Many on the Right reject Christianity because they believe it to be antithetical to excellence and glory.
Having been told that it is the slave morality which tames man and drains him of his vitality - which Nietzsche terms “the victory of tschandala values” - they have been convinced that Christ drags us down into homogenous yeast, in which no one can rise above the other, there can be no great victories, no glorious quests, no honored elites, no devastating acts of beauty.
They have been told that Christianity is the enemy of everything that is higher and greater.
A reader wrote in about his turmoil with this issue:
I've been reading your Substack for a while now. Really enjoy your work and appreciate your perspective, particularly on the tension between Christianity and the secular right.
On that subject, I was raised atheist and have always viewed myself as agnostic, but lately have been exploring Christianity following some relevant events in my life.
I wouldn't consider myself a believer at this time, but I'm reading the Bible and trying to learn more about Christianity in general. One thing I struggle with a lot is how to interpret the idea of pride as a sin, and how to square that with my own beliefs.
To the extent that I have any view currently that I believe in with genuine fervor, I believe in human excellence - great art, feats of engineering, exploration and so on. I believe that these are largely what justify human existence and give meaning to life, and I try (poorly, it goes without saying) to live my own life based on this principle.
There seems to me clearly an element of pride in this - pride in "humanity" generally, and pride in my own personal attempts at excellence. And yet it's also the case that most human achievements that I consider to meet a standard of excellence or greatness were accomplished by Christians, often quite serious ones. I am interested in sources that explore this seeming contradiction and the correct interpretation of the sin of pride in this context, and was wondering if you have any recommendations, or thoughts of your own on the matter.
An excellent subject for discussion!
As with so many other fundamental aspects of the faith, the meaning of essential terms - like pride - has become obscured, and these terms are now commonly understood in degraded, imprecise, and fundamentally false forms. Modern man receives these terms through osmosis from a culture that has lost its contact with truth and rigor. But these words have meanings, and an incredibly rich history of philosophy and theology to rediscover.
The sin of pride is not ‘the pursuit of excellence’, or of beauty, majesty, greatness, honor, or magnificence. In fact - as we shall see - many of these are explicit virtues that Christian men must strive to perfect.
The sin of pride is a rejection of the truth. It means believing and proclaiming yourself to be more than you are.
Pride is an inordinate love of one’s own inflated sense of superiority, a love of one’s own worth, an exaggerated assessment of one’s talents, or attribution to oneself of talents that one doesn’t have… St. Robert Bellarmine tells us, “Pride is a sin because a man reckons that he is more than he really is, thus, he wishes to be put ahead of others and cannot suffer one to be higher than him or equal to him.”
— Fr. Dennis Kolinski, The Four Types of Pride
Note that the above definition accepts that one man can be higher than another.
Let us seek absolute theological precision. Where better to turn than to The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas?
Aquinas teaches that the term pride can be understood in two ways. One is a sin, one is a good.
Pride (superbia) may be understood in two ways. First, as overpassing (supergreditur) the rule of reason, and in this sense we say that it is a sin. Secondly, it may simply denominate "super-abundance"; in which sense any super-abundant thing may be called pride: and it is thus that God promises pride as significant of super-abundant good. Hence a gloss of Jerome on the same passage (Isaiah 61:6) says that "there is a good and an evil pride"; or "a sinful pride which God resists, and a pride that denotes the glory which He bestows."
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Secunda Secundæ, Q. 162: Pride
Pride the sin means rejecting the truth in order to overestimate what you are. Pride the good means a truthful recognition of the glory that God gives - including what excellence He bestows upon you personally. As we shall see, it is a terrible sin to reject and refuse to honor His gifts.
Pope St. Gregory the Great lists four types of pride:
(a) thinking that you are the source of your own excellence;
(b) thinking that your gifts come from God but are a result of your efforts;
(c) presuming a self-importance that is unwarranted;
(d) despising other people while at the same time claiming that your gifts belong to you alone.— Fr. Dennis Kolinski, The Four Types of Pride
The sin of pride is the sin of larping and of masturbation. Contrary to the false belief that one must be prideful to be truly right-wing and excellent, the sin of pride undermines a core aspect of the Right: the acceptance of hierarchy and one’s place in it.
It instead centers the the flattery of the self. It is a denial of the glory of the Divine, the Transcendent, the Truth, the Eternal; supplanting it with the mundane and squalid ‘individual’ and their need for reassurance and affirmation. It is a promotion of lies and falsehoods. It is no accident that ‘Pride’ has become the banner of the Left.
This recognition of the source of our gifts makes our excellence more glorious still, by directly linking it with the Divine.
But we are called to be humble. Doesn’t this mean that we must desperately seek to be poor and downtrodden?
No. While pride is an instance on falsehood, humility is an acceptance of the truth - including when that truth is glorious - received in a posture of gratitude, acceptance, and submission to God.
St. Bernard defines it: "A virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself." These definitions coincide with that given by St. Thomas: "The virtue of humility", he says, "Consists in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one's superior".
— New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: Humility
Note that this realism is distinct from false humility. “No one should esteem less in himself than in others these gifts of God which are to be valued above all things according to the words of St. Paul: "That we may know the things that are given us from God.”
We should not falsely pretend that we have not been given particular excellences from God. We should not pretend to be lower than we are.
Sometimes, however, [an attempt at humility] may be ill-done, for instance when man, "not understanding his honor, compares himself to senseless beasts, and becomes like to them" (Psalm 48:13).
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Secunda Secundæ, Q. 161: Humility
Likewise we should not publicly abase ourselves in exercises of virtue signaling - especially if we hold public offices or positions of nobility.
Since the moral virtues are guided by prudence, we should not perform public acts of abasement inconsistent with our office, as in doing so we would commit an act of imprudence and give occasion for scandal and confusion, shaking the faith of others.
Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, Humility, Magnanimity and Magnificence
Does the instruction to avoid reaching out to ‘things that are above one’ mean that we should avoid striving for greatness? No. Where reason dictates that we are appropriately situated to do so, it is our duty to pursue great things. This is the virtue of magnanimity.
Humility restrains the appetite from aiming at great things against right reason: while magnanimity urges the mind to great things in accord with right reason.
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Secunda Secundæ, Q. 161: Humility
What is magnanimity?
Magnanimity by its very name denotes stretching forth of the mind to great things… a man is said to be magnanimous chiefly because he is minded to do some great act.
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Secunda Secundæ, Q. 129: Magnanimity
Yes! Christians must stretch forth their minds to do great things. Indeed, the truly magnanimous man “does not busy himself with all kinds of works, but only with great works, such as are becoming to him.”
There is in man something great which he possesses through the gift of God; and something defective which accrues to him through the weakness of nature. Accordingly magnanimity makes a man deem himself worthy of great things in consideration of the gifts he holds from God: thus if his soul is endowed with great virtue, magnanimity makes him tend to perfect works of virtue; and the same is to be said of the use of any other good, such as science or external fortune.
Thus, to be truly virtuous, the greatest men must deem themselves worthy of the greatest things. Indeed, it is our holy duty to accept our gifts and to strive for their perfection, including where that rightfully manifests as us taking up our role as leaders and kings.
The sinful mirror of the virtue of magnanimity is ‘pusillanimity’ - littleness of soul.
Pusillanimity and magnanimity differ as greatness and littleness of soul, as their very names denote. Now great and little are opposites.
For just as the magnanimous man tends to great things out of greatness of soul, so the pusillanimous man shrinks from great things out of littleness of soul.
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Secunda Secundæ, Q. 133: Pusillanimity
Yes - it is a sin to shy from the greatness of which you are capable. This is not humility but smallness of spirit.
…it is possible for a man, by reason of the virtue which he has, to be worthy of doing certain great things that are worthy of great honor, and yet through not trying to make use of his virtue, he sins sometimes venially, sometimes mortally.
Critics of Christianity may contend that in these passages ‘greatness’ must only refer to obviously Christian acts like quiet prayer. A profound prayer life is essential! But this is not all that greatness refers to. Here I turn to the virtue of magnificence.
While magnanimity is greatness of soul, magnificence is greatness of action in the material world.
It belongs to magnificence to do (facere) something great, as its name implies (magnificence = magna facere - i.e. to make great things).
…"magnificence is the discussing and administering of great and lofty undertakings, with a certain broad and noble purpose of mind, discussion" referring to the inward intention, and "administration" to the outward accomplishment.
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, Secunda Secundæ, Q. 134: Magnificence
Naturally, all truly great works are ultimately undertaken for the glory of God.
The intention of magnificence is the production of a great work. Now works done by men are directed to an end: and no end of human works is so great as the honor of God: wherefore magnificence does a great work especially in reference to the Divine honor.
But God can be glorified in many ways, including the production of glorious events and objects.
Wherefore the magnificent man does not intend principally to be lavish towards himself, not that he does not seek his own good, but because to do so is not something great. Yet if anything regarding himself admits of greatness, the magnificent man accomplishes it magnificently: for instance, things that are done once, such as a wedding, or the like; or things that are of a lasting nature; thus it belongs to a magnificent man to provide himself with a suitable dwelling…
Magnificent acts often require great expenditures of wealth. But this is a good thing! Great acts naturally require great resources, and if we were unwilling to make this investment, it would be a sign of avarice.
Now for the doing of a great work, proportionate expenditure is necessary, for great works cannot be produced without great expenditure. Hence it belongs to magnificence to spend much in order that some great work may be accomplished in becoming manner. Wherefore the Philosopher [Aristotle] says that "a magnificent man will produce a more magnificent work with equal," i.e. proportionate, "expenditure." Now expenditure is the outlay of a sum of money; and a man may be hindered from making that outlay if he love money too much.
Finally, to illustrate these virtues, let us turn to the Saint King, Louis IX of France.
Louis IX - canonized a saint by the Church - ruled from 1226 to 1270. He consolidated the monarchy, brought medieval France to the zenith of its cultural and economic prosperity, and led the Seventh and Eighth Crusades in the Holy Lands.
A skilled knight and widely honored monarch throughout Europe, he was a deeply pious man. As a boy, he was famously told by his mother Blanche of Castile that she would rather he lay dead at her feet than that he commit a single mortal sin.
His piety was no mere pretense, frequently bringing him into conflict with others in his court. An amusing exchange with his wife is recorded:
An ardent and pious Christian, she made no claims to being a saint and undoubtedly found her husband's ascetic habits something of a trial. For example, Robert of Sorbon tells a story of Marguerite's struggle to make her husband wear more elegant and ostentatious clothes. Finally Louis tired of her complaints and deftly turned the tables on her. He asked the queen if it would please her if he wore luxurious garments and she agreed quickly and wholeheartedly. The king said that he must consent, as the law of marriage urges a man to seek to please his wife, but in exchange she should conform to his wish that she wear the most humble robes. At this suggestion the queen became unaccountably deaf, and the matter was quickly dropped.
— Margaret Wade Labarge, Saint Louis: Louis IX, most Christian King of France
In private, he lived a life similar to that of a monk, wearing plain robes and hair shirts, even having himself scourged - whipped until he bled as penance for his sins.
But he conducted his public office as he knew its honor demanded. His works and his affairs were magnificent.
The king's palace on the Ile-de-la-Cité was the seat and symbol of royal power in the realm. The overpowering impression it made on contemporary men is expressed by Guy of Bazoches… he told how the royal palace towered to lofty heights and audaciously overlooked the roofs of the whole city.
“This is that house, the glory of the Franks,
whose praises the eternal centuries will sing.
This is that house which holds in its power
Gaul mighty in war, Flanders magnificent in wealth.
This is that house whose sceptre the Burgundian,
Whose mandate the Norman,
and whose arms the Briton fears.”
Perhaps the greatest artistic work of his reign is the Sainte Chapelle. Regarded by Spengler as a magnum opus of Faustian architecture, all possible walls - the boundaries of the space - have been replaced by light streaming in from the heavens, and the building’s supports strive desperately upwards.
I could write several essays on the greatness and glory of Saint Louis - the ‘Most Christian King’ - but here I will leave you with the chant of his crusaders.
What a Faustian song. Volume up.
This chant puts me into a trance. It is impossible to listen to just once. If I play it, I know I will listen dozens of times in a row.
If I ever organize an event, I will insist that all attendees must learn the song beforehand, and we will sing it in a mighty mass.
Note that he does not ask his men to fight for his glory - but for the glory of God. And, friends, that is also how we must fight.
As always, if you enjoyed this essay, please consider supporting this project by leaving a like or upgrading to paid.
All revenue goes towards supporting my family, and is truly appreciated.
Sic transit imperium,
Johann
The English language has been flattened over time and we no longer have words to describe the various colors. We once had the word hubris to describe the sin of overweening pride and could clearly understand the distinctions. We are called to rightly judge ourselves and others. The right motivation of greatness is service to God and to our fellow; not ourselves.
Luk 22:25 So Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’
Luk 22:26 Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves.
Luk 22:27 For who is greater, the one who is seated at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is seated at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.