New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-08-07
ATTACKS SOCIALIST IDEA
Father Maekel. S. j.. Lectures
at the Catholic Conference.
DEFINES CHURCH POSITION
Suggests Monastic Orders as
Remedy for Wealth Affecting
Carnegie and Rockefeller.

The position OF the Catholic Church
toward socialism and a distinguished
catholic leaders views OF the Socialist
narty's teachings on the subject of rights
10 private property were features az toe
Catholic Conference az Fordham Univer-
sity Yesterday New delegates arrived
Yesterday some from the West, maklns
the registration seventy. most Of them
leaders Of labor or church organizations
having to do with social questions.
The Rev Dr. John A. Ryan. OF -. Paul
University. who was 10 have outlined the
labor problems in the United States. was
IN with throat trouble. and 80 the Rev.
H. j. Maekel, S. j.. of Buffalo. save
both lectures. Father Maekcl is n Jesuit.
He said ~ so many men were unable TO
make both ends meet, they ought 10 be-
come poor by Joining ono OF the Catholic
orders. when they would have nll they
wanted. lie mentioned the Rockefellcrs
anu others who said they were troubled
by appeals for money, and invited them
TO become Capuchins and end their
bother. II Capuchins were not TO their
liking. they might try the Trappists.
"Old maids. Of whom there are many,
and whose difficulties are many. might
join the sisterhoods and find their trou-
bles al az end he continued The
catholic Church has solved the problem
Of community life. made most mon ana
women in il happy and conteuted. and
made them useful TO themselves ard 9TH
ers besides This is not always the case
when men and women conduct their own
Affairs. Our idle rich our imnrovident
moor might we'll take heed"
Father Maekel said the Catholic Church
had always stood for tho rights Of pri-
vate property. and condemned commu7-
ism. So II condemns the teaching OF the
socialists. He told how. as Jesuit, he
owned nothing. not even the clothes he
wore. and yet how rich he was, having
verifying he needed.
The difference between himself a. \
Jesuit. and the teaching OF the socialist
WAS that he took the vow voluntarily
The socialist would compel men to act
thus and so regarding property. quite
different matter. He wanted the Car
uesies 10 act OF their own free will II
At all.
y
their common sense he said. Il do not
always agree with what they profess and
do. but J notice they rise above profession
into the realm OF good sense. Many a
Protestant. not knowing how bad his
church IS. clings to II, yet living good
rstholic life lie Is better than his pro-
fession.
ON the other hand. Americans in the
state are worse than their profession.
aHyers are cases in point They bring
On a legal row over an entanged $4,000
and run off with lions share OF the
money in Fictitious fees. Graft obtains In
many political places.
.1n Germany there is strong central
government: here q weak one. What
might be expedient there might be mex
uedient here because Of different condi-
tions.
Graft IS 10 he reckoned with IL the
Thing IL attempted in America, especially
ia an American city. Pope Leo's pro-
rouncemsnt on social questions is quite
lear. The difficulty IS how to apply 1t.
At the morning lecture Father Maekel
uo.ed the difference between the Catho-
lie Church's position and that OF Social
ism's position. Man was not made for
society. but society for the development
O.. man. The proper course vas 10 look
for the factors that made real men.
These we're the family. the state, the
church and private organizations formed
~ men themselves. All OF these had
heir proper places.
The Socialists would solve the whole
matter by having the State do all. go
eisllsts forget that society was not made
by men, but by Cod. The State even In
charge OF Socialists, had no right TO take
Away private property without compenss-
ZION. To do so was 20 violate God Z laws.
The socialism OF the State and the
tyranny OF the majority we're alike 10 be
avoided II the majority laid down that
which was not right the reply must be
that God was above the majority. A
laugh followed a question whether the
church ought 20 limit the amount OF
property held by one individual.