Newspaper Page Text
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
5
“OF THE PEOPLE”
(Written for The Bulletin by a Lawyer.)
Whence came the democratic principle of civil au
thority incorporated in the American Declaration of
Independence that “governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed ?
The coronation oath of the King of England for
nearly eight hundred years and until the time of James
I contained the express provision that the Sovereign
Power was derived “from the people of the realm,
and the Sovereign took an oath “to do the people s
will.”
James I changed that ancient oath and, contrary
to precedent, to English traditions and to law, made
it say that he was king, not by will of the people, but
by the will of God. And to leave no doubt that he
meant to assume the prerogatives of a divine elec
tion, James wrote an “Apology for the Oath of Fi
delity,” which he addressed to the Kings and Princes
of Europe and in which he undertook to prove from
Scripture and by dint of argument that his power over
his subjects came direct from God. This was the
first time in Christendom that the doctrine of the
divine right of Kings, as this phrase is commonly un
derstood, was formally proclaimed and defended be
fore the world.
The “Apology” of James had hardly appeared be
fore Francis Saurez, a Jesuit, who lived from 1548 to
1617, published a “Reply,” in which he maintained
that while rulers received power indirectly from God,
since all things good and lawful are from God, they
received it directly from the people.
“Civil power,” said Saurez, “whenever it is found
in a man or a prince, has emanated from the people
and the community, either directly or remotely, and
it cannot otherwise be justly possessed.” He then
pronounced the doctrine of divine right proclaimed
by James as contrary to the “ancient, received, true
and necessary principle of civil authority, as taught
by the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas of Aquin) and
the illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine. He characterized
it as “new, singular, an dapparently invented,” and
that he thought it highly pernicious as exalting civil
power at the expense of communal rights, he made
very plain.
Saurez did not stand alone in his opposition to
the novel claim of James that Kings rule by the elec
tion of God. In Cardinal Gotti’s Treatise on Laws,
in Concina’s Dogmatic Theology, in the Moral The
ology of Billuart, and in that of Busenbaum, in the
Compendium Salamanca, in the writings of St. Isa-
dore, St. Anselm, Dominic Soto, Covarruvias, Le
desma, and a host of others, exactly the same prin
ciple is enunciated, and these books and writings were
taught in the seminaries and universities of Europe,
Austria, Italy, Spain, France, Germany and in Eng
land.
Nothing in the world is more impressive of the
truth of the democratic principle embodied in
America’s Declaration of Independence that all gov
ernments derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed, than the uniformity with which this
principle was taught in the days of kings and under
the very shadow of their thrones, not by one bold
Jesuit, but by practically every Catholic moralist and
theologian during five hundred years before the
American Revolution.
In these anxious times it is an inspiration to read
those old writers and see how fully we of America,
though regarded with condescension by some of the
older peoples of the world, stand in accord with the
purest reason and truth in respect to the most im
portant relation of a ruler of the people, neither
adopting the errors of some French philosophers
which would bankrupt civil authority, nor subscrib
ing to the fallacies of those who would ignore the
rights of the people.
I quote from Concina (1687-1756):
“All men are born free with respect to civil so
ciety; no one has any civil power over another, for
this power exists not in each, nor in any one or any
number in a fixed manner, but is vested in the whole
collection of men. . . • Reason dictates that men
united in a moral whole, that is, the community or
the multitude or whole collection of men, shall them
selves prescribe in what manner and by whom so
ciety shall be governed.”
From Billuart (1682-175 7):
“But as it is not possible for this power to be ex
ercised by the entire multitude, it is usual for the
multitude to transfer its right or governing power,
either to a number of people selected from all classes
AND BEARING THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY, or to
select a number of the nobles, which take the name
of an aristocracy, or to one alone, which is styled a
monarchy.
F rom Busenbaum (1600-1668):
“The power of making laws exists among men, but
this power belongs naturally to no individual. As far
as civil law is concerned it belongs to the community,
who transfer it to one or to more, by whom alone
the community itself is rightly governed.”
From Compendium Salamanca (of the 1 7th
century):
“Since nature has not given any individual power
over another, God has conferred this power upon the
community; which, as it may think it more proper to
be ruled by one or by many appointed persons, trans
fers it to one or to many, that by them it may be
ruled. Supposing the election made by the whole
State, God confers upon the ruler the power which
was vested in the community. And it follows, the
ruler governs in the name of God, and whoever re-
sisteth him, resisteth the ordinance of God as the
Apostle says.”
But why, since this principle of government by
consent of the people is such an ancient doctrine of
civil authority, was there not long ago some people
to establish it in its purest form as here in America
we believe we have. A reason which explains this
to the writer is that the other countries of the world
were all originally pagan and this democratic doc
trine being Christian to the core, it had not only to
win recognition, but to battle for existence after-
(Continued on Page 19)