A Catholic Response to Henry George's Critique of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum

• Published date: 01 October 2012
• Date: 01 October 2012
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2012.00844.x

A Catholic Response to Henry George’s

Critique of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum

By J. BRIAN BENESTAD*

ABSTRACT.InRerum Novarum, the first of the modern social encyc-

licals, Pope Leo XIII argued that there is a right to the possession of

property, but there are limits on the use of wealth. Christians have an

obligation to use their property and talents for the good of others.

Private ownership must serve not only the interests of the individual

but also the public welfare. The disadvantages of private ownership

are not to be corrected by socialism, communism, or the free market,

but by the teaching of the Church on faith and morals, the laws of the

State, and the action of private associations. Efforts to solve the

problems of poverty and unjust working conditions will be in vain

unless principles of Christian living drawn from the Gospel are taught

to people in all ranks of society.

George’s Philosophical Differences with Leo XIII

In the spring of 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued the first of the modern

social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum. (Leo XIII’S encyclical was made

public on May 15, 1891. All references will be to the numbers in this

translation, which has been authorized by the Holy See. The text used

by Henry George was an unauthorized translation and contains dif-

ferent paragraph numbers.)

Toward the end of the summer (carrying the date of September 11,

1891), Henry George (1953: 1–105) wrote a long critique of that

encyclical in the form of an open letter to the pope. George takes Leo

XIII to task for defending a limited right to own land, and for limiting

the right of private ownership of things produced by labor. While

recognizing the right of all to possess (and use) land, George holds

that there is no right to own land. He also argues that there is an

unlimited right to ownership of things produced by labor. The basis of

*J. Brian Benestad is Professor of Theology at the University of Scranton.

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 4 (October, 2012).

© 2012 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

this unlimited right lies in “the right of the individual to himself”

(George 1953: 5). George echoes the teaching of John Locke (1764:

27) that man has a property in his person and, therefore, has a right

to the fruits of his personal labor. George (1953: 6) defends the

exclusive possession of land only in order to secure “the exclusive

ownership of the products of labor.”

George’s (1953: 8) distinction between possession and ownership

of land is meant to serve the common good: “To combine the

advantages of private possession with the justice of common own-

ership it is only necessary therefore to take for common uses what

value attaches to land irrespective of any labor on it.” George (1953:

12) proposes that government levy a tax on all land equal to its

worth, annualized, “irrespective of the use made of it or the improve-

ments on it.” As this tax would provide sufficient revenue for the

operation of government, George recommends the repeal of all taxes

levied on the products and processes of industry. Taxes on the fruits

of labor, according to George, violate the moral law, including the

right to property.

George’s defense of a Single Tax on land is meant to secure equal

opportunity to all. Equality of mutual opportunity is the most impor-

tant of all natural rights (George 1953: 17). George goes so far as to

say that his proposals are in conformity with the will of God. More

precisely, God intended public revenues to be raised solely by taxing

land (George 1953: 15): “That God has intended the State to obtain the

revenues it needs by the taxation of land values is shown by the same

order and degree of evidence that shows that God has intended the

milk of the mothers for the nourishment of the babe.” George further

believes that his views on economics correspond to Christ’s teaching

in the Sermon on the Mount:

We see that Christ was not a mere dreamer when he told men that if the

world would seek the kingdom of God and its right-doing they might no

more worry about material things than do the lilies of the field about their

raiment; but that he was only declaring what political economy in the light

of modern discovery shows to be a sober truth. (George 1953: 21)

That “sober truth” is, of course, to abolish all taxes on the fruits of

labor and tax land values irrespective of improvement. These two

914 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology