cormacburke.me.ke

          Law makes for order. Absence of law for disorder. Man in his individual life as well as in his social life, needs order. Therefore man needs law.

I.          Man individually needs order. To begin with, he needs some external order. He may claim to prefer disorder, saying that order stifles spontaneity. His clothes and his room are in chaos. He in unable to be punctual at work. He cannot stand the idea of a personal timetable. Yet he too will get annoyed if the train is late or his car breaks down or the phone is out of order. He wants these things to be in order. Besides, you can be sure that he is not so disorderly that he never eats or sleeps. No; each man needs some regular pattern of exterior order: regular food, regular rest, regular income. Everyone needs some external order.

            Man also needs internal order. No one likes the disorder of a stomach ulcer or of a bone cancer ...

            Man specially needs another sort of interior order: order in his spirit and its operations.

            In each man there is one person, one 'I' who acts. Nevertheless, one can and should distinguish different aspects of the spiritual activity of man. To think is not the same as to feel, to know is not the same as to love. In the relationship between these interior faculties and in the operation of each, man also needs law and order.

 The heart as an organ of thought?

            'To have one's heart in the right place' is a most interesting expression. A person would clearly have his heart in the wrong place if it were located where his liver or his brain is. Such a disorder would pose nice physiological problems. Of course, the phrase 'heart in the right place' does not refer to physical location at all. It has an affective meaning. It expresses the idea of a person whose affections are sound, whose sympathies are easily aroused, who can feel with others. However, even in this more spiritual sense, a man's heart would not be in the right place if it habitually occupied the place where his mind should be, i.e. if feelings habitually took the place of thought. This is a more frequent disorder than might be imagined.

            The heart, in the sense of feelings, has its function in man's life. More importantly, so does the mind; and so does the will. One has to think and will and feel properly, i.e. in a properly ordered way, according to the laws of thinking, willing and feeling. If a man's actions are ruled by his feelings to the exclusion of his reason, or if he loves just with his heart and not also with the will, he is not in good order as a man.

            Some people don't care how or what they think, or how or what they will or feel. They should care. If there is no law or order, if there is 'lawlessness' in the operations of mind and will-and emotions too - they can end in a sorry mess.

            Perhaps there is no better illustration of what we are trying to express than that phrase of the Psalmist. 'The fool says in his heart, "there is no God!" ' (Ps 14:1).

            Is the Scripture being fair to atheists? After all there are quite a number of atheists around who seem to be rather clever people. Yet the Bible says the atheist is a fool. Why? Because it is not his mind that leads him to say there is no God. It is his heart, i.e. his feelings, his preferences, his prejudices.

            The human mind that is in good working order and is used properly, will never say there is no God. On the contrary, the mind that is in proper order leads naturally and directly to the conclusion: there is a God. That is why those who say 'there is no God' are not using their mind properly. In this matter of God's existence, they would seem not to be using it at all. They are 'thinking' with their heart which is not a proper organ of thought. That is why atheists, however clever they may be in other areas, are fools in this capital point. They say there is no God, but it is not through thinking that they have come to this 'conclusion', but through lack of thinking.

 Ruling oneself

            Man needs interior order. There must be government within man. The big question for each one is, 'who or what is going to rule in my life?'. We may quickly answer: 'I. I am going to govern myself.' We answer well; but we have not yet given a full answer. It is true that, while man is not an autonomous being, he is meant to be self-governing. But he must govern himself according to some law. Which law will it be?

            Either a man 'declares' himself 'independent' and writes his own personal and subjective moral law; and then he rules himself by a law of selfishness; or is ruled by it ... Or else he accepts the natural law and the law of God and rules himself according to divine wisdom. 'I rule myself by all your precepts' (Ps 1 19: 128).

            It must be said of course that such a declaration does not make a man independent. He is a creature, and therefore dependent by nature. If he 'rejects' his dependence on God--who lifts him up he becomes more and more dependent on things that drag him down.

            We must rule ourselves. But self-rule offers various possibilities. Let us consider them.

            The lower part of man's self may be let take over the government, and then man is ruled by his passions. lust, greed, avarice, anger ... If this happens, he is under a rule of slavery. His higher self, his spirit, is enslaved to his bodily passions: the 'law of his members' (cf. Rom 7: 23). This is selfishness run wild, and selfishness at its lowest. It is anything but self-government.

            Of course a man may acknowledge that his is indeed a rule of slavery, that under such government he is quickly losing his real freedom; and he may react. He may, with an effort, subject his passions to the government of his mind and will. This can be done in different ways.

            He may do this in a defective way: i.e. when he thinks and wants his self (even his 'spiritual' self) to be the centre and end of his life. Then he is under a worse government still that puts him in slavery to his pride.

            In such a case he may be keenly aware of that lower area (the law of his members) where he has proved himself master. But he resolutely turns his mind away from that higher area (the law of God), where he is not prepared to serve. Since he wanted to be a law to himself, since he wants his own self to be supreme, he refuses to look above self. And so he remains: puffed-up in his own self-esteem; but actually endwarfed and fossilised through pride .

            A man's mind and will can govern in a proper way only when he centres them on God. This can only begin to happen when he realizes that the truth is independent of his mind and greater than his mind, and that his mind is meant not to create the truth but to seek it. Then he can begin to overcome the pride of making his own mind the measure of all things. He will begin to look up to the Truth; and he will discover God as the law of his mind, as the infinite Truth that his mind has been created to seek and know.

            His will in consequence will want a good greater not only than material or sensual things, but greater too than self or self-satisfaction. And so he will discover God as the law of his will. If he continues firmly in the struggle to overcome pride, he will discover more and more of the infinite Truth and infinite Goodness of God, and will want to put God's law as the law of his life. That is the one law that can bring him to fulfilment. When he makes up his mind to serve God's law, he is made free (cf. Jn 8: 32, James 1: 25), and becomes not only master of himself but a lord too of creation ('cui servire regnare est': to serve him is to reign...).

 Laws of self-fulfilment

            Truth is the law of the mind. Goodness is the law of the will. If a person starts saying, 'I am free to think what I like,' he is breaking the law of his mind. It is not his nature to think what he likes, but to think what his mind tells him is true.

            He may have the power to think what he likes: but if what he likes to 'think' is not what his mind really tells him is true, he does not have the right to think so. He is thinking falsely -against the truth and against his mind. He is breaking the law of the mind.

            He may have the power to do what he likes. But if what he likes to do is evil, he has no right to do it. He is rejecting goodness and breaking the law of the will.

            The law leads man to 'self-fulfilment'. It points out the true way and warns against the dead-ends. Self-centredness is the dead-end, and converts all other ways into dead-ends. The law, with its first command -- 'You shall love the Lord your God'-calls us out of self-centredness. And with its second command too: 'you shall love your neighbour as yourself'.

            The way that the law indicates is the way of love. Love for God, love for neighbour: and --also --love for self. Love for self, true love for self, is not opposed to love for God; it is part of love for God.

            Self-love is not a dead-end, nor is it forbidden by the law, but rather commanded. What is a dead-end and forbidden is self-centred self-love. We should love ourselves, as our neighbour, for God's- sake. If, in all things, we strive to be God-centred, we are following the law and finding the fulfilment of our lives.

            Love for God, therefore, is not in opposition to self-fulfilment, nor even to self-love. It is in opposition only to self-centredness. We have to be God-centred, not self-centred. Only by being God-centred do we truly love ourselves and can we truly fulfil ourselves. The law of love for God is not opposed to the law of self-fulfilment; it is the law of self-fulfilment.

II         We have seen that individual life needs order; and that therefore it needs law. Social life too needs order. Society therefore needs law. A group of persons living without order or law is not a society; it is a mob.

            It is natural for man to live in society. The purpose of society is to create and maintain unity among men in relation to their end. It is to help each one live in unison with his fellow-men, so that he help them and they help him to fulfil the potentialities of human nature.

            Man's nature is social; and yet he has to learn to live socially! If a man looks into himself, he sees the need for society. He finds social tendencies within himself: a tendency to companionship, friendship, marriage, family, loyalty, cooperation, trade ... If man had never fallen, his social tendencies would have prospered without effort or difficulty. But man in fact has fallen. And now, as he looks into himself, he also discovers anti-social tendencies: selfishness, suspicion, jealousy, revenge....

            Men tend to live together. But, living together, they now also tend to take advantage of one another, and there emerges, at least in some, the tendency to cheat and exploit; and even to hate and want to eliminate others.

 Social man; and anti-social man

            The social aspect of man's nature, his out-goingness to others, is up against the anti-social aspect of his fallen nature. Healthy other-centredness is up against unhealthy self-centredness.

            There is a constant tension in this situation. If social life is to be orderly, if it is to be human and liveable, then law is clearly needed; partly as a guide to encourage and channel men's good social tendencies, and largely as a check on their anti-social tendencies. If society is to be just, an effective legal system, with the several elements that go to make it up, is necessary.

            Laws that embody true principles of justice are needed as guidelines to men in their relations with one another. Laws that teach or remind men that the life, the property, the good name of others are to be respected; that personal freedoms, e.g. freedom of expression, are not to be used to corrupt others; that just taxes, for necessary public services, are to be paid, etc., etc.

            Laws may be just and a society may be very law abiding. Yet, even in such a situation, there are bound to be conflicts between people. Two persons, each in perfect good faith, can claim the same right, e.g. the ownership of the same plot of land. If one of the parties is not in good faith, the conflict can be all the more serious. No matter how clearly the law defines rights, wrongs are going to occur. The law would be theoretical and ineffective if it did not provide a system to apply law to concrete cases, i.e. to judge conflictive situations according to justice, and to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Law, therefore, must have its judicial system. law courts, judges, lawyers, etc.

            Furthermore, law would still remain ineffectual and rights would not be adequately protected, if there were no way to ensure that the decisions of the law courts are carried out. So, a legal system must be backed by law-enforcement agencies.

            Clearly, a law-abiding society will be largely, though not totally, at peace. The less law-abiding a society is, the busier courts and law-enforcing agencies are going to be.

Just and unjust laws

            A just society is not the automatic result of just laws, since there will always be some persons who have no respect for any type of law. Nevertheless, just laws always have an immense positive social effect. Along with actually ordering men's relations, they also have an educative function. They present an image of justice that people can look up to and take as a model for their everyday relations with others.

            People have the right to laws that are just and to a just administration of law. They have the right to see that justice is equal for all. They have the right to see that judges and police are above corruption; in other words, that you do not have to bribe agents of the law to gain your rights, and that you cannot bribe them to obtain what is not your right. They have the right to see that justice is not sold and that injustice cannot be bought.

            A society where laws are just and are justly administered will be a society where people--the majority of people--look up to the law, sense the sacredness of the law, and so are more encouraged to follow justice in their personal lives.

            A just society is not the automatic result of just laws. But an unjust society is the inevitable result of unjust laws. Unjust laws bring justice into disrepute. They lead to contempt for authority. They undermine the sense of the rights of others, cause mutual distrust and give an excuse for mutual exploitation.

            Unjust tax laws obviously foster tax evasion. Discriminatory laws against minority groups produce frustration and hatred. Unjust allocation of public money (which, after all, is the people's money) spreads the 'let-me-too-see-what-I-can-get' mentality ....

            A major example of the disastrous social effect of an unjust law is the legalisation of abortion. Legalised abortion encourages sexual irresponsibility. Even more than that, it encourages violence --precisely because it gives legal sanction to the maximum physical violence against a completely innocent human being. In consequence people lose respect for the sacredness of human life and human relationships. Where abortion is legalised, social violence escalates. This is only to be expected. If one may kill an innocent child, in order to save one's reputation, satisfy one's whims, avoid emotional strain or financial difficulties, why should one not rob one's neighbour or poison one's mother-in-law, for similar reasons?

            A society therefore will not be healthy if it lacks good laws. But even a society with good laws can be unhealthy if its citizens lack respect for law.

            The harmful effect of bad laws is evident. Good citizens will not respect bad laws, and are right not to do so. Their lack of respect is a defence reaction of healthy members of society against a disease that threatens the whole social body.

            While they are right not to do so, there is a danger that their lack of respect may turn into a sort of contagion that spreads and reaches out even to good laws; and even to the whole concept of law.

            Good citizens will not respect bad laws; bad citizens will not respect good laws. That is natural. What is not so natural is when good citizens are tempted not to respect good laws. But this is something that can occur. A generalized loss of respect for law can be a social disease that proves fatal to a society.

            The unhealthy reaction of lack of respect for good laws -among otherwise good citizens -- can come about in different ways. It can obviously come in the aftermath of a period of bad laws or bad administration. Even if new and good laws take the place of the bad, and honest administration that of corrupt, it will probably take some time before people's confidence in the law and sense of respect for the law are restored.

 Authority, an instrument of oppression?

            One of the difficulties affecting people's attitude towards law today is the tendency to be suspicious of all government. Government means authority; and authority, it is suggested, is in some way (or so easily becomes) an instrument of oppression. Besides, government implies rulers and subjects, and therefore seems to suggest superiority and inferiority. Is there not something degrading in being 'under' authority?

            These difficulties need an answer, since the fact is that we cannot have laws, effective law, (and therefore we cannot have justice) without government.

            Authority implies a relationship between those wielding authority and those subject to it. But this is not essentially a relationship of power, nor is it based on force, nor on the ability to bring others into subjection. It is a relationship of free wills, properly ordered towards the common good. So, of its nature, it implies reason and freedom in both those exercising and those accepting authority.

            Where authority is properly exercised, in the carrying out of just laws, it is not opposed to personal freedom but fosters it and serves it.

            To the thinking man, just authority is seen as a positive good. The principle of authority has a certain sacredness to it, because it brings justice to society. Acceptance of authority is a reasonable act. Obedience to authority becomes an act of freedom and a sign of maturity. Behind authority lies the will of God (cf. Rom 13: 1; Jn 19: 11); that is the ultimate reason for its sacredness. Acceptance of authority is therefore a rational and religious act.

            Opposition between personal freedom and authority or government arises only when there is a disorder in one or the other. If an individual uses his freedom wrongly, he will meet the opposition of authority as it defends the common good. Moreover, the authority, in opposing his wrong use of his freedom, is also defending his own personal good.

            If authority becomes unjust and tyrannical, then personal freedom: a) is not bound to obey it; b) may choose to resist it; c) may in extreme cases even be obliged to resist.

            Even in cases a) and b), however, as long as the authority or law in question is not essentially opposed to the common good, it may be better to obey it, or have recourse to peaceful civil disobediences, rather than to rise against it violently.

            The reason is that the principle of authority lies at the very foundation of the social order; and is therefore itself a great good. To oppose it with violence in order to remedy a particular situation may have the effect of undermining people's respect for any authority.

            A person may rise against a particular government or authority because of this or that specific law which is unjust. But this example of violent disobedience and rebellion, apart from the immediate disorder and bloodshed it is likely to cause, may encourage all sorts of dissatisfied groups into thinking that violence and rebellion are legitimate ways of advancing their claims.

            Taking the law into one's own hands risks destroying all sense of law. Lawlessness is a contagious disease that spreads rapidly. History offers many examples of how rebellions against defective or corrupt governments have plunged countries into civil war or anarchy; and in the end often left them under an even more tyrannical government.