Deal Honestly and Justly!

The Seventh and Tenth Commandments

With Discussion Club Outline

By

REV. GERALD C. TREACY, S.J

New York, N. Y.

THE PAULIST PRESS
401 West S9th Street



Imprimi Potest:

NihU Obstat:

Imprimatur:

New York, May 24, 1941.

James P. Sweeney, S.J.,

Provincial, Maryland-New York.

Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.,

Censor Librorum.

^ Francis J. Spellman, D.D.,

Archbishop of New York.

Copyright, 1941, by

rHE Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle

IN THE State of New York

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE U. 8. A.

BY THE FAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK, N. Y.



THE SEVENTH AND TENTH COMMANDMENTS

The Seventh Commandment is:

^^Thou shdt not steaV^ (Exodus xx. 14).

The Tenth Commandment is:

**Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house

,

. . .

(Exodus XX. 17).

"piUS XII asks us to pray for peace. But the peace we pray

for is peace with justice. For that is the only true peace.

Peace means more than the silencing of guns and the signing

of treaties. No peace is possible unless the principles of justice

are made the foundation of national and international life.

Pius XII explains these foundations in five points:

1 . The assurance to all nations of their right to life and in-

dependence. The will of one nation to live must never mean

the sentence of death passed upon another. When this

equality of rights has been destroyed, attacked or threat-

ened, order demands that reparation shall be made, and the

measure and extent of that reparation is determined not by

the sword nor by the arbitrary decision of self-interest, but

by the rules of justice and reciprocal equity.

2. This requires that the nations be delivered from the slavery

imposed upon them by the race for armaments, and from

the danger that material force instead of serving to protect

the right, may become an overbearing and tyrannical mas-

ter. The order thus established requires a mutually agreed

organic, progressive disarmament, spiritual as well as ma-

terial, and security for the effective implementing of such

an agreement.

3. Some juridical institution which shall guarantee the loyal

and faithful fulfilment of conditions agreed upon, and which

shall in case of recognized need revise and correct them.

4. The real and just demands of nations and populations and

racial minorities to be adjusted as occasion may require,

even where no strictly legal right can be established, and

[ P age 3 ]



a foundation of mutual confidence to be thus laid, whereby

many incentives to violent action will be removed.

S. The development among peoples and their rulers of that

sense of deep and keen responsibility which weighs human

statutes according to the sacred and inviolable standards of

the laws of God. They must hunger and thirst after jus-

tice and be guided by that universal love which is the com-

pendium and most general expression of the Christian ideal.

The seventh and tenth commandments enjoin justice. And

what does justice mean? It means giving everyone what be-

longs to him bv right. Now there are many kinds of rights.

There are personal rights, social rights, international and na-

tional rights. Our Declaration of Independence speaks oi

inalienable rights. That means rights so intimate to the hu-

man person that they may not be either given or taken away.

God gives them when He creates man. A man has them be-

cause he is God^s creature and God’s child. No human power

may take them from him.

Justice

Justice is a virtue that has to do first with the relationship

between man and man. It balances the exercise of rights be-

tween man and man. This is called commutative justice. But

man has other rights as he has other duties. For it must never

be forgotten that every right brings with it a duty. For ex-

ample parenthood implies the right to command and exact

obedience. But it likewise implies the duty of commanding

justly, reasonably, lovingly. Every man has certain rights and

duties because he is a citizen. He has the right to liberty, not

any kind of liberty but liberty under law. So he has the duty

to observe the law. In fact law is the safeguard of liberty.

Liberty without law is anarchy.

Americans by and large are sadly lacking in the proper

understanding of law. To nine out of ten the idea of law is

merely the idea of restriction. So we have been called the

most lawless nation in the world. Our crime statistics bear

out this unenviable reputation. For example in 1946 a major

crime took place every 18.7 seconds. During the average day

[Paob 4]



thirty-six persons were slain, thirty-three raped, and 185 others

feloniously assaulted. Every day also brought 172 robberies,

981 burglaries, 630 automobile thefts, and 2,580 miscellaneous

larcenies. Every 5.7 minutes during 1946 there was a murder,

manslaughter, rape or assault to kill. This is the report

of J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, issued March 5, 1947. “To achieve even greater

success in combating crime,” Mr. Hoover declares, “we as

citizens must be made to feel our responsibilities. One solu-

tion to the problem of youth in crime lies in providing the

proper background and education for our young people. The

necessity for a concentration of effort along these lines be-

comes apparent when we realize that one of every five persons

arrested is under the voting age.”

Freedom under law is the true American principle, for the

only real freedom is the freedom to do what is right, to do what

is becoming the nature of man. Any other freedom is license,

that “unbridled license,” as Leo XIII calls it, “which was

wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the foundation of

that new jurisprudence which is at variance with not only the

Christian but the Natural Law.” This false jurisprudence Leo

XIII condemned more than fifty years ago in his encyclical

The Christian Constitution of States, For it falsely proclaimed

that “each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense

under the rule of any other individual
;
that each is free to think

on every subject just as he may chose, and to do whatever he

may like to do, and that no man has any right to rule over

other men.”

These tenets under the high sounding term of liberalism

ran riot during the last century. The last century’s riot has

become the present century’s chaos. Until the reign of justice

is restored the chaos will continue. For it is justice that re-

gulates the citizens’ rights and duties toward the nation, and

this is called legal justice. But the nation, that is a group

of people with a common ideal and a common way of life, has

rights and duties towards its citizens. These rights and duties

are regulated by justice, and this is called distributive justice.

This virtue looks to the nation as the distributor of common

[Paox 5]



duties and privileges, so that all the citizens of the nation may

live together peaceably and enjoy the exercise of their human

rights. Legal justice regards the rights which the nation can

claim from its parts—the citizens—for the sake of its own
preservation and good. Distributive justice regards the rights

which the parts, that is the citizens, can claim from the nation,

which is the whole. For the whole exists for the good of the

parts. We call that good the common welfare.

Now in regard to duties, legal justice obliges the supreme

authority of the State to establish just laws and govern well.

It obliges citizens to obey just laws and co-operate with gov-

ernment for the common welfare. Every good act that can

further the common welfare is the subject matter of legal

justice.

Ownership and Property

It is evident then that justice has to do with rights and

duties. Now we may have a right in a thing and right to a

thing. When we possess something as our own and have im-

mediate power over it, we have a right in a thing. But we

have a right to a thing when the thing is not in our possession,

but when another person has the duty to allow us to possess

the thing or dispose of it as we wish. For example an em-

ployee has a right to his wages for services rendered; when

he has received them he has the right to keep them or to use

them as he chooses.

Ownership means complete control over an object accord-

ing to law. When the right includes possession, use and dis-

posal, it is absolute ownership. A man has not absolute

ownership over his life but he has over his goods. Briefly

man has property rights. This right to property derives from

the Law of Nature, is proclaimed by God^s commandments

and upheld by the constant teaching of the Church. Every

individual has the natural right to possess and hold property,

landed or other kinds, for his own exclusive use, to call it his

own, to use it as his own, and to give or bequeath it to others.

For the common good as well as for individual good it is neces-

sary that there should be private ownership of some things.

[Paqi 6]



The good of the family requires that man should possess pri-

vate property. This right is inalienable and precedes any claim

of State ownership, for the simple reason that man precedes the

State, has his natural rights independent of the State, and

makes the State. The State does not make him. Pope Pius

XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno has this to say of

property:

Let it be made clear beyond all doubt that neither Leo

XIII, nor those theologians who have taught under the

guidance and direction of the Church, have ever denied or

called in question the twofold aspect of ownership, which

is individual or social accordingly as it regards individuals

or concerns the common good. Their unanimous contention

has always been that the right to own private property has

been given to man by nature or rather by the Creator

Himself, not only in order that individuals may be able

to provide for their own needs and those of their families,

but also that by means of it, the goods which the Creator

has destined for the human race may truly serve this pur-

pose. Now these ends cannot be secured unless some
definite and stable order is maintained.

There is, therefore, a double danger to be avoided. On

the one hand, if the social and public aspect of ownership

be denied or minimized, the logical consequence is Indi-

vidualism, as it is called
;
on the other hand, the rejection

necessarily leads to some form of Collectivism.

We reassert in the first place the fundamental principle
laid down by Leo XIII that the right of property must be

distinguished from its use. It belongs to what is called

commutative justice faithfully to respect the possessions

of others, not encroaching on the rights of another and

thus exceeding the rights of ownership. The putting of

one’s own possessions to proper use, however, does not

fall under this form of justice, but under certain other

virtues, and therefore it is a duty not enforced by courts

of justice. Hence it is false to contend that the right of

ownership and its proper use are bounded by the same

limits; and it is even less true that the very misuse or

even the non-use of ownership destroys or forefeits the

right itself. .

It follows from the twofold character of ownership,

[Paox 7]



which We have termed individual and social, that men
must take into account in this matter not only their own

advantage but also the common good. To define in detail

these duties, when the need occurs and when the natural

law does not do so, is the function of the government.

Provided that the natural and divine law be observed, the

public authority, in view of the common good, may specify

more accurately what is licit and what is illicit for property

owners in the use of their possessions. Moreover, Leo

XIII had wisely taught that the defining of private pos-

session has been left by God to man’s industry and to the

laws of individual peoples.

It is plain, however, that the State may not discharge

this duty in an arbitrary manner. Man’s natural right of

possessing and transmitting property by inheritance must

be kept intact and cannot be taken away by the State

from man. Hence, the domestic household is antecedent,

as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a

community.

The prudent Pontiff had already declared it unlawful

for the State to exhaust the means of individuals by

crushing taxes and tributes. The right to possess private

property is derived from nature, not from man; and the

State has by no means the right to abolish it, but only to

control its use and bring it into harmony with the inter-

ests of the public good.

However, when civil authority adjusts ownership to meet

the needs of the public good it acts not as an enemy, but

as the friend of private owners; for thus it effectively

prevents the possession of private property, intended by

Nature’s Author in His Wisdom for the sustaining of hu-

man life, from creating intolerable burdens and so rushing

to its own destruction. It does not therefore abolish, but

protects private ownership, and, far from weakening the

right of private property, it gives it new strength.

The stress the Church lays on the property right does not

mean that this right is unlimited. No one has an unlimited

right to anything. God alone has that. So ownership has its

limitations, for example the extreme necessity of others, the

common good of society, and necessary charjty to the poor.

Whether I oWn one field or a million acres, whether I have a

[Paok 8]



bulging bank account, or a few dollars, my title to ownership

does not allow me to ignore the extreme need of those in want

or the common welfare of my fellows. My right remains intact.

The proper use of my right is determined by the above-men-

tioned factors. Private property then cannot justly be used for

the exclusive profits or pleasure of the owner. Even the Law

of Nature demands that those who have superfluities must

share them with those in dire need. Moreover, if individuals

of great wealth will not observe this command of Nature which

is also God^s command, the State has the duty of obliging them

to do so for the common good and the relief of their fellow-

citizens in great need. Pope Pius XI in Quadragesima Anno

makes this point very clear:

At the same time a man’s superfluous income is not

left entirely to his own discretion. We speak of that por-
tion of his income which he does not need in order to live

as becomes his station. On the contrary the grave obliga-

tions of charity, beneficence and liberality which rest upon

the weaUhy, are constantly insisted upon in telling words

by Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.

Theft and Rapine

To steal means to take the property of another, to deprive

another of that to which he has a right. He is the lawful

owner and no one may justly invade his right. To steal se-

cretly is called theft, to steal openly and with force is called

rapine. Theft is a sin against commutative justice, that is the

justice that should prevail between individual and individual.

It is also a sin against legal justice. Rapine is also against

personal immunity. Theft like all injustice is a sin against

charity for every harm done to another is against the good that

charity bids us do to others. It is a serious sin if the injury

done is serious. It is a slight sin if the harm done is slight.

On this topic Father Henry Davis, S.J., says: ‘^Theft is by its

nature a grievous sin. However it would be only a slight sin

against justice if the injustice is slight. It is a sin against a

commandment of God, and we cannot enter into eternal life

if we violate the commandments in a serious way unless we

[Page 0]



repent (Math. xix. 17). St. Paul enumerates theft among

those sins which exclude from heaven. ^^Nor thieves, nor

covetous, nor extortioners . . . shall enter the kingdom of God”

(1 Cor. vi. 10). It is against the Natural Law, for if the

goods of others could be taken without moral fault, there would

be an end to social peace, stability and progress. But a small

theft not being a serious threat to these social goods is not a

serious moral fault. It is necessary therefore to suggest some

standard by which to determine when theft is a serious injus-

tice and when it is not. . . . The standard must be determined

by the harm actually done, for we must speak of objective,

concrete and actual injustice, and prescind from the personal

annoyance of the victim of theft and the subjective conscience

of the thief. We must speak of standards that affect both the

individual and society. . . . The standard in respect to the in^

dividual robbed is determined by the injustice done to him, and

this is measured by that individual’s condition of living. It is a

relative standard
;

it must vary considerably. The same amount

stolen will not affect rich and poor equally. A rich man would

not feel a loss which to the poor would be a most serious one.

‘^The second standard has reference to society and this is

an absolute standard for a particular country at a particular

time, on the supposition"' that throughout the country the ex-

change value of money is uniform. ... It is true to say there-

fore, that there is an absolute sum, the unjust taking of which

is certainly and always against a serious precept of Natural

Law. This is the absolute standard.”

Restitution

To obtain forgiveness from God for the sin of theft we

must not only confess but we are obliged to restore what does

not belong to us. We are bound to restitution. Restitution

means giving up and giving back. We give up what does not

belong to us. We give back to the lawful owner what is his.

If the lawful owner cannot be found we give our ill-gotten goods

to the poor. For we have no claim to hold them. Justice de-

mands that we surrender them. It is an act of commutative

justice—the justice between man and man—by which what
[Paob 10]



is taken away is returned, and the injury done the lawful owner

is repaired. It is also an act of legal justice. Restitution is

the test of the sincerity of the unlawful possessor. So it

should be done promptly and fully. If the unlawful owner has

spent what he has stolen, and cannot immediately make resti-

tution, the obligation to restore does not cease. Circumstances

of course affect individual cases. If the rightful owner cannot

be found at once or easily, a certain time must be allowed for

the restitution to be made. If after diligent search the owner

cannot be found, the unjust possessor should give his pos-

sessions to the poor.

Like the precept of almsgiving the precept of restitution is

positive: ‘‘If the wicked man restore the pledge, and render

what he has robbed, and walk in the commandments of life,

and do no unjust thing, he shall surely live and shall not*

die’’ (Ezechiel xxxiii. 15). And St. James speaks as clearly

as the prophet: “Go to now ye rich men, your gold and silver

are cankered, and the rust of them shall be for a testimony

against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. You have stored

up to yourselves wrath against the last days. Behold the hire

of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which by

fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them

hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth” (James v.

1-4).

Moral theologians in treating of restitution lay down cer-

tain principles that may be summarized in this way. The un-

disputed owner of anything has the right to own it and dis-

pose of it as he pleases. If another unjustly withholds the

thing from the owner, he is obliged to restore it. Again such

owner alone has the right to "the natural product of his goods.

Finally when a thing perishes, the owner is ordinarily the

loser. If a man unjustly holds something that rightfully be-

longs to another he must restore it as soon as possible. If he

cannot restore the actual thing he must restore its equivalent.

If he has destroyed the thing, given it away or sold it, he must

restore its value to the owner. During his unjust possession if

the thing has perished, he must make good the owner’s loss.

If a thing unjustly possessed increases in value from natural

IPaqii tl]



causes without any effort made by the unjust possessor, the

increased value must be restored.

As in our present economic system money is productive, long

delay in paying legal debts, whose money equivalent would

normally bring interest, places the obligation on the unjust

possessor of restoring the money with interest at the current

interest rate. Those who knowingly circulate counterfeit coin

are obliged to restore to him who has suffered loss in conse-

quence. If the individual injured cannot be found, restitution

must be made by giving to the poor the equivalent in real

money, or applying it to some charitable project. By the fact

that counterfeit coin has been passed on to us, we are not

justified in passing it on to others. Our ill luck does not

justify us in defrauding others.

Spiritual Possessions

Our possessions are not only material things. There are

spiritual values that belong to us. And no one has the right

to take them from us. If they do they are obliged to restore

them as far as that is possible. If a man has been induced to

sin, through violence, fraud, or fear, the harmful effects of

such sin must be repaired. If a man has been led into error

which has a practical bearing on life, the error must be cor-

rected and the evil effects of it repaired. The tenets of our

Catholic Faith and the principles of morality are great spiritual

treasures. They can be taken from us by the pagan writers

of the day. For that reason the Church guards the printed

word so carefully and forbids our reading books that are against

Faith and morals. Nor is it difficult to realize the great re-

sponsibility of the writer who poisons the wells of life by his

immoral message even though the message may be clothed in

all the beauty of an attractive style.

The Payment of Bills

Modern business has recourse to various means to insure

the payment of bills. That this should be necessary is a signi-

ficant commentary on the common attitude toward financial

obligations. To get out of paying a bill is frequently talked

[Pass 12]



0

about as if it were a clever thing deserving of commendation.

Or to delay as long as possible in settling accounts is at times

spoken of as smart business practice. The truth is of course

that justice is violated in both instances. And as the seventh

and tenth commandments enjoin justice, to dodge the payment

of a bill or to delay the payment when delay is not necessary

is a violation of these commandments.

So it happens at times that a man may be legally right

and morally wrong. The State authority for very good reasons

may outlaw a debt after a lapse of years. This is within the

competence of the State and a citizen taking advantage of it

may be a very good citizen. That is to say, he will be obeying

the law. He will be legally right. However, the fact remains

that there is a higher law governing the human conscience and

that is God’s Law. And God’s Law speaking very plainly in

these commandments does not outlaw any debt merely by the

lapse of time. If I owe something to my neighbor today and

have to put off payment because I am unable to pay, the lapse

of time does not cancel my debt in God’s sight. If I am able

to pay after fifty days or fifty years I should pay, for the very

simple reason that what I am keeping as my own is not my

own.

Restitution also is likewise due for defamation and dis-

honor. The detractor and calumniator are obliged in justice

to repair the harm they have done. The calumniator must

retract his lie, the detractor must bend every effort to restore

the good name of the person he has injured. To repair honor

that has been outraged, some honor must be shown to the

person dishonored.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord.

Is the immediate jewel of their souls.

Who steals my purse, steals trash; ’tis something nothing;

’Twas mine, ’tis his and has been slave to thousands.

But he that filches from me my good name,

Robs me of that which not enriches him.

And makes me poor indeed.

Othello, Act 3, Scene 3.

[Paob 13

]



Observance of Contracts

These two commandments in their positive scope enjoin

honesty in the fulfilling of contracts. A contract is a mutual

agreement entered into by two or more persons to do or not to

do certain things. It is a promise accompanied by an ex-

ternal sign. There are civil laws specifying the conditions of a

contract and the penalties for non-fulfillment. Every contract

must be possible of fulfillment. Neither divine nor human law

calls for the impossible. The object of a contract cannot be

something that is morally wrong, nor can it be about some-

thing that is already due to another in justice. The Law of

Nature allows any person who has the use of reason to enter

. into a contract in regard to whatever he owns and has the

right to dispose of. Positive law either civil or Church law may

place definite conditions for a valid contract. The Church

does this as we know in the Sacrament of Marriage. For

marriage is both a sacrament and a contract.

Free consent is necessary for every contract. If this is

lacking the contract is void. It stands to reason that this con-

sent must be mutual. If an offer is made the contract is com-

plete when the offer is accepted. If a mistake is made, for

example in the instance when the contracting parties did not

mean the same thing either in regard to the kind of contract

they wished to enter upon, or the subject matter contracted

for, or in the identity of one of the parties, there is no con-

tract. The mistake must be then one of fact.

Fraud of course nullifies a contract. For by fraud we

mean deception or trickery by which the right or interest of

another is harmed. Fraud is present in buying and selling

when a falsehood is stated or the truth suppressed. In buying

and selling two things have to be considered, the price and the

merchandise. The price may be a legal price. This means the

law fixes the value of goods and the price of their sale. Or it

may be the common market price, which is determined by the

common consent of traders and buyers and sellers. Accord-

ing to common opinion the market price admits of latitude

and is distinguished into, the highest, medium and lowest

[Page 14]



price. Not to observe the legal price if there is one, or to

exceed the limits of the market price, or to practice fraud

within the limits of that price by selling at a dearer rate and

buying at a lower rate and so deceive customers, is against

justice and calls for restitution. This, of course, has nothing

to do with the legitimate profit that the seller is entitled to

who purchases at the wholesale price and sells at the retail

price. Fraud means the unfair manipulation of prices in a

definite market that has a definite price scale.

In respect to merchandise, to sell an article which is really

defective in substance, quantity or quality as entire and com-

plete is against justice and obliges the seller to restitution.

When a buyer inquires if the article is defective the seller is

obliged to declare the defect. The purchaser is not obliged

to live up to his contract who discovers a defect in his purchase

of such a kind as to make the article worthless, or of much

less value than the seller claimed for it.

Graff

Like fraud, extortion is against God’s justice as proclaimed

in these commandments. In general, extortion means to force a

person by threats to pay money he does not owe or perform

some service that he is not obliged to perform. It applies

particularly to public officials who use their official position

to obtain money or favors to which they are not entitled.

Americans, when they speak of extortion in this sense, call it

graft. Every reform wave that has swept over our country

from time to time is a protest against graft. It is the honest

reaction of the ordinary citizen against the dishonesty of the

public official. It is a reminder to the public official that he

is not exempt from the command: Thou shalt not steal.

As our democratic government depends on the party sys-

tem, public office is generally controlled by the party in power.

Every party has its leaders, big and little. These leaders have

the appointment of any number of officials. For a leader to

appoint an official in return for money received is a sin against

justice and honesty. For a public official to accept money for

the fulfillment of those duties which belong to his office, and

[Page 15]



the oath of his office is to violate that oath and to commit the

sin of theft. Every misappropriation of public funds is theft.

For public funds come from the taxes of the people and are

only used in justice for the good of the people. In the award-

ing of contracts for public works, the acceptance of bribe money

from the individual securing the work, brands the public offi-

cial with the sin of theft.

Since Andrew Jackson took office as President of the United

States our citizens at large have acquiesced in the spoils sys-

tem. Jackson contended that his election by the people was

^^a mandate by the people to fill the offices with his political

adherents.’’ The system has contributed a good deal to dis-

honesty in public life. But it is not the full explanation of

the corruption that has stained American public life all through

the years. The level of morality in public life cannot be

higher than the level in private life. The pagan principles

of unrestrained capitalism that for years have governed the

business life of Americans, as they have swayed in fact the

business of all nations, stand out in bolder relief in the politi-

cal life of the nation. Political life is corrupt when business

life is corrupt. And both business and political life reflect

private life. Unless the individual realizes that the command-

ments of God enjoining honesty apply to every action of his

life, private, business and political actions, there will be public

corruption.

The Catholic in public life who is guilty of the sin of

graft is also guilty of the sin of scandal. For he brings the

sacred name of the Church into disrepute. While it is un-

reasonable to blame the Church for the sin of the grafting

Catholic, nevertheless it is the Church that suffers more than

the guilty individual. It is unquestionably true that the

progress of the Church in America has been hampered much

more by the scandal of the Catholic grafter than by all the

attacks of the bigot and the fanatic.

Father Edward Lodge Curran has stated the Catholic po-

sition very clearly in the pamphlet entitled Graft: ‘‘To destroy

the cancer of graft that has been so virulent within the tissue

of our American democracy, there must be a constant-, awak-

[Pagb 16 ]



ened, watchful and industrious public opinion, a public opinion

that can be crystallized into a determination to repudiate the

grafter at the polls no matter from what race he has sprung

and no matter to which religion he belongs. Lay leaders in

the ranks of Judaism, Protestantism and Catholicism must com-

bine in a steady effort to disclose the presence of graft and in

a strong battle to repudiate the grafters when discovered. In

such a campaign Catholics are fortified by the century old

teachings of the Church. In her concept sin is the leprosy of

spiritual existence. Graft is the leprosy of public vitality.

It is not enough to have the truth. We must know the truth

and apply the truth. Only then can a knowledge of the truth

make us free. By her doctrine of the divine source of all

civil authority and by her insistence on the spiritual character

of civil obedience the Church stands in the forefront of those

who dream of a purer official life in all the ranks and de-

partments of our diversified American government. The Catho-

lic press, the Catholic public platform, and the Catholic leader

must hold all Catholic officials to a strict accountability. There

was, to be sure, but one Judas amongst the twelve Apostles.

Yet, his isolated betrayal was sufficient to accomplish the death

of Christ. There may be, likewise, but few faithless Catholic

officials in the great ranks of Catholic public officeholders.

Yet, their isolated malfeasance may be the efficient cause of

ruining the reputation of the Church, who with charity towards

all and malice toward none, seeks to draw the mind and the

heart of all humanity to God.’’

Will Durant laments the fact that ^^the tragedy of American

democracy is that it has liberated and generated ability beyond

any precedent, and has used it less in government than ever

in history before. This nation is rich in brainy men, . . . but

our political machinery is not designed to find them, much

less to let them serve.” The lack of brainy men in public

life is not the tragedy of American democracy. The lack of

moral men is the tragedy. Durant comes closer to the truth

when he remarks that ^^an ounce of character is worth a ton of

intellect.” The man of intellect may flatter himself in the

conceit that he can deceive his fellows and cover up his public

[Page 17]



graft, or brazen it out by means of dishonest legal maneuver-

ings. The man of character has only one interest, God^s Law.

And God^s Law proclaims: Thou shalt not steal.

Usury

Usury which means excessive interest is a violation of jus-

tice. The rate of interest on money that is fixed by law is

known as the legal interest. To exceed that rate is wrong.

Before the industrial age when money became productive, as it

is today, receiving interest for the loan of money and by

virtue of that loan was not allowed by Christian teaching and

practice. So we find it condemned by St. Thomas Aquinas.

With the growth of industrialism money assumed a different

character and so a loan was considered a risk, and as a risk

entitled the owner of the money loaned, to interest. Civil

Law has established certain titles to legal interest, as there

might be real or probable loss in extending a loan, and there

might be a chance of losing the principal.

To retain ill-gotten goods is a sin against justice. This sin

may be committed (1) In not restoring a deposit that is

loaned or by receiving stolen property. (2) In taking ad-

vantage of mistakes made in reckonings and accounts. (3)

In keeping property that was acquired in good faith, but later

discovered to belong really to another. (4) In not rendering

a just account of things entrusted to our management. (5)

In not paying employees the just wages due to them. (6)

In not paying just debts. (7) In keeping an article found

without endeavoring to discover the owner, or in not surrender-

ing it when the owner appears. (8) In not keeping promises

and contracts made and received in all matters of justice.

The Woge Contract

In a query of the Michigan Labor Leader Catholic em-

ployers were challenged to examine their consciences under

the three following headings: “Have I by act or omission led

workingmen to lose faith in God? Have I failed to recognize

the workers’ rights, especially the right to organize, to collec-

tive bargaining, and to a living wage as outlined by the

[Page 18 ]



Popes? Have I made light of the Papal Encyclicals or the

Bishops^ programs, as being too idealistic for the demands of

business? This query applies to all employers not merely

to Catholic employers. For the principles of social justice laid

down in the encyclicals are not merely for Catholics but for

everyone, as everyone is bound by the Law of Nature and by

our Lord^s teaching. ’Only those who have never heard of

Christ’s teaching are excusable in violating social justice.

The wage contract is a mutual agreement between employer

and workman. It means that the worker guarantees a fair

day’s work for a fair day’s pay. And a fair day’s pay means a

living wage. As Leo XIII points out in Rerum Novarum labor

has two characteristics. It is personal and it is necessary. As

personal it is the exercise of a personal power for a definite

personal profit; as necessary it is effort put forward that the

worker may live. ^Tn the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat

thy bread” (Gen. iii. 19). If labor were merely personal any

wage freely agreed upon by employer and employee would be

just. But as it is also necessary, it is evident that the worker

is entitled to obtain a wage whereby he may live. So we find

Leo XIII stating:

The preservation of life is the bounden duty of each

and all and to fail therein is a crime. It follows that each

one has a right to procure what is required in order to

live; and the poor can procure it in no other way than by

work and wages.

Let it be granted then, that as a rule workman and em-

ployer should freely agree as to wages; nevertheless there

is a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient

than any bargain between man and man, that the re-

muneration must be enough to support the wage-earner

in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity

or fear of a worse evil, the workman accepts harder condi-

tions because an employer or contractor will give him no

better, he is the victim of force and injustice. ... If a

workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him to support

himself, his wife and his children in reasonable comfort,

he will not find it difficult if he is a sensible man to study

economy; and he will succeed by cutting down expenses in

[Page 19]



putting by a little property. Nature and reason would

urge him to do this.

What Leo XIII stated in 1891, Pius XI reaffirmed forty

years later in his encyclical on Reconstructing the Social Order:

In the first place the wages paid to the workingman

must be sufficient for the support of himself and his

family. . . . Intolerable ... is the abuse whereby mothers

of families because of the insufficiency of the father’s

salary are forced to engage in work outside the home, to

the neglect of their own proper cares and duties, particu-

larly the education of their children. Every effort must

therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage

sufficient to meet adequately ordinary domestic needs. If

in the present state of society this is not always feasible,

social justice demands that reforms be introduced without

delay which will guarantee every adult workingman just

such a wage.

Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris specifies

three elements in a living wage: (1) proper support for the

father and the family, (2) the opportunity of acquiring by

thrift and economy a modest fortune, (3) suitable provision

through public or private insurance for old age, sickness and

unemployment. So a living wage does not mean merely enough

for a man to live on^ but includes the opportunity of provid-

ing against the proverbial rainy day. It must be enough for

the support of the worker and his family. As man has the

right to marry so has he the right to a wage that will provide

his family with the necessities and reasonable comforts of life.

The Pope urges the development of the wage contract into a

partnership contract, so that the wage earner may become a

sharer in some way of ownership, management or at least

profits.

The employee on his part must live up to the demands of

justice in giving a fair day’s work. In his wage demands he

must consider the state of the business. For to ask wages

higher than the business can stand and yet survive, is to court

ruin for the business, the employer and the worker. It is the

[Paoi 20]



duty of the State, the employer and the worker to get together

and determine the question of the just wage. It must never

be forgotten that the community has interests that must be

protected. Too long has capital looked out only for capital,

and labor only for labor. And while government has no right

to absorb industry just as it has no right to absorb the indi-

vidual, it not only has the right but the duty to direct and

supervise the relationship between capital and labor, founded

on its right and duty to provide for the common good.

If capital is left to itself to dictate policies of work and

wages, inevitably as has happened in the past, no interest will

be looked after except the interests of capital. The result will

be a wage scale too low with consequent unemployment. If

labor has the sole
^
determining power in the wage and hour

question, the scale of wages will be pushed up so high that

business will be forced to cut down man power, with the identi-

cal result—unemployment. Pius XI realistically declares:

The conditions of any particular business and of its

owner must also come into question in settling the wage

scale; for it is unjust to demand wages so high that an

employer cannot pay them without ruin, and without con-

sequent distress among the working people themselves. . . .

Let employers and employees therefore join in their plans

and efforts to overcome all difficulties. And let them be

aided in this wholesome endeavor by the wise measures

of public authority. . . . The guiding spirit in this crucial

decision should be one of mutual understanding and

Christian harmony between employers and workers. {Re-

constructing the Social Order,)

The commandments safeguarding property and ownership

are violated in the economic and business world when social

justice is violated. Society is made up of individuals and

groups. Society is a whole, groups are the parts. For society

to thrive each group must be guaranteed justice. And without

Christas teaching permeating society there never will be a just

social order.

For that reason the Church has much to say of the social

order. From the time of Leo XIII when the industrial age was

[Paob 21]



filled with injustice to our own day when people are more

social conscious the voice of the Church has sounded calling

upon all men of good will to set the industrial house in order.

Not only the Popes but the bishops in many lands have called

for social action. The Aiherican hierarchy speaking through

the Administrative Board of the National Catholic Welfare

Conference issued a statement on The Church and Social Order,

reiterating the Catholic teaching on property, ownership, labor,

security, wages and the establishment of social order. It is

a direct application of the seventh and tenth commandments

to business and economic life. The American bishops state

very plainly:

‘Tt would be unreasonable to expect that an economic sys-

tem which has been predicated on false principles and which

has been operative over many decades could be reorganized

suddenly or with the easy gesture of hasty legislation and new

administrative policy. We face a problem which requires for
its solution intellectual vision, moral integrity, and persevering

effort. Many leaders both in the field of management and in

the field of labor must first be convinced that economic laws

and moral laws are in harmony and not in conflict with one

another. No one section of human society can be grievously

injured without that injury reacting harmfully in the final

analysis upon all other sections of society.

^‘The remedy of our problems is not so simple as some

would have us think. The solution is to be found in clear

thinking and in a right conscience. Relying upon God’s Provi-

dence we dare not be pessimistic but at the same time we

frankly recognize that a full restoration to a Christian social

order is a matter of steady growth and not a sudden transi-

tion.”

The American bishops following the lead of Pius XI call

for two reforms in our present economic system. First there

should be re-established guild or vocational groups resembling

the guilds of medieval society. These groups would bind men

together according to their respective occupations and so se-

cure a moral unity. Secondly before any social reconstruction

t^es place there must be a moral reconstruction in Christian

ipap* m



living. “The remedy is a frank and sincere return to the

teaching of the Gospel. God must once more be recognized as

the supreme end of all created activity; and all created goods

as the instruments under God for the attainment of our final

destiny. ... In conformity with Christian principles economic

power must be subordinated to human welfare, both individual

and social; social incoherence and class conflict must be re-

placed by corporate unity and organic function
;
ruthless compe-

tition must give way to just and reasonable State regulation;

sordid selfishness must be superseded by social justice and

charity. Then only can there be a true and rational social

order; then only can we eliminate the twin evils of insuffi-

ciency and insecurity, and establish
,
the divine plan of a

brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God.’’

Summary

True peace is the tranquillity of order based on principles

of justice. Pius XII explains these principles in five points.

The seventh and tenth commandments enjoin justice. Justice

means giving everyone what belongs to him by right. As

there are many kinds of rights, justice has many phases.

Every right implies a duty. I have a right to liberty, but

I have the duty of observing the law that safeguards that

liberty. The justige that balances the rights between man and

man is called commutative justice. Americans by and large

are lacking in the true understanding and appreciation of law.

We have been called the most lawless nation in the world and

our crime statistics bear out this reputation.

The only true freedom is the freedom to do what is right,

to do what becomes a man. Shakespeare expresses it: I dare

do all that doth become a man, who dares do more is none.

This is American freedom. Anything else is license, not liberty,

and leads to anarchy. Leo XIII condemned the false liberty

of the liberals in his encyclical The Christian Constitution of

States, The tenets of the liberals ran riot in the nineteenth

century. The last century’s riot has become the present cen-

tury’s chaos. Until the reign of justice is restored the chaos

will continue. Legal justice is what regulates the citizens’

[Page 23]



rights and duties toward the nation. Distributive justice is

what regulates the nations’ duties toward its citizens. The

State is for the citizens, not the citizens for the State, and real

government has for its purpose the common welfare. Real

government is 6bliged to formulate good laws and govern justly.

And citizens are obliged to observe just laws and co-operate

with government for the common welfare. This briefly is the

duty of government and the duty of the citizens.

A man may have a right in a thing and a right to a thing.

Everyman has a right to property. He has a right in property

when he is the actual owner. Whether he ever becomes an

owner or not, he always has a right to property, for the right

to property is a human right, a natural right that God gives

every man. As a man has a right to own property it follows

that he may do with it what he pleases within the law. Just

property laws should not only safeguard the individual’s right

but should also safeguard the rights of others, for all law

should safeguard the common welfare.

Pius XI in Qmdragesimo Anno makes clear the twofold

aspect of ownership, individual and social. He warns of a

double danger in the property question from overlooking this

twofold aspect. That double danger is Individualism and Col-

lectivism. The right of property must be distinguished from

its use. Commutative justice bids us respect the property

rights of others. It is false to hold that the right of ownership

and its proper use are bounded by the same limits, and it is

likewise false to claim that the misuse or non-use of ownership

forfeits the right itself. It is the function of government to

specify what is licit and illicit for property-owners in the use

of their rights. The State, however, is not justified in doing

this in an arbitrary manner. Crushing taxes are not the proper

means of restricting the property right. The proper means

are fair laws that curb individual selfishness for the common

good. In enforcing such laws the State acts as the friend

and protector of private property. The Church does not teach

' that the property right is unlimited. No one has an unlimited

right to anything. In the question of property and material

possessions of all kinds, individual right is restricted by the

[Paob 24]



extreme needs of others, by the common good and by neces-

sary charity to the poor.

Theft and rapine are forbidden by these commandments.

Both are sins against justice. They are serious or slight if the

injury done is serious or slight. To determine the gravity of

these sins we have moral standards. They are our moral

measuring rods. One is a relative standard, the other is an

absolute standard. To obtain forgiveness for the sins against

the seventh and tenth commandments, I am not only obliged

to confess the sin but I must make restitution. This is the

proof of the sincerity of the unlawful possessor. This precept

of restitution is positive. Moral theologians lay down defi-

nite principles on restitution. The payment of bills is enjoined

by these commandments. For to be slack in meeting our debts

is against justice. Even though the law of the State may ex-

cuse the payment of debts after a lapse of years, God’s Law

does not excuse. A man can be legally right and morally

wrong. As we have spiritual possessions as well as material

possessions God’s Law forbids us to deprive others of the

spiritual treasures they own. And if we violate it in this

matter we are bound to restitution.

The observance of contracts falls under these command-

ments. Every contract must be rooted in justice to deserve

the name. Free consent is necessary for the validity of a

contract. Fraud nullifies a contract. The contract of buying

and selling is a real contract affected by two facts, the price

and the merchandise. By price is meant either the legal price

or the market price. The unfair manipulation of prices renders

the seller guilty of fraud. In respect to the merchandise, to

sell an article defective in substance is unjust, and the pur-

chaser may repudiate the contract when the defect is discov-

ered.

Extortion is a sin against these commandments. Graft is

extortion. There are many forms of graft. The spoils system

that for years has been accepted in American political life is a

common source of graft. A real universal civil service system

would do much to lessen graft in public life. It could not,

however, completely destroy it. Graft will be destroyed when

[Page 25]



the level of morality in private life is raised by the rank and

file of citizens adhering to the real meaning of these com-

mandments. For the moral level of public life depends upon

the moral level of private life. A stream is as pure as its

source. Public officials in a democracy come from the people.

If the standard of honesty among the people is high, the stand-

ard of political honesty will be high. The Catholic public offi-

cial who stains his honor by graft is also guilty of scandal.

He drags the sacred name of the Church into the mud. He is

the greatest enemy the Church has. Not the lack of more

brainy men in public life but the lack of more moral men in

public life is the American tragedy.

Usury violates these commandments. In our present eco-

nomic system usury means unlawful interest. As money is

productive in this system, and the loaning of it involves risk,

a reasonable interest is lawful. To retain ill-gotten goods is

against justice and a violation of these commandments. The

wage contract is a mutual agreement between employer and

employee and should be governed by the principles of social

justice. It means a fair wage. It also means a fair day’s work.

Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum enunciated the principles gov-

erning the relationship between employer and employee.

Pius XI, forty years later, applied the principles to our present

age. The American hierarchy applied the Papal teachings

to modern American life, in their letter on The Church and

Social Order,

[Page 26 ]



%

0

QUESTIONS

LESSON I

(Pages 3-6)

What is the true meaning of peace?

What is its foundation?

What does Pius XII call the first principle of a true peace

among nations?

Is material disarmament the only requisite for peace?

What slavery must the nations be freed from?

What juridical institution must be established?

Are strictly legal rights of nations only to be considered?

What attitude will remove the provocative to violent

action?

What sentiment must he developed among peoples and their

rulers ?

What do the seventh and tenth commandments enjoin?

Define justice.

What is commutative justice?

What does every right imply?

What is the common attitude toward law?

What do our crime statistics prove?

What are the Edgar Hoover figures on crime for the year

1939?

What is his conclusion?

Explain the meaning of freedom.

What freedom did Leo XIII condemn?

What did nineteenth century liberalism lead to?

What is legal justice?

What is distributive justice?

What is meant by the common welfare?

What obligation does legal justice place on the State and

the citizen?

State the subject matter of legal justice.

State the difference between the right to a thing and the

right in a thing.

[Paqs 27]



LESSON II

(Pages 6-9)

What does ownership mean?

Explain absolute ownership.

Whence do property rights derive?

What is the relationship between the family and the right

of property?

Which holds precedence, family or State ownership?

State the twofold aspect of ownership as explained by Leo

XIII and Pius XI.

In considering ownership what twofold danger is to be

avoided?

Distinguish the two rights regarding property.

Does the abuse of ownership destroy the right of owner-

ship?

What attitude toward ownership must follow from its two-

fold character?

Has the State the right to limit the use of property?

May the State take away the inheritance right?

Has the State an unlimited taxing right?

What follows when Government adjusts ownership to meet

the needs of the common welfare?

What are the limitations to the property right?

May property be used for the exclusive benefit of the

owner?

State the restrictions implied in the right of ownership.

What does the Law of Nature and the Church teach re-

garding superfluities?

LESSON III

(Pages 9-12)

Define theft and rapine.

What does rapine add to the sin of theft?

Is theft always a mortal sin?

What does St. Paul say of those guilty of theft?

Why is theft against the Natural Law?

[Paob 28 ]



What two standards are to be considered in measuring

the injustice of theft?

What is meant by restitution?

To whom must restitution be made if the lawful owner

cannot be found?

State the principles of restitution.

LESSON IV

(Pages 12-13)

Are our possessions only material things?

Apply the principle of restitution to spiritual values. <

What does the payment process of modem business indi-

cate?

Is it morally right to defer the payment of bills as long as

possible?

Is a man who is legally right always morally right?

Is a debt outlawed “morally” by lapse of time?

LESSON V

(Pages 14-15)

Define a contract.

State the ordinary conditions of a true contract.

What has positive law to do with the making of contracts?

Name the ordinary defects that render a contract void.

What two things must be considered in the buying and

selling contract?

What is the difference between the market price and the

legal price?

State the principles of restitution as applied to selling

and buying.

LESSON VI

(Pages 15-18)

Define extortion and graft.

Give examples of the sin of theft in the conduct of public

ofiicials.

[Paok 29]



What is the spoils system and who was its originator?

Give the full explanation of corruption in American public

life.

What has been the effect on American life of the dishonest

Catholic public official?

How may graft be destroyed?

Graft is the leprosy of public vitality. Explain.

What must be the Catholic attitude toward the Catholic

public official?

Is Durant’s contention true that lack of brainy men in pub-

lic life is a tragedy?

Define usury.

What is legal interest?

Why was interest condemned by St. Thomas?
How has the industrial age affected the function of money?

To retain ill-gotten goods is a sin against justice. Explain

in detail.

Are the principles of social justice binding only on Catho-

lics?

LESSON VII

(Poges 18-22)

What is the wage contract?

Define a living wage.

Name the two characteristics of labor.

What follows from the law of self-preservation?

Why may not employer and employee agree on any wage?
How does Pius XI define the living wage?
What three elements enter into a living wage?

Prove that a living wage means a family wage.

According to Pius XI what must the wage contract develop

into?

What must the worker consider in his wage demands?

Whose duty is it to determine the question of a just wage ?

What right has government in relation to industry?

Why cannot labor alone or capital alone decide the wage
question?

IPagb 30]



Wliat must be the guiding spirit in determining the wage

question?

When are the commandments safeguarding property vio-

lated in the business world?

What is the condition necessary for society to prosper?

What is the supreme need of a just social order?

What has been the attitude of the Church toward the evils

of the industrial age?

LESSON VIII

(Pages 22-26)

What does our modem social problem call for, according

to the American bishops?

Can economic laws alone solve the social problem?

May our social order be reconstructed quickly?

What two main refora s are called for in our present social

order?

Explain a vocational group.

To what must economic power be subordinated?

What must replace class conflict?

Has unlimited competition a place in a just social order?

How may the twin evils of insufficiency and insecurity be
done away with?

(Faqs 311



^ ' V*

W:’

r
• * ’

- >.

* f*“

!

'<i' :
*' '/ "^•:='' ':

• ^ .
'

‘ \' t -":’ .
‘

. i
' •

,

•
,

• -*

-V -k;v !> »••...,

k Iitij II II

'

tl»

k,,iv„»'Vf ,
'•

•' ;

n.

'
^

4"|[w

’"

L^' i?

•'
4..>N;» tv ': V

•-J

t k.

g«^0“65<-i ^
'

'^W., tt.^ ft

rv

»,

^ ^ 'ift{j6£ .•-'.ivJ'!* lyr. 'iti lai SblU-) at'"' .' '
v:-.,^'?i5 ,i

-t" .4

.
' .»- *

V : .• fii’L

:

K -' T;
‘ 4»’

T>-J '
’

-t 'l
'*f'' /:»

’

-*
S?l^™

'ik:yy

"• '*•

'

• •
’?

"'« y t'-' ‘ ii

t I2i’[. a '-r "t" "b- •d,t'*3a:f^-
.

m ‘ ' '

f
*'•

^ stry

.
t. 'j

tft'divk

rrj- - -> ... ->-.rV . ., V- <•
, ,. .

9'. V;t5r

fr.

* * h*

a