Datenbank/Lektüre


Autor: Manent, Pierre

Buch: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Titel: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Stichwort: Das theologisch-politische Problem 3; Eigentümlichkeit d. europ. Monarchie (vs.: natürlicher Rhythmus d. Politik);

Kurzinhalt: ... an almost mathematical form: "given the characteristics of the Catholic Church, find the political form X that makes it possible to ensure the secular world's independence."

Textausschnitt: 8b The natural rhythm of a body politic can be roughly described as follows. In foreign policy, it fosters territorial expansion up to the point that this expansion threatens its defeat. In domestic policy it involves either conservatism, leading to the petrification of the regime, or a displacement traditionally described as "cyclical" among political forms, predetermined and constant in their essential characteristics: aristocracy, democracy, anarchy, despotism, monarchy. But European monarchy instead set in motion a political evolution leading to the incessant (and not at all cyclical) transformation of the internal constitution of states, one perpetually producing new political and social forms. Monarchy set history in motion, and we are still living with the consequences. (Fs)

8c What explains the extreme originality and unequalled dynamism of European monarchy? It was the stable compromise between the religious sacred and the civic sacred, making the king the keystone of the sacred system. But in spite of all his ostentatious religious attributes, in spite of the coronation rites, sacred rituals, and occasional miracles, the king in Europe was never able to play the role that emperors played in the East. There, although the emperor might launch himself into the most extravagant conquests, he remained the great preserver of his society and its civilization. This passively sublime, or sublimely passive role, was forbidden the king in the West: there he had to act continuously, and act on his society. (Fs)

9a What was the principle of this action? The king could not seize and retain the things most sacred to Christianity. (The figure of the king as Christ, for example, did not succeed in acquiring a lasting consistency, for obvious reasons.)1 Instead he naturally took on the task of forming the political body as one whole, essentially distinct from the Church. He undertook the establishment of the secular city, the civitas hominum; he made it one as he himself was one. In principle, of course, the Church left man free to organize the earthly city as he saw fit. But the king alone was capable of taking on the responsibility and effectively assuming this role left to man. (Fs)

Kommentar (08/10/14): Zu vicarius Christi (Fußnote oben) vgl: Rhonheimer, Staat, 72b

9b I have just tried to give a very schematic definition of the original problem of European political history. Only by looking at it does the subsequent political development become intelligible. One can present this problem in an almost mathematical form: "given the characteristics of the Catholic Church, find the political form X that makes it possible to ensure the secular world's independence." Since the city-state and the Empire are ruled out, that leaves monarchy. There is much less artifice than one might think in such a presentation, even if it benefits from the advantages of retrospection: this particular problem was certainly, over many centuries, the major problem faced by European peoples. In formulating it in this way, I am presupposing no particular interpretation of Christianity's meaning, or even of man's political condition. Moreover, by placing ourselves in the perspective of the actors themselves, we unlearn what we know (or think we know) about our history. We give ourselves a chance of avoiding subsequent recourse to concepts born after the Church's political defeat in the great battles that concern us, especially that of secularization. We can now understand the notions that made it possible to envisage and implement modern politics, the notions thanks to which we consider ourselves modern. They were born in and arise from this polemical situation. Now we must try to grasp more precisely the spirit in which they were first elaborated. (Fs)

____________________________

Home Sitemap Lonergan/Literatur Grundkurs/Philosophie Artikel/Texte Datenbank/Lektüre Links/Aktuell/Galerie Impressum/Kontakt