| |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Volume I: Called to Serve, January 1929-June 1951 |
"Jacques Maritain"[20 February-4 May 1951]
I. Analysis of The Present Situation Jaques Maritain stands out as one of the foremost Catholic philosophers
of the contemporary scene. From his chair in the Institut Catholique in
Paris, Maritain views the whole modern age with a critical eye, diagnoses
its diseases, and prescribes "Integral Thomism" as the infallible antidote
for all its ills. He diagnoses the ills of modern culture in intellectual
terms. The disease of modernity began, according
to Maritain, when modern philosophy abandoned its dependence on theology.
This separation started a process of dissociation which could not be checked
short of the very verge of dissolution. The three great symptoms of this
state of dissociation, in the last stages, are (1) agnosticism, or the
complete separation of the knowing mind from the object of knowledge;
(2) naturalism, or the complete separation of the world from its divine
Source or Ground, and (3) individualism, or the complete separation of
the rebellious human will from any object of trust and obedience. Maritain
now goes on to show that Thomism is the specific antidote for these alarming
symptoms, and the disease that underlies them. In applying Thomism as
the general solution to the various problems of the modern era, Maritain
gives special attention to two closely related questions: the question
of freedom, and the question of the destiny of man. II. Views on Communism. In a sense Maritain sees Communism as the final great symptom of the
disease of modernity. Here he finds atheism exalted to the position of
a religion for which dialectic materialism supplies the dogma, and of
which communism as a rule of life is the social and ethical expression.
This atheism, according to Maritain, is not a necessary consequence of
the social system, but on the contrary is presupposed as the very principle
of the latter. In other words, Maritain feels that atheism was one of
the causes for the rise of communism rather a mere consequence. He attempts
to prove historically that Marx was an atheist before he was a communist.
The origin of Marx's communism was not economic, as it was in the case
of Engels, but philosophical and metaphysical. Maritain is very insistent
at this point and he takes great pains to establish his thesis. But he
does not stop here. He sees another cause for the rise of communism which
immediately reveals his objectivity. Communism arose as a revolt against
Christianity itself. It originated chiefly through the fault of a Christian
world unfaithful to its own principles. III. Views on Democracy. When Maritain comes to a discussion of democracy he quite readily speaks of it as the most ideal political system created by the mind of man. Its virtue lies in the fact that it grew out of Christian inspiration. Says Maritain, "the democratic impluse burst forth in history as a temporal manifestation of the inspiration of the gospel." (Christianity and Democracy, p. 36) But if democracy has its virtues it also has its concomitant vices, and its vices are found in the fact that it has failed to remain true to its virtues. To often has the democratic principle attempted to subsist without the Christian principle. In this attempted dichotomy Maritain finds the "tragedy of the democracies." He feels that the survival of the democracies will rest on condition that the Christian inspiration and the democratic inspiration recognize each other and become reconciled. From this brief resume of Maritain's views on democracy we must not draw
the conclusion that he identifies democracy with Christianity. Such a
conclusion would be unwarranted and gratuitous in the light of Maritain's
overall thought. For him, Christianity transcends all political systems,
and it can never be made subservient to democracy as a philosophy of human
and political life nor to any political form whatsoever. So that the only
valid assumption that one can draw from Maritain's conclusions on democracy
is that he sees it as the nearest political approximation of Christian
principles. IV. Views on Politics and The Relation of Church and State As we have no doubt noticed in the foregoing discussion, Maritain is far from Catholic in many of his views. This fact is probably nowhere better revealed than in his political views. He has no desire to see the mediaeval supremacy of Church over state restored; he only hopes for a day when "an entirely moral and spiritual activity of the Church shall preside over the temporal order of a multitude of politically and heterogeneous nations, whose religious differences are still not likely to disappear." He deplores the social inertia and reaction which beset so many Catholics. Some years back he incurred considerable criticism by many of his fellow Catholics because he refused to see in General Franco the perfect Christian knight-errant that the Vatican saw him to be. If it be asked how a loyal Catholic can thus take sides against the interest
of his own Church, the answer is very clear. Maritain refuses to identify
the interests of Catholics with the interest of the church, or the kingdom
of God. The Invincible Armada was sent out by his Most Catholic Majesty,
Philip II of Spain, with holy intent and with prayers upon the lips of
the faithful; but in Maritain's candid opinion, God was against it. For
him, Catholics are not Catholicism, and the errors, apathies, shortcomings
and slumbers of Catholics do not involve Catholicism. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maritain, J. Christianity and Democracy TDS. CSKC. |
