Thursday, March 25, 2004
Rerum Novarum, Part 2
“11. With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws -- laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force. The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.”
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo XIII makes a point we must all continually focus on. After outlining the basic rationale behind the basis of private property as a right fundamental to man, and how this in itself refutes socialism instantly, he reminds the faithful that the right to private property is inherent even in the 10 commandments itself. Christians are not to covet anything of our neighbors, for they are his or hers rightful property. They are entitled to these things, and to covet or take them would flagrantly violate not only natural law, but divine law itself. Therefore, as Christians, when considering our rights as citizens, if those rights include voting, must determine if there are candidates who violate these principles regarding private property, and if they do, must not vote for the choice that will best combat these socialist principles.
“12. The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in much stronger light when considered in relation to man's social and domestic obligations. In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to observing virginity, or to bind themselves by the marriage tie. No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: "Increase and multiply." Hence we have the family, the "society" of a man's house -- a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.”
Kevin Tierney: In order for socialism to succeed, eventually, government must increase, to force people to go along with its agenda. Man as a whole will not willingly surrender that which is rightfully his. Therefore, the State must force him to. While the State claims it is acting in “societies best interests”, Leo demonstrates that in reality, it insults the most basic society, that of the family. A family is, while at times imperfect, truly a society. It has a distinct ruling authority which is very structured with the husband as the head of the household. Without families multiplying, there can be no society, for there would be no citizens. Since the society of the family predates the society of the State, the State is unable to take certain rights from the family, since those rights were around before the State’s creation. Those rights came from God, and only God may take them away, which he has sworn he will not do. Any government or global entity (such as the United Nations) which states in paragraph 29 of its Human Rights declaration that one’s rights may not be used contrary to the intentions of the United Nations flagrantly violates this principle outlined by Leo XIII. In order to take these fundamental rights away, the UN would also have to grant these rights. Yet as we know, these rights pre-date the existence of the UN; therefore the UN is powerless to take them away.
“13. That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.”
Kevin Tierney: Here the Pontiff talks about the principle which would later be known as subsidiarity. This is known as when it comes to those in need, that need should be provided by the means of those closest to the person. If there is a problem, the family should be the first resort. The Pontiff points this out by appealing to the fact that since man is head of his family, he has a right to private property, so that keeping in line with this principle, he may provide for his children, and see that they are taken care of. Today’s “social welfare programs” which provide massive government entitlements to the people are a clear rejection of the principles outlined by the Pontiff’s. Many Catholics erroneously believe that this puts a government more in line with Catholic social teaching, since it “cares about the needs of the poor.” The simple truth is that the means they undertake to meet the end of “Caring about the poor”, which in reality is a lie, upset the very order of society that God has intended. A state that has the power to enact social justice likewise has the power to take it away. For the State to say that private property cannot be owned, they clearly transgress their much defined borders in natural and divine law. They usurp the right of the family to provide, hence violating the rights of the family, which was therefore before the creation of the particular state.
“14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.
But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents." The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home. “
Kevin Tierney: When a State is to act, it acts as the servant of the people, ultimately furthering and defending the rights of its people, not strengthening its own power. One is reminded of Hillary Clinton who talks about taking a village to raise a child. This statement can be clearly seen as one of a socialistic nature. The child is part of society as representing his family. Therefore, for the state to function otherwise would clearly upset again the created order. This is why the Catholic Church has rightly labeled communism and socialism as one of the gravest evils secular society has produced, and is the culmination of those lesser evils. The majority of injustice inflicted upon American citizens today can find it’s roots in socialistic ideas.
“15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found. “
Kevin Tierney: The Pontiff now ends his critique on private property, by voicing, some century beforehand, what would be socialism’s greatest downfall, the very principle it upholds highest, the principle of community of goods. As I noted in my introduction, socialism and communism destroys the productive spirit inherent within man. Why be productive, since nothing comes out of being productive. It is not selfish or arrogant to wish to be receiving something from being productive, so one can procure a better life for themselves and those dearest to them. Yet when everyone pretty much makes the same income or anything that you have is also everyone else’s property, there is no real reason to be productive. With this lack of productivity comes a lack of business. People do not wish to run business, since it is utterly not profitable, and their line of work cannot provide for them adequately. In return, these businesses do not hire people; hence, the workers are also poor. Both capital and labor are ultimately destroyed, as we saw with the collapse of the Soviet Union. (While I myself do not believe communism died, rather went through chapter 11, its results were most clearly revealed for all to see at this time.) Sadly, Americans all too often forget history, and do not realize prominent people in leadership today are looking to take us down these same roads by advocating programs which are little better than what we battled against 20 years ago fiercely.
Now that the answer to combating poverty has been shown to be promotion of private property and ownership, we shall now build upon these foundations, to show the alternative to socialism. This must be done, as we must provide a reasonable, viable alternative to the society we wage against. Otherwise, by our complaining, we are simply prolonging the inevitable.
“11. With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws -- laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force. The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.”
Kevin Tierney: Here Leo XIII makes a point we must all continually focus on. After outlining the basic rationale behind the basis of private property as a right fundamental to man, and how this in itself refutes socialism instantly, he reminds the faithful that the right to private property is inherent even in the 10 commandments itself. Christians are not to covet anything of our neighbors, for they are his or hers rightful property. They are entitled to these things, and to covet or take them would flagrantly violate not only natural law, but divine law itself. Therefore, as Christians, when considering our rights as citizens, if those rights include voting, must determine if there are candidates who violate these principles regarding private property, and if they do, must not vote for the choice that will best combat these socialist principles.
“12. The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in much stronger light when considered in relation to man's social and domestic obligations. In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to observing virginity, or to bind themselves by the marriage tie. No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: "Increase and multiply." Hence we have the family, the "society" of a man's house -- a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.”
Kevin Tierney: In order for socialism to succeed, eventually, government must increase, to force people to go along with its agenda. Man as a whole will not willingly surrender that which is rightfully his. Therefore, the State must force him to. While the State claims it is acting in “societies best interests”, Leo demonstrates that in reality, it insults the most basic society, that of the family. A family is, while at times imperfect, truly a society. It has a distinct ruling authority which is very structured with the husband as the head of the household. Without families multiplying, there can be no society, for there would be no citizens. Since the society of the family predates the society of the State, the State is unable to take certain rights from the family, since those rights were around before the State’s creation. Those rights came from God, and only God may take them away, which he has sworn he will not do. Any government or global entity (such as the United Nations) which states in paragraph 29 of its Human Rights declaration that one’s rights may not be used contrary to the intentions of the United Nations flagrantly violates this principle outlined by Leo XIII. In order to take these fundamental rights away, the UN would also have to grant these rights. Yet as we know, these rights pre-date the existence of the UN; therefore the UN is powerless to take them away.
“13. That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.”
Kevin Tierney: Here the Pontiff talks about the principle which would later be known as subsidiarity. This is known as when it comes to those in need, that need should be provided by the means of those closest to the person. If there is a problem, the family should be the first resort. The Pontiff points this out by appealing to the fact that since man is head of his family, he has a right to private property, so that keeping in line with this principle, he may provide for his children, and see that they are taken care of. Today’s “social welfare programs” which provide massive government entitlements to the people are a clear rejection of the principles outlined by the Pontiff’s. Many Catholics erroneously believe that this puts a government more in line with Catholic social teaching, since it “cares about the needs of the poor.” The simple truth is that the means they undertake to meet the end of “Caring about the poor”, which in reality is a lie, upset the very order of society that God has intended. A state that has the power to enact social justice likewise has the power to take it away. For the State to say that private property cannot be owned, they clearly transgress their much defined borders in natural and divine law. They usurp the right of the family to provide, hence violating the rights of the family, which was therefore before the creation of the particular state.
“14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.
But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents." The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home. “
Kevin Tierney: When a State is to act, it acts as the servant of the people, ultimately furthering and defending the rights of its people, not strengthening its own power. One is reminded of Hillary Clinton who talks about taking a village to raise a child. This statement can be clearly seen as one of a socialistic nature. The child is part of society as representing his family. Therefore, for the state to function otherwise would clearly upset again the created order. This is why the Catholic Church has rightly labeled communism and socialism as one of the gravest evils secular society has produced, and is the culmination of those lesser evils. The majority of injustice inflicted upon American citizens today can find it’s roots in socialistic ideas.
“15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found. “
Kevin Tierney: The Pontiff now ends his critique on private property, by voicing, some century beforehand, what would be socialism’s greatest downfall, the very principle it upholds highest, the principle of community of goods. As I noted in my introduction, socialism and communism destroys the productive spirit inherent within man. Why be productive, since nothing comes out of being productive. It is not selfish or arrogant to wish to be receiving something from being productive, so one can procure a better life for themselves and those dearest to them. Yet when everyone pretty much makes the same income or anything that you have is also everyone else’s property, there is no real reason to be productive. With this lack of productivity comes a lack of business. People do not wish to run business, since it is utterly not profitable, and their line of work cannot provide for them adequately. In return, these businesses do not hire people; hence, the workers are also poor. Both capital and labor are ultimately destroyed, as we saw with the collapse of the Soviet Union. (While I myself do not believe communism died, rather went through chapter 11, its results were most clearly revealed for all to see at this time.) Sadly, Americans all too often forget history, and do not realize prominent people in leadership today are looking to take us down these same roads by advocating programs which are little better than what we battled against 20 years ago fiercely.
Now that the answer to combating poverty has been shown to be promotion of private property and ownership, we shall now build upon these foundations, to show the alternative to socialism. This must be done, as we must provide a reasonable, viable alternative to the society we wage against. Otherwise, by our complaining, we are simply prolonging the inevitable.
