Authority, Absolutism and Infallibility in Joseph de Maistre IV: The Theoretical Authority and Practical Limits of Sovereignty

Last updated on: April 8, 2008 at 3:00 am by Henry Karlson

Authority, Absolutism and Infallibility in Joseph de Maistre IV: The Theoretical Authority and Practical Limits of Sovereignty 2008-04-08T03:00:34-05:00 Henry Karlson

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.

Part I

Part II
Part III

There are several different kinds of sovereignty, and Joseph de Maistre believed none of them were without flaw because all of them require a human person to be in charge. While he preferred monarchy to aristocracy or democracy, he made it clear that he thought none of them could be said to be the best form of government. The form of government which is best is that which suits the needs of those being governed. “The best government for each nation is that which, in the space occupied by that nation, is [the one] capable of procuring the greatest possible summation of happiness and strength possible, for the greatest number of people possible, for the longest amount of time possible.“ [43]

It might be shocking to see such an utilitarian view from a political theorist trying to preserve the old Catholic order in Europe. One could wonder why, for example, he could find democracy acceptable, if he prefered to be under a monarchy? To answer this, he said that democracies could work, but only for short periods of time, and only within a small territory, but when they did, something great could indeed be made from them. “The democracy has a brilliant moment, but it is only a moment, and for it, it must pay dearly.” [44] Why such a dear price? Because a democracy, more than any other system, relies upon the goodness of humanity; it requires the cooperation of everyone involved to be successful. With human inclination to evil, how long could such an endeavor last? Indeed, he did not think, in its pure form, it could ever exist. Yet one could examine relative forms of democracy and use them to discover democracy’s inherent strengths and weaknesses. In this fashion, one could believe that its weaknesses are more numerous the longer it lasts and the larger it becomes. Indeed, Maistre would say that its fundamental error comes from the fact that it seeks to undermine what it means to govern. He brought this out with a thought experiment. If the people are governing themselves, who can be said to be the rulers, and who are the governed? “Surely there is something equivocal here, if not an error, for the people who command are not the people who obey.” [45] He also believed that justice would be a problem for democracies, because it would be a mob which determines what course of action one should take. “Justice in democracies is sometimes feeble and sometimes passionate; one could say that, in these governments, no head is able to stand up to the sword of the law. This signifies that the punishment of a criminal or someone famous who has been accused will be a pure joy for the people […] but if the criminal is obscure, or in general if the crime does not hurt the pride or immediate interests of the majority of the people, that same opinion hinders and paralyzes the action of justice.” [46]

Fundamentally, the role of the sovereign is to guide and protect the people from themselves. Their inner, evil nature is ever ready to come to the surface and create havoc. The way it is put in check is through a legitimate sovereign established by God. Even if it happens that for some nation that a form of democracy such as a republic is the best form of government, this does not undermine the general framework in which a sovereignty would rule. All forms of sovereignty are pyramidal. There will always be a leader, be it one person, or a council which acts as one. Whoever that leader is, that leader is sovereign. The sovereign could be limited in duration of time, limited in place, limited in resources, but in the end, that one sovereignty must be seen as absolute. There has to be a time and place in all governments where there will be no higher appeal; no one has the authority to contradict the final decision of the sovereign. He saw this as analogous to how justice is carried in any judicial system:

In the judicial order, which is only one section of government, it is absolutely necessary to come to a power which judges but is not judged, precisely because it speaks in the name of the most supreme power […] One can take it as they will, give to this power whatever name you like, it is always necessary that you come to someone to whom it is not possible to say, You have erred. But of course the condemned man is always upset with the finish, and never doubts the iniquity of the tribunal; but the disinterested policy, which sees things far off, scorns these vain complaints. It knows that there is a point where it must stop, it knows that never-ending delays, appeals without end, […] are, if one permits this expression, more unjust than injustice. [47]

There has to be a final source of authority which cannot be questioned. If it can be questioned, the one who has the power to question and dispute with it would be the real the authority in such a society. Somewhere there is an end to the governmental process, and that end becomes, in all practicality, absolute. Even if there are checks and balances, they exist only as a part of the decision making process; the process will eventually be brought to a conclusion, and all checks and balances will have played their part in its making, but in the end, the final decision will indeed be absolute. To the criticism that this might appear to some that this would end up creating a despot, Maistre said he did not think that this would be the case. “Maistre never ceases to emphasize that the absolute monarchy is not a despotism of the Oriental type but a state of law in which the sovereign power holds its legitimacy in conformity to the fundamental laws of state.” [48] There were several reasons for this response. One is the fundamental fact that no authority can ever possess absolute power in any real sense. The absolute authority of the sovereign must be seen within the context of law and governing. While the sovereign is absolute in theory, they are not in reality omnipotent. There will always be people who could resist them, to make sure they sovereign does not abuse their subjects, or if sovereignty is abused, to put an end to that sovereign. “There is never a governmental head who can do all things. In virtue of a divine law, there is always next to every sovereign some force which serves to hold it in, be it a law, a custom, a conscience, a tiara, a dagger, there is always something.” [49] Secondly, the sphere of authority where the sovereign is absolute is limited. “When I say that no sovereign is limited, I mean within its legitimate exercise, and this must be carefully noticed. For one can equally say, with two points of view, that all sovereignty is limited and that no sovereignty is limited.” [50] By his or her human nature, no sovereign has unlimited power, and must act within his or her proper sphere, which is to govern society so that their people can become good citizens. It is only in their function that no one has the right to question such a sovereign; it is in this way Maistre ends up saying a sovereign is infallible. He is not suggesting that the sovereign cannot err. Instead, he believed that no one has the right or authority to determine when he is in error. As John Courtney Murray puts it, “he went out of his way to explain that infallibility so ‘necessary’ to the temporal sovereign does not involve inability to err. Rather, it means the sovereigns are infallible ‘puisque nulle part il n’est permis de dire qu’elles se sont trompées.‘” [51]

From this we can begin to see how Maistre linked sovereignty with infallibility: he understood infallibility to be about the practical authority of a sovereign. It is impossible for someone to have the authority to declare a sovereign in error unless they possess a superior sovereignty. It is to this extent a pragmatic infallibility which he granted to sovereigns because he feared if it were not given it, the state would not have the authority needed to govern and chaos would follow. A sovereign either has all authority or no authority, and if there is no authority, society falls, revolution comes, and in the end, all would suffer. He thought that a right of resistance, a right to question authority, could be considered in the light of possibility of tyranny, but in practicality, even if the right were granted, who could say when that right could be acted upon? Who has the authority to determine when a sovereign is a tyrant? If everyone has it, then the sovereign no longer is the authority, but instead he is the one being governed. Perhaps the sovereigns of other nations could have that right? “A king dethroned by deliberation, from a formal judgment of his colleagues! It is an idea a thousand times more terrible than any accounted to a tribunal of Jacobins! […] If sovereignty is amenable before some tribunal, it no longer exists! “ [52] Indeed, it would allow the people to pit sovereigns against each other, with one sovereign dispensing the sovereignty of another; the end result, once again, would be the chaos which Maistre wanted to avoid. He sought for a solution to the impasse, and as we shall see, he thought the solution lay with the papacy. Before we can examine his solution further, we need to go continue our examination of Maistre’s political views. For they will nuance how he was able to see infallibility as an issue of authority, and understanding this will help us better appreciate how he discussed the authority of the papacy.

Footnotes

[43] Joseph de Maistre, Étude sur la Souveraineté, OC, 1:494.
[44] Ibid., 495.
[45] Ibid., 311-12.
[46] Ibid., 469.
[47] Joseph de Maistre, Du Pape, OC, 2:2-3.
[48] Jean-Yves Pranchère, “Joseph de Maistre’s Catholic Philosophy of Authority,” in Joseph de Maistre’s Life, Thought and Influence: Select Studies (ed. Richard A. Lebrun; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 137.
[49] Joseph de Maistre, Du Pape, OC, 2:255.
[50] Ibid., 478.
[51] “Because nowhere it is permitted to say that it erred.” Murray, “Political Thought”: 74-5.
[52] Joseph de Maistre, Letter to the Marquis de Saint-Marsan, October 28, 1814, OC 12:463.

Previous Post

April 7, 2008

Rumor: Servais Pinckaers, OP passes

Next Post

April 8, 2008 Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man?

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

What does "Selah," found often in Psalms, likely mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Give thanks Pause or reflect Sing loudly Forever