What today’s Aristotelian-Thomist finds astounding in the modern
interpretation of Catholic social teaching — quite apart from what seems to be
the virtual complete abandonment of, even full-blown attack on reason deprecated
by G. K. Chesterton, of course — is a claim that I have come across a number of
times. This is that Leo XIII (contrary
to the claims of the Catholic Church that it has never changed a substantial
teaching) inserted a “new” understanding of private property into Rerum Novarum.
Having made that statement, I must immediately qualify it. “Liberals” believe that the pope somehow
changed an unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church. “Conservatives,” on the other hand, assume as
a matter of course that the new
understanding
that has developed
is actually the old teaching, and
fail to see any difference . . . or (at least) claim not to see any difference. Then you have those “liberal-conservatives”
(or “conservative-liberals”) whose contradictions preclude an accurate or even
meaningful classification of their errors.
If the understanding of a particular teaching were
consistent with what the Church actually teaches, this would not be a
problem. Well, not a problem except for
the specific individuals who put truth on a different basis than what is
actually the case. Getting the basis of
truth wrong is one of those seemingly small errors that leads to great errors
in the end.
Unfortunately, both the “liberal” and the “conservative”
understanding of why something is true is badly flawed. That is, they both base their opinions — not
knowledge — on faith instead of reason.
This leads directly into a much greater error that the Catholic Church
has termed “modernism.”
More than one commentator has remarked that “modernism” is
an unfortunate choice of words. This is
because “modern” is the last thing that modernism is. Modernism is a synthesis of pretty much every
crime against reason that has been committed for at least 2,500 years, or since
the Greeks set out to try and systematize human thought.
Modernism bases things on the will rather than intellect,
that is, on faith rather than reason.
This has been devastating in its effect on our understanding of the
natural law, and thus our understanding of Catholic social teaching, especially
with respect to the natural right of private property.
Of course, it all depends on what it is you’re putting your
faith in. The ultimate error is the
same, but it manifests itself in different ways.
For the “liberal,” it is fairly obvious what is going on. One of the condemned propositions of
modernism is that religious faith must conform to the findings of science.
This is wrong on two counts.
One, while scientific truth and religious truth are both consistent with
the principle of identity (that which is true is as true, and is true in the
same way as everything else that is true), we have to realize that scientific
truth and religious truth deal with different subject matter.
Scientific truth and religious truth cannot contradict one
another, but they aren’t going to say the same thing. They are different areas of knowledge, and
you can’t apply the findings of one to the other. You can’t say, for example, that because in biology
photosynthesis turns light into plant food, then 2 plus 2 equals green.
Two, the science on which the “liberals” base their claim
that religious truth must conform to scientific truth is usually bad science —
or, when the science is good, their understanding of it is bad.
This is worse in the social sciences, because it is in the
social sciences that errors about the natural law have their most serious
effect. If we make a mistake about human
nature, we will, obviously, carry that mistake over into the social sciences. We see this most graphically with respect to
the natural right (i.e., based on
human nature) of private property.
Most modern economic science is based on an assumption that
leads inevitably to the conclusion that ownership or control of capital must be
concentrated. We won’t go into the whys
and wherefores right now, because that is not the point we’re making. We’re only after the bottom line: that most
people cannot exercise their natural right to be an owner in any meaningful
sense. The only question is whether a
private elite will own (capitalism), or a public elite (socialism).
That being the case, the “liberal” argues, then all that the
pope says and the Catholic Church teaches about the sacredness of private
property and the need for widespread ownership of capital must be either
prudential (i.e., nice if you could
do it, but you can’t), or “private property” must mean something entirely
different from what people have always assumed it meant.
In neither case can a natural right be something truly
inherent in human nature, or maybe human nature isn’t really as absolute as
people have always assumed. The Catholic
Church must conform its teachings to this infallible teaching of science.
The “conservative” does the same thing, except in reverse. The “conservative” accepts what the Catholic
Church teaches as infallible . . . but makes the unconscious assumption that what
“science” teaches is also
infallible. Consequently, regardless
what it might look like what the words
mean, the Catholic Church is really saying
what science is saying because science must conform its teachings to what the
Church teaches . . . which is conforming to what science teaches.
Briefly, then, “property” means two things. One, property is the natural right inherent
in each and every human being to become an owner, that is, to acquire title to
things. Property is not the thing
itself. Two, property is the bundle of
socially determined rights that define what an owner may do with what he or she
possesses or “owns.”
In general, no one may use his or her possessions in any way
that harms him- or herself, other individuals or groups, or the common good as
a whole, or in any way that prevents others from exercising their rights. As Louis Kelso pointed out (and as we quoted,
supra), “Property in everyday life, is the right of control.”
In Rerum Novarum,
then, Leo XIII carefully presented this understanding of private property, and
explained its importance in the social order.
Thus, while the pope severely criticized capitalism, he condemned
outright both the harsh, fascist socialism of Karl Marx, and Henry George’s milder,
more Fabian socialism — that, nevertheless, carried within it the seeds of
fascism, as would become evident in the social thought of Msgr. Ryan.
Ironically, in the celebrated debate between Chesterton and
George Bernard Shaw — that Chesterton insisted was not a debate at all, but an
investigation — Shaw kept insisting that there is no substantial difference
between his, Shaw’s, version of Fabian socialism, and distributism. This is a position that today’s
neo-distributists also take, but without many of them using the word socialism,
Fabian, fascist, or otherwise.
To counter George’s argument against the legitimacy of title
in land, Leo XIII stressed that private property in land is fully as legitimate
as private property in any other form of capital: “[I]t is precisely in such
power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land
or chattels.” (Rerum Novarum, § 5).
The question of title was not, however, the main issue. The pope made it clear that it was the
centerpiece of George’s program, the “single tax,” i.e., all or most profits from land ownership (and by extension any
other form of capital) that makes georgism or any other form of presumably
benevolent socialism unacceptable.
This includes the demand (an integral aspect of Keynesian
economics as well as the programs developed by Msgr. Ryan) that the State tax
for “social purposes.” Excess taxation
for social purposes usurps the right of families and individuals to take care
of themselves, and at the same time deprives them of the means of doing
so. As the pope explained,
“The
right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the
State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good
alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be
unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private
owner of more than is fair.” (Ibid.,
§ 47.)
Thus, the remedy to “the social question” as Leo XIII saw it
was widespread capital ownership: “We have seen that this great labor question
cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be
held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its
policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.”
Ibid., § 46.) The pope’s program can be summed up in what
we at CESJ call “the Four Pillars of a Just Market Society”:
• A limited
economic role for the State:
“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.” (Ibid., § 7),
• Free and open
markets
within an understandable and fair system of laws as the most objective and
democratic means for determining just prices, just wages and just profits — the
residual after all goods or services are sold: "Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancinet than any bargain between man and man." (Ibid., § 45),
• Restoration of
private property,
especially in corporate equity and other forms of business organization: “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.” (Ibid., § 5), and
• Widespread
capital ownership,
individually or in free association with others: “The law . . . should
favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the
people to become owners.” (Ibid., §
46.)
There was, however, a fatal omission from Rerum Novarum, an omission that would be
repeated in Quadragesimo Anno, and
prevent a clear expression of the three principles of economic justice
otherwise implicit in Catholic social teaching.
That omission was the failure to realize that past savings are not the
sole, or even the best source of financing for new capital formation. We will address the implications of this
omission in the next posting in this series.
