Social Encyclicals Research Articles

Henry George and the Catholic View of Morality and the Common Good, I

Abstract. On the issuance of the first of the modern social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum, Henry George, the American economist and social philosopher, criticized its author, Pope Leo XIII, for defending a limited right to own land and for limiting the right of private ownership of labor products. George did so by reasoning from Locke's ground that each human has a property right in one's person. George distinguished between possession (and use) and ownership of land on the ground of the common good. That required equality of mutual opportunity, which George would achieve by a Single Tax on all land values. Land reform, he held, would lead to moral reform, and thus to a society based on justice. Pope Leo goes beyond the Schoolmen in stressing a natural right to property, including land, which he asserted must be regarded as sacred. This right, he said, was not absolute, but subject to be used, according to God's Will, for the benefit of others. George looked to a change in the economic structure by reform of land tenure and use to establish a just social order; Leo to religion and the church, the government, moral individuals and voluntary associations to do so.

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies, O.P.

128 BOOK REVIEWS The recent writings of the present Pope are full of this theme; it is time that its political content received some recognition, some explora:tion . It is in this context of a re-birth of a truly Catholic emphasis upon liberation, not in some angelic and contemplative guise, but in public life in this world, that Schall's book should be read. His stress upon the papal initiative is essential; it does not seem that any other major Catholic figure has seen so deeply into the needs of our time, or has prescribed for them with such precision. Familiaris Consortio is a political document far more radical than the so-called Social Encyclicals, from Rerum Novarum on, which treat ex professo of labor and capital, and of political and religious freedom, for it deals with the indispensability of that absolutely basic praxis in which all human dignity is discovered and cele- ' brated, in a love which is worship, which is history, which is liberation. Marguette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin DONALDJ. KEEFE, S.J. An Introiluction to the Philosophy of Religion. By BRIAN DAVIES, O.P. Oxford University Press, 1982. Pp. x + 144. $17.95 cloth; $6.95 paperback. This book is a short introduction to the philosophy of religion intended for the general reader and for students with little or no philosophical background. It begins with some old problems about religious language, then turns to the problem of evil and proofs of God's existence, moves on to discuss divine attributes and the connection between religion and morality, and finishes with a consideration of miracles and life after death. There is a selective but useful bibliography, and the book is generally free from typographical errors except for p. 86, which is grossly misprinted. In general, it is a bold and interesting book, especially because the author is thoroughly familiar with contemporary analytic philosophy and also with the philosophical theology of Thomas Aquinas and tries to combine the two approaches. The effort is laudable, in my view, but the resulting amalgam in Davies's book is not satisfactory. The difficulties can be seen clearly in his discussion of the problem of evil. After briefly presenting Hick's and Swinburne's attempted solutions , Davies rejects their work, claiming that they exonerate God by referring to the good consequences of the evil God allows, but " many people would say that consequences do not always justify actions" (p. 19). This objection, weak as it is, surely misinterprets Hick and Swinburne. BOOK REVIEWS 129 Neither of them tries to justify God's permitting evil on the basis of the good consequences of that evil; instead, both of them argue that of the actions available to God the one which includes permitting certain evils is in itself the best action open to God. In different ways both Hick and Swinburne claim that the evils in the world are a necessary means to a good which, even in conjunction with those evils, far out weighs the other goods God might have brought about. Davies summarily rejects Plantinga's work on the free-will defense because it depends on the notion that God does not cause free acts. Davies thinks that, according to classical theism as represented by Thomas Aquinas, God is the cause of everything, including all actions of the human will, and so the free-will defense is incompatibfo with classical theism. The spectacle of a Catholic maintaining theological determinism against a Calvinist arguing on the basis of free will should not blind us to the historical and philosophical implausibility of Davies's claim. Davies believes that Thomas and classical theism are committed to the view that God is the cause of each and every human action, including actions which are sinful. If this is indeed Thomas's view, then the best that could be said for Thomas is that he is blatantly inconsistent because, to take just one of many examples, he assigns praise or blame to humans for their actions when in fact those actions are brought about by God. And I think a credible philosophical justification of God's goodness becomes virtually impossible if we are told that God is the...

Pope John Paul II on "Human Work"

Abstract Pope John Paul II promulgated his first major social encyclical, Laborem Exercens (“On Human Work”), in September 1981. The encyclical, evoked many favorable reactions, even from Marxists. One such writer even argued that on social issues at least, John Paul II stands as “a sturdy and reliable ally.” The Pope often speaks in categories more familiar to Marxists than to Catholics. Another commentator even indicated doubts whether U.S. Catholics realize the importance of the encyclical because “The pope's concerns are the concerns of Marx, his categories and history are those of Marx.” Yet, the Pope seems to identify Marxism with Marxist-Leninism.

The Ontological Basis of Human Rights

THE ONTOLOGICAL BASIS 0}' HUMAN RIGHTS T HE FOCUS OF this essay is not the topic of human rights itself but instead what is preliminary to it: whether there is a real, i. e., ontological, basis in man for the claim that he is the subject of inalienable rights; whether rights are due him in virtue of his very nature rather than because society or the state chooses to confer them upon him? Looked at from another angle, the focus can be formulated thus: whether man ultimately exists totally for society or exists in some significant sense for himself? What prompts the formulation of this problematic is the contemporary concern for what is called " the quality of life." This concern has become the occasion for the most recent and, perhaps , serious challenge yet to the doctrine of natural right. For example, the wealthy nations fear that the present growth of world population, especially in the poor nations, threatens the future of the human species,1 while progress in the field of genetics enlivens the hope of eradicating hereditary defects through " genetic engineering " and, hence, of halting the " pollution of the gene pool." 2 These two visions lead, in the minds of some,3 to the inescapable conclusion that the doctrine of inviolable , i.e., natural, rights is incompatible with the good of society as a whole and is, therefore, to be repudiated as erroneous 1 Sir Julian Huxley, "The Impending Crisis," The Population Crisis.. Edited by Larry K. Y. Ng. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1970; p. 27. For response to this view of the world problem, see my article, " The Social Encyclicals and the ' Population Problem '," Social Justiae Review, Oct., 1972. 2 For a perceptive discussion of the moral problems involved in genetic engineering, cf. Paul Ramsey, Fabricated Man; The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970. 3 " A New Ethic For Medicine and Society," California Medicine, Vol. 118 # 3, September, 1970; pp. 67-68. 484 ONTOLOGICAL BASIS OF HUMAN RIGHTS 435 or at least made subservient to the exigencies of social survival. The latter seems to be the position taken by B. F. Skinner: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are basic rights. But they are the rights of the individual and were listed as such at a time when the literatures of freedom and dignity were concerned with the aggrandizement of the individual. They have only a minor bearing on the survival of a culture." 4 This position derives its force from an appeal to the principle, ' the good of society (in some sense of the word ' good ') has precedence over the good of the individual (in some sense of the word ' good ') ,' which appeal seems to carry with it the implicit rider that all human rights are social rather than natural in origin. If this position is accepted, then the inference is automatic that, since even the right to life is conferred by .society, it too may be rescinded in order to preserve the greater good of the community . What is at stake here is not simply the question of society's authority to execute convicted murderers and the like but the innocent as well; e.g., those who are deformed, retarded, carriers of hereditary diseases, or whose existence is adjudged " meaningless " or " devoid of value." One cannot help asking, for example, whether Professor Garrett Hardin, in his proposal that the freedom to procreate he rescinded,5 grasps the full import of his plea that we deny the validity of the United Nations' Declaration of Rights. Specifically, one wonders why, if, in the name of social .survival, we can properly deny the freedom to procreate, can we not also deny, in the name of social survival, the freedom to exist. To be sure, the defensibility of the doctrine of natural right presupposes the doctrine's compatibility with the good of the social body. But the requirements of compatibility are, in this case, reciprocal, for the question of what constitutes the good of .society is inextricably bound up with the fundamental ques- • B. F. Skinner., Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 197Q; p. 180. 5 Garrett Hardin, " The Tragedy of...

Labour and the Catholic Social Studies Movement

The emergence of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (D.L.P.) and the National Civic Council (N.C.C.) during the 1950s was a not insignificant addendum to a gradual development of Roman Catholic social conscience during the preceding two decades. The world-wide economic depression in the early 1930s resulted in a period of widespread unrest which wras destined particularly to affect Australia. To many people, the depression seemed to illustrate serious shortcomings in existing economic and political systems. Economic capitalism and democracy based on political parties had not only failed to prevent depression, but had been powerless to alleviate its rigours once it had arrived. The logical next step was to undertake a search for a substitute form of government, and this theoretical quest was part of a mental and political process of international proportions. The incredible poverty and extreme social tensions engendered by depression encouraged both J. T. Lang's agitation in New South Wales for repudiation of Australia's interest payments to overseas bondholders, and Western Australia's secession movement. Lang received adulation and considerable support from the lower classes which were predom inantly Roman Catholic in New South Wales,1 thereby provoking a frightened reaction from the middle-classes and Protestants. These latter groups provided the bulk of the membership and supporters of the New Guard, a quasi-fascist movement organised on military lines, which at its peak around 1932 had almost 100,000 members. Marxists were also active in advocating Communism as an alternative to capitalism and party democracy, and the Communist stimulus caused a counter attack from a few highly educated Roman Catholics who claimed that if viable replacements for capitalism and party democracy were being canvassed, there was no need to look further than the various theories and practical suggestions found in the social encyclicals of the Popes. The Communist-Roman Catholic dialogue carried over into dis agreement concerning Australia's posture during the sundry international crises of the 1930s. In 1934 Soviet Russia had been admitted to

Towards a Reassessment of Dr. Evatt's Role in the 1954-5 A.L.P. Split

The economic depression in the early 1930s ushered in a period of general unrest, not only in Australia but throughout the world. In Australia, the grinding misery of the depression seemed to many people to afford positive proof of the failure of economic capitalism and democracy via political parties. Such a view caused some Australians to begin a search for a substitute form of government, which activity was part of a world-wide intellectual and political ferment. Communists in Australia were active in advancing a Marxist alternative to capitalism and party democracy. This caused a reaction by some Roman Catholics, who suggested that the best theoretical scheme for the replacement of capitalism and political party democracy was to be found in the various social encyclicals of the Popes, rather than in Marxism. Throughout the 1930s Communists experienced a fair degree of success in trade union elections, and by the eve of war in 1939 held the most important administrative positions in the strategic industries of steel production, transport and power.1 The rapid industrialisation caused by the war considerably improved this powerful position. By the war's end, Communists had so increased their strength that, in co operation with other radical forces, they exerted a substantial influence over the 1945 conference of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.2

Liberals, Conservatives, and Catholics

Among Catholics, there is little controversy over theological and doctrinal matters. However, the teaching au thority of the church, the magisterium, extends to the applica tion of Christian, natural-law ideas to social questions. The social encyclicals are general and their application to specific situations is within the authority of the bishops. It is here, especially, that Catholics become divided between liberals and conservatives. Ever since the establishment of the organized American church, Catholics have accepted the American sys tem of separation of religion and politics, but there has been controversy on particular matters. Catholics have favored the liberty of parochial schools and, ultimately, auxiliary benefits to the Catholic school child. Although the freedom of the artist is generally recognized, the Catholic defense of morality has ap proved more censorship of the mass media than liberals ordi narily approve. Catholics are divided in the defense and criti cism of the free market, though it would seem to be clear that most Catholic opinion does not consider the American economy in violation of the social encyclicals. Liberal Catholics are critical of the competitive system, and conservatives believe that papal teaching is in accordance with the free-market system.

Background: Recent Developments in Economic Thought, 1891–1961

The modest purpose of this article is to offer a background tool which might facilitate the study of the great social encyclicals. It is hoped that it may be useful for those interested in analysing the social encyclicals in order to discover the economic theory implicitly contained in their economic policies. The chief characteristic of economic thought in the twentieth century was an extension of the revolutionary developments of the late nine? teenth century. Between 1870 and 1900 the mathematical method em? ployed by Jevons, Menger, Walras, Pareto, and Marshall introduced marginal and general equilibrium analyses to traditional economic doctrine. The economists of the twentieth century refined these tools and widened the range of their application. This century, however, has had two revolutionary developments of its own: Edward Chamberiin's monopolistic competition theory, which fundamentally shifted the frame? work of value theory by substituting the monopolistic competitive firm for the purely competitive firm; and Keynesian economics, which pro? foundly affected cycle theory and modified interest theory.

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals: Progress and Poverty

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals: Progress and Poverty

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals: Progress and Poverty

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals: Progress and Poverty

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals

Economic Research and the Social Encyclicals

Is Capitalism Baptised?

Until recently the majority of Catholics would have instinctively felt that the Church was on the whole opposed to capitalism. They would not have made a conscious judgment about such a thing because the majority of Catholics was hard at work trying to keep the obvious day-today demands of the Christian law in the face of a mounting antagonism from the non-Christian environment. But they would have instinctively recoiled from associating the direct moral teaching of the Church with an approval of the possession and accruing of wealth without labour and without responsibilities. They knew their Gospels too well for that, and they had often heard the Franciscan message declaring the blessings on the poor in spirit.Non-Catholics on the other hand would as naturally have tended to associate the Catholic Church with capitalism in view of the apparent association between her ecclesiastical organisation and what had come to be regarded as traditional business methods. They had seldom heard of the social encyclicals that came from Rome and they had never read them. They thought they recognised the Church as most securely established in those countries where the peasants and artisans were most exploited for the benefit of the rich few. Today, with war between the Church and Communism at its height, there can be only a handful of non-Catholics who do not regard that conflict as implying an identification of the Church with capitalism or who, on the other hand, have read such books as Fanfani’s Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism which concludes an intelligent analysis of the question with the judgment that ‘Catholics, so long as they held closely to the social teachings of the Church, could never act in favour of capitalism’.

Implementing the Social Encyclicals in American Economic Life

Implementing the Social Encyclicals in American Economic Life

Book Review: Two Basic Social Encyclicals

Book Review: Two Basic Social Encyclicals

Economics Implicit in the Social Encyclicals

Economics Implicit in the Social Encyclicals

THE POPE'S SOCIAL ENCYCLICAL*

New BlackfriarsVolume 12, Issue 136 p. 395-402 THE POPE'S SOCIAL ENCYCLICAL* Vincent McNabb O.P., Vincent McNabb O.P.Search for more papers by this author Vincent McNabb O.P., Vincent McNabb O.P.Search for more papers by this author First published: July 1931 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2005.1931.tb04972.xCitations: 2 † *Engcyclical Letter: Quadragesimo Anno. (Catholic Truth Society; price twopence). AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume12, Issue136July 1931Pages 395-402 RelatedInformation