State and Church

The scuffle set off by Citadel’s claim that; ““the monarchy is the male guardian of the Church her rape begins when his reign ends” is very interesting, as at core it exposes a key failure of political thought that has beset the West, this being that Power is above culture. Power bounds, shapes and determines culture, and not the other way around. Citadel whether he realises the full ramifications is expressly making this point by pointing out that the state is the dominant partner in the endeavor of governance in the Western world. This is clearly not a Catholic position, but given the state of the Catholic Church and its utter destruction at the hands of the modern state, it might be worthwhile for a Catholic review of this issue. I appreciate that the traditional conception is that the Church has specific areas of action, whilst the secular part of governance was left to the monarchy and nobility, but it does bear thinking that maybe this is wrong, because just declaring what it “should” do or be is not good enough.

Testis Gratus’ response here is very much within the opposite camp to Citadel’s in that it is making the point that the Church is the dominant actor in the partnership, or rather, culture is above power. We can see what the result of this was, and given De Jouvenel’s observations is it not somewhat obvious that this conflict between the secular branch of governance and the religious branch has been disastrous? I have made the point before, but Protestantism and Low Church degeneracy were sponsored by secular leaders against the Church. Isn’t this a forerunner to the structural solecism of republicanism and the subsequent final victory of the secular branch over the religious one with the separation of Church and State? Imagine Congress being ejected from governance in the USA whilst still holding the claim of influence as an analogy for the Church being a section of governance ejected from governance.

Such an interpretation as above leads to viewing the medieval conflicts involving Catholicism as being a failure of Catholicism to form a united empire throughout Europe, much as in the manner that China managed to unify. The sub sections of the Catholic world instead managing to break out and render the Catholic institutions toothless by ejecting them from the act of governance by sponsoring state level Churches fully subordinate to the Monarchs. This secularisation then would be a mere secondary result of a power conflict between sections of governance (Church and Monarch/ bureaucracy) which polarised society between the right (the middle, the religious) and the left (Monarchy/central power post monarchy and the low.) We see then that secularism which has been given a glow of magic by liberals is nothing more than the result of a power interplay which was at best mindless, and at worst aggressively stupid.

The upshot of this would seem to be that any religion must be integral to the governance of the state, and not embodied in a mere parallel organisation in conflict with a “secular” organisation, or else you have the current situation in which Christianity is utterly caste out. Worse than this, Christianity functions as a source of reactionary replenishment in the same way as conservatism and “racists” do, because the state is in continual high-low conflict. It can do nothing else without cephalisation.

I can imagine the consternation the above claims will create among traditionalist, but in this instance history has borne out this state of affairs. Everywhere we see, it is clear that what constitutes Christianity is ultimately bounded by the state and secular law. Regardless of any interpretation of the bible, if the Supreme Court of the USA declared an opinion on it, then Christianity becomes that.  Of course within that boundary, cultural can (relative to the bounds) take any shape, which seems to be where the confusion stems from when it is assumed culture is above power.

Whilst this crude example of the Supreme Court being more binding than the Pope (which it is) is somewhat obvious in retrospect, Power’s control over culture is actually significantly greater than this. Not only does Power bind culture negatively, it also dictates what becomes culture through the needs of the actors within the society in question. The Iron Law of Rebellious Tools, the championing of secularism, the constant high-low conflict of modernity, all of it derives from divided governance which results in the funding of ideas and concepts that are selected for their value to the actors and not their overall accuracy. Empiricism, Cultural Marxism, Positivism, Liberalism and Liberal anthropology, anti-racism, atheism etc. are all products of this system. The leftward drift is explainable, there is no need for liberal mysticism involving providence and progress, nor obfuscation that it is just “too complex” to understand.