Should Catholics Follow the Utopian Vision of Modern Democracies? Part III-3 The Problems of Utopia

Last updated on: June 10, 2007 at 6:58 pm by voxnovablog

Should Catholics Follow the Utopian Vision of Modern Democracies? Part III-3 The Problems of Utopia 2007-06-10T18:58:00-05:00 voxnovablog

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In a brilliant essay “Heroism and Asceticism,” written about the Russian Revolution of 1905, Sergius Bulgakov analyzed, to their ire, the religiosity of the so-called Russian atheistic intelligentsia. First and foremost, he believed that they took many spiritual principles from their Orthodox heritage; when taken out of their proper context, however, these principles, holistic in the Orthodox faith, are out of balance, easily abused, and end up turning what was once good into an evil. More importantly, to oppose the Church, they became a Church of their own. Bulgakov showed how the caricature they made of the Orthodox Church fit themselves more than it did the Church. “What is most striking about Russian atheism is its dogmatism and, one might say, religious frivolity with which it is adopted” Sergei Bulgakov, “Heroism and Asceticism” pages 23 – 63 in Landmarks.trans. Marian Schwartz (New York: Karz Howard, 1977), 30. Moreover, to promote their utopian vision, political theorists require heroes dedicated to the good of humanity to sacrifice themselves so they can be turned into martyrs for the faith: that is, by their willingness to sacrifice themselves, these heroes encourage others to follow their example, and to do whatever is necessary to help create utopia. “Heroism strives to save mankind by its own powers and by external means; hence their expectional regard for heroic acts that embody the program of maximalism to a maximal degree. Heroism preaches the necessity of causing something to happen, accomplishing something beyond one’s strength, and, in the process, to give up what is most dear, one’s own life. One becomes a hero and, at the same time, a savior of mankind through an heroic act far beyond the bounds of ordinary duty” (ibid, 39).

The kind of religious fervor which marked the 1905 Russian Revolution can be seen also within the utopian vision of modern democratic states. Freedom, liberty, and equality – all of which are good, to be sure — have become sacred; but like all things sacred, they can be sacrificed, with the belief that in that sacrifice, they will be reborn and given a new life, a new power which they did not have before. This expectation was seen in the Russian Revolution, and it continues to be seen today. Democracies as much as communist nations demand the self-sacrifice of heroes. These heroes can be found in many places, such as with a soldier fighting in Iraq, believing their work will help liberate not just Iraq, but the United States from people who threaten its freedom. If they die, they are turned into a martyr, and they become a witness of the efforts we need to make in order to create a secure, happy future. If we want to honor their life, we must make their sacrifice worthwhile. We must support their cause. We must do our part. We must transform the world, until, at last, through our democratic principles, a lasting utopia has been created.

Like most things sacred, freedom has been given such an aura to it that few properly can properly state what it is and where it can be found. There is a general belief among the people of a democracy that freedom is a gift which can be given to us by following democratic ideals. The United States has claimed for itself a leadership role in the world. More importantly, it believes itself as the fidei defensor, the defender of the faith in democracy, and wants to claim all democratic states as under its physical protection. If you disagree with the United States, if you criticize it for one reason or another, you are a heretic. You undermine its historical mission and you are working to help its enemies. Of course, the reason you do this is obvious: you hate freedom.

It is in this belief, that freedom or liberty finds itself solely through political means, where we can begin to understand the source of our modern utopianism. We must examine what a Christian should mean by the word freedom to understand why true freedom cannot be offered to us by political entities; but, before we even tackle this question, we should understand why any utopianism must be rejected from a Christian perspective.

Fundamentally, political utopianism is a pelagian notion. It does not take a proper account of sin, and the influence of sin upon society. It does not understand that it is impossible for a perfectly just and yet free human society to exist as long as humanity has not been transfigured by the grace of God. The problem which Marx could never solve is the same problem democracies can never solve, and that is the problem of evil. “Evil that finds expression in social injustice and hatred cannot be abolished by external and mechanical means. A certain amount of evil in social life must be left free, and the complete disappearance of evil can only be thought of as spiritual transfiguration” Nicolas Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man. trans. Natalie Duddington (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), 224. The ways people alienate themselves one from another is the result of the alienation of humanity from God, and it is through a proper relationship with God can the human problem truly be solved. “The final victory over evil is the business of the church rather than of society or the state” (ibid, 224). Indeed, we have tried to take the world into our hands, to steal it from God, who is its true owner; we were meant to be stewards of the earth, not its possessor. “The maximum of freedom and the minimum of tyranny is achieved when God is recognized as the absolute owner, and man merely as a steward and user. A man is responsible for his property both to God and to other men” (ibid, 218).

Beneath all utopian vision lies a misunderstanding of the human condition, and what we truly need to be made free. Freedom is misconstrued as the freedom to choose any possible action, without realizing the conditions which imprison our actions. Freedom is not the ability to do anything, but the ability to do good. While we might claim, because we choose a certain activity, we are free, when we look at the situation we find things to be entirely different. As long as we act according to the passions, we will never be free. They enslave us, creating those addictive habits which we find extremely difficult to overcome. And these passions, until properly ordered, are contaminated by sin, by concupiscence. How can we then say that in embracing the passions, we are liberated? Is it because we have no external coercion? Freedom is not merely an issue of externals; indeed, true freedom is found first and foremost within our conscious life; it can only be experienced when we are no longer ruled by sin. When we are transformed from the inside out, then we can be said to be freed, because we have then found the way out of our self-imposed imprisonment. “Only by admitting the guilt of our own will, which is influenced by reason, can lead us to a new life. We will free ourselves from this external oppression only when we free ourselves from internal bondage: that is, when we take responsibility upon ourselves and cease attaching the blame for everything to external forces” Nikoala Berdyaev, “Philosophic Truth and the Moral Truth of the Intelligentsia” pages 3 – 22 in Landmarks.trans. Marian Schwartz (New York: Karz Howard, 1977), 22.

Utopia can never be made by political institutions. When some political formulation is used by a group to create a better world, while there might be some temporary victory for freedom, in the end, because of the corrupted nature of humanity, not only will utopia not be made, the new political institution or government will create new injustices of its own, and if left to its own accord, these injustices will eventually overcome whatever good the political institution accomplished. This is not to say we should not act. We must understand that what we do can only be a limited good, and can never be seen as an end in itself. “It is therefore perfectly legitimate that those who super oppression on the part of the wealthy or the politically powerful should take action, through morally licit means, in order to secure structures and institutions in which their rights will be truly respected. It remains true however that structures established for people’s good are of themselves incapable of securing and guaranteeing that good” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, (Vatican, 1988), para. 75.

Our hope should not be placed upon any human political structure, especially those founded upon the ideologies of the Enlightenment. They are based upon a profound belief of the inherent goodness of humanity without any proper understanding of human sin. They believe freedom can be obtained through societal progress alone. The utopian vision of communists and modern followers of democracy share this one fundamental flaw in common. They believe freedom is possible through politics. However, if the voice of the oppressed is not enough to call a nation to reform, then they find reasons to justify the use of violence as a remedy. While sin is denied, social evil is affirmed. Because evil is seen in a social light, utopian visionaries believe it is necessary for the common good to root out this blight upon the people by whatever means it has to do so. While this methodology might create a temporary peace, in the end, we see it only justifies the creation of more evil. “To put one’s trust in violent means in the hope of restoring more justice is to become the victim of a fatal illusion: violence begets violence and degrades man. It mocks the dignity of man in the person of the victims and it debases that same dignity among those who practice it” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation” (Vatican, 1984), para. XI.7.

The desire for freedom is good, because it is a sign of the human spirit and its desire to be liberated from the bondage of sin. Most confuse the bondage within our society and its imperfect structures as the fullness of our imprisonment. This is the reason why it is so easy for us to mistake political visions as offering us the full, lasting means for obtaining liberation. However, history makes it clear that any implementation of a given political vision, as long as it views itself as the sole means for human liberation, will never be successful. It will enslave people with its own ideologies and the structures it creates to create the world in its image.

A fundamental problem with any political theories of liberation, whether they are Marxist or democratic in principle, is that they do not know the fullness of freedom and the reason why we thirst so much for it. “The first and fundamental meaning of liberation which thus manifests itself is the salvific one: man is freed from the radical bondage of evil and sin. In this experience of salvation, man discovers the true meaning of his freedom, since liberation is the restoration of freedom” (CDF, Instruction on Christian Freedom, para. 23).

Truth is what sets us free. Through the work of Christ we are given access to the freedom we seek. “Through his Cross and Resurrection, Christ has brought about our Redemption, which is liberation in the strongest sense of the word, since it has freed us from the most radical evil, namely sin and the power of death” (ibid, para.3). But if we want it, we must work to get it. We must avoid the two great pitfalls upon the path of salvation. The first is to believe that we have no role in our liberation; it is to believe that our freedom is entirely done by God alone: those follow this path remain enslaved to sin and continue to follow its self-destructive ways. The second, perhaps the far greater error, is the one we see prevalent in the world today: it believes we have been given all that we need to obtain this liberation in ourselves, and there is no longer any need to work with or cooperate with God.

Our role in the generation of freedom does not justify any action we can take to generate it, but only those which follow through with the Gospel message, which is a message of hope, of love, and of justice. “By discarding this foundation and taking himself for God, man falls into deception, and instead of realizing himself he destroys himself. Far from being achieved in total self-sufficiency and an absence of relationships, freedom only truly exists where reciprocal bonds, governed by truth and justice, link people to one another” (ibid, para.26). Christians are called to be good citizens in the nations they find themselves in, but they are called to something higher, something which transcends the political visions of the nations. “The salvific dimension of liberation cannot be reduced to the socio-ethical dimension, which is a consequence of it. By restoring man’s true freedom, the radical liberation brought about by Christ assigns to him a task: Christian practice, which is the putting into practice of the great commandment of love” (ibid, para. 71). When our relationship with God has been restored by Christ, we are able to proclaim the true peace we have obtained from the truth to the world, showing the world the true power of freedom and its true foundation. “The experience of our reconciliation with the Father is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. God reveals himself to us as the Father of mercy, before whom we can come with total confidence. Having been reconciled with him, and receiving this peace of Christ which the world cannot give, we are called to be peacemakers among all men” (ibid, para. 52).

When any political ideology promises us freedom, we must examine what it is they mean by freedom and the means by which they claim we should get it. We must answer them according to the dictates of true freedom, the freedom of Christ, which comes about through love. When a political ideology takes itself too seriously, it becomes a rival for the Gospel message, because it sets itself, and not Christ, as the one who offers the people of the world freedom. But the freedom it offers is not the freedom of Christ, but a human, earthly freedom which continues to be bound by sin. Democracy, for example, promises us freedoms, but what freedoms are those? It says people should be free to follow the dictates of their desires, to follow their passions to wherever they will take us. It should not be difficult for anyone to see the error in this. What about the dark passions such as jealousy, envy, and anger? Should they too be embraced? If not, why not, and how does a political ideology offer a way to transcend them? “Having become his own centre, sinful man tends to assert himself and to satisfy his desire for the infinite by the use of things: wealth, power and pleasure, despising other people and robbing them unjustly and treating them as objects or instruments. Thus he makes his own contribution to the creation of those very structures of exploitation and slavery which he claims to condemn” (ibid, para. 42). The Christian, too, is faced with this question, but we understand that it is by embracing the passions that liberty is rejected. Only by overcoming them, only by dying to the self, do we find true liberty. “The mission of Christian asceticism is to transform one’s life into self-renunciation unseen by others and penance, to execute one’s labor with all possible effort, self-discipline, and self-possession, but to see both in that labor and in oneself an instrument of Providence alone. The Christian saint is he who has transformed his personal will and his entire empirical personality, through unflagging effort ands the fullest possible conviction, into the will of God” (Sergius Bulgakov, “Heroism and Asceticism,” 51). It is by transforming oneself, by overcoming selfish and the so-called “self-love,” which engenders the passions, that the Christian finds unity with God, a God who, as love, is the true ground of freedom. No political vision, no human-made utopia, can bring this.

What, then, does this mean for the Christian? Should they be a-political? It is the answer to this question we shall now turn.

Previous Post

June 10, 2007

Quote of the Week

Next Post

June 11, 2007 Caiaphas and Truman

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Psalm contains "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 51 Psalm 119 Psalm 1 Psalm 23