The “anarchist“ streak in Henry David Thoreau
“I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right. (…) Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.“
Henry David Thoreau, Resistance to Civil Government
Henry David Thoreau, born as the son of a pencil maker on the 12th July 1817 in Concord, Massachusetts, was a strange man. When he had just finished his studies at Harvard University, he began working as a teacher at a public school in Canton, Massachusetts, yet after just a couple of months resigned from his position in refusal of administering corporal punishment to his students.
Some years later, in July 1845, he decided to undertake an experiment in simple living in a small house around the shores of Walden Pond, which he had built on land belonging to his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose children he had been tutoring. He stayed there for two years, living all by himself, and captured the experience in his most famous work Walden, or Life in the Woods.
In his well known essay from 1849, Resistance to Civil Governments, also published under the title of On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, Thoreau presents a skeptical view of governments, strongly arguing like a good old classical liberal that the government‘s realm of power and regulation should be very limited. He contrasts positive law with morality and virtue, as in the passage quoted above, and vigorously takes a stand for the rights of the individual to refuse overbearing demands of the state, and even for his duty to, at times, openly oppose them. The backdrop of his essay is his opposition to America‘s war with Mexico and to the practice of slavery, which manifested itself in a denial to pay taxes.
When it comes to asserting the necessity and potential benefit or harm of governments, Thoreau utters an almost “anarchist“ position:
“I heartily accept the motto, – ‘That government is best which governs least;‘ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, – ‘That government is best which governs not at all;‘ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.“
Henry David Thoreau, Resistance to Civil Government
“(…) this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.“
“Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.“
“I am not responsible for the successful workings of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer.“
“If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations.“
“The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to, – for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well, – is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. (…) Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and indepedent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose, if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men.“
The “anarchist“ streak in the Christian worldview and traditional Catholic social teaching
Thoreau‘s voice is part of the long standing tradition of a self-confident American liberalism present from the very labor pains of the nation up until today. His skepticism concerning governments and his advocacy for the individual and for personal responsibility is in harmony with the idea in Catholic social teaching that “subsidiarity“ is an irrevocable principle of a just society – an idea, which Pope Pius XI in the year 1931, as the totalitarian ideologies of both Soviet Communism and National Socialism were on the rise, explicated for our modern age in his encyclical Quadragesimo anno.
“It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.“
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo anno
And this is what the present-day Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1992 has to say concerning the relationship between the individual, society, and the state:
“(…) Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.‘“
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1883, 1885, 1902, 1903
“The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. (…)“
“Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a ‘moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility‘: ‘A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.‘ (Saint Thomas Aquinas).“
“Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, ‘authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.‘“
Thoreau‘s thoughts and the notions of the tradition of Catholic social teaching align in their view that the individual and the free familial, social, cultural, and religious bonds and associations of individuals are both ontologically and normatively superior to “the state“, which lends all its legitimate authority from their consent and willingness to submit themselves to the state in specific, well defined and well limited areas for the sake of justice being done, for the sake of upholding a just law and order for all. That consists mainly in protecting the imperatives of the “natural law“, thereby protecting the integrity of the individual and of his natural, original, and freely chosen communities.
Were the state to overstretch his sphere of legitimate action and involvement in people‘s lives, or were it to pass laws violating the imperatives of natural or divine law, opposing the direction of the virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, his authority would cease to be a justifiable one, just like no good man by the power of his conscience must and not even ever should consider lending his own resources to enhancing the goals of a vicious fellow man, who is either a man of evil intent, or of willful ignorance concerning the subject-matter of what is right, good, and desirable for men to strive for and to materialize by their laws, actions, and habits on this earth, within their communities.
Surely, it is advisable to always give both our fellow men and the ones who govern and rule over us with the executive apparatus and its arms “the benefit of the doubt“ and rather assume, that they are of good will, than deem them full of vice and ignorance. But we should not be naive either, and should not allow that sweet is called sour and sour is called sweet, that good is called evil and evil is called good. Or that the state turns from its original task and purpose of securing and administering justice to enforcing injustice behind our backs, but in the name of some “higher good“. Both the Soviet Communists and the Nazis did exactly that. When Henry David Thoreau saw the federal state of America demanding things that were contradicting what he, in his personal conscience, found to be just, he refused to obey. Such things are delicate matters, for sure. No one says it is easy to know when and where to draw the line…
But one thing we can state: There is and always will be a certain dose of “anarchism“ in a truly Christian perspective on the world. Obedience to Christ as the King above and before all else is always relativizing the authority and power of any earthly “king“ or “kingdom“. A truly Christian worldview considers things sacred which are neither produced and given by “the state“, a purely human enterprise, nor can ever be legitimately (or even “effectively“) violated, destroyed, abolished, taken away by it. They are sacred because they are of divine origin and order.
“The family is more sacred than the state.“
Pope Pius XI
And the biblical lens for humans living together is neither the isolated – “irresponsible“ – individual, the lone wolf who has to answer to nothing and no-one, nor the overbearing, monstrous “Leviathan“ of the state, who deprives the individual subject from both the need and the freedom to answer to the world around him, but the family, be it the natural biological one, or the supernatural one of the community of brothers and sisters bound together in Christ, open to all men for the salvation of their bodies and souls.
In 1925, it was also Pope Pius XI who instituted the liturgical feast day of “Christ the King“. It is celebrated every year on the last Sunday before All Saints‘ Day. By assigning a special feast to the very ancient and biblical notion of Christ as King of the whole universe, as King of all nations, as “the King of kings“, Pope Pius XI sought to remind Christians of their loyalty and allegiance to the one true heavenly King above – and when push comes to shove “against“ – all earthly supremacies.
The Church, after all, was born at a time when its message, when the good news of Christ, sharply clashed with the ideology and social order of the imperial authorities of Rome. To proclaim “Jesus is Lord – not Caesar“ was treason.
Why Saint Thomas More was executed
And to hold on to the belief that “Jesus is Lord – not Henry XIII“ was treason in the days of a man called Sir Thomas More.
England‘s king Henry XIII wanted to see his marital union with Catherine of Aragon dissolved and annulled. The Pope did not agree. The king then declared himself as the supreme head of the Church of England, thus separating it from union with the Church of Rome, cutting it off from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The bishops of England were asked to swear the “oath of supremacy“, an oath approving the supreme authority of king Henry XIII as both the worldly and the spiritual ruler of England. Most bishops obeyed, fearing for their lives, de facto denying the Catholic faith.
When these events took place in the year 1532, Sir Thomas More resigned from his position as lord chancellor out of loyalty to the Catholic Church, which to him was the one and narrow path of loyalty to Jesus Christ Himself. He, a strong defender of the traditional faith and opponent of the various Protestant upheavals stirred up by Luther, Zwingli and others across Europe, had been serving the king since the year 1517, but was not willing to serve him any longer now due to these anti-Catholic endeavours.
In 1534, Sir Thomas More was asked to swear the very same oath of acknowledging Henry XIII‘s worldly and spiritual supremacy which had been demanded of the bishops before. He refused, was put into jail, and, alongside the steadfast Bishop John Fisher, executed by the scaffold on the 6th July 1535. The Catholic Church venerates him as a saintly martyr.
“Comfort in tribulation can be secured only on the sure ground of faith holding as true the words of Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church.“
Saint Thomas More
“If you live in a time that no man will give you good counsel, nor any man give you good example, you will see virtue punished and vice rewarded, but you must stand fast. You must firmly stick to God, upon pain of your life.“
“I do not care very much what men say of me, provided that God approves of me.“
“I am the king‘s good servant, but God‘s first.“
The prophet Daniel, and the decree of king Darius
“So these supervisors and satraps went in to the king as a group and said to him, ‘King Darius, live forever! All the supervisors of the realm, the magistrates and satraps, ministers and governors, have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce a decree that anyone who prays to any god or man for 30 days other than you O king, will be cast into the lions‘ den. Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it may not be altered, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.‘ Thereupon King Darius issued the written decree.
Daniel 6: 7-17
Now when Daniel learned that a written decree had been issued, he went into his house, where the windows in his upper room opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he knelt down, prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he did before.
Then these men came as a group and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. So they approached the king and spoke to him about the royal decree: ‘Didn‘t you issue a written decree that anyone who prays to any god or man for 30 days – except for you, O king – shall be cast into the den of lions?‘
The king replied, ‘The decree stands, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.‘ Then they answered and said to the king: ‘Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree that you put in writing. He still prays three times a day!‘
When the king heard this report, he was deeply distressed, and he set his mind on how he might rescue Daniel. Until sunset he struggled to find a way to save him. Then these men came as a throng in to the king, and said to the king: ‘Remember, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no decree or edict which the king issues may be altered.‘ So the king gave the order and Daniel was brought and thrown into the lions‘ den. Now the king spoke to Daniel saying, ‘May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!‘“
Out of sheer envy, the satraps of king Darius manipulate him into issuing a decree that will send Daniel before the hungry mouths of lions, and presumably into the arms of death. Envy born of the fact that “this Daniel was distinguishing himself among the supervisors and satraps because he had an extraordinary spirit in him“, and that “the king planned to appoint him over the entire kingdom“ (Daniel 6: 4). Without success they try to “find ground for a charge against Daniel“, but “they were unable to find fault or corruption, because he was trustworthy and no negligence or dishonesty could be found in him“ (Daniel 6: 5). Daniel is a blameless man.
The group of his envious opponents cannot bring him down in accordance with any just law. They have no other choice but to push king Darius into issuing an edict that is decreed injustice, so that they may finally find a charge against this righteous man. In systems of injustice, righteous people are punished for their righteous deeds, while the habitual practice of vices are the government’s recommendation to all.
By all natural and divine law, no king in this world can ever rightfully forbid men to give thanks and praises to the one true God, their Creator, to worship Him “in spirit and truth“ (John 4: 23). King Darius, in this case a mere puppet on the strings of people working for their own interests behind the scenes, is clearly overstepping the rightful confines of his authority and competence in full-blown tyrant style – but when you are the king of the most powerful empire in the world, who cares, and whom do you have to fear if you can make everyone fear you?
Daniel, who has been serving king Darius and other kings before him in loyalty, knows that the principle of “let every person submit himself to the governing authorities“ (Romans 13: 1), of which one reads in the epistle written by Saint Paul the Apostle to the ancient Church of Rome, does not apply here. Because it does never apply, wherever and whenever man-made law opposes the laws and demands of the one true God, who is the rightful owner of every human body and soul.
Daniel‘s unwavering steadfastness is inspiring. He does not “compromise“ in any shape or form. Because in such matters, there is no rightful compromise. When a king wants to implement a “no-contact“ provision concerning your God (and even other men, by the way – forbidding people to petition anyone but the king himself), the only righteous path to walk upon is to keep living with God just like you did before, to keep praying three times a day at your open window toward Jerusalem just like you used to, not buckling even one inch, and going to the lions‘ den for it, if necessary, as you count on the deliverance of your God “whom you serve continually“ (Daniel 6: 17).
Daniel is not a rebel, just like Saint Thomas More wasn‘t one. But in times of injustice, wherever, whenever, there is a case to be made for “civil disobedience“… It might in fact be one necessary link in the chain of events that need to take place for restoring justice in the land.
“The king spoke out to Daniel saying: ‘Daniel, servant of the living God, was your God, whom you serve continually, able to rescue you from the lions?‘ Daniel spoke to the king: ‘May the king live forever! My God sent His angel to shut the lions‘ mouths so that they haven‘t harmed me, because I was found innocent before Him. Nor have I committed any crime against you, O king!‘
Daniel 6: 21-28
Then the king was overjoyed, and ordered Daniel taken up out of the den. So Daniel was lifted out of the pit. No injury of any kind was found on him because he had trusted in his God. At the king‘s command, those men who had maliciously accused Daniel were brought and thrown into the lion‘s den – they, their children, and their wives. They had not even reached the bottom of the pit before the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones.
Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages dwelling in all the earth:
‘May your peace be abundant! I issue a decree that in all the dominion of my kingdom people are to tremble with fear before the God of Daniel. For He is the living God, enduring forever! His kingdom will never be destroyed, His dominion will never end. He delivers and rescues. He performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on earth. He has delivered Daniel from the power of the lions!‘“
