Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/636

 ETHICS

564

ETHICS

this respect than restore the natural law to its pristine integrity, mankind would be bound to Him by an eternal debt of grat it ude. For it was chiefly by means of the unity and indissolubility of the married life that the sanctuar^y of the Christian family was established, from which mankind has reaped the choicest blessings, and compared with which paganism has no equivalent to offer. This exposition of the nature of marriage from a theistic standpoint is diametrically opposed to the views of modern Darwinists. According to them, men did not primitively recognize any such mstitution as the married state, but lived together in complete promiscuity. Marriage was the result of gradual development, woman was originally the centre about which the family crystallized, and from this latter circumstance there arises an explanation of the fact that many savage tribes reckon heretlity and kinship between families according to the lineal de- scent of the female. We cannot dwell long upon these fantastic speculations, because they do not consider man as essentially different from the brute, but as gradually developed from a purely animal origin. Although marriage is of Divine institution, not every individual is obliged, as a human being, to embrace the married state. God intends marriage for the propagation of the human race. To achieve this pur- pose it is by no means necessary for each and ever}- member of the hiunan family to enter upon marriage, and this particularly at the present time, when the question of over-population presents so many grave difficulties to social economists. In this connexion certain other considerations from a Christian point of view arise, which do not, however, belong to philo- sophical ethics. Since the principal end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, it is in- cumbent upon both parents to co-operate according to the requirements of sex in the attainment of this end. From this it may readily be gathered what duties mutually exist between husband and wife, and between parents and their children.

The second natural society, the State, is the logical and necessarj' outcome of the family. A completely isolated family could scarcely support itself, at all events it could never rise above the lowest grade of civilization. Hence we see that at all times and in all places, owing to natural needs and tendencies, larger groups of families are formed. A division of labour takes place. Each family devotes itself to some in- dustry in which it may improve and develop its re- sources, and then exchanges its products for those of other families. And now the way is opened to civili- zation and progress. This grouping of families, in order to be permanent, has need of authority, which makes for security, order, and peace, and in general provides for what is necessary to the common good. Since God intends men to live together in harmony and order. He likewise desires such authority in the community as will have the right to procure what is needful for the common good. This authority, con- sidered in itself and apart from the human vehicle in which it is placed, comes immediately from God, and hence, within its proper sphere, it imposes upon the consciences of the subjects the duty of obedience. In the light of this interpretation, the exercise of public power is vested with its proper dignity and inviolabil- ity, and at the same time is circumscribed by necessary limitations. A group of families under a common authoritative head, and not subject to any similar aggregation, forms the primitive State, however small this may be. By further development, or by coalition with other States, larger States gradually come into existence. It is not the purpose of the State to sup- plant the families, but to safeguard their rights, to protect them, and to supplement their efforts. It is not to forfeit their rights or to abandon their proper functions that individuals and families combine to form the State, but to be secured in these rights, and

to find support and encouragement in the discharge of the various duties assigned them. Hence the State may not deprive the family of its right to educate and instruct the children, but must simply lend its assist- ance b}' supplying, wherever needful, opportunities for the better accomplishment of this duty. Only so far as the order and prosperity of the body politic requires it, may the State circumscribe individual effort and activity. In other words, the State is to posit the conditions under which, pro\'ided private endeavour be not lacking, each individual and each family may attain to true earthly happiness. By true earthly happiness is meant such as not only does not interfere with the free performance of the individual's moral duties, but even upholds and encourages him therein.

Having defined the end and aim of the State, we are now in a position to examine in detail its various fimctions and their extent. Private morality is not subject to State interference; but it is the proper fmiction of the State to concern itself with the inter- ests of public morality. It must not only prevent \dce from parading in public and becoming a snare to many (e. g. through immoral literature, theatres, plays, or other means of seduction), but also see to it that the public ordinances and laws facilitate and ad- vance morally good behaviour. The State may not affect indifference as regards religion; the obligation to honour God publicly is binding upon the State as such. It is true that the direct supervision of religious matters in the present supernatural order was en- trusted by Christ to His Church; nevertheless, it is the duty of the Christian .State to protect and uphold the Chiu'ch, the one true Chm-ch founded by Christ. Of coiu-se, owing to the unfortunate division of Chris- tians into numerous religious systems, such an inti- mate relation between Chiu"ch and State is at the present day but rarely maintained. The separation of Church and State, with complete liberty of con- science and worship, is often the only practical modus rivendi. In circumstances such as these the State must be satisfied to leave the affairs of religion to the various bodies, and to protect the latter in those rights which have reference to the general public order. The education and instruction of children belongs per se to the family, and should not be monopolized liy the State. The latter has, however, the right and the duty to suppress schools which disseminate immoral doctrine or foster the practice of vice; beyond such control it may not set limits to free individual en- deavour. It may, however, assist the individual in his efforts to secure an education, and, in case these do not suffice, it may establish schools and institu- tions for his benefit. Finally, the State has to exer- cise important economical functions. It must protect private property and see to it that in man's industrial life the laws affecting justice be carried out in all their force and vigour. But its duties do not stop here. It should pass such laws as will enable its subjects to procure what is needed for their respectable sustenance and even to attain a moderate competency. Both excessive wealth and extreme poverty involve many dangers to the individual and to society. Hence, the State should pass such laws as will favour the sturdy middle class of citizens and add to their numbers. Much can be done to bring about this desirable condi- tion by the enactment of proper tax and inheritance laws, of laws which protect the labouring, manufac- turing, and agricultural interests, and which supervise and control trusts, syndicates, etc.

Although the authority of the State comes immedi- ately from God, the person who exercises it is not immediately designated by Him. This determination is left to the circumstances of men's progress and de- velopment or of their modes of social aggregation. According as the supreme power resides in one individ- ual, or in a privileged class, or in the people collec- tively, governments are divided into three forms: the