The Duty of Labor

1. Titius, a carpenter, very often ceases from daily labor, because labor greatly displeases him, although he has strong powers. Hence he often indulges in leisure, and is content to sustain himself very sparingly; and, when he has nothing by which he may be sustained, he prefers asking alms along the public ways, or stealing the things of others, to labor.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Titius cannot be excused from sin. For the obligation of labor is present for him, both from the necessary providence to be had for himself, so that by a licit means he may procure for himself those things which are necessary for an honorable support of life, and for avoiding leisure, which is the occasion of so many sins.

The Angelic Doctor says aptly: “Judgment concerning each thing must be taken according to the end to which it is ordered. Now manual labor is found to be useful for three things. First, for removing leisure; whence Jerome to Rusticus the Monk: always do some work, that the devil may find you occupied.... Secondly, for taming the body; whence in 2 Cor. 6:5 it is joined with other mortifications of the flesh, where it is said: In labors, namely of works, because he worked with his own hands, and he adds: in watchings and fastings, etc. Thirdly, it is ordered to seeking livelihood, Acts 20:34: To those things which were necessary for me and for those who were with me, these hands ministered.

“If therefore manual labor is considered according as it is ordered to removing leisure or to taming the body, in this way there is the same judgment concerning manual labor and concerning other exercises ordered to the same things. For it is not necessary that leisure be removed by this or that occupation; but for removing leisure it suffices that one withdraw from leisure by any licit occupation; and thus the occupation of manual labor is not in precept, this end being considered.

“And the reason is similar concerning manual labor according as it is ordered to taming the body; because by many exercises the body can be tamed, such as watchings, fastings, and many things of this sort. Whence none of them, insofar as it is ordered to such an end, is in precept specifically, although in general it is in precept to tame the body by some exercise by which deadly concupiscences are restrained.

“But according as it is ordered to seeking livelihood, in this way it seems to be in precept; whence it is said in 1 Thess. 4:2: Work with your hands, as we have commanded you; and not only in precept of positive law, but also of natural law. For those things are of the natural law to which man is inclined from his natural things. But as is evident from the very disposition of the body, man has a natural ordering to manual work, on account of which it is said, Job 5:7: Man is born to labor, and the bird to flying. But since nature has sufficiently provided other animals in those things which pertain to the sustaining of their life, in foods and arms and coverings, it has not provided man in these things, because he himself is endowed with reason, by which he will be able to provide for himself in all the aforesaid things; whence in place of all the aforesaid things there will be for him a hand, suitable for diverse works, by which he may carry out the conceptions of reason by diverse arts.

“It must be known, however, that the precept of the natural law is twofold. One is ordered to removing the defect of one individual person, either spiritual, as concerning the acts of the virtues, or bodily, as the precept which the Lord gave to man, Gen. 2:16: Of every tree that is in paradise, eat, etc. But another is ordered to removing the defect of the whole species, as that which is said in Gen. 1:28: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth; for in this is prescribed the act of generation, by which nature is preserved and multiplied.

“But there is this difference between these two kinds of precepts: that each one is held individually to observe the first precept of the natural law; but each one is not held individually to the second precept. For in those things which pertain to the species, all men are to be counted as if one man; for by participation in the species many men are one man. But just as one man has diverse members, by which he is occupied in diverse offices ordered to removing his own defect, which cannot all be exercised by one member, as the eye sees for the whole body and the foot carries the whole body; so it is fitting in those things which pertain to the whole species. For one man would not suffice for exercising all things which human society needs; and therefore it is fitting that diverse men be occupied in diverse offices, as is said in Rom. 12:4.... And this diversification of men in diverse offices happens first from divine providence, which so distributes the states of men that nothing necessary for life is ever found to be lacking; secondly also from natural causes, from which it happens that in diverse men there are diverse inclinations to diverse offices or to diverse modes of living.

“Because therefore by manual labor someone can assist both his own defect and another’s, since one man cannot be sufficient for himself in all things but needs another’s assistance, it is clear that the precept concerning manual labor is in some way contained under both kinds of the aforesaid precepts. For insofar as by the manual labor of one man assistance is given to the necessities of others, it thus pertains to the second kind of natural precepts; but insofar as someone by this assists his own necessities, it pertains to the first kind, as the precept concerning eating. But a precept which is ordered to removing a bodily defect does not oblige except when the defect exists; whence if there were someone who could live without food, he would not be obliged by the precept concerning eating. Thus therefore the precept concerning manual labor does not oblige someone individually, according as it is ordered to removing a common defect in some way, nor according as it is ordered to removing his own defect, unless the defect exists. And therefore he who has that by which he can live licitly is not held to work with his hands; but he who does not have the means by which he may otherwise live, or unless he acquire livelihood by some illicit business, is held to labor with his hands. And this is clear from the Apostle in three places, where he gives a precept concerning the working of hands. First, at Eph. 4:28, where, by prohibiting theft, he enjoins the working of hands: He who was stealing, let him now not steal, but rather let him labor with his hands. Secondly, in 1 Thess. 4:2, where he prescribes manual labor by prohibiting covetousness of the things of others: Work, he says, with your hands, as we have commanded you, that you may walk honorably toward those who are outside, and desire nothing of anyone. Thirdly, in 2 Thess. 3:2, where he prescribes the working of hands by prohibiting base businesses by which some were seeking livelihood: We hear, he says, that some among you walk restlessly, doing nothing, but acting curiously. The Gloss: Those who with foul care provide necessities for themselves; and he adds: But those who are of this sort, we denounce and beseech in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working with silence they eat their own bread.

“It must also be known that, just as sight is chief among the other senses, by reason of which all the other senses receive the name of sight...., so the hand, because it is necessary for very many works, is called the organ of organs.... And therefore by manual operation is understood not only what is done by the hands, but by any bodily instrument whatever; and briefly, whatever office a man does, by which he can licitly acquire livelihood, is comprehended under manual labor. For it does not seem reasonable that masters of mechanical art can live from their art, and masters of the liberal arts cannot live from their art. Similarly also advocates can live from the patronage which they furnish in cases; and it is similar concerning all other licit occupations. Therefore, because it is a precept, but does not oblige all, therefore etc.” St. Thomas, Quodl. 7, a. 17.

2. Lucretius the sculptor, an agreement having been made and a price fixed, promised Fulgentius the pastor that he would make a statue of St. Anthony. Since afterwards several other statues, and at a higher price, were committed to him by others to be made, he omitted making the statue of St. Anthony. But when Fulgentius complained, then Lucretius committed the statue to his friend Caius to be made.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. When an obligation consists in doing something and the debtor by contract does not do it, he is held to reparation of damages, and the creditor also has power to petition the judge that it be done at the expense of the debtor. C. I. 1218, 1220; C. G. 1142, 1144. But the debtor is permitted to furnish even through another those things which he owes, unless it matters to the creditor that it be done by him himself. C. I. 1239; C. G. 1237. Hence, if grave damage is present to Fulgentius because of the statue of St. Anthony not made, and it gravely matters to Fulgentius that that statue be made only by Lucretius, Lucretius, omitting to make it, sins gravely, because he fails faith in a grave matter, and is held to reparation of damages. C. I. 1218; C. G. 1142.

Labor is a natural necessity, a moral obligation, and a religious duty. We shall treat it in as many sections, adding a fourth on recreation or rest, which is the necessary correlative of labor.

1. Labor is, first of all, a natural necessity. Nature compels man to labor for the necessary means of subsistence. Since the fall of our first parents, the earth, which is the ultimate source of all things required for the support of the human race, of itself bears nothing but thorns and thistles, and man is compelled to till the soil in the sweat of his brow to make it yield the products he needs. "With labor and toil thou shalt eat thereof all the days of thy life."¹ "The soul of him that laboreth, laboreth for himself, because his mouth hath obliged him to it."²

¹ Gen. III, 17 sqq.

² Prov. XVI, 26.

"Manual labor," says St. Thomas, "has a fourfold purpose. The first and principal one is to procure food, wherefore the first man was told: 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.'³ ... Therefore, since manual labor is ordained for the obtaining of sustenance, it falls under the necessity of precept, because it is necessary to attain that end. For that which is ordained towards an end, derives necessity from that end, i. e., it is necessary in proportion as the end cannot be attained without it. Consequently, he who has no living from some other source, is obliged to perform manual labor, no matter what his position may be."⁴

³ Gen. III, 19.

⁴ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 187, art. 3: “Manual labor is ordained to four purposes. First and principally, to obtaining sustenance; whence it was said to the first man: ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’... Therefore, insofar as manual labor is ordained to obtaining sustenance, it falls under the necessity of precept according as it is necessary for such an end; for that which is ordained to an end has necessity from the end, so that it is necessary precisely insofar as the end cannot exist without it. And therefore one who has no other source from which he can live is bound to work with his hands, of whatever condition he may be.”

Having in view both the natural and the economic aspect of labor, we can truly say that the more industriously men work, the more abundant are the means of sustenance and enjoyment at their disposal, and the less danger there is of want.

2. As man consists of body and soul, his labor is either bodily or mental, or perhaps it would be more correct to say, it is both bodily and mental; for as a rule the two occur in combination, though one or the other may, and usually does, predominate. Moreover, nearly every kind of bodily labor is more or less planned and directed by the will and the intellect; —by the will, because all labor involves the overcoming of difficulties; by the intellect, because the proper utilization of the materials and powers furnished by nature requires a preliminary knowledge. Productive labor is that which creates, conserves, acquires or transfers material or economic goods, and likewise that which produces, preserves, communicates or spreads personal or social values, as religious and moral convictions or endeavors, useful knowledge or facilities, intellectual and spiritual culture, political order and security, or any other requisites of intellectual and physical well-being.⁵ While the work of some classes of men, e. g., physicians, teachers, priests, authors, etc., does not produce material goods, it may be truly said to be productive in a mediate and indirect way, because the creation, acquisition, and preservation of economic values depends largely on personal and social goods. "He who writes a book," in the words of a modern author, "serves the intellect, and by serving the intellect, serves the world." Thus, in the natural or economic sense, labor may be defined as the conscious and purposeful application of man's faculties with a view to producing those things which are necessary or useful for sustaining life.

⁵ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 187, art. 3: “It must nevertheless be known that under manual work are understood all human offices by which men lawfully earn their livelihood, whether they are performed by the hands, by the feet, or by the tongue. For watchmen and runners and others of this kind who live from their labor are understood to live by the works of their hands. For because the hand is the instrument of instruments, by the work of the hands is understood every operation from which anyone can lawfully earn a livelihood.”—Ibid., qu. 100, art. 3, ad 3: “One who has knowledge and has not thereby undertaken an office by which he is bound to impart the use of his knowledge to others can lawfully accept payment for his teaching or counsel, not as though selling truth or knowledge, but as though hiring out his services.”

The line of demarcation between work and play is not always easy to draw; nevertheless it exists and must be duly attended to.

Charles S. Devas,⁶ because of the invidious and misleading character of the term "unproductive," prefers to divide labor into industrial and non-industrial, according as its end is, or is not, the preparation of material goods or the production of wealth. The terms industrial and non-industrial are also used by Dr. H. Sidgwick⁷ and correspond substantially with Prof. Nicholson's "material production" and "immaterial production." The moralist may disregard this controversy as irrelevant.

⁶ Political Economy, 3rd ed., London 1917, pp. 15 sqq.

⁷ The Principles of Political Economy, p. 265, London 1883.

3. The welfare of the individual as well as that of society depends not only on the amount of labor performed, but likewise on its proper distribution among the different individuals and classes that constitute the community, on the way in which the laboring men are treated, and on the perfection of the mechanical means employed, such as tools, machinery, power, and on the progress made in industry, trade, and commerce. A higher standard of living with less expenditure of labor is to-day the goal of all classes of workers, including the farmer.

The necessity of working for a living entails the obligation of employing labor efficiently and economically, so as to make it as fruitful and re- munerative as possible and to satisfy not only the elementary natural needs of man, but likewise his legitimate craving for relaxation.⁸

⁸ Cfr. F. Schäffle, Kapitalismus und Sozialismus, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1878; G. Ratzinger, Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1895.

Of the "right to work" we shall treat in the fifth volume of this Handbook.⁹

⁹ See on this subject J. E. Ross, C. S. P., The Right to Work, New York, 1918.

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 187, art. 3. —Leo XIII, Encyclical "Rerum Novarum," May 15, 1891 (The Pope and the People, London 1912, pp. 188 sqq.) —E. Genicot, Theologiae Moralis Institutiones, 4th ed., Louvain 1902, Vol. I, n. 365. —S. Weber, Evangelium und Arbeit, Freiburg 1898. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, 11th ed., Innsbruck 1914, pp. 79 sqq.

1. Labor is not only a natural necessity, it is also a moral obligation.¹

¹ Job V, 7. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 187, art. 3: “Secondly, [manual labor] is ordained to removing idleness, from which many evils arise.... But insofar as manual work is ordained to removing idleness or to mortification of the body, it does not, considered in itself, fall under the necessity of precept, because the flesh can be mortified and idleness removed in many other ways than by manual work.”

Labor was enjoined upon our first parents in Paradise as the primary condition and chief means of moral progress and perfection. Man has to labor in order to ennoble his nature and to attain sanctification. Labor should be his very breath and life. It preserves his bodily and mental health; it steels and fortifies his will; it makes him contented and happy. Even when the tangible products do not seem to correspond to the energy expended, the right sort of work has an intrinsic ideal value which makes it worth while, whereas idleness and sloth entail spiritual death and at the same time are a gross violation of the duty which the individual owes to society; for, as St. Paul says, "If any man will not work, neither let him eat."²

² 2 Thess. III, 10; cfr. A. Winterstein, Die christliche Lehre vom Erdengut, pp. 157 sqq.

2. To toil faithfully and assiduously in one's chosen vocation is to obey a divine command. Labor spells life; idleness, death. Distaste for labor has its source in repugnance to duty and involves contempt of the divine commandments which bind society together. There can be no doubt that labor brings its own reward. No matter how disagreeable any particular task or occupation may seem at first, after a while it becomes pleasant, as a bitter medicine grows sweet to the taste. Labor is a great blessing, and he who voluntarily renounces its benefits is a fool.

"Honor for every kind of work! In every man's labor a human will, an immortal soul, externalizes itself, a man's heart is throbbing and a man's blood is circulating. All work is capable of being spiritualized and ennobled to the highest degree. We must come at last to recognize that it is a sin against both culture and art for the 'upper' classes to brand as vulgar and dishonorable whole groups of occupations which are necessary, and in fact indispensable, in the human household. Those persons should rather regard themselves as under personal obligations to all who perform menial offices and services. 'If there were nobody to perform the menial tasks, the higher culture could not exist.'”³

³ P. W. von Keppler, More Joy, tr. by J. McSorley, C.S.P., St. Louis, 1914, p. 228.

READINGS.—See the authorities cited on page 129, and in addition: J. G. Uhlhorn, Die Arbeit im Lichte des Evangeliums betrachtet, Bremen 1877.—K. Eger, Die Anschauungen Luthers vom Beruf, Giessen 1900.—A. Sabatier, L'Eglise et le Travail Manuel, Paris 1895.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, 11th ed., Freiburg 1910, pp. 410 sq.

1. Labor would have been a duty even in the pure state of nature, but it has become absolutely necessary, and sacred as well, since the fall of our first parents. For now it is also a punishment and a means of penance, nay, more than that, —a means of atonement and redemption.¹ St. Thomas says: "Thirdly, [manual labor] is ordained for the repression of concupiscence, inasmuch as by it the body is mortified.²... The Apostle prescribes manual labor, first, to avoid theft;³ secondly, as an antidote to covetousness;⁴ third, against dishonest transactions by means of which some men make a living."⁵

¹ Gen. III, 17-19.—Cfr. St. Augustine, De Gen. ad Lit., l. VIII, c. 8, n. 15: “Whatever delight agriculture possesses was surely far greater then, when nothing adverse happened either from earth or from heaven. For there was no affliction of labor, but an exhilaration of the will, since those things which God had created came forth more joyfully and fruitfully with the aid of human work.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIV, 379).

² 2 Cor. VI, 5.

³ Eph. IV, 28.

⁴ 1 Thess. IV, 11.

⁵ 2 Thess. III, 10 sq. The quotation is from the Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 187, art. 3: “Thirdly, [manual labor] is ordained to the restraining of concupiscence, insofar as the body is mortified by it.... For the Apostle prescribes manual work, first, for avoiding theft; secondly, for avoiding covetousness of the things of others; thirdly, for avoiding shameful occupations from which some acquire a livelihood.” —Cfr. M. Hausherr, Die geheiligte Handarbeit, Mayence 1873.

Christ Himself was the son of a carpenter.⁶ He bore the burdens of an humble day laborer as part of His great work of sacrifice and atonement and by His example showed men how to sanctify and ennoble their daily task. The faithful Christian, therefore, labors not only to earn his bread, to provide for his family, to heap up riches, to gain the means of enjoyment, or because he prefers activity to idleness, but mainly for the reason that labor is a sacred duty which he owes to God, to himself, and to his fellowmen. He works for the honor and glory of God, for the sanctification of his own soul, and for the relief of his needy neighbors.⁷

⁶ Matth. XIII, 55; Mark VI, 3; cfr. John IV, 34; V, 38; VIII, 29.

⁷ Acts XX, 35; Eph. IV, 28.

The last-mentioned point is thus explained by St. Thomas: "In the fourth place [manual labor ] is ordained for the giving of alms.⁸... In this respect it does not, however, fall under the necessity of precept, except where one is under strict obligation to give alms and can obtain the means of succoring the poor from no other source. In that case all men, religious as well as seculars, are obliged to perform manual labor."⁹

⁸ Eph. IV, 28.

⁹ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 187, art. 3: “Fourthly, [manual labor] is ordained to the giving of alms.... But insofar as manual work is ordained to giving alms, it does not fall under the necessity of precept, except perhaps in some case in which someone were bound by necessity to give alms and could not otherwise have the means from which to assist the poor; in that case religious and secular persons alike would be bound to perform manual works.”

Radulphus Ardens, a famous theologian and preacher of the twelfth century,¹⁰ tersely sums up the benefits of labor as follows: It destroys vice, nourishes virtue, provides the necessaries of life, and affords the means of giving alms.¹¹

¹⁰ Cfr. M. Grabmann, Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, Vol. I, Freiburg 1909, pp. 246 sqq.

¹¹ Hom., l. II, c. 32 (Migne, P. L., CLV, 1615): “It destroys vices, nourishes virtues, provides necessities, and gives alms.”

It was a grand and thoroughly Christian idea, which found expression throughout the Middle Ages, that man shall not regard his work and earnings, no matter how modest, selfishly, but always in relation to his neighbor. The Pauline passage embodying this thought: "Let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need,"¹² was made the basis of a number of ancient monastic rules, which we know from the writings of St. Benedict of Aniane.¹³

¹² Eph. IV, 28.

¹³ On Benedict of Aniane see J. P. Kirsch in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 467.

Intimately related to this idea are two others, namely, (i) that labor is a duty which man owes to God, and (2) that it is a necessary means of developing the higher, spiritual side of his nature. Together these three concepts acted as a ferment in the conservative social and economic life of the Middle Ages. The idea that the living to which one is entitled should correspond to one's social position, was thus safeguarded against undue exaggeration. A man was permitted to earn more than he required for himself and his dependents, but only on condition that he took good care of his soul, made becoming sacrifices to God, gave alms to the poor, and faithfully performed all his duties to society.¹⁴

¹⁴ Cfr. F. Schaub, Der Kampf gegen den Zinswucher, Freiburg 1905, pp. 16 sq.

"Nothing hinders us from raising our daily work to the higher Christian plane of dignity and value. Hence there should no longer be question of compulsory labor; the loud, cheerful 'aye' of a man perfectly willing to work prevails over the 'nay' of indolent, weary nature. Thus a man becomes free, even if born in labor's chains. He determines the kind and value of his work; and he appropriates its best fruit, the absolutely sure pay which no one can lessen. With his work he is serving not men, not force, nor necessity, nor a gloomy fate, nor a machine, nor the owner of a machine, but the Overlord of all work, his God and Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus." "So we learn to prize and honor and love work. We know that we never labor in vain, that despite all human weakness, misery, and imperfection, our work has a value. We know how much we owe to work, and what a benefit is a great serious life-task; how work steels the will, trains the faculties, strengthens the whole man; how external labor helps us in our inner work with ourselves, promoting moral purity, mental breadth and depth. Often we profit as much by failure as by success, —sometimes even more. In a great sorrow or a terrible crisis, we find that work has a wonderful power of healing. When work is completed, we enjoy inner peace, a pleasant fatigue. And not only do we rejoice after work, but we learn to be joyful during our work, and even to enjoy the work itself. That is the true joy of work; and sometimes it breaks out in song. 'Give me the man who sings while at work,' says Carlyle."¹⁵

¹⁵ Bishop Keppler, op. cit., pp. 229 sq. A modern poet describes Jesus going through a great factory, not impressed by its marvellous machinery, its speed, its skill, but "looking for His singing-man," — the man whom His Father made to sing at work. He looks in vain. (See Catholic Fortnightly Review, St. Louis, Mo., Vol. XXV (1918), No. 23.)

1. Rest or recreation follows labor as inevitably as day follows night or summer follows winter. To the duty of labor, accordingly, there corresponds the right to rest and recreation, —the right to enjoy an earthly Sabbath here below and the hope of a heavenly Sabbath in the world beyond.¹

¹ Gen. II, 2; Ex. XX, 11; Apoc. XIV, 13.

According to the teaching of Revelation there exists the right and, under certain circumstances, the duty of performing mental or spiritual labor, consisting in prayer, study, or contemplation of the eternal truths.²

² Luke X, 38-42. —Cfr. St. Jerome, Epist., XIV (al. 1), n. 10: “Are you frightened by labor? But no athlete [of Christ] is crowned without sweat.” (Migne, P. L., XXII, 354).

The Schoolmen divided life into the active and the contemplative.³ "All endeavors of human activity," says, e. g., St. Thomas, "if they are ordained towards the necessity of the pres- ent life according to right reason, pertain to the active life, which provides for the necessities of the present by duly disposed actions,... whereas those human endeavors which are ordained towards the consideration of truth, belong to the contemplative life."⁴

³ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, qu. 179, art. 1: “Because some men devote themselves chiefly to the contemplation of truth, while others devote themselves principally to external actions, therefore human life is fittingly divided into the active and the contemplative.”

⁴ Ibid., art. 2, ad 3: “All endeavors of human actions, if they are ordered according to right reason to the necessity of the present life, pertain to the active life, which provides for the necessity of the present life through well-ordered actions,... but human endeavors which are ordained to the consideration of truth pertain to the contemplative life.”

The essential difference between the active and the contemplative life has been frequently lost sight of, even by Catholics. Only a few years ago Pope Leo XIII found it necessary to recall the traditional Catholic teaching on this point in a letter to Cardinal Gibbons.⁵

⁵ "Testem benevolentiae," Jan. 22, 1899.

Labor, both bodily and mental, if it is not followed by sufficient rest, will in course of time cause nervous exhaustion (neurasthenia), which with its attendant disorders is apt to prove hereditary. The restless pursuit of wealth is expressly condemned by our Lord in the famous passage: "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?"⁶

⁶ Matth. XVI, 26.

The intellectual and the material aspects of human labor as a factor in the advancement of civilization and culture are aptly summarized in the ancient Benedictine adage: "Ora et labora —Pray and work!"⁷

⁷ See Anonymus, Die Regel des hl. Benedikt, pp. 345 sqq.

The duty of labor, however, must not be urged beyond reasonable limits. A man who retires from business after years of hard work to rest and prepare for death, is not to be accused of idleness. Man owes to his fellowmen, present and future, not his whole being, but only a portion of his power to work. No matter how important his position in life, the individual is never indispensable, but his labor is merged in the collective toil of the race. Work is measured by hours and days, and may cease for hours and days without perceptibly retarding the progress of society. Then again, there are cases in which it is better for a man, especially one advanced in years, to step aside than to cling to a position for which he is no longer fit.⁸

⁸ Cfr. F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 287.

2. There are some species of human activity which afford employment to many thousands, yet do not deserve the noble name of labor. To this class of occupations, which do not produce, but merely consume and destroy, and batten on the financial and moral ruin of men, belong usury, prostitution, gambling in "futures,"⁹ etc. With these Special Moral Theology deals in connection with economics.¹⁰

⁹ On gambling in "futures" see Th. Slater, S.J., Questions of Moral Theology, New York 1915, pp. 154 sqq.

¹⁰ See Vol. V of this Handbook.

There is another kind of (predominantly intellectual) labor which is destructive and therefore worse than useless. It is the writing and publishing of books, magazines, and newspapers that attack or undermine faith and morals.

To adjust the relative claims of manual and intellectual labor is not an easy task. The man who makes his living by the work of his hands, finds it hard to understand that mental labor can be quite as exhausting as physical exertion,¹¹ whereas the man engaged in purely mental work is apt to underestimate the hardships of the physical toiler. This lack of mutual understanding and sympathy leads to envy on the one and undue pride on the other side and frequently gives rise to unjust judgments on both.

¹¹ Shelley speaks of the "agony and sweat of intellectual travail." Newman says that "every book I have written... has been a sort of operation, the distress has been so great." (Ward's Life of Newman, I, 296). And: "The composition of a volume is like gestation and child-birth. I do not think that I ever thought out a question, or wrote my thoughts, without great pain, pain reaching to the body as well as to the mind. It has made me feel practically that labor ‘in sudore vultus sui' is the lot of man." (Ibid., p. 637.)

3. Though a few ancient writers, like Hesiod, extolled manual labor as the source of well-being, or, like Homer, spoke of it with respect,¹² pagan antiquity for the most part held it in contempt.¹³ Christianity restored it to honor and respectability. The Gospel emphasized the universal duty of labor and introduced a spirit of fraternal charity among all classes of people, high and low, learned and ignorant.¹⁴ The fact that St. Peter "abode many days in Joppe with one Simon, a tanner,"¹⁵ shows that even "unclean" and despised trades were regarded by the Apostles as honorable. Protestants assert that it is only since the so-called Reformation that ordinary labor has received its due in the Christian Church. This is not true. The two principal ideas which Protestantism claims for its own, viz.: that labor is a form of prayer, or a sacred office, and that it is a duty which the individual owes to society, were strongly enforced by the Catholic Church all through the Middle Ages.¹⁶ Again and again people of all classes were exhorted to labor and warned against idleness.

¹² Cfr. M. Heinze, Der Eudämonismus in der griechischen Philosophie, Leipsic 1883, pp. 671 sqq.

¹³ Cfr. Cicero, De Officiis, I, c. 42.

¹⁴ Cfr. A. Sabatier, L'Eglise et le Travail Manuel, Paris 1895, pp. 24 sqq., 45 sqq., 85 sqq., 211 sqq.; A. Stöckl, Das Christentum und die grossen Fragen der Gegenwart, Vol. I, pp. 169 sqq., Mayence 1879.

¹⁵ Acts IX, 43; X, 6, 17, 32.

¹⁶ Cfr. F. Schaub, Der Kampf gegen den Zinswucher, p. 15; also J. G. Uhlhorn, Die Arbeit im Lichte des Evangeliums betrachtet, Bremen 1877; K. Eger, Die Anschauungen Luthers vom Beruf, Giessen 1900.

Bishop Ratherius of Verona ( + 974) says in a sermon addressed to farmers: "You wish to be a good Christian? Well, then, be not only a just but a constant laborer.”¹⁷ To the artisan he says: “Listen to what is written in Ecclesiasticus XXXVIII, 39,¹⁸ in order that you may know that you are able with your labors to offer God an acceptable prayer of praise." And to the beggar: "Woe to thee if thou art able to work for a living!" With equal insistence the same prelate admonishes poor soldiers and rich burghers to work.¹⁹ The Emperor Charlemagne, in 806, forbade his subjects to feed the many idlers who roamed about the country begging but unwilling to work. Long before Luther, John Herolt, a famous Dominican preacher of the fifteenth century,²⁰ said in a sermon that whatever a man's profession may be, his daily labor is ordained by God and therefore morally good.²¹ When St. Francis Xavier, on his journey to India, was urged to employ a servant because it was beneath his dignity as Apostolic delegate to wash his clothes and cook his food, he replied: "As long as I have hands and feet, I will allow no one to serve me, for there is but one thing that is unworthy of man, and that is sin."²²

¹⁷ "Laborator."

¹⁸ Ecclus. XXXVIII, 39: "But they shall strengthen the state of the world, and their prayer shall be in the work of their craft, applying their soul, and searching in the law of the most High."

¹⁹ Praeloquia, l. I, tit. 1-3, 17, 19 (Migne, P. L., CXXXVI, 149 sqq., 179, 188).

²⁰ He died in 1468.

²¹ See N. Paulus, "Luther und der Beruf in neuester Beleuchtung," in the Katholik, Mayence, 1902, Vol. I, pp. 327 sqq. Cfr. F. Landmann, Das Predigtwesen in Westfalen, Münster 1906, pp. 179 sq.; K. Braun, Die kath. Predigt während der Jahre 1450-1650, Würzburg 1904, pp. 90 sqq., 100 sq.

²² F. X. Brou, Saint François Xavier, Paris, Vol. I, 1915.

With recreation we have already dealt in the first part of this volume,²³ and here will only add that all forms of recreation are licit, provided they do not violate the laws of modesty and chastity, and are rightly ordered according to time, place, duration, and manner. Athletic sports are especially to be recommended, within proper limits, as they help to keep a sound mind in a healthy body, and, in the words of Father Noldin, are apt to serve not only the principal object of recreation, as such, but to aid in preserving and augmenting the virtues of chastity and temperance. Hence there is no reason why pastors of souls should condemn clubs and associations formed for the practice of wholesome sports, but there is every reason why they should promote such and endeavor to have them conducted in accordance with the rules of probity and religion.²⁴

²³ Supra, pp. 35 sqq.

²⁴ Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 76.

Having dealt with labor, we pass by a natural transition to its product, i. e., property. This, too, may be twofold, material or ideal. Among ideal goods the most valuable is honor.

READINGS. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, 11th ed., Innsbruck 1914, p. 76.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. II, 6th ed., pp. 12 sq., Paderborn 1909. —J. E. Ross, C.S.P., Christian Ethics, New York 1919, pp. 177 sq., 329 sq.

Socialists demand that all, without exception, take an active part in the system of social production. The “universal duty of labor” insisted on by the Gotha platform is, indeed, no longer mentioned expressly in the Erfurt platform, but in the election proclamation of April 30, 1903, it is emphasized anew by the social democratic party of Germany, and it is, moreover, a necessary inference from the demand of “equal rights and equal duties” and from the systematic organization of labor.

Every individual must enter the service of the community, and receive his portion of the common labor dealt out to him. No one is allowed to possess any productive property of his own, or to produce anything on his own account. For the satisfaction of all his wants he is directed to the state magazines. The education and instruction of youth are to be the business of the state, as is also the care of the sick. In short, every one is to have just so much freedom and so much right as the community concedes to him. We shall have occasion to discuss this point more at length hereafter. Suffice it here to say that this socialistic theory tacitly presupposes that society or the state has the unlimited right of disposal over every individual; that every one is destined in the first instance for the service of the community, and that for the mere purpose of industrial production.

This is the pagan idea of the state as we find it in Plato and other heathen writers. It does not tolerate any personal rights as against the community; it also virtually denies that the first and highest end of man upon earth is the service of God and the attainment of perfect happiness after death. As a logical consequence of this pagan view of the state and of the individual, socialism unduly exaggerates the importance of industrial life or the production of wealth. As in the life of the individual the pursuit of earthly goods, if estimated according to its true importance, occupies the last place in human activity, so also it should be in the life of human society at large. The acquirement of the means of subsistence is subordinate to the higher intellectual aspirations of man. The end of earthly goods is only to prepare the ground upon which higher and more ideal goods are produced.

Now, since it is impossible that all in the same way devote themselves to such various occupations, there must be different callings and states in life, which require long-continued preparation, and which do not all occupy the same place, but form a certain hierarchical order, consisting of various grades subordinate to one another. By their very nature the various classes employed in the production of the necessaries of life (laborers, artisans, husbandmen, etc.) occupy the lowest grade, while the different professions naturally take a higher place on the social scale. We do not mean to imply, however, that the former are not worthy of all consideration and honor, or that those who are employed in procuring the daily necessaries of life have less merit before God: we would only say that the higher professions, considered in themselves, secure a higher rank in society, that they require higher endowments and greater culture, and, consequently, may claim greater consideration.

Now, what is the design of socialism? Socialism will make the laboring class the ruling one, and make the results of labor (the production of values) the standard of the social organization itself and of the social position of each member of society. Society is to become one great productive union. No one may withdraw himself from the duty of production. Unproductive, useless individuals shall not be tolerated. That in such an organization, in which all members are forced to be productive, there is no room for higher callings—e.g., for a priesthood consecrated to the ‘divine service, for religious orders, for those who devote themselves to arts and sciences for their own sake— goes without saying.

Socialism turns away man’s thoughts and desires from lofty ideals and debases them to the level of material enjoyments. Elevation of heart and mind is an unknown quantity in the socialist philosophy. But no! we are deceived. Also socialism lays claim to ideals, But of what kind are they? The socialist Stern¹ enumerates them in the words which Heine, the poet of cynicism, addressed to the Saint-Simonians: “You demand simplicity of apparel, chasteness of life, insipid enjoyments; we, on the contrary, demand nectar and ambrosia, garments of purple, and fragrant perfumes, luxury and magnificence, dancing nymphs, music, and comedy;”’ but this, the same socialist adds, we demand for all and we shall grant it to all.

¹ Stern, Thesen über den Sozialismus, p. 34.

Thus it seems that the mire of Epicureanism, exemplified in the life of Heine, constitutes the socialist heaven. This brings us to another fundamental tenet of socialism.