The following citation taken from an article written by the American political commentator, Judge Andrew Napolitano, has gotten a good bit of attention on Catholic social media in recent days:
The Pope is in poor health, can barely speak or walk; and he radiates sadness. I was thrilled to reside in his home for four days, but I don’t think he’ll be there much longer.
Secular news items concerning the Bergoglian controversy always get a lot of traction online, which is presumably why Newsmax, the publisher of Napolitano’s article, chose to run it under the headline: My Dinner With Controversial Pope Was Surreal.
Those who took the clickbait may have been disappointed to learn that Napolitano didn’t actually have dinner with the aging heretic, he merely formed a prognosis after seeing him at a distance on two separate occasions.
Even so, given that Bergoglio (stage name: Francis) is 87 years old, Napolitano isn’t exactly playing fortune teller by suggesting that he isn’t very long for this world. I would only caution those who are excited about the prospect of Jorge’s passing (with apologies to St. Peter):
But do not overlook this one fact, with Bergoglio, one day is as a thousand years.
All of that said, Napolitano’s article wasn’t so much about Francis at all, rather, it mainly consisted of a brief reflection on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the natural law, free will, and the inviolable rights of man.
Unfortunately, Napolitano – who identifies as “a traditionalist Roman Catholic who laments the post-Vatican II watering down of sacred traditions, lessening of moral teaching and trivialization of liturgical practices” – failed to capitalize on the opportunity to share the Church’s wisdom with a broader audience.
As it is, Napolitano’s commentary is gravely insufficient, and in some cases, deficient, so much so that it only confirms in their errors those who hold an American libertarian/conservative political view over and against that which the Church teaches regarding the matter of liberty.
For example, he writes:
Aquinas’ views are known today as Natural Law. And the derivative of natural law is natural rights. Aquinas taught that the same God who made us in his own image and likeness gave us the gift of free will.
We can use that free will to discover truth, practice baseball, learn music or choose our favorite ice cream. We can also use that free will to harm others, like stealing a purse or robbing a bank.
Whether unintentional or not, the above invites readers to imagine that man’s free will is such that he is free to do evil, or otherwise stated, one has the natural right to do evil.
Citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leo XIII writes:
This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: “Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.” Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term “wise man” was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue. (Libertas 6)
In other words, the man who steals a purse or robs a bank is not giving witness to his freedom, rather, on the contrary. Napolitano continues:
Aquinas taught that when we see a purse being stolen or a bank being robbed, we instinctually know that we are witnessing evil. How do we know this? We are hard-wired by our Creator to discern good from evil.
But we cannot know this unless we are free to reject it. That freedom is called free will. As God is perfectly free, so are we — his creatures — perfectly free.
Free will is so perfect, one can use it to become a monster or a saint. Stated differently, we are free to reject the truths that we are hard wired to discern. There are monsters among us who see no wrong in stealing a purse or robbing a bank.
No, man is not perfectly free. In fact, the ability to reject truth and goodness in exchange for falsehood and evil is not a sign of perfect freedom, it is contrary to perfect freedom.
“Although God is supremely free, and this because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil” (cf ibid., Pope Leo XIII).
NB: The supremacy of His intellect…
The intellect of fallen man, by contrast, has been rendered darkened by the lingering effects of original sin. It only follows that man, therefore, is not perfectly free.
It is also the case that the virtue of justice – necessary, according to Aquinas, to “perfect the will” (cf Disputed Questions On The Virtues) – has been left wounded in fallen mankind. For this reason as well, it is incorrect to maintain with respect to free will, as Napolitano does, that man is perfectly free.
Napolitano’s libertarian bias takes him a step further as he blatantly presumes to enlist the Angelic Doctor as a political ally:
“Aquinas knew that government is the negation of liberty,” Napolitano writes.
This simply is not true; Aquinas was no anarchist. He teaches that government exits to serve the common good of the governed, its authority ordered toward the promotion of authentic liberty, the exercise of which requires the virtue of justice.
But public authority is committed to rulers in order that they may safeguard justice. And so they are permitted to use force and coercion only in the course of justice, whether in wars against enemies or in punishing civilian criminals. And property taken by such force does not have the nature of robbery, since the taking is not contrary to justice. (Aquinas, On Law, Morality, and Politics)
NB: Aquinas is not saying, as some choose to misread him, that force and coercion are only permitted to rulers in carrying out acts of war or criminal punishments, rather, he merely provides these as two possible examples among the many that could have been cited. Properly read, Aquinas clearly teaches that force and coercion are rightly exercised “in the course of justice” broadly speaking.
For a libertarian, like Napolitano, and his conservative cousins on the political right, the above is enough to cause nightmares.
Aquinas, however, immediately reiterates the principle that places limits on rulers who wield public authority, namely, justice.
On the other hand, if, contrary to justice, some in the exercise of public authority forcibly take the property of others, such persons act unlawfully and commit robbery and are obliged to make restitution.
The bottom line is that, according to Aquinas, the very purpose of government is the safeguarding of justice, and rulers are not licensed to act in a contrary manner.
This invites some crucial and ever-timely questions: Who among us is qualified to define what justice entails and what it excludes? Who is able to articulate its demands? Is there a hierarchy of justice, and if so, what does it require of us?
As I write, political debate is raging in the United States over a bill, recently passed with bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, that would give the President broad power to shut down TikTok and other applications, as well as websites, that he deems hostile to the nation’s interests.
So-called “Christian conservatives” and others have been howling ever since that this bill, if passed as-is by the Senate, is a Trojan Horse that will be used by whomever is in power to attack American citizens’ precious right to free speech.
On the one hand, they make a good point. Indeed, there can be little doubt that this power once granted to the President will be weaponized in order to silence dissenters, hide inconvenient truths, and promote nefarious agendas.
On the other hand, what most Americans fail to understand is that the so-called “right to free speech” is itself a Trojan Horse that has long been leveraged by bad actors to silence dissent, hide truth, and promote evil. This naivete seems especially common among those on the political right.
How many times have we heard a self-described conservative patriot proudly declare: “I disagree with your opinions on abortion, gay pride, drag queen story hour (or fill in the blank with whatever evil you’d like), but I’ll die to protect your right to voice your opinion in public!”
Nonsense. No one has any such right, no matter what the U.S. Constitution contends.
As Pope Leo XIII teaches:
It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right [to free speech] as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. (Libertas 23)
In other words, it can only be said that free speech exists as a natural right when it is exercised within the framework true liberty, which by definition must be in accord with truth and justice.
This brings us back to the proper role of government, which here in the United States (as nearly everywhere else in the world) is ordered in such a way as to discount the voice of Truth incarnate; He who alone is supremely just; He to whom all who exercise public authority are accountable, and who speaks through His Holy Catholic Church, Christ the King.
The current TikTok debate in the U.S. is a great example of the haplessness that ensues when rulers of State attempt to address real problems while ignoring the actual Source of their authority.
TikTok is a data gathering tool for the CCP! But the CIA will use it for the exact same purpose! What about our right free speech? Apps like these are the only way certain inconvenient truths can be shared! TikTok is corrupting our youth!
A government decoupled from the Sovereignty of Christ the King is not only destined to be tossed about like a ship lost at sea, ultimately, it is guaranteed to magnify its citizens inclination to evil, the exact opposite of its purpose.
In his Encyclical on the Kingship of Christ, Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI recalled what he had written some three years earlier (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, 1922):
We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations.
That observation was made over a century ago. Since then, the situation has only further deteriorated.
So, while others are busy pondering the fate of TikTok and prognosticating about Bergoglio’s approaching demise, let us stay focused on what really matters, the fate of humanity and the approaching globalist nightmare from which, it seems, only divine intervention can spare us.
