SOCIALISM 11 TIE GHM OR, HENRY GEORGE VS. ARCHBISHOP CORRIGAN. KEY. WILLIBALD HAOKNER, Priest of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis, CHRISTIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION PUBLISHING CO., New York AND SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. SOCIALISM AID THE CAM; OR. HEMY 6B0R6B VS. ARCHBISHOP C0BRI6M. BEV. WILLIBALD HAOKNEB, Priest of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis, CHRISTIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION PUBLISHING CO., New York AND SAN FRANCISCO. GAL. Despotism of Land-Communism OB FREE HOMES I-WHICH? "... And my soul aches To know, when two authorities are up, . . . how soon confusioh May enter 'twixt the gap of both, and take The one by th* other." "-Coriolan. III. sc. i. No question is more agitated at present than the social question. It is treated in parliaments and pulpits, in periodicals and the daily press. Everybody, no matter how rich or how poor, talks of it. It is the burning question of our age — ^indeed, the question of questions. And even in this country, with its free institutions, this question is coming to the front, and lately was prominently brought forward by the pas- toral letter of Archbishop Corrigan, of New York, administering a just warning to Ids flock ; wliile one of the foremost representatives of the socialistic theory, Mr. Henry George, like another Goliath, arose, and, challenging the world, took up the lance against the archbishop by addressing to his Grace an open letter. 3 4 Socialism and the ( hurch ; or, But it was an unsuccessful assault, in which the doughty knight of the Socialists only reveal- ed the weakness of his aririor. For the letter 6f Mr. Henry George is full of sophistry and false statements. Mr. George, evidently, has never occupied himself much with St. Thomas Aquinas or Thomistic methods, otherwise he would not have committed so many sins against logic and common sense. Nothing brought more to my mind the timely counsel of Pope Leo XIII., to fall back on St. Thomas and scholastic methods, than the confu- sion of ideas this letter betrays. I shall at once proceed to discuss the points at issue. I. PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECT OF THE QUESTION. According to Thomistic teaching, substanceSj, or existing things, are composed of matter and form. This dualism pervades the entire philo- sophy of St. Thomas and the scholastics, and marvellously aids in analyzing and resolving all questions, however diflScult they may be. The matter, they say, is the substratum of things existing, a something undetermined; whilst the form narrows down the matter to species, determines it, and makes it actually sub- sist in a certain mode. The matter has a passive inclination ; the form is an active principle ; they are in relation to each other as potency and act. Neither the one nor the other is the thing or Henry George V9. Archbishop Corrigan. &5 Bubstance, but ( both' together form the substance or thing existing."^ The theory of matter and form is profitably^? applied not only to real substances but also to abstract ideas. Let us apply it, then, to^'pror perty^" to land-propertyy about which there is. now so much controversy. According to the pre- mises, we \\dive property material and propertp-f formal. Property material is iu different and undetermined in its nature, inasmuch as thef: whole globe can be possessed or owned, to use , thte phrase of Mr George. This property ma- terial is God^s creation, is given by God to all mankind (Gen. i. 28): Increase and multi- ply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the^ air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth." * Distinctio autem rerum secundum speciem est per formas'^ {Contra Gent,, lib. ii. cap. xl.) **TJnde in compositis ex materia et forma, nee materia nec iorma potest dici ipsum quod est, iiec etiam ipsura esse; forma dici tamen potest, quo est, secundum quod est essendi princi- pium " (lib. ii. cap. liv.) ** Materia est illud, ex quo res fiunt, ac proinde in ordine entis, nihil aliud est quam pura potentia Tersatilis in omnes entium •Haturalium modos. Per formam materia fit ens actu et qusBlibet tes in sua specie constituitur. Quapropter forma generalissime •umpta est id, quod dat esse, ut dicit D. Tliomas, opusc. 31, sen id^' •[UO res est id, quod est. Dicit ur etiam actus^ eo quod constituttt et determinat rem ad aliquem certum essendi modum, sicut materia dioitur potentia, eo quod sit de se Indifferens ad omnes ««6endi modes" (Gloss. Billuart, etc., in St. Thorn. Summa, L qusBst. iii. art. ii.) 6 Socialism and the Church ; or. Now, to this material property^ which comet directly from God, is added formal property^ which comes directly from man, and originates ill bringing material property^ something of God's creation, under the form of industry, cul- ture, or art. These two kinds of property unit^ like matter and form, and constitute one iudi- vidual property for the person adding tht formal property to t\iQ material. Or, in other terms, the world, as tlie material object of owner- ghip, by attachment of the form of any subject is brought out of its indifferent, undetermined state of property, and determined and made proper to the one attaching the form : material proper- ty, potential to any man^ is made actual^ indi- vidual to tJiis man — ad hunc hominem sen in- dividunm. The intrinsic reason of this is be- cause property material, or God's creation, and formal property, or man's product, are physical- ly and inseparably united, and the one goes with the other. So that a human individual owns per se the property formal, but per acci- dens only the property material. Tliere is nothing against this from the part of property material itself because of being undetermined and indiflr^rent in regard to ownership ; nothing from the part of God, who in general gave the dominion over it ; nothing from the part of man, who is capable of owning, as Mr. George himself admits in the case of the products of humau labor. Henrij Gcorrje vs. Archdif in Mr. (jreorge's letter, and place the analy- sis in i)aren theses : Tlie results of human exertion are property {formal) and (if attached to property material) may (both together) rightfully be the object ot individual ownership ; Land is property {viaterial) ; Th( r*:?fore land is lightfully the object of indi- vidual ov^nersliip (if property /brTTiaZ is attached to it !) This is the drift of the archbishop's position, and is there any falsify about it? The falsity conies from Mi*. George, who does not consider- ately distinguish, assigning a sense to the w^ords of his Grace quite other than the meaning which they really convey. I opine that I do not mistake here, and that there has all along been given such a "distribution of the middle" as lays bare Mr. George's "minor" misconception. In Mr George's right solemn truism, "God creates, man produces." Ay, indeed, God cre- ates — i.e,^ summons the really non-existent into existence ; man produces out of something erf God's creation which was given to man that he might so produce. Poor man cannot create, and Henry George Jrchbishop Corrigan. 11 tlif^refore, forsooth, cannot come into a full own- ership ! He lias a warrantee deed to bis pro- duct, according to the Georgian tlieory, but a mortgage of God, the Creator, is annexed to it! Whilst we contend that man has a warrantee deed to his product in fee-simple and a quit- claim deed from God for the object on which he produces. If any prudent man buys property, will he take it with a mortgage on it? No ; he is afraid lest, the mortgage being sooner or later foreclosed, he might, in case of insolvency, lose not only the cow he bought but the calf also! And if man owns only what he himself produces, another one may in the name of God touch the property of God whence the produce was deriv- ed, and the j)roducer will lose not only the ma- terial but also the product of his labor, which cannot be separated from it. The artistic foim of a statue, according to Mr. George's dedu^'tion, belongs to the artist, but the block itself is God's creature, and can, therefore, belong to any one, inasmuch as all men have a common light to God's creation ! How, then, c&n the poor artist protect his work, when tlie nPiaterial in no way bel(mketched, let them dream ; they will wake up some time to the pro- saic reality of to-day, which, at least in this re- spect, is yesterday's brother and to-morrow's also ! III. SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECT. Mr. George sees great difficulties arise from the theory of individual ownership. See in this city [New York] the results of individual property in land. Not half the area of New York City is yet built upon, yet hardly one family in ten can enjoy the comfort of a separate home ; while the poorer are huddled together under conditions which make health of body impossible and health of soul a miracle." This is sadly true. But is the system of indi- vidual property and ownership of land the re- sponsible cause of this deplorable condition of the many, especially in laiger cities ? Is it the only cause for this lamentable state of affairs, and is the (mly remedy for a change to the better to be found in the tinkering of Socialists \ Henry George vfi. Archbishop CoiTigan, 31 Hoc post hoc, ergo propter hoc^ is one of the soph- isms of superficial thinkers. The answer I shall give at the close of this paper. For the present I lake the liberty to point to some difficulties under whicli tlie theory and practice of modern Socialism labor. It will then ai)pear that Mr. George and his colleagues are sitting in a glass house and should be careful not to throw stones. Socialism and socialistic states are no novelty ; they are almost as old as history. Lycurgus in- troduced a sort of communistic education at Spar- ta. Plato, the great philosopher, excogitated the system of a communistic state ; but Aristotle, no less a pliilosophioal genius than his master, tears down the communistic building erected on sand. According to St. Thomas, Summa TlieoL^ ii. 2, qu^est. Ixvi. art. ii., he gives three reasons for the lawfulness of property individual: ''It is necessary to have property for three reasons. First, because anybody is more solicitous to take care of any thing that belongs to him alone, and not to all or many ; else every one would shirk labor and leave to another one to do what con- cerns the common welfare, as it also happens when there are many servants in a house. Second, because the work is done in a better manner when the care of anything devolves on those intimately interested in it Third, because by this men maybe preserv- ed in a more peaceful condition when every one is content with ^re sud^ — with what is Ms. 32 Socialism and the Church ; or, Whence we see that amongst those who possess things iu common and undivided very frequently disputes and strifes arise." If I mistake not, these, or some of these, rea- sons are also given against Communism and So- cialism in the archbishop's pastoral. Truly, the archbishop is not in bad company when he has Aristotle and Sr. Thomas Aquinas on his side. At different times in the past three hnndied years, also, such errors have been broached by men who wrote their names on water, not on land. Let us not only look from afar at the socialistic «tate, but let us enter it right away and see how weak is its foundation and how fragile its frame- w^ork. Mr. George would make the state the owner of the land. But the great and important ques- tions are. Has the state, the socialistic state, n right, nay, a possibility to exist, according to his premises ? And if, per fas aut nefas^ it dare exist, would it have a right to own ? Queer as these questions may appear at first sight, they are quite justifiable here. If Mr. George admits a socialistic state, how large must that state be? Howmany inhabitants may it have! Perhaps fifty millions? Why not ten? And if ten millions, why not one million? And if one million, why not a hundred thousand ? And if a hundred thousand, why not ten thousand, or one thousand, or a tribe? Why not a hundred^ Henry George vs. Archbishop Oorrigian. . 33 or ten, or a family, the foundation of society! If a family, why not two persons ? If two per- sons, why not one person, or an individual^ who stands and acts independently — the social integer? Thus we come down to individual ownership, and we are forced to it, because the ''state" is nothing but an indioiduum morale ; and if a cer- tain state owns^ ownership, be it of land or any thing else, is thereby indimdualized^ property individual. And as the land is of God's creation, and therefore, according to Mr. George, for all men by equal right, whence has a nation or state, ac- cording to his theory, an exclusive right to the ownership of the land ? For let us suppose there be a socialistic state formed out of these United States, and all at once, in California or some other State, rich gold-mines are found as in 1848-49 ; can the socialistic state here claim the exclusive ownership of such mines ? May not any and every Socialist come over from Europe or from any nation, and have the same claim as any citizen of this country? And if Mr. George (as future President ?) should attach the land and the mines in the name of the socialistic state, could not the gold-seekers justly retort his argument and say: ''Why, the land and the gold contained in the land are God's creation, and God's creation is for all men " ? Moreover, can any socialistic state exclude iirimigrants, if all men have a right to God\s 34 Socialism and the Church ; or. creation anywhere and at any time? So much is certain, that Socialiism, in its last analysis and consequences, is ladically and completely de- structive of national rights and claims, for these are already in some way individual, A socialis- tic slate is wliat philosophers call a contradictio in terminis. For Socialism, in its very nature and tiudency, is and must be international: it knows only one nation^ that is mankind; only one state and tirritory, that is this terrestrial globe ! But the government, the man, to rule the whole world, must yet be found. Tlie Roman emperors had a substantial portion of the world at their feet, and still they could not succeed. But without government there would be anarchy —anarchy for the entii e world ! But granted that a socialistic state may have its rightful existence, how may the land be held by the individual ? There is another difficulty to be met. According to Mr. George, every man has a claim to the land d priori^ land being God's creaiion All right; but then if every citizen of a socialistic state has a claim to the land, every one has also a claim to the hest land. Now, in no country is the soil everj^where of the best, nor even of good, quality ; there are also ^' bad lands" It is a physical impob^sibility to satisfy applicants on this head. And why, then, place Tom on a sand prairie, whilst Jerry geta good wheat- land for his share? Is the former wt ^^vcitizen with equal rights as Jerry ? And Henry George vs. Archbishop Corriga7i, 3S will he not, perhaps, some year, after hard and unsuccessful labor, come to Jerry with liis big sons, every one liaving a gun on his shoulder, and say to him : ''Jerry, you have had the bene- fit of this good land about long enougli ; now, by George, you must take my farm out there on the sand prairie, and I shall occupy yours"? And so crowbar-brigades and wholesale evictions, even worse and more numerous than in Ireland, would be the order of the day. But may be the state will take matters in band. What will it do? Perhaps what Caesar relates the old Ger- mans did — make them change place every other year? But Csesar adds: " Coguntur alio transire — They are forced to take every year another place." For this purpose the state would need a special army to evict stubborn land-tenants. And if, as it may be well presumed, many should not be willing, but, on the contrary, would resist with arms in hand, continual revo- lution and chronic warfare would ensue as a con- sequence. Yet Mr. George knows another way. He suggests it in his letter to the archbishop in the following words: *'A11 we have to do, to secure the equal right to land and the exclusive right to improvement, is to make the community the virtual ground-landlord. And the easy arid simple road to this is by abolishing all the takes we now levy upon industry and the fruits of in- dustry, and collecting our public revenues by taxation levied ultimately upon ground-vailues.'' 36 Socialism and the Church; or^ So the Innd would be taxed, according to his scheme, and presumably the possessor of good land taxed higher than the one holding inferior land. Good so far. But the levying of taxes in- volves assessment. This may work about as well as it does in non-socialistic governments ! But when the produce fails, not only on account of (he quality of the soil but from other causes, what then ? What if a land-tenant has no crop, or only half a crop, on account of climate, of want of rain, or of too much sunshine? Then also this must be ascertained and assessed, to be just in collecting taxes. And this flexible sort of assessment is in the hand of officers who, in appraising reasonable and just rates, naturally depend on the declarations of those to be assess- ed. Would not such system give rise to fiaud, bribery, perjury, and corruption, just as well as, and even more than, "the methods by which dvilized governments at present collect the bulk of their revenues"? But then those very "ground-values" would be enhanced (and ap- praised accordingly) by marl's improvements — i.e,, when built upon by those palaces and estab- lishments with many apartments to which Mr, George refers with all the vulgarity of true socialistic rant and rot ! And granting there were no difficulty in the distribution and possession of land, there would still be a difficulty concerning its products. Mr. George makes a sharp distinction between them. Henry George vs. Archhi^ho]) Corrigan. 37 The land cannot be owned by an individual, but only held or possessed, as he terms it, as with a man who rents a farm. However, in a proper sense, the products of man may owned.''' The reason is, because the former is God's crea- tion, the latter man's production. ''Man does not create," Mr. George is quite sure; ''God alone creates. What man does is to produce or bring forth, and his production of material things consists in changing the place or form of what he finds already in existence. What in- dividual labor })roduces, to that the individual right of ownership attaches, but it cannot justly attach to the reservoirs of nature. It attaches to any improvement that man makes, but it can- not attach to the substance and superficies of the globe." According to this statement, land cannot be owned individually, but the improvement and productions of the land may be owned. A land- tenant may own the crop, because he is the producer of it by his labor. Now, is this really so ? I ask, in the name of common sense, has God, the Creator, nothing to do with it ? By whose power was the grain, sunk as a seed in the ground, brought forth, if not by God's power ? By whose power, mainly and princi- pally ^ is a crop growing ? By man's power and by his labor ? Holy Scripture, which Mr. George cites now and then, gives the answer to this c **So then neither he that planteth is any things 38 Socialism and the Church ; or^ nor he that wateieMi ; but God who giveth thti increase" (St. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 7). There lore, to be consequent, nian has no right to own fully such produce. Advanced Socuilists who follow out principles to tlieir last conclusions do not admit such distinctions, but prochiim equality in all things^ be it land or the producis of men. And, besides, land is not the only thing of God's creation on which man produces. Some men, and a great many, have to do mental work. And for this they use their intellects, with many or few talents, just as God has endowed them. And certainly their mental faculties are al^o of God's creation. Now let us take two men, the one gifted with great talents — a genius ; the other one less en- dowed, or even stupid. Both, let us suppose, have made their preparatory studies in equal time and w ith equal diligence. They compose a poem or a treatise on some subject. The genius turns out a better composition and gets tweuty-tive dollars for it ; the other one, his woik being inferior, only ten dollars, though perhaps he' h^u3 worked longer and harder at it than the former. It can be seen the genius evidently sells hi6 genius ; at least in this instance he has brought fifteen dollars by it. Has he a right to them ! Not according to Mr. George, because the genius is also of God's creation. A similar instance will hold in the domain of art. Henry George vs, ArcFibtshop Corrigan, 39 To make things right, and to be just to tlie laborer, only time and toil should increase the vnlue of work iu literature, science, and art, without reference to scientific attainments or artistic skill. Such arrant twaddle a great many Socialists really defend, yet they are not incon- sequent in so doing, as I have demonstrated. But the realization of such ideas would mean nothing if not tlie complete destruction of art and science. The thinker, the literary man, will not trouble himself to put good and deep thoughts into his books, nor the artist to form a masterpiece. Neither will they give close application to study ; they simply need to work very long and hard, no matter what monstrosity of a product may come forth ! Indeed a bitter fruit from the socialistic tree ! And not only human reason but also Holy Scripture — which Mr. George claims to be with him ! — is adverse to the distinction between hind, or God's creation, on the one side, and man's production, or the result of human effort,, on the other. Thus we read in Deut. vi. 10-18: ^'And when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land, for which he swore to thy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob : and shall have given thee great and goodly cities, which tTwu didst not build; houses full of riches, which thou didst not set up ; cisterns which thoii didst not dig ; vineyards and olive yards, which 40 Socialism and the Church ; or, thou didst not plant ; and thou shalt have eaten and be full : take heed diligently lest thou forget the Loid, who brought thee out of tl]e land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. . . . And do tliat which is pleas- ing and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with thee ; and going in thou mayst possess the goodly lands concerning which the LQrd swore to thy fathers." In this passage land created by God, and things produced by man, are placed on the same level and in the same category when transferred by God to the Jews. Why, according to Mr. George, God ought to have said : " You may possess the land, but let the products in the vine37ards and olive- yards, etc., be taken by the producers, for *he who erects a house or improves a farm has a clear title to the building or im ])rovement.' " But the Lord says: ''The land is mine, and also the houses and cisterns and vineyards, every product and improvement mine." The "Lord" makes no distinction like Mr. George's ! And, therefore, the sacred books bring Mr. George to this dilemma : if they prove his land theory, making God alone the owner of land to the exclusion of man, they are thereby against his produce theory, inasmuch as human productions are treated in the same way by God — taken from the Chanaanites and given to the Jews. Or if they prove his produce theory, giving man a clear title distinct from that to the land, God Henry George vs. Archbishop Corrigan, 41 would have committed an injustice in some way by taking away man's produce, together with God's creation, land, with the improvement there- of. But this cannot be admitted. God owns everything by principal dominion, by supreme^ and general title. ''Domini est terra et pleni- tudo ejus — Tlie earth with its plenitude is the Lord's." Now, if God assumes supreme domin- ion ocer hoth^ over mar}] s produce as well a.v His own creation^ why shall man have no inferior dominion over hoth^ over God^ s creation and own produce ? This is the intrinsic objection against making such sharp distinctions between ownership of land and the productions of man. But there are extrinsic objections besides. Mr. George fancies that, by severing land from in- dividual ownership, the miseries of this world will be diminished ; that they may even cease \ The evil of the day is monopoly, and this powerful and voracious monster grows out directly from the present notion of property, of land-property especially ! But his land scheme cuts the head off the hydra trying to wind its crushing coiln around the whole world ! Thus says Mr. George : ^^It is because we discard the admirable pro vision of the Creator, and permit individuals to take what was manifestly intended for all^ and thus put a premium upon the monopolizing of natural opportunities, that invention and dis- covery bring curses instead of blessings, and all our prodigious advances in art serv(^ but to 4^ Socialism and the Church ; vt ^ widen the gulf between the very rich and the very poor." Mr. George serenely promises a golden era, freeing mankind from the iron shackles of J monopoly. Still, a close observer may well doubt of such a consummation, and suspect that at least the Georgmvi Sidus, beam it never so brightly, will not herald that dawn. Monopoly will not be swept away by giving all men an equal access and right to the land; it will be simply transferred to another field, from land to products, which may be owned with "clear title," according to Mr. George. Now, if they can be owned, they can be stored up, can be bought and sold, can be speculated upon, like immovable things. There we have the capitalist, the speculating millionaire, before us again. In fact, monopoly nowadays wields greater influ- ence in the produce- market than in the land- market. It is on produce especially — on wheat, on cotton, etc. — w^liere the ''bulls" and the ''bears" do revel, "corneiing" each other arid pressing the "lambs" to the wall to be "fleec- ed." It is by speculating on produce chiefly that our millionaires have gathered their for- tunes. Will this be done away with by Mr. George's scheme? Any one mvij own produce; this gives him the title to gather produce or an equivalent in money, as much as he likes. Arid if his heirs do the same for generations, will ^'the gulf between the very rich and the very Henry George vs. Arclibisliop Corrigan, 4ei poor" be narrowed? May bo Mr. George annuls the right of inheritance as a means against accumulation of riches. At least he would be consequent in doing so ; for if an in- dividual may have a clear title of ownership to that only which he produces, heirship may be questioned ; for the heir owns, not Ms produce, but the produce of the bequeatJier, It is, there- fore, against all sound reasoning to divide own- ership the way Mr. George does. It would not do for him to stand with one foot on individual and with the other on common property ; he is compelled either to place both feet upon Individ- ual land — to adoDt individual ownership /or land and produce — or he must set both on Com- muuism, and proclaim the right of equality not only for land but also for its produce. The Bocialists commonly disavow ownership in re- gard to both, and they are consequent in this, as I have shown. I doubt not that Mr. George has drawn the last consequences to his theory — he is logici^m enough for that— but he may not deem it opportune to publish, them at present and so let the cat out of the bag too soon. He does not want to give too great a dose of poison at . once, but to administer it drop by drop to inake its deadly effect more certain and more general. To what exorbitant consequences full- fledged Socialism is leading is not the object of this article to port^aJ^ I leave that to the- Socialists themselves, to whom properly such a 44 Socialism and the Church ; or, task belongs. Besides, it were a kind of hercu- lean labor to attempt a refutation of such so- ■oialistic systt ms in their last details. They are like the Lernean hydra: when you cut oflf one difficulty, a number of others will crop out at once. These systems are like the famous Laby- rinth of Crete : if any one attempt to wind his way through them, he cannot find a road to get out. They are like the Fata Morgana — fas- cinating the multitude by visionary fortunes ; and, alas ! only too many are deceived and fol- low blindly to the social abyss. Better that we stay in the old social building, which is no air- castle ; which has been a prac- tical, a living reality for thousands of years ; which is plnin in its architecture and based on a solid foundation. It is shattered, indeed, and in need of repair ; but let it be renovated, or even rebuilt, according to the old plan, and it will be an agreeable dwelling again. IV. THE KOOT OF SOCIAL EVILS. There is something rotten in Denmark" — there are social evils even amongst civilized na- tions ; no one can deny this, or he must be struck with threefold blindness. But the old theory of property is not the cause of the wide gulf existing between the rich and the poor; that is not the root of the social plant which is said to thrive on the misery of the oppressed class of men. Mr. Oeorge admits this himself, in remaikable words Henry George vs. Archbishop Gorrigan. 45 which I shall quote later on. The real cause is not error of uJider stand lug, running to false conclusions about property, as Mr. George imagines ; the cause is an error of the heart by cherishing its insatiate greed for property. St. Paul tells it in simple yet striking language : Radix enim omnium malorum est cupiditas — The root of all evils is cupidity'' (Tim. vi.) Of all evils — then certainly also of the social evils ; also of the social evils of our time, which Mr. George so feelingly and justly enumerates — all honor to him for that ! Yes, cupidity is the feeder to the extrava- gance of the so-called upper classes" dwelling in palaces, driving around in princely carriages, or walking haughtily in silk and velvet ; cupid- ity is the fever that consumes those of lower station who burn to be ranked with the ''qual- ity" ; cupidity is the unhappy mother of Dives and his brethren ; of their cruel oppressions, their grasping monopolies, spinning like spiders their nets to entice helpless victims ; cupidity^ thence, is the cause for the existence of the poor Lazaruses who are dwelling in unhealthy tenement-houses and subsisting on what can scarcely be called diet ; cupidity is a very canker-worm that gnaws and gnaws at the vitals of the body politic and social — cupidity is the root of all evils ! There the axe must be laid. But I am afraid our time may be apt to fall into such an error as was committed at the time of the so called Reforma- 46 Socialism and the Church; or^ tion. Religious reform was necessary and the cry for it was echoed on all sides. But the remedy was not applied by the would-be Re- formers in the right place. Religion iieeded not reformation by man, but man by religion. Homines per sacra immutari fas est, mm saci a per homines," are the words of ^gidio di Viter- bo, a man who well knew the distemper of his time. And in a similar way these words, mu- tatis mutandis, may be applied to our day, when the cry for social reform is sounding fj om one end of the civilized world to the other. T'he property of man is not to be reformed, bat the 7iia7i of property ! Take avarice out of the heart and the social evils will cease of them- selves. Socialism does not do away with this evil root, and therefore the tree with bitter fruits still grows. V. SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. The flood of social evils is swelling continual- ly. Day by day mankind is submerged deeper and deejjer. Now, are there no means to rescue mankind from this deluge % Is there no axe sharp enough to destroy the root of such evils? Is there no medicine with sufficient sanative power to heal the gaping wound, is tlieie no balm in Gilead ? Yes, there is help for poor, suffering mankind, if man wishes to help him- self. But this help is not to be sought in Social- Henry George vs. Archbishop Corriyan. 47 ism, which has only drastic counter irritants and violent narcotics to beguile and to stifle with a vei geance the woes and plaints of society for a time, but which has no efficient remedy for healing the social wound itself. The ulcer, if cured only superficially, would festei*, ay, soon break out in another place and with greater viru- lence. There must be liad a radical cure, and, thanks be to God ! there is a radical means to accomplish it ; it is contained in the Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy. I have read several treatises and articles on the social question, but, strange enough, nowhere have I found these words even alluded to. And yet if St Paul had been writing for our times, to tell us, in the short and terse way peculiar to him, how to proceed to save manl^ind from social calamities, he could not have written more pointedly. They are wonderfully adapted to the present wants of society, and worthy of being unearthed and brought out of their ob- scurity. I shall give the text first in full, and afterwards analyze it: ^'But piety with suffi- ciency is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and certainly we can carry no- thing out of it. But having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these let us be content. For they who will become rich fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and hurtful desiies, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For covetous- ness is the root of all evils ; which some desiring 48 Socialism and the Church ; or, have erred from faith and have entangled them- selves in many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, fly these things : and pursue justice, piety, faith, charity, patience, meekness" (1 Tim. vi^ 6-11). St. Paul is doubtless a good teacher — a physi- cian of souls prescribing for their cure by his in- spired teachings. He is called '''Doctor genti- um^'' — a doctor for all people ; good enough also for our times. Now, he sets to work like a doctor who has a wounded patient before him. First he makes the diagnosis : ''You have the dangerous wound of cupidity, of covetousness, O mankind ! " he says, which deprives you of happiness, tempo- ral and eternal ; but a great gain is piety with sufficiency." Then washing the sore and remov- ing the irritations which keep it open, he draws out the thorn which rested deep in the wound., ''For we brought nothing," he continues, "into t?his world, and certainly we can carry nothing out." Mark how softly and deftly he draws out the thorn, that craving in the heart of even the poorest man which allow^s him no rest and the wound of cupidity no healing. " But having food> and wherewith to be covered, with these let us be; conttnt?' He proceeds gradually and probes the wound — and oh ! it is a gaping wound. " For they who will become rich fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many un- ]profitable and hurtful desires, which drowu men in Ihiiry George vs. Archbishop Corriyati, destruction and perdition." A deep wound, in- deed, ever spreading farther and farther, is this cupidity ; other vices are as its ill-omened progeny — ^luxury, injustice, impiety, hard-heartedness, drunkenness, and God knows how many othei temptations and snares of the devil. And many useless, even noxious, desires spring forth from, it — desires to grasp together everything possible by combination of capital, by monopolies, cor ners, pools, syndicates, and similar means, which finally drive their poor human victims to despair^ ruin, and perdition. Is it not as if St. Paul had in view all these unjust and hazardous, though at the same time fascinating, modes of money-mak ing employed in our day, which wreck the for- tunes, the welfare of thousands ? Alas ! cupidity is truly a deep, a very deep wound, reaching down to the very core of social life, to the main spring of the social fabric. ''For comtousness is the root of all evils.'' There the doctor de- tects the prime source of the social malady. With this is closely connected another evil, no less pernicious than the first — loss of faith. Some desiring have lost faith." Are not the thousands of lukewarm Christians, of fallen away Catholics, a sad proof of these words of St. Paul? Tliey were avaricious for the things of this world, they heaped up riches and gained earthly goods ; but, alas ! at the same time, for- getful of their duties towards God and man, they lost the most precious gift —they lost faith„ And-' 50 Socialism and the Church; or, their appetite became greatei*, but with this also their troubles: ''and desiilng they have en- tangled themselves in many sorrows." . So it was in the time before Christ, as ancient history attests, especially the history of Rome, where between the richer and poorer classes a con- tinual warfare w:is going on, ending only with the downfall of the enjpire. And so, in many woes, the victims of cupidity have been worried in our time by strikes and boycotts, by popular up- heavals and scenes of destruction of the most alarming kind. And if the wealthy classes do not curb and even suppress their greedy propen- sities, their cupidity^ the last state of socie'y will be worse than the first under pagan civilization. This wound of cupidity will bring direr eviis upon the actual body politic of civdized mankind. Now, the gr< at apostle, making the prognosis for the patient, prescribes as a skilful physician, in strong and solemn words, and orders the paiient to diet himsdf : ''Flee these things." Then he applies a sixfold i>laster to close and heal the wound: "But thou, O man of God f fly these things : and pursue justice, piety, faith, charity, patience, meekness." These six virtues are so many means to cure wounded society. They are sufficient ; there need not be one more ; there should not be one less. All should pray for these and sincerely seek wliere they may be found. Let us note the order in which St. Paul places them. Henry George vs. Archhisliop Corrigan. 51 In tlie foreground are faith and charity. In- deed, tliese are the fundamental virtues even in social life. ''For all our sufficiency is from God," and without him we "can do notliing." If he does not build, the workmen build in vain ; if he does not help to reconstruct and reform society, all endeavor is of little or no avail. Society, says Mr. George, is divided into two classes, the very ricli and very poor ; in fact, the so-called middle class is reduced year by year, and the gup between them is widened every day. Now, let us place these two divine virtues, faith and charity, in the breach, in this widening gulf, and see how they will work towards the very rich. First they will produce piety — piety towards God. For faith will teach the rich one that lie also has been created by God ; that he has received from the hands of God all the goods he possesses. ''Oh! why dost thou glory, as if thou didst not receive ; for every good gift comes from God, the Father of lights." Therefore faith will make the rich man bow down in gratitude to God, with whom there is no dis tinction of persons, but who will rigorously judge the rich according to their great responsibility. Faith united with piety will produce justice towards man; for faith teaches, and piety sweetly attracts to the benign teaching, that be- fore the throne of God we are all alike ; that we have all the same Father in heaven, to whom we pray daily: ''Our Father, who art in heaven." o2 Socialism and the Church; or. Faith united with piety will make man under- stand that not only are all men equal before God, but that they are also brethren amongst themselves, created and redeemed by the Al- mighty, who extends his love to all alike. It will teach Dives that the poor man, though clad in rags, has also his rights, which cannot be ig- nored, much less trodden under foot ; that he has a right to just wages for the work he has 9one — ''For the laborer is worthy of his hire" ; that it is even a sin, crying to Heaven for ven- geance, to withhold the just earnings and wages of the poor. Moreover, faith witli piety will bring the rich man to take compassion on the poor, in not only dealing justly but also charita- bly with them, as Christ urges on almost every page of the Gospel, and as those types of Chris- tian life, the saints of God, have always done. Let us see, next, how faith and charity will work towards the opposite class, the poor. First, they will produce the virtue of patience towards God — i. e. , patience for God's sake. Faith will teach the poor man that for everything he suflPers in this world he will receive a hundred- fold reward in eternity, "for the sufifeiings of this world are not to be compared to the glory to be manifested on us." And how abundantly God rewards the poor ! Christ vividly brings this to mind in the parable of the poor Lazarus, who, after a miserable life, reaped eternal joy and happiness. Faith, moreover, will teach tlie Henry George vs. Archbishop Corrigan. 5S poor laboring man that labor in the sweat of his brow is indeed a curse, inflicted upon every man since the fall of the first man ; but that this curse was changed into a blessing by our Saviour, who, by his example in laboring himself, mukes this yoke sweet and this burden light ; who, by his life of labor, made labor honorable, and whose toil-roughened hands are no less a sign of honor for the laboring class than his Five Wounds are a sign of glory for the faithful in general. In both these things, also, did the great apostle glory — in the wounds of Christ and in the labor of his own hands ! Finally, it is the laboring class Christ invites to himself: ''Come ye all who labor [labor in its literal sense, also] and are burdened, for I will refresh you." He never spoke such words to the rich, who seek to make their heaven in this world, like Dives in the Gospel ; on the contrary, for such he has very alarming words. Such faith, if it has some lively hold on the hearts of the poor, will make them bow down in resignation before God, and say : Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread ; we are content with that." Faith, with patience towards God, will also bring the poor and suffering man into harmony and sympathy with his f tallow-men, even though they be rich. These two virtues will pioduce another virtue, which St. Paul mentions last, though it is not the least — meekness towards 54 Socialism and the Gliurch ; or. man. Faith, iu union with patience, will draw out that thorn of cupidity which sticks in the heart of even the poorest m^n, of one who can- not call a cent's worth his own. These virtues will do away with that insatiable craving of the human heart which causes envy and hatred against the rich — pa!