What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Modern State Against the Church

LifeSiteNews.com has a timely interview with Catholic attorney Christopher Ferrara. Some quotes:

Now, in terms of life issues and positive law, the fundamental problem is that political modernity no longer cares about the question, ‘what is man?’ And certainly not the question, ‘what is man for?’ which is to know, to love, to serve God in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.
Of course, because in this new commercial society, which is all the modern state is – it’s a trading ground, ‘city of pigs,’ the very thing that [Greek philosopher] Glaucon and Socrates ridicule in the Republic, the very thing that Aristotle dismisses as an inadequate notion of the state – the city of pigs, the commercial society is what we now have.

So the western world is one vast trading zone, hosted by secular governments which now completely prescind from the question of what man is, or what man is for, and pretend to be religiously neutral, when they’re not.

Because if the state says, ‘we don’t care what man is, what man is made for,’ it has already embraced an anti-theology. And in fact, the very function of such a state is to protect itself from religion. Not to guarantee the free exercise of religion, but to protect itself from religion.

People have been bred to recite mindlessly the mantras of political modernity: ‘we must have freedom of expression for any and all opinion’. Of course the [Catholic Church’s] magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council condemned [these ideas] as a ‘delirium,’ to quote Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos.

We’ll take a concrete example from our society that shows the incoherence of the whole thing. In our society if a person were to advertise, say a vitamin supplement, which is utterly worthless, as a miraculous cancer cure, and induce many people to part with 12 dollars a piece, knowing that it cured nothing, he could be criminally prosecuted for his false commercial speech. And there’s no freedom of expression there because, after all, he induced people to part with twelve dollars each. What could be more heinous than that?

But under this idiotic conception of a total freedom of expression, one can go out and say, ‘Let us murder millions of babies in the womb. We must have the right to do this. Let the killing begin. Let’s all vote for it now, so that we can destroy an entire generation of human beings.’ That, of course, one has the absolute right to say. Because after all, one hasn’t induced anyone to part with anything so precious as twelve dollars.

This is the nonsense that underlies all of political modernity, this idea of an absolute right, which really isn’t absolute. You see here from my example, that the absolute right of freedom of expression somehow doesn’t operate when it comes to what political modernity protects. Money and property.

And of course, political modernity retains some concept of the repression of intolerable opinions as we see in Canada and Europe, where because there is no Natural Law standard, but an arbitrary standard of unacceptable speech, politically incorrect speech is now punishable by law. So the concept of censorship remains, but the content is all wrong.

This is the great fraud. All the principles that we [Catholics traditionally] defend, state censorship of dangerous opinions, the profession of a religious view by the state, and other such principles, have all been retained. They’ve just been subverted and turned around the other way. So, there’s an anti-theology of the state. The state strictly enforces religious neutrality as an anti-theology. And the state now punishes certain unacceptable opinions as heretical. People are going to jail or being fined for having the wrong opinions.

All states are in one way or another, theocratic states because they all take a position with respect to God and His law. The state either embraces and serves God and His law within the sphere of its competence, or it rejects that obligation, and therefore says, ‘Non serviam’ [as Lucifer said to God, ‘I will not serve.’], which is a theological position. And it is a great fraud to say otherwise, but that is the great fraud of political modernity.

Comments (72)

" All the principles that we [Catholics traditionally] defend, state censorship of dangerous opinions, the profession of a religious view by the state, and other such principles, have all been retained. They’ve just been subverted and turned around the other way."

Precisely... which is why, strategically, in this epoch, we must stand against the state, and for liberty. It is fundamentally irrational to continue arguing as if we live in a political vacuum, in which "the state", this abstract entity, is talked about in terms of "shoulds" and "oughts." It should, but it won't. It ought, but it can't.

Of course as a moral leader, the pope must speak of what should and ought to be done. But as wise teachers, the popes have always acknowledged the reality of our fallen world; instead of dictating what must be carried out in the political realm to exclusion of all other considerations, they have set parameters within which we may disagree:

"But in matters merely political, as, for instance, the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion is lawful. Those, therefore, whose piety is in other respects known, and whose minds are ready to accept in all obedience the decrees of the apostolic see, cannot in justice be accounted as bad men because they disagree as to subjects We have mentioned; and still graver wrong will be done them, if - as We have more than once perceived with regret - they are accused of violating, or of wavering in, the Catholic faith." (Immortale Dei, 48)

"In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence" (Libertas, 33)

Of course Leo also says:

"it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man." (Libertas, 42)

But we ought to defend the rather conditional freedoms to such things as political rights that Christians and the Church herself will find necessary to survive this wave of persecution.

http://joeahargrave.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/from-franco-to-flaccid-in-40-years-why-christians-must-embrace-liberty-instead-of-government/

To pick up something in an earlier post, it's a good thing that most of the military are from rural America and can't get into elite private schools and be subverted. As long as the grunts in the military (not necessarily the officers) are conservative, the odds of a miltary overthrow are small.

The Chicken

Jeff, that interview is simply marvelous. Thanks for posting on it.

So we [in political modernity] will build a society that serves the needs of this very clever animal and these needs are all basically emanations of the desire for self-preservation. We procreate to preserve ourselves. We get food to preserve ourselves. We associate with other people to preserve ourselves. We need property to preserve ourselves. And we need the government to preserve ourselves from attacks by others upon our persons and our property. And that is the foundation stone of the modern state.

I don't know that I've ever read it put any clearer than that. Bravo to Ferrera.

So Locke came up with his epistemological question and very stealthily and subversively, under a rhetoric of moderation called into question everything that men believed.

Yep, that's Locke. The devout Christian subversive sneaky guy undermining everything but hoping no one will notice. His Christianity is just a bunch of "pious fig leaves." I think Mr. Ferrara should stick to law and stay out of history of philosophy.

Ferrara often goes too far in his polemic. But whether or not John Locke was a false Christian "stealthily and subversively" seeking to undermine the foundations of Christian society - something none of us can know - that was the practical and very predictable effect of his philosophy.

John Locke:

The truest religion is that which is the most tolerant.

'Nuff said about John Locke.

"...the practical and very predictable effect of his philosophy."

The United States of America?

The city of pigs isn't really comparable to the modern commercial society since it based on the belief that nature is beneficent and that human beings naturally have moderate desires, the very opposite of what is presumed by the modern commercial society.

On a related note:

Yep, that's Locke. The devout Christian subversive sneaky guy undermining everything but hoping no one will notice. His Christianity is just a bunch of "pious fig leaves." I think Mr. Ferrara should stick to law and stay out of history of philosophy.

Then Straussians, among others, would need to stay out of the history of philosophy as well since that is more or less the Straussian view of Locke.

The United States of America?

No, but a salient feature thereof.

Must the State be explicitly Catholic?

The Natural Law requirements used to be fulfilled by non-Catholic states but perhaps all States that are not explicitly Catholic will turn away from Natural Law.

Ferrara often goes too far in his polemic. But whether or not John Locke was a false Christian "stealthily and subversively" seeking to undermine the foundations of Christian society - something none of us can know - that was the practical and very predictable effect of his philosophy.

I would say that the effect--and pretty explicit intent--of Locke's philosophy (and the American Declaration of Independence) is to undermine the foundations of a Christian government (as distinct from society), which is what Ferrara rails against. To what extent religious toleration/liberty promotes or undermines Christian society is not obvious (Bacon and Locke suggested that it does while Tocqueville argued the opposite), and, of course, religious toleration/liberty that is supposed to be strictly neutral (in the Madisonian sense) isn't very neutral under multiculturalism.

The United States of America?

The conventional view of the USG as a Lockean structure is profoundly mistaken. The Declaration contains some moving phrases that clearly derive from Locke and his school, but the bulk of the document evidences older and more particular sources. The Constitution has as barely a whisper any Lockean antecedents, and its Preamble is clearly drawing on older sources as well.

Moreover, the development of the institution of the Presidency towards an imperial form -- which has proceeded apace whether the occupant of the office has been Democrat or Republican, Left or Right -- certainly owes more to the monarchical tradition than it does the republican tradition. It was more than just a flair for the constructive provocation that led Belloc to say the US is more monarchical than the UK.

Locke wasn't intent upon undermining Christian government. But he was intent upon undermining the modes of government to which some Christians of his day were committed.

Lydia is exactly right about Locke's Christianity -- and his detractors, including the Straussians, are wrong. As his private notebooks and his commentaries on some of Paul's epistles clearly indicate, he was a man of Christian faith, piety and commitment. That others disagree with him politically or theologically, or don't like the historical outworking of his ideas, does not mean his Christianity is fake or intentionally deceptive and subversive. He opposed Rome on several fronts; he opposed his own Anglican establishment on others.

"John Locke:

'The truest religion is that which is the most tolerant.'

'Nuff said about John Locke."

We should judge a person's statements in the context of the times in which he wrote as well as a few more words than a single sentence,

Submitted for your consideration,

"For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love. Now, I appeal to the consciences of those that persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of religion, whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or no? And I shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when I shall see those fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their friends and familiar acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts of the Gospel; when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members of their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices and without amendment are in danger of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus express their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a principle of charity, as they pretend, and love to men's souls that they deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives — I say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their salvation, why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like enormities, which (according to the apostle)[4] manifestly relish of heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks and people? These, and such-like things, are certainly more contrary to the glory of God, to the purity of the Church, and to the salvation of souls, than any conscientious dissent from ecclesiastical decisions, or separation from public worship, whilst accompanied with innocence of life. Why, then, does this burning zeal for God, for the Church, and for the salvation of souls — burning I say, literally, with fire and faggot — pass by those moral vices and wickednesses, without any chastisement, which are acknowledged by all men to be diametrically opposite to the profession of Christianity, and bend all its nerves either to the introducing of ceremonies, or to the establishment of opinions, which for the most part are about nice and intricate matters, that exceed the capacity of ordinary understandings? Which of the parties contending about these things is in the right, which of them is guilty of schism or heresy, whether those that domineer or those that suffer, will then at last be manifest when the causes of their separation comes to be judged of He, certainly, that follows Christ, embraces His doctrine, and bears His yoke, though he forsake both father and mother, separate from the public assemblies and ceremonies of his country, or whomsoever or whatsoever else he relinquishes, will not then be judged a heretic."

Hmm, I see al likes John Locke.

. . .'nuff said about John Locke.

This is the great fraud. All the principles that we [Catholics traditionally] defend, state censorship of dangerous opinions, the profession of a religious view by the state, and other such principles, have all been retained. They’ve just been subverted and turned around the other way. So, there’s an anti-theology of the state. The state strictly enforces religious neutrality as an anti-theology. And the state now punishes certain unacceptable opinions as heretical. People are going to jail or being fined for having the wrong opinions.

All states are in one way or another, theocratic states because they all take a position with respect to God and His law. The state either embraces and serves God and His law within the sphere of its competence, or it rejects that obligation, and therefore says, ‘Non serviam’ [as Lucifer said to God, ‘I will not serve.’], which is a theological position. And it is a great fraud to say otherwise, but that is the great fraud of political modernity.

Of course, we cannot even define definitively what its competence is. There are those, for example, who insist that the state is competent at social insurance and welfare, despite the history of the 20th century which shows that a guaranteed welfare net does for sin what a still pool of water does for the mosquito population in the South...

I don't often agree with Al, but on this issue regarding John Locke I do. The quotation Al has supplied is spot on in this regard, and it roundly refutes any facile dismissal of Locke, of his ideas, and of his Christianity.

So, Al, well done -- this time! (wink)

Locke wasn't intent upon undermining Christian government. But he was intent upon undermining the modes of government to which some Christians of his day were committed.
Lydia is exactly right about Locke's Christianity -- and his detractors, including the Straussians, are wrong. As his private notebooks and his commentaries on some of Paul's epistles clearly indicate, he was a man of Christian faith, piety and commitment. That others disagree with him politically or theologically, or don't like the historical outworking of his ideas, does not mean his Christianity is fake or intentionally deceptive and subversive. He opposed Rome on several fronts; he opposed his own Anglican establishment on others.

Neither Locke's private notebooks nor his commentaries on St. Paul's epistles are dispositive of the question, as Locke was a very careful writer (how careful is subject to debate). But if one insists on claiming that Locke was a Christian thinker, then it means that he was an extremely muddled Christian thinker, so much so that it would render him to be more of a political hack than a political philosopher.

The conventional view of the USG as a Lockean structure is profoundly mistaken. The Declaration contains some moving phrases that clearly derive from Locke and his school, but the bulk of the document evidences older and more particular sources. The Constitution has as barely a whisper any Lockean antecedents, and its Preamble is clearly drawing on older sources as well.

There has indeed been a vast scholarly literature (to which some of us commenting here have contributed) on the subject of Locke's influence on the American Founding, and I agree that the claim that it's essentially Lockean ignores other significant influences. As for the Constitution, it's designed not to set forth the "true original, extent, and end of civil government," but rather to be a practical governing document (a distinction, btw, which Locke himself makes), so it's hardly surprising to see little direct Lockean influence. But if we are searching in the original text of Constitution for a design to create a government in some way based on Christianity, we likewise find precious little.

But if one insists on claiming that Locke was a Christian thinker,

You're seriously in doubt about that, Perseus?

Don't get me wrong. I don't hold any particular brief for the whole of Locke's political ideas nor for his insistence that we cannot in any case know real essences. But to doubt his Christianity seems to me historically completely wrong.

You're seriously in doubt about that, Perseus?
Don't get me wrong. I don't hold any particular brief for the whole of Locke's political ideas nor for his insistence that we cannot in any case know real essences. But to doubt his Christianity seems to me historically completely wrong.

If one looks at the matter like a typical historian, then I suppose it would be wrong. But if one take a more philosophic look at Locke's writings on religion, philosophy, politics, and education, then I think some serious doubts arise, and such doubts were raised long ago by people such as Anthony Ashley-Cooper (3rd Earl of Shaftesbury) and James Beattie (and even Rousseau, at least indirectly). In fact, the very work on epistemology by Locke that you cite provided the basis for their great uneasiness about the "mischievous" tendency and "dangerous conclusions" to be found in parts of that work.

I'm talking about whether he was a Christian. That's an objective question, as far as I'm concerned, not a question of "tendencies." I'm talking about whether, you know, he was a follower of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, believed the items of something akin to the Apostles' Creed, believed in the trinity, the resurrection of the dead, the life of the world to come, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. If you call that "looking at it like a typical historian," then let's hear it for typical historians. (I wish that all historians were that down-to-earth, really.)

If all that you require for an answer to your objective question are statements that affirm a basic belief in Christianity and no explicit statements to the contrary (or one is a historicist who believes that Locke was a creature of his times), then, as I said, you have your answer. But that is not nearly enough in my book, particularly for a character as unquestionably slippery as Locke.

If I may add a personal anecdote on the matter, when I was a graduate student, one of my professors, a "mainstream" political theorist who was critical of Strauss, likewise found it difficult to pin down Locke's religious beliefs, and conceded that he might be a Socinian or even possibly (though unlikely) a Deist.

Perseus,
Locke's private notebooks are dispositive on the point. They are not slippery or evasive. They were meant for his own use, not for public consumption. In them, there is nothing intentionally tricky or purposely difficult to pin down regarding his faith -- your hermeneutic of suspicion notwithstanding. In them, he was not trying to keep his real views from being known or discerned by himself. In them, his views are knowable, known and authentic.

That he denied innate ideas does not mean, as some of his contemporaries insisted it means, that he denied natural human depravity and therefore was a Pelagian who intended to undermine our need for redemption in Christ. The Christian doctrine of human depravity does not necessitate belief in innate ideas. Denying innate ideas does not undermine the Christian faith, though it might (rightly) contradict the theology of some Christians, Edward Stillingfleet, for example.

I do not regard them as dispositive because anything written down on paper always has the potential of becoming public, nor do I find his ideas on such matters to be as obviously clear and distinct as you apparently find them. As Harvey Mansfield put it, Locke "leaves one trail for the sceptical and another for the pious, the latter more plainly marked but leading in circles, so that eventually the pious will have to follow the sceptics' trail if they wish to get anywhere."

Perseus, if your professor thought that someone could, even possibly, be a deist who believed in Jesus' resurrection (a miracle) I think he needed to get a new definition of "deist."

Like Occam and Descartes before him, Locke may have been a good Christian, but he had some bad ideas and as someone has written, ideas have consequences.

Lydia,

I believe he thought it possible that Locke did not really believe in the core tenets of Christianity such as Jesus' resurrection (or other miracles), and thus could have been a Deist (though more because he believed Locke a muddled thinker rather than a deliberately deceptive one).

But you've admitted (or so I took you) that Locke wrote that he _did_ believe these core tenets.

Perseus,

Because you imply that even the most carefully crafted and articulate statements by Locke, such as the one quoted above by Al, are not to be trusted to convey what Locke really means because Locke's texts are intended for public consumption, then I wonder what we are to make of your statements here, also meant for public consumption. I know what you write when you post your remarks publicly on this forum, but what are your really saying? What are you really up to? I suspect that you are really trying to undermine the US Constitution, on the one hand, and Biblical religion, on the other. Why else would someone oppose Locke's views on politics and religion except that he or she wanted to undermine the Constitution and Christianity? You just don't want us to know that you oppose those things. Saying it overtly would arouse opposition. You, Perseus, are a stealth subversive. Your public texts indicate that about you.

And if I happen upon some private texts on your computer or in your office that clearly say my conjectures about you are false, then I will conclude that you really meant even those private texts for public consumption and that you didn't actually mean what you said in them either.

If none of that is correct about you, then I conclude, alternatively, that you are simply a confused and muddled thinker.

Of course, if you find none of my assessment of you at all convincing, then perhaps you'll see why I am unmoved by your reading of Locke.

Michael Bauman,

You forgot to mention that I'm using a pseudonym. What are the implications of that? Perhaps I'm involved in a modern Rye House Plot! In any case, I will assume that you are aware of the rules of Straussian exegesis and why Locke is regarded as an esoteric writer.

I say that if Michael Bauman can be considered a Christian, why the hell not John Locke?

But the real problem with John Locke is that he was a bad metaphysician. As in the passage quoted above, he suggests that morality is more important than speculative truth, i. e., dogma. But this absurd, since morality depends on speculative truth. For speculative truth determines what is, i.e., being. And doing depends on being, as the scholastics used to say. Therefore, morality depends on speculative truth, which Locke suggests we can’t even know.

Any time you come across a philosopher who either denies that we can know being and essences or subordinates speculative knowledge to some other human activity, you know you're dealing with a bad philosopher.

But you've admitted (or so I took you) that Locke wrote that he _did_ believe these core tenets.

Yes, but Locke wrote other things whose implications would appear to contradict those statements, which is why the professor was open to the possibility (however slim in his view) that Locke might have been a Deist. I only brought up the story to show that it's not just Straussians who find Locke's religious views puzzling.

"Any time you come across a philosopher who either denies that we can know being and essences or subordinates speculative knowledge to some other human activity, you know you're dealing with a bad philosopher."

And a good theologian. You know, like Jesus, who easily could have made use of Aristotle and Plato when talking about God, man, truth, and life in a fallen world, but refused. Count Peter with Jesus on this one. Maybe Jesus just wasn't as good a thinker as some of his contemporaries, like Philo, who made copious and lavish use of such fictions. If Jesus were in Hell at the moment, perhaps Aristotle could bring Him up to speed on the point.

"In any case, I will assume that you are aware of the rules of Straussian exegesis and why Locke is regarded as an esoteric writer."

I am. I'm surrounded by Straussians on all sides here at Hillsdale. But it's a hermeneutic I reject. It's a hermeneutic that says, for example, that Plato's Republic was written tongue in cheek, almost as a joke, and that Plato was too insightful a guy to really believe what he wrote in that book.

But Aristotle, his most brilliant student, never gives any indication that his teacher operated on such a basis -- just the Straussians and their gnostic pretensions to secret knowledge, the sort of pretensions that permit them to divine what Locke was really up to, despite his public and private assertions to the contrary.

Straussians are so used to reading between the lines that they seem not read the lines themselves, lines which are the overt refutation of their theories. Follow the Straussians on Locke if you wish. But as I tell my students, often the difference between good scholarship and bad scholarship is the difference between discovery and invention: The good scholar discovers what's really there; the bad scholar just makes it up as he goes. The Straussian hermenuetic is often an exercise in invention, not discovery, and is a telling example of high level eisegesis, not exegesis.

"I say that if Michael Bauman can be considered a Christian, why the hell not John Locke?"


I say the same thing. And I don't mind being lumped into any group with people who, like me, assert that Christ died for the sins of the world, that He is the rightful Lord of all things, that faith in Him is the sole means to salvation, and that the Apostles' Creed is right:

http://www.michaelbauman.com/creedchapterone.htm

I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to steer the discussion of Locke back a bit to Ferrara: I thought it was ridiculously unfair of Ferrara to quote a tiny, out-of-context bit from Locke concerning premature infants and to use this to argue that Locke was in favor of or "paved the way for" abortion. Locke is in the context arguing that we cannot know real essences, including the essence of man, with which we should be most familiar. Again, I don't agree with this statement, but that's the argumentative context. Purely as an illustration, Locke uses the fact (as he represents it) that there _already was_ an argument going on about whether very early premature infants were "man" or not. His point is that if there can be an argument about such a thing among human beings, then human beings must not have direct insight into the nature of man, or there could be no argument about that question.

Now, I think that's a poor argument. But the point is that he's supposedly citing an issue that was current and already in question and merely using the fact that it was in question for his argument about insight into essences. He doesn't even say what his position is on the question. The whole thing goes by in a line or two and doesn't constitute any sort of statement on the important issues from the perspective of present-day pro-life concerns. Certainly if Hobbes really held (which Ferrara says but I haven't had time to research, and I wouldn't take Ferrara's word for it at this point) that an unborn child is the property of his mother until birth, this is a _far_ more relevant point for the abortion debate than this passing illustration by Locke of an uncertainty that, he claims, people had in his own time. Yet Ferrara lumps them together in a single paragraph. His treatment of Locke here is a classic example of anachronistically interrogating a text to see what we can wring out of it concerning our own interests and preoccupations rather than actually reading it to see what the author is saying.

Locke was born into a civilization in which devastating wars were waged and men tortured and killed other men over religious doctrines. George R. and the rest of us express ourselves in safety because Locke's vision of toleration carried the day. Perhaps it would be useful if those objecting to that vision would explain how their vision would work.

al,

I’m all in favor of free speech, but only insofar as it promotes truth and the honor of God. But if speech is free to such an extent that those two things are harmed, I’m in favor of restricting it. But let’s face it, you yourself are only in favor of free speech insofar as it promotes your (demented) ideology. Admit it, it’s true. For example, would you allow Intelligent Design to be taught in schools? Of course not. According to your liberal dogma the theory of evolution is sacrosanct. I, on the other hand, would ban all teaching of evolution in schools; because it is a blasphemy against God; it harms the souls of students; and because it is the stupidest theory in the history of stupid theories. But I digress. The point is that the difference between me and you is that I believe that free speech should be subordinate to truth, whereas you believe it should be subordinate to lies.

The same goes for wars. I’m in favor of wars fought to defend true religion against unjust aggression, and, I suspect, you’re in favor of them when they defend liberalism. Am I right? So war is good if the cause is right. Right?

You say, “Locke was born into a civilization in which devastating wars were waged and men tortured and killed other men over religious doctrines.” So what? Does that mean he was right to denigrate true religious doctrine along with all the rest? He should of rather used the wars as an occasion to condemn false religious doctrine, which, after all, was the cause of them in the first place. But Locke never could tell the difference between true and false. That’s why he was a lousy philosopher.


Michael,
I think I can name a couple of fair theologians who used philosophy in their teaching: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas.

Of course, they're not of the stature of your favorite theologian, Rudolf Bultmann. But, unlike him, they at least believed in God.

And I don't mind being lumped into any group with people who, like me, assert that Christ died for the sins of the world, that He is the rightful Lord of all things, that faith in Him is the sole means to salvation, and that the Apostles' Creed is right:

Michael, just to push the point to its logical conclusion, do you also assert that Christ always told the truth ... including when He established the Church with Peter as its visible head, and when He said "whoever hears you hears Me" ?

Al, unlike Locke, we are born into a civilization in which devastating warfare has been waged against various innocent peoples, including the pre-born and against Christians, due to a purblind governmental "neutrality" pretense between the true and the false, a pretense that actually prefers anti-religion and anti-truth over religion and truth. If we can think of Locke as holding the beginnings of a theory that was not, as yet, clearly discernible as leading to an anti-Christian government, we are certainly not free to NOW hold that the theory doesn't lead there. Then, either Locke's theory was wrong with reference to Christianity, or it was OK as a Christian idea but wrong about truth. But if the latter, then Christianity is, itself, wrong about the truth. Forgive me if I suggest that no Christian is going to accept a characterization of Locke's philosophy/ epistemology/ politics/ about humankind as being perfectly consistent with Christianity, but just happens to be altogether wrong anyway.

I am fine with saying that Locke was a real Christian but his ideas were not a very good presentation of the truth that is bound up in Christianity. To the extent that he might have adhered to his ideas when opposed to the truth as bound up in Christian teaching, he was a less than perfect Christian. Since I too am a less than perfect Christian, I sympathize: but with the man, not with the philosophy.

If Ferrara's argument were correct, then the regime established by the U.S. Constitution, and given its public rationale by the Declaration of Independence, would be morally indefensible and therefore illegitimate. I'm inclined to take that as a reductio of his argument, and to assert as much on a site run by loyal Americans. But aside from that, I don't think any of the popes since Pius XI would agree that the American polity is illegitimate. So rad-trads like Ferrara are logically impelled to say that the development of Catholic social teaching since at least Pius XII, and especially at Vatican II, is itself mistaken. I'd be interested in knowing whether Jeff would agree.

Tony,
Yes, Christ told the truth, which doesn't mean you (or I) understand him correctly in Matt 16 and elsewhere. That's not a matter of his veracity; it's a matter of correctly understanding his words, which is a different issue entirely.

George,
Yes, those men were, indeed, good theologians. When they go off course, their misdirection seems to me to stem most frequently from the intrusion of philosophy into their theology - TA's use of Aristotle and Augustine's neoplatonism, for example.

Except perhaps for Tillich, Bultmann is my least favorite theologian. He's merely an anti-superaturalistic modernist masquerading as a theologian. The best ones are the least philosophical, namely Karl Barth in theology and Oscar Cullmann in exegesis.

Michael Baumann,

I assumed that you were well aware of Straussian exegesis (or eisegesis as you, among others, like to think) in part because of your affiliation with Hillsdale. But I won't derail the thread any further by relating what Harry Jaffa thinks about how far from theology Aquinas and his use of Aristotle led him.

Lydia,

But Locke does says things about contemporary issues (besides the proper relationship between church and state) such as contraception that Catholics like Ferrara would find objectionable. Now whether Ferrara is familiar with them is unclear.

Perseus,
TA was indeed led astray by Aristotle. So, I would agree with Jaffa on the point (and on Lincoln). I consider HJ the best of the Straussians. I guess that makes me a west coaster. But you're right: Enough about him.

Back to Locke, etc. I agree with Locke on a number of points, one of them being his opposition to RC views on sex and contraception, for example. I also like his rejection of scholastic methods. The Renaissance wasn't wasted on Locke. I share his deep reluctance to identify some of the prevailing attitudes, practices, institutions, and beliefs of his and earlier days with authentic Christianity and with Christ. I think he's right to oppose what looks to him like reading later practices and beliefs anachronistically back into the Bible. Of course, agreeing with him in some of the things he opposes isn't exactly the same as agreeing with him in all that he affirms. Infallibility eludes him the way it eludes us all. Well, all but One.

I agree with Locke on a number of points, one of them being his opposition to RC views on sex and contraception, for example.

Just a suspicion: I don't expect there have ever been very many heretics in the world who didn't also oppose Catholic doctrine on sex and marriage. Coincidentally, I am sure.

Michael Liccione, you wrote:

If Ferrara's argument were correct, then the regime established by the U.S. Constitution, and given its public rationale by the Declaration of Independence, would be morally indefensible and therefore illegitimate.

I can't speak for Ferrara, but I would say that a morally defective rationale for establishing a system of government does not make the government itself illegitimate, or absolve Catholics from obedience to it. Clearly the Church assumes the legitimacy of the American government.

So rad-trads like Ferrara are logically impelled to say that the development of Catholic social teaching since at least Pius XII, and especially at Vatican II, is itself mistaken.

I don't find this conclusion necessary at all. The controversy is in the proper understanding of doctrinal "development", which is by definition not UN-development.

Here's what I have in mind, Jeff.

The state either embraces and serves God and His law within the sphere of its competence, or it rejects that obligation, and therefore says, ‘Non serviam’ [as Lucifer said to God, ‘I will not serve.’], which is a theological position.

In context, it is clear that Ferrara would include that state known as "the United States" in the category of states that say non serviam. For according to him all states, by virtue of their premises, take a position either for or against "God and his law," and the United States, as a product of "political modernity," takes the "against" position. So it's not just that the American polity has what you call a "morally defective rationale"—whatever the defect may be, given that what I've called its "public rationale" includes reference to "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Worse, the American polity itself is against God.

Given as much, then how, according to Ferrara, could one say that the American or any other "modern" polity is legitimate, in the sense of 'worthy of our obedience'?


"Just a suspicion: I don't expect there have ever been very many heretics in the world who didn't also oppose Catholic doctrine on sex and marriage."

Heretics historically agree with Rome on many things, just as they disagree with Rome on many others. So?

Given as much, then how, according to Ferrara, could one say that the American or any other "modern" polity is legitimate, in the sense of 'worthy of our obedience'?

Michael, in the first place, let's back up and address the issue Ferrara raises. It won't do to skip the message and go right to attacking the messenger.

Does the modern state serve God and His Law within the sphere of its competence? Or does it in fact reject that obligation? How do you reply?

I answer that Ferrara is absolutely right in that the modern state has renounced its divine purpose and mandate. The state no longer explicitly serves God and His Law, or has any interest at all in the question. For the modern state, conformity to the Divine Law is utterly and completely off the radar. Can you really argue with that?

Granted, however, that Ferrara (as is his custom) is brutally unnuanced about the ways in which our government does serve God's purposes ignorantly, unwillingly, and sometimes even deliberately through magistrates who hold the contrary view. Though the modern state rejects the Divine Law, to a great extent its laws do conform, more or less, to the natural law, and thus far permit Christians to live their faith in relative peace and security. In my view it remains legitimate and deserving of obedience to that extent.

But the modern state still defines itself against the Church and the dreaded "ancien regime", the traditional Christian order which it fears but does not understand. It's the elephant in the living room. Strangely, as the influence of the Church in society grows weaker, the hostility of the state is intensifying. Ferrara's comments do indeed raise the question of legitimacy. It's a question worthy of thought and discussion, preferably sooner rather than later.

I agree with Locke on a number of points, one of them being his opposition to RC views on sex and contraception...

I'm not sure what is meant by 'sex,' but as to contraception, wouldn't that have put Locke out of step with most other Protestants of his time? I thought Protestant tolerance of this deviance didn't get a real foothold until the 20th century.

Except perhaps for Tillich, Bultmann is my least favorite theologian. He's merely an anti-superaturalistic modernist masquerading as a theologian. The best ones are the least philosophical, namely Karl Barth in theology and Oscar Cullmann in exegesis.

My mistake, Michael. I've seen you cite Barth before, and I confused him with Bultmann.

"I agree with Locke on a number of points, one of them being his opposition to RC views on sex and contraception..."

Well, one of the church fathers did say that all heresies begin below the waist.

Rejection of Christian sexual morality is the engine of modernism. The modern state says, in effect, "Give us all your money and in return we'll let you boff whoever you want."

"Well, one of the church fathers did say that all heresies begin below the waist."

Obviously that father was both wrong and given to overstatement. What exactly are the sexual motives behind, say, the mistaken views of Arius and Nestorius?


"Rejection of Christian sexual morality is the engine of modernism."

We're not talking about Locke's rejection of Christian sexual morality. Were talking about his rejection of Catholic sexual morality. There is a distinction.

"Were talking about his rejection of Catholic sexual morality. There is a distinction."

Which is?

Lydia, you wrote:

I don't hold any particular brief for the whole of Locke's political ideas nor for his insistence that we cannot in any case know real essences. But to doubt his Christianity seems to me historically completely wrong.

I haven't studied Locke's theory of knowledge and must bow to my betters here. Did Locke believe that Christianity has an "essence"? If so, did he also believe that the "essence" of the Christian faith could not be known? If so, how is it possible that he was a Christian?

Jeff,
If, as some thinkers believe, essences are a philosopher's fiction, then Christianity doesn't have one. But that doesn't mean that such persons do not have faith in Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world. Within the Christian faith some doctrines are more central than others, or some are peripheral and others are fundamental. That can be true without recourse to essences. If one, for example, affirms the Apostles' Creed, which seems to be a remarkably useful summary of the Faith (a summary adhered to across a wide spectrum of churches), then one might well be called a Christian. Believing in essences is not required.

Rob,
For example, the emphasis on procreation as the main function or purpose of sex, and the prohibition against contraception that is not "natural."

I'm not sure anybody, including Locke's opponents, would have talked about a religion as having an essence. Essences would usually be attributed to beings or types of beings--like the essence of man, the essence of a tree, even the essence of God, or something of that kind.

Michael L and Jeff, it seems to me that in speaking of the US and saying that it would fall in Ferrara's "non serviam" camp, you are applying a very large brush stroke to a very minutely complex picture.

Even if we went back to the picture as it existed in 1789, when the Constitution was written, we would see that the many legislators who helped form it had various attitudes about God and the law. Some of those legislators thought that God was the author of law and of human society, and thought that this truth needed to be incorporated somehow into the law. Others thought contradictory ideas. And still others, while agreeing that God is the author of nature, were indeterminate about the degree to which law must explicitly reflect that. So, when the Constitution was drafted and voted on, the motives and specific intentions of those who crafted it, and the state legislators who mostly approved it, cannot be said as being simply in the "serviam" nor simply in the "non serviam" camps, but a mixture of the two. The end product, being a compromise, was an admixture as well.

The situation is still very complex today. Every law that is passed has a concrete text and many of them have an explicit 'findings' section or other explicit rationale, and they ALL have some implicit rationale. But the rationales for the various legislators who vote for it are not all equally in line with the explicit terms, and are extremely varied as to the implicit rationales. Sometimes, the "non serviam" elements of the legislators have the upper hand, especially in some states. But there are other areas where they tend not to have the upper hand, and even when they pass a law for which some of them have motives that fall in line with a "non serviam" intent, other legislators voting for it have motives in favor of the same law that fall in line with a "serviam" intent, looking to different parts of the expected results.

It is much, much clearer when a judge overturns a law, because his action is that of one man (or, sometimes, a bank of 3 or 9 judges), and they write opinions that make much of their intent explicit. But it is very, very difficult to say of the US government as a whole that, simply, it does not serve God.

I think that we are much better off speaking of the trend, and of the preponderance of the elements that comprise the whole. There, it is entirely clear that overall, the US is much, much farther away from serving God than it was 100 years ago, and much closer to the great examples of evil states of history that we shudder to think of than any Christian should be comfortable with.

I haven't studied Locke's theory of knowledge and must bow to my betters here. Did Locke believe that Christianity has an "essence"? If so, did he also believe that the "essence" of the Christian faith could not be known? If so, how is it possible that he was a Christian?

Locke distinguishes ideas of substances (which Lydia mentioned such as a tree that are derived from sensory experience) from ideas of "mixed modes" such as Christianity or justice (which are constructed):

these essences of the species of mixed modes are not only made by the mind, but made very arbitrarily, made without patterns, or reference to any real existence. Wherein they differ from those of substances, which carry with them the supposition of some real being, from which they are taken, and to which they are conformable. ...For the originals of our mixed modes, we look no further than the mind; which also shows them to he the workmanship of the understanding. Conformable also to what has been said concerning the essences of the species of mixed modes, that they are the creatures of the understanding rather than the works of nature; conformable, I say, to this, we find that their names lead our thoughts to the mind, and no further. When we speak of justice, or gratitude, we frame to ourselves no imagination of anything existing, which we would conceive; but our thoughts terminate in the abstract ideas of those virtues, and look not further; as they do when we speak of a horse, or iron, whose specific ideas we consider not as barely in the mind, but as in things themselves, which afford the original patterns of those ideas. (ECHU, Book III, Chap. 5)

~~For example, the emphasis on procreation as the main function or purpose of sex, and the prohibition against contraception that is not "natural."~~~

But those are not specifically Catholic beliefs; they were almost universally held by the entire Christian church, East and West, until the 20th century.

Tony:

My position on these matters is pretty similar to your own. I just find Ferrara over the top here, as I find him in other areas. Never had much use for him.


Best,
Mike

A friend of mine called my attention to this thread.

Regarding the alleged "Christianity" of John Locke, it is well known that he refused to affirm the Trinity even when confronted on the dogma, denied the traditional teaching on Original Sin and the eternal torments of Hell (and appeared to defend the heresy of annihilationism), limited the revelation of Christ and his Messiahship to a mere development and wider dispersion of the revelation to Moses, undermined if he did not outright deny Christ's divinity as the second Person of the Trinity, which he never once affirmed, denied the Atonement, had no place for sanctifying grace in his rationalist theology, and called into question the very existence of the human soul as the form of man, arguing that consciousness, not a soul as the substantial form of man, is what determines human identity. (Edward Feser has explored the theological and philosophical absurdities resulting from Locke's epistemological undermining of the soul.) His own contemporary Anglican critics (such as Stillingfleet) accused him of deism and Socianism, the latter of which he practically admitted to.

I stand with the great Thomist Cornelio Fabro in declaring (without nuance and my in usual over-the-top manner) that while Locke “claimed to be defending the religion and moral personality of Christ against the critique of the libertarians… he admitted only the rational elements in Christianity, rejecting implicitly but nonetheless categorically the specific and typical elements of Christianity as a historical revealed religion. For this reason Locke is considered one of the Founders of Deism.”

I stand also with the Locke scholar Harvey Mansfield, who observes that Locke “leaves one trail for the skeptical and another for the pious, the latter more plainly marked but leading in circles so that eventually the pious will have to follow the skeptics’ trail if they wish to get anywhere.”

Locke was no orthodox Christian, despite all his pious references to "Our Lord" and "Our Saviour." What Locke thought he was is perhaps another matter. But that is for God to judge.

Christopher A. Ferrara

P.S. This forum hosts some very intelligent people, so I thought it important to defend my position here.

A separate note on the obedience owed to modern political regimes. My off the cuff remarks at Lake Garda did not address the duty of Catholics to obey all duly constituted governments in all things except sin---even the government of Julian the Apostate (as Pope Leo noted in his encyclical on the Ralliement). That includes, obviously, the United States of America (in all things except sin). Catholics, this one included, always obey the lawful and moral commands of duly constituted authorities, even when those same authorities are persecuting them (another point Leo made regarding the Third Republic).

Since Chris has kindly made reference to my own work, let me just second his negative assessment of Locke, which I have defended at length in my book Locke, and, more briefly, in this piece from a few years ago:

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2007/10/are-we-all-lockeans-now.html

Does that mean, Ed, that you agree that Locke was _not a Christian_? Specifically, do you agree with the assessment that Locke was a deist? (You're going to have a hard time making that fly, if so, since deists by definition would have a small problem with the miracle of the resurrection, as with all miracles, while Locke expressly defended the evidences for the resurrection.)

No, though I wouldn't want to be the lawyer defending Locke at his heresy trial.

I feel compelled to put in a word on Locke's behalf here, as I think he is being done an injustice. A theologian he was not; but a confused and mistaken Christian may be a Christian nonetheless.

Regarding the alleged "Christianity" of John Locke, it is well known that he refused to affirm the Trinity even when confronted on the dogma, ...

What Locke declined to do was to get into a discussion of the doctrine. Edward Stillingfleet was intent on painting Locke as a Socinian, a charge that Locke resented. It seems probable that Locke’s own views on the Trinity were definite enough to justify his distancing of himself from the Socinians but not rigorous enough to satisfy a Chalcedonian definition, which invokes metaphysical categories that Locke found problematic.

...denied the traditional teaching on Original Sin and the eternal torments of Hell (and appeared to defend the heresy of annihilationism), ...

Correct: in The Reasonableness of Christianity, Locke interprets Adam's fall as entailing only the loss of immortality. He also defends eventual annihilation of the damned after a period of intense torment, as have a number of Christians past and present.

... limited the revelation of Christ and his Messiahship to a mere development and wider dispersion of the revelation to Moses, ...

It is certainly a rigorous standard that classes a man with the goats rather than the sheep for his views on the extent of the continuity of divine revelation.

... undermined if he did not outright deny Christ's divinity as the second Person of the Trinity, which he never once affirmed, ...

We need to be very careful about such arguments from silence.

... denied the Atonement, ...

Locke denies a particular view of the atonement: that it was a propitiatory sacrifice making satisfaction for God's requirement of the punishment of sinners. His own view of the atonement is broadly of the "moral influence" type defended by Richard Baxter.

... had no place for sanctifying grace in his rationalist theology, ...

It is not clear to me what this charge amounts to. Certainly Locke advocated doctrine of divine assistance. Perhaps we are back to the atonement once again.

... and called into question the very existence of the human soul as the form of man, arguing that consciousness, not a soul as the substantial form of man, is what determines human identity.

Again, unless hylomorphism is to be written into the definition of Christianity, Locke's unwillingness to acquiesce in Aristotelian categories is not a ground for excluding him from the fold.

His own contemporary Anglican critics (such as Stillingfleet) accused him of deism and Socianism, the latter of which he practically admitted to.

That would be Socinianism. He not only did not admit to it (practically or otherwise) but resented the accusation. But it was leveled very freely in those days, not only against those who were suspected of an inadequate form of Trinitarianism but also against those -- and this was the gravamen of John Edwards's attack on Locke -- who did not hold to a strictly Calvinist view of the atonement.

I stand with the great Thomist Cornelio Fabro in declaring (without nuance and my in usual over-the-top manner) that while Locke “claimed to be defending the religion and moral personality of Christ against the critique of the libertarians… he admitted only the rational elements in Christianity, rejecting implicitly but nonetheless categorically the specific and typical elements of Christianity as a historical revealed religion. For this reason Locke is considered one of the Founders of Deism.”

If taken in the most straightforward fashion, this accusation is demonstrably false. I am not sure how one can reject something “implicitly but nonetheless categorically.” But when it comes to many things that a Protestant would call specific and typical elements of Christianity as a historical revealed religion – the miracles of Jesus, his Messiahship, his death, burial, and bodily resurrection and the remission of sins for those who confess him as Lord and believe that God has raised him from the dead – Locke not only did not reject them but categorically and explicitly defended them.

The attempt to tar Locke with the brush of deism because John Toland adopted Locke’s “new way of ideas” has been considered and adequately refuted in Samuel Hefelbower, The Relation of Locke to English Deism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1918).

Locke was no orthodox Christian, despite all his pious references to "Our Lord" and "Our Saviour." What Locke thought he was is perhaps another matter. But that is for God to judge.

He was certainly not an orthodox Reformation Protestant. But I wonder to what extent it is helpful or fair to accuse a man who confessed with his mouth Jesus as Lord and believed in his heart that God had raised him from the dead of being no Christian. That, as you say, is for God to judge.

True, Locke was not a deist simpliciter, as I am at pains to note further on in the book. Fabro classes him as one of the founders of deism (in the sense of a development toward it) and others speak of his "Christian deism." Locke's theology was indubitably a major stop on the road from traditional Christianity to Providential Deism. It is entirely fair to say that a man is no Christian who will not affirm the divinity of Christ, the Antonement or the Trinity. Locke does not get to create his own version of Christianity and then demand that the title Christian be given him by history.

And Locke resented many charges that were fairly leveled against him. Further, his claim that he had never read Racovian writings before Reasonableness is very probably false (as was his claim to have had no involvement in the Rye House Plot, which we now know was a prevarication, thanks to the work of Ashcraft and others).

Like all modernists, Locke was quite indignant about being accused of saying what he in fact had said or clearly implied, and quite skilled at affirming what he denied and denying what he affirmed. I quite agree with Thomas Pangle that while Spinoza is credited with initiating “higher criticism” of the Bible in the Theologico-Political Treatise, wherein he treats the Bible as “a poorly integrated assemblage of writings penned by diverse, prephilosophic or prescientific authors… shaped by widely differing circumstances,” whose literal words present nothing more than “a product of the imagination, inadequately controlled by reason," Locke also “dissects the Bible—revealing what he regards as the absurdity and inhumanity of its authentic teaching while showing the way to a new ‘reasonable’ reading… in the service of a new, reasonable conception of nature’s God.” Thus, Pangle concludes, “the First Treatise is Locke’s ‘Theologico-Political Treatise.’”

Only a very low and very new standard of Christianity can allow one to claim that Locke was a Christian. A standard so low that even a defender admits that Locke was not even an orthodox Reformation Protestant!

But I didn't come here to start huge fights with all you good and very smart people. So I will take my leave. Thanks for listening. And I hope I have shown that there is at least a bit more nuance to my arguments than might have been apparent from what I have said or written about certain subjects in more casual settings. And I take to heart Jeff Culbreath's comments about polemical style. I am, really, trying to mellow!

A man may decline to enter into a polemical discussion of the Trinity simply because he knows that his own views, though sufficient to distinguish him from the followers of Fausto Sozzini, will not satisfy his antagonist.

Whether the charges leveled against Locke were just or unjust is, in no small measure, what is in dispute here. I have indicated the extent to which I think it is just to characterize Locke's views as unorthodox. But Pangle's comparison of Locke and Spinoza is, in my view, an irresponsible slander.

Ashcraft's attempt to implicate Locke in the Rye House Plot and the insurrection of Monmouth is not compelling. See Philip Milton, "John Locke and the Rye House Plot," The Historical Journal 43 (2000): 647-68.

I am, really, trying to mellow!

LOL. That much is in evidence.

You make a strong case. Thanks for defending your views here.

A very similar case might be built against C. S. Lewis, whose discussion of the atonement in Mere Christianity leaves question of which theory is the right one very much open and whose analogies for the Trinity fall far short of -- and in some cases seem to contradict -- an orthodox understanding of that doctrine.

If Lewis does not count as a Christian, then we have a problem.

I will just say here that I have a great deal of distaste for that species of the history of ideas that can endorse a phrase like "Christian deist"--a contradiction in terms if ever there were one. Such an oxymoron, presented as a serious historical insight, reeks of an attempt to tar an historical figure with an ideological brush with which he cannot possibly be tarred while at the same time covering one's exit when this obvious logical and historical fact is pointed out. To my mind, such an approach to the history of ideas (an all too common approach, I might add) attempts to make a virtue out of guilt by association arguments and vague references to "trends" in people's thought. If one cannot come up with an actual _argument_ that something actually follows from what a person said, one should be a great deal less eager to characterize the historical figure as, essentially, a fake, a liar, and a major bad guy on the grounds that his ideas "could lead to" x or y or z. You, Jeff, know that I am consistent about this opposition and even was willing to annoy Zippy, for whom I have enormous respect, when he made very strong claims about the supposed contemporary political implications of the views of the founders of America. But even he did not imply so much personal deceptiveness on the part of the Founders as Dr. Ferrara has implied about Locke.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.