[90] Similarly with the writer--Machiavelli, who writes for his peers, can allow himself the luxury of not being a moralist; Maurras who writes for crowds cannot do so. No one writes with impunity in a democracy. Moreover, a political activity which is supported by moral activity proves that it understands the true conditions of its success. A master in these matters says: ‘There can be no profound political reform unless religion and morality are also reformed.’ (Hegel.) Clearly the particular influence of the _Action Française_ among all other conservative organs is due to the fact that its political movement is supported by a moral teaching, although other interests oblige it to deny this. [91] _Dictionnaire des Cas de Conscience_ (ed. 1712), article ‘Guerre’. With such a morality the territorial formation of any European State would become impossible. This is the type of non-practical teaching, i.e. of what I mean by the true ‘clerk’. (See Note F at the end of this book on the subject of the welcome given to this teaching by the material world.) In the opinion of Vittoria as well, the extension of empire is not a just cause. [92] This is the thesis of Alfonso Liguori which to-day prevails in the Church’s teaching over that of Vittoria. [93] Cardinal Gousset (_Théologie morale_, 1845). [94] This is the Scholastic doctrine of war, formulated in all its rigidity by Thomas Aquinas. According to this doctrine, the Prince (or the people) who declares war, acts as a magistrate (minister Dei) under whose jurisdiction a foreign nation falls, owing to an injustice it has committed and which it refuses to repair. From this it follows, in particular, that the Prince who has declared war ought solely to punish the guilty, if he is victorious, and not to acquire any personal benefit from his victory. This high moral doctrine is entirely abandoned by the Church to-day. (See Vanderpol, _La Guerre devant le Christianisme_, titre ix.) [95] Apparently this was the view adopted by the Holy See in 1914 towards the Franco-German war, Germany benefiting by what theology calls ‘invincible’ ignorance, i.e. implying that one has used all the diligence of which a man is capable in trying to understand the explanations of an adversary. Obviously, one may feel that some goodwill was needed to think that Germany had a right to this benefit. [96] Like the thesis of war being just on both sides, this is the doctrine of Molina, which in matters of law in war has entirely replaced Scholastic doctrine in ecclesiastic teaching.