Jump back to Previous: TBK. Bk II. 1-4 & Conspiracy Theories
The Brothers Karamazov
Book II. 5.
p64 [Ivan] “I start from the position that this confusion of elements, that is, of the essential principles of Church and State, will, of course, go on forever in spite of the fact that it is impossible for them to fuse. The confusion of these elements cannot lead to any consistent or even normal results, for there is falseness at the very foundation. Compromise between the Church and State in such questions as, for instance, jurisdiction, is to my thinking impossible in any real sense. My clerical opponent maintains that the Church holds a precise and defined position in the State. I maintain, on the contrary, that the Church ought to include the whole State and not simply to occupy a corner of it. And if this is for some reason impossible at present, then it ought in reality to be set up as the direct and chief aim of the future development of Christian society!”
“Perfectly true,” Father Paissy, the silent and learned monk, agreed with decision.
p66 “The purest Ultramontanism!” cried Miusov impatiently, crossing and recrossing his legs.
“Oh, well, we have no mountains,” cried Father Joseph. And turning to the elder he continued: “Observe the answer he makes to the following ‘fundamental and essential’ propositions of his opponent, who is, you must note, an ecclesiastic. First, that ‘no social organization can or ought to arrogate to itself power to dispose of the civic and political rights of its members.’ Secondly, that ‘criminal and civil jurisdiction ought not to belong to the Church, and is inconsistent with its nature, both as a divine institution and as an organization of men for religious purposes.” And finally, in the third place, ‘the Church is a kingdom not of the world.’”
“A most unworthy play upon words for an ecclesiastic!” Father Paissy could not refrain from breaking in again. “I have read the book which you have answered,” he added, addressing Ivan, “and was astounded by the words ‘the Church is a kingdom not of this world.’ If it is not of this world then it cannot exist on earth at all. In the Gospel, the words ‘not of this world.’ are not used in that sense. To play with such words is indefensible. Our Lord Jesus Christ came to set up the Church upon the earth. The Kingdom of Heaven, of course, is not of this world but in Heaven; but it is only entered through the Church which has been founded and established upon earth. And so a frivolous play upon words in such a connection is unpardonable and improper. The Church is in truth, a kingdom and ordained to rule, and in the end must undoubtedly become the kingdom ruling over all the earth. For that we have the divine promise.”
He stopped speaking suddenly as though checking himself.
This reminds me that there never was a schism to speak of in the Eastern Church. In Russia the meaning of “Church” was not open to debate. In America, “Church” would most likely have been interpreted to mean the Church of England -- what many of the original colonists had come to America to escape. Separation of Church and State at the time of the American Revolution can be seen as having less to do with secular concerns than with a political wish to avoid a war of sects. Today this would be even worse as there are Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist. and Goat knows what other factions at the table. People today who long for a Christian State really long for religious war.
After listening attentively and respectfully to Father Paissy, Ivan went on... “The whole point of my article lies in the fact that during the first three centuries Christianity only existed on earth in the Church and was nothing but the Church. When the pagan Roman Empire desired to become Christian, it inevitably happened that, by becoming Christian, it included the Church but remained a pagan State in very many ways. This was bound to happen. But Rome as a State retained too much of the pagan civilization and culture, as, for example, in the very objects and fundamental principles of the State. The Christian Church entering into the State could, of course, surrender no part of its fundamental principles -- the rock on which it stands. It could pursue no other aims than those which have been ordained and revealed by God Himself, among them that of drawing the whole world and therefore the ancient pagan State itself into the Church. In this way (that is, with a view to the future) it is not the Church that should seek a definite position in the State, like ‘every social organization,’ or as ‘an organization of men for religious purposes’ (as my opponent calls the Church). On the contrary, every earthly State should be, in the end, completely transformed into the Church and should become nothing else but a Church, rejecting every purpose incongruous with the aims of the Church. All this will not degrade it in any way or diminish its honor and glory as a great State, nor lessen the glory of its rulers. All this will only turn it from a false, still pagan, and mistaken path to the true and rightful path which alone leads to the eternal goal. This is why the author of the book ‘On the Foundations of Church Jurisdiction’ would have judged correctly if, in seeking and laying down those foundations, he had looked upon them as only a temporary compromise inevitable in our sinful and imperfect days. But as soon as the author ventures to declare that the foundations which he predicates now, part of which Father Joseph just enumerated, are the permanent, essential, and eternal foundations, he is going directly against the Church and its sacred and eternal vocation. That is the gist of my article.”
p67 “That is, in brief,” Father Paissy began again laying stress on each word, “according to certain theories only too clearly formulated in the nineteenth century, the Church ought to be transformed into the State, as though this would be an advance from a lower to a higher form, so as to disappear into it, making way for science, for the spirit of the age, and civilization. And if the Church resists and is unwilling, some corner will be set apart for her in the State, under control -- and this will be so everywhere in all modern European countries. But Russian hopes and ideals demand not that the Church should pass from a lower to a higher order, the State, but on the contrary, that the State should end by being worthy of becoming the Church and nothing else. So be it! So be it!”
p68 “Well, I confess you’ve reassured me somewhat,” Miusov said, smiling, again crossing his legs. “So far as I understand then, the realization of such an ideal is infinitely remote, at the second coming of Christ. That’s how you want it. It’s a beautiful Utopian dream of the abolition of war, diplomacy, banks, and so on -- something after the fashion of socialism, I’d say. But I imagine that it is all meant seriously, and that the Church may now be going to try criminals, and sentence them to beatings, prison, and even death.”
“But if there were none but the ecclesiastical court, the Church would not even now sentence a criminal to prison or to death,” Ivan said calmly. “Crime and the way of regarding it would inevitably change, not all at once of course, but fairly soon.”
“Are you serious?” Miusov looked intently at him.
“If everything became the Church, the Church would exclude all the criminal, and disobedient, and would not cut off their heads,” Ivan went on. “I ask you, what would become of the excluded? He would be cut off then not only from men, as now, but from Christ. By his crime he would have transgressed not only against men but against the Church of Christ. This is so even now, of course, strictly speaking, but it is not clearly stated, and very, very often the criminal of today compromises with his conscience: ‘I steal,’ he says, ‘but I don’t go against the Church. I’m not an enemy of Christ.’ That’s what the criminal of today is continually saying to himself, but when the Church takes the place of the State it will be difficult for him, in opposition to the Church all over the world, to say: ‘All men are mistaken, all in error, all mankind are the false Church. I, a thief and murderer, am the only true Christian Church.’ ... Now, on the other hand, take the Church’s own view on crime: is it not bound to renounce the present almost pagan attitude, and to change from a mechanical cutting off of its tainted member for the preservation of Society, as at present, into completely and honestly adopting the idea of the regeneration of the man, of his reformation and salvation?”
p69 “What do you mean? I fail to understand,” Miusov interrupted. “Is this again some sort of dream? Something shapeless and even incomprehensible? What is excommunication? What sort of exclusion? I suspect you are simply amusing yourself, Ivan.”
“Yes, but you know, in reality it is so now,” said father Zossima suddenly. All turned to him at once. “If it were not for the Church of Christ there would be nothing to restrain the criminal from evil-doing, no real punishment. The mechanical punishment spoken of just now, in the majority of cases only embitters the heart. It is not the real punishment. The only effectual one, the only deterrent and softening one, lies in the recognition of sin by conscience.”
Here’s where we come to the “if no God than anything is permitted” argument and Foucault’s even more extreme position that “anything” is good and that the imposition of conscience is actually evil.
...
“...all these sentences to exile with hard labor, and formerly with flogging also, reform no one, and what’s more, deter hardly a single criminal. The number of crimes does not diminish but is continually on the increase. You must admit that consequently the security of society is not preserved, for, although the dangerous member is mechanically cut off and sent far away out of sight, another criminal always comes to take his place at once, and often two of them. If anything does preserve society, even in our time, and does regenerate and transform the criminal, it is the law of Christ speaking in his conscience. . . . It is only by recognizing his wrong-doing as a son of a Christian society -- that is, of the Church -- that he recognizes his sin against society -- that is, against the Church. So that it is only against the Church, and not against the State, that the criminal of today can recognize that he has sinned.
“If society, as a Church, had jurisdiction then it would know whom to bring back and to re-unite to itself. Now the Church having no real jurisdiction, but only the power of moral condemnation, withdraws of her own accord from actively punishing the criminal. She does not excommunicate him but simply persists in fatherly exhortation of him. What is more, the Church even tries to preserve all Christian communion with the criminal. She admits him to church services, and treats him more as a captive than as a convict. And what would become of the criminal, O Lord, if even Christian society -- that is, the Church -- were to reject him as the civil law rejects him and cuts him off? What would become of him if the Church punished him with her excommunication as the direct consequence of the secular law? There could be no more terrible despair, at least for a Russian criminal, for Russian criminals still have faith. Though, who knows, perhaps then a fearful thing would happen, perhaps the despairing heart of the criminal would lose its faith and then what would become of him? But the Church, like a tender loving mother, holds aloof from active punishment herself, as the sinner is too severely punished already by the civil law, and there must be at least someone to have pity on him. The Church holds aloof, above all, because its judgement alone contains the truth, and therefore cannot practically and morally be united to any other judgement even as a temporary compromise. She can enter into no compact about that.
How does Sharia law deal with this? What is the relationship between the Iman and the criminal?
p70 “The foreign criminal, they say, rarely repents, for the very doctrines of today confirm him in the idea that his crime is not a crime, but only a reaction against an unjustly oppressive force. Society cuts him off completely by a force that triumphs over him mechanically and (so at least they say of themselves in Europe) accompanies this exclusion with hatred, forgetfulness, and the most profound indifference as to the ultimate fate of the erring brother. In this way, it all takes place without the compassionate intervention of the Church, for in many cases there are not churches there at all, for though ecclesiastics and splendid church buildings remain, the churches themselves have long ago passed from Church into State and disappeared completely. So it seems at least in Lutheran countries. As for Rome, it was proclaimed a State instead of a Church a thousand years ago. And so the criminal is no longer conscious of being a member of the Church and sinks into despair. If he returns to society, often it is with such hatred that society itself instinctively cuts him off. You can judge for yourself how it must end. In many cases it would seem to be the same with us, but the difference is that besides the established law courts we have the Church too. which always keeps up relations with the criminal as a dear and precious son. And besides that, there is still preserved, though only in thought, the judgement of the Church, which though no longer existing in practice is still living as a dream for the future, and is, no doubt, instinctively recognized by the criminal in his soul.
This is all quite up to date. Now I’m curious about criminal justice in the Papal States.
“What was said here just now is true too, that is, that if the jurisdiction of the Church were introduced in practice in its full force, that is, if the whole of the society were changed into the Church, not only the judgement of the Church would have influence on the reformation of the criminal such as it never has now, but possibly also the crimes themselves would be incredibly diminished [Richard Dawkins would point out that this redefines and forgives what we would call "crimes" committed in the name of the Church itself]. And there can be no doubt that the Church would look upon the criminal and the crime in many ways quite differently and would succeed in restoring the excluded, in restraining those who plan evil, and in regenerating the fallen. It is true,” said Father Zossima, with a smile, “Christian society is at present not ready and is only resting on some seven righteous men. But as they are never lacking, it will continue unshaken in expectation of its complete transformation from a society almost heathen in character into a single universal and all-powerful Church. So be it, so be it. Even though it is long delayed, until the end of the ages, it is ordained to come to pass! And there is no need to be troubled about times and seasons, for the secret of the times and seasons is in the wisdom of God, in His foresight, and His love. And what in human reckoning seems still afar off, may by Divine ordinance be close at hand, on the eve of its appearance. And so be it, so be it!”
...
p72 “Why, it’s beyond anything!” cried Miusov, suddenly breaking out. “The State is eliminated and the Church is raised to the position of the State. It’s not simply Ultramontanism, it’s arch-Ultramontanism! It’s even beyond the dreams of Pope Gregory the Seventh!”
“You are completely misunderstanding it,” said Father Paissy sternly. “You must understand that the Church is not to be turned into the State. That is Rome and its dream. That is the third temptation of the devil. [We will return to this in "The Grand Inquisitor.] On the contrary, the State is to be transformed into the Church, will ascend and become a Church over the whole world -- which is the complete opposite of Ultramontanism and Rome, and your interpretation, and is only the glorious destiny ordained for the Orthodox Church. This star will arise in the East!”
[Miusov tells a story about a French “superintendent of a whole regiment of political detectives”] “... said he, ‘of all these socialists, anarchists, infidels, and revolutionists; we keep watch on them and know all their doings. But there are a few peculiar men among them who believe in God and are Christians, but at the same time socialists. Those are the people we are most afraid of. They are dreadful people! The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist.’ These words struck me at the time, and now they have suddenly come back to me, gentlemen.”
As I read this I have Naphtha and Settembrini (or just Mann) on one shoulder and Michel Foucault on the other. On one hand we have the City of God and on the other the true nature of crime and punishment.
Suppose there was no State but only the Church. Would the Church still be only interested in souls and not in justice? That is not what we see in Sharia Law. Is Christianity so non-judgmental precisely because it is outside the state? I wish I knew more about the Papal States.
I confess I don’t understand the distinction the Fathers want us to see between Rome and the Orthodox East. But what Miusov, at least, has in mind is what Naphtha was also aiming at, a City of God. To be fair, a world of faith (as opposed to our bourgeois world, probably would have less crime as there would be less wealth and less distinction between classes. Though poverty and destitution, even when widely shared, are often the seed of all kinds of petty crime. And anyway dreams like this are always utopian since they assume everyone shares exactly the same dream... which has never been true for more than a minute at best.
Christianity probably came closest to realizing this dream when the Roman Empire was in an advanced state of decline and people sought refuge from taxes in joining monasteries and convents. That really is a good model and even I see the attraction of it, but it is not exactly conducive to the continuation of civilization if you universalize it... no babies for one thing. This is really, now I think of it, the model for communes and other utopian (secular) shared living communities, but these, when co-ed, are always eventually broken apart by family dynamics unless there is a really unhealthily powerful charismatic (cult) figure holding it all together. The Amish have done a surprisingly good job of something like this but they have their faith and their cult identity to aid them. You know what would work? If you started a cult like this and had every cult member cut off a limb or two so that they were all completely dependent on each other.
Small Victories
" 'Joice to the World"
...
p77 [Annie’s friend Neshama shares a story with a gathering of convicts at San Quentin] ...the place went nuts. She stole the show right out from under me, like a rock star... Here they had thought Neshama was going to teach them a lesson, and she had instead sung them a song. Their faces lit up with surprise. She was shining on them, and they felt her shining on them, and so they shone back on her.
...
p78 ...Neshama got up and told another story. It was about her late husband, and a pool he would hike to, where there was a single old whiskery fish swimming around. Neshama stripped her story down to its essence, because only the essence speaks to desperate people. And the men rose to give her a standing ovation. It was a stunning moment. All she had done was tell them, “I’m human, you’re human , let me greet your humanness. Let’s be people together for a while.”
...
p79 We had evoked the listening child in these men, with the only real story anyone has ever told, that the teller has been alive for a certain number of years and has learned a little in surprising ways, in the way the universe delivers truth... I saw that these lives were of value. I had a sudden desire to send them all my books, all of my father’s and friend’s books, as well. Also to donate my organs...
No comments:
Post a Comment