Socratic loyalty

The project of saving one’s country from tyranny and decadence can fail.  The project of saving the Church from bad prelates and heretics cannot fail.

"The Death of Socrates" (1787) by Jacques-Louis David (Wikipedia)

Socrates was so critical of his country that he was put to death by it.  Yet he could have escaped execution had he wanted to.  The reason he did not, as he famously explained in Plato’s Crito, was out of loyalty to the country of which he was so critical, and which willed to destroy him.  I don’t think that Socrates’ example is, in this case, one that we are bound to follow; Aristotle did no wrong in fleeing, lest Athens sin twice against philosophy.  All the same, that example is worth pondering for contemporary conservatives tempted to oikophobia by the sorry state of the West, and for Catholics tempted by the sorry state of the Church’s human element to depart from her, or to refuse due submission to the Roman Pontiff. 

The argument of the Crito

Socrates’ argument, in brief, is that one’s country is like one’s father or mother, so that to deny its authority over one would be like denying the authority of one’s parents.  Now, to flee Athens so as to avoid execution would, Socrates continues, be tantamount to denying its authority.  Hence, he concludes, it would be wrong for him to flee.  However unjust, his execution was in his view something he had to suffer out of a kind of filial loyalty.

Naturally, one might object to this argument in several ways.  But one objection that I think has no force is the claim that Socrates is being inconsistent.  In Plato’s Apology, Socrates had, of course, refused to submit to the command that he cease philosophizing.  Continuing to philosophize was, he argued, required by obedience to a higher law than that of Athens.  Because of this, it is often suggested that there is a tension between the views presented in the two dialogues.  (This has come to be known as “the ApologyCrito problem.”)  But the parental analogy shows, in my view, why there is no genuine inconsistency here.

Suppose you are a minor and your father commands you to do something immoral – to steal a bottle of whiskey from the supermarket, or to bully other children, or whatever.  You ought to disobey those particular unjust commands.  But that doesn’t entail that he is no longer your father or that you can in general deny his authority over you.  He is still owed the minimal respect that any father is owed.  He still possesses the general authority over you that a father has over a child, and still ought to be obeyed when his commands are lawful.  And you may have to suffer unjust punishments for your refusal to obey particular unjust commands.  For example, if he grounds you for a week for refusing to steal, you’ll just have to grin and bear it until you reach adulthood and are no longer under his authority.

Obviously there are going to be extreme cases (such as those involving sexual or extreme physical abuse) where a parent ought to lose custody of a child.  I put those cases aside for present purposes, and focus just on the less extreme sort of case, in order to understand Socrates’ argument.  The general principle he is appealing to, it seems to me, is that in the case of parental authority, it is possible for a child to have a right to refuse obedience to a specific unjust command while still having no right to deny a parent’s general authority over one.  And he argues for a parallel to his relationship to Athens.  He is saying that even though he has a right and indeed a duty to disobey certain specific commands (such as the command to cease philosophizing), it does not follow that he has a right to reject the city’s general parental-like authority over him (as, he thinks, he would be doing if he fled the city in order to avoid execution).  Hence there is no inconsistency between the positions he takes in the Apology and the Crito.

That doesn’t by itself guarantee that the argument is, at the end of the day, correct.  One might still challenge the assumption that the city is relevantly like a parent.  Or one can accept this assumption, but then argue that the injustice in the case of Socrates’ execution is so grave that the city is acting like an extremely abusive parent, who ought to lose “custody” of Socrates (so that he can justly flee).  My point is just that I don’t think the charge that Socrates is being inconsistent is a good objection.

Now, in fact Socrates is also on strong ground in comparing one’s country to one’s parents.  Modern readers, who tend to think of politics in terms of the individualist “social contract” model inherited from Hobbes and Locke, are bound to find this odd.  But from the point of view of classical political philosophy, for which human beings are by nature social animals, the family is the model for social life in general and parental authority the model for political authority.  Hence, for Aquinas (and indeed for Catholic social teaching more generally) patriotism and a general respect for public authorities are moral duties falling under the fourth commandment.

Suffering for one’s country

The weakness in Socrates’ argument is rather that he takes it too far.  Again, even in the case of literal parents, it is possible for them to lose their authority over a child when the abuse is sufficiently egregious.  And the analogy between one’s country and one’s parents is in any event not an exact one, insofar as one’s duties to one’s country are weaker than those to one’s parents.  Hence the threat of unjust execution would in fact justify Socrates in fleeing the city.

All the same, there is a nobility in Socrates’ decision, and if he goes too far in one direction, it is also possible to go too far in the other direction.  What Socrates gets right, I would argue, is that there is at least a presumption in favor of being willing to suffer injustice from one’s country for the sake of one’s country.  And this flows from a filial love and duty that is at least analogous to the love and duty one owes one’s parents.  The presumption can be overridden when injustice has too deeply permeated the basic institutions of one’s country.  But the presumption is nevertheless there, and we are duty-bound to be careful lest we judge too hastily that it has been overridden.

The “Don’t tread on me” spirit of traditional American thinking about political matters can blind us to this presumption.  I’m not entirely knocking that spirit; I largely share it myself, and it has its salutary aspects insofar as Americans are sometimes less inclined than others are to go along with idiotic and immoral governmental policies (like open-ended lockdowns, for example).

But at least in the view of some observers, some right-wingers have judged that “wokeness” has so thoroughly corrupted our country and civilization that they no longer merit our loyalty.  And in my view this is a rash and irresponsible judgment.  That is by no means to deny the danger of wokeness, which I regard as a satanic menace that cannot be compromised with.  Wokeness delenda est.  But it is, to say the least, premature to judge that this menace will win the day, as is manifest from the revulsion that its excesses have generated in the electorate.

Twenty-five years ago, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’s First Things magazine generated a fierce intra-conservative controversy by raising the question of whether the principles governing the American judicial system might at some point become so contrary to the natural law that citizens will no longer owe it their allegiance.  This is an even more serious question today than it was then, and the debate merits re-reading.  All the same, it is premature now, as it was then, to judge that we have reached the dreaded point of no return.  We clearly have not – as is obvious from the fact that we still have the freedom to discuss the matter.

Our forebears literally shed their own blood to save their country from tyranny.  It would be the most contemptible softness and “sunshine patriotism” to think that (say) getting kicked off Twitter, or being required to wear a mask – obnoxious as these things are – mark the End of Democracy and absolve us from any further loyalty to our country and its institutions.  Yes, wokeness is a monster.  So we should work to save our country from it, rather than retreating into a fantasyland of crackpot conspiracy theories and political fanaticism and sympathy with the West’s enemies.

Suffering for the Church

Loyalty to country is not absolute, but loyalty to the Church must be, because unlike one’s country, she is divinely protected from total corruption.  The project of saving one’s country from tyranny and decadence can fail.  The project of saving the Church from bad prelates and heretics cannot fail.  To despair of such salvation – to fret that the problems remain unresolved after ten or fifty or a hundred years – is to sin against the virtues of faith and hope, which demand of us that we take the long view.

But it is also a sin against charity.  It is a shallow love which endures only to the extent that the beloved remains attractive.  Caritas demands more.  As St. Paul wrote, “perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.  But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:7-8).  Similarly, we must love and pray for our own enemies, and not just our friends and families.  How much more must we love the Church, even when her human element is dominated by immoral and faithless men?  Indeed, especially then, since this is when the Church most needs us?  How much more must we love and uphold the foundation of the Church, the papacy, even when (and again, especially when) the office is held by someone who fails to do his duty?  And yet there are those Catholics whose personal disappointments lead them to abandon the Church, and those who strain to find fanciful rationalizations for refusing submission to Christ’s vicar.

This is not to deny for a moment that there can be legitimate respectful criticism of the Church’s authorities, including the pope, as the Church has always recognized.  But if such criticism does not have the desired effect, then the only option is patient forbearance rather than picking up one’s marbles and stomping off.  As the instruction Donum Veritatis teaches:

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial.  It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

We find here too a parallel with Socrates, who simultaneously criticized the governing authorities while refusing to subvert their authority, even to the point of submitting to unjust punishment.  But the more apposite parallel is to Christ.  As Socrates rebuked Crito, so too Christ rebuked Peter, who similarly, and wrongly, urged him not to put up with the injustice that the authorities of his day sought to inflict on him: “Get behind me, Satan!  You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Matthew 16:23).

(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Dr. Feser’s blog in a slightly different form and is reprinted here with the author’s kind permission.)

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Dr. Edward Feser 47 Articles
Edward Feser is the author of several books on philosophy and morality, including All One in Christ: A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory (Ignatius Press, August 2022), and Five Proofs of the Existence of God and is co-author of By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, both also published by Ignatius Press.


  1. #1. The Catholic Church is divinely ordained. The political entity named “country” is not. Therein lies the difference.

    #2. When it comes to what is referred to as “country” one must first define what is meant by the term. I would aver that two elements are necessary: an entity characterized by shared values and, secondly, an entity organized and governed by a system of just laws. When these two are abrogated, a “country” to which one owes filial allegiance no longer exists. Let’s not make the mistake that country is defined solely by the geographical space it occupies. Ukraine and so many other geographical entities were once part of the country we once knew as the USSR. Then came the late 20th c. when peoples believed that they were no longer bound by laws which were unjust and their values were distinctly different. Hence, the USSR disintegrated. Putin is now forcibly attempting to deny that reality.

    • May I suggest that country/nations are divinely ordered consistent within the Created Order though subordinate to the Patriarchy of God. Granted that this is not, IMHO, one of Dr Feser’s better articles but I have not gone to his blog to appreciate how he has address questions and challenges. As written the article is ripe for abuse mostly for what objective Truths it does not share, probably in the name of efficiencies (time & space) as well as the attention span of most readers.

      In the traditions of my forefathers, Poland existed as a country in the hope, minds and souls of her people irrespective of the political boundaries and political systems imposed upon her. No different than the tradition on my state, Texas, being subordinate to this country, subordinate to God in accordance with the His principal of subsidiary, Love God only after which one can love their neighbor as they love themselves. From the bottom up we love ourselves as we charitably love those that are the nearest and dearest to us after which the division of neighbor becomes more nebulous with distance and familiarity. My love for a person whether Edward Feser or Deacon Edward Peitler or Father Peter Morello or a Biden/Pelosi/Cortez or Frederich Nietzsche how ever charitable is limited by my specific appreciation and knowledge of each.

      Charitable even gracious love of stewardship is realized by hoping and praying for this increasingly outside our span of influence (increase size of political structure) whereas within our span of influence our stewardship is more tangible. By the divinely orchestrated principal of subsidiary, we have a definition of neighbor within each those boundary.

      PS Upon graduation from college, I found “greener pastures” at a corporation in Central IL, after 37-years in Central IL, I could not wait until I could put the political entity of IL in my review mirror. Perhaps I differ from Socrates one;y because by staying Socrates believed with his stature and span of influence that he could and would make a difference whereas I had neither when dismissed after 37-years.

  2. To the modern liberal-to-leftist their truths are subjectively true except for the One Truth that is objectively false, thus the predominance of atheism, the only, last and prevailing superstition of the moderns.

  3. Socrates, great as he was, also believed if men knew the truth they would follow it. He basically attributed evil to ignorance. Willful evil is our issue outside and within the Church.
    It’s “premature to judge that this menace [Wokism] will win the day. Loyalty to country is not absolute, but loyalty to the Church must be” (Feser).
    Feser holds the reason for this loyalty is that the Church will never be totally corrupted. He’s correct insofar as the Mystical Body, understood as Christ’s presence in the world, will not be entirely corrupted. That is, however, insofar as the Mystical Body remains, which suggests at least a remnant of the faithful. Corruption then, hypothetically can reach virtual universal proportions within the Church. We recall it’s Christ, not the Church, who will win the day against Satan and his proxy the Antichrist.
    Feser’s bottom line [literally] is that we remain loyal to the Church come hell or highwater. That, as he observed, doesn’t require we remain loyal to the disparate errors that may abound, as they seem at present otherwise he would not have written this essay. Absolutely correct.
    I would add the following: Legitimate, well placed criticism is actually not simply permissible. It’s a necessary witness to the truth. Especially when hierarchy are wanting, when bishops who are ordained as defenders of the faith do not defend the faith. The role of the faithful presbyter, and Laity, as such come to fore. And not least Deacons.
    Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, who Gregory of Naziansus called a pillar of the Church, began his witness as a deacon, against Arius and his supporter Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople at the Council of Nicaea 325. Athanasius 328 became Patriarch of Alexandria. Athanasius’ battle against then Dark forces would just begin, harassed and persecuted by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and three Roman emperors including Julian the Apostate. Athanasius Contra Mundum is our worthy model during our own moment of darkness with hierarchy who would be emperor.

    • Always a pleasure to read your commentaries. You noted that “Socrates, great as he was, also believed if men knew the truth they would follow it. He basically attributed evil to ignorance.” In one sense the original proponents (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) of Reason Alone based upon Natural Law defined the attributes of God though they were not blessed with Reveal Law of Scripture that St Thomas enjoyed. I have read that the pursuit of the objective true leads to God so in a that sense our call to “reason together” was facilitated by this threesome (their call to reason) as a proof of the metaphysical principal of Reason that ultimately rationally rejects the irrationality of evil and sin. IMHO, St Thomas was brilliant for leveraging the efforts of this threesome, in particular the Philosopher.

      To your second point, the willfully ignorant, “the wolves in shepherd’s clothing” are scattering their flocks (promoting simple ignorance” to the surrounding wolves. The recent publishing of “Beheading Hydra” introduces the means employed by the atheists to assure like the gold coin they are so lost they have no idea how lost they are or lost sheep that hear only the “wolves in shepherd’s clothing” and the prodigal son educated that there is no Father scanning the horizon in anticipation that his son will return home.

    • Is there not some remaining distinction between the pope and the papacy? Otherwise papolatry?

      St. John Henry Cardinal Newman spent some ink on this conundrum. Among his varied citations and remarks, he held that “unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it.”

      But, then, he also points to one Cardinal Jacobatius in his work on Councils: “If it were doubtful,” he says, “whether a precept (of the Pope) be a sin or not, we must determine thus: that if he to whom the precept is addressed has a conscientious sense that it is a sin and injustice, first it is duty to put off that sense; but, if he cannot, nor conform himself to the judgment of the Pope, in that case it is his duty to follow his own private conscience, and patiently to bear it, if the Pope punishes him” (Blehl, The Essential Newman”, 1963; from the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk).

      In any event, the above clues address only “injunctions” and “precepts” of the pope, and not ambiguities on doctrinal and moral matters of the Magisterium. As for such doctrinal matters, your mention of Arianism is instructive and timely. The issue in A.D. 325 was the unity—fully divine and fully human–of the Person of Jesus Christ; as we approach the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea in A.D. 2025, the inseparable issue is that of the unity—soul and body—of the Human Person, as in the coherence of faith with reason and morals. With Ecclesiastes (1:9), ain’t much new under the sun…

      And, in any case, at least, St. John Paul II (somewhere) counseled that robust debate, respectfully done, is more a sign of solidarity than evidence of its absence…
      When—in the absence of any stated reason—Cardinal Muller (as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith) was instructed to fire three of his priest employees, he did so, but he also publicly remarked (reported on CWR) that this kind of summary behavior from Pope Francis was inconsistent with that same solidarity.

  4. I would go along with the admittedly at least subjectively evil Protestant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in this case.

    The fact is that accepting an unjust punishment is something like a sign that you agree with it. Civil “disobedience” is much clearer.

    However, it appears that Socrates was concerned with contempt of the civil authority. The article points out that “disobeying” some command that is inherently wrong causes a person in authority to lose it subject to the scope of the issue.

    As an anecdote, it appears that the Founders of the United States didn’t draw a distinction between a criminal individual and a criminal government. That a government can be criminal shouldn’t be doubted. The question is what can morally occur after this has been determined.

    My understanding is that if a person is sentenced to death he may attempt to escape. It might even be the case that he could escape even if he knew he was guilty.

    One can consider the circumstances surrounding the burning at the stake of the woman in the motion picture Camelot (1967). The executioner attempts to set fire to the wood even in the absence of explicit approval from the king. In this case, justice being attempted despite a lack of formal approval. On the other hand, the woman is violently rescued by a man along with his friends.

  5. Stay with the Church regardless of disagreements and be respectful. I agree.

    Where else can we receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist? Where else can we receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

    But, should we attend the Sacraments offered by women priests should some group of Cardinals say it is OK? If allowed in one country, but not mine, why would I think of
    leaving? I’ll stay with the Parrish that adheres to time honored limits.

  6. To take your own Life, in order to proof your Loyalety to a corrupt State, who is Hellbent to kill you, is a cope out, and a refusal to fight Evil and Corruption, in your Country, either from the inside or the outside.!! It is also a betrayal
    off the Freedom Fighter’s fighting against Tyranny, from the in and outside.!!
    United we stand – Devited we fail and fall.!!

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Socratic loyalty – Via Nova Media
  2. The death of Socrates and bad Catholic prelates - JP2 Catholic Radio

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.