Logocracy - Chapter 7: Logocracy and Religion

On the balance of church and state, and a belated table of contents

Theodosius Repulsed from the Church by St. Ambrose, Alessandro Magnasco (1667–1749)

I just realized that when I started this series I neglected to give a complete Table of Contents for the book. Here it is, belatedly:

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURAL LAW

3. MAN, SOCIETY, STATE

4. PONEROLOGY

5. DEMOCRACY

6. LOGOCRACY

7. LOGOCRACY AND RELIGION

8. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF SOCIETY

9. THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPETENCE

10. OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY

11. LOGOCRATIC LAW

12. POLITICAL PARTIES

13. LOGOCRATIC ASSOCIATION

14. COUNCIL OF WISE MEN

15. HEAD OF STATE

16. FIVE INDEPENDENT AUTHORITIES

17. PARLIAMENT

18. EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

19. JUDICIAL POWER

20. THE POWER OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

21. THE POWER OF SOCIAL GOODS

22. THE CONSTITUTION

23. LOGOCRATIC CONSTITUTION

24. ADAPTATION TO POLISH CONDITIONS

25. PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION

Now, on to the present chapter.

Unlike existing monarchies and democracies, logocracy contains an explicitly metareligious dimension, with allowances for specific religious majorities. As a basis for natural law it affirms basic metaphysical truths of the highest generality, making it compatible with all religions consistent with those general truths, e.g. the existence of an ultimate creator, or cosmic mind. Lobaczewski identifies the disconnect between this generalized truth and legislation in democracy as one of democracy’s main defects.

Logocracy’s social doctrine it carries over mostly from Catholic Social Teaching, supplemented with modern psychological and sociological thinking. But as he clarified in the previous chapter, this can be stripped of its Catholic gloss and still retain its usefulness. A logocratic constitution will allow for freedom of conscience, even if it makes provisions for the beliefs of the majority.

As for the relationship between church and state, this is a balance that should not swing too far in either direction.

Similarly, a too rigid separation (i.e. a more or less purely secular government) cuts it off from the general truths that provide its foundation. This “opens up the possibility for the development of shallow political doctrines that hide behind pressure from organized interest groups.” A balanced division of duties with mutual respect “should lead to the development of law and custom,” facilitating cooperation and “a certain mutual control,” thus restraining extremes from either side.

Logocracy has an in-built evolutionary principle. In this sense it tries to balance conservatism—retaining what works—while allowing for course corrections, especially when the old system becomes ineffective and sclerotic. In the religious domain, this also implies the possible future refinement of our religious intuitions, and anticipates the trajectory of current religious trends. For instance, Lobaczewski did not feel Islam could survive in its present dominant forms.

On the one hand, Christianity suffers from internal polarization and the managerial elite are abandoning religion, and on the other, Islamists are mobilizing like modern-day zealots in order to take state power. “These people do not realize that such attempts have led to disasters in history.” The religions of the East are also in decline or losing their old vitality: Hinduism, Buddhism, Tao, Shinto.

Chris Langan’s metareligion paper again comes to mind. Will Christianity survive this period of purification and rediscover its original values? Lobaczewski thinks Christianity should reunite, and logocracy should be designed with such a future possibility in mind. However, such a reunification would require a level of humility and self-criticism that probably none of the branches can muster. Yet without it, the Church will continue to lose its appeal to highly gifted individuals as well as those mentally and emotionally damaged by psychopaths.

Observing that the Church does best when it has a worthy opponent, Lobaczewski suggests take on the “emerging plutocratic system,” thus stimulating creative change on both sides.

---

Logocracy and Religion

A social system based on the laws of nature and natural law, and recognizing the existence of their Creator as a truth accessible to human inductive cognition, thus implies a basic convergence with the beliefs of all monotheistic religions. Logocracy will thus have something of the religion of the sages, who believe that knowledge of truth, regardless of the religion of the knower, always leads to similar understanding. Logocracy is also based on the beliefs of thinkers whose teachings have survived mainly through the Catholic Church.

The modern thinker, however, acts on the basis of increasingly rich empirical cognition and, if he abandons all scientistic or political limitations which are trying to be imposed on him, comes to the conclusion of the existence of the Cause of being and the laws of nature. We live in the times when atheism has become an enduring doctrine because it is heterogeneous, which cannot be respected by a true philosopher. It is characteristic that similar reflections were also betrayed by philosophers from the former Soviet Union if they felt that they could safely share their real beliefs. For a Christian this conviction has the quality of revelation, narrower in scope perhaps, but richer in content.

This connection between the most general truth and the legislation of nations, the insufficiency of which is to be regarded as one of the defects of democracy, should nevertheless be put into words in such a way that it does not prevent the transplantation of the principles of logocracy to countries where other religions prevail. This must not, however, restrict the right of citizens to believe according to their conscience and religion. This should be said in the first part of the logocratic constitution, but in the second part, which will be more of an expression of the will of the logocratic society, there may be provisions in accordance with the beliefs of the majority.

For none of the contemporary doctrines that govern the relationship between states and religious organizations meet the requirements based on a sufficiently deep understanding of natural rights and the social good. This does not ensure a relationship free of legal defects. Excessive binding of the state system to one religion or denomination has always led to intolerance towards other peoples, to the ineptitude of governments, and to the aggressiveness of the state, but also to the secularization of religion itself. The subordination of the state to the power of the clergy had tragic consequences in history, which can still be observed today. Such national states have fostered the development of ponerogenic phenomena, up to and including pathocracy.

An over-reaching separation of the state system from religious values, while allowing the adherents a certain freedom of action, deprives this system of the aforementioned common root. This is because it opens up the possibility for the development of shallow political doctrines that hide behind pressure from organized interest groups. Such a situation cannot take place in a system where the wisdom, natural law, and reason of the majority of the rational society will be respected.

The logocratic idea of balance based on the recognition of primary values and natural law should lead to the development of law and custom, based on the natural division of duties and mutual respect. This should facilitate loyal cooperation, mutual understanding, but also allow for discussion of matters differently understood, and thus a certain mutual control. This should mitigate differences in customs and restrain extremes. Other solutions would hinder the expansion of the idea of a modern state system in the modern world.

The search for the most beneficial solutions to these problems can only be made on the basis of an understanding of contemporary trends and a realistic anticipation of what the future holds. A social system, built on the basis of natural rights and at the same time evolutionary, should last longer than democratic forms of government before it transforms itself, albeit into something more perfect. Thus logocracy carries a longer time perspective than the present state of affairs in all religions on our globe. It is in this perspective of change that we must consider the relation of our improved system to present and future forms of organization of religious life. To find this perspective, then, it is necessary to look at the religious picture of the modern world and to anticipate its transformations as accurately as our imagination controlled by a critical mind will permit.

Religion, powerful in numbers and still expanding, has entered its state of historical crisis, an internal polarization of denominations and sects. The increasingly free-thinking intelligentsia, the Europeanizing bourgeoisie, and the working world are threatened by the disappearance of the faith, and on the other hand the imams, threatened in their role and social position, are mobilizing rural circles and zealous elements in order to subjugate state power and its force to maintain the faith of the Prophet according to their tradition. These people do not realize that such attempts have led to disasters in history. Although it threatens the world with dramatic consequences, I no longer believe in the historical longevity of Islam.

The old religions of the East are experiencing their historic autumn. Hinduism is no longer a hermetic religion. It spreads its values throughout the world, unfortunately often in a shallow or distorted form. It is itself absorbing foreign material, mainly of Christian origin. Its role in history is not yet complete, but will it regain its former dynamism?

Buddhism was so overgrown with mythology and the role of art that it obscured its original values, which awakened the great master of the Siaki family. The tendency to divinize him, which he himself would never accept, obliterated the realism of his cognition over the centuries. This is why Buddhism has diverged from Shakyamuni’s words in his last sutra. Today it is suffering such great losses in the face of the pressures of atheism and consumer civilization. Tao and Shinto have become patriotic mythologies, reminiscent of the decline of Greek and Roman religion.

The world will soon be open to a living religion, a wise religion, which, however, must not despise the values developed by the transient ones. Will Christianity manage to fill this opening space? It will depend on the effectiveness of the processes that are taking place within it. In the meantime it has entered a path of retroactive transformations, but also of a concerned search for solutions.

Christian doctrine, though not without losses, withstood the harsh test of materialistic criticism at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the last century, and then the fierce diversion organized by economically powerful Judaism and by pathocratic powers, which fought all religion, but nevertheless mainly Christianity.

As a result of these upheavals and in the light of modern scientific knowledge, Christianity is being purified of the tarnish and patina of the ages. In all its main varieties a kind of regression towards original values and towards unity has appeared. The film of Christian history is now turning backwards and we are beginning to wander along the paths of Christ from Galilee to Judea, and no one feels threatened by this. The process of reuniting the various factions of Christians has already anchored the masses of people and will continue, although not without many difficulties.

But will the Catholic Church, on which this mainly depends, manage in time to overcome the difficulties that lie within itself? Will it come to understand that the concepts of Greek philosophy and Roman law were not sufficiently good tools for the realization of the doctrine of Christ? For Aristotle’s logic is as suited to divine affairs and the human spirit as Euclid’s geometry is to the study of outer space or the interior of the atom.

Christ created the Church out of real people and for real people. This state of affairs persisted through the first centuries. St. Augustine had a talent for sensing psychological realities. To him we owe some of the concepts still used in this field today. As the centuries passed, however, the speculative thinking of the philosophers and the influence of Roman law gave rise to a philosophical and doctrinal conception of man that gradually displaced the real man. The reasoning of Thomas Aquinas contains characteristic errors, where the cognition and understanding of man were replaced by such an image of man.

To take as a basis “common sense” and with it the common psychological worldview, with its now familiar distortions in the understanding of human affairs, leads to harmful errors. As a result, the Church has become incapable of fulfilling her mission to people of high ability and to all those who have become carriers of psychological and moral problems which are not measurable in terms of a common worldview or which do not fit into the nature of this philosophical mannequin. The proportion of the latter is still increasing in modern societies. Thus by harming these people, the Church contributes to their flight, often into various sects with pathological characteristics, and gains enemies for herself.

Can such reasoning allow the message of the best Psychologist who has walked this world to be realized? For love of man and understanding him are two sides of the same coin. Meanwhile, the Church is too slow in acquiring the modern art of understanding man. Solving these difficult questions would require years of persistent and very careful work. This, however, is the necessary condition for a return to the original values and to unity.

Here it is necessary to recall what has already been said in Chapter 3 about the role of gifted individuals. Any social organization which limits this role assumed in the laws of nature becomes inefficient. Under these conditions, will Christianity be able to achieve unity and power in time to fill the space opened up before it by history? Will the wise pope predicted by St. Malachy—Gloria olivae—be up to the task?

The Church’s rejection of scientific achievements in the field of knowledge of the nature of evil and of its psychological genesis has been the result both of the above-mentioned traditional attitudes and of the activity of organizations decidedly hostile to the Church, as well as of the influence of persons supposedly pious but with a disturbingly distorted understanding of their fellow men’s character. In spite of this, these research results must serve the work of constructing a better system than democracy. Therefore, a dilemma also arises for discussion in the relation of traditional doctrine and a state system based on the understanding of the real man.

The realization of a modern state system in a Christian country must be carried out in the understanding of these circumstances and in the perspective of foreseeable changes. The emergence of a more efficient political system, based on a readaptation of the ideas carried for centuries by Christianity, and on a modern knowledge of the laws of nature, valuing the role of prominent men and thus disciplining social life, will certainly be accepted by the majority of the clergy. Such a system could, however, threaten the positions of an influential minority active in office or bearing regalist tendencies. Therefore, the necessary political solutions must be based on a sufficiently far-reaching development of relations within Christendom. The assumption is that the logocracy should prepare for cooperation with a united Christian church and this assumption should be made well known to public opinion.

In building the system of the future, we should take into account both situations: the starting point and the one in whose perspective we should act. It is assumed that logocracy, as a historically long-lived system, should survive the present state of a divided Christianity. Therefore, the political and legal solutions should be considered in such a way that they would be realized well, also in this further foreseeable perspective of time. It can be assumed that the future united Christian church will develop a rich spiritual life, together with a resurgence of charismatic phenomena. This will trigger new conditions for the sharing of responsibilities and cooperation between state and church. This cooperation will turn out to be easier than it is today, since the division of goals and responsibilities will naturally arise from the new conditions in such an expanded field of activity.

The Church in its present form feels better when it has to fight a real opponent. It mobilizes the effort of minds, imposes the necessary discipline, exposing moral and evangelical values, which we could observe in Poland. In the conditions of political security, prosperity, and a certain privilege, the building of temples, individual good and, the collective striving for power begin to overshadow important but more difficult to achieve goals. Then there is also the return of the desire to pursue religious goals under the coercion of secular power and its laws. This has always led to a regression of essential values. The Church, therefore, needs some opponent with whom it can debate, and which would cause some restrictions. The emerging plutocratic system should therefore provide such a counterbalance of reason and scientific knowledge, or even some substitute for an opponent. This will never be allowed to degenerate into primitive forms. On the contrary, a system based on the recognition of basic theological truths should provide the best possible cultural and scientific level for these discussions. This will better stimulate creative change on both sides than the former struggle with a pathological opponent.

All these corporate functions in relation to religious faiths should be presided over by an institution based on the natural knowledge of the laws of nature and representing the biological and psychological welfare of society. Matters of faith must not be alien to the members of this institution. These are some of the important considerations in consequence of which a “council of the wise” should be established as an institution enjoying scientific and moral authority. The whole duties of this council will be described in Chapter 14 devoted to it.

Note: This work is a project of QFG/FOTCM and is planned to be published in book form soon.