The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc
Belloc offers his view of the transitions that occurred in the
west after the Reformation and the modern heresy that followed – the heresy
that we, in fact, are currently living through. It will be my last post
on this book.
The Transition
In the aftermath of the Reformation, men of Europe would come to
regard religion as a secondary thing; at the same time, the dissolution of the
Catholic position in Europe would unleash energies that Catholicism restrained
– especially in competition and commerce.
Both Catholic and Protestant cultures advanced in physical
sciences and colonization, but the Protestant cultures were more vigorous:
To take one example: in the Protestant culture (save where it
was remote and simple) the free peasant, protected by ancient customs,
declined. He died out because the old customs which supported him against
the rich were broken up.
The rights (protected by custom) that the peasant previously
held in property were lost, leaving such men without substance in difficult
times. I have examined before the position of the serf in the Middle Ages
(and, more broadly, the classical liberalism of the time); in many
ways, the serf of the time enjoyed more rights in his property and life than do
the “free” men of the west today.
But the great, the chief, example of what was happening through
the break-up of the old Catholic European unity, was the rise of banking.
Usury was practiced everywhere, but in the Catholic culture it
was restricted by law and practiced with difficulty. In the Protestant
culture it became a matter of course.
Belloc identifies the merchants of Holland and England as
introducing the practices of “modern banking.”
I am certainly no expert on the history of modern banking,
however I do believe the concepts of fractional-reserve banking and central
banks were legitimized and institutionalized in these two Protestant countries
(along with Sweden, also a Protestant country). While I do not want to
put words in Belloc’s mouth, it seems possible that when he speaks of “usury”
and modern banking, what he means is this idea of charging interest on air.
[In an attempt to gain some understanding of this topic of usury
in the traditional Catholic view, I read several examinations online using a
search on the terms: usury Catholic tradition. I found absolute
statements against the practice, statements of conditional acceptance,
different practices at different times driven by expanding foreign trade,
etc. So…this is why I concluded the last sentence in the preceding
paragraph – I just don’t know what else Belloc could have meant given the
context in which he makes this statement.]
Confidence was on the Protestant side, and waning on the
Catholic. The Protestant countries had superiority in financial, military
and naval power. This was drastically exaggerated with the establishment
of the Protestant America.
Italy, Spain, and Portugal in decline; England, Germany (led by
Prussian Protestants) and America on the rise; France, confused and in constant
turmoil after the Revolution.
The Tide Turns
Belloc sees the tide turning against this Protestant wave at
around the turn of the last century (“somewhere between 1885 and 1904”;
coincidentally – or not – the start of the Progressive era). Not toward
re-establishment of the Catholic Church, but in terms of the breakdown of ideas
that gave the Protestant culture its strength.
Protestantism was being strangled at its root, at its spiritual
root; therefore the material fruits of that tree were beginning to wither.
Belloc identifies two causes. The first, perhaps less
important, was a certain level of confidence reappearing in at least some
nations of Catholic Europe – specifically in the wealthier classes of these
nations. More important was the decline of the Protestant culture from
within, “the great internal weakness of the Protestant culture as opposed to
the Catholic.”
Lacking a better name, Belloc labels this period “the Modern
Phase.” The general cause of this Protestant breakdown he describes as
“auto-toxic” – meaning, an organism which is beginning to poison itself.
What are the particular causes of this breakdown? Belloc
offers first: the breakdown of the Bible as a supreme authority; historical and
scientific research have shaken this foundational belief – as it must if man is
left with nothing but his rational thinking (limited, as it must be, when
trying to understand God and His creation).
A second cause, economic:
Protestantism had produced free competition permitting usury and
destroying the old safeguards of the small man’s property – the guild and the
village association.
Belloc describes “modern industrialism in its capitalistic form”
and “modern banking” as “becoming master of the community” and, ultimately,
breeding “vast social evils.”
Regarding the idea of “free competition” as it relates to usury
and banking, given my assumption that he is addressing central banking and
fractional reserves, his complaint is not about “free” competition in any
meaningful sense – although the view of where (in which countries) these
practices were first granted legitimacy by government is valid.
Third, internal quarrels; most notably, the British against the
German (Prussian):
That was what one would have expected from a system at once
based upon competition and flattering human pride.
Finally, a lack of a plan:
The Protestant culture, having begun by exaggerating the power
of human reason, was ending by abandoning human reason.
How has the Protestant culture abandoned reason? I will
come to this shortly.
And with this, Belloc comes to 1914 and the Great War.
Everything about the old order “came down with a crash.” Then began a
period of political experiments; the most disastrous political experiments
known to man.
The Modern Phase
The enemy which the Faith now has to meet, and which may be
called “The Modern Attack,” is a wholesale assault upon the fundamentals of the
Faith – upon the very existence of the Faith. And the enemy now advancing
against us is increasingly conscious of the fact that there can be no question
of neutrality.
The intent is to destroy everything left of the culture and
tradition of the Catholic Church. Of course, the true Church cannot be
destroyed; but what remains and what influence it holds is in question.
To those Christians who hold no sympathy for the Catholic Church, Belloc
suggests that “the struggle appears as a coming or present attack on what they
call ‘Christianity.’”
Whatever the foundation of your faith (even if you hold nothing
that can be called Christian faith), this attack cannot be denied.
Whatever the foundation for your faith, the result is the same:
…there is a clear issue now joined between the retention of
Catholic morals, tradition and authority on the one side, and the active effort
to destroy them on the other.
You need not be Catholic, or more broadly “Christian” to see
this. We are living daily as witness to the destruction of traditional
morals; we are told to praise these or be outcast from acceptable (and by
certain corners of libertarian) society. Today’s society worships
these.
Yet, if it is true that the freedoms that those in the west have
enjoyed were built on a foundation of these morals and traditions, what does
the destruction of these same morals and traditions portend for this freedom?
Do you think that those actively promoting this destruction,
under whatever label they choose, are working for your freedom (whether you are
red, yellow, black, white or any color of the rainbow)? Think again.
Belloc describes the characteristics of this moral attack.
First, it is materialistic. Consider the use of this term in Belloc’s
context. When he describes usury, he speaks of modern banking. I
believe libertarians and Austrians recognize the moral corruption that modern
banking facilitates.
Second, it is superstitious; it has abandoned reason. I
have struggled with his meaning, but as he explains it, it seems to me he is
describing the philosophies of Cultural Marxism and post-modernists (neither of
which had any concrete form at the time of his writing). These have taken
root in the west; these both have abandoned reason – if reason is defined as
considering man’s natural realities.
Belloc sees communism as a manifestation of this modern attack,
although he describes this as “probably a passing one.”
Ultimately, of course, it is the fruit of the original break-up
of Christendom at the Reformation. It began in denial of a central
authority. It has ended by telling man that he is sufficient to himself,
and it has set up everywhere great idols to be worshipped as gods.
I am certain that the term “central authority” sticks in the
craw of many readers, certainly when used in the context above. To
rephrase his statement: the destruction of this “central authority” (The
Church) has led to this modern attack, of which communism (a different central
authority) is but one manifestation.
I will suggest, consider custom, culture and tradition as the
“central authority” that was replaced – take out the idea of “The Church” and
see if this works any better for you. Because until someone convinces me
(heck, even makes an argument) that nothing is necessary to govern and
organize society, something will govern and organize society. I
will vote for custom and tradition.
It isn’t just in communism where Belloc sees this manifestation;
it also exists in many of the nations and organizations that oppose
communism. He describes the fruits of this manifestation: first, the
return of slavery. In communism it is full slavery; in the west, he is
willing to call it half-slavery.
Regarding the half-slavery of the west: he describes this as the
state of the masses, now deprived of property and left with nothing but the
possibility of wages, being dependent on the state to enforce conditions of
security and sufficiency – call it welfare, social security, the social safety
net, a livable wage, a basic income guarantee, unearned tax credits,
whatever.
Yet the more the state steps in to do this, the more the people
become slaves.
If it be continued for, say, three generations, it will become
so thoroughly established as a social habit and frame of mind that there may be
no escape from it….
Second, Belloc sees the moral fruit of this manifestation,
undermining “every form of restraint imposed by human experience acting through
tradition.”
Note that regarding this “moral fruit,” Belloc does not lean on
pronouncements from a “central authority” in any political sense. He
speaks of the lessons learned through dozens of generations and thousands of
years: “human experience acting through tradition.”
…human society cannot co-exist with anarchy; new restraints and
new customs will arise.
Let go of the Rothbardian definition of anarchism, as this is
not what Belloc is referring to. Imagine a society with no customs,
norms, or traditions. You cannot, as it cannot exist. Something
will fill the void, something not refined by experience but created from whole
cloth; something man made, in a political environment where the worst get on
top.
Belloc sees cruelty as the chief form of this moral
degeneration: “men are not shocked by cruelty, but indifferent to it.”
Finally, Belloc describes the degeneration of human reason; reason is replaced
with “reiterated affirmation.” Call it political correctness; call it the
bastardized terms of “diversity,” “tolerance,” “social justice,” and
“inclusiveness.”
Conclusion
I think Belloc has pretty-well summed up the current state of
the west. He saw this coming, eighty years ago.