OCR Text |
Show !! mm civil law is II CRUEL TO THE POOR 11 wiien it interferes With tlie Natural end j I Divine Law of Helping Gurself in J Extreme Necessity. 1 . . " 1 (V. riltcn lor 1 In Internioumaiu Catholic) I !i: i 1 1 lir of ihe difficulties wliifli labor has lo j t-.'i-.u nd against, even in prosperous times, there is ii :. ,1 iM;il that (1 ) unskilled labor has been, for the S ::-: c.w.'i'U v of ji century, grea'ly displaced hy labor- : ;.viug machinery: (2) new invent ions inv lessui- i:r: flu- milks of skillet! labor. The mechanic, he lie M , v I,, hvriiiht. carpenter, blacksmith, shoemaker, t i;:.i"V. in1 siny oilier who in the past fashioned wcar-j wcar-j I ;,!.. ui' ether articles needed for domestic Use wilii J hi- ii.o'il-. is now rarely jut-ded. Steam ami clee- ire-ity. villi modern inventions, have decreased the - doimmd in proportion, as might ho reasonably sup-p, sup-p, .-.. to the inerease of the supply of skilled ami : in- !: 'lb labor. ('') (Corporate bodies who control ih' nii'.ni- of i rodut'iieu are more selieitous for tin" ; -!(;, holders in increasing their iiivi.lenls than they M-e for the welfare of those vho earn iheir living hy ill!- -voat of 1 1n i r brows. "Wlifii the market is dull, ! : iid the factories have produced more than the dc- ! s li'und. 1 lien the machinery ceases lo produce, and I there is m more Use j'or lahor, skillctl or unskilled, i i ;T:d n synipathy for the little family, vho may be I ! devn tti starving point. The minority may enjoy ; i pieihovic veal th. and live sumptuously on their t v "Uihly dividend, hut the masses of the jkmoIc vho ;ui include'l in ihe ranks of skilled and un-killed I ;d.'or rarely enjoy a share of the distribution of 1 uenhh in prosperous times, whilst they are always . piveheil. :ml iiiu-t live on the hunihlest fare in un- ', ';iier.-ius iime. i. e., whilst the owners of factories j . .- re lnaiketiiij;' their over-production. Thi may he f v. ii lii'etl year after year in all larcc cities. Vievinp: this sail state of affairs, the question ' propounded hy Carlyle in Knghmd might he asked: l "Are ihey (those vho enjoy all the benefits of ! j vealth) heller, heautifuller. stronger, braver f Are i tlji-y even what tjiey call happier Do they look i v, iih sat i-f act ion on more thinjrs ami human faces j on jhjs (Jod. earth; do more things and human ' f;:ees look vith .satisfaction on tlieni ". Not so. Uu- Man faces nlooui tlisfi.rdant ly. disloyally on one another. " 1 his query and answer presi;;nt only the s.-ial aspect of ihe case, hut does not remedy the ; evils arising from extreme poverty. I Wliai do-. s religion do to protect the rights of : ihose who suffer from huiiger.' As the writer is . eoiicrrned only in the principles of Catholic teach-i teach-i j t: i lt . he will confine, his remarks io the irinciples of I Catholic theology as laid clown hy some of its more profound leaehers. Some years before his death, j rardiual Planning, whose symathy for the ioor of ! Lomlon was proverbial, vas called to task hy the ; 'linns, one of the most influential newspapers in I hnuhmd, for maintaining that the Poor Law of I J. inland, which provided for the necessities of the j destitute, was founded on the natural right of the ( poor to work or (failing to obtain work) the right j to appropriate breath The Times denying that a 1 ' po-.r man who was hungry, and who, willing and t hc--i!i- f,,r work had any natural right, ami that ! I the oardinars principle was a "io)ular fallacy Kcplying ti his critic. Cardinal .Manning wrote at : j '' lime: "Tiuihs are not falla'Mes. ami fallacies i t .;, i,oi iruths. To call it, a fallacy is to call ii a I I taisel 1. ami to propagate su.-h a denial of truth ) h'lli natural and Christian is fraught villi coiw- ' olK'liees l.oth luil'sll and 1 1 a Uge i'ollS." To siislaiu his p"-iiion ho ajpeals lo Catholic tradition, ami quotes I Iroo, iH. cr,.r..u doctors of the church whose teach-? teach-? -i"- "'v:is sanctioned by ihe church, in his reply tle- fent'iim- his poiiiin as to man's natural right ;!nd v - ei.-.i. he said : f "I. I!y the hiw of nature all men have a common com-mon null! to the ne of things which were created ; ih' in and for iheir sustenance. leu this coininou right does not exclude 5 if posse--.;,,!, of anythini;' which iK-eoines proper lo 'j :.. Ihe coninioii right is by natural law. the T'giit o property J, l,y human and osilivc law, ; i ho posj;ne law of )roperty is expedient for ihree reasons. ( ) Wliat is ur own is more care- !'.f "f'"n.v u-ed tha.1 what is common. (2) Human af- j j .'ii s are beii v rvderol by ! ten zed rivate rights, j ! lluinau seciety is mure icaceful when each has hi- om:. protected by the la w of ju-t ice : his own to II l-efson. "III. '1 heft, therefore, is always a sin. for two rr., ( ) jt ;s contrary lo justice. (2) It is i : 1 1 i ? i -- I eiiher by stealth or liy violence. v lint the human positive law car.not dero- ; g.-e l ;!!! iljr natural ;.utl Divine law. According : i ' iiie PiNiwhtw all thing-; are ordained to sustain 1 1'! 111 "I .if.. and therefore the division and ap- !; propria, ion of things cannot hinder the sustenance 111111 ii! ease of necessity. Therefore, the pos- U s' --'"'is of those who have food suiierabumlantly i ; 'hie by the natural law for ihe sustenance of 1 lie j ; I I 'lis nauiral right, for which Cardinal Manning ; contended, and which the Times called "a popular j;d!acy." f;)s ;m js virtually admittel by all Chris- :- natitiiis. The Poor Law of Enelantl is an ad- inis.siou lh.M man has a right 1o work or to fotd I when ihere is n work. There was an old Scotch i law eiitiilet Purtleiisech vhicli. interpreted, meant: r I ''lliat a siarving man had a right to curry away .is i much meal as be could on his back." Our own !. alms houses prow the natural right of every man, ' how. ver destitute or despised he may be. to life ami v"h.'t is needed to sustain life. In defending. this j law of natural right, ihe purpose of the cardinal i V;J- 1" elevate all such hiws and provisions because they had Cheir foundation in Christian ethics. The phiin, s'nn,e language which he um d wiis as thoroughly thor-oughly Christian as it was logical. "The obligation lo leed the hungry,"' he wrote, "spring's from the i natural right of every man to life, and lo the food j m cessary for the sustenance of life. So strict is i this natural right that it prevails over all positive ' V Liws of propei ty. Necessity has no hiw; ami u f. V f-ttirvin; man has a natural right to his neighbors bread. 1 am afraid ihat those who speaK m conn- dently about rights, obligations and laws have nor studied, or have forgotten the first principles" of all human positive law. If the law of property did rest upon a natural right it. could not lolig exist. They who deny it justify the dictune. La proprietc, c'e.st le vol property is robbery. Hefore the natural right to live all human laws must givo way." lie illustrated this natural right by the familiar fa-miliar example of thrt natural Jaw of sel.-dt fense, to which the command, "Thou shalt not kill,"' must yield. To his cogent arguments founded on christian chris-tian principles there was no rejoinder. Sustained by Calholic tradition and the teaching of the most learned of the early Fathers, Cardinal Manning's position' was invincible. St. Ambrose, writing on ihe same subject in the fourth ecu try said: "If is the bread of the famishing that you keep back ami the clothing of the naked that you lay by; ihe money you bury in the earth is the release and liberation of those who are in misery." Beyond ihe natural right lo take what is needed to sustain life in extreme necessity, the Catholic church defends de-fends the rights of property as is plain from the teachings of St. Liquori. who wrote: "Though in extreme necessity a poor man has a right to the goods of others, he has not a right -to the extraordinary extra-ordinary gootls of others, but only to those which ordinarily suffice for the sustenance of life." Carefully Care-fully defending the natural rights of those who are reduced to extreme poverty, the Catholic church is equally firm in her defence of the positive laws enacted en-acted for the preservation of the rights of property, which laws must yuM to the Divine or natural law in extreme necessity. Hut 'here two formedable objections present themselves. (1.) The natural right of extreme poverty pov-erty to bread if unable to secure means of honest sustenance, and (2) the enactment of human laws which strictly forbid the starving man from helping himself to a loaf of bread from his adjoining neighbor. neigh-bor. He exhausts all honorable and honest means to get for his starving family the requisites of life and fails. The natural law of s?lf-pn servation says, "Help yourself." Put in doing so he violates the civil law and is punished, i. e.. punished for what the natural ami divine law justify. Still wo know that it would be neither feasible nor wise to clothe the natural law of helping oneself in extreme necessity with any h gal enactment. Because the results would he both dangerous and mischievous. To harmonize both, conscience is the rule and guide. On this point the teachi"g of St. Leguori is explicit. He wrote: "As the poor man has a right to take what he needs, no one ought to hinder his taking it. For as much as in extreme necessity all things are common, a rich man is bound in justice to give help to ihe poor, because the- poor man mav justly take it, even without the will of the. owner." ", Even the human law admits this justice, yet the judge, when necessity violates the civil law. has no discretionary discre-tionary power, and must punish. But should he punish? In other words, should civil law override the natural law? However varied the answers to this question may be. ami all to a great extent depending de-pending on self interest, it remains as a truism t founded on the natural law, and endorsed by Christian Chris-tian sentiment,, that where there is no crime there should be no punishment, arid that 'ureases of extreme ex-treme necessity the civil law mus-t yield to the divine. di-vine. "F.D. . |