Protestantism operates in the  spirit of its founder, Martin Luther: Protestantism’s influence in the world  reflects Luther’s influence.  What was  Luther’s character?  What was the nature  of his revolt?  Jacques Maritain provides  us here with a sketch of both.  He goes on to demonstrate one of the profound  consequences of his influence—the exalting of individuality at the expense of  the person.
      Visitors to this website may be  bemused at certain views expressed in recent articles: for example, the claim  in The Pinching of Protestantism, “Protestantism is an evil  thing: it has—it has always had—evil effects”; or that  in Atheism’s Great Cosmogenic Myth, “Protestantism is not,  contrary to belief, a religion, but a turning away from God under a guise of  religion”.  Maritain  demonstrates here the effects, in the moral order, of Protestantism’s  influence.  This parallels the descent in  the philosophical order from a true doctrine of causality to a bland  materialism documented in the earlier articles.
      
        What first impresses us in  Luther’s character is egocentrism: something much subtler, much deeper, and  much more serious, than egoism; a metaphysical egoism.  Luther’s self becomes practically the centre  of gravity of everything, especially in the spiritual order… The Reformation  unbridled the human self in the spiritual and religious order, as the  Renaissance… unbridled the human self in the order of natural and sensible  activities.
        After Luther decided to  refuse obedience to the Pope and break with the communion of the Church, his  self is henceforth supreme, despite his interior agonies which increased until  the end.  Every ‘external’ rule, every  ‘heteronomy’, as Kant said, becomes then an intolerable insult to his  ‘Christian liberty’.
        “I do not admit,” he writes  in June 1522, “that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the  angels.  He who does not receive my  doctrine cannot be saved.”  “Luther’s  self,” wrote Moehler, “was in his opinion the centre round which all humanity  should gravitate; he made himself the universal man in whom all should find  their model.  Let us make no bones about  it, he put himself in the place of Jesus Christ.”
        As we have already noticed,  Luther’s doctrine is itself only a universalisation of his self, a projection  of his self into the world of eternal truths.   From this point of view what distinguishes the father of Protestantism  from the other great heresiarchs is that they started first from a doctrinal  error, from a false doctrinal view; whatever their psychological origins may  have been, the cause of their heresies is a deviation of the intelligence, and  their own fortunes only count insofar as they conditioned that deviation.  It is quite different with Luther.  What counts is his life, his history.  Doctrine comes as an extra.  Lutheranism is not a system worked out by  Luther; it is the overflow of Luther’s individuality…
        If you are looking for the  translation of this egocentrism into dogma, you will find it in some of the  most noticeable characteristics of the Lutheran theology.  What is the Lutheran dogma of the certainty  of salvation but the transference to the human individual and his subjective  state of that absolute assurance in the divine promises which was formerly the  privilege of the Church and her mission.   Because God was her centre, the Catholic soul needed to know nothing  with perfect certainty except the mysteries of the faith, and that God is love  and is merciful… But without perfect certainty of her state of grace the  heretical soul could not exist without breaking for agony, because she has  become the centre and seeks her salvation in the justice with which she covers  herself, not in the abyss of the mercies of Another, who made her.
        Why does the doctrine of  salvation absorb all the Lutheran theology, if it be not because the human self  has become in actual fact the chief preoccupation of that theology?  For Luther, one question towers above all the  rest: to escape the judicial wrath of the Almighty in spite of the invincible  concupiscence which poisons our nature.   The truth is that if it is essentially important that we should save  ourselves, it is less to escape the devil than to see the face of God, and less  to save our own being from the fire than from love of Him whom we love more  than ourselves… Lutheran theology is for the creature; that is why it aims  above all at the practical end to be attained.   Luther, who drives charity away and keeps servile fear… makes the  science of divine things revolve round human corruption.
          …
          And thus in the person of  Luther and in his doctrine, we are present—and that on the level of the spirit  and religious life—at the Advent of the Self… Luther’s case shows us precisely  one of the problems against which modern man beats in vain.  It is the problem of individualism and personality…
        See with what religious pomp  the modern world has proclaimed the sacred rights of the individual, and what a  price it has paid for that proclamation.   Yet was there ever a time when the individual was more completely ruled  by the great anonymous powers of the State, of Money, of Opinion?  What then is the mystery?
        There is no mystery in it.  It is simply that the modern world confounds  two things which ancient wisdom had distinguished.  It confounds individuality and personality.
        What does [Catholic] philosophy tell  us?  It tells us that the person is ‘a  complete individual substance, intellectual in nature and master of its  actions’, sui juris, autonomous, in the authentic sense of the  word.  And so the word person is  reserved for substances which possess that divine thing, the spirit, and are in  consequence, each by itself, a world above the whole bodily order, a spiritual  and moral world which strictly speaking, is not a part of this universe,  and whose secret is hidden even from the natural perception of the angels.  The word person is reserved for  substances which, choosing their end, are capable of themselves deciding on the  means, and of introducing series of new events into the universe by their  liberty; for substances which can say after their kind, fiat, and it is  so.  And what makes their dignity, what  makes their personality, is just exactly the subsistence of the spiritual and  immortal soul and its supreme independence in regard to all fleeting imagery  and all the machinery of sensible phenomena.   And St Thomas teaches that the word person signifies the noblest and  highest thing in all nature: “Persona significat id quod est perfectissimum in  tota natura.”
        The word individual, on the  contrary, is common to man and beast, to plant, microbe, and atom.  And, whilst personality rests on the  subsistence of the human soul (a subsistence independent of the body and  communicated to the body which is sustained in being by the very subsistence of  the soul), Thomist philosophy tells us that individuality as such is based on  the peculiar needs of matter, the principle of individuation because it  is the principle of division, because it requires to occupy a position and have  a quantity, by which that which is here will differ from what is there.  So that insofar as we are individuals we are  only a fragment of matter, a part of this universe, distinct, no doubt, but a  part, a point of that immense network of forces and influences, physical and  cosmic, vegetative and animal, ethnic, atavistic, hereditary, economic and  historic, to whose laws we are subject.   As individuals, we are subject to the stars.  As persons, we rule them.
        What is modern  individualism?  A misunderstanding, a  blunder; the exaltation of individuality camouflaged as personality, and the  corresponding degradation of true personality.
        In the social order, the modern city  sacrifices the person to the individual; it gives universal  suffrage, equal rights, liberty of opinion, to the individual, and  delivers the person, isolated, naked, with no social framework to  support and protect it, to all the devouring powers which threaten the soul’s  life, to the pitiless actions and reactions of conflicting interests and  appetites, to the infinite demands of matter to manufacture and use.
          …
          On the contrary, according to the  principles of St Thomas, it is because he is first an individual of a species  that man, having need of the help of his fellows to perfect his specific  activity, is consequently an individual of the city, a member of  society.  And on this count he is  subordinated to the good of his city as to the good of the whole, the common  good which as such is more divine and therefore better deserving the  love of each than his very own life.  But  if it is a question of the destiny which belongs to a man as a person,  the relation is inverse, and it is the human city which is subordinate to his  destiny... the city exists for him, to wit, for the advancement of the moral  and spiritual life and the heaping up of divine goods; for that is the very end  of personality; and it is only by virtue of this that the city has its common  good.  Thus Christianity maintains and  reinforces the moral framework and the hierarchies of the city, it has not  denounced slavery as of itself contrary to the natural law.  But it calls slave and master alike to the  same supernatural destiny and the same communion of saints.  It makes every soul in a state of grace the  dwelling of the living God; it teaches us that unjust laws are no laws, and  that the Prince’s command must be disobeyed when it is contrary to God’s  command.  It bases law and juridical  relations not on the free will of individuals, but on justice towards persons…
          …
          In the spiritual order the distinction  between individuality and personality is no less necessary.  Fr Garrigou-Lagrange has shown its bearing  admirably:
  “Man will be fully a person, a per  se subsistens and a per se operans, only insofar as the life of  reason and liberty dominates that of the senses and passions in him; otherwise  he will remain like the animal, a simple individual, the slave of events and  circumstances, always led by something else, incapable of guiding himself; he  will be only a part, without being able to aspire to be a whole…
  “To develop one’s individuality is to  live the egoistical life of the passions, to make oneself the centre of  everything, and end finally by being the slave of a thousand passing goods  which bring us a wretched momentary joy.
  “Personality, on the contrary,  increases as the soul rises above the sensible world and by intelligence and  will binds itself more closely to what makes the life of the spirit.
  “The philosophers have caught sight of  it, but the saints expecially have understood, that the full development of our  poor personality consists in losing it in some way in that of God, who alone  posesses personality in the perfect sense of the word, for He alone is  absolutely independent in His being and action.”
          …
          [D]id the saints set out to “develop  their personality”?  They found it  without seeking, because they did not seek it but God alone.  They understood that their person, just insofar  as it was a person, insofar as it was free, was complete dependence on God, and  that the inner control over our acts, which we cannot resign before man or  angel, they must deliver into the hands of God, by whose Spirit they must be  moved in order to be His sons…
        Such is the secret of our life as men  which the poor modern world does not know: we gain our soul only if we lose it;  a total death is needed before we can find ourselves.  And when we are utterly stripped, lost, torn  out of ourselves, then all is ours who are Christ’s, and Christ himself and God  himself is our good.
        Luther’s history, like that of  Jean-Jacques [Rousseau], is a wonderful illustration of this doctrine.  He did not free human personality, he led it  astray.  What he did was free the  material individuality… the animal man.   Cannot we see it in his own life?   As he gets older, his energy becomes less and less a soul’s energy, and  more and more the energy of a temperament.   Driven by great desires and vehement longings which fed on instinct and  feeling, not on intelligence; possessed by the passions, loosing the tempest  around him, breaking every obstacle and all ‘external’ discipline; but having  within him a heart full of contradictions and discordant cries; seeing life,  before Nietzsche, as essentially tragic, Luther is the very type of  modern individualism...
          ___________________________________