by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The word “social” has never been used as much as it is today. It has also never been so much abused.
This phenomenon is typical of epochs in crises: that is, to use and abuse words that express grand and august concepts by distorting them and even glorifying them with the myths, phobias and confusing, feverish yearnings of an agitated society.
An example of this is the word “liberty” and how it was used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Our Lord is, par excellence, the Liberator. It was He who broke the fetters of sin and death and gave man superabundant resources to free himself from the tyranny of the devil and man’s own disorderly passions. “The truth shall make you free,” He said (John 8:32).
He is the Truth, the fountain of true liberty and He said it quite clearly: “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6) . Nonetheless, liberalism, which had hypnotized the minds of that time, blared the word “liberty” in every direction, perverting its true meaning. It was no longer used to designate the sovereign liberty of Truth and Goodness triumphant over error and evil; rather, it permitted error and evil the same “rights,” allowing them to arbitrarily insult, persecute, depreciate and calumniate that which is true and good.
This gave rise to a veritable torrent of error and even crimes thus provoke by “liberalism.” “Liberty, liberty, how many crimes are committed in your name,” exclaimed the liberal Madame Roland.
In his encyclical “Libertas” published in 1888, Leo XIII distinguished the true Christian liberty from the false revolutionary liberty with extraordinary clarity. This pontifical teaching served to enlighten and guide innumerable persons. Nonetheless, it did not manage to prevent the multitudes of today from having an idea of liberty that is either exclusively revolutionary or else a deplorable mixture of revolutionary elements with some glimmers of the Christian conception. In this syncretism, only the Revolution stands to gain. Such is the power of error and evil in times of crisis.
* * *
Indeed, such is error’s power. And because of this, today the word “social” has been as twisted, distorted and perverted as the word “liberty” was in former times. A sad proof of this is the tumult storming around the term “socialization.” They use this term to try to demonstrate that the fundamentally anti-socialist encyclical “Mater et Magistra” could be a bridge erected over the abyss that separates Catholic doctrine from socialistic doctrine.
The word “social” is also often applied in terms of “social justice.” This term is given much prestige, canonized even by frequent quotes from pontifical documents. However, God grant that soon it will not be said of this “social justice” what was said of liberty: “What crimes are committed in your name!”
* * *
Social … society. Is there anything more sacred and augustly social than the family? Is not the family the foundation of society? However, the more demagogy exploits the word “social,” the more the various legitimate meanings of this word are obliterated. Much of the good context of the word is being lost as it undergoes a lamentable metamorphosis. A characteristic example of this is the plight of the family in face of this new “social” spirit. The idea that the family is the foundation of society is taking on a secondary importance as it is destroyed and fragmented. Yet, this is occurring amidst the complete indifference of our “social” demagogueries.
Such are our thoughts reading the frequent advertisements in French newspapers of castles that are being sold. In our picture, for example, we have reproduced ads from a well-known Paris magazine of real estate agencies that are offering these beautiful castles to any buyer.
And while it is less grievous when buildings like these pass from the historical family hands to those who at least preserve its distinct residential character, it is not rare tor these illustrious mansions to completely lose their original distinctiveness, being transformed in structure or some other way.
* * *
From afar, we sense the furious blow of the egalitarian spirit making this affirmation: “And what is wrong with this? Should the noble families, who often fell though their own fault, be sheltered from modern-day conditions of life that oblige a constant displacement from the home―both in the country and the large cities?”
Yet this is exactly what is wrong. The instability of contemporary families in their homes is a reflex of the instability of the conditions of family life as an institution. And every institution that lives in an unstable environment is heading toward its own ruin. Such instability is more visible when dealing with the prestigious homes of illustrious families, if, indeed, it affected only these more prestigious families, it would still constitute a danger for the whole social body. The fact that this instability occurs not only in some families but in all families does not prove that there is nothing wrong. Rather, it proves that there is something immensely wrong.
And this concerns the institution that is the very foundation of society …!
* * *
Is there anything more “social” to safeguard than the family? So much is spoken today about fundamental reforms. But who among those ardent reformers seriously talks about the real reform of society’s foundation, which is the family? What kind of “social” reform does not see the crisis of the family and the futility of all the measures designed to save society when its very foundation is being undermined?
But, someone might perhaps say, does not urban reform strive to give a home to every family who has none?
Family and property are related institutions. They are the two eves of the human face. To strike one is to afflict the other. To help the family by declaring that the state has the right to confiscate property is the same as piercing one of the eyes or a cross-eyed man in order to remedy the tact that his two eyes do not focus properly.
And what actually happens to the family? Is each family going to receive a house? A family can only properly assume that name when the couple is bonded in matrimony. But our legislation assists authentic families as well as those living together in concubinage.
Who is ingenious enough to imagine that this is an urban reform?
* * *
Thus we have the proof of the grave deformation of the meaning of the term “social” by today’s reigning social demagogy.
They only like the word “social” when it can serve to advance class struggle. It is true that when the foundation is unstable, the building falls. But what does this matter to demagogy? Or, rather, isn’t this exactly what it wants?
Ambience Customs & Civilization “Catolicismo” no. 149 ― May 1963
{ 0 comments }
