Joseph Cardinal Höffner CHRISTIAN SOCIAL ... - Ordo Socialis

f) Even if Scripture does recognize the importance and dignity of the state, it points out with
great earnestness that the state can degenerate into an ungodly power. At the end of time, the
„false prophet,“ the „beast come up out of the earth,“ will abuse political power for the purpose
of terror: „It forced all men, small and great, rich and poor, slave and free, to accept a
stamped image on their right hand or their forehead. Moreover, it did not allow a man to buy
or sell anything unless he was first marked with the name of the beast or with the number that
stood for its name“ (Rev l3:l6-l7). The idolization of the state is a real possibility in the absolute
state; its biblical attribute is the „mouth for uttering proud boasts and blasphemies“ (Rev
l3:5).
Protestant social teaching, which, in contradistinction to the Catholic conception, understands
itself exclusively as social theology and therefore rejects social philosophy, has in the course
of history been very full of tensions and non-uniform in its statements. This fact is explained
by the differences in starting point: Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms, Calvin’s Christocracy,
the old-Lutheran doctrine of government, the doctrine of the orders of preservation,
and so on. Whereas Protestant social ethics today sees a temporally conditioned expedient in
Luther’s doctrine of the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the regional sovereign, which
must be considered antiquated in modern secularized society, it recognizes two things in Luther’s
doctrine of the state that are still important for our times: first, the interpretation of the
state as a divine order of preservation („to work for your good“ [Rom l3:4]); second, the doctrine
that state authorities are „officials of God“ and „masks of God“ behind which „God secretly
rules the world.“ By asserting these doctrines, Protestants do not overlook, however,
that the governmental authority can become an accessory to evil instead of preventing evil.
2. The Socio-Philosophical Interpretation
From a socio-philosophical point of view, the state is the highest social form of a people,
grounded in natural law, serving the perfection of its earthly well-being, and resting on might
and right. For a more detailed interpretation of this statement, Christian social teaching sets
out from the following considerations:
a) By his own power, man cannot „fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise
and glory of his Creator“ (Quadragesimo anno, ll8). And since it is not self-sufficient, the
family can in no way master all the necessities of life either. Numerous other communities are
also necessary. We are therefore faced with a sheerly incalculable number of closely connected
individuals - families, communities, companies, cultural institutions, and so on - whose
multiple relations must be permeated by law, order, and security. For the fulfillment of this
task, there is required at the top a secular social structure which, based on might and right,
guarantees earthly well-being as the supreme expression and highest guardian of the common
good in the best possible way. As this supreme social structure, the state should create the
totality of presuppositions for a fruitful development of the individual, of smaller social circles,
and of the entire society. State and society are thus not separate, but distinct. The dualism
of state and society guarantees the freedom of man and the development of cultural domains.
It protects us from the totalitarian power of the collective.
b) As soon as the consciousness of political solidarity unites the people living in a given area
(for instance, in a newly settled country), they form the corpus mysticum of the state, whereas
an unordered mass of people „without physical and moral unity“ is not yet a corpus politicum.
7 This consciousness of solidarity is indeed a spiritual and not a blind biological drive,
but does not presuppose an explicit contract in order for the state to emerge. In this sense, the
state is not a „human work,“ but „nature.“ 8 It is here that the essential difference between the
7 F. Suarez, De Legibus, III, c. 2, n. 4.
8 F. de Vitoria, De potestate civili (Getino), II:179
134