masses, too. If the populace in a Democratic society don’t feel responsible for the leaders they elect, they don’t feel consequences when those leaders behave immorally. Democracy similarly functions as a shield.

There Has to be a Better Way!

Again, I’ve spent a lot of time extolling the vices of the improper exercise of Authority. So how do we, as Individuals, fit into this system? We need to understand our individual responsibilities as units within families, and as family units within society. The most succinct way I can think of describing our individual responsibilities is through the Cardinal Virtues:

• Justice
• Temperance
• Fortitude
• Prudence

These are the foundation of society, and defined within Natural Law. All men have a sense of the Cardinal Virtues inherent to us; we must refine and sharpen our virtues in order to form Virtuous societies. Similarly those individuals within Government, hiding from consequences, would behave differently if they cultivated these Cardinal Virtues as well.

The next level of Virtue are the Theological Virtues:

• Faith
• Hope
• Charity

These are virtues that come only from the grace of God. An individual, formed in a Christian way, sharpens their Cardinal virtues and pursues their Theological virtues. Again: If individuals were sufficiently formed in Christian teaching, then their direct relationship with God would supersede whatever their relationship is with Government. There would be no pretending that you can hide from consequences.

We, as individuals, do not get to choose how our Government operates. We do, at some level, get to choose the people that work within Government. Our responsibility is to select people formed in virtue so they can make virtuous decisions when in office, and select virtuous people to surround them, so that our Government can begin to uphold it’s responsibility to preserve and promote virtuous society, for the betterment of the souls of the people in the governments care.

AMDG