Quaestiones Disputatae I: On Christian Citizenship December 1, 2023 by ~mmagueta

This is the first article in a series of disputes I have with my friends every month or so. This time, it is a argument that I heard from a priest, so we decided to investigate it. This time we did not have all the time of the world to develop it fully, but I believe we reached a good draft for the first session.

Proposed Argument

• Every good citizen pays their taxes;
• Every good christian ought to be a good citizen;
• Therefore,
• every good christian ought to pay their taxes.

Dispute

Discerning the good citizen and citizenship

First, we discern the term good citizen, since it is used as a term to bridge the duty of a good citizen. By the Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, C. I-V, the philosopher describes the good in terms of ends bound to the nature of a subject and proven by an infinite recursion:

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good.

Further, in the same book, C. VII-VIII describes goods achieved by action and which ends can be said to be final ends, demonstrating the most desirible good:

[…] Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.

And he afirms a man is born for citizenship when discoursing on the highest good, which in Greek becomes eudaimonia:

From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents, children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens, since man is born for citizenship

Finally, with good determined to be derived by the nature of something, and the highest good being is to be aligned in perfection to its final cause. A good knife is that which performs its function with perfection, to cut, although it may be used imperfectly to scrape (not unique end, in the example).

A good citizen then, needs to be perform the citizenship of the polis he belongs with perfection, whatever it may be, an afluent polis that values wealth will require from its community some contribution that fulfils the goal of wealth.

Disagreement on premise II

The broad premise claims that it is part of the christian duty, to be a good citizen. Since being a good citizen is a multivariate term, we have an incongruence between terms when we recognize that a citizen is a predicate of citizenship, which in turn, we have decided the good to be in aligned in terms of the polis civic virtues.

The objection then, is that it seems that out of a christian, it is demanded to contribute to the end of a polis that is incongruent with the end of being a christian, which is a contradiction.

Debate

It seems that there might be confusion between the institution that promotes governance over a polis, and the polis. To which we have to discern the collaborative action that is implied by paying taxes, which we propose to go under the definition of material contribution to the end of the polis, being a civic virtue such hypothetical polis. Contributing to the polis directly, could be different from contributing to the institution, such as a polis governed by robbers who subtract the money destined to charity and donating to charity directly. In either situation, the object of study (that is, either the institution or the polis) need to be compatible, since the cases that are not aligned with the conclusion (duty to contribute) is right or wrong, creates the corollary for the inverse, which is the hypothetical nature of a corrupt institution with a good polis. It does not go in proof however, of donating to a good institution to a corrupt polis, which is another topic to be observed (reference §1).

Agreed.

Can a christian retaliate in self defense a defensive war against such institution? If not, it is up to the christian to accept, even in case of abuse, authority of the duty to contribute.

The minimum necessary to evade the abuse, agreed, to retaliate is no longer a defensive action, as sustained by Saint Antonino of Florence and canon law (X. 5. 12. 18) with the definition of proportionality with the moderation of an irreproachable defense (moderamen inculpatae tutelae)¹

Further, defense of property is secondary to personal defense, for that is one of the duties of a man. Therefore, so long as the defense is proportional and diminishes or extinguishes the harm to the defender on protecting property, it is justifiable to also to engage into action.

The debate now seems to require some an analysis under the light of casuistry; and since we are interested into general rules, we may halt here. On reference §1 however, the same as above applies, since if it is not optional to contribute to a corrupt polis, then self defense can be invoked for property, and casustry applies to the specific context of loss (material and immaterial); and in the case of being optional, it is trivial.

Refinement

After the discussion, we settled with the following refinement:

1. Every good citizen contributes to their polis;
2. Christianity demands certain civic virtues;
3. Every good christian ought to be a certain type of good citizen;²
4. A christian ought to contribute to the polis that has compatible civic virtues with Christianity