As we saw in the
previous posting on this subject, with the sudden eclipse of the agrarian
socialist Henry George and the renegade priest Father Edward McGlynn, there was
no longer any need for Pope Leo XIII to issue an encyclical exclusively on “the
Land Question,” i.e., whether private
ownership of land is legitimate according to natural law and Catholic
teaching. It was, moreover, obvious that
previous attempts by Leo XIII and previous popes to counter the dangers of
socialism, modernism, and the New Age had been ineffective.
 |
| Pope Leo XIII: "Yes, I condemned socialism." |
What was needed
was something new, and Leo XIII took the opportunity not only to expand the
encyclical originally motivated by the antics of George and McGlynn to all
forms of private property, but to do a different kind of social encyclical. What Leo XIII did was so new, in fact, that even
today many people mistake it for the first social encyclical, even though Rerum Novarum was issued more than half a century
after the first social encyclical, Mirari
Vos in 1832.
Nevertheless, the
issuance of Rerum Novarum came as a
godsend to George and McGlynn. Both men
had been languishing in semi-obscurity and had made several attempts to recapture
the limelight. Without the cachet of
being persecuted by the Catholic Church, however, all the attempts had come to
nothing. People simply weren’t
interested in them.
Rerum Novarum changed everything for the
Dynamic Duo. Claiming that he was being
attacked by the pope, George sat down and penned an open letter to Leo XIII twice
as long as the encyclical itself. In it
George carefully explained why he was right about Catholic social teaching and
the pope was wrong.
 |
| George: "I'm being oppressed!" |
For his part, McGlynn
started calling the mass meetings for which he was famous and by means of which
he had made himself a household word half a decade before. At first McGlynn agreed with George and
attacked the pope. Later, he declared
that the new encyclical said the same things George had always said.
Combined with the
efforts of other socialists to put a positive spin on an encyclical condemning
socialism in no uncertain terms, George’s and McGlynn’s efforts to get back
into the public eye caused a serious problem.
First, of course, if the encyclical was interpreted as being an attack
on George and McGlynn, it would be worthless.
People would be
able to argue forever that what Leo XIII was “really” talking about was a
difference of opinion regarding private property in land. Since the pope did not “really” understand
the situation in the United States and “really” did not understand George’s
proposals (the pope being a foreigner and all), the entire encyclical was based
on a misunderstanding and did not “really” apply to the United States . . . or
anywhere else, for that matter.
 |
| Gregory XVI: "Yes, I really condemned slavery." |
The fact that
exactly the same story had been spread about In Supremo, Pope Gregory XVI’s 1837 encyclical condemning slavery,
did not seem to occur to anyone. Back in
the 1830s, American bishops in the South had hastened to assure their flocks
that the pope didn’t “really” understand the situation in the United States,
that he didn’t “really” understand how slavery in America was completely
different from everywhere else, etc.,
etc., etc.
In any event,
McGlynn was back in the spotlight, allowing him once
again to assume the palm of martyrdom.
It also increased pressure on the Vatican to bring the renegade to heel. This is because the new encyclical would be useless
if it was not seen as a positive program of reform.
Initial efforts
to resolve the issue, however, played right into McGlynn’s hands. The Vatican sent Cardinal Simeoni to resolve
the issue and he sent McGlynn a letter stating the conditions for lifting
the ban of excommunication. The
conditions were that McGlynn:
·
Agree to go to Rome to explain his views on land
ownership and the single tax,
·
Apologize to Archbishop Corrigan,
Cardinal Simeoni, Pope Leo XIII,
and others whom he had insulted, and
·
Accept Rerum
Novarum without reservation.
 |
| Archbishop Corrigan |
McGlynn, of
course, immediately called a public meeting at the
Cooper Union in New York City on the evening of Monday, November 27, 1891. Before an audience that “greeted him with the
wildest demonstration of enthusiasm” (“Mr. M’Glynn Refuses to Comply,” The Hartford Weekly Times, November 29,
1891, 3) McGlynn asserted that he had never insulted Corrigan or the pope and had never taught false
doctrines. In almost the same breath he then
lashed out at Corrigan, Simeoni, and the pope, and —
. . . denied the infallibility of the Pope; criticised the
policy of the Holy See, and said that the Pope was the arch-conspirator against
the liberty and freedom of his country. He
called the Propaganda a lot of “ecclesiastical shoemakers,” and said if
bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes would mind their own business the
cause of Christianity and Catholicity would be the better subserved. (Ibid.)
Later, McGlynn reversed himself. He claimed that the pope had always supported
his, McGlynn’s, position. In a speech during yet another mass meeting at
the Cooper Union he —
. . . frequently quoted the pope’s Novarum Rerum encyclical in
support of his positions, and virtually declared that the acts for which he
incurred Archbishop Corrigan’s censure were done in the spirit enjoined by the head of the
church. (“Still a Single Tax Man: Dr. McGlynn Reiterates the Views that
Unfrocked Him,” The Day, January 2,
1893, 1.)
It was becoming
obvious that if McGlynn was permitted to continue on his present course, Rerum Novarum would be transformed into
a socialist manifesto.
#30#