1
The battle to maintain freedom never stops. It is a battle that sometimes is hard to define clearly as the issues and lines are deliberately made vague. At the heart of the struggle is the concept of “The Common Good.”
One of the earliest references in Christian literature to the concept of the common good is found in the Epistle of Barnabas: “Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already [fully] justified, but gather instead to seek together the common good.”
This concept was echoed and elaborated by Augustine, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and became a central concept in the modern tradition of Catholic social teaching, beginning with Rerum novarum, a papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII in 1891.
Quoting the Second Vatican Council document, Gaudium et spes (1965), this says, “According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily’” (#164, quoting Gaudium et spes, #26; italics original).
This document goes on to say: “[T]he common good [is] the good of all people and of the whole person… The human person cannot find fulfillment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists “with” others and “for” others” (#165; italics original).
And: “The goal of life in society is in fact the historically attainable common good” (#168).
Catholic Social Teaching gateway
The common good does not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each [individual]… [It belongs] to everyone and to each person… [I]t is indivisible and… only together is it possible to attain it.
[T]he common good [is] the good of all people and of the whole person… The human person cannot find fulfillment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists “with” others and “for” others. (Compendium, #165; italics original)
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”17
Jim Walla, a writer for Time magazine wrote:
The common good has origins in the beginnings of Christianity. An early church father, John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), once wrote: “This is the rule of most perfect Christianity, its most exact definition, its highest point, namely, the seeking of the common good . . . for nothing can so make a person an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbors.”....
The common good should impact all the decisions we make in our personal, family, vocational, financial, congregational, communal, and yes, public lives. It is those individual and communal choices—from how we raise our own children, to how we engage with our local communities, to what we are willing to bring to our elected officials—that will ultimately create the cultural shifts and social movements that really do change politics in the long run.
As Christians, there is much to discuss and possibly learn. We do need to ask how Christians should relate to illegal immigration, ecology, and any number of other issues that the world is facing.
But there is a problem.
AynRand, a woman who experienced the horrors of Bolshevik Revolution, and nearly starving under the communists comments on the common good.
It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.
When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.
If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.
We are often told that property rights must occasionally be sacrificed for the “common good”. According to advocates of this position, we must find a balance between what is good for “the community” and the uncompromised protection of individual rights.
What this really means is, individual rights are merely permissions that can be withdrawn any time “the community” decides that it is necessary. Which means, there are no individual rights.
The Pope’sspeech on the environment before Congress was all about common good. But “the common good” is exactly the samesort of thinking that, in Jesus’ day, was invoked against Him. “It is better the one man die than that the whole nationshould perish.”
It is better for the common good to keepthe Sunday law. They might say that we sweep away a fewdissidents because they are destroying the common good. They are disrupting our unanimity, our survival coalition. The common good is set against individual rights.
A speaker at a religious convention recently said there is far too much emphasis given to theindividual rights of conscience, and not enough to thecorporate rights of the church. For that to gain credencein the United States, particularly, where the rights of theindividual were said to trump all sorts of prelates andkings.
That means we are very close to the dynamic,found in the Bible several times, and repeated by EllenWhite, applying it to our day, that the time will comewhen “good people” will actually believe that in killingthose that stand for the Lord’s Sabbath, they are doingthe will of God.
Let’s look at some history from our state.
In 1885 Arkansas had a Sunday law that forbad working on Sunday. It had a provision for one day in seven rest. In 1885, that provision was repealed.
The book American State Papers bearing on Sunday Legislation gives the following information.
But after its repeal, not a saloon in Little Rock was closed onSunday, nor was there any attempt made to close one. Not a saloon-keeper was prosecuted. In its modified form, the law was used for no other purpose than to punish peaceable citizens who observed theseventh day as the Sabbath, and, in the exercise of their God-givenright, worked on the other six days of the week, including Sunday.
That the law was thus used is apparent from what follows.D. A. Wellman and J. W. Scoles, two Seventh-day Adventist ministers, held meetings at Springdale, Arkansas, in the summer of 1884.
As a result, a church of this faith was organized there the followingyear, and a church building erected. In addition to his subscriptionto the enterprise, Mr. Scoles agreed to paint the building. Concerningthis he says :
“ I worked at the church at odd times, sometimes half a day andsometimes more, as I could spare the time. The last Sunday inApril, 1885, in order to finish the work so that I could be free toleave the next day for the summer’s labor with the tent, I went to the church, and finished a small strip of painting on the south sideof the house, clear out of sight of all public roads; here I quietlyworked for perhaps two hours, in which time I finished it, and thenwent home. It was for this offense that I was indicted.”
There were scores of others that were prosecuted under the Sunday law, but mostly Adventists. People who were working on Sunday testified against Adventists, and had no punishment while the Adventist was.
At the fall term of the Circuit Court held at Fayetteville, Mr. J. A.Armstrong, of Springdale, a member of the newly organized church,was summoned before the Grand Jury. He was asked if he knew ofany violations of the Sunday law. He said he did.
Grand Jury : Who are they ?
Armstrong : The ‘Frisco railroad is running trains every Sunday.
G. J. : Do’ you know of any others ?
A. : Yes ; the hotels of this place are open, and do a full run of partiesbusiness on Sunday, as on other days.
G. J. : Do you know of any others ?
A. : Yes, sir ; the drug stores and barber shops all keep open, and
do business every Sunday.
G. J. : Do you know of any others ?
A. : Yes ; the livery stables do more business on Sunday than onany other day of the week.
After several repetitions of this form of questions and answers,this question was asked :
G. J. : Do you know of any Seventh-day Adventists who ever workon Sunday?
A. : A. : Yes, sir.
After obtaining from the witness the names of his brethren,
656 AMERICAN STATE PAPERS.
Indictments were found against five of them, himself and Mr. Scolesbeing of the number.
JAMES A. ARMSTRONG.
Mr. Armstrong, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church atSpringdale, was indicted in November, 1885, for Sabbath-breaking,on the charge of digging potatoes in his field on Sunday. February13, 1886, he was arrested and held under two hundred fifty dollarbonds for appearance at the May term of the Circuit Court. At thetime of the alleged offense, Mr. Armstrong had a contract for building a schoolhouse at Springdale. A Mr. Millard Courtney, with afriend, went to Mr. Armstrong’s house on Sunday, to negotiate acontract for putting the tin roof on the schoolhouse. ‘ They foundMr. Armstrong in his field digging potatoes. There the “business wasall talked over, and the contract for putting on the tin roof secured.
Then this same Mr. Courtney became prosecuting witness againstMr. Armstrong for working on Sunday. At his trial at Fayetteville,Mr. Armstrong was convicted, his fine and costs, amounting to $26.50,were paid, and he was released.
JAMES A. ARMSTRONG, THE SECOND TIME.
July 9, 1886, Mr. Armstrong was arrested the second time atSpringdale, for working on Sunday, June 27, and was taken beforeMayor S. L. Staples for trial. Mr. Armstrong called for the affidaviton which the writ was issued. The mayor stated that he himselfhad seen Mr. Armstrong at work in his garden on Sunday, a Mr A. J. Vaughn having called his attention to Mr. Armstrong while hewas at work, and said, “ Now see that you do your duty.”
This, themayor said, made an affidavit unnecessary. Mr. Armstrong was finedone dollar and costs, amounting to $4.65. In default of payment, themayor ordered him sent to the county jail, allowing him one dollara day until the fine and costs were paid. Within four hours from thetime of his arrest, Mr. Armstrong, in charge of the marshal, was onhis way to the jail at Fayetteville. He was locked up with anotherprisoner, with nothing but a little straw and a dirty blanket aboutthirty inches wide for a bed for both.
The next night, he was allowedto lie in the corridor on the brick floor, with his alpaca coat for abed, and his Bible for a pillow. The third night, a friend in town furnished him a quilt and a pillow. On the fourth night, his friendbrought him another quilt, and thus he was made comfortable. On thefifth day, at noon, he was released.
Upon his return to Springdale,the mayor notified Mr. Armstrong that his fine and costs were notsatisfied, and that unless they were paid within ten days, an executionwould be issued and his property sold. Mr. Armstrong filed an appealto the Circuit Court. The appeal was sustained, and Mr. Armstrongwas released from further penalty.
ALLEN MEEKS, THE SECOND TIME.
January, 1886, Mr. Meeks was indicted the second time, the offense charged being that of fixing his wagon brake on Sunday. Hewas reported to the Grand Jury by Mr. Riley Warren, who hadFixed gone to Mr. Meeks’s house on the Sunday referred to, to see him about hiring a teacher for the public school, both men being membersof the school board. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Meeksincidentally mentioned having mended his wagon brake that morning.
This was reported by Mr. Warren to the Grand Jury, and the indictment followed. At his trial in January, 1887, Mr. Meeks was assessed the usual fine and costs, which he paid.
JOHN A. MEEKS.
John- A. Meeks, of Star of the West, fourteen years of age, sonof Jesse L. Meeks, was indicted January, 1886, for Sabbath-breaking,A boy the offense charged being that of shooting squirrels on Sunday. Theplace where the squirrels were shot was in a mountainous districtentirely away from any public road or place of public worship.
Hewas reported by Mr. M. Reeves. The sons of the latter were hauling wood with a team on that same Sunday, and were present withthe Meeks boy in the woods, and scared the squirrels around thetrees for the Meeks boy to shoot. When the sport was over, theMeeks boy divided the game with the Reeves boys. Then the fatherof the latter reported the Meeks boy, and he was indicted. At histrial in January, 1887, he was fined five dollars and costs, amountingin all to twenty-two dollars. The fine was paid, and the boy wasreleased.
J. L. MUNSON.
Mr. Munson, a Seventh-day Adventist, of Star of the West, wasindicted July, 1886, for working on a Sunday in March, cutting briarsout of the fence corners at the back of his field. He was indictedon the voluntary evidence of Rev. Jeff. O’Neal, a Free-will Baptistpreacher.
He was arrested and held under three hundred dollarbonds. At his trial in January, 1887, he was assessed the legal fineof one dollar and costs, amounting to $14.20, which he paid.
SAVORS OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
Commenting on this Sunday-enforcement crusade in Arkansas,and the character of the people being prosecuted, an article in theSt. Louis“Globe-Democrat,” of November 30, 1885, said: “ They have been from the first apparently an industrious and God-
664 AMERICAN STATE PAPERS.
fearing people, the chief difference between them and other Christianbodies being that they observe the seventh day as the Sabbath, according to the commandment. But it seems that sectionalism cannotlay down its arms even when the sacred precincts of religion areentered, so among the first things performed by the Legislature at itssession last winter, less than a year after these people had come intothe State, was the repeal of the clause which gave them the liberty tokeep the day of their choice. . . . It is a little singular that no oneelse has been troubled on account of the law, with perhaps one minorexception, while members of the above denomination are being arrested over ‘the whole State. It savors just a trifle of the religiouspersecution which characterized the dark ages.” 1
Let’s fast forward.
The pope comes to the United States as a conqueror, and lectures the country on many things. His two main concerns appear to be over immigration and global warming / climate change. Climate change is a world wide problem and it has to have a world wide solution. Everyone must act for the common good of mother earth. To get global change, you need a global problem.
In Laudato Si‘ the pope basically deals with the whole world structure and the ills he finds in it. In fairness, there are some very valid points that he makes. He deals with banking, deforestation, consumerism, and other valid issues. But he uses his points to promote virtually every catholic doctrine: The mass, transubstantiation, Mariolatry, Sunday worship, worship of the saints, etc.
He strongly affirms climate science and the seriousness of environmental issues.
He blasts those who fail to act.
He calls for global reduction of greenhouse gases and wants richer countries to pay poorer.