Property and Natural Law in Rerum Novarum and the Summa Theologiae 2-2, Q. 66, AA, 1, 2, 7 by Abdon Ma. C. Josol, C.SS.R. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 539 groundbreaking work on the structure of scientific revolutions, Veatch argues that natural law philosophers need not be too defensive about the natural teleology on which their work rests. Such philosophers can come to the truth and to the reality of things while leaving to scientists the technological productivity which enhances modern society and which philosophers do not attempt to match. Science classifies and orders data according to certain paradigms so as to manipulate the world. Realistic philosophy works at a different level seeking to know things as they present themselves to common sense. The two need not conflict. Veatch's efforts to relate contemporary science and Aristotelian philosophy offer many good insights. Kuhn's analysis, however, is widely contested and needs some further justification. The day-to-day work of scientists, which seems to be at a remove from the debates on the philosophy of science, continues to have a profound impact on our world and deserves to be debated in detail. Veatch does not engage science at this level in his work. Overall, Veatch offers a provocative, interes.ting and cloor presentation on human rights. It shows both breadth and depth of insight. Like any good philosophical work, it provides more questions than answers. Yet, even for a reviewer predisposed toward natural law, the core arguments seem questionable and not completely convincing. The text engages but does not persuade. However, the engagement itself is stimulating and worthwhile. DeSales School of Theology Washington, D.0. JOHN w. CROSSIN, O.S.F.S. Property and Natural Law in Rerum Novarum and the Summa Theologiae 2-2, Q. 66, AA, 1, 2, 7. By ABDON MA. C. JosoL, C.SS.R. Rome: Academia Alfonsiana, 1985. Pp. xii + 239. In this dissertation dealing with Pope Leo XIII and the principle of private property, Abdon Ma. C. J osol, C.SS.R., investigates the teac.hings on natural law and private property found in (1) the manuals of Mateo Liberatore, S.J., and Tommaso Cardinal Zigliara, 0.P.; (2) their drafts of Rerum Novarnm; (3) Rerum Novarnm; (4) Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 66, aa. 1 and 5; (5) ibid., Q. 66, a.2; and finally (6) Thomas's use of the phrase potestas prociirandi et dispensandi in the Summa Theologiae. He provides a real service in presenting the scope of the social question facing Leo and the efforts of the drafters of Rerum N ovarum to link the right to own private property with a Thomistic theory of natural law. He 540 BOOK REVIEWS also has an impressive bibliography which covers the European literature on Leo XIII and his times. There are two problems, in my judgment, with Fr. Josol's dissertation. First, he expresses his reservations about the soundness of Pope Leo's proposal concerning the social question. He thinks that the doctrine of natural rights to private property, as expressed in Rerum N ovarum and understood in the late nineteenth century, was a defense of large property owners (p. 9). He implies that Leo unwittingly provided a papal blessing for laissez-faire capitalists. Furthermore, thinks J osol, the chances of the industrial laborer be0oming a small land owner were very minimal if not wishful thinking (p. 9). Leo wanted the poor working man to receive a just wage, save, and invest his savings, for greater security, in land or moveable goods (Rerum Novarum 4). (The numbers in citations to Rerum Novarum are those assigned to paragraphs in Seven Famous Encyclicals, Glen Rock, N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1963.) By contrast, "the Socialists, in endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community, strike at the interests of every wage earner, for they deprive him of the liberty of disposing his wages, and thus of all hope and possibility of increasing his stock and of bettering his condition in life" (ibid.). Leo taught that "the law should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many people as possible to become owners" (Rerum Novarum 35). Leo opposed both laissez-faire capitalism and socialism. He wanted a fairer distribution of a nation's wealth, and the most reliable means of insuring this was a broa.der base of...