Pope Leo’s Ideal Was Not State Control

[markomalley]

This very insightful, if long, piece by Anthony Esolen in Crisis Magazine:
Pope Leo XIII affirms that a well governed State will promote the material and moralprosperity of its citizens, will honor private property and free association, and will protect the poor from abuse or depredation by the rich.
How to do these things? Leo lays down four principles.
(just giving the list…go to the article for the explanation of these principles – note, the names of these four principles are given by Esolen to capture the major themes of Pope Leo XIII’s principles)

• The Principle of Moral Health.
• The Law of Sufficient Generality
• The Principle of the Home (subsidiarity)
• The Principle of the Human Person

Esolen concludes by saying:
Leo could not have foreseen that “the State” would become an interest in its own right, a new aristocracy, but utterly detached from locale and tradition and unknown to their subjects. The true State thrives by moral rule. But “the State,” the cancerous Metastate, thrives by immorality. It helps to cause the chaos it then pretends to ameliorate. Strong and self-reliant families hurt the Metastate, so the Metastate rewards profligacy and licentiousness, and promotes the easy severance of father from children. The Metastate knows that if people but make an earnest attempt to govern themselves by the Ten Commandments and the Gospel, they will be free and prosperous, and the Metastate will shrivel. Perish the thought.

Father-headed families? Free associations? I credit the Metastate with knowing its enemies.
A good collection of Leo XIII’s writings can be found at Papal Encyclicals Online. Of course, everybody has heard of Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor) May 15, 1891 However, I wonder how many have actually studied the ***actual ***encyclical (rather than a perverted socialist interpretation of that encyclical). In addition to Rerum Novarum, the following are of particular interest (IMHO)

• *Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism) December 28, 1878 *
• Immortale Dei (On the Christian Constitution of States) November 1, 1885
• *Libertas Praestantissimum(On the Nature of Human Liberty) June 20, 1888 *
• *Sapientiae Christianae (On Christians as Citizens) January 10, 1890 *
• *Graves De Communi Re (On Christian Democracy) January 18, 1901 *

I find it very interesting how Leonine thought has (how do I put it charitably) “evolved” over a period of not that many decades into something that Leo would not recognize.

 

[livingwordunity]

I love Pope Leo XIII. Thanks for the info.

 

[StudentMI]

However, I wonder how many have actually studied the ***actual ***encyclical (rather than a perverted socialist interpretation of that encyclical).

Are you referring to Catholic or secular interpretations when you say that?

I found the article interesting. The ‘metastate’ as Esolen puts it frightens me, particularly for that very reason that it tears families apart by making people reliant on the state instead of family, something I noticed before becoming Catholic. I do refer to myself as a distributist, however, because of the thing about abstractions. I find too much of libertarian economics based on abstractions, and socialism of course is an abstraction.

I feel compelled to quote the rest of paragraph 45 which Esolen quoted, which is not to imply a mischievous intent on his part, but merely to show that state action is not unjust in the case of labor disputes.

If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

 

[markomalley]

Are you referring to Catholic or secular interpretations when you say that?

I found the article interesting. The ‘metastate’ as Esolen puts it frightens me, particularly for that very reason that it tears families apart by making people reliant on the state instead of family, something I noticed before becoming Catholic. I do refer to myself as a distributist, however, because of the thing about abstractions. I find too much of libertarian economics based on abstractions, and socialism of course is an abstraction.

I feel compelled to quote the rest of paragraph 45 which Esolen quoted, which is not to imply a mischievous intent on his part, but merely to show that state action is not unjust in the case of labor disputes.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

A careful reading of that section reveals what needs to be done to avoid having State interference. Paragraph 37 talks about the State’s role in defending the poor – but the context is in light of making sure they don’t get taken. e.g., so they get paid what was promised.