This organization’s ideas were discussed at some length by an anonymous poster at Mark Shea’s Catholic and Enjoying It (link takes you to the post, the discussion of CESJ is pretty far down in the comments). The Center’s web site is here. Perhaps some of you have heard of it but it was new to me. I haven’t delved very far into their ideas but they seem to have some good ones, and possibly also some bad ones. They’re not Catholic (as an organization) but seem to have absorbed some Catholic ideas about social justice and property. Widespread property ownership seems to be their main cause, and I’m certainly on board with that. But there’s some stuff about the sovereignty of the individual that smells kind of bad, although as noted I didn’t read closely or extensively.
Anyway, seems worth a closer look.
–Maclin Horton
Discomfort (or disagreement) with the material on individual sovereignty might be assuaged by giving the testimonials a look. There are some pretty heavy hitters there, e.g., Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame, His Eminence Achille Cardinal Silvestrini (former Vatican Secretary of State under John Paul II), and Dr. Raphael Waters of the Scholars for Social Justice, sort of a Catholic “think tank.” Sort of.
Perhaps more than most of you I have some acquaintance with the CESJ, its aims and programs. It is “inspired” by the book, The Capitalist Manifesto, by Mortimer Adler and Louis Kelso. It is currently headed by Norman Kurland, with whom I had a long phone conversation a few months ago on similarities and differences in our respective ideas. CESJ promotes widespread ownership of property, yes – but not exactly as Chesterton and Belloc wanted it. They want workers to own shares in companies, but not necessarily the companies they themselves work for, however. So the benefits of workers feeling attached to their own property are lost, and it is largely reduced to simply an economic transaction. In addition, as far as I have been able to learn, they are not too interested in other aspects of the social justice question, e.g., the living wage. I regard their reform as superior to what we have now, but falling short of a real Catholic approach to the economy.
The real merit of the Kelso approach is his idea of financing venture-capital enterprises out of future earnings. E.g., with a government-backed low interest loan, a new micro-company could start up and pay back the loan out of future earnings. This, I think, is a real contribution to advancing Catholic social thought in a practical way.
I reviewed the book (sold by CESJ) edited by Fr. John Miller, Curing World Poverty, for NOR some years ago. This book promotes important aspects of the CESJ program, and, as I noted in my review, it is lacking in that it seems uninterested in other aspects of the social justice question.
Tom- Can you link to your NOR review?
Someone sent me that book when I was editing C&T and my reaction was similar to yours: “Yes, but…”
Dan, I can’t find the review on the web. It was from about 1991, I think, and I’m not sure if NOR has material from that date posted, and, if they do, whether the full-text is available without a web subscription.
Dear Mr. Storck:
I think your comments are slightly misleading. First, of course, restricting workers to owning shares ONLY in the companies for which they work is to put socialist restrictions on the right to own at all. CESJ’s recommendation is that workers own the company for which they work, with full rights of private property restored and enforced. This restores the connection between man and his tools.
Prudentially, however, no one should put all his savings (economically speaking, savings = investment) in one basket, therefore “exess” savings (above whatever is needed to finance new capital and operations for the company the workers own) should be invested in a prudent mix of shares of other companies, landed or rental property — exactly as those planning for retirement today are urged … although those doing the urging seem rather shy of explaining just where the savings for investment originate, a question answered by capital homesteading.
As for your comments on the living wage (the only “other aspect” of Catholic social teaching you mention) … Yes, but …
If you read Quadragesimo Anno, the just wage/living wage/family wage, etc., etc., etc., is framed as an expedient on the way to establishing a state of society that Leo XIII characterized as one in which the great mass of people prefer to own, and thereby generate an adequate and secure income through ownership, not wages. Both Leo XIII and Pius XI characterized the worker who has only his labor to sell in terms that sound Marxist (inferring that they were either slaves or in a condition equivalent to slavery). Msgr. John Ryan in his book “A Living Wage” (1906) clearly explained that living wage arrangements are secondary to ownership of the means of production, and can only be justified when there are people who do not own an adequate stake of income-generating assets. Msgr. Ryan, in fact, clearly stated that ownership of the means of production is a “primary right” (and repeated it in his book “Distributive Justice … 3/4 of the text refers not to wages, but property), while the living wage is a “derived right,” and one “pre-empted” by private property ownership.
Thus, it is not a question of CESJ ignoring or avoiding the living wage, but of going beyond the need for it — something that both Chesterton and Belloc also recommended. If we look at the substance of distributism, then CESJ and Chesterton and Belloc are all on the same page. If we focus on accidentals (“forms”), however, you will get lost and spend all your time wondering why CESJ doesn’t say things exactly the way the Chesterbelloc did … just trying to end up in the same place.
Both Chesterton and Belloc excoriated the wage system, and a living wage system is still a wage system. They would undoubtedly be stunned to find their latter day followers denigrating private property and programs designed to broaden its application in favor of “the living wage.”
Dear Sir:
I will just state briefly that I think my characterization of the CESJ program is accurate, and as regards widely-distributed property and its superiority to the employer-employee relationship, I have been a strong proponent of distributism for some years, as a Google search might reveal to you.
Dear Mr. Stork:
I will state even more briefly that I think your characterization of the CESJ program is not accurate. I guess you’ll have to let people take a look and decide for themselves. Whether or not you’re a strong proponent of distributism doesn’t really follow.
About the living wage: I don’t know nearly as much about economics in general or any of these specific ideas as either of you, but I’ve always had trouble figuring out how a legally mandated living wage could be implemented effectively.
If you mandate that a head of household receive a higher wage in proportion to the number of people in the family, you create a huge incentive for employers not to hire heads of households. You could forbid that practice but enforcement would be very difficult–it would involve greatly expanding the already problematic interventions for race, sex, etc. that we now have in place, and would create massive resentments against people with families, and the bigger the family the more resentment.
On the other hand, if you take the existing minimum-wage system and raise the minimum to something reasonable for supporting a family (how big a family?), which would mean doubling it a bare minimum, you would create a big incentive for employers to do away with as many jobs as possible (an incentive that’s always there, of course, but this would worsen it).
I guess you could fix all the above by having the government manage both wages and prices (to try to limit the incentive to cut jobs and other costs), but government-controlled economies haven’t really done that well in the past.
Maclin et al.
There seems to be some controversy in the larger, extra-C&T world as to whether raising minimum wage actually does decrease jobs and/or cause layoffs. I know some say it makes sense a priori, but others have made the claim that it is not the case in reality. They claim, too, that they have studies to prove this. I wonder if anyone can speak to this.
I might add that the problem with a priori judgments in economics is that they are based on the notion that economics is a science that can uncover rules of human behavior. But, as Chesterton has pointed out, people are continally playing the game of “cheat the prophet.” Finally, human behavior is not as predictable as some would make it be.
I don’t know, or frankly care to spend time trying to decide for myself, which economists are right on that question–who am I to settle a factual argument among people who know way more than I do? But I find it hard to imagine that doubling the minimum wage or more wouldn’t have some significant disincentive effect.
Seems to me that without a cultural change that involves the mass of people accepting something other than a purely financial calculus for these matters it would be hard to make it work. Btw I don’t believe in definitive economic “laws”–I’m just looking at human nature, and our culture.
I like an idea that I heard Ben & Jerry’s practiced, at least before they got bought out. It was corporate policy that the highest paid person could not be paid more than the seven times as much as the lowest. That strikes me as a good balance between excess inequality and unrealistic expectations of equality. And it insures that a rising tide really would float all boats. Maybe some approach on those lines rather than trying to specify dollar amounts would work.
Just when I made a resolution not to post anymore, especially in response to people who are unwilling to reveal who they are, I encounter a couple of intelligent comments, those of Maclin and Christopher, so I feel I must say something after all.
First, a living wage is an ethical imperative, repeated in probably every papal social encyclical since Rerum Novarum. I think it can probably be regarded as infalliblly taught by the ordinary magisterium. But the popes have never mandated exactly how this ethical imperative is to be implemented. In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI briefly considers some ways to provide a living wage, and at the time of that encyclical there were proposals for and (I think) actually existing joint funds (in France) to which employers would contribute and out of which workers with larger families would receive extra compensation. Thus no individual employer would have a disincentive to hire fathers of large families. Unions have also been very effective historically in bringing about living wages. Had Pius XI and Pius XII’s proposals for occupational groups been implemented, those also would have brought about the living wage. A legislatively mandated minimum wage can be helpful in many situations, but we should be careful not to confuse discussion of living wages with the minimum wage. But right now, I daresay, in the United States, an increase in the minimum wage would be very helpful to many low-paid workers.
However, I do agree with our shy friend Nonymous that worker ownership is superior to the employer/employee relationship, and eliminates many potential problems, although Pius XI did go out of his way to state that the employer/employee relationship is not essentially unjust.
As to the question of a priori judgments in economics, I would just suggest that those interested investigate the institutional school of economics, which flourished in the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s. It emphasized that all economic relationships involved more than a simple calculus of pleasure and pain, but operated within a society’s legal system, customs, institutions, etc. All economic relationships are also power relationships in that those with power usually try to bend the legal and other rules to their own benefit, often justifying it as simply the result of blind market forces. Market forces are real enough, but they always operate within the constraints of a society’s laws, customs, etc.
“Market forces are real enough, but they always operate within the constraints of a society’s laws, customs, etc.”
Well said. Many appeals to economic “law” are merely appeals to cultural habits.
Just a by-the-way regarding anonymity: people may have very sound reasons for being anonymous on the Internet. As long as an anonymous poster is courteous and reasonable, I go on the assumption that one of those sound reasons is operative.
If I have time and there is interest I will see if I can find papers on this. Anyhow the current minimum wage consensus is as follows:
1) At moderate amounts, there is no correlative evidence that increases in the minimum wage causes loss of employment. Santa Fe, NM, is a typical example given. Tentative evidence suggests there is no impact or a small benefit.
2) Labor force participation by teenagers tends to decline as the minimum wage increases.
The typical rationale given is that those who make minimum wage tend to work in captive industries such as healthcare and services. Manufacturers OTOH are typically not captive. Any change in the minimum wage would not tend to affect the 10:1 advantage Chinese labor, for example, enjoys over US labor. Therefore, other factors account for a higher manufacturing wage.
Just a few additional observations. A moment’s reflection will reveal that a system based on ownership (which Leo XIII advocated, RN § 46) and wage systems of all types are ultimately mutually exclusive. You eventually come down to the question of whether a worker should be paid the value of what he contributes to the production process, or according to what he needs. As the objective value of human labor falls relative to that of capital, providers of human labor are, in a justly ordered society, paid less and less as their relative contribution falls and they are replaced by technology. The solution is for the workers to become owners of the means of production, with full rights of private property.
This is based on the laws of supply and demand which, as Pius XI noted in QA, are based on human nature and are as true and true in the same way as any moral law. He also pointed out that the current state of society was unjust and must be restructured so as to conform to the precepts of natural law. To meet the demands of human dignity, both Leo XIII and Pius XI advocated widespread ownership of the means of production. They also saw that there appeared to be no other way to achieve that state except by paying workers enough to 1) meet their needs consistent with the demands of human dignity and 2) save a sum sufficient to purchase an adequate stake of income-generating property.
The *means* to achieve a state of society in which the broad mass of people own property and derive either the whole or the bulk of their income from ownership falls into the category of “prudential matter.” As long as human dignity is not outraged or offended in any material way, Catholic social teaching is indifferent to the how. The CESJ has its “capital homesteading” program, which appears to provide a means for people to become owners that violates neither economic laws nor morality. It thus appears to be superior to reliance on a wage system of any type.
The problem with a living wage arrangement (or any wage system … as opposed to the wage contract) is that it is based on the assumption that most people are — and should be! — in a state of dependency on the State or the rich. This, as both Leo XIII and Pius XI pointed out, is an offense against human dignity — a condition analogous to slavery. The wage SYSTEM is thus inherently unjust, although the wage CONTRACT is, as Pius XI noted, “not unjust,” based as it is on strict — “commutative” — justice — value given for value received (which, outside of an emergency situation such as an unjustly structured social order, precludes a living wage system based on need).
The most important aspect of ownership, however (as least as far as Pius XI was concerned) is that the rights of property, while they must be defined as to their exercise to conform to the needs of the individual and the common good (as opposed to the inalienable and absolute right TO property, that is, the right to be an owner), grant the owner power over his own life. As Daniel Webster observed (and was echoed by Benjamin Watkins Leigh), “power naturally and necessarily follows property.” Human dignity absolutely demands that every adult human being be granted power over his own life and sufficient power over the lives of his dependents to train them to become adults.
This requires an adequate stake of private, income generating property — “capital.” The wage system assumes that workers will always be children. A property based system assumes that everyone has the inherent capacity to become an adult. The living wage — which can be construed as the just wage only within an unjustly structured society in which workers are treated like and considered children — becomes unjust within a social order structured to respect the demands of human dignity. In that case, the just wage is the value of human labor as set by a truly free market — a market in which everyone has the means to be an owner of capital.
Some one has to explain to me how me getting paid a wage by someone for doing something for them is inherently unjust. I’m not going to own every enterprise that I do work for. I don’t own Sacred Heart, for instance (and don’t get all ecclesiological on me–”We are Church!.”)
The wage CONTRACT is, as Pius XI stated, not unjust. The wage SYSTEM — a condition of society in which a determinant number of people gain the whole or the bulk of their income from wages — is unjust by its nature, as it assumes and enforces a condition of dependency on the wage worker, who presumably is put on earth to become an adult (relative to other people and in contrast to his status as a child of God). A wage system can thus be unjustly structured, while individual instances of wage contracts within the system can be perfectly just.
To answer the other point, no one can be forced to own a share of the company he works for — or anything at all. In the case of civil servants, the military, the police, etc., it would not be possible in any event.
In that case, people should be given the opportunity to own shares of other productive enterprises — thus the necessity for not placing restrictions on what someone may own. E.g., a worker may not want to own shares in the company for which he works, but put his eggs into other baskets, or into none. As Seneca put it, “Slavery holds many men fast, but many more hold fast to slavery.” That is, you can’t force freedom on someone; some people prefer slavery to freedom.
What is important is that there is an equal opportunity to become an owner if one so desires — and, even more important, to have equal access to the means of becoming an owner, which in our day and age (as Belloc pointed out) means equal access to capital credit, as provided in CESJ’s capital homesteading proposal.
No, the wage system is not unjust – it’s a poor idea, I agree – distributism is much better, but there are no papal statements that say it is essentially unjust. Yes, the popes do recommend “that as many as possible of workers become owners” (Leo XIII), but there are no statements saying it is essentially unjust
While I share Mr. Nonymouse’s preference for a distributivist system, I cannot agree with certain of his statements. To wit:
“As the objective value of human labor falls relative to that of capital, providers of human labor are, in a justly ordered society, paid less and less as their relative contribution falls and they are replaced by technology.”
But the whole point of a just wage, according to the Church, is that it is a one way in which a worker participates in the material goods which God has ordained for all. Thus, in hiring someone, the employer is providing the means by which that person can attain those goods which belong to him by the primordial gift of God. The employer is the employee’s access to the material goods destined by God for all.
Mr. Nonymouse seems to be saying that in a justly ordered society in which men are paid wages, workers will rightly be treated as units of production, undifferentiated from other units of production (such as machinery), except in relation to their productive capacity. But this misses the point that men can never be treated as anything other than men. They can never be reduced to the abstraction of “unit.” In a situation where an employer provides for the worker the only means by which the worker can subsist, the employer must consider more than the what economic “laws” demand. He must consider that he is the means by which this real, flesh and blood man (not some abstract “unit”) achieves his livelihood. He must consider that this man is not worthy of a living wage based solely on his relative contribution to the production process, but because he is a man.
I would dispute too that a state of dependency implies a violation of human dignity. Adulthood implies the self-possession that is moral integrity; it does not necessarily imply independence. The worker who conscientiously and freely does his duty to his employer — even without threat of consequences — is fully an adult and has achieved dignity in and through his state. Of course, there are perfections that he will not achieve being a worker; but then none of us is capable of achieveing all of the human perfections. And none of us, finally, escapes dependence. Whether one considers the body politic or the Mystical Body, we are finally all parts; and parts are by definition dependent on the whole and on each other.
I think I can answer both Mr. Storck’s and Mr. Zehnder’s objections very briefly. After that, it devolves into opinion, about which discussion can go on forever.
Mr. Storck: it is a basic assumption by both Chesterton and Belloc that the wage system is inherently unjust. There is sufficient evidence in the encyclicals to support this, not the least of which is the way that both Leo XIII and Pius XI characterize the lot of the propertyless worker as tantamount to slavery — an offense against human dignity — and Leo XIII’s statement that private property is a natural right, and that without ownership, we are little better than animals.
Mr. Zehnder:
You are putting words into my mouth, not that I think you mean to. Much of what you say seems to indicate that there are semantic problems here. I refer you to Pius XI’s statement (echoing St. Paul) in Quas Primas that “It is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow men.” I hope I did not imply in a justly structured social order that workers would be treated as things — but that they would sell their labor for the market value of that labor. Further and greater participation in the economic process would be gained through the institution of private property, which would guarantee them the rights that mere wage workers gain only by charity or government or union fiat, and which can be taken away as easily as they were granted.
So, unless I own property I have not achieved my full dignity as a person? Hm.
Mr. Nonymouse,
What Pope Pius XI said in Quas Primas was this: “When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord’s regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen’s duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. ‘You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.’” It is clear here that Pius is not in any way impugning the employer/employee relationship, since he says even slaves are to obey their masters “as the viceregents of Christ.” Thus, the employee would “serve” his employer as if he were serving Christ.
Secondly, in a rightly ordered employer/employee relationship, there is mutual service, though realized in different ways. The employer, for instance, is the principle of order for the community of good that is the business enterprise; this is an act of service, not only to himself, but to those who participate in that community of good.
In regards to the “market price,” the teaching on the just wage implies that a wage sufficient to maintain the worker himself, his wife, and family in frugal comfort should be considered part of the “price” of labor. In other words, the price of labor must be set not only according to “market forces” but in accord with moral demands.
It is important to note, too, that the popes do not see the just wage as a response of charity but of justice. To fail to pay a just wage is to steal from the worker his rightful participation in the created goods universally destined for all.
The difference between a wage earner and a manager or an owner is that the wage earner has no say over the direction of the enterprise, whereas both the owner and management do. But, the difference is NOT whether they enjoy the fruits of the enterprise, since the wage earner obviously does. Justice has not to do then simply with whether he is an “owner” of the enterprise, but whether he enjoys sufficient fruits of the enterprise to live a human life. I’m sympathetic with distributism, but I still don’t see how a wage system could be intrinsically unjust. Unless ownership of private property is necessary for human dignity. As a Franciscan I’m kind of thinking that might not be the case!
I think I see where the difficulty lies here. First, of course, whether or not you actually own property makes no difference — as long as that was your decision, i.e., your human dignity is not abused if you freely choose not to exercise a right.
Second — Mr. Zehnder, I don’t think you are properly grounded in Thomist philosophy, which is required in order to understand the encyclicals. You do not appear to know what is meant by “person,” “thing,” “right,” “duty,” and so on.
I am not saying this in a pejorative manner or to insult you. Quas Primas is a carefully written document embodying a synthesis of the political philosophy of St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Pius XI’s own breakthrough in moral philosophy with his doctrine of social virtue. In almost pure Aristotelian terms (drawn from the Politics), Pius XI defends the dignity and sovereignty of the human person under God.
The current issue of Social Justice Review has an article by Dr. Raphael Waters explaining what I am talking about. In short, to avoid the sort of semantic argument with which you have presented me, you have to know how to read the encyclicals as they were intended to be read, that is, in light of the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas, as Leo XIII stated in Aeterni Patris and Pius XI in Studiorum Ducem.
Again, I am not criticizing you or employing any pejoratives. I am simply pointing out that we are not talking the same language, and that we will never reach any kind of agreement or even resolution until we are speaking the same language.
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh is right, Maclin!
Perhaps Mr. Nonymouse could refrain from being supercilious long enough to explain why what my interpretation of the passage quoted from Pius XI, or anything else I said, is incorrect. It seems he thinks we need a secret gnosis to penetrate, as he has doubtlessly, the mysteries of the social encyclicals. I suppose I am too much of yokel to understand the passage from Quas Primas — but, my good Nonymouse, my interpretation makes sense to me. Can you not descend to my ignorance to show me where I went wrong in my exegesis?
As for my not being a Thomist…
Here I ask my old friend and sometimes discussion opponent — the renowned Daniel Nichols himself — to come to my aid! I invoke thy succor, O Daniel; my cry traverses the deserts, the lofty mountains, the plains stretching to sunrise; it swims the mighty Mississippi, paddles up the Ohio, and then walks several miles northward, to the ancient hamlet of Wooster, where you dwell in Byzantine bliss, painting icons. And I beg you to tell, in the face of the aspersions cast on me by this Nonymouse (an English name, no?) — am I not at least a little bit Thomistic? Let him not think, O Daniel, that I am lost in the wilds of Bonaventurianism, or in the thickets of Scotism, or that I weave sweet but unrealistic dreams with Raymon Lull! Let him know I do not dwell in the outer darkness of phenomenological wastelands, confusing what seems with what is — or is it what is with what seems? Or is it as if it were?
But for my part, Mr. Nonymouse, let me say. My teachers were themselves the students of the great Charles DeKonink of glorious Thomistic fame. I am schooled in Aristotle, having studied the Organon, the Physics, the Ethics, the Politics, the Poetics, and the Metaphysics. I have studied St. Thomas, though I have not read all. But I often read the Summa Theologica with my breakfast and have recently finished a careful study of De Ente et Essentia. I may not be the Thomist you are, my good Nonymouse, which may be the reason I don’t use the fame of it to try to knock down an opponent in argumentation. I at least try to answer thought with thought, argument with argument, interpretation with interpretation. In short, I may not be the Thomist you are, o magister subtilior me, but at least I’m a gentleman.
Christopher, urbanus et scholasticus, a gentleman and a scholar, that you surely are. Ought we to spend any more time on Mr. Nonymouse than on the Pseudo-Salazar?
A query: has anyone read Fr. Ernest Fortin’s take on the social encyclicals of Leo XIII et al.? Opinions and comments?
Tom,
Thanks for the compliment. But I am no scholar — just a hack journalist.
A. Nonymouse may be in error concerning Mr. Zehnder’s knowledge of Aristotle and St. Thomas, but to his credit he made his error as gently and graciously as I have seen done in a fair while.
Unfortunately, neither gentleness nor grace was afforded in the replies.
Dear Mr. Zehnder:
I believe you still misunderstand my meaning. Since this matter is rather important, I will make another effort to explain.
First, I start with certain basic assumptions found in Aristotelian and Thomist philosophy. It is impossible to understand Catholic social teaching as the Church intends without taking these assumptions into consideration.
1. The principle (or law) of contradiction. Also known as the principle of non-contradiction and various other names, this simply states that a thing cannot both “be” and “not be” at the same time.
2. What is true is “as true,” and “true in the same way” as anything else that is true.
3. The pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals.
4. Truth does not change, although our understanding of truth may change.
Second, there are certain terms that have specific meanings. Understanding these meanings is critical to understanding Catholic social teaching.
1. Person. A “person” is “that which has rights.” That which does not have rights is a “res” or “thing.” A human being without rights is a “slave,” a permanent dependent or “thing.”
2. Right. A “right” is the power to do or not do an act in relation to other persons. By the exercise of rights within the common good we acquire and develop virtue, and thereby (hopefully) gain heaven.
3. Duty. A “duty” is the necessary correlative of a right. If you have a right, then I have a duty to do or not do an act in relation to you.
4. Natural right. A “natural right” is one that defines a human being as a human person. The popes have been very, very careful always to discuss social teaching in terms of “human persons,” for that implies the existence of natural rights. The absence of natural rights, such as life, liberty and property, automatically means that whatever is under consideration is not a “person.” It is a “thing,” and, if human, a “slave” or permanent dependent.
In Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII is very clear why workers work:
“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.”
A few sentences later Leo XIII makes the following explicit declaration:
“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.”
Thus — if we accept what Leo XIII and thousands of years of philosophers and theologians before him say — private property is a natural right, i.e., something that defines a human being as a human person.
Now — you assert that the just wage is mandated by the popes in the encyclicals. Previously I pointed out that, in the opinion of Msgr. John Ryan, the right to a living or just wage is a “secondary” or “derived” right, not a “primary” or “natural right.” You confirm this when you state that to withhold a just wage is theft. “Theft” is a violation of private property; “Thou shalt not steal” in common with the universal prohibition against theft implies the legitimacy of private ownership.
Thus, you acknowledge that the right to a just wage is based on private property. The right to private property is therefore antecedent and superior to the right to a just wage. It cannot be any other way — it is a basic principle of common sense that you can’t get more from someone or something than someone or something has. You cannot base an absolute on something that is merely prudential. If, therefore, the right to a just wage is “mandated,” then the right to private property is “more” than mandated — it is essential to what it means to be human.
The popes confirm this. Nowhere is the right to a just wage described in terms as powerful or as forceful as those Leo XIII used to describe private property. You will never see the right to a just wage or any other kind of wage termed a “natural right” in Catholic social teaching. It is based on a natural right, but is not itself a natural right.
If we take as a given that no pope is going to contradict anything in the area of faith or morals stated by any other pope, we must accept that what Leo XIII said still holds true. Private property is still a natural right, and the right to a just wage is still secondary to the right to private property. Further, we cannot claim that truth changes over time, just our understanding of the truth. However, Leo XIII’s explicit identification of private property as a natural right — an identification, again, not similarly given to the just wage — is given in such a way as to preclude a different understanding. A different understanding would mean that the definition of private property has been changed, i.e., truth has been changed.
If your interpretation of Catholic social teaching contradicts any explicit statement on faith or morals by any pope, your interpretation is incorrect. You appear to be doing this in regard to private property, and your claim that the right to a just wage somehow negates or overrides the right to private property. As you can see, within the given framework for understanding Catholic social teaching (Thomist philosophy), you cannot say that; it is incorrect.
While it may not seem so, that was the easy part. Your differences with respect to individual sovereignty, free will, personality, etc., as promulgated in Quas Primas are infinitely more complex. To try and grossly simplify, however, if we accept Aquinas’ “analogy of being” (as both Leo XIII and Pius XI instruct us) we have to accept that every human being has the same (“analogous”) capacity to acquire and develop virtue as every other human being.
This requires that every human being has the same rights as every other human being, and is thus as fully a person as every other person. No one — except by due process of law — may be deprived of rights of life, liberty or property. This precludes any “natural elite” such as capitalists, employers, rulers, etc. in civil society. (Religious society — the Church — and Domestic society — the Family — are discrete societies of their own and operate under different rules.)
As St. Thomas makes clear in the Summa, and as the parable of the talents teaches us, rulers of men, masters, parents, employers, and so on, have the duty (which they ignore at the peril of their souls) of training their dependents to become adults in civil society — equals, not dependents. (Understanding of the parable of the talents is made more difficult by the fact that translators typically translate servus and servitus as “servant” rather than “slave,” changing the whole meaning.) This is so that, through the exercise of rights, dependents may acquire and develop virtue, achieve maturity, and thereby attain their true end of heaven. To deny anyone his rights, or to maintain anyone in a condition of permanent dependency without just cause (due process of law), is effectively to deny that individual his chance at heaven. (Although we can also say that with God, all things are possible — which does not excuse our denying anyone his rights. It merely puts us on the fast track to hell.)
Thus, when you say that some men are natural dependents (or words to that effect), you are simply restating Aristotle’s natural slave argument — an argument overturned and corrected by St. Thomas with his analogy of being.
I recommend that you read “Introduction to Social Justice” by Fr. William Ferree (available as a free download from the CESJ web site). I also recommend Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler’s “The Capitalist Manifesto” and “The New Capitalists,” both available as free downloads from the web site of the Kelso Institute, http://www.kelsoinstitute.org. You may also be interested in St. Thomas’ treatise “De Regimine Principum” (“On the Governance of Rulers”) and St. Robert Bellarmine’s treatise “De Laicis” (“On Civil Government”). In the latter, St. Robert declared that democracy is the “most useful” form of government, as it recognizes the proper transmission of political rights and sovereignty from God, to the people, then by revocable grant to the ruler. G. K. Chesterton’s brief biography of St. Thomas Aquinas, “The Dumb Ox” is also useful, as Chesterton points out many of the areas in which, ironically, his own followers fall short of the philosophy of common sense.
One thing to keep in mind with respect to Catholic teaching on individual sovereignty and human dignity is that, after languishing in semi-obscurity for centuries, Pius XI beatified Robert Bellarmine and, in the space of three years, canonized him and then declared him a doctor of the Church. We may thus take St. Robert’s views on civil government — with appropriate developments and corrections by Pius XI — as normative and a sure guide for the faithful. St. Robert is best known as the chief opponent of the Protestant theory known as the divine right of kings, and was viciously attacked by Sir Robert Filmer, chief theologian of James I of England (VI of Scotland), who also weighed in on the debate under a pseudonym.
Except:
A doctrine of subjective rights is nowhere to be found in Aristotle and Aquinas.
Now that Mr Nonymouse has corrected the deficits in Mr Zehnder’s education- the recommendation to read The Dumb Ox was particularily rich- allow me to come to Mr Zehnder’s defense: He graduated from THOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGE, you know, therefore he is a THOMIST. Duh. I don’t think they let you out of there until you write your submission to the Angelic Doctor in your own blood, kneeling before the Summa in the tabernacle.
Methinks Mr Mouse is way too wordy.
Now back to my icons…
Mr. Nonymouse,
Why do you think I am ignorant of the dogma of papal infallbility? And why do you suppose I need to learn about the “law of contradiction”? You must think I’m as stupid as a beanpole. Well, if that’s your opinion, that’s your opinion. I would say every man is entitled to his opinion, except that I don’t think that’s true.
But I don’t think you are responding to me, but to some imaginary interlocutor. Did I ever say anyone is a “natural dependent”? I think I merely said that being dependent does not necessarily violate human dignity and does not mean one is not reached adulthood. I never said being dependent is even ideal for anyone.
As for the just wage, I wrote that it is “one way in which a worker participates in the material goods which God has ordained for all.” I never claimed, as you say I said, that “the right to a just wage somehow negates or overrides the right to private property.” I merely noted that wage earners have a right to a wage sufficient for dignified, frugal, self support and that this is a right based in justice, not charity. Further, employers take upon themselves a responsibility when hiring a worker — to provide him a sufficient wage. This is no violation of the private property rights of the employer, but the just use of his property. Further, I would agree that the wage is an imperfect participation in private property, and that as wide a distribution of private property as possible is the desirable, most perfect thing.
For the future, Mr. Nonymouse, I would suggest that you come down from your high horse and and just jaw with us. We’re not a stupid as you seemingly think.
Dear Mr. Zehnder:
I sincerely apologize for offending you. That was not my intent. I believe that you are imputing motives to me that I do not have. I simply wished to explain my position. I do not think you are stupid, nor did I say so. I believe you are mistaken.
I believe that you are misreading what I wrote, and I believe that you do not understand Catholic social teaching. That is my opinion, and I am entitled to my opinion. You are entitled to know why I hold that opinion, and this I have attempted to explain. You are entitled to reject my opinion, which you have done.
Nevertheless, I think you and others are much too eager to be insulted, and are finding insult where none was intended. Instead of rational discussion in response, I find what can fairly be described as sneering and ridicule. You find my style of discourse “supercillious” and believe that I am up on a high horse. I honestly believe that you have read far, far too much into what I have written, and have demonstrated an unwillingness even to try and understand my position. The fact that you and others offer no counter argument, but only insult and non sequitur disinclines me to “jaw” with you or, frankly, to have anything to do with such unpleasant and irascible people who are clearly prone to take offense when someone attempts to defend himself or his position.
I have continued to comment because I did not want it to appear that I was running away when attacked, or that I had no answer to the points raised. Having given what I believe to be sufficient proof that insinuations of cowardice or ignorance would be misplaced, I retire from this particular fray with a great deal of relief.
Mr. Nonymouse,
The problem is that you have not addressed specifically what I have said. I gave you specific arguments and countered your apparent interpretation of Quas Primas, showing how it did not fit the sense of the text. You reply that you could not possibly discuss these things with me because I am not a Thomist. I was not so much offended as amused by what appeared to be an avoiding of the arguments presented with a rhetorically sensitive ad hominem. Hence, the mock grandiloquent style of my reply.
I am puzzled as to where I contradict Catholic social teaching. Is it where I say that a just wage is owed a worker by justice, not charity? (Hence, *just* wage)Is it where I assert that dependency does not preclude human dignity? Is it where I say that the wage is a participation, albeit an imperfect one, in the possession of the goods of this earth? What did I miss in Quas Primas that led me astray? It seems to me, that you had no answer to the points I, at least, raised.
But I bid you adieu, Good Nonymouse.
When a discussion arrives at the question of who is insulting whom, it’s pretty much finished. But I feel obliged to say, Mr. Nonymouse (I assume it’s “Mr.”), that I think you have in fact, not just in subjective impression, been pretty high-handed here. I speak as a more-or-less impartial observer as far as the finer points of distributism and other economic questions are concerned, and one who is in fact sympathetic to your emphasis on property.
“You do not understand Catholic social teaching” is a pretty strong statement about someone who plainly does know a good deal about the subject. To point out where your understanding differs from his is one thing; to declare his understanding nonexistent is, well, high-handed.
To declare that Mr Zehnder does not understand Thomas, and to recommend that he read Chesterton’s classic introduction to Thomas, as if this would be something new to Mr Zehnder, and then to explain some basic things as if to a child is all pretty insulting. I think Mr Mouse needs a little self-knowledge, if he cannot see that he was objectively being offensive.
This has been a very informative discussion, despite the barbs thrown in all directions.
I’m such an ignoramus!
sounds like a bunch of Marxists figuring a way to steal property from people who earned it/inherited it. I believe one of the 10 commandments says a thing or two about stealing property.
I’ll assume you’re not aware of the teaching of various popes, e.g., Pius XI, who’ve stated that property rights are not absolute (Quadragesimo Anno), or of Paul VI, who in Populorum Progressio sanctioned confiscation (with reimbursement to be sure) of unused landed estates in certain circumstances. John Paul II reminds us in Centesimus of the universal destination of created goods, that is, God provided the earth for the sustenance of all. Private property rights are for the sake of efficiently providing all men with the goods we need to live. Private property is a means, not an end, and thus the precise boundaries of property may be adjusted by civil authority to better obtain that end. Theft is a crime and a sin, yes, but theft means taking someone’s property against his reasonable will. “Reasonable” is the key term here. If, for example, I own a large landed estate and refuse to cultivate it because I like to look at nice green lawns, and meanwhile people are starving, then my desire for green lawns is not reasonable.
This is simply garden variety Catholic teaching.
Thank you for pointing that out, but, who is entitled to define what is reasonable, and what is not reasonable? The State? Currently, the State thinks it is reasonable to confiscated 50% of my earnings(my property). What is next, my house is too big( I suppose a few families could divide up my land and home).
You’re right, when we speak of “reasonable” we always get into a somewhat subjective area, but this is true for lots of moral questions. E.g., what kinds of music do we listen to, what exactly is modest or immodest female attire, how late do we let our children stay out at night, what do we do about TV viewing, what should the speed limits be, etc. Moral principles are always and necessarily general, so often (but not always) when we apply them to specific cases we have to make do with less than mathematical exactitude.
As to the specific question of property, when Pius XI speaks of the state’s right to adjust the boundaries of property, this is what he wrote: “History proves that the right of ownership, like other elements of social life, is not absolutely rigid…. [and so] when civil authority adjusts ownership to meet the needs of the public good it acts not as an enemy, but as the friend of private owners; for thus it effectively prevents the possession of private property…from creating intolerable burdens and so rushing to its own destruction.” (Quadragesimo Anno, no. 49, Paulist ed.)
Sometimes that power which has care of the temporal good has to set limits and make the final decision even if not everyone would agree. As to the state taking 50% of someone’s earnings today – right now the top marginal federal tax rate is something like 35%, and that’s marginal tax, not total tax. So I’m not sure how you are calculating that amount to come up with 50%. The regressive social security tax does seem unjust, but the solution for bad taxation is good taxation, not no taxation.
As soon as we admit the right of the state to adjust “ownership to meet the needs of the public good,” then the question becomes, how do we go about effecting this. Once the principle is admitted, then we can discuss and debate the means. Many other decisions are difficult to carry out in practice, but we have to do the best we can.
The cold, hard fact is that whether property is distributed or not, we do not actually “own” our property. We get to use it at the convenience of the state. We have to pay “rent” to the state in the form of taxes, and when we die, the state often takes a good chunk of it right off the top. So, the news for the ignorant out there, is that the distributist utopia is already with us – our wealth and property are constantly being redistributed in the form of taxation. But, I have an idea. How about the state takes some of Mr. Storck’s real property and redistributes it to the rest of us, since he is so big on that. As for my property, such as it is, the state will have to take the last of it over my dead body, as they say, and the last thing they will take from me is my gun:-) Well off to Walmart …
Sam- You really don’t have any idea what distributism means, do you?
Mr. Nichols:
That is an intelligent comment.
Sam
Yes, since the distribution of property is so subjective, I would like Mr Storck to lead by example, and divide his property up. Also, since Mr Hand at http://www.tcrnews.com is another fan of Distributism, all that he owns should be divided up as well
Mr. Fallon,
It seems you are referring to what Mr. Storck said of Pope Paul VI, that he “in Populorum Progressio sanctioned confiscation (with reimbursement to be sure) of unused landed estates in certain circumstances.”
Thus, you either dispute Mr. Storck’s reading of Populorum Progressio, or your real argument is with Paul VI, not Tom Storck. Which is it?
In any case, it appears you have misunderstood the point. No one is calling for redistribution of property that is necessary to the needs of the owner. At most, the reference is to rare situations where the continued possession of unused land has resulted in existing grave injustices.
And, by the way, Distributism does not call for “redistribution,” but for the creation of measures that will make it possible for as many as possible to possess private, productive property.
Since there may be sincere people who are reading this blog, I will note only briefly, that distributism has nothing to do with seizing anyone’s property. I will also note that the two foremost proponents of distributism have been G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. Although Sam and Mr. Fallon may never have heard of them, I trust that any Catholics here will know of them and realize that they are unlikely to have advocated anything especially stupid or unjust. If anyone is seriously interested in learning about distributism, the most complete account of it is Hilaire Belloc’s book, The Restoration of Property. This was recently reprinted by IHS Press. The name – distributism – is, I admit, somewhat misleading, and may in part be the reason why apparently ignorant people only attempt to make fun of it.
Christopher, thank you, as you point out Mr. Fallon may have been confused and meant to attack Pope Paul rather than distributism. This, by the way, is what Pope Paul wrote in Populorum Progressio, no. 24: “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”
Assuming that he meant to attack Pope Paul, we seem to have reached the following dilemma: Either Mr. Fallon is not a Catholic, in which case there is little point in arguing with him about such an abstruse point of morals; rather we need to begin to instruct him on the basics of the Faith. Or, he is a Catholic but he rejects the authority of the Holy Father. In which case he is a dissenter. In that event, he needs instruction on the basics of both doctrine and (probably) philosophy, but this is probably not the best forum to undertake that tasks.
What does unused mean? Aren’t some “uses” like the aesthetic worthy also? or is it all about money? Anyways, after Vatican II and the Novus Order Mass, shouldn’t we take anything from Pope Paul VI with a grain of salt? and wasn’t Belloc an anti-Semite, which I understand is the worse thing that one can be?
Sam wrote:
Anyways, after Vatican II and the Novus Order Mass, shouldn’t we take anything from Pope Paul VI with a grain of salt?
I respond:
No.
If unused one means the same thing as contemporary environmentalists–leaving nature undefiled by man–Wendell Berry responds to this in his The Unsettling of America.
I mean enjoying my own view – not all use of land has to be agricultural. I may prefer hunting and sitting on my porch enjoying the view drinking beer from Walmart.
S.
S, I too owe large tracts of land, that I suppose could be used for growing food, but I prefer to use it for hunting. Is that wrong? Am I a ‘bad’ Catholic? I purchased the land years ago as a way to increase my net worth, to pass it onto my children and grandchildren, and to use it for my own pleasure.
Is there anything inherently wrong with this, or should it be taken away from me, as evidenced by some of the posters of this blog?
Thank you.
Messrs. Chan, S, and Mark,
“Some of the posters of this blog” (as Mark puts it) are merely quoting Pope Paul VI. It is clear from the quotation, I think, that the pope is not saying that expropriation of all unused land under any circumstances is even permissible. To repeat what the pope said in Populorum Progressio, no. 24:
“If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”
It is clear that the pope would allow the possibility of expropriation only when possession by some seriously impedes or violates the common good. He is not saying this should be in the normal course of things. Examples of this are perhaps the latifundia in Latin America, which are so extensive that they force the vast majority of the people onto marginal land or into the slums of cities — or to emigrate to places like the United States.
You folks are being a bit overly touchy about this and erecting straw men. As Christopher Zehnder said above, distributism is about fostering widespread property ownership and trying to reduce the tendency of most property to accumulate in a few hands. And the abuses addressed in Populorum Progressio are (or so I understand) situations where people are deprived of basic livelihood while large (really large) tracts of land sit idle. This kind of thing has happened, I believe, in Latin America from time to time. So, Mark, unless your hunting land is surrounded by peasants who are starving because they don’t have any place to grow corn, I think you’re off the hook. :-)
I think it’s pretty much standard Catholic teaching that property rights are not totally unlimited and absolute.
My last was cross-posted with Christopher’s.
So once the land is distributed to you, then you became part of the problem, i.e., the landed gentry.
Also,
I wrote:
Anyways, after Vatican II and the Novus Order Mass, shouldn’t we take anything from Pope Paul VI with a grain of salt? [Perhaps, I should change "anything" to "some things," lest some "papolater" take umbrage.]
Chris respond:
No.
I ask: Why not? You have to admit that the Pope Paul VI’s Mass is an unnatural development of the liturgy, an uglification, if you will. Even some roman rite Catholics have gone East, Mr. Nichols being one of them I believe, although they probably tend to deny that the destruction of the roman rite liturgy had nothing to do with it.
S.
My Good S.,
Why not? Because, I am Catholic. The Novus Ordo is a matter of discipline, which can be more or less effective, though never in itself pernicious, while the encyclical in question is teaching on morals. To such teaching we owe religious submission of mind and will. As Lumen Gentium says, “this religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Thankfully, the divine protection of papal teaching does not rely on the worthiness of the pontiff. Otherwise, we could not adhere to any teachings save those enunciated by canonized saints. Pope Leo X had images of Venus carried in, I think, his coronation procession and instituted an indulgence to pay off a debt Albrecht of Mainz incurred for buying an archbishopric — should we then hold suspect his condemnation of Martin Luther in Exsurge Domine?
To “go East” does not imply a rejection of the papal magisterium, as I trust Mr. Nichols would tell you.
I agree. The Novus Ordo is not the Magisterium. Deo Gratias for that.
And I meant what I said about what Mr. Nichols said above about me. He hit the nail on the head. What I know about distributism I gleaned from the above entries. Enough fun already. If Mr. Zehnder won’t admit how he really feels about the NO, then I guess I’m off to Walmart…
I don’t want to get involved in your mutually masturbatory discussion but can someone tell me if De Konink’s (per se) followers have a website or if I could find a list of his published works?
Paul Levesque
Mr. Levesque,
You don’t have to get involved in this discussion. It’s been over for over a year — as the dates on the posts will reveal.
Very peculiar behavior to come in and insult everybody, then ask for their assistance.