THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9512, 7 September 1891, Page 6

THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— The Catholic world is probably by this time well acquainted with, the “ Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII. on tbe Condition of Labour.” A writer in your paper has already assisted to draw more general attention to it, and I should like to be allowed to carry on his work. There are stern, uncompromising Protestants who may say, " Can any good thing come out of Rome?” Well, a good thing did come out of Nazareth; and though opinions may differ as to whether the Papal encyclical is an unmitigated good, yet it is a document worth reading, and to some extent, at least, putting into practice. A Protestant will, of course, discard what might be termed tbe “ professional ” part of the letter, but he need not therefore cast aside the whole. . I am sorry at the outset to note a pessimistic remark, if it be not worse. .Amongst other signs of the times. His Holiness perceives, or thinks he does, a “ general moral deterioration,” Everyone who believes in the gradual unfolding of divine purpose in the order of the world must know that, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, there is at bottom a real moral amelioration. Our vices may parade themselves a little more shamelessly, our scepticism of shallow and false claims to authority may be a little more loudly and boldly expressed, but we are not therefore really deteriorating. If it be true that faults detected and brought to light do moat surely lead to amendment, then the surface retrogression of morals is but the prelude to a deep and lasting betterment, inwardly and outwardly. Unfortunately the Pope, before he has got very far, falls foul of the Socialists, whom apparently he is unable to distinguish from Anarchists, and whom he accuses of conspiring to “ rob the lawful possessor, bring the State into a sphere that is not its own, and cause complete confusion in the community,” and also of depriving the wage-earner of* “the liberty to dispose of his wages, and thus of all hope and possibility of bettering his condition in life.” I have italicised the, expression “lawful possessor,” in order to draw the distinction between lawful and rightful possessors. Further on a saying of*St Thomas, of Aquin, is quoted, that human law, “ in so far as it deviates from right reason, is called an unjust law; in such case is not law at all, but rather a species of violence.” Seeing that in so many cases, tbe “lawful possessor” can give no right reason for his possession, may we not say that it has been obtained by a “species of violence,” and human laws accept, at any rate in_ some cases, the principle that what is obtained by violence, may, by law, be taken away without injustice ? Then, again, to “ bring tbe State into a sphere that is not its own.” This remark, probably, is the result of the mistaken definition of the State which is given elsewhere, viz., “ that the State, as rightly understood, is any government conformable in its institutions to right reason, and natural law, and to dictates of the divine wisdom.” This is not the State, it is but the machinery through which the State acta; the State is the people, and anything that concerns them cannot be “ a sphere that is not its own.” As for the deprivation of tbe wageearner’s hope and possibility of bettering his condition in life, why, this is exactly what so many wage-earners absolutely lack at present. Reduction of the hours of labour, removal of grinding poverty and its accompanying anxiety, provisions to enable all to find out and follow tbe work best suited to them; —how can these things be called depriving tbe wage-earners of the possibility of bettering their condition in life ?

Here the writer attempts to prove property a “ natural right.” Because man has reason, he must have things in “stable and permanent possession” (if such s thing can be); his reason is not given- to him that_ he may rise above and be independent of these things, but that/ns-a mro - serpent, he may go upon his belly and eat dust. A poor natural right this! I, for one, prefer Mazzini’s noble words, chat “ man has no rights from nature save only the one right of liberating himself from every obstacle impeding his free fulfilment of his own duties,” that is, impeding bis growth towards the highest possible life. But even accepting property as a natural right—for Socialists themselves do not agree as to whether it should be totally abolished or not—no natural right can allow a man to grab as much as possible, and thereby deprive others of what is also their natural right. Socialists may, or may not, allow a man’s , right to the plot he lives on, or a reasonable amount of land to cultivate, but they do all re-echo the words of the seer, “ Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth.” The Pope contends that he who spends the industry of his mind and strength of his body on a portion of Nature’s field should possess that portion as his owu. Bat some of the largest owners do not spend the industry of their minds, let alone their strength of body, on their portion of Nature’s field; that is done by their overseers and managers, and the owners themselves are like the one spoken of in “ For the Sight,” who thought of his estate only when he wanted money, which happened to he very often. But that did not make him a good landlord or owner. “Is it just that the fruit of a man’s sweat and labour should he enjoyed by another ?” Most certainly not, but it happens every day, ail over the world, under the present system, which the writer of the encyclical so earnestly strives to justify. The divine law, to which he appeals as forbidding ua to covet, was just meant to prevent large estates being acquired; became the land was equitably divided to begin with, and therefore it applies much more to the large land-owners than to Socialists. Then, again, Nature is said to dictate that a man’s children should be provided by him with property to enable them honourably to keep themselves from want and misery. I hope to see the time when men will know that the best provision for their children is to give them such an education as shall enable them to support themselves honourably by their own honest exertions,and not by those of others. Are the young sprigs ofjnobility in London better for heiug provided for in the manner advocated by the Pops? His Holiness says, most truly, that “no practical solution of this question will ever be found without the assistance of religion.” So Maazini says, “The Republican party is essentially a religious party.” “ Man is not changed by whitewashing or gilding his habitation, nevertheless 0 an unclean habitation, and no means of cleansing it will do much to retard his progress. “To invent formula and organisations and neglect the internal man is to desire to substitute the frame for the picture.” The Pope is awaking to a perception of the fact that the real heretic is nofe he who refuses to subscribe to a creedj but he who oppresses his brother. His condemnation of such is backed by no threats of fire and torture, but it is all the stronger for that. Let me conclude by heartily echoing his words, “If Society is to be cured now, in no other way can it be cured bub by a return to the Christian life.”—l am, &c., JOHN BENDELY.