The Postliberal Project: What Do We Ban?
If we want America to be its own beautiful city, we have a lot of banning to do!
Introduction: The Beautiful City
In the Republic, Plato presents us with the ideal society: the city-state of Kallipolis, which translates to “beautiful city.” Describing what makes this city so beautiful, Plato dedicates multiple chapters to questions of culture and what should, and especially what should not, be present in the city.
In the Beautiful City, Plato bans a lot of things! A healthy society, according to him, would continue “on in a circle,” meaning that virtue and wisdom are continually passed down generation to generation in a slippery-slope-proof cycle. Kallipolis would therefore have no place for imperfections of any kind: it represents a pure cultural conservatism.
The Land of the Free
If Kallipolis represents a pure cultural conservatism, then America currently represents a pure cultural liberalism. Whereas in Kallipolis there is no place for imperfections, America purports to hold no place for censorship. As a result, the worst of Plato’s fears have come true for America: the “greatest political laws”1 have been made of the wicked, by the wicked, for the wicked.
Today, Democrats and even many Republicans go so far as to lament mere mentions of “culture war” as a distraction from more “substantive” matters, like the money and the economy. This begs a question of the people whose job it is to talk: Do they know anything? At all? One could learn that “culture wars” rest at the center of public life by simply reading something. As for the particular importance which so many place on money, Plato’s Republic only ever speaks about money in the context of how wealth affects culture, stating that “[wealth] makes for luxury, idleness, and revolution; and [poverty] illiberality, bad work, and revolution as well.”2 It really makes you wonder if America’s ruling class reads anything at all.
Kallipolis and America’s respective approaches to censorship leave us with a very important question: What do we ban? America, in itself, is evidence that Plato was correct in many ways, and that we ought to ban some bad things. This is not to say that Plato’s vision is perfect, or even prudent, far from it, but it may lend itself in many ways to America today so we can have our own beautiful city. All that being said, let’s get banning!
The List:
I) The Obvious
Subjects like art and the nuances of religious difference are quite delicate, and questions of their illegality must be treated with due care. This, of course, is because not all bad art is equally bad; and not all false religions are equally false. We will parse these distinctions later in this piece. However, before we can do that, we must get the obvious out of the way: there are some aspects of American life which are so blatantly evil that they need to be banned in all cases immediately.
Non-therapeutic drug use (including marijuana), artificial contraception, pornography, surrogacy, medically assisted suicide, strip clubs, prostitution, extravagant instances of fornication, transgenderism, “gay marriage,” and abortion all need to be made illegal right now, for children and adults alike. Furthermore, tech companies should be required to censor any promotion of these activities.
Each of these blights, in their own way, wreck the soul of each American who interacts with them, destroying America’s national constitution. These mortal sins have no place in America under any circumstances. Those who try to prattle on about the need for nuance in these topics are fools who explain away evil. End of story.
II) Art
With the obvious out of the way, we will first be discussing art. As of now, the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression extends to a baffling degree, with essentially any type of art being allowed to exist in America, both on aesthetic and messaging grounds. The bounds of tolerability differ, however, when it comes to said art being promoted; the soft censorship which media platforms place on art is, definitionally, more wide-reaching than the law. So, which art should find itself in the crosshairs of censorship, direct or otherwise?
Aesthetics
Beginning with aesthetics, even the most conservative among you probably see Plato’s prohibition of all soulful instruments and complex rhythms as a step too far. I happen to agree; however, not because sanctioning aesthetics is in itself a step too far. It is not. I disagree with Plato simply because we disagree about what constitutes a healthy soul, and therefore which music should be allowed.
It must first be noted that different mediums of art interact with the soul differently. For example, Plato says that the “rhythm and harmony” of music “permeate the innermost element of the soul, affect[ing] it more than anything else.”3 The same, although to a diminished degree, can be said of visual or narrative art; you can certainly be swept away by a beautiful painting or a beautiful story.
Plato shuns overly intense art because in being aroused, the spirited soul overcomes the rational soul, which must remain in firm control at all times. However, I disagree: beautiful art makes your heart swell and your eyes well, but these emotions bring you closer to God. Gregorian chants, Michaelangelo’s frescoes, and The Divine Comedy all come to mind. The rational soul cannot wrap around the infinite circumference of God’s love, and so any substantive fathoming of the Divine will surely overwhelm the mind and set the heart on fire, which is the healthiest state one’s soul can be in. (Also, we’re not going to ban guitars!)
Thus, Plato’s mandated simplicity is far too restrictive, and the holiest art and a diversity of mediums should surely be permitted and promoted. That assessment, however, still leaves us with two aesthetic problems to deal with, notably in music.
Music which is, while pleasing, potentially unhealthy. Whereas holy music directly brings one to glorify God, there exists a different type of enjoyable music. Think of music which makes you bob your head or feel like a boss, with intense percussion and beats drops. A large swathe of classical and modern music would certainly fall within this category.
Ultimately, most popular music, as an aesthetic matter, should still have a place in society, too. Yes, this music can certainly inflame the ego by making one feel cooler than they actually are (Little Dark Age), or make one unduly lovesick (Taylor Swift) but that is a small hit for the common good to take in exchange for all the fun and joy that percussive music brings. Perhaps songs on the unhealthier side of this spectrum could be filtered out of popularity through algorithms, especially considering the unhealthy subcultures which tend to form around some popular music.
There also exists the question of aesthetic innovation. In Kallipolis, Plato states that “there must be no innovation in [culture] that goes against the established order,” for “one can never change the [cultural] ways […] without affecting the greatest political laws.”4
If Plato’s “no innovation” rule were applied to America only one-hundred years ago, the newest music you would have today would be ragtime; imagine if that rule were applied two-thousand years ago! We have already accepted that imperfect music should be allowed in America. Thus, new styles and genres can be appraised on their merits. Most of them should probably be let through.
With edge-cases out of the way, we will briefly touch upon abject aesthetic horrors. Think of all those rock subgenres whose vocals consist of shrieking, and whose instrumentals consist of ear-piercing noise. Think of all those modern art museums whose pieces could have been made by a third grader. Think of all the demonic imagery and cursing. Think of slam poetry and Meghan Thee Stallion. If we have a little courage, we could build a more beautiful world and make it all go away. We do not have to live like this!
Messaging
Hearing Plato put Homer on the chopping block is probably the most painful section of the whole Republic. The Iliad and the Odyssey, as aesthetic products, are absolutely spectacular. One of the greatest scenes comes from the Iliad, when Greek troops assembling for battle are described as “swarms of bees pouring out of a rocky hollow, burst on endless burst, bunched in clusters seething over the first spring blooms.”5 Every line of both poems is just like this one: gorgeous bliss.
However, as Plato points out, destructive values are smuggled through aesthetic beauty; in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, heroes and gods alike swim in vice the entire time. In this respect, the most beautiful art can be the most dangerous propaganda.
My favorite modern example of beautiful propaganda can be found in the NBC sitcom Friends. As an aesthetic matter, Friends is fantastic (no, I do not care what you say!) It is cleverly written, wonderfully acted, and hilarious. The characters are some of the most lovable ever put to screen. The whole show snuggles you like a warm blanket.
However, the casual sexual ethic which Friends pushes is evil and will ruin your life. It feels like every episode includes a lesbian, a divorce, and casual sex, all of which are treated as completely normal and go unquestioned. It is not as if these sins burden the character’s souls or spur a Christian character within them. These sins just happen, totally unquestioned. The Friendsification of the sexual ethic has been a disaster.
So, what kinds of messaging should be banned? It would be natural to first say that the graver the sin advocated for, the harder the piece of art should be banned. Of course, on some level, this makes sense: falling into a graver sin definitionally hurts the viewer more. However, different nations and ages are more vulnerable to the siren call of certain sins compared to other sins, even if the latter sins are less grave.
For example, the chances that a modern man will be sold on a libertine sexual ethic by Friends is much higher than the chances of one being sold on polytheism and blood-soaked glory by the Iliad. The Iliad is a shining triumph of Western literature, whereas Friends is a soapy time-waster. Therefore, while Paris would find himself in a lower circle of hell than Ross Geller, the Iliad stays and Friends goes.
Taste
In the interest of being even more specific, I will wrap up this section by listing five prominent pieces of art, and briefly explaining why they could be banned or not. My discernment, of course, could be off: this job would be left to committees of judges and thinkers much wiser than myself.
Breaking Bad (2008-2013)
Breaking Bad is a masterpiece. As an aesthetic matter, its narrative is gripping, its characters are fascinating, and it soothes the senses with gorgeous cinematography and sound. It is also a moral triumph: it is a gripping exploration of sin’s destructiveness and the pitfalls of pride. That being said, it is a show for the mature: it is far too graphic for children, and Walter White’s will to power could be misinterpreted as an endorsement of ego. That being said, it is the job of society to educate its citizens out of such misinterpretation: it will make both their everyday lives, as well as the show, more enjoyable. Breaking Bad stays.
The Simpsons (1989–Present)
The Simpsons is another masterpiece. It is hilarious, touching, and aesthetically groundbreaking. In 1992, George H.W. Bush said that Americans need to be “a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like the Simpsons.” That is probably true; however, Americans are like the Simpsons. Satirizing American life is okay because American life is far from perfect. Some of its more flagrant transgressions can be excused for the sake of artistry, especially given that it is old, and therefore not nearly as dangerous. If any damage has been done, there is no urgency to ban it now. The Simpsons stays (at least the earlier seasons; maybe the government should save it from itself at this point).
Runaway by Kanye West (2010)
Runaway is a third masterpiece! As an aesthetic matter, this song is also golden. It is not church music by any means, but it is gorgeous in a modern way. The explosive bass, bellowing cellos, dirty guitars, and Kanye’s vocoded outro make for an experience of pure catharsis. As for messaging, Runaway presents some complications: it is very vulgar, and chronicles various sins without an explicitly condemnatory tone. However, the confusion is the point: the song exists to portray the artist in all of his raw imperfection, which it does a fantastic job. That being said, the “parental advisory” sticker should not simply be a formality: this song could do serious damage to young ears, even in its “clean” version. Streaming services need to start implementing more effective protections. Runaway, for the most part, stays.
The “Comedy” of George Carlin
George Carlin is the worst of the worst. His work is vulgar, stupid, snarky, annoying, and sacrilegious garbage. He is not funny. What he does is not even comedy; it is thinly veiled advocacy for a politics of boorish resentment. You may object that the institutions he criticizes are worthy of criticism. However, criticism is only fair if it is done for the right reason. George Carlin’s criticism is done for the worst reason possible: a hatred of all things. Everybody who endures his work is worse off. If you are actively seeking it out to enjoy it, you are letting your spiritual soul twist into a bitter monster. I am not exaggerating. His work needs to be scrubbed from public life. YouTube already bans good people and if they can ban good people, they can certainly ban bad people. George Carlin is banned.
“White on White” by Kazimir Malevich (1918) & Modern Paintings in General
It is true: White on White and other grotesque modern paintings like it do not harm us in the same way that something more violently repulsive does. Modern art attacks us in a much more elusive, and therefore more dangerous way: it is depressing.
In Canto XI of Inferno, Dante describes art as “second in descent from God;” we are God’s children, making works of art God’s grandchildren. That gorgeous insight perfectly represents what art is supposed to do for us: when we experience art, we grant ourselves, for a moment, the God’s-eye-view of a creator looking at his beautiful creation in its totality. In the beginning, God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. That is why we go into museums to look at paintings of things we could see by looking out a window (and also why God became man, by the way); so we can see all, confined to a frame. And in seeing all, we can fathom it fully and thus see that it is good. Walking into a museum, turning a corner, and being confronted by good art is otherworldly.
That is why White on White, and art like it, is horrible. Whereas ordered, refined art grants us that God’s-eye-view, abstract art leaves us with the lack of clarity that the museum exists to counter in the first place. That is why it depresses the spirit: it is the world we experience outside of the museum, but worse.
Modern art is somewhat like the world because in the world, we see glimmers of the total creation’s order and beauty in whichever little detail we happen to be focusing on, be it a tree, a river, or our neighbor. Said details, in being ordered and beautiful in themselves, clue us into a bigger picture.
On the other hand, modern art is worse than the world because the little details, instead of being coherent in themselves, are meaningless squiggles. The pretentious modern art establishment commands us to “ooh” and “ahh” at said squiggles, so as to piece together meaning where there is not, an impossible task. It is that fruitless grasping is what makes experiencing modern art a uniquely depressing exercise; a sense of fruitless grasping is, in essence, what depression is.
That is what makes modern art such a unique evil: it lies to us. It tells us that it contains a secret meaning that we will never find, and in doing so robs us of the beauty we long for. Modern art needs to be perp walked out of every museum in America.
Answering the art question, in focusing on the broad topics of aesthetics and messaging, has provided a framework for addressing related questions, such as social media and ideology, respectively.
III) Social Media
The main problem with social media is that, as corporeal beings, need actual real-life bonds. Social media grants us fake “connections” in a touchless, virtual void. Those two words in themselves — “bonds” versus “connections” — best represent the difference between the real world God made for us and the fake world we are creating for ourselves. People can easily lead rich and gorgeous lives in the real world and without social media (they did it forever), but not the other way around. The road from urbanization to industrialization to virtualization has made us progressively more lonely, and can only be overcome if liberalism is destroyed. (Consider this a sneak-peak of the next piece in this series: What Do We Promote?).
The question of social media is very complex, which is why it is best reserved for its own section in its own think-piece. So as not to oversimplify it in this piece, I will only speak on one recent addition to the social media sphere, which tech companies should be forced to remove immediately.
I am referring to those short, vertical videos, found in the form of TikToks; Instagram Reels; YouTube Shorts; and, most troublingly, PornHub’s “Shorties” (you heard that right). I like to call this new format the “Scroll-Spiral.” This addition constitutes a dramatic shift from older forms of media: YouTube videos, while also relying on sensory stimulation, keep your attention by being engaging in a way much more demanding of your higher faculties. Scroll-Spiral videos, on the other hand, assault your brain-stem with flashing images, music, trite soundbites, and superimposed clips. You are completely barraged, and your higher faculties are completely turned off. You are transformed into an idle blob, which, as St. Josemaría Escrivá reminds us, “idleness is something inconceivable in a man who has the soul of an apostle.”
If you think that the Scroll-Spiral format, developed no earlier than 2020 in most cases, is destined to be with us forever, you need a reality check. It just got here! The apps could simply remove these features and return to what they just were with a single update! But, they will not: the Scroll-Spiral robs us of our attentionn. Yet, attention is their economy. The social media companies need to be forced into removing them through law. In the meantime, we can continue to make our own TikToks, Reels, and Shorts so as to sprinkle some insight in between the mindless digital slop. Scroll-Spiral have to be banned.
IV) Ideology
In short, the standard that applies to banning Friends over The Iliad applies to the censorship of various ideologies: prudence! (Like the question of social media, the issue of problematic ideologies will be fully addressed in What Do We Promote?). In this piece, I will simply give my thoughts on one matter: diversity of opinion.
On this question, liberals almost have a point. They say that there is something beautiful about pursuing truth together — that the most constructive, fruitful dialogues occur when we, knowing that we know nothing, seek out those who disagree with us and allow them to transform us into better, more refined versions of ourselves. When they talk about the “open marketplace of ideas,” they are trying to evoke images Socrates and his dissenters coming together to produce insights worthy of eternal memory.
Now, I am going to say something that will make both liberals and conservatives angry: As it regards the “free marketplace of ideas,” both sides are dishonest.
Of course, the liberal overstates his tolerance. While he is generally tolerant of left-wing crazies with whom he disagrees, he cracks down hard on right wingers. His tolerance only happily extends to his left, and insofar as he tolerates the moderate right, he does it with a wince. The conservative, on the other hand, is dishonest because he overstates his intolerance. He says he hates all evil, and yet he hates the right-wing crazy much less than he hates the left-wing crazy.
In short, the marketplace of ideas is a wonderful vision…if our side’s crazies are the ones being tolerated. That is because reading “conservatives” makes you a smarter, better conservative — and it is also a lot of fun! In the same way, reading Ibram Henry Rogers (commonly known as Ibram X. Kendi) would make you a more sophisticated liberal, precisely because you disagree with him. However, reading How To Be An Anti-Racist as a conservative feels like pulling teeth out and a liberal reading any conservative would have to put the book down to take a breather every once in a while.
That is because, while the right-wing crazy does not believe in God, he and the conservative are both grasping at the same love of the good, the true and the beautiful; it is just that the right-wing crazy perverts those goods. We tolerate the right-wing crazy because it feels like they are getting there. The liberal tolerates the left-wing crazy because they are grasping at the same love for liberty, equality, and fraternity, even if the crazy misses their mark.
As an aside, I considered for a moment writing that the right-wing crazy is more likeable because he is “closer to the truth than the left-wing crazy.” However, that is, paradoxically, not exactly the case. Pride is more evil than gluttony; yet, Alexander the Great is more beautiful than the slob eating Pringles on the couch. In this metaphor, the right-wing crazy is Alexander the Great, and the left-wing crazy is the slob. Even though becoming a Christian (becoming correct) is a shorter jump for a Nietzschean than for a sorta-nice zodiac-girl, the Nietzschean is objectively more evil than her.
V) Religion
Can The State Regulate Religion?
Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration of religious freedom, seems to state cannot regulate religion. The document states that:
The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.6
To be a Catholic, you must believe that the above statement is true. It is from an ecumenical council, approved by the Holy Father. It is official, infallible Church teaching. And as a Catholic myself, I believe that it is a totally factual statement.
So why have I not concluded this section? Because taking Dignitatis Humanae as a blanket prohibition on state-intervention in religious matters would fly in the face of past church teaching and action. You have to read Dignitatis Humanae in the perennial teaching of the Church.
The clearest, most recent example of this seeming contradiction can be found in Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII’s 1885 encyclical concerning Church-State relations: “All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety.”7
That standard certainly seems more in line with the religion of inquisitions. So, what are we to make of this seeming discrepancy? The answer is that there is no discrepancy. Catholic teaching has stayed perfectly consistent between Immortale Dei’s political doctrine (and what came before it) and the Second Vatican Council. The Council itself said as much! During Vatican II, on the 19th of November, 1964, Dignitatis Humanae was presented as entirely consistent with Leo XIII's political doctrine: “Some have complained that traditional doctrine has been abandoned in this declaration, especially as stated by Leo XIII. But this is not true if the nature of Catholic tradition on this matter is properly examined.”8
So, what is the Catholic view on the relation between Church and State, and how has it remained unchanged? (If you would like a richer, fuller explanation of the following argument, I strongly encourage you to read Professor Thomas Pink’s Dignitatis Humanae: Continuity After Leo XIII).
Beginning with the state, the Catechism of the Catholic Church observes that “society is not for [man] an extraneous addition, but a requirement of his nature.”9 The state must exist, for human beings cannot exist or thrive without other human beings.
The Catechism calls the state's collective responsibilities to the people the “common good.” The common good is comprised of “three essential elements,” all of which the civil government has the power to directly regulate:
“Social well-being and development”; things like “food,” “clothing,” “work,” “culture,” or “suitable information.” In short, many of the things which this piece has discussed thus far. All of the previous and following sections of this piece absolutely fall within the jurisdiction of the government. Sorry libertarians — you don’t have a God-given right to ruin everything.
“Peace.” Proverbs 11:14 states that “where there is no governor, the people shall be scattered” — society requires order and stability to keep it functional. This includes threats both foreign and domestic. Furthermore, these threats do not have to be physical: Immortale Dei laments the modern view “that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the State.”10 Censorship is on the table! Again, sorry libertarians.
Finally, these two civil pursuits are both underpinned by an obligation to “respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.”11
These responsibilities of the state, which Pope Leo XIII calls “human things,”12 can be variously compared to those things done for us humans in the upkeep of our person. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that the state can be compared to “the physician [who] has the task of preserving a man’s life in a healthy condition; the steward [who] has to supply him with the necessaries of life; the [...] teacher [whose task] is to see to it that he understands the truth; and [...] the moral counsellor [whose task] is to ensure that he lives according to reason.”13
Aquinas says that “if man were not directed towards some good external to himself, the [above] forms of care would suffice.”14 However, this is not the case; man does not live for bread, or health, or peace, or even for virtue alone. We, ultimately, live for God — for “the final blessedness to which he looks forward in the enjoyment of God after death.”15 We require what Pope Leo XIII calls “divine things.”16 And these “divine things” — matters of “spiritual care” and religion — are within the jurisdiction of the Church, not the state.
Thus, the Church and the State are different things meant for different purposes — one for distinctly human ends and one for distinctly divine ends. However, although distinct, these ends are inseparably intertwined, for they both, through different modes, point towards the same end: human flourishing. Both the state (Romans 13:1) and the Church (Matthew 16:18-20) are ordained by and derive their authority from God.
However, as was previously mentioned, the divine end, under the jurisdiction of the Church, is man’s ultimate end. This would, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, make the state’s earthly ends “intermediate ends,”17 which exist to help orient us towards the ultimate, divine ends. Therefore, the relationship between Church and state can best be described as a principal-agent relationship.
A wonderfully analogy used to describe the principal-agent relationship can be found all throughout Church history, from Leo XIII in the 19th century, back to Saint Robert Bellarmine during the Counter-Reformation, and all the way to early Church Fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus: the relation between the Church and the civil authority is as that of “the union of the soul and body in man.”18 There are many things that the body, like the state, manages outside of the soul’s direct control, such as pumping blood. However, these bodily functions, in keeping the person alive and well, serve intermediate ends to the person’s ultimate end, which is the divine.
As Aquinas says, “those who are responsible for intermediate ends should be subject to one who is responsible for the ultimate end, and be directed by his command.”19 Just as the soul, whose end the body ultimately exists to serve, has the right to command it to walk to mass, so to does the Church have the right to command the state to regulate religion on its behalf. Thus, when commanded by the Church, the state can regulate religion on its behalf.
The crucial detail is that the state can only regulate religion when doing so on the church’s behalf. There is an infinite difference between the Church granting the state permission to work within Church jurisdiction, and the state usurping the Church’s jurisdiction for itself. There is an infinite distinction between being lent something and stealing something.
That distinction is what Dignitatis Humanae is getting at when it demands “immunity from [religious] coercion in civil society.”20 The previous doctrine — that the Church may direct the state to do its bidding — was not countered in any way! It was stated at the Council that, “the liberty or immunity from coercion which the declaration addresses does not have to do with the relation of man to the truth or to God, nor does it have to do with relations between the faithful and authorities within the Church.”21
The document seeks, according to the Council, to answer a “new question of religious liberty”22 brought on by the new prevalence of states largely disconnected from the state in the modern age. The document correctly and crucially clarifies that these new secular states, in themselves, do not have the power to regulate on matters of religion. As Immortale Dei says: “It is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man's guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion.”23
Thus, the agreement between Vatican II and past Church teaching is quite apparent.
Can America Regulate Religion?
So, what does all of this mean for America? As of now, nothing! America currently has zero right to regulate matters of religion because it is currently a secular state and has been given no such mandate by the Church.
What is more, as America currently stands, the Church doesn’t have the authority to command it to regulate religion, or to depose its rulers, or anything like that. Saint Thomas Aquinas specifies that “all the kings of the Christian people should be subject” to the Church.24 Saint Robert Bellarmine described this subjection to the Church as a sort of national baptism: “In fact, since kings through baptism have subjected themselves to the spiritual authority of the Pontiff, they are considered to have subjected also their kingdoms and their political authority to the same spiritual authority.”25 National baptism, as it regards the regulation of these most important spiritual matters, is step one.
How Should America Regulate Religion?
As for step two, we can again look to Saint Thomas Aquinas for how a Catholic state should approach non-believers of all kinds. Aquinas distinguishes two general categories of unbeliever: those “who have never received the faith,” and those “who have at some time accepted the faith and professed it, such as heretics and apostates of all kinds.”26
For this first category, Aquinas states the obvious that there is “no way to be compelled into the faith [...]; for belief is an act of will.”27 However, he says, for the sake of the common good, that “they should be coerced by the faithful lest they hinder the faith by blasphemies or evil persuasions, or, indeed, by open persecutions.28 This, of course, does not mean that all outward expressions of non-Christianity need to be made illegal for the sake of the common good. Aquinas explains:
Human government is derived from the Divine government, and ought to imitate it. But although God is omnipotent and the Supreme Good, He nonetheless permits certain evils, which He might prevent, to occur in the universe, lest, if they were removed, greater goods might be taken away or greater evils ensue. So, then, in human government also, those who rule rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be impeded or certain worse evils incurred.29
Therefore, those who have never received the faith cannot be coerced in order to receive it but could be stopped from harming others and the common good, within the bounds of prudence. This inability to coerce faith does not apply to heretics and apostates, who “should be compelled even by bodily means to keep their promises and hold fast to what they once received;” once faith is received, the Church with the state as its arm is able to coerce it back.30
However, a difficulty then arises in this distinction between never-believed and former-believer: on which side do non-Catholic Christians stand? It would obviously be crazy to treat your average protestant with the same intensity and severity as an active schismatic like Martin Luther!
However, as a technical matter, the line between these two categories rests in baptism. And baptisms are legitimate if they are done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, no matter the denomination. Therefore, current non-Catholics would rest in the latter, former-believer category. This does not mean that anyone should be persecuted! Obviously not. Again, there is a massive difference between schismatics who tear the world apart, and those who, centuries later, find themselves drifting amongst the pieces.
A Catholic America would be a nation of due religious tolerance. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that non-Catholic rites often must be tolerated in order to “avoid the scandal or dissension that might [...] arise”31 if they were persecuted, so that they “might gradually be converted to the faith.”32 This tolerance is especially important in light of “a great multitude of unbelievers,”33 as America now has. A Catholic America’s religious policy, in short, would be to focus on the worst practices (think witchcraft and demonic performances) first and move from there.
Conclusion
Those who guide nations must lead with eternal ends in mind. In this marathon towards the Beautiful City, becoming a Christian nation again is the starting line. America’s finishing line is being a country of thoroughly Christian leaders, institutions, culture, and citizens. If we want to get there, we have a lot of banning to do!
Here is the fun part: this article only scratches the surface! I could have listed thirty random things that need to be banned off the top of my head that I did not even mention in this piece. However, this piece can serve as general framework of prudence for what should and should not be tolerated in a just society.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.
C. D. C. Reeve, Plato’s Republic, 108.
C. D. C. Reeve, Plato’s Republic, 105.
C. D. C. Reeve, Plato’s Republic, 84.
C. D. C. Reeve, Plato’s Republic, 103.
Homer, The Iliad, Book II, 103-107.
Dignitatis Humanae, 2.
Immortale Dei, 6
Vatican II, Acta Synodalia 3.8, pg. 464.
Catechism of Catholic Church, 1878.
Immortal Dei, 34.
Catechism of Catholic Church, 1907-1909.
Immortale Dei, 17.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, 39.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, 40.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, 40.
Vatican II, Acta Synodalia 4.5, 99.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, 41.
Immortale Dei, 14.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, 41.
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 1.
Vatican II, Acta Synodalia 4.5, 99.
Vatican II, Acta Synodalia 3.8, 464.
Immortale Dei, 11.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, 41.
Bellarmine Tractatus, 266.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 268.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 268.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 268.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 273.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 268.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 273.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 273.
R.W. Dyson, Cambridge Texts, Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 273.
All quotes in italics are the emphasis of the author.
I don't know what's the prevalence of reggaeton in the US but that would be first thing I would ban
I like how direct this piece is. We do indeed have a lot of banning to do. I also appreciate the insight that while the secular right wing may be closer to the truths of nature, it is further from the spiritual truths of a secular left-wing that emphasizes equality and fraternity.