A Note on Political Theology

Pater Edmund, quoting Leo XIII in Diuturnum illud ~ On the Origin of Civil Power, shows that not only is 'political theology' possible but can be a positive good.

From Sancrucensis

By P. Edmund Waldstein, OCist, MTheol, STD

“Political theology” is a somewhat ambiguous term. Carl Schmitt means by it that apparently secular political terms (and their relations) are really based on theological analogies. To fully understand the conceptualization of (for example) the relation of sovereign and the people, and how it shifted over time, one has to understand the theological analogy behind the apparently secular discourse, and how the background theology itself shifted over time. Erik Peterson, on the other hand, means by “political theology” that a political regime is legitimized by its supposed resemblance to the divine government. This is a different point. Schmitt is interested in how political ideas have a concealed theological origin. That origin says nothing about whether those political ideas are in themselves good, much less about whether the system that employs those ideas is legitimate or just. Peterson, on the other hand, is interested in how theology is used to give legitimacy to political regimes.

Peterson argues that theories which make the monarchy of God correspond to the monarchy of the Roman emperor, or the peace of Christ correspond to the pax Romana, are propagandistic attempts to legitimize the Roman order by its resemblance to the divine order. In his famous essay “Monotheism as a Political Problem” he draws the following conclusion:

Monotheism as a political problem had originated in the Hellenistic transformation of the Jewish faith in God. Insofar as the God of the Jews was amalgamated with the monarchical principle of the Greek philosophers, the concept of the divine Monarchy at first acquired the function of a political-theological propaganda formula for Jews. This political-theological propaganda formula was taken over by the Church in its expansion into the Roman Empire. It then met up with a concept of pagan political theology, according to which the divine Monarch indeed reigned, but the national gods had to rule. In order to counteract this pagan theology, tailored to fit the Roman Empire, it was asserted from the Christian side that the national gods could not rule at all, because national pluralism had been suspended by the Roman Empire. In this sense the Pax Augusta was then interpreted as the fulfillment of the Old Testament eschatological prophecies. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the divine Monarchy was bound to founder on the trinitarian dogma, and the interpretation of the Pax Augusta on Christian eschatology. In this way, not only was monotheism as a political problem resolved and the Christian faith liberated from bondage to the Roman Empire, but a fundamental break was made with every “political theology” that misuses the Christian proclamation for the justification of a political situation. Only on the basis of Judaism and paganism can such a thing as a “political theology” exist. The Christian proclamation of the triune God stands beyond Judaism and paganism, even though the mystery of the Trinity exists only in the Godhead itself, and not in Creation. So too, the peace that the Christian seeks is won by no emperor, but is solely a gift of him who “is higher than all understanding.”

And in a footnote he adds:

To my knowledge, the concept of “political theology” was introduced into the literature by Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie (Munich, 1922). His brief arguments at that time were not systematic. Here we have tried to show by a concrete example the theological impossibility of a “political theology.” 

It seems, however, that he hasn’t really addressed Schmitt’s point at all.

Moreover, even Peterson’s own point is highly questionable. Obviously he is right that a political theology that misuses the Christian revelation to justify unjust regimes is bad. The essay is clearly meant as an indirect attack on Christians who justified National Socialist tyranny in Germany. Obviously, Peterson was right to reject their arguments. But it does not follow that political theology as such is impossible. What of a political theology that strives to make political regimes resemble divine government in order to make them more just and more legitimate?

Pope Leo XIII, in Diuturnum illud, argues that political regimes ought to resemble the divine government, and that this will give them more legitimacy:

In like manner, the authority of fathers of families preserves a certain impressed image and form of the authority which is in God, “of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named.” But in this way different kinds of authority have between them wonderful resemblances, since, whatever there is of government and authority, its origin is derived from one and the same Creator and Lord of the world, who is God. …   Then only will the government have all those ornaments and guarantees, when it is understood to emanate from God as its august and most sacred source. … But in order that justice may be retained in government it is of the highest importance that those who rule States should understand that political power was not created for the advantage of any private individual; and that the administration of the State must be carried on to the profit of those who have been committed to their care, not to the profit of those to whom it has been committed. Let princes take example from the Most High God, by whom authority is given to them; and, placing before themselves His model in governing the State, let them rule over the people with equity and faithfulness, and let them add to that severity, which is necessary, a paternal charity. …  when Christian rulers were at the head of States, the Church insisted much more on testifying and preaching how much sanctity was inherent in the authority of rulers. Hence, when people thought of princedom, the image of a certain sacred majesty would present itself to their minds, by which they would be impelled to greater reverence and love of rulers. And on this account she wisely provides that kings should commence their reign with the celebration of solemn rites; which, in the Old Testament, was appointed by divine authority. But from the time when the civil society of men, raised from the ruins of the Roman Empire, gave hope of its future Christian greatness, the Roman Pontiffs, by the institution of the Holy Empire, consecrated the political power in a wonderful manner. Greatly, indeed, was the authority of rulers ennobled; and it is not to be doubted that what was then instituted would always have been a very great gain, both to ecclesiastical and civil society, if princes and peoples had ever looked to the same object as the Church.

Is Pope Leo XIII engaging in political theology? It seems to me clear that there is both a good and a bad way of doing political theology, and we should not give up on the good way on account of fear of the bad way. Abusus non tollit usum. 

(The above note is a slightly edited version of an e-mail sent to a reader of this blog).