Wednesday, March 24, 2004
PAPAL WISDOM, LEO XIII ON CAPITAL AND LABOR
RERUM NOVARUM
At long last, we are now ready to cover the work Rerum Novarum. As we shall see, and as has been reported earlier, Rerum Novarum is the culmination of Leo’s social thought. There are those who believe that before Vatican II, the Church isolated itself from the world, and refused to engage the world. I believe this encyclical serves as a standing rebuke to those who would dare make that claim. Socialism was the pressing issue of the age. While Leo XIII handled many ecclesial manners, Leo was a statesman at heart. He recognized a healthy state would translate into a healthy Church. Yet the errors of socialism were beginning to cripple the State. Though he had written briefly on socialism numerous times, Rerum Novarum was an in-depth rebuttal to the socialist question, and also enunciating Catholic principles for the relationship between worker and owner. As we read this encyclical, we see the remarkable foresight Leo exhibited in penning this work, as the majority of his predictions became true, and becoming more and more frightening today.
Furthermore, since this is an election year, I will also analyze numerous policies from our potential presidents in light of this encyclical. In the end, I believe it becomes perfectly clear that today’s Democrat leaders are nothing better than what Leo condemns in this encyclical. This will be a secondary focus of the commentary, showing how it applies to our lives today. With that in mind, let us begin. Leo XIII’s words will be in quotations, whereas when I begin a response, I will mark so with my name.
“That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvelous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; in the increased self-reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and rulers of nations are all busied with it -- actually there is no question which has taken a deeper hold on the public mind.”
Kevin Tierney: Leo starts out by rightly mentioning the fact that in the end, economics cannot be separated from politics. The secular culture of death, in order to advance its agenda, first needed to set itself in the economic sphere. The quickest way to advance one’s political agenda is through the sphere of labor. Of this there can be no doubt. All rulers or candidates for rulers nowadays speak of how they appeal to the “working man.” This is not wrong of course. The working man is the backbone of any healthy society; therefore a society that neglects the needs of their workers does so at their own peril. The economic realities were rapidly changing in Leo’s time. New venues of labor were opened with advances in technology and science. There was strife in unfettered capitalism, as many times owners began to treat workers no better than slaves. To answer this extreme, those advancing the revolution exploited it for every penny it was worth, by appealing to the average working class man to further its agenda. They were “useful idiots” as Lenin used to describe them. This did not mean they were stupid; indeed, the best useful idiot is a very smart and intelligent one. The useful idiots would support and defend the cause on one area, so the revolution could fully implement itself in other areas. Many believed in socialism’s concerns for the working man, and once socialism came to power, it disregarded the working man, and began its assault on anything religious, to advance its secular leviathan state. This was a huge controversy in Leo’s time, therefore, since his pontificate had been known for actively engaging the problems of society, it was only fitting the problem of socialism, and that of labor itself be engaged.
“2. Therefore, venerable brethren, as on former occasions when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interests of the Church and of the common weal, and have issued letters bearing on political power, human liberty, the Christian constitution of the State, and like matters, so have We thought it expedient now to speak on the condition of the working classes. It is a subject on which We have already touched more than once, incidentally. But in the present letter, the responsibility of the apostolic office urges Us to treat the question of set purpose and in detail, in order that no misapprehension may exist as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement. The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men's judgments and to stir up the people to revolt.”
Kevin Tierney: We must first understand before we tackle this issue the gravity of the issue itself. This is not a menial issue. We must understand the balance between these different classes in society. The danger in this is that the revolution seeks no balance. The revolution seeks to destroy these very differences in their quest for a utopia, of a perfect society. To the revolution, there is no such thing as original sin; therefore, the fallen nature of man is not necessarily taken into account. Accountability to God is non-existent; therefore the State must take any means possible to achieve its ends. Yet as Leo consistently demonstrated, the Church must promote and advocate a healthy society based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is mutually advantageous to both parties she do so. Therefore, when this complicated question or any complicated question arises, though it is a tough issue, the Church must tackle it, as she is the salt of the earth.
“3. In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. “
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo elaborates upon what kind of balance must be struck, and the dangers ahead in that task. Workman’s guilds which at one time protected the working man are now gone. As states rejected the truth of the Catholic religion, it was only logical they reject the truths of the true religion’s social principles. Left with no protection or natural boundaries on competition, business began to grow increasingly powerful, demanding far more of its workers than they honestly could provide. This became no better than slavery itself. Likewise, the same principles applied with government. To achieve socialism, the government had to increase in its power, demanding more from the citizens than they could ask for, and the citizens could rightly afford. The socialist question, rather than providing a utopia, was quickly providing something equal to, if not worse than slavery itself.
“4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. “
Kevin Tierney: The socialist, in an attempt to remedy these problems, believes he has found the main culprit, private property. The plan was solid as well. Those who were wealthy had more private property. Obviously, those who are wealthy are outnumbered by those who are not; otherwise, they would not be wealthy. Likewise, the people who did not have wealth would logically seek to be wealthy, to enjoy the privileges of the wealthy. The socialist believes that by “leveling the playing field” and confiscating private property to be distributed by the State, there will not be this gap in the playing field, and everyone would be equal. Their utopia would be created. In order to do this, they had to target those who had the wealth, as the majority of them would not just give their wealth up. They did so by portraying wealth as something evil. People inherently recognize the battle of good and evil, even in today’s secular culture, and wish to side with good. The majority who supported socialism was ignorant of its true machinations; they simply wanted an end to the greed and injustice, and believed socialism was the means to attain this end. Leo was vindicated nearly a century after this writing when the Soviet Union collapsed, and it had become abundantly clear socialism does not provide this utopian society. Rather, it created far more problems than it did solutions. As we shall see, the problem of socialism is far from dead today, just repackaged, so we must look at the problems Leo outlines, and see how they still effect us today.
“5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. “
Kevin Tierney: Inherent in each man’s nature is that of survival. Therefore, man has a right to procure that survival, including acquiring the means to provide for that survival. Therefore he will seek out things to do. We do work, and we also have others do work for us. Yet when someone does a job for us, it is right and just that we compensate that person with something. The workman is worth his hire. That worth is private property in and of itself. Since what has been given to you is rightfully yours, it is also up to you as to how to use what you have acquired. We are of course obligated to use what we acquire justly, but how we use it is up to us, since we earned it. Many equate private property with land ownership. Land ownership is how the person decides to utilize the property he is entitled to and has earned. This land is acquired primarily for security. One has a better living condition with a roof under his head, and a house to call his own. He may further use that land to better increase his stability and security.
I further believe a healthy right to private property is one of the primary checks on the leviathan state. Those who have private property, or those who work to have private property, increase in their self-sufficiency. If they can provide for themselves, the government does not have to. Therefore, the government is unable to unlawfully intrude into that person’s life. The citizen is not the slave of the state, and therefore the state must be far more careful in dealing with him. Therefore it is no surprise that historically, every tyrannical regime has had a huge state with which to control its citizens, and one of the first things they attacked was the idea of private property.
The reason a big state is necessary for socialism is socialism is ultimately unfulfilling for the people. It sounds like a great idea at first glance, but as we continue, it does not breed contentment for man, or for society. My old Military History teacher (who was a staunch opponent of communism during the Cold War) gave on of the simplest arguments as to why communism is unjust, the man who works as a garbage man has no more worth than the doctor. He who collects trash has gone through no schooling, and while his work is necessary, lives are not saved daily because of his work. With the doctor this is different. The doctor spent many of his years of his life in school to prepare for being a doctor, and his work is to save lives and keep them healthy. Obviously his should be wealthier than that of the trash collector, and his job is far more vital to a healthy society. Both jobs are vital, yet not equal. Yet why sacrifice all that time, when you are not compensated for that time you spent? People may choose charity, but they are still entitled to what they earn. They may choose to decline it. The option of earning cannot be taken away. Therefore, those jobs which are most vital to a healthy society people would not want to take, for they were not entitled to the just wages for their job under the socialistic society, as what they were entitled to was ultimately property of the state. In seeking to help the wage earner, socialism ultimately frauds him of what is rightfully his, those wages.
“6. What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self-direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self-preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account -- that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason -- it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.”
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo says that the reason private property is one of man’s fundamental rights, is because man, unlike the animal, has reason. Reason tells the human to live beyond this moment. Therefore, the human has the right to acquire those means which will provide for future use. That is why the Father wants a good job, to make sure he can provide for his family long after he is physically able to do so. Yet by taking away the desire to do this in private property, socialism is ultimately an insult to man’s dignity and reason.
I would like to ponder how this affects us today, especially in regards to today’s taxation system in America. The original slogan of the American Revolution, and one of the primary causes of such, was “no taxation without representation.” Think what you shall about the integrity and quality of the Founding Fathers of this country, but they had a point in this argument. The wages they acquired, as Leo mentioned earlier, were their real and actual property. They did not first belong to the State. Therefore, man, since he has a right to determine how he shall spend his money, had a right to representation before the State in how his money is spent.
Contrast this idea with today’s taxation system. Through the idea of “federal withholding” a good portion of the money you make (30% for the average person) is not initially yours, but the governments. They take it straight from your check. Those who make more money, a higher percentage of their income is taken from them. When the IRS gives a “refund” (even though it’s only a portion of what you poured into them, if you get one at all), many times those who pay little taxes, or no taxes at all, get disproportionate amounts of money back. The only way for the state to do this, is to give a heavier burden on those who make the money.
One wonders why someone would want to become wealthy, since all that means is Uncle Sam takes more of their money. The right to acquire and enjoy the property is directly threatened. Furthermore, that money is confiscated from them, and given to other people, at times (more so than not with those who barely pay taxes at all) people who do not deserve that money. It is classic wealth redistribution, and socialism at heart. The United States, at one time one of the biggest opponents of socialism and communism, is rapidly becoming in principle little better than socialism itself. My proposal to end this mess would be to do away with automatic withholdings, and make the date with which you must file your taxes right before election time. Therefore, the people will have to see just how much they have been robbed of, and then they can decide who will best represent them on how their property should be used. Of course, today’s socialists who push greater taxes would never allow this. They claim they are doing people a favor, taking the money for them, so they don’t get stuck right around tax time. In reality, if people saw just how much they gave away, they would reject these taxes immediately. Let us now return to the encyclical.
“7. This becomes still more clearly evident if man's nature be considered a little more deeply. For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. “
Kevin Tierney: Here the pontiff points out how the right to private property, and acquisition of land is all part of God’s providential design in creating this earth. Since humans, through reason, seek to better themselves for tomorrow, God gave a source so this could be accomplished, land. Not only should the fruit of the land be man’s to own, but also the land itself, since he can use that land to produce fruit, and sell to others, hence increasing the security of him and his family. The reason the State cannot interfere in this process is this acquisition and ownership of private property pre-dates any State. Indeed, there would be no state, if there were not citizens whose land they owned made up a society. If it pre-dates the State, State has no authority over it. God pre-dates the state, and indeed created the State, therefore the rights are given by God, and only God may take them away. As we shall note later, it is precisely this reason a socialist state must by necessity have a non-Christian worldview. If the threat of God is removed from a worldview, the State may then usurp those former duties.
“8. The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.”
Kevin Tierney: Many socialists (particularly those of the environmentalist type) will argue that since the earth is there for everyone, nobody may own private property, that it should all be communal. As we have demonstrated before, this is confusing the order of created things. Man’s existence pre-dates that of the State. The State would be nothing without man coming together in society. Therefore, his right to private property cannot be taken. Leo explains that the earth was created so that no piece of land, by mandate, one person owns. (i.e. American land has to be for Americans, rather than simply the American society settled on the land and named it America.) Furthermore, all people truly do live off the land, since they either receive the fruit of it, or contribute to its success. Therefore, with private property, in the end, worker and owner are better off, and indeed are dependent on each other.
“10. So strong and convincing are these arguments that it seems amazing that some should now be setting up anew certain obsolete opinions in opposition to what is here laid down. They assert that it is right for private persons to have the use of the soil and its various fruits, but that it is unjust for any one to possess outright either the land on which he has built or the estate which he has brought under cultivation. But those who deny these rights do not perceive that they are defrauding man of what his own labor has produced. For the soil which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition; it was wild before, now it is fruitful; was barren, but now brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved the land becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else? As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.”
Kevin Tierney: The Catholic should read that first sentence in the tenth paragraph and be in complete agreement. It truly is stunning these simple basic facts must be constantly reiterated, as anyone with a brain and the will to use it I assert can see these plain truths, and how socialism is directly contrary to the created order. Furthermore, since one’s resources are invested in transforming the land (whether it is their own personal work or the cost of hiring others to do this work) it is only just that the property he has invested so much to cultivate and change should be his.
RERUM NOVARUM
At long last, we are now ready to cover the work Rerum Novarum. As we shall see, and as has been reported earlier, Rerum Novarum is the culmination of Leo’s social thought. There are those who believe that before Vatican II, the Church isolated itself from the world, and refused to engage the world. I believe this encyclical serves as a standing rebuke to those who would dare make that claim. Socialism was the pressing issue of the age. While Leo XIII handled many ecclesial manners, Leo was a statesman at heart. He recognized a healthy state would translate into a healthy Church. Yet the errors of socialism were beginning to cripple the State. Though he had written briefly on socialism numerous times, Rerum Novarum was an in-depth rebuttal to the socialist question, and also enunciating Catholic principles for the relationship between worker and owner. As we read this encyclical, we see the remarkable foresight Leo exhibited in penning this work, as the majority of his predictions became true, and becoming more and more frightening today.
Furthermore, since this is an election year, I will also analyze numerous policies from our potential presidents in light of this encyclical. In the end, I believe it becomes perfectly clear that today’s Democrat leaders are nothing better than what Leo condemns in this encyclical. This will be a secondary focus of the commentary, showing how it applies to our lives today. With that in mind, let us begin. Leo XIII’s words will be in quotations, whereas when I begin a response, I will mark so with my name.
“That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvelous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; in the increased self-reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and rulers of nations are all busied with it -- actually there is no question which has taken a deeper hold on the public mind.”
Kevin Tierney: Leo starts out by rightly mentioning the fact that in the end, economics cannot be separated from politics. The secular culture of death, in order to advance its agenda, first needed to set itself in the economic sphere. The quickest way to advance one’s political agenda is through the sphere of labor. Of this there can be no doubt. All rulers or candidates for rulers nowadays speak of how they appeal to the “working man.” This is not wrong of course. The working man is the backbone of any healthy society; therefore a society that neglects the needs of their workers does so at their own peril. The economic realities were rapidly changing in Leo’s time. New venues of labor were opened with advances in technology and science. There was strife in unfettered capitalism, as many times owners began to treat workers no better than slaves. To answer this extreme, those advancing the revolution exploited it for every penny it was worth, by appealing to the average working class man to further its agenda. They were “useful idiots” as Lenin used to describe them. This did not mean they were stupid; indeed, the best useful idiot is a very smart and intelligent one. The useful idiots would support and defend the cause on one area, so the revolution could fully implement itself in other areas. Many believed in socialism’s concerns for the working man, and once socialism came to power, it disregarded the working man, and began its assault on anything religious, to advance its secular leviathan state. This was a huge controversy in Leo’s time, therefore, since his pontificate had been known for actively engaging the problems of society, it was only fitting the problem of socialism, and that of labor itself be engaged.
“2. Therefore, venerable brethren, as on former occasions when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interests of the Church and of the common weal, and have issued letters bearing on political power, human liberty, the Christian constitution of the State, and like matters, so have We thought it expedient now to speak on the condition of the working classes. It is a subject on which We have already touched more than once, incidentally. But in the present letter, the responsibility of the apostolic office urges Us to treat the question of set purpose and in detail, in order that no misapprehension may exist as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement. The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men's judgments and to stir up the people to revolt.”
Kevin Tierney: We must first understand before we tackle this issue the gravity of the issue itself. This is not a menial issue. We must understand the balance between these different classes in society. The danger in this is that the revolution seeks no balance. The revolution seeks to destroy these very differences in their quest for a utopia, of a perfect society. To the revolution, there is no such thing as original sin; therefore, the fallen nature of man is not necessarily taken into account. Accountability to God is non-existent; therefore the State must take any means possible to achieve its ends. Yet as Leo consistently demonstrated, the Church must promote and advocate a healthy society based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is mutually advantageous to both parties she do so. Therefore, when this complicated question or any complicated question arises, though it is a tough issue, the Church must tackle it, as she is the salt of the earth.
“3. In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. “
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo elaborates upon what kind of balance must be struck, and the dangers ahead in that task. Workman’s guilds which at one time protected the working man are now gone. As states rejected the truth of the Catholic religion, it was only logical they reject the truths of the true religion’s social principles. Left with no protection or natural boundaries on competition, business began to grow increasingly powerful, demanding far more of its workers than they honestly could provide. This became no better than slavery itself. Likewise, the same principles applied with government. To achieve socialism, the government had to increase in its power, demanding more from the citizens than they could ask for, and the citizens could rightly afford. The socialist question, rather than providing a utopia, was quickly providing something equal to, if not worse than slavery itself.
“4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. “
Kevin Tierney: The socialist, in an attempt to remedy these problems, believes he has found the main culprit, private property. The plan was solid as well. Those who were wealthy had more private property. Obviously, those who are wealthy are outnumbered by those who are not; otherwise, they would not be wealthy. Likewise, the people who did not have wealth would logically seek to be wealthy, to enjoy the privileges of the wealthy. The socialist believes that by “leveling the playing field” and confiscating private property to be distributed by the State, there will not be this gap in the playing field, and everyone would be equal. Their utopia would be created. In order to do this, they had to target those who had the wealth, as the majority of them would not just give their wealth up. They did so by portraying wealth as something evil. People inherently recognize the battle of good and evil, even in today’s secular culture, and wish to side with good. The majority who supported socialism was ignorant of its true machinations; they simply wanted an end to the greed and injustice, and believed socialism was the means to attain this end. Leo was vindicated nearly a century after this writing when the Soviet Union collapsed, and it had become abundantly clear socialism does not provide this utopian society. Rather, it created far more problems than it did solutions. As we shall see, the problem of socialism is far from dead today, just repackaged, so we must look at the problems Leo outlines, and see how they still effect us today.
“5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. “
Kevin Tierney: Inherent in each man’s nature is that of survival. Therefore, man has a right to procure that survival, including acquiring the means to provide for that survival. Therefore he will seek out things to do. We do work, and we also have others do work for us. Yet when someone does a job for us, it is right and just that we compensate that person with something. The workman is worth his hire. That worth is private property in and of itself. Since what has been given to you is rightfully yours, it is also up to you as to how to use what you have acquired. We are of course obligated to use what we acquire justly, but how we use it is up to us, since we earned it. Many equate private property with land ownership. Land ownership is how the person decides to utilize the property he is entitled to and has earned. This land is acquired primarily for security. One has a better living condition with a roof under his head, and a house to call his own. He may further use that land to better increase his stability and security.
I further believe a healthy right to private property is one of the primary checks on the leviathan state. Those who have private property, or those who work to have private property, increase in their self-sufficiency. If they can provide for themselves, the government does not have to. Therefore, the government is unable to unlawfully intrude into that person’s life. The citizen is not the slave of the state, and therefore the state must be far more careful in dealing with him. Therefore it is no surprise that historically, every tyrannical regime has had a huge state with which to control its citizens, and one of the first things they attacked was the idea of private property.
The reason a big state is necessary for socialism is socialism is ultimately unfulfilling for the people. It sounds like a great idea at first glance, but as we continue, it does not breed contentment for man, or for society. My old Military History teacher (who was a staunch opponent of communism during the Cold War) gave on of the simplest arguments as to why communism is unjust, the man who works as a garbage man has no more worth than the doctor. He who collects trash has gone through no schooling, and while his work is necessary, lives are not saved daily because of his work. With the doctor this is different. The doctor spent many of his years of his life in school to prepare for being a doctor, and his work is to save lives and keep them healthy. Obviously his should be wealthier than that of the trash collector, and his job is far more vital to a healthy society. Both jobs are vital, yet not equal. Yet why sacrifice all that time, when you are not compensated for that time you spent? People may choose charity, but they are still entitled to what they earn. They may choose to decline it. The option of earning cannot be taken away. Therefore, those jobs which are most vital to a healthy society people would not want to take, for they were not entitled to the just wages for their job under the socialistic society, as what they were entitled to was ultimately property of the state. In seeking to help the wage earner, socialism ultimately frauds him of what is rightfully his, those wages.
“6. What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self-direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self-preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account -- that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason -- it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.”
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo says that the reason private property is one of man’s fundamental rights, is because man, unlike the animal, has reason. Reason tells the human to live beyond this moment. Therefore, the human has the right to acquire those means which will provide for future use. That is why the Father wants a good job, to make sure he can provide for his family long after he is physically able to do so. Yet by taking away the desire to do this in private property, socialism is ultimately an insult to man’s dignity and reason.
I would like to ponder how this affects us today, especially in regards to today’s taxation system in America. The original slogan of the American Revolution, and one of the primary causes of such, was “no taxation without representation.” Think what you shall about the integrity and quality of the Founding Fathers of this country, but they had a point in this argument. The wages they acquired, as Leo mentioned earlier, were their real and actual property. They did not first belong to the State. Therefore, man, since he has a right to determine how he shall spend his money, had a right to representation before the State in how his money is spent.
Contrast this idea with today’s taxation system. Through the idea of “federal withholding” a good portion of the money you make (30% for the average person) is not initially yours, but the governments. They take it straight from your check. Those who make more money, a higher percentage of their income is taken from them. When the IRS gives a “refund” (even though it’s only a portion of what you poured into them, if you get one at all), many times those who pay little taxes, or no taxes at all, get disproportionate amounts of money back. The only way for the state to do this, is to give a heavier burden on those who make the money.
One wonders why someone would want to become wealthy, since all that means is Uncle Sam takes more of their money. The right to acquire and enjoy the property is directly threatened. Furthermore, that money is confiscated from them, and given to other people, at times (more so than not with those who barely pay taxes at all) people who do not deserve that money. It is classic wealth redistribution, and socialism at heart. The United States, at one time one of the biggest opponents of socialism and communism, is rapidly becoming in principle little better than socialism itself. My proposal to end this mess would be to do away with automatic withholdings, and make the date with which you must file your taxes right before election time. Therefore, the people will have to see just how much they have been robbed of, and then they can decide who will best represent them on how their property should be used. Of course, today’s socialists who push greater taxes would never allow this. They claim they are doing people a favor, taking the money for them, so they don’t get stuck right around tax time. In reality, if people saw just how much they gave away, they would reject these taxes immediately. Let us now return to the encyclical.
“7. This becomes still more clearly evident if man's nature be considered a little more deeply. For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. “
Kevin Tierney: Here the pontiff points out how the right to private property, and acquisition of land is all part of God’s providential design in creating this earth. Since humans, through reason, seek to better themselves for tomorrow, God gave a source so this could be accomplished, land. Not only should the fruit of the land be man’s to own, but also the land itself, since he can use that land to produce fruit, and sell to others, hence increasing the security of him and his family. The reason the State cannot interfere in this process is this acquisition and ownership of private property pre-dates any State. Indeed, there would be no state, if there were not citizens whose land they owned made up a society. If it pre-dates the State, State has no authority over it. God pre-dates the state, and indeed created the State, therefore the rights are given by God, and only God may take them away. As we shall note later, it is precisely this reason a socialist state must by necessity have a non-Christian worldview. If the threat of God is removed from a worldview, the State may then usurp those former duties.
“8. The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.”
Kevin Tierney: Many socialists (particularly those of the environmentalist type) will argue that since the earth is there for everyone, nobody may own private property, that it should all be communal. As we have demonstrated before, this is confusing the order of created things. Man’s existence pre-dates that of the State. The State would be nothing without man coming together in society. Therefore, his right to private property cannot be taken. Leo explains that the earth was created so that no piece of land, by mandate, one person owns. (i.e. American land has to be for Americans, rather than simply the American society settled on the land and named it America.) Furthermore, all people truly do live off the land, since they either receive the fruit of it, or contribute to its success. Therefore, with private property, in the end, worker and owner are better off, and indeed are dependent on each other.
“10. So strong and convincing are these arguments that it seems amazing that some should now be setting up anew certain obsolete opinions in opposition to what is here laid down. They assert that it is right for private persons to have the use of the soil and its various fruits, but that it is unjust for any one to possess outright either the land on which he has built or the estate which he has brought under cultivation. But those who deny these rights do not perceive that they are defrauding man of what his own labor has produced. For the soil which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition; it was wild before, now it is fruitful; was barren, but now brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved the land becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else? As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.”
Kevin Tierney: The Catholic should read that first sentence in the tenth paragraph and be in complete agreement. It truly is stunning these simple basic facts must be constantly reiterated, as anyone with a brain and the will to use it I assert can see these plain truths, and how socialism is directly contrary to the created order. Furthermore, since one’s resources are invested in transforming the land (whether it is their own personal work or the cost of hiring others to do this work) it is only just that the property he has invested so much to cultivate and change should be his.
ABC: Anti-Biblical Corporation
I came across this earlier today by a trip to Robert Sungenis' apostolate Catholic Apologetics International, originally reading something he wrote to Evangelical Apologist Dr. R.C. Sproul on the issue of justification. (For those Catholic readers looking to defend their faith, or for Evangelicals seeing how typical claims are answered by Catholic apologists, do read it.)
It was rather interesting to say the least. While certain points Sungenis made I have(and would one day in the future again) taken him to task on, I'd like to focus on ABC's reply to the reader, which I shall once again quote in full:
"How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a change! Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in minority in this country and your boycott will not affect us or our freedom of statement.. "
As I have been writing about cultural issues much lately, I believe it is a good idea to see what their typical arguments are. Contrary to ABC, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution does not sanction gay marriage. First, it is historically false to say our nation was built upon the Declaration of Independence. The declaration was written while we were still colonists under the Crown of England, written primarily in response to unjust taxation and the pains of the Coercive acts. (Sometimes known as the Intolerable Acts.) The Declaration simply outlined the problems with His Majesty, and why they believed that independence was the only conclusion they could choose. As a side challenge, I would like them to find one instance of a signer of the Declaration who supported gay marriage, or believed that what they were writing (The Declaration) sanctions gay marriage. This of course cannot be done. Suffice to say, if we're talking about the foundational legal document for America, the Declaration of Independence has ZERO weight. Yet it is not surprising for such liberal ignorance and contempt of history. They study history only to re-write it to suit their agenda, as has happened here.
Now, considering the charge of "All men are created equal." The phrase also talks about all men being created equal, being endowed with certain rights by their CREATOR which no man may take away. Those rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, this does not mean that in pursuing these objectives, one may flagrantly violate the laws of the country, which those who have supported gay marriage have done. The debate is not about letting gays marry. Homosexuals are allowed to marry. Yet the definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Therefore, if a homosexual is going to participate in marriage, it must be by the legal definition. (Assuming for the sake of argument marriage is a primarily legal institution, whereas all Catholics in following Leo XIII's teaching in Arcanum on Christian Marriage realize Holy Matrimony is primarily a divine institution.)
In order to say that the definition of marriage must be changed, the homosexual lobbyists must prove that the heterosexual has inherent civil rights not being violated by this institution, whereas the homosexual is being cheated in this institution. This is obviously absurd since homosexuals are still citizens of America and protected by the Bill of Rights. If anything, there are being treated overkill with hate crime legislation. They would have to prove a homosexual is denied the right to marriage, which he isn't. If he chooses to marry a woman, as far as State is concerned, that marriage is valid.
The homosexual will claim that he is being cheated out of certain tax breaks because he cannot marry his gay lover. I currently am not a student in college. Should I be allowed to get any tax-breaks for students? Of course not, I do not fit the definition of a student. Better yet, I should be able to claim I receive the tax breaks for a small business owner, even though I am not a small business owner. Likewise, the homosexual wants the rights of marriage, even though he is not willing to comply with legal marriage. If marriage is to be defined legally to include homosexuals, why cannot "small business owner" rights be made to include non-small business owners? In the end, the debate boils down to the question "Do words have meaning?"
ABC further committs an act of re-writing the facts by believing they are in the "majority" for advocating homosexual marriage. Of course, this is a principle violation of media ethics, as if ABC cared. ABC is to be a watchdog of culture, not it's shaper. I'm of course speaking ideally, but now we see that ABC, by it's intentions, is looking to re-write the views of American culture. If they are indeed in the majority, why is it democratic canidates who are backed by homosexual lobbyists are afraid to even touch the issue of gay marriage? The majority of Americans in and of themselves oppose gay marriage.
While I certainly have tons of arguments from that "old archaic book" ABC obviously doesn't have any arguments from their foundational sources, the Declaration of Independence.
I came across this earlier today by a trip to Robert Sungenis' apostolate Catholic Apologetics International, originally reading something he wrote to Evangelical Apologist Dr. R.C. Sproul on the issue of justification. (For those Catholic readers looking to defend their faith, or for Evangelicals seeing how typical claims are answered by Catholic apologists, do read it.)
It was rather interesting to say the least. While certain points Sungenis made I have(and would one day in the future again) taken him to task on, I'd like to focus on ABC's reply to the reader, which I shall once again quote in full:
"How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a change! Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in minority in this country and your boycott will not affect us or our freedom of statement.. "
As I have been writing about cultural issues much lately, I believe it is a good idea to see what their typical arguments are. Contrary to ABC, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution does not sanction gay marriage. First, it is historically false to say our nation was built upon the Declaration of Independence. The declaration was written while we were still colonists under the Crown of England, written primarily in response to unjust taxation and the pains of the Coercive acts. (Sometimes known as the Intolerable Acts.) The Declaration simply outlined the problems with His Majesty, and why they believed that independence was the only conclusion they could choose. As a side challenge, I would like them to find one instance of a signer of the Declaration who supported gay marriage, or believed that what they were writing (The Declaration) sanctions gay marriage. This of course cannot be done. Suffice to say, if we're talking about the foundational legal document for America, the Declaration of Independence has ZERO weight. Yet it is not surprising for such liberal ignorance and contempt of history. They study history only to re-write it to suit their agenda, as has happened here.
Now, considering the charge of "All men are created equal." The phrase also talks about all men being created equal, being endowed with certain rights by their CREATOR which no man may take away. Those rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, this does not mean that in pursuing these objectives, one may flagrantly violate the laws of the country, which those who have supported gay marriage have done. The debate is not about letting gays marry. Homosexuals are allowed to marry. Yet the definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Therefore, if a homosexual is going to participate in marriage, it must be by the legal definition. (Assuming for the sake of argument marriage is a primarily legal institution, whereas all Catholics in following Leo XIII's teaching in Arcanum on Christian Marriage realize Holy Matrimony is primarily a divine institution.)
In order to say that the definition of marriage must be changed, the homosexual lobbyists must prove that the heterosexual has inherent civil rights not being violated by this institution, whereas the homosexual is being cheated in this institution. This is obviously absurd since homosexuals are still citizens of America and protected by the Bill of Rights. If anything, there are being treated overkill with hate crime legislation. They would have to prove a homosexual is denied the right to marriage, which he isn't. If he chooses to marry a woman, as far as State is concerned, that marriage is valid.
The homosexual will claim that he is being cheated out of certain tax breaks because he cannot marry his gay lover. I currently am not a student in college. Should I be allowed to get any tax-breaks for students? Of course not, I do not fit the definition of a student. Better yet, I should be able to claim I receive the tax breaks for a small business owner, even though I am not a small business owner. Likewise, the homosexual wants the rights of marriage, even though he is not willing to comply with legal marriage. If marriage is to be defined legally to include homosexuals, why cannot "small business owner" rights be made to include non-small business owners? In the end, the debate boils down to the question "Do words have meaning?"
ABC further committs an act of re-writing the facts by believing they are in the "majority" for advocating homosexual marriage. Of course, this is a principle violation of media ethics, as if ABC cared. ABC is to be a watchdog of culture, not it's shaper. I'm of course speaking ideally, but now we see that ABC, by it's intentions, is looking to re-write the views of American culture. If they are indeed in the majority, why is it democratic canidates who are backed by homosexual lobbyists are afraid to even touch the issue of gay marriage? The majority of Americans in and of themselves oppose gay marriage.
While I certainly have tons of arguments from that "old archaic book" ABC obviously doesn't have any arguments from their foundational sources, the Declaration of Independence.
