Notes on Moral Virtue

Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist.


1 Virtue in general

1.1 Etymologies

Like so many words in English, “virtue” is derived from the Latin. This Latin derivation has the disadvantage of obscuring the original experience from which the concept signified is abstracted. Moreover, the cultural history of 19th century Britain has given “virtue” a sort of missish ring, whereas it and similar words in other languages originally had martial connotations. Unfortunately, there is no good Anglo-Saxon equivalent still in use. The closest would be “dought” or, in the more common adjective form, “doughty,” derived from Old English dohtig, which now has an almost comically archaic ring to it: “Yet many doughty warriours often tride / In greater perils to be stout and bold.”[1] Doughty now means “brave,” and that was probably its oldest meaning as well, but in the 11th century it was used in an extended sense to mean “competent” and “good” as well. Thus Bosworth-Toller cites the following line from a charter of Earl Godwin from sometime around the year 1016: Ðyssa þinga is gecnǽwe ǽlc dohtig man on Kænt and on Súþ-Sexan. (“Of these things is cognizant every good [doughty] man in Kent and Sussex”).[2] Dohtig is related to dyhtig (strong) and dugan (to be fit, able, strong). It is thus etymologically equivalent to the Modern German word for virtue Tugend from taugen (power, ability, efficiency).

Continue reading “Notes on Moral Virtue”

Leo XIII: Reputantibus saepe

In April 1897 Count Kasimir Felix Badeni, Prime Minister of Cisleithania (the part of Austria-Hungary represented in the Vienna Reichsrat) published an ordinance requiring civil servants in Bohemia to use Czech as well as German in official business. The measure was meant to appease Czech nationalists, but it caused outrage among German civil servants—especially in predominantly German speaking parts of Bohemia. The controversy caused the fall of Badeni’s ministry in November of the same year, and continued through the short ministries of Gautsch, Thun and Clary-Aldringen which followed in quick succession. Pope Leo XIII was concerned by the conflict, and in 1901 sent the following encyclical to Bishop Theodor Kohn of Olomouc (Olmütz ). He does not deny the natural inclination to speak the tongue of one’s own nation (gens), but emphasizes that national rights have to be subordinated to the common good of the whole polity (res publica). Finally, the supernatural brotherhood of all in Christ should overcome all partisan feeling. Though written for a particular occasion, Pope Leo’s teaching has a wide application.

The English translation is taken from the Vatican website, corrected with a view to the Latin original.


REPUTANTIBUS SAEPE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE LANGUAGE QUESTION IN BOHEMIA

To Our Venerable Brothers Theodore, Archbishop of Olomouc,
and the Archbishops and Bishops of Bohemia and Moravia.

As We reflect often on the condition of your churches, it seems to Us that at this moment nearly everywhere everything is full of fear, full of concern. However, this situation is more serious in your case because, while the Catholic cause is exposed to the hatred and cunning of external enemies, domestic issues also divide it. For while heretics both openly and covertly endeavor to spread error among the faithful, seeds of discord grow daily among Catholics themselves – the surest means to hinder strength and break down constancy.

2. Surely the strongest grounds for dissension, especially in Bohemia, are to be found in the languages which each person, according to his origin, employs. For it is implanted by nature that everyone wishes to preserve the language inherited from his ancestors.

3. To be sure, We have decided to refrain from settling this controversy. Indeed one cannot find fault with the preservation of one’s ancestral tongue, if it is kept within defined limits. However, what is valid for other private rights, must be held to apply here also: namely, that the common utility of the polity [communis rei publicae utilitas] must not suffer from their preservation. It is, therefore, the task of those who are in charge of the state to preserve intact the rights of individuals, in such a way that the common good of the polity [commune tamen civitatis bonum] be secured and allowed to flourish.

4. As far as We are concerned, Our duty admonishes Us to take constant care that religion, which is the chief good of souls and the source of all other goods, not be endangered by controversies of this nature.

5. Therefore we earnestly exhort your faithful, although of various regions and tongues, to preserve that far more excellent kinship which is born from the communion of faith and common sacraments. For whoever are baptized in Christ, have one Lord and one faith; they are one body and one spirit, insofar as they are called to one hope. It would be truly disgraceful that those who are bound together by so many holy ties and are seeking the same city in heaven should be torn apart by earthly reasons, rivaling with one another, as the Apostle says, and hating one another. Therefore, that kinship of souls which comes from Christ must constantly be inculcated in the faithful and all partiality must be eradicated. “For greater indeed is the paternity of Christ than that of blood: for the fraternity of blood touches the likeness only of the body; the fraternity of Christ, however, conveys unanimity of heart and spirit, as is written: One was the heart and one the spirit of the multitude of believers.”(1)

6. In this matter the holy clergy should surpass in example all others. Indeed, it is at variance with their office to mingle in such dissensions. If they should reside in places inhabited by people of different races or languages, unless they abstain from any appearance of contention, they may easily incur hatred and dislike from both sides. Nothing could be more detrimental to the exercise of their sacred function than this. The faithful, to be sure, should recognize in fact and practice that the ministers of the Church are concerned only with the eternal affairs of souls and do not seek what is theirs, but only what is Christ’s.

7. If, then, it is well known to all alike that the disciples of Christ are recognized by the love that they have for one another, the holy clergy must observe this same love mutually among themselves far more. For not only are they thought, and deservedly so, to have drunk much more deeply from the charity of Christ, but also because each one of them, in addressing the faithful, ought to be able to use the words of the Apostle, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”(2)

8. We can easily admit that this is very difficult in practice, unless the elements of discord are erased from their souls at an early time when they, who aspire to the clerical state, are formed in our seminaries. Therefore, you must diligently see to it that the students in seminaries early learn to love one another in a fraternal love and from a genuine heart, as those born not from a corruptible seed but an incorruptible one through the word of the living God.(3) Should arguments break out, restrain them strongly and do not allow them to persist in any way; thus those who are destined for the clergy, if they cannot be of one language because of different places of origin, still may certainly be of one heart and one spirit.

9. From this union of wills, indeed, which must be conspicuous in the clerical order, as we have already intimated, this advantage among others will follow: that the ministers of the sacraments will more efficaciously warn the faithful not to exceed the limits in preserving and vindicating the rights proper to each race [gentis], or by excessive partisanship not to do violence to justice and overlook the common advantages of the polity [communes reipublicae utilitates]. For we think that this, according to the circumstances of your various regions, should be the principal task of priests, to exhort the faithful, in season and out, to love one another; they should warn them constantly that he is not worthy of the name of Christian who does not fulfill in spirit and action the new command given by Christ that we love one another as He has loved us.

10. Certainly, he does not fulfill it, who thinks that charity pertains only to those who are related in tongue or race. For if, as Christ says, you love those who love you, do not the publicans do so? and if you salute your brothers only, do not the pagans do so?(4) For to be sure a characteristic of Christian charity is that it extends equally to all; for, as the Apostle warns, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord of all, rich to all who invoke him.(5)

11. May God, who is Love, kindly grant that all be united in their thoughts and in their convictions, thinking the same and having no contention; grant that in humility they may think each other better than themselves, each not looking to his own interests, but to those of others.

12. May the Apostolic blessing, which we grant most lovingly in the Lord, to you, Venerable Brothers, and the faithful committed to each of you, be a token of this and also of Our benevolence.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, 20 August 1901, in the 24th year of Our Pontificate.

LEO XIII


REFERENCES:

1. St. Maximus, among the sermons of St. Augustine, 100.

2. Phil 3.17.

3. Pt 1.22 f.

4. Mt 5.46 f.

5. Rom 10.12.

Header Image: The Austrian Reichsrat

The Josias Podcast, Episode XXI: We Live in a Society

We live in a society in which the few live in excess, while the many live in miserable and wretched conditions. We live in a society in which the poor are defenseless against the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors. We live in a society in which these evils are compounded by a devouring usury practiced by avaricious and grasping men. We live in a society in which innocent children are murdered in abortion clinics. We live in a society in which the sin of Sodom is paraded with open pride and enjoys the favor of the laws. We live in a society in which depravity exults; science is impudent; liberty, dissolute. We live in a society in which the holiness of the sacred is despised; sound doctrine is perverted; and errors of all kinds spread boldly. We live in a society in which the divine authority of the Church is opposed and her rights shorn off. We live in a society in which by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corrupted. We live in a society… We live in a society? Do we actually live in a society? What sense does it make to call the clownish chaos of our lamentable times a “society”? The editors are joined by P.J. Smith of southern Indiana to discuss these and related questions.

Bibliography and Filmography

Music: “Vesti la Giubba” from Leoncavallo’s Pagliacci, sung by Luciano Pavarotti.

Header Image: Joaquin Phoenix in Joker (2019)

If you have questions or comments, please send them to editors(at)thejosias.com.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Many thanks to our generous supporters on Patreon, who enable us to pay for podcast hosting. If you have not yet joined them, please do so. You can set up a one-time or recurring donation in any amount. Even $1 a month would be splendid.

The Josias Podcast, Episode XX: Eric Voegelin

Continuing a series of reflections on important 20th century critiques of modernity and liberalism that has included episodes on Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue and Leo Strauss’s Natural Right and History, the editors are joined again by Gabriel Sanchez to discuss Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics. They discuss Voegelin’s critique of positivism, the problem of representation, and the thesis that modernity is “gnostic”.

Bibliography

Music: Also sprach Zarathustra, by Richard Strauss.

Header Image: Photograph of a Tree in the Mist, by Pater Edmund

If you have questions or comments, please send them to editors(at)thejosias.com.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Many thanks to our generous supporters on Patreon, who enable us to pay for podcast hosting. If you have not yet joined them, please do so. You can set up a one-time or recurring donation in any amount. Even $1 a month would be splendid.

The Josias Podcast, Episode XVII: Empire

Does natural law demand a world government?

Bibliography

Music: Johannes Brahms, Variations on a Theme by Haydn, Berlin Philharmonic, Gustavo Dudamel.

Header Image: The Spanish Riding School in Vienna.

If you have questions or comments, please send them to editors(at)thejosias.com.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Many thanks to our generous supporters on Patreon, who enable us to pay for podcast hosting. If you have not yet joined them, please do so. You can set up a one-time or recurring donation in any amount. Even $1 a month would be splendid.

The Josias Podcast, Episode XIV: The Virtue of Fortitude

A familiar voice returns after a long absence. Three voices discuss what it means to be brave, the cowardice of Dr. Proudie, the softness of clerics more generally, the brilliance of Monteverdi, and the exquisite comedy of Plato’s Laches.

Bibliography

Music:Claudio Monteverdi, Sanctorum Meritis II, from Selva morale e spirituale (text)

Header Image: Leonardo da Vinci, Dragon Striking down Lion 

If you have questions or comments, please send them to editors(at)thejosias.com. We’d love the feedback.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Podcast production is not free—if you would like to help us out or show your support for The Josias, we have a Patreon page where you can set up a one-time or recurring donation in any amount. Even $1 a month would be splendid.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: Against Natural Law

Guillaume de Thieulloy

A PhD in political science (EHESS), Guillaume de Thieulloy is the publisher of a group of French conservative media properties. He’s also a former staffer of the vice president of the French Senate, Jean-Claude Gaudin. This paper was originally presented at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture fall conference, November 3, 2018. An Italian translation of this essay can be found here.


It is striking for historians of the French Revolution that, a few months after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (26 August 1789), the Terror began and, with the Terror, the first experiment of massive murders decided by a political power against its own population—especially in the Vendée. This huge gap between human rights and Terror seems strange: one cannot easily understand how, after the public recognition of human dignity, the same political power can organize massive slaughters of human beings.

Continue reading “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: Against Natural Law”

Das Gute, das Höchste Gut und das Gemeinwohl

Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist.

Übersetzt von Johannes Moravitz


Die folgenden 37 Thesen geben einen allgemeinen Überblick über die aristotelisch-thomistische Darstellung vom Guten, wie sie in Interpretationen von Thomisten der Laval-Schule, wie etwa Charles De Koninck, Duane Berquist und Marcus Berquist zu finden ist. Eine Druckversion ist hier zu finden. Eine englische hier und eine spanische hier.


Teil I: Das Gute im Allgemeinen und das Menschliche Gut[1]

1. Das Gute ist, was alle wollen.

Das Wort „gut“ scheint zumindest zwei verschiedene Bedeutungen zu haben. Fragte man einen kleinen Buben, nennen wir ihn Thomas, was gut sei, so könnte er Folgendes antworten: „Eis ist gut, Pizza ist gut, fernsehen ist gut, Fußball ist gut, Urlaub ist gut.“ Ein anderer Bub, nennen wir ihn Eustachius, vielleicht ein Musterkind, könnte hingegen antworten: „Den Eltern zu folgen“, oder „die Regeln nicht zu brechen“, oder sogar „Gott zu gehorchen“. Es scheint einen großen Unterschied zwischen diesen beiden Wahrnehmungen des Guten zu geben. Tatsächlich aber sind beide nicht so unterschiedlich.

Continue reading “Das Gute, das Höchste Gut und das Gemeinwohl”

The Josias Podcast Episode XIII: Leo Strauss

«To reject natural right is tantamount to saying that all right is positive right, and this means that what is right is determined exclusively by the legislators and the courts of the various countries. Now it is obviously meaningful, and sometimes even necessary, to speak of “unjust” laws or “unjust” decisions. In passing such judgments we imply that there is a standard of right and wrong independent of positive right and higher than positive right: a standard with reference to which we are able to judge of positive right. Many people today hold the view that the standard in question is in the best case nothing but the ideal adopted by our society or our “civilization” and embodied in its way of life or its institutions. But, according to the same view, all societies have their ideals, cannibal societies no less than civilized ones. […] If there is no standard higher than the ideal of our society, we are utterly unable to take a critical distance from that ideal. But the mere fact that we can raise the question of the worth of the ideal of our society shows that there is something in man that is not altogether in slavery to his society, and therefore that we are able, and hence obliged, to look for a standard with reference to which we can judge of the ideals of our own as well as of any other society.» (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History).

Pater Edmund talks to Gabriel Sanchez about Leo Strauss’s defense of natural right against historicism and positivism. The discuss questions such as: Who is Leo Strauss and why should integralists care about him? Was he esoterically a nihilist? Why did he criticize Thomists? Is he better than Alasdair MacIntyre?

Bibliogaphy


Music: Morten Lauridsen, O Magnum Mysterium.

Header Image: Matteo di Giovanni, Massacre of the Innocents (detail).


If you have questions or comments, please send them to editors(at)thejosias.com. We’d love the feedback.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

P.S. Podcast production is not free—if you would like to help us out or show your support for The Josias, we now have a Patreon page where you can set up a one-time or recurring donation in any amount. Even $1 a month would be awesome.

Gelasian Dyarchy at Notre Dame

by Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist.


This year’s Fall Conference of the Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame was on the the theme “Higher Powers.” The closing colloquy of the conference was on “Catholicism and the American Project” (embedded above), and featured Patrick Deneen, V. Phillip Muñoz, Gladden Pappin, and Adrian Vermeule. The colloquy was a remarkably clear presentation of different ways in which Catholics understand the “higher powers” which God has ordained to govern our human lives (Romans 13:1). Continue reading “Gelasian Dyarchy at Notre Dame”