No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Classical political philosophy does not claim to be superior to philosophy nor to revelation. Political philosophy is the highest of the practical sciences, itself a unique and legitimate source of specific knowledge that would limit politics to be politics. For the things beyond politics to be free to be confronted in their own nonpolitical order, the polity must itself be constructed in such a way as not to kill its saints or philosophers. Traditionally, theology has been its own science, not the queen of the practical sciences, but the queen of the sciences. This meant that theology, as an articulated statement of revelation, performed a needed check when politics itself became a substitute metaphysics. Since so much theology is itself modeled on the ideologies of modernity, classical political philosophy serves a double purpose, not only to limit the city to its own area, but to restrain those theologies based on modern ideologies. Thus political philosophy serves to allow revelation to be itself.
1. Simon, Yves, Philosophy of Democratic Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), p. 265.Google Scholar
2. See Schall, James V., Reason, Reoelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes front Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 1984)Google Scholar; What Is God Like? (Collegeville, MI.: Michael Glazer/Liturgical Press, 1992)Google Scholar.
3. An accurate understanding of what Catholicism, for instance, specifically holds on a particular topic would today include the presentation in Le Catéchisme de I'Eglise Catholique (Paris: Mame/Plon, 1992).Google Scholar Especially a revelational traditio needs to clarify itself to itself in order for others to know what it holds of itself.
4. See Gilson, Etienne, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1938)Google Scholar; Mclnerny, Ralph, St. Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982)Google Scholar; "Introduction,” Medieval Political Philosophy, ed. Lerner, Ralph and Mahdi, Muhsin (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1978), pp. 1–21Google Scholar; Pangle, Thomas, “Introduction,” to Leo Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, ed. Pangle, Thomas L. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
5. Voegelin, Eric, Conversations with Eric Voegelin, ed. O'connor, R. Eric (Montreal: Thomas More Institute, 1980), p. 138.Google Scholar
6. See Bochenski, J. M., “Society,” Philosophy—An Introduction (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1972), pp. 93–101Google Scholar; Schall, James V., “The Reality of Society according to St. Thomas,” in Politics of Heaven and Hell, pp. 235.Google Scholar
7. Chesterton, G. K., “On the Institution of the Family,” Heretics in A Chesterton Anthology, ed. Kennedy, P. J. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), p. 81.Google Scholar
8. Voegelin, Eric, Science, Politics, and Gnosticism (Chicago: Regnery-Gateway, 1968), pp. 54–55, 64.Google Scholar
9. Strauss, Leo, Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (New York: Basic Books, 1968), p. 18.Google Scholar
10. See D'entreves, Alexander Passerin, The Natural Law: An Historical Survey (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), chap. 1Google Scholar; Schall, James V., “On Being Dissatisfied with Compromises: Natural Law and Natural Right,” Loyola Law Review, 38 (1992): 289–309.Google Scholar
11. See Schall, James V., “On the Disappearance of Mercy from Political Theory,” Politics of Heaven and Hell, pp. 353–78.Google Scholar
12. Strauss, , Liberalism, p. 20.Google Scholar
13. Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1959), pp. 286–91.Google Scholar
14. Mccoy, Charles N. R., The Structure of Political Thought (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 7.Google Scholar
15. Senior, John, The Restoration of Christian Culture (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Maclntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981)Google Scholar. See also Derrick, Christopher, The Rule of Peace: St. Benedict an the European Future (Still River, MA.: St. Bede's Publications, 1980)Google Scholar.
16. This would also be the position of Schumacher, E. F., A Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Harper Colophon, 1977).Google Scholar
17. Interestingly enough, Paul Ii, John, in Centesimus Annus (1991)Google Scholar, remarked that “there can be no genuine solution of the ‘social question' apart from the Gospel, and that the ‘new things’ can find in the Gospel the context of their correct understanding and the proper perspective for judgment on them” (#5). See Schall, James V., “The Teaching of Centesimus Annus,” Gregorianum 74 (1993): 17–43.Google Scholar
18. Eliot, T. S., Christianity and Culture (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1968), pp. 200–201.Google Scholar
19. See Lobkowicz, Nicholas, “Christianity and Culture,” Review of Politics 53 (1991): 373–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Montgomery, Marion, “Virtue and the Risks of Being,” Intercollegiate Review 19 (1984): 26.Google Scholar
21. Eliot, , Christianity and Culture, p. 164.Google Scholar
22. Strauss, Leo, The City and Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 1.Google Scholar
23. See Johnson, Paul, “Is Totalitarianism Dead?” Crisis, 7 (02, 1989), 9–17Google Scholar
24. Voegelin, , Conversations, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
25. Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 164.Google Scholar
26. Strauss, , City and Man, p. 49.Google Scholar
27. Ibid., p. 1.