ryan. alleged socialism of the church fathers. 1913

8/4/2019 Ryan. Alleged socialism of the church fathers. 1913.

1/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OFTHE CHURCH FATHERS


2/96

THE LIBRARYTHE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIESTORONTOPRESENTED BY

Rev. J.T.. Mackle, C.S.B.....


3/96


4/96


5/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISMOF THECHURCH FATHERS

BYREV. JOHN A. RYAN, D.D.

Author of " Francisco Ferrer," "Churchand Interest-taking," etc.

ST. LOUIS, MO., 1913Published by B. Herder

17 South BroadwayFREIBURG (Baden)

GERMANYLONDON, W. C.

68, Great Russell Str.


6/96

ISF. G. Holweck,Censor Librorum^

OCT 3 W40|i 742IMPRIMATUR

Sti. Ludovici, die 28. Juni 1913J* Joannes J. Glennon,

Archiepiscopus8ti. Ludovici

Copyright, 1913,by

Joseph Gummersbach


7/96

FOREWORDCertain Socialists are fond of asserting

that the Fathers of the Church denied theright of private property, and defended com-mon ownership. The only basis for theclaim is some passages cited more or less cor-rectly by Bebel, 1 de Laveleye,2 and Mtti.3In all probability these writers got the ex-tracts directly or indirectly from a work en-titled, "Traite de la morale des peres," writ-ten at the beginning of the eighteenth cen-tury by a French Calvinist named JeanBarbeyrac. The little volume herewith pre-sented to the public contains all the im-portant passages used by these writers andby Socialists, and also typical extracts from

i "Die Frau," p. 297, note.2 "Le Socialisme contemporain," p. ix.3 "Catholic Socialism," p. 64.

S


8/96

FOREWORDall the strongest statements made by all theFathers on the question of private propertyand wealth. None of the citations has beenimproperly separated from the context, andthe briefest of them is sufficiently compre-hensive to reflect adequately the thought ofits author on the specific point under discus-sion.The references at the end of the extracts

are to the volumes and columns of Migne'sPatrologia. Thus : "P. L., 15 : 1303, 1304,means " Patrologia Latina," volume 13, col-umns 1303 and 1304. Similarly, "P. G., 6186," is the abbreviation for " PatrologiaGraeca," volume 61, column 86.

John A. Byan.St. Paul Seminary,

March, 1913.


9/96

CONTENTSCHAPTER PAGE

I I The Greek Fathers 111 The Latin Fathers . . . ... . 12

II St. Basil . . ....... 17III St. Ambrose ..... >; w . . 52IV St. 'Jerome. ... .. w y > w . . 67


10/96

Digitized by the Internet Archivein 2011 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/allegedsocialismOOryan


11/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THECHURCH FATHERS

CHAPTER II. The Greek Fathers

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (347-407)Just as, therefore, it is a vice of the stom-

ach to retain and not distribute food, and i /thus cause injury to the whole body ; so like- kwise it is a vice of the rich when they retainamong themselves those things which theypossess; for this injures them and others.P. G., 61 : 86.

"JT W "SS" *ft W W ,1Neither is any one able to become riclr

without injustice. Christ declared this, say-ing: "Make to yourselves friends of the


12/96

2 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHERSs mammon of iniquity" (Lk. 16:9). "What,"

you say, "if one received paternal goods byheredity?" The goods which he receivedwere gathered together through iniquity.For his forefathers did not get their wealthfrom Adam : they must have been precededby many other possessors, among whommany a one had seized goods that belongedto his neighbor. P. G., 62 : 562.******

Tell me, whence are you rich? Fromwhom have you received? Prom yourgrandfather, you say; from your father.Are you able to show, ascending in the orderof generation, that that possession is justthroughout the whole series of precedinggenerations? Its beginning and root grewnecessarily out of injustice. Why? Be-cause God did not make this man rich andthat man poor from the beginning. Nor,when He created the world, did He allotmuch treasure to one man, and forbid an-


13/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHERS 3other to seek any. He gave the same earthto be cultivated by all. Since, therefore, Hisbounty is common, how comes it that youhave so many fields, and your neighbor noteven a clod of earth? "My father,'' yousay, "left it to me." From whom did he re-ceive it? From his forefathers. But, ifyou continue, you must at last get back to thebeginning. Jacob was rich, but his wealthwas received as the reward of his labor.But I shall not go into this matter too deeply.Riches may be just, and free from all rob-bery ; nor are you at fault if your father wasa robber. You possess, indeed, the results ofplunder, but you have not plundered.Granted even that your father despoiled noone, but extracted his gold from the earth.What then? Are riches therefore good?By no means. "But they are not evil," yousay. If they were not acquired throughavarice or violence they are not evil, pro-vided that they are shared with the needy;


14/96

4 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSif they are not thus shared, they are evil anddangerous. "As long as one has not doneevil," you say, "he is not evil, even thoughhe does no good." Correct; but is it notwrong to hold in exclusive possession theLord's goods, and to enjoy alone that whichis common? Are not the earth and the full-ness thereof the Lord's? If, therefore, ourpossessions are the common gift of the Lord,they belong also to our fellows; for all thethings of the Lord are common. Do we notsee such a disposition of things in greathouses? An even share of food is suppliedfrom the owner's substance to all; his houseis open to all. Common, too, are the goodsof the king: cities, streets, colonnades, arecommon to all; in them we are all equallypartakers. Behold the economy of God asit appears to me. He made certain thingscommon to teach the human race modesty.Such are the air, sun, water, earth, heaven,sea, light, stars. He distributed all these


15/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHERS 5things equally as among brothers. He cre-ated the same eyes in all, the same body, thesame soul, a similar form in all. All thingsare from the earth, all men from one man, alllive in the same house. He made otherthings common, as baths, cities, streets, col-onnades. Observe how in all these commonthings, there is no strife, but all is peace-able. But when each one endeavors to usurpa certain portion, in order to make it his own,a quarrel arises, as if nature were moved toindignation when we, whom God has gath-ered together, endeavor to divide and sepa-rate ourselves, to acquire those commongoods as our own, and to utter those chillingwords, "mine" and "thine." Then comescontention; then quarrels. "Where there isnone of this, contention and strife do notarise. For this reason, community of goodsrather than chance-determined private prop-'erty was bestowed upon us, and is accordingto nature. Why does no one ever contend


16/96

6 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSfor the possession of the forum? Becauseit is common to all. But we see all quarrel-ing about a house, and about money. Al-though the common goods are necessary forus, we do not, even in the smallest things,respect their social side. God gave us thesecommon goods that we might learn to pos-

_sess them in common; we, however, do notconform to His designs. But, as I have al-ready said, how can he who has riches bejust ? He certainly is not. He is good onlyif he distributes them to others : if he is with-out riches he is good; if he distributes toothers he is good; but as long as he retainsthem, he is not good. Can a thing be good,the possession of which makes men unjust,

_the distribution of which makes them just?It is not good, therefore, to have money;not to have it manifests the just man.Hence riches are not good. If, when youare able to take, you do not take, you arelikewise good. If, when having riches, we


17/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 7distribute to others, or if we do not takethem when they are offered to ns, we aregood; but if we take or retain them, thething is not good. How can riches be good?Therefore, do not call them good. Becauseyou have them not, you think them good,and regard them with longing. Have apure mind and right judgment, and thenyou will be good. Learn the things thatare truly good. What are these things?Virtue and beneficence ; these are good, notriches. P. G., 62 : 562, 563, 564.

ST BASIL (329-379)If that were true which you have af-

firmed, that you havQ obeyed the command-ment of love from youth, and have given toevery one as much as to yourself, whence, Iyask, have you all this wealth ? For the careof the poor consumes wealth, when each re-ceives a little for his needs, and all ownersdistribute their means simultaneously for


18/96

8 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OP THE CHURCH FATHERS

the care of the needy. Hence whoever loveshis neighbor as himself, will possess no morethan his neighbor. Yet it is plain thatyou have very much wealth. Whence theseriches? Undoubtedly you have subordi-nated the relief and comfort of many to yourown convenience. Therefore, the more youabound in riches, the more you have beenwanting in charity. If you had loved yourneighbor you would have thought of shar-ing your money with others. P. G., 31 : 282.

jf * * * * *To whom, he says, do I injury when I

retain and conserve my own? Whichthings, telLme, are yours? Whence haveyou brought your goods into life? Youare like one occupying a place in a thea-ter, who should prohibit others from en-tering, treating that as his own whichwas designed for the common use ofall. Such are the rich. Because they pre-occupy common goods, they take these goods


19/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OP THE CHUKCH FATHEKS 9^as their own. If each one would takethat which is sufficient for his needs, leav-ing what is superfluous to those in distress,no one would be rich, no one poor. Did younot come naked from the womb ? Will younot return naked into the earth? Whencethen have you your present possessions ? Ifyou say, "by destiny," you are impious,because you do not acknowledge the Creator,nor give thanks to the giver; if you admitthey are from God, tell us why you have re-ceived them. Is God unjust, to distributethe necessaries of life to us unequally?Why are you rich, why is that man poor? \fIs it not that you may receive the reward of t^beneficence and faithful distribution, andthat he may receive the great rewards ofpatience ? Do you think that you who have

,

taken everything into the unlimited compassof your avarice, thereby depriving so manyothers, have done injury to no one ? Who isan avaricious man ? He who is not content


20/96

10 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSwith those things which are sufficient. Whois a robber ? He who takes the goods of an-other. Are you not avaricious? Are younot a robber? You who make your own

vy'the things which you have received todistribute. Will not he be called a thiefwho robs one, already clothed, of his gar-ment, and is he worthy of any other titlewho will not clothe the naked if he is ableto do so? That bread which you keep, be-longs to the hungry; that coat which youpreserve in your wardrobe, to the naked;those shoes which are rotting in your pos-session, to the shoeless ; that gold which youhave hidden in the ground, to the needy.

\J Wherefore, as often as you were able tohelp men, and refused, so often did you do

cthem wrong. P. G., 31 : 275, 278.ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (d. 386)For all things are truly His who is our

Father. For we are brothers. Wherefore,


21/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 11since we are united by birth as brothers, itwere indeed better and more just to receivethe inheritance in equal portions ; but whenthat is not done, and one or another wishesto appropriate more, let the rest receive atleast one portion, But if one wishes to beabsolute master of all, to obtain the en-tire inheritance, and to exclude his brothersfrom even a third or fifth part, he is not abrother, but a harsh tyrant, a rude savage,nay, more, an insatiable beast that woulddevour the whole sweet banquet with his owngaping mouth. P. G., 46: 466.CLEMENT OF ALEXANDEIA (150-215)I know that God has given us the use ofgoods, but only as far as is necessary; and

He has determined that the use be common.It is absurd and disgraceful for one to livemagnificently and luxuriously when so manyare hungry. P. G., 8: 543.


22/96

12 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHEBS

II. The Latin FathersST. AUGUSTINE (354-430)

Behold how only a few things suffice foryou; nor does God ask much of you. Seekas much as he has given you, and from thattake as much as is necessary ; the superfluousthings which remain are the necessaries ofothers. The superfluities of the rich arethe necessaries of the poor. They who pos-

ksess superfluities, possess the goods of others.P. L., 37 : 1922.

W w W w W WLet your charity abound; for from those

things that we possess individually comequarrels, enmities, discords, wars amongmen, tumults, dissensions, scandals, sins,iniquities, murders. On account of what?On account of the things which each of uspossesses. Do we quarrel over the thingswhich we have in common? We have the


23/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 13

same air in common, we all see the same sun.P. L., 37 : 1718.ST. AMBROSE (340-397)

They [the Philosophers] counted it arequisite of justice that one should treatcommon, that is, public, goods as public, butprivate goods as one's own. This is not,indeed, according to nature ; for nature givesall things in common to all. So God com- ^manded all things to be created in such away that food should be common to all, andthe earth the common possession of all.Nature, therefore, created the common rightusurpation made the private right. P. L., ^16: 62.

w vP w w w "7v*How far, O rich, do you extend your sense-

less avarice ? Do you intend to be the soleinhabitants of the earth? Why do youdrive out the fellow sharers of nature, andclaim it all for yourselves ? The earth was


24/96

14 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSmade for all, rich and poor, in common.;Why do you rich claim it as your exclusiveright? P. L., 14:731.******j*- You do not give to the poor man of yourown? but of his. That which was given forthe common use of all, you have usurpedfor yourself. The earth belongs to all, notto the rich ; but those who enjoy their shares,are fewer than those who do not. There-fore, you are paying a debt, not bestowing a

, gift. P. L., 14: 747.Since, therefore, he is your equal, it is un-

just that he is not assisted by his fellow manespecially since the Lord our God has willedthis earth to be the common possession ofall men, and its fruits to support all. Av-arice, however, has made a distribution ofproperty rights. It is just, therefore, thatif you claim as your own anything of thatwhich was given to the human race, indeed,even to all living beings, in common, you


25/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHERS 15should distribute at least a part among thepoor, in order that you may not deny sus-tenance to those who ought to be fellowsharers of your private possessions. P. L.,15 :1303, 1304.

ST. GREGORY THE GREAT (540-604)They must be admonished who do not seek

another's goods, yet do not give of their own,that they may know that the earth fromwhich they have received is common to allmen, and therefore its products are given incommon to all. They, therefore, wronglythink they are innocent who claim for them-selves the common gift of God. When theydo not give what they have received, they as-sist in the death of neighbors, because dailyalmost as many of the poor perish as havebeen deprived of means which the rich havekept to themselves. "When we give neces-saries to the needy we do not bestow uponthem our goods; we return to them their


26/96

16 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHERSown; we pay a debt of justice rather thanfulfil a work of mercy. Hence when theTruth Himself spoke about mercy prudentlyshown, He said: "Take heed lest you doyour justice before men." (Matt. 6:1.)The Psalmist agreeing with this opinionsaid: "He has distributed. He has given

\S to the poor, and His justice remaineth for-ever." (Ps. 111:9.) Since He had fore-ordained a great bounty for the poor, Hedid not wish to call this mercy, but justicefor it is surely just that what is given by ourcommon Lord for every one should be usedin common. P. L., 77 :87.

/ ST. JEEOME (340-420)All riches come from iniquity, and unlessone has lost, another cannot gain. Hencethat common opinion seems to me to be verytrue, "the rich man is unjust, or the heiran unjust one." P. L., 22: 984.******


27/96

CHAPTER IISaint Basil

The present chapter presents a study indetail of the opinions of one of the GreekFathers, St. Basil. It is followed by anequally thorough examination of two of theLatin Fathers, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome.Since these three are fully representativeof all the others, and are the ones most fre-quently cited by the Socialists, a vindicationof them from the charge of antagonism toprivate ownership will apply to the Fathersgenerally, and ought to dispose of all theSocialist assertions on the subject. Beforetaking up the more specific study, it may behelpful to summarize the most importantphases of the whole situation, and to indi-cate the points that will be established.

17


28/96

18 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHTJBCH FATHERS1. None of the Fathers either explicitly

or implicitly denied the right of privateproperty. In the first place, all the doubt-ful passages can and should be explained ina sense consistent with the belief in privateownership; and, in the second place, thereare other passages in the writings of theseFathers which show beyond question thatsuch was their belief.

2. Many of the Fathers asserted moreor less explicitly that the rich men of theday had acquired their wealth unjustly.Now, this is a question of fact, and the his-tory of the time furnishes abundant reasonfor thinking that this Patristic judgmentwas true of the majority of the class uponwhich it was pronounced.

3. All the Fathers declared that a man's" superfluous goods" belong to his needyneighbor. Far from being unusual, this isthe teaching explicitly set forth by the great-est of the theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas


29/96


(Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, q.66, a.7), andhas been the commonly accepted doctrine inthe Church from the beginning to the pres-jent. It has always been held, however, thata man was not obliged to give away all hissuperfluous goods or income when the needdepending upon his gifts was only " ordi-nary." The obligation assumed these pro-portions only when the people to be assistedwere in "grave" or "extreme" need, andwhen such need was so extensive as to re-quire for its relief all the superfluous goodsavailable. Undoubtedly this was the situa-tion in the period and the environment inwhich the Fathers spoke and wrote. Never-theless, the doctrine of giving all one 's super-fluous goods to the needy would require a dif-ferent formulation to-day in two mainpoints. First, modern industrial conditionsdemand that the man of wealth should dis-tribute a part of his goods indirectly, thatis, by investing them in productive and


30/96

20 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSlabor-employing enterprises. Second, thesuperfluous goods that ought to be given tothe needy belong to them by the moral titleof charity, not, as a rule, by the title ofjustice. This distinction was not insistedupon by the Fathers. Nor was it necessaryfrom the viewpoint of practical righteous-ness ; for the obligation was a grave and ur-gent one.

4. The language employed by the Fathersin denouncing the rich, and in laying downthe duty of distribution incumbent upon thelatter, is much stronger than would now beused by churchmen in similar positions.This fact is largely explained by differencesin the amount and degree of distress, dif-ferences in the conduct of the rich, differ-ences in the temperament and training ofthe speakers, and general differences inthe whole social and cultural environ-ment.

5. These extracts from the Fathers are,


31/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHERS 21however, by no means out of date. Theyteach a lesson thatjs as badly needed to-dayas at any other time since Christ first pro-claimed the Gospel of Brotherly Love. Inour quite proper and necessary insistenceupon the inviolability of private property,we sometimes overlook the social side ofwealth and ownership. This was the as-pect that was emphasized by the Fathersbecause the circumstances of their time de-manded such emphasis. It likewise de-mands emphasis to-daynot, indeed, in thesame terms, but to a considerably greaterdegree than actually prevails. There isneed, in the first place, of proclaiming andincessantly repeating the traditional Chris-tian doctrine that superfluous goods, that is,the amount of a man 's income that remainsafter he has made reasonable provision forhimself and his dependents, belong by thelaw of Christian charity to one's less for-tunate fellows, and ought to be distributed


32/96

22 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS

among them, directly or indirectly, in oneor more of the hundred and one ways inwhich money is capable of benefiting man-kind. In the second place, and especially,the world is in sore need of a more liberalconception of " superfluous goods," and ofa saner and more Christian conception ofwhat constitutes reasonable life, reasonableprovision for individual and family main-tenance, and lawful indulgence in the goodsof the senses. Not only the rich, but allclasses except the very poor, are spendingtoo much money for the material things oflife, and far too little for the spiritual,the altruistic, and the intellectual things.False standards of living, of enjoyment, andof achievement pervade all classes from thetop to the bottom. This is the fundamental,all-determining evil of our time with regardto the getting and using of wealth. Untilit is fairly and honestly faced, we can makeno headway toward a permanent solution


33/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 23of those problems which we sum up underthe phrase, "the social question."Although St. Basil renounced his prop-

erty in early youth, he never gave it all upunconditionally. He leased a certain por-tion of it to a foster brother on conditionthat he should be supported out of the profitsaccruing therefrom. And, notwithstandinghis episcopal duties, he retained some in-terest in the management of this estate, aswe learn from two letters written to a cer-tain tax official. In one of these letters heasks that the estate be left at its old assess-ment, and in the other he explains the con-ditions on which his foster brother tookcharge of the property. "At the same time,this was not regarded as an absolute gift;he was to have only the use during life, sothat, if anything serious happen to him onaccount of this arrangement, he is at libertyto give the property back to me, and I shall


34/96

/


thus in another way be responsible for ratesand collectors." St. Basil, therefore, actedas landlord, received an "unearned incre-ment," and stood ready to reassume activedirection of the states he had leased. Thisconduct is inconsistent with the supposi-tion that he believed private property to bewrong."Do not give your soul up to riches, lov-

ing and admiring them as the one goodthing in life, but take advantage of them,using them as an instrument of service." 1The rich man is here exhorted to make

a proper use of his wealth, but he is nottold that wealth is in itself unlawful. Onthe contrary, he is assured that it may bemade to serve good ends.

In another place he says that money iscalled the "mammon of iniquity" because,"some of the predecessors of the presentholders may have obtained it unlawfully."iP. G., 29:482.


35/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHEBS 25This distinction supposes that some prop-erty may be lawfully acquired, consequentlythat private property in itself is right.Otherwise he would not need to go back to theoriginal proprietors to find a reason forcalling this particular property " iniqui-tous.''

Again, he often advises men to sell theirproperty and give the proceeds to the poor.This he could not have done had he believedprivate ownership to be wrong. He couldnot have directed men to sell what they didnot own, to attempt to convey to others atitle that they did not themselves possess.This would be getting money under falsepretences; for where there are no privaterights there can be no buying and selling.If St. Basil were a communist he shouldhave told individual owners to restore theirholdings to the state or to distribute themdirectly among the poor. 1

iP. G., 31:298.


36/96


ST. basil's point of view.Enough has been said to show that St.

Basil, in some instances at least, sanctionedthe institution of private ownership. Why,then, is he cited as a communist ! One rea-son seems to be that those who make thischarge have not studied his writings withsufficient thoroughness. They invariablyappeal to a single passage, which, as we shallsee presently, can be made to express a be-lief in some vague sort of communism. Be-sides this, it must be acknowledged that St.Basil's language concerning the rich is al-ways severe. He seems to regard greatwealth_as__a_curse

;and the owners thereof

as utterly heartless and unscrupulous. Afair sample of his denunciation of these menis found in the following words addressedto usurers: "You are making a profit outof misfortune ; you are levying a tax upontears. You are strangling the naked. You


37/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 27are dealing blows to the starving." Abishop in our time would probably notspeak in this manner; but if we would un-derstand St. Basil aright we must examinehis language in the light of his character andsurroundings. By temperament and train-ing he was an ascetic, and his severest stric-tures on property were written, not in scien-tific treatises, but in fervid sermons to anarrogant class of rich men.

HIS EARLY EDUCATION.His early education was received in the

schools of Athens, where he was known noless for piety than for diligence and ability.In an immoral and skeptical environmenthe remained pure in heart and unshaken infaith. His friend and fellow-student, Ju-lian, left Athens with the seeds of apostasyalready taken root in his soul; St. Basilquitted the same school and city with a firmresolve to renounce the world and follow


38/96

28 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSChrist. He then visited Egypt, Syria, Pal-estine, and other parts of the East to studythe manner of life of those little groupsthat had already withdrawn from the world.After his return to Cappadocia he unitedwith some kindred spirits to establish a re-treat at Pontus, thus becoming the founderof monasticism in Asia Minor. Through-out his after life he continued a consistentascetic, living on the poorest fare, wearinghair cloth, and " treating his body as anangry owner treats a runaway slave." Isit any wonder that a man of this charactershould regard right living and charitabledoing as of more importance than a jealousguardianship of property rights ? For himrights were of less consequence than obliga-tions, and the obligations that he strove toenforce were of the highest kind. Some

. /men recognize no duties of ownership exceptthose demanded by the civil law. Theythink themselves free to do what they please


39/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHERS 29,with their possessions so long as they vio-late no legal enactment. Others acknowl-edge that there is a wider sphere of duties,that of natural ethics. Still others are con-scious of a third group of duties, namelythose of Christian charity; while those whotake the highest view of ownership go fur-ther and use their wealth as a means of prac-ticing asceticism. This was the view of St.Basil. He tried to make men not only law-abiding, just, and charitable, but even self-denying, in the use of their possessions.The following is an instance in point: "Ifyou had kept the commandment of lovefrom your youth, as you say, and had givento each man as much as to yourself, whencecame these riches? . . . He who loves hisneighbor as himself will have no morethan his neighbor; but you have greatriches; hence the greater your wealth, theless your charity." 1 To be sure, St. Basil

IP. G., 31:282.


40/96

30 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHT7BCH FATHEBSnever attempted to enforce this view as bind-ing on all, but he strove to extend it as widelyas he could, and consequently came to re-gard the proper and generous distributionof one's goods as the most important aspectof private ownership. To the rich, there-fore, he spoke always- of duties, never ofrights, and, as I have already intimated, hiscondemnations of wealth are invariablyfound in sermons addressed to men of thisclass. His aim was to arouse these men toa sense of duty rather than to write an ex-act treatise on the ethics of property.We now come to consider the strongestarraignment of wealth that is to be foundin all of St. Basil's writings. It is fromthis passage that Socialistic writers havequoted the saying that they have made somuch of, "the rich man is a thief." Weshall see presently whether this is a fairrendering of St. Basil's thought. In themeantime it will be well to bear in mind


41/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 31what we have already seen, namely, that St.Basil exercised the right of private propertyhimself, that several of his expressionsclearly imply that it is correct in principle,and that his asceticism, together with theend for which he wrote, led him to insistupon the social rather than the individualside of ownership. Hence the presumptionarises that the language of a doubtful pas-sage should not receive a communistic in-terpretation. The extract that follows issufficiently long to give a complete thought,and notwithstanding its severe tone, it isrepresentative of St. Basil's general view.

GOD THE ABSOLUTE PROPRIETOR."What you call your own is not yours in the way

you suppose; you did not bring it into the world.You rich are like a man that would keep all othersout of a theater, using what was intended for all ashis exclusively, simply because he was the first toarrive. ,,1

iP. G., 31:275.


42/96

32 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHERSThe rich man is here represented as ar-rogantly asking how he does wrong by re-

taining and guarding what belongs to him.St. Basil replies by asking him whence hehas derived such unlimited authority overhis wealth. He does not forbid the richman to lay claim to some private property,but reminds him that this right does not in-clude absolute and unconditional control.The rich man did not create his possessions;he received them from God; hence~Tiis titleis a dependent one to be used in accordancewith the will of the Absolute Owner. AsSt. Thomas says, commenting on thesewords, "the rich man is blamed for think-ing that his holdings were his primarily, for-getting that they had to come from God."Consequently the subordinate owner cannotdo what he wishes with his property, butonly what God wishes. And God wishesthat the individual should exercise the rightof ownership in such a way as not to en-


43/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHEKS 33croach upon the common rights of his fel-low men. Hence he may not appropriateto himself so much property that others areentirely excluded. Now this is preciselywhat the rich man had done, as we see fromthe illustration drawn from the theater. St.Basil explains that the right to take tooneself the goods of the earth is limitedby the rights of others, precisely as the rightof one spectator to seats at the show is lim-ited by the like rights of his fellow spectators.That is, just as the theater was intendedfor the accommodation of all, so the earthwas designed by God to furnish sustenancefor all. This right of each man to a livingis inalienablenot to be violated by theclaims of any first occupant. In case of aconflict private rights must yield to commonrights. Hence it is not individual owner-ship, but individual greed and usurpationthat St. Basil condemns. St. Thomas's ex-planation of this theater comparison is that


44/96

34 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSthe rich man does not do wrong if while pre-occupying a thing that was common fromthe beginning, he distributes some of it toothers, but he sins by excluding others en-tirely. 1 It is curious to note that HenryGeorge uses this same illustration of a first-comer monopolizing all the seats in a theater,to show how far the principle of privateproperty may be carried. 2 His conclusionis that private property in land is wrong.St. Basil's conclusion is that the principleof private ownership is capable of no suchunlimited extension. Instead of saying thatit is unjust in itself, he says that it must berestricted.

MAN AND HIS PROPERTY.His teaching in a word is that man, being

solely a dependent proprietor, may not dowhat he pleases with his property. Onlymen who misunderstand the nature and lim-

i 2a, 2ae, q.66, a. I. ad sec.'-* Progress and Poverty, book VII, c. I.


45/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 35itations of private ownership could call thisdoctrine communistic. In truth, it is theChristian doctrine, for as St. Thomas says,"a man has not the right to use it as hepleases. " * It is also the doctrine of naturallaw and reason. A right never includesthe permission to abuse. "A man may notdo what he likes with his own, but only whathe ought." 2 And he ought to do nothingthat would hinder his neighbor from ob-taining a decent living. The right to holdindividual property is necessarysacredbut it is not an end in itself. It is only ameans to the better development of eachman's personality, and the better fulfillmentof each man's obligations. Since these endscan be obtained without attaching to privateownership an unlimited character, the as-sumed right of St. Basil's rich manor anyother man, rich or poorto do what he

i 2a, 2ae, q.66, a. II, in corp.2 W. S. Lilly, "On Right and Wrong," p. 197.


46/96

36 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHEKSpleases with his own is unnecessary and un-founded. Yet this assumption, in practice,at least, has been quite generally made.Upon it some plausible and popular argu-ments against the institution of privateproperty have been based. Proudhon, as-suming that the right of property includedthe right to abuse as well as to use, de-clared that ' 'property is robbery. ' 1 HenryGeorge maintained that private ownershipin land carried to its ultimate conclusionwould mean "that any one human be-ing, could he concentrate in himself theindividual rights to the land of any coun-try, could expel therefrom all the restof the inhabitants, and could he thus con-centrate the individual rights of the wholesurface of the globe, he alone of all the teem-ing population of the globe would have thei"De la Propriety" c. II.; Cf. Brants, "Les Theories

Economiques Aux XHIe et XlVe Siecles," p. 61; andOrtolan, "Tableau Historiques des Instituts," t. I, p. 253.


47/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHERS 37right to live. ' ' * Herbert Spencer in theearlier editions of " Social Statics," con-demned private property on the groundthat it would involve a land-owning despo-tism, "in which the sole proprietor of anykingdom might impose just what regulationshe might choose on its inhabitants." 2 Ifprivate property could be carried to suchextreme lengths it were indeed much betterabolished, but with St. Basil we deny thatit can be so extended, and maintain that theexaggerated individualism of the age anda false ethics of ownership are responsiblefor the misunderstanding and criticisms ofPatristic teaching on this subject."If every man would only take what is sufficient

for his needs, leaving the rest to those in want therewould be no rich and no poor. You came into theworld naked ; you will leave it naked ; whence thencame your present wealth? If you say from fate,you are impious because you do not acknowledge theCreator nor return thanks to the Giver; but if you

i Progress and Poverty, loc. cit.2 Social Statics, c. IX, 1850.


48/96

38 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSconfess that it is from God, tell us on what conditionsyou have received it. ' ' l

ALL WEALTH FROM GOD.Evidently St. Basil has in mind an ideal

condition of things when he refers to a dis-tribution of wealth that would abolish bothriches and poverty. His asceticism findsexpression here. "While he would doubtlessbe pleased to have the rich men to whom heis speaking accept his view of the folly ofgreat possessions, he does not call them crim-inals for not doing so. He simply continueshis argument by challenging them to showcause why they should not share some oftheir wealth with their poorer neighbors.He repeats the opening thought of the ex-tract that we have just considered, namely,that they have not created their wealth norbrought it into the world with them, conse-quently that they are not its absolute and ir-responsible masters, and cannot do what they

iP. G. 31: 275.


49/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 39please with it. Neither have they receivedit from fate, but from God; and God hasgiven it to them on condition that they shoulduse it in accordance with His will. ThusSt. Basil's main thought is that human pro-prietors are only subordinate administratorsof the goods that have been committed tothem."Do you think God is so unjust as to will an un-

equal distribution of the necessaries of life? Why-are you rich and your neighbor poor? Is it not thatyou may receive the reward of generosity and faith-ful distribution, and he, that of patience? Yet youfancy that you do no one an injury by gathering allthings into the fathomless recesses of your greed. ' 1

The first sentence of this extract seemsto suppose the rich man asserting that, sincehis wealth has been given him by God, hiscontrol of it was exclusive and his title un-conditioned by any obligations to his neigh-bors. St. Basil replies by insisting on thenatural rights of these men to the necessariesiR G., 31:275.


50/96

40 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSof life, and intimating that if God intendedthe existing unequal distribution of thesegoods to be permanent He would be unjust.The language here, and also the illustrationconcerning the theater, might seem at firstsight to imply that all men ought to haveequal shares of goods, but this interpretationis not correct. St. Basil protests againstthe unequal distribution, not of wealth ingeneral divitiaebut of the necessitiesof life; "necessaria vitae" are the wordsused. He protests against the arrangementthat would leave some men without themeans of living. Such a distribution would,of course, be unjust, no matter who madeit, for the right to sustenance is superior toall private rights. Therefore, St. Basil inti-mates, the present order of things, in whichone man has more than he needs and manymen cannot get sufficient to sustain life, isnot sanctioned by God. He allows one tobe rich and another to be poor, not that the


51/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 41rich man may keep to himself all that hehas, while the poor man is in want ; but thatthe former may be enabled to merit a re-ward for generosity and faithful distribu-tion, and that the latter may deserve a returnfor his jpatience. Hence, instead of de-manding that all men should have equalamounts of wealth, St. Basil declares thatGod has a purpose in allowing one man tohave more and another less. And he in-sists that the rich man must use his wealthin conformity with this purpose, that is, hemust distribute some of it to those in want.Proprietors are but stewards, trustees, ad-ministrators of their wealth, and not its ab-solute lords. They are amenable to God forthe proper fulfillment of their trust, andthis trust includes the duty of using theirwealth in such a way that their neighborsshall not want for the necessaries of life."As to the use of things, they belong alsoto those that can be sustained out of their


52/96

42 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSabundance."

1St. Basil's is substantiallythe Christian idea of ownership, although a

bishop who should write on this subject to-day would probably carefully point out howfar this duty of distribution came under thehead of justice and how far under that ofcharity.

THE HEARTLESS RICH."You are an avaricious man because you are not

satisfied with enough. You are a despoiler becauseyou have taken what belongs to another, making yourown that which you have received to distribute. ' 2A clear distinction is here made between

greed and usurpation, between avarice andinjustice, and the rich man is declared guiltyof both offenses. But the primary sinthesin that makes the rich man a despoilerishis failure to distribute the goods that havebeen committed to him. To-day we shouldnot call a man a despoiler merely for re-

i 2a 2ae, q. 32, a. V, ad 2um.2 P. G., 31:275.


53/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 43fusing to give alms. If the poor had beendefrauded by him he would be acting un-justly in not making restitution; if theirpoverty was due to other causes he wouldsin against charity by refusing to aid them.This is the commonly accepted ethics ofalmsgiving. St. Basil, however, seems toignore this distinction. As a matter of fact,the rich men to whom he is speaking seem tohave plundered their fellows ; for in the sec-ond last extract quoted he accuses them ofhaving usurped "all things." In that casethey would certainly be despoilers, but thegeneral principle that he seems to lay downis that men are dishonest whenever they failto make a proper distribution of their pos-sessions. Thus he continues to insist on thedoctrine that wealth is a trust to be admin-istered for the benefit, not of the owneralone, but of all who are in need. His ideaof ownership, in brief, seems to be as fol-lows : first, all men have from nature a right


54/96

44 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHERSto a certain portionsay, a decent minimumof the world's goods; secondly, this com-mon right is so far superior to any privateright that the individual proprietor, no mat-ter by what title he holds his wealth, isbound in justice to distribute some of it tothose who are not in the enjoyment of theircommon, natural right.

*'When you do not clothe the naked you are as much

a thief as if you took the clothing from their backs.Yes, the bread that you retain, the cloak in your box,the shoes that are moldering in your possession, thesilver that you have buried,all belong to the needy.Hence you have inflicted injury on as many as youhave failed to succour. ' 1

In all probability it is from this passagethat de Laveleye and the others quote, whenthey accuse St. Basil of calling the rich mana thief. This accusation as they make itis plainly unfair, since the rich man is calleda thief not merely for being rich, but for notmaking a proper use of his riches.

IP. G., 31:278.


55/96


HE WHO KEFUSES TO GIVE.St. Basil is undoubtedly speaking figur-

atively when he says that the man who re-fuses to give is as guilty as the man whoforcibly takes away; there is at least thedifference between negative and positiveguilt in the two cases. But is the mere re-fusal to distribute one's superfluous goods topersons in extreme need a sin of spoliation ?of theft? St. Basil affirms that it is. Thisseems a startling assertion, but in view ofthe facts and principles, it is substantiallycorrect. As to the facts, the men for whomSt. Basil pleads were in extreme need, be-ing without bread, clothing, shoes or moneythe men whom he denounces had an abun-dance of all these things. As to doctrine,it is the teaching of St. Thomas that "aman may supply his urgent necessities fromthe goods of another, either openly or se-cretly, and this will not be, properly speak-


56/96

46 AJLLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSing, theft, because what is taken belongsto the needy one, since he must sustain life. " 1This is the doctrine, according to both thenatural and the Christian law, of the su-preme right of every human being to liveupon the bounty of the earth. Correspond-ing to this natural right of the needy is anobligation resting on the rich. St. Thomasthus describes it: "When there is no otherway of relieving such distress, he who hasmore goods than he needs sins grievouslyif he does not distribute them." 2 He "sinsgrievously," but how? Against charityonly, or against justice also? If the re-fusal to distribute is an offense againstcharity merely, then St. Basil was notstrictly correct in calling the greedy rich ofhis time thieves. The theologians disagreeon this point, some affirming that this neg-lect of the needy is a sin against both

i 2a, 2ae, q.66, a. VII, in corp et ad 2um.2 2a, 2ae, q. 32, a. V. ad 3iuna.


57/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 47charity and justice, while others deny thatit is anything more than a transgression ofcharity. Pope Leo XIII seems to intimatethat in extreme cases this duty of givingalms out of superfluous goods, is one of jus-tice. 1 According to this view, St. Basil wasliterally correct in calling the selfish richmen of his time "thieves" and "despoil-ers." At any rate, all theologians areagreed that a rich man is at least obliged injustice not to interfere with a starving neigh-bor who attempts to seize enough to keephimself alive. Now we may safely concludethat a man who would refuse to give awayany of his wealth to those in want would alsoresist all attempts of these men to helpthemselves out of what he considered hisown. Viewed in the concrete, then, St.Basil's language is not so startling.

i "On the Condition of Labor ; " paragraph on the right useof money.


58/96


THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF OWNERSHIP.From the examination that has been made

we may, I think, safely draw two conclu-sions ; first, that St. Basil does not deny theright of private property, but, on the con-trary, that his conduct and language assumeit ; secondly, that he did not attach to privateownership the absolute, irresponsible charac-ter, that many have given it in recent times.He acknowledged the right of private prop-erty within its legitimate sphere, but he didnot place it above the right to live. Hislanguage concerning riches is severe, muchseverer than that commonly used by Chris-tian teachers to-day, but this is largely ex-plained by his character, his view of life,and the circumstances with which he had todeal. He does not distinguish closely be-tween the duties of justice and charity, butfrom his point of view this distinction wasnot of great importance. He emphasized


59/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHTJKCH FATHERS 49

the social rather than the individual side ofwealth, believing that it was more necessaryto vindicate the common rights of all, es-pecially of the poor, to some property thanto fix the exact limits of the rights of therich. For him the one important considera-tion regarding wealth was its right use, itsproper distribution among those who neededit most. Sometimes, indeed, he seems topush this obligation of distribution so farthat it encroaches upon the prerogatives ofindividual ownership, as when he calls theman who does not distribute his wealth a"despoiler." Prom an academic point ofview, he may have insisted too much on theduties and too little on the rights of prop-erty. However, he was not writing an aca-demic, but a practical treatise, and from apractical point of view we cannot say thathe went too far. The teaching that pro-prietors are but distributors and dispensersof the goods committed to them by God, has


60/96

50 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSalways been a Christian doctrine. Thoughit has become quite generally forgotten, itis as true and necessary to-day as it was inthe time of St. Basil. "When necessity hasbeen supplied and one's position fairly con-sidered, it is a duty to give to the indigentout of that which is over. ' 1 But asidefrom the relief of pressing need, there arevarious ways of distributing one's super-fluous goods. No man, unless he be a Rob-inson Crusoe on a desert island, amasseswealth without entering into relations withhis fellows. An extensive employer of laborwill acquire superfluous riches which will bedue primarily to God and secondarily tothe skill and industry of himself and hisworkmen. Such a man distributes his su-perfluous wealth by giving out a fair portionof it in wages. If he pays less than a fairwage he is not making a proper distribu-tion. Or, if he should take possession of so

i Encyclical "On the Condition of Labor," loc. cit.


61/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHEBS 51

much of the world's natural resources thatmany of his fellow men would find greatdifficulty in obtaining a livelihood, he wouldalso be acting the unjust steward. Then,there are his obligations to society for theprotection afforded him in his efforts toacquire wealth. Many other phases of thesocial side of ownership might readily becited ; for in the domain of property rightsas elsewhere, "no man liveth unto himself.'Private ownership in societyand only insociety does it come into actual existenceis never an absolute, unconditioned power.This is the central thesis of all St. Basil'sdenunciations of riches and the rich.


62/96

CHAPTER IIISt. Ambrose.

Like St. Basil, Ambrose renounced hisproperty at the beginning of his ecclesias-tical career, and, like St. Basil, he renouncedit with some restrictions. His gold and sil-ver he gave to the Church, but his estates,with the exception of a life interest for hissister, he committed to the management ofhis brother Satyrus. Doubtless he thoughtit proper that a bishop should not be bur-dened with the care of worldly goods, andthat his superfluous wealth as well as histime and energies should be given to theChurch. At the same time he saw fit tosecure the property rights of his brother andsister, and to retain the legal title to thegreater part of his landed possessions. He

52


63/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHEES 53must, therefore, have regarded the institu-tion of private property as altogether just.Every act of his life contradicts the supposi-tion that he would have taken personal orfamily advantage of a thing that he believedto be wrong."Wealth is not prejudicial to faith if webut know how to use it." *"As riches in the wicked are a hindrance,

so in the good they are an aid to virtue. ' 2"Not those that have riches, but those whodo not know how to use them, are con-

demned." 3"Riches are not in themselves blamable.

. . . And, even in material riches, thereis a place for virtue." 4In these extracts, St. Ambrose condemns

the abuse, but not the possession of riches,and declares that when properly used theyare a positive aid to virtue. Speaking else-iP. L., 14:1082. s p. L., 15:1654.2 P. L., 15:1791. * P. L., 16:1214.


64/96

54 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSwhere ! of the rich young man in the Gospelwhom Christ told to sell all his goods andgive the price to the poor, he explains thatthis direction was not a precept, but a coun-sel, which the young man was free to acceptor reject. Consequently he holds that theyoung man was violating no law in retain-ing his property.

THE EAKTH BELONGS TO ALL.11 Instead of giving to the poor man out of what is

yours, you are but restoring something of that whichbelongs to him. For you have appropriated to your-self alone the things that were given as a commonpossession for the use of all. The earth belongs to all,not merely to the rich; yet those that enjoy theirheritage are fewer than those that do not enjoy it.Consequently you do but pay a debt, instead of be-stowing an alms.""The Lord our God wished the earth to be the com-

mon possession of all men and its fruits to sustain all,but avarice has made a distribution of the titles (jura)of possession. Therefore, if you claim as privateproperty anything of that which was given to thewhole human racenay, to all living thingsin com-iP. L., 16:256.


65/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 55mon, it is but just that you should give at least some-thing therefrom to the poor, and thus not deny sus-tenance to those with whom you ought to be a fellowsharer. ' ' *

In his chapter on the political economy ofSt. Ambrose, the author of a recent work 2says that, " dominating all of St. Ambrose'sdenunciations of riches is the ideal of a trulyfraternal society, where wealth would playno role, where all things would be at the dis-position of all men, where there would beno poor, and, above all, no rich. It was theideal that was realized by the first Chris-tians." M. Thamin goes on to say thatthis ideal could not be realized in the agein which St. Ambrose lived, and that he andthe other Fathers adapted themselves to theconditions about them, and sought to reno-vate these conditions by the Christian spiritof love and fraternity. So far, this author'siP. L., 14:747; and 15:1303, 1304.2 St. Ambroise et la moral* hrtinn au IV sifcele," parRaymond Thamin, p. 283.


66/96

56 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSinterpretation is correct, but when he inti-mates that St. Ambrose regarded the insti-tution of private property as wrong in se,and merely tolerated it as an evil that couldnot be corrected, he is asserting more thanhe can prove.

1

PKTVATE OWNERSHIP AND CHRISTIANCOMMUNISM.

He undoubtedly looked upon private own-ership as a less excellent order than Chris-tian communism, but it does not thence fol-low that he thought it immoral. Commonproperty was his ideal, to be sure, buthe was not so unreasonable as to make anunattainable ideal the standard of right.There is nothing in all his writings to provethat he believed individual ownership to beagainst the natural law. In fact, he doesnot discuss the question under this abstractaspect at all. As a practical man he knew

i Idem, p. 281.


67/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 57that private property was necessary forhuman society, and he strove to make menexercise this right according to the prin-ciples of Christianity. When he wrote thetwo passages quoted above, he most prob-ably had before his mind the ideal distribu-tion of property that obtained among thefirst Christians. He would wish all men tobe fellow-sharers in the gifts of God, buthuman greed has allotted separate portionsto individuals. This language may have acommunistic sound, but any fair-mindedbeliever in private property might say thesame thing. We should all like to see theideal of common property realized, but werecognize that greed, selfishness, and thegeneral make-up of human nature rendersuch an arrangement impossible.What St. Ambrose teaches is not com-

munism in any correct sense of the word.It is rather a first principle of the naturallaw, namely, that the earth belongs to all the


68/96

58 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSchildren of men, and not to a few only. Hetells the rich to restore their excessivewealth to the poor, while a communist wouldorder them to turn it over to the community.It is true that he calls these donations ofthe rich by the name of restitution, but thisis because the rich have accumulated somuch that the poor have been deprivedof their birth-right. Hence, he commandsthem to give back their unjust gains. Anyone who will read the history of the oppres-sion of the poor in Italy in the fourth cen-tury, will know that St. Ambrose was rightwhen he told the rich that they had robbedthe poor, and were consequently bound tomake reparation. The most zealous de-fender of individual ownership could speakthe same way in the same circumstances.What St. Ambrose demands therefore is nota return to common property, but a recog-nition of common rights.


69/96


NATURE HAS MADE NO DISTRIBUTION OFPROPERTY.

"Then they regarded it as the office of justice thatone should hold what is common, that is, what is pub-lic, as public property, and what is private as one'sown. The latter institution, indeed, is not accordingto nature ; for nature has poured forth all things as acommon gift for all. Thus God decreed all things tobe produced in such a way that there would be acommon substance for all, and that the earth mightbe a kind of common possession of all. Nature, there-fore, is the mother of common right, appropriation ofprivate right. ' x

As in the two extracts already examined,here also the language sounds communistic.But a fair examination will show that St.Ambrose merely declared that the actual dis-tribution of property has been made by mannot by nature. All that any man has im-mediately received from nature is the rightto subsist on her bounty, and this right iscommon to all men. Nature has made noIP. L., 16:62.


70/96

60 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSdistribution, nor given any man a title deedto a particular portion of the earth. Sheleaves the determination and adjustment ofindividual rights to society. No individualcan claim exclusive proprietorship of any-thing until he comes into relations with hisfellows. Even then he cannot make his con-tention good if it interferes with the justclaims of his neighbors. Of course, theright of private property exists, radically,potentially, in the nature of man, but it be-comes fixed, actual, and living by socialaction. Society takes the common rightand transforms it into individual rights." Common property is natural, not in thesense that the natural law directs all thingsto be possessed in common and nothingprivately, but in the sense that humanconvention rather than the natural lawbrings about a division of property." 1Eight reason and authority, therefore, lead

i St. Thomas, 2a, 2ae, q. 66, a. II, ad. prim.


71/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 61us to the conclusion that St. Ambrose wasright when he wrote: "Natiiro igitur juscommune generavit; usurpatio jus fecit pri-vatum."Yet it is this last sentence that has been

made so much of by those who quote St. Am-brose as a communist. Their misconceptionis founded on the word "usurpatio/' whichthey invariably translate "usurpation."Herr Bebel, in the footnote on page 297 of"Die Frau/' renders it by the phrase "un-gerechte Anmassung," but encloses "usur-patio" in parenthesis to show that he is notcertain of the correctness of his translation."Usurpatio" may indeed have the meaningof "usurpation/' but in classical Latin itoften signified simply "use," " acquiring,"" appropriation." That this is the meaningwhich St. Ambrose intended it to have inthis sentence, seems to be extremely prob-able, for two reasons. First, the word " ap-propriation" expresses the thought of


72/96

62 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUKCH FATHERSCicero, which St. Ambrose is discussing inthis passage, and with which he seems toagree ; and, second, to render "usurpatio" by"usurpation" would be to make St. Ambrosecontradict his own conduct and his ownstatements regarding the lawfulness of pri-vate property. As I cannot believe that hewould be guilty of this inconsistency, I haveinterpreted this one obscure text by thenumerous clearer expressions found else-where in his writings.

SIMILARITY OF BASIL'S AND AMBROSE'SVIEWS.

From what we have just seen, it is appar-ent that the charges of communism againstSt. Ambrose, like those against St. Basil,have been based on the questionable use ofa single sentence. The views of both menon private property are practically thesame. Both retained personal ownership ofpart of their estates, and both explicitly de-


73/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 63clared that the possession of riches is notin itself -unlawful. Both insisted uponthe duty of distribution of superfluousgoods to the needy, asserting that what isthus distributed really belongs to thoseto whom it is given. They seem to regardthis work of distribution as a restitution,but they do not specify whether the richmen whom they have in mind have plunderedthe poor, or simply have succeeded in heap-ing up great possessions. Both seem to con-fuse the duties of justice and charity, but,as I have already remarked concerning St.Basil, this could not have resulted in anyviolation of the rights of the men withwhom they were dealing, rAnd notwith-standing their practical purpose and theirsomewhat unprecise statement of doctrine,St. Basil and St. Ambrose wrote with asmuch scientific exactness on the subject ofproperty as any of the Fathers did on anyother subject. That is, their writings con-


74/96

64 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERStain the substance, of the doctrine that wasafterwards more fully and precisely eluci-dated by the scholastics. Socialist writerswho quote the economic views of the Fathersas something radically different from theteaching of modern Catholic theologians,have read both but very superficially. Atthe same time, we must acknowledge that theFathers laid more stress on the social sideof property than the recent Catholic teach-ers have done. M. Thamin

1

says that St.Ambrose insisted more on the duties thanon the rights of ownership, and that he re-garded owners simply as trustees who shouldbe held responsible for the faithful perform-ance of their trust. The same is true ofSt. Basil. Both dealt with the propertyholder as with a man bound by obligationsto his fellow men. They did not look uponhim as an independent entity whose chiefconcern was to vindicate his individual rightiOp. cit., p. 286.


75/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 65to a certain portion of the earth. Neitherof them regarded exact definitions of prop-erty rights as of supreme importance. Infact, it is only in comparatively recent timesunder the reign of individualism andlaissez-fairethat Christians have come tovalue so highly the goods of the earth, andto distinguish so carefully between "mine"and "thine." St. Basil and St. Ambrosewere not far removed from the first Chris-tians when "the multitude of believers hadbut one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that aught of the things which hepossessed were his own ; but all things werecommon unto them." The Fathers stroveto keep alive this spirit of Christian brother-hood in the use of property. In this re-spect they are, as M. Thamin 1 says of St.Ambrose, only the representatives of an un-interrupted Christian traditionthe tradi-tion that proprietors are only the interme-iOp. eit., p. 290.


76/96

66 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHEBSdiaries, the ministers, the dispensers of thegoods committed to them. M. Thamin citesa list of Fathers, theologians, and preachersto prove his statement, but singularly enoughomits the name of St. Thomas who wrote:" Concerning the point of acquiring and dis-posing of goods, it is lawful for a man tohold them as his own; but as to the use ofthem, he should regard them as common,so that he may readily distribute them torelieve the necessities of others." 1 LeoXIII declares that this is the teachingof the Church as to the right use of one'spossessions. It is certainly the teaching ofSt. Basil and St. Ambrose.

i 2a, 2ae, q. 66, a. II, in corp.


77/96

CHAPTER IVSt. Jerome

"Opulence is always the result of theft committed,if not by the actual possessor, then by his predeces-sors. '

This quotation is most likely a free ren-dering of a maxim that seems to have beencurrent in St. Jerome's time, " omnis divesaut iniquis aut iniqui haeres." It occurs inthe three following passagesIn the Commentary on Jeremiah he thus

explains the Prophet's condemnation of thewicked men who have become great andrich through deceit: And they fill theirhouses through the plunder and losses ofothers, that this saying of the philosophersmay be fulfilled, " every rich man is unjustor the heir of an unjust one." Thus he

67


78/96

68 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSmakes Jeremiah's words confirm the opinionof the philosophers.In the Commentary on Habacuc the word

"iniquitate" is interpreted in a very unex-pected manner. " Those who work for hon-ors or riches in this world become the taber-nacles of demons ; this is significantly shownby the one word iniquity, for ' every rich manis either unjust or the heir of an unjustone.' "The third place that the proverb occurs

is in the Epistle to Hedibia, a widow inGaul who had written to Jerome to knowhow she might follow the way of perfec-tion, and how certain passages in the Scrip-tures were to be interpreted. In answerto her first question he refers to the parableof the Unjust Steward, and draws this in-ference therefrom: "And you therefore,since you have few children, make to your-self many friends of the mammon of iniquitywho may receive you into everlasting dwell-


79/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 69ings. He said well 'of iniquity'; for allriches come from iniquity, and unless onewas the loser another could not be thegainer. Hence that common saying seemsto me to be most true: "The rich man isunjust or the heir of an unjust one.' " Con-tinuing on the same topic, he says that fora rich man to get into heaven is not so mucha difficulty as an impossibility. The wholecontext is most severe upon riches and therich.1

This remarkable saying is stated in sub-stantially the same words in each of the pas-sages quoted above. Once it was given as"the opinion of philosophers," once, with-out any explanation of its origin, and once,as a "common expression." The importantconsideration is that Jerome makes it hisown, and quotes it with distinct approval.Does this mean that he looked upon everyproperty holder as a thief. Before an-iP. L., 22:984.


80/96

70 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSswering this question we must determinethe meaning of the words "iniquus" anddives." "Iniquus"from in+aequusre-fers literally to a want of equality or wantof proportion. Taken figuratively, it hasabout the same meaning as "injustus," forwhich it was often used as a synonym bythe best authors. Now St. Jerome's style,as well as his own confession, assures usthat he was well acquainted with classicalLatin. We may safely infer then that heuses this word in the specific sense of "in-justus" and not in the more general senseof "peccator." This inference is confirmedby his manner of speaking in a sentencewhere he distinguishes between an "impius"on the one hand, and an "iniquus" and a"peccator" on the other. Even if he meantmerely "wrong doer" when he wrote "in-iquus," the specific wrong doing referred tomust have been an act of injustice, since itwas committed in acquiring riches. When


81/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHERS 71

a man gets possessions by wrong doing, thegreater part of the wrong will fall under thehead of injustice, violation of personalrights. St. Jerome, therefore, subscribed tothe opinion that every " dives" was an un-just man, and by " dives" he meant, not aman of some property, but a man of muchproperty. All the synonyms of i ' dives ' ' andits use by the best authors show that it re-fers to an abundance of goods, and not tomere ownership, as some would have us be-lieve. Hence this famous maxim is correctlytranslated, " every rich man is unjust or theheir of an unjust one."

RICHES STRONGLY DENOUNCED.Elsewhere St. Jerome denounces riches in

equally strong, if not equally terse language.In the Commentary on Micheas we find thefollowing : ' 'Now, however, the rich aboundnot so much in riches as in injustice, sinceall riches, being a spoliation of others, are


82/96

72 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSborn of injustice." Reference to the Latintext will show that here at least St. Jeromemeant "injustitia" when he wrote "in-iquitas" 1 In the Commentary on Isaiahwe are told that, "one man does not accumu-late money except through the loss and in-jury suffered by another." Again, we areexhorted to beware "lest in taking gifts ofthe earth from men who have gatheredthem through plunder and the tears of thewretched, we become not so much thievesourselves as the companions of thieves."The passages that I have quoted and their

contents show that St. Jerome regarded theriches of his time as dishonestly acquired.This is a question of fact. Did St. Je-rome interpret the facts of his time aright?Speaking generally, it is most probable thathe did. When he wrote, Eome was in thelast stages of economic and moral decay.The yeomanry of the Empire, the men whoIP. L., 25:1272.


83/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 73cultivated the land that was their own, hadlong before disappeared through violenceor impoverishment. Their places had beentaken by the holders of the "Latifundid,"and hordes of dependent tillers. As earlyas Pliny's time these immense holdings, hetells us, were ruining Italy, while six menheld half the province of Africa. The evilsof this institution must have increased withtime, so that when St. Jerome wrote, theywere a standing outrage upon the Christiansense of justice. If we reflect that in thosedays great wealth was almost invariably ac-quired by force, we shall incline to the be-lief that St. Jerome was not far from thetruth when he said, "omnis dives ant iniquusaut iniqui haeres." As a matter of fact, hewas saying nothing new: He did but re-peat what the opinion of philosophers andthe common belief of his time had made a"vulgata sententia."

St, Jerome's language is by no means


84/96

74 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERSunique. Herbert Spencer spoke in muchthe same way of the present titles to landedproperty. "It can never be pretended thatthe existing titles to such property are le-gitimate. . . . Violence, fraud, the prerog-ative of force, the claims of superior cun-ning, these are the sources to which thesetitles may be traced." It is true that Mr.Spencer omitted this passage from the latereditions of "Social Statics," but the ques-tion is one of fact, not of opinion. W. S.Lilly in his usual vigorous fashion writes:"I say, without shadow of doubt, that tomuch property the saying of Proudhon isstrictly applicable." He also quotes fromCharles Devas : "As a matter of fact, muchof the wealth of the rich classes in modernEurope has been gathered together, and iskept up, by dreadful deeds of cruelty, in-justice and fraud." Mr. Lilly is neither aSocialist nor a radical, but above all apleader for law, while Mr. Devas was an un-


85/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 75imaginative student of economics. If menof this character can write thus of titles toproperty in modern times, is it any wonderthat St. Jerome used similar language inhis day?

ST. JEROME DID NOT REJECT PRIVATEPROPERTY.

From the fact that St. Jerome believedthe riches of his time to be the fruit of un-just dealing it does not follow that he re-garded all individual property as wrong.It does not even follow that he regarded thepossession of great riches as immoral in allcircumstances. In the Commentary on Ec-clesiastes he acknowledges that riches maybe useful. "A wise man with riches hasgreater glory than one who is wise only.Some need wisdom and others, riches; andhe who is wise and not rich can indeed teachwhat is proper, but sometimes he cannot per-form what is asked."


86/96

76 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUECH FATHERS" Wealth is not an obstacle to the rich man if heuses it well, nor does want make the poor man more

praiseworthy, if in the midst of his filth and povertyhe does not avoid sin. The example of Abraham, aswell as daily instances about us, is a proof of this;the one was a friend of God in the midst of greatriches, the others daily pay the penalty of crimes forwhich they are apprehended.

St. Jerome clearly states here that a manmay be a friend of God notwithstanding hisgreat riches, provided he uses them properly.Nor is this a contradiction of the statementsthat we have already examined. There hewas stating facts as he understood them ; herehe is laying down a general principle. It isone thing to say that no living rich man ishonest, and another to say that no rich mancan ever be honest. St. Jerome never ex-pressed the latter opinion. In the sameEpistle to Hedibia, in which he says thatevery rich man is unjust or the son of anunjust one, he has the following sentences:"Ananias and Saphira deserved the condem-


87/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 77nation of the Apostle for secretly keepingback their property. 'Must he, therefore,be punished,' you will say, 'who will not giveaway his own?' By no means. They werepunished because they wished to lie to theHoly Ghost, and sought vain glory, as ifperfectly renouncing the world, althoughthey had reserved what was necessary fortheir sustenance. For the rest, one is freeto give or not to give." It must be notedthat when St. Jerome says that a man isfree to give or to keep his own, he is speak-ing of that portion of a man's goods thatis necessary for his legitimate wants. Hedoes not allow men the privilege of distrib-uting or not distributing superfluous wealth.But there is in the passage just quoted aclear recognition of the principle of privateownershipthat a man may hold and regardsome things as his individual property.Moreover, St. Jerome often advises hiswealthy friends to sell their possessions and


88/96

78 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OP THE CHURCH FATHERSgive the proceeds to the poor. If he be-lieved all private property to be wrong, hecould not honestly have given such counsel.This might, indeed, be a crude way of mak-ing restitution to the community, but itwould be most unjust to the purchasers. St.Jerome would certainly not advise a trans-action that would lead men to pay for some-thing that they could not lawfully call theirown. "We conclude, therefore, that he doesnot question the right of individual owner-ship, though he was conscious of the glaringabuses of it practised in his time.

A RESULT OF ASCETICISM.Nor can the severe denunciations of the

richwhich are very abundant throughoutJerome's writingsbe regarded as immod-erate, if we take into account his characterand the Christian teaching on the use ofwealth. One need but read his Epistle toEustochium to learn what an intense, un-


89/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 79compromising nature was his. He is vig-orous always, relentless always. He sleepson the ground; his skin has become blackas an Ethiopian's from the desert sun; helooks upon cooked food as a luxury ; he beatshis breast with sharp stones to drive out ofhis imagination the pictures of the old de-lights that his memory has carried over fromdecadent Rome. From other parts of hiswriting we learn that the practise of asceti-cism was one of the chief objects of his life,and that he devoted himself to it with allthe ardor of his being. Hence we are notsurprised that he should have a supreme con-tempt for material goods. The question ofproperty titles and property rights was com-paratively trifling to him. Besides, it wasno part of his purpose to write a systematictreatise on the ethics of property. Theologyhad not yet been systematized. When writ-ing on moral topics, St. Jerome, like theother Fathers of the Church, was con-


90/96

80 ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHURCH FATHERScerned with particular questions, and thesewere often treated in a very irregularand fragmentary manner. Moral theologyon the whole was Scriptural and particularrather than scholastic and systematic. Con-sequently we do not expect to find in St.Jerome's writings scholastic exactness, calm-ness and proportion of parts.

Finally, in criticizing St. Jerome, it iswell to bear in mind that his views on wealthwere more correct than those that generallyprevail to-day. He never forgot that therich hold their wealth in trust. In commonwith the other Fathers he realized that theright of property, though exclusive, is notabsolute. He kept in mind the great truththat a man's right to the bounty of natureis limited by the like rights of his fellows.The right of property is in a large measuresocial, implying correlative social obliga-tions. This is a truth that the modern worldhas largely forgotten; hence it is surprised


91/96

ALLEGED SOCIALISM OF THE CHUBCH FATHERS 81

when it finds St. Jerome using language thatsupposes such a doctrine. When we abstractfrom certain peculiarities of his manner ofspeaking, we cannot see that he differs es-sentially from St. Thomas, who has statedthe conditions of legitimate ownership sobriefly and clearly in his work, " Contra Gen-tiles":"The possession of riches is not in itself unlawful

if the order of reason be observed : that a man shouldpossess justly what he owns, and use it in a propermanner for himself and others. ' '

All the other Fathers besides Basil, Am-brose and Jerome, taught the same doctrineas these three. That is, they all admittedprivate property to be just, although lessperfect than common ownership, and theydeclared that private owners did wrong whenthey refused to distribute their surplus goodsamong the needy.

i Lib. 3, 123.

THE END


92/96


93/96


94/96


95/96


96/96

ryan. alleged socialism of the church fathers. 1913

Documents