Friday, February 18, 2005
Papal Wisdom: Pius XI on the Reconstruction of the Social Order (Quadragesimo Anno)
Part 2A Leo XIII's teachings defended and developed: Private Property and Ownership
After outlining the benefits that have transpired since Rerum Novarum's publication (to demonstrate that Leo XIII's goals were indeed attainable and not just some lofty ideas) Pius XI seeks to defend them and indeed strengthen them. Leo XIII's work came under intense fire in both the secular and Catholic world, due to ignorance or contempt of Catholic principles.
Here we see Pius XI being the innovator, yet the innovator steeply rooted in Cathoilc principles. His teachings will be developed and indeed new, but still rooted within the firm teachings of Leo XIII and the Tradition of the Fathers. The intent is to once again show the Catholic Church has the answers to modern societies problems. When new problems arise, the Church applies it's wisdom and knowledge of the past to the present situation.
We are once again reminded that a Christianity which is simply "religious" is indeed no Christianity at all. We hear this all the time today. That while we are Christians, we are to "leave our beliefs at the door." Christianity is some lofty religious ideal we celebrate on Sunday, with no repercussions in our daily lives.
Needless to say, Leo XIII found this idea absurd. For Christianity is not just a religion, but indeed there is a Christian worldview that stresses and emphasizes certain things. It is upon this worldview that Western Civilization was built. Part of that framework was respect for the moral law, which man could know. From these ideas we can divine that the Church should involve herself in such economic questions, giving principles guided by the Gospel:
1. Man can determine right from wrong.
2.That determination of right and wrong is of paramount importance in regards to one's salvation.
3. The Church is that institution founded by Jesus Christ as the only mean of salvation.
4. There are principles in economics guided by the moral law.
5. In those areas where they cross, the Church can and should offer it's insight on these issues.
First we should remember that the socialists answer to the divide between rich and poor was the rich had far too much private property. For the government to take it, this would balance the scales. The government would provide property to the poor and the rich alike, indeed attempting to eliminate classes. Let us remember that property is not just land, but money, possessions, anything. Aside from neccessarily dealing with the morality (or lack thereof) of this proposition, there are the pratical matters. The solution, rather than helping workers, hurts them.
For the ability to acquire property through work was one way to get out of those situations of dependency. With that gone, one is forever trapped by dependency. It depends on the government to provide for them, since they are not allowed to do so for themselves. For that property, man can use to provide for his own self-sufficience, and the suffiency of those around him.
Second is the class warfare which results inevitably from such a system. In order for the government to stay relevant, the issue has to be between the have's and the have nots. Between those who own businesses and those who work for them for example. It is evidently plain that both need each other. For if both depend on and work with each other, each side benefits, and indeed one looks towards the day of having the property of their own. In a society without real ownership, this is impossible.
The socialists (and in America at least their descendants in the Democratic party) make the same argument against an economic system of ownership, that it "benefits the rich." Let us remember the issue abuot class warfare listed above. Yet it is a system of basic morality, that favors people of all wealth status, for it focuses on that which is beyond temporal wealth, the principles laid out ultimately point towards eternal wealth. On that journey, both rich and poor have responsibilities, which Leo XIII listed in great detail in Rerum Novarum, which we shall frequently return to.
In response to the socialists and those who push an extreme individualism of economics, Pius XI reminds us of the nature of ownership. A fitting analogy is one I heard from Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He described ownership as private, yet conditioned by society. What excactly does he mean? Lets say you wish to have a horse. You have every right to own that horse. That is your right to private property. Yet in providing for that horse, you may not have that horse consume the crops of your neighbor without his permission. You cannot use your property the property of others, whether individual or society. That is how it is socially conditioned. Another example being the Second Amendment in America. You do have the right to defend yourself by keeping and bearing arms. You however may not use those arms you keep and bear to attack others or destroy the property of others.
Here is something we also must remember. That while man has a right to private property, he is still obligated by the moral law to practice charity. For as we remember, from the Christian outlook, we use our temporal goods towards that of the eternal order. Those who have been blessed with large finances should help when they can at the end of the day. This is not to advocate the forced confiscation by governments of the wealthy's money. Yet it is to state that the wealthy have been given these gifts for a reason, to serve others.
Part 2A Leo XIII's teachings defended and developed: Private Property and Ownership
After outlining the benefits that have transpired since Rerum Novarum's publication (to demonstrate that Leo XIII's goals were indeed attainable and not just some lofty ideas) Pius XI seeks to defend them and indeed strengthen them. Leo XIII's work came under intense fire in both the secular and Catholic world, due to ignorance or contempt of Catholic principles.
Yet since in the course of these same years, certain doubts have arisen concerning either the correct meaning of some parts of Leo's Encyclical or conclusions to be deduced therefrom, which doubts in turn have even among Catholics given rise to controversies that are not always peaceful; and since, furthermore, new needs and changed conditions of our age have made necessary a more precise application of Leo's teaching or even certain additions thereto, We most gladly seize this fitting occasion, in accord with Our Apostolic Office through which We are debtors to all,[26] to answer, so far as in Us lies, these doubts and these demands of the present day.
Here we see Pius XI being the innovator, yet the innovator steeply rooted in Cathoilc principles. His teachings will be developed and indeed new, but still rooted within the firm teachings of Leo XIII and the Tradition of the Fathers. The intent is to once again show the Catholic Church has the answers to modern societies problems. When new problems arise, the Church applies it's wisdom and knowledge of the past to the present situation.
41. Yet before proceeding to explain these matters, that principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters. Certainly the Church was not given the commission to guide men to an only fleeting and perishable happiness but to that which is eternal. Indeed" the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns" however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law. For as to these, the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.
We are once again reminded that a Christianity which is simply "religious" is indeed no Christianity at all. We hear this all the time today. That while we are Christians, we are to "leave our beliefs at the door." Christianity is some lofty religious ideal we celebrate on Sunday, with no repercussions in our daily lives.
Needless to say, Leo XIII found this idea absurd. For Christianity is not just a religion, but indeed there is a Christian worldview that stresses and emphasizes certain things. It is upon this worldview that Western Civilization was built. Part of that framework was respect for the moral law, which man could know. From these ideas we can divine that the Church should involve herself in such economic questions, giving principles guided by the Gospel:
1. Man can determine right from wrong.
2.That determination of right and wrong is of paramount importance in regards to one's salvation.
3. The Church is that institution founded by Jesus Christ as the only mean of salvation.
4. There are principles in economics guided by the moral law.
5. In those areas where they cross, the Church can and should offer it's insight on these issues.
But to come down to particular points, We shall begin with ownership or the right of property. Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, you know that Our Predecessor of happy memory strongly defended the right of property against the tenets of the Socialists of his time by showing that its abolition would result, not to the advantage of the working class, but to their extreme harm. Yet since there are some who calumniate the Supreme Pontiff, and the Church herself, as if she had taken and were still taking the part of the rich against the non-owning workers -- certainly no accusation is more unjust than that -- and since Catholics are at variance with one another concerning the true and exact mind of Leo, it has seemed best to vindicate this, that is, the Catholic teaching on this matter from calumnies and safeguard it from false interpretations.
First we should remember that the socialists answer to the divide between rich and poor was the rich had far too much private property. For the government to take it, this would balance the scales. The government would provide property to the poor and the rich alike, indeed attempting to eliminate classes. Let us remember that property is not just land, but money, possessions, anything. Aside from neccessarily dealing with the morality (or lack thereof) of this proposition, there are the pratical matters. The solution, rather than helping workers, hurts them.
For the ability to acquire property through work was one way to get out of those situations of dependency. With that gone, one is forever trapped by dependency. It depends on the government to provide for them, since they are not allowed to do so for themselves. For that property, man can use to provide for his own self-sufficience, and the suffiency of those around him.
Second is the class warfare which results inevitably from such a system. In order for the government to stay relevant, the issue has to be between the have's and the have nots. Between those who own businesses and those who work for them for example. It is evidently plain that both need each other. For if both depend on and work with each other, each side benefits, and indeed one looks towards the day of having the property of their own. In a society without real ownership, this is impossible.
The socialists (and in America at least their descendants in the Democratic party) make the same argument against an economic system of ownership, that it "benefits the rich." Let us remember the issue abuot class warfare listed above. Yet it is a system of basic morality, that favors people of all wealth status, for it focuses on that which is beyond temporal wealth, the principles laid out ultimately point towards eternal wealth. On that journey, both rich and poor have responsibilities, which Leo XIII listed in great detail in Rerum Novarum, which we shall frequently return to.
First, then, let it be considered as certain and established that neither Leo nor those theologians who have taught under the guidance and authority of the Church have ever denied or questioned the twofold character of ownership, called usually individual or social according as it regards either separate persons or the common good. For they have always unanimously maintained that nature, rather the Creator Himself, has given man the right of private ownership not only that individuals may be able to provide for themselves and their families but also that the goods which the Creator destined for the entire family of mankind may through this institution truly serve this purpose. All this can be achieved in no wise except through the maintenance of a certain and definite order.
In response to the socialists and those who push an extreme individualism of economics, Pius XI reminds us of the nature of ownership. A fitting analogy is one I heard from Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He described ownership as private, yet conditioned by society. What excactly does he mean? Lets say you wish to have a horse. You have every right to own that horse. That is your right to private property. Yet in providing for that horse, you may not have that horse consume the crops of your neighbor without his permission. You cannot use your property the property of others, whether individual or society. That is how it is socially conditioned. Another example being the Second Amendment in America. You do have the right to defend yourself by keeping and bearing arms. You however may not use those arms you keep and bear to attack others or destroy the property of others.
Furthermore, a person's superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church constantly declare in the most explicit language that the rich are bound by a very grave precept to practice almsgiving, beneficence, and munificence.
Here is something we also must remember. That while man has a right to private property, he is still obligated by the moral law to practice charity. For as we remember, from the Christian outlook, we use our temporal goods towards that of the eternal order. Those who have been blessed with large finances should help when they can at the end of the day. This is not to advocate the forced confiscation by governments of the wealthy's money. Yet it is to state that the wealthy have been given these gifts for a reason, to serve others.
