Section 1: Nature and Purpose of the State

1. As marriage gives rise to the family, so the family is the nursery of the State,¹ which may be defined as a perfect and self-sufficient society, consisting of many families, united together under a common ruler and governed by the same laws, for the attainment of complete life and welfare of all the members. The State owes its existence to the natural needs of men as social beings, which compel them to unite in larger (political) communities. For neither as an individual nor as a family member is a man able to supply even his own urgent needs.

¹ Cicero, De Offic., l. I, c. 17: “Since it is common to living creatures by nature to have the desire to procreate, the first society is in marriage itself, the next in children, then one household, all things in common. And this is the beginning of the city and, as it were, the nursery of the commonwealth. Next come the unions of brothers, afterward those of first cousins and second cousins, who, when they can no longer be contained in one household, go out into other houses as into colonies. Next come marriages and affinities, from which there are yet more relatives. This propagation and offspring will be the origin of commonwealths. Moreover, blood relationship and benevolence bind men by charity.”

Now, as it would be impossible to preserve order in the family without some higher (paternal or parental) authority, so, too, the permanent cohabitation of many families would not be possible without a common leader.² History teaches that in matter of fact there is not and never was a nation or State that wholly lacked political organization, no matter what form of public policy it adopted.

² Prov. XI, 14.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a, qu. 96, art. 4: “The social life of many could not exist unless someone presided who aimed at the common good. For many of themselves aim at many things, but one at one thing. And therefore the Philosopher says that whenever many things are ordered to one, one is always found as principal and director.”

But the State is not only a spontaneous outgrowth of sheer natural necessity, it is at the same time a free and voluntary product of human intelligence. It furnishes a fruitful soil for countless moral relations which are sustained and regulated by the ideas of social order, right, and justice,—ideas implanted by the Creator Himself in the minds and hearts of men. Accordingly the State or civil society is not a purely human invention, but instituted by God; for, as St. Paul says, “there is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God.”³ “Because no society can hold together unless some one be over all,”—writes Leo XIII in his famous encyclical “Immortale Dei,”—“directing all to strive ear- nestly for the common good, every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author. Hence it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world, to whom everything without exception must be subject, and whom everything must serve: so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single source, namely, from God, the Sovereign Ruler of all.”⁴

³ Rom. XIII, 1; cfr. Prov. VIII, 15 sq.

⁴ Encycl. “Immortale Dei,” Nov. 1, 1885: “Since no society can hold together unless someone presides over all, moving each person toward the common purpose with an efficacious and simultaneous impulse, it follows that an authority by which it is ruled is necessary to the civil community of men; this authority, no less than society, arises from nature and therefore from God Himself as author. From this it follows that public power in itself is from none but God. For God alone is the truest and supreme Lord of things, to whom all things whatsoever must be subject and must serve; so that whoever possesses the right of command receives it from no other source than from God, that supreme Prince of all.”—Cfr. J. A. Ryan, The State and the Church, pp. 2 sq., 26 sqq.

Yet, though political power is from God, Divine Revelation has not prescribed any particular form of government,⁵ but leaves men free to choose whichever form they prefer, and civil society is a moral entity precisely by the fact that it is based in part upon a free agreement, that it is sustained by the voluntary co-operation of its members, and that the individual finds within it ample scope for free activity. This liberty, however, like human liberty in general, is not merely legal, derived from positive law, but has its root in the divine will, and, ultimately, in the eternal and imperishable ideas of right and justice as they exist in God.

⁵ Rom. XIII, 1–7; 1 Pet. II, 13–19. Cfr. Linsenmann, Moraltheol., pp. 621 sqq.; G. v. Hertling, Kleine Schriften, pp. 41 sqq., 61 sqq., 91 sqq., 470 sqq.; M. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, pp. 557 sqq.; J. A. Ryan, op. cit., p. 28 sq.

The influence of Christianity on the development of political life shows itself especially in this that the Church of Christ inculcates a higher conception of justice and goodness. She is the authorized interpreter of the natural law. And since the human race is not intended to work out its destiny exclusively on this earthly planet, but has a truly transcendental aim and purpose,⁶ the State does not contain its ultimate purpose within itself, in other words, it is not absolute, but merely a means to an end. This end is to help humanity reach its temporal and eternal destiny. “Nature did not fashion society with the intent that man should seek in it his last end, but that in it and through it he should find suitable means to attain to his own perfection.”⁷

⁶ Mark VIII, 36 sq.; Luke IX, 25; X, 42.—St. Augustine, Confess., l. I, c. 1: “Thou [Lord] dost stir us, that it may delight us to praise Thee, because Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee.” (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 661).

⁷ Leo XIII, Encycl. “Sapientiae Christianae,” Jan. 10, 1890: “Nature did not beget society for this reason, that man should pursue it as an end, but that in it and through it he should find helps suited to his perfection.”

2. The end or purpose of the State may be briefly described as the promotion of the public welfare (salus sive prosperitas publica). This means that the State must by proper laws and institutions insure the preservation of good morals and the proper government of families, inculcate respect for religion, enforce the demands of justice, secure the prosperity of business, trade, and commerce, etc., because upon the promotion of these things the welfare and happiness of civil society mainly depends.⁸

⁸ Cfr. Rom. XIII, 3 sq.—Cathrein, Moralphilosophie, Vol. II, 5th ed., pp. 525 sqq.—Leo XIII, Encycl. “Immortale Dei,” Nov. 1, 1885; IDEM, Encyclical letter “Rerum Novarum,” March 15, 1891.

The object of the State, therefore, is the preservation of civil society on the basis of justice and order. Still law and order are not the last and highest purpose, but means for the attainment of a still higher one, which is contained in the very destiny of man himself, namely, culture and civilization in the fullest and most perfect sense of the term. The State must create such conditions of law and order as are suitable to a nation’s state of culture and apt to lead the people to a still higher plane of morality. Law and order must be directed toward good morals. Hence it belongs to the State not only to protect its citizens against external and internal enemies, and to protect private property, but likewise to prevent and punish all public violations of morality and to promote every form of true culture and civilization,—education, religion, science and art.⁹

⁹ J. A. Ryan, The State and the Church, pp. 195 sqq.; Linsenmann, Moraltheologie, p. 620.

The State has its natural basis in nationality. But History shows that a nation (in the strict sense) can very well comprise several States, and that a State may comprise people of different nationalities. Both the undue suppression of national aspirations and the undue exaltation of the principle of nationality are moral defects and therefore illicit.¹⁰

¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 615 sqq.—Cfr. Stöckl, Das Christentum, Vol. II, pp. 389 sqq.; W. Frind, Das sprachliche und sprachlich-nationale Recht in polyglotten Staaten und Ländern, Mayence 1899; W. Haidegger, Der nationale Gedanke im Lichte des Christentums, 2nd ed., Brixen, 1902; A. Vermeersch, S. J., Quaestiones de Iustitia, 2nd ed., pp. 6 sqq.

READINGS.—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 619 sqq.—V. Cathrein, S. J., Moralphilosophie, Vol. II, 5th ed., pp. 462 sqq.—IDEM, Die Staatsgewalt und ihre Grenzen, Freiburg i. B. 1882.—G. v. Hertling, Recht, Staat und Gesellschaft, Kempten 1906.—B. Seidel, Die Lehre des hl. Augustinus vom Staate, Breslau 1909.—M. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, pp. 461 sqq., 507 sqq.—J. A. Ryan, The State and the Church, N. Y. 1922, pp. 62 sqq., 195 sqq., 221 sqq.—Th. Meyer, S.J., Inst. Iuris Nat., Vol. II, pp. 241 sqq., 266 sqq., 303 sqq.—J. E. Ross, C.S.P., Christian Ethics, pp. 395 sqq., 433.—P. Tischleder, Ursprung und Träger der Staatsgewalt nach der Lehre des hl. Thomas und seiner Schule, M. Gladbach 1923.