Henry George, Father Edward McGlynn
and Pope Leo XIII
[A paper delivered to International Conference on
Henry George, 1 November 1997,
at Cooper Union, New York; Professor
Edward O'Donnell, Chair]
1. Turbulent times
It was a different time, but often the same place (Cooper Union)
in American history. It wasn't radio, but the age of spellbinding
orators. Two of the best were Henry George and Fr. Edward McGlynn,
who came together in 1886 to roil the waters of American politics
and ideology. Through the Irish and Vatican connections, they also
roiled world politics and ideology.
It was a time when the Republican Presidential candidate of 1884
(James G. Blaine) could be nominated by a professional atheist
(Robert G. Ingersoll); and lose New York's Irish Catholic voters,
and the election, for a casual slur accusing them of "Rum,
Romanism and Rebellion."
It was a time when Fr. Edward McGlynn, the most popular Catholic
priest in NYC and the nation, could dispute the Pope and support
public schools, marriage for priests (this point is disputed), the
Fenian raids, abolishing poverty by public action, Henry George, and
the single tax. His Parish, St. Stephens, was the largest and most
influential in the U.S.
It was a time when the two leading candidates for Mayor of NYC in
1886 both declared they did not want the job. Henry George was told
Tammany would not let him win and he could "only raise Hell";
he replied he would run, to raise Hell. Abram Hewitt said he only
wanted to prevent the election of Henry George, "the greatest
possible calamity." Hewitt's later conduct in office, after
winning by fair means or foul, demonstrated he had, indeed, little
interest in the office itself. In eulogizing George in 1897, Fr.
McGlynn said it was a blessing George lost, so he could devote his
life to more important things. What was going on? Both candidates
recognized the office as an extraordinary bully pulpit from which to
broadcast ideas, as well as a commanding height with a great balance
of power in the U.S.
It was a time of class warfare, when hundreds of thousands of
workers were on strike.
2. Heritage of those times
It's been said that "All the flowers of all the tomorrows are
in the seeds of today." If so, it follows that the flowers of
today were in the seeds of yesterday. Professor Nic Tideman has
recounted how his great grandfather from Sweden learned English by
reading Henry George, and began a long Georgist dynasty. Drew Harris
has told how he was sixteen before he realized that not all Quakers
routinely discuss Georgism at dinner.
The exploitation of Ireland by offensive alien landlords produced
the core, or at least the bulk, of Georgism in the U.S. I am a
product of that, although, unlike Harris, I was past my teens before
I began to piece it together. My father's professional survival had
demanded he be discreet before blabbering kids. His father had been
an active Fenian, joining the raids on Ontario. Pope Leo XIII,
needing English support in Italy, condemned the Fenians as he did
all serious Irish rebels, but Fr. Edward McGlynn praised them: he
defied his Archbishop, Michael Corrigan, and the Pope on this as on
many other matters. Not until this year did I discover by happy
chance a long-lost cousin named Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., a law
professor. Ed's father had introduced land-tax bills in Sacramento,
as a State Assemblyman from San Francisco. His uncle, Dr. Matthew T.
Gaffney of Newark, was a single tax leader there. Some of this
spirit trickled through to me.
My mother was of traditional Yankee stock. She was related to John
Henry Cardinal Newman, appointed to the post by Leo himself. Newman
never showed favor towards George, and feuded with Cardinal Manning,
who did. Her uncle Selah Merrill Clarke edited the New York Sun,
which opposed George and McGlynn. However, she later worked for
Louis F. Post in the U.S. Dept. of Labor, and picked up his
influence. It was she who brought me my first book on Henry George,
although she never admitted to accepting his ideas.
I offer this gratuitous autobiography to apprise the reader of my
bias, if any. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the
Catholic faith, but a typically tepid generic liberal Protestant, no
longer very observant, and somewhat philo-Catholic, especially after
1961. In the heady days of JFK, John XXIII and M.L. King, Jr., I was
thrilled to find myself marching in demonstrations hand-in-hand with
nuns and priests, who had always seemed so distant before. Whether
that makes me more biased, or less, I leave to others. I have tried
to compensate by reading works on the period by Catholic scholars,
including John Molony, Emmett Curran, Alfred Isacsson, Stephen Bell,
John Tracy Ellis, James Gilhooley, and Arthur Preuss. I hope to find
a Catholic collaborator on this work.
3. Neglect of Catholic economics in Gaffney and Harrison,
Corruption of Economics.
In the above work I undertook to show how neo-classical economics
evolved as a reaction and an antidote to Henry George. In haste, I
omitted Catholic economics, which ran parallel to neo-classical
economics, but with a life of and special twists of its own. The
main Catholic reaction to George was Leo's 1891 Encyclical, Rerum
Novarum, (henceforth R.N.) R.N. was a watershed document: the "first
far-reaching formulation of Catholic teaching" since the
Council of Trent in the 16th Century, according to Molony. It was a
new venture into social theology. It recycled Thomist economics, in
which Leo was thoroughly steeped, but with special reference to "the
worker question," and with refuting false modern doctrines
advanced by George and McGlynn.
4. Wide and sustained influence of Rerum Novarum.
The influence of R.N. has echoed through the following Century.
One important American convert was Monsignor John A. Ryan (1916), "the
chief theorist of social Catholicism in America" (Andelson,
1979b, p.342). Ryan as a young man was "electrified" by
George, and one might expect an Irishman to remain a land reformer.
However, after Leo XIII spoke, Ryan came to heel. His basic work,
Distributive Justice, follows R.N. closely.
Another follower was PadrQ Juan Alcßzar Alvarez (1917) of
Madrid. Alcßzar was endeavoring to put down what was evidently
a very strong single-tax movement in Spain of that era (Busey, 1979,
p.326) - a movement that had been aborted in England by shipping the
flower of its young men off to die in Flanders' Fields. Alcßzar's
positions are similar to those of Cathrein, although considerably
more extreme, so as to seem ludicrous today, as perhaps they also
were then outside of Spain. In any case, he received considerable
reenforcement from R.N. The Spanish single-tax movement remained a
force clear until the accession of Francisco Franco.
Several succeeding pontiffs have reaffirmed the doctrines of R.N.
in their Encyclicals, e.g. the Quadragesimo Anno of Pius XI, 1931.
One can't help wondering if the Vatican's wretched record of
response to Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and Pavelic (in Croatia)
might have been corrected by some different thinking at that
critical time. As it turned out, the anti-Communist obsession of
Pius XI's protege and successor, Eugenio Pacelli, inhibited the
Vatican from overt anti-fascism, and even led it to aid and abet the
escape of many fascist leaders after 1945 (Aaron and Loftus; E.M.
Gaffney, Jr.). As I write, European Catholics, including Pope John
Paul II himself, are finally acknowledging the Church's derelictions
- a cynic might say, after the time has passed to punish those
Later reaffirmations of R.N. have been Mater et Magistra (1961) by
John XXIII, and Centissimo Anno (1991, of course) by John Paul II.
Philosophers like Jacques Maritain and Étienne Gilson have
carried Leo's ideas forward into our times.
The leaders of Christian Democratic parties in postwar Europe were
nurtured on R.N. These include Alcide de Gasperi, Konrad Adenauer,
Robert Schuman, Carlo Sforza, and Luigi Einaudi. Through these and
many others, R.N. became part of the history of modern Europe.
Later reaffirmations of R.N. have been Mater et Magistra (1961)
by Pope John XXIII, and Centissimo Anno by John Paul II, 1991.
5. Leo's outlook
Leo was a thorough Thomist. In 1879, the year George published
Progress and Poverty, Leo had the works of Aquinas declared to be
the official Catholic philosophy. This included the economics, with
the ideas of just price based on cost of production (in practice,
price ceilings), criticism of usury (in practice, a ceiling on the
interest rate), private property, minimum wage (a very low minimum,
in Leo's view), and modernized guilds (morphing into labor unions).
R.N. also reduces "equal rights" to equal rights to
enjoy eternal life hereafter. This is vintage Aquinas. To Leo's
critics, the last point meant "You will eat bye and bye, in
that glorious land beyond the sky; work and pray, live on hay,
there'll be pie in the sky when you die" (words attrib. to Joe
Hill, union organizer).
Leo opposed "liberalism," but in both meanings, i.e. the
Manchester School meaning and the egalitarian meaning. Even then,
the term had both meanings at once, and one must judge from context
which liberalism he is excoriating in a particular passage. This of
course put him doubly at odds with Henry George, who generally
favored liberalism in both meanings, and sought to reconcile and
compose them into a harmonious whole. It did not help that George
quoted sympathetically from Mazzini, who had played an important
role in stripping the Papal States from the Church. It was Kismet
that Leo and George should collide.
The upper hierarchy of the R.C.C. was mostly of the landed
classes. Leo, born Vincenzo Pecci, was of the minor nobility, and
considerable wealth. Across the water, Archbishop Michael A.
Corrigan of New York was also wealthy, but a complete arriviste,
lace-curtain Irish, scion of a bartender who rose through liquor
dealing to real estate, leaving a small fortune. (As we will see, he
lacked old-world subtlety; his scheming was wily yet transparent to
many, and damaging to the image of the church.) In addition, the
R.C.C. in Europe had owned vast lands for centuries, and its
bureaucrats naturally developed a protective attitude toward the
ultimate source of its power and wealth. They were hypersensitive to
the point, owing to the power of anticlerical movements that had
stripped them of many lands, even in Catholic nations like France,
Italy and Mexico.
It was in character, then, when in 1888 Leo condemned Irish
peasants who were agitating for land. Many Irish proletarians
thought him a Judas. R.N., when it came out, did not help. It is
remarkable that the R.C.C. survived as well as it did in Ireland.
Many Irish-Americans (like my grandfather) left the Church at this
time, but most recognized their ethnic interest in the American
Catholic Church which, to a remarkable extent, was controlled by
Irishmen. The Irish priesthood had remained much closer to the
communicants themselves than had those of other extraction - Edward
McGlynn being typical in this respect (Molony, p.49).
6. Evidence of anti-Georgist intent
How do we know that R.N. was directed against George and McGlynn?
They thought it was, and George (1891) even penned an open letter to
Pope Leo in reply; but who were George and McGlynn to debate the
Pope himself? It is often alleged that George was a paranoid
pipsqueak next to Leo: why would a V.I.P. like the Pope lower
himself to refute such a cipher? There is ample evidence, presented
herewith, that this was a posture used consciously to belittle
George, and avoid the boomerang effect of a direct criticism. There
is also evidence of great scurrying and rustling of papers in The
Vatican in reaction to the power shown by George and McGlynn. This
is found in works by Isacsson, Ellis, Bell, Molony, Curran,
Gilhooley and Preuss.
Foreshadowing R.N., Fr. Victor Cathrein (1889) had already
attacked George, stigmatizing him as an "agrarian socialist,"
along with Émile de Laveleye. The label did not fit George,
who was neither an agrarian nor a socialist, but a free-market
urbanist. However, it may help explain R.N.'s slurring references to
generic "socialists," a fungible lot to Leo, obviously
intending to encompass George with Marx.
What particularly exercised Cathrein about George and de Laveleye
was their observation that privatized, commercialized land tenure
hardly existed in pre-industrial societies other than the Roman, and
recent privatizers had reinvented it only recently by resurrecting
Roman Law (Hudson, 1994; Andelson, 1979a). Cathrein supported the
idea that "natural law" prescribes private property in
land, an idea also expressed in R.N., refuting George's position.
George, by stressing ideas of "natural rights" and "natural
law," touched on areas that remained more central to Catholic
social philosophy than they did to more secular thinkers (De
Concilio). Where Marx alienated Catholics by atheism and
anti-clericalism, the overtly Christian George offended some of them
more by accepting the Catholic concept of natural law, in ways
competing directly with certain Catholic views thereof (depending on
In Cathrein, the idea of equal rights became an empty shell
hollowed out by an artful twist of wording to mean only rights to
buy land from its rightful owners. Andelson (1979a, p.132) shows how
this idea moved right from Cathrein's attack on Henry George into
Cathrein also anticipates the R.N. position that the rich need the
poor in order to test their character by giving them chances to
perform Christian charity (Andelson, 1979a, p.134). What a roar of
derision that allegation would have provoked before most audiences
in the last 50 years! Yet now, again, it seems to be back in style -
without the Christianity.
Cathrein's work, originally in German, was translated under the
apparent aegis of Abp. Bernard J. McQuaid of Rochester and Bishop
Stephen Ryan of Buffalo (Hudson, 1994, and personal interview, 1997;
Zwierlein, 1946, should be consulted). McQuaid was a mentor of and
staunch rooter for Abp. Michael Corrigan of New York City. Corrigan
was a major instigator of R.N., as we will see, so we may assume
that the drafters consulted Cathrein's recent attack on Henry
Cathrein is not covered in The New Palgrave, a Dictionary of
Economics. Neither are Aquinas, nor Leo XIII, nor Rerum Novarum, nor
John Ryan, nor Alcßzar, nor natural rights, nor many other
exemplars and concepts of Catholic economic thought. Even Henry
George, whom they criticized, is given very little space. While this
might suggest that these writers have been shouldered aside by
modern economists, it is worth noting that there are hundreds of
millions of Catholics, and only few economists, so it is worth
asking which group is the island, and which is the main? Prudence
alone would dictate that economists give more heed to what Catholic
philosophers have said, and are saying.
As to natural rights, quite apart from Catholic doctrine, they are
enshrined in the English Bill of Rights (1689), the American
Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man (1789), the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution,
and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1946). Again,
are economists in touch with the hundreds of millions of people who
endorse those statements?
John Molony (1991) was a history professor at Australian National
University who spent years in Rome researching the composition of
R.N. He had access to some Vatican Secret Archives, along with other
standard Vatican sources. His writing shows sympathy for Leo, and a
propensity to belittle George and McGlynn, so we may assume his
bias, if any, is not to magnify George or McGlynn. He does so,
nonetheless, by frequent references to the importance of putting
down this new heresy.
In his index we find 21 page references to George, and 16 to
McGlynn. In contrast, there are 9 to Aquinas, 8 to Marx, 5 to
Christ, 4 to usury, one each to Newman, Mazzini, and Garibaldi, and
none to Cavour or Victor Emmanuel. The last four were Leo's
arch-enemies who had nationalized the Papal States and made the Pope
a "prisoner in the Vatican"; Newman was Leo's appointee as
Here are some of Molony's comments.
"... there was one American theoretician, Henry George, whose
writings were of particular interest in the Vatican, and whose ideas
had a decisive effect on the timing of R.N. and, to some degree, on
its contents." (p.50)
"In the Vatican, not much interest was shown in George until
its attention was drawn to the fact that one of his main followers
in America was the pastor of New York's most important parish, St.
"The blackest mark against McGlynn ... was that he had begun
to espouse with fervor the ideas of Henry George. ... his words were
taken careful note of in Rome." (p.52)
"Throughout the 1880s, considerable attention was paid to
George and McGlynn by the Vatican authorities." (p.53)
"Cardinal (Camillo) Mazzella ... derided the priest (McGlynn)
as one who held that, rather than Leo, George was the 'Redeemer of
the poor' and his personal 'Holy Father.'" (p.57)
The last point echos Cathrein's resentment of George as a direct
competitor. George spoke the language of religion, and evoked a
quasi-religious fervor in some followers. Secular modern critics
have faulted and even sneered at this "emotionalism," but
to religious leaders themselves it posed direct competition. In 1890
in Australia, "... converts, fired by enthusiasm, went about
like the early Christians preaching their gospel" (PM "Billy"
Hughes, cit. Molony, p.59).
As to Mazzella, it was he who recommended excommunicating McGlynn,
which Leo soon did; and putting all the works of Henry George on The
Index. (p. 58). Mazzella was soon to help write R.N. in 1891.
In R.N., George was lumped as a "socialist," and
treated anonymously as an "upholder of obsolete notions,"
and one of "a few dissidents," a "mere utopianist
whose ideas were rejected by the common opinion of the human race."
"The thoughts of Henry George ... were reduced to their utmost
simplicity and rejected out of hand." (pp.91-92).
"Unnamed (in Zigliara's draft), ... both McGlynn and Henry
George were given fuller treatment and their opinions, summed up as
'the discordant voices of a few utopians,' were rejected out of hand
as contrary to common sense, the natural law and, finally, the
divine law itself." (p.79)
The following is included in R.N. itself.
"The State would act in an unjust and inhumane manner were it
to exact more than is just from private owners (of land) under the
guise of a tax." (pp. 98, 194)
The tone of R.N. was also tailored to George and McGlynn. The
first draft of this Encyclical, by the Jesuit Matteo Liberatore, was
"The Worker Question." Its focus was on the condition of
labor. As it evolved through 6 drafts, under Leo's supervision, it
became an attack on critics of private property in land; it
virtually blamed the poverty of labor on the critics of poverty, all
lumped as "socialists." A major influence was the team of
Cardinal Camillo Mazzella and Cardinal Zigliara, the same pair who
had recommended excommunicating Fr. Edward McGlynn, and putting
George's works on The Index of forbidden books.
Accordingly, the title was changed. Encyclicals are known by their
first words. Rerum Novarum cupidus ... (The unseemly lust for change
... ) was a put-down, well understood as such by Latinists of the
time, of which Leo XIII was a paragon. It referred to what today a
Tom Wolfe might put down as "radical chic," or "politically
correct," while also implying a taste for violence and plunder,
playing on the fear of revolution.
The actual phrase came from one of Abp. Michael Corrigan's
relentless Phillippics against McGlynn and a loyal friend, Edward
McSweeney, fired off in 1888. "Thus New York, the Vatican and
the late Roman Republic were bound up in the first line of the
encyclical" (Molony, p.115). He might have added the potato
patches of the Emerald Isle.
Above all, about one-third of the text of R.N. consists of
upholding private landownership, upheld by police power, and taking
nasty digs at the motives of nameless persons who believe otherwise.
These are "wily and restless men," they "take
advantage of confusion ... to cloud judgement and agitate the
masses, ... stirring up hatred of the rich among the poor ... which
would do no other than harm the workers themselves. Moreover it
would be unjust because it would set aside the rights of legitimate
owners, ... and throw the whole community into disorder. ... swayed
by false principles ... they try at any cost to stir up the masses
and move them to violence. The authority of the state must intervene
to rein in such agitators, ..." Etc., etc., etc. The
tendentious, slurring nature of these remarks clearly purports to
ban any honest consideration of the matters discussed.
As to private property, R.N. refers again and again to land. "...
land is simply his (the buyer's) wages in another form." ... "Nature
has given to man the right to stable and permanent possessions, ...
to be found only in the earth ... " "The gift of the earth
was not meant as a kind of common and indiscriminate form of
property. ... but it was left to the industry of man and the special
laws of individual nations to determine the manner in which it would
be divided up. ... Those who do not own land do their part by their
labour ... the right to private property is in agreement with the
law of nature. ... When a man uses his mind and body to obtain the
goods of the earth, ... he is justly able to claim it as his own,
... the right to private property has been recognised as
pre-eminently in conformity with human nature. ... The seal of the
divine law also authorises that right and goes so far as to forbid,
in severe terms, even the desire to possess that which belongs to
another. Thou shalt not covet ... it is the duty of public authority
to safeguard private property by the power and strength of law. "
Etc., etc., etc. Notably lacking is any reference to the teachings
These words are aimed like speeding arrows at Henry George. Whom
else do they target so directly?
7. The silent treatment
Abp. Michael Corrigan of New York harassed and persecuted McGlynn
avidly, relentlessly. He had a high degree of low cunning for
planting rumors and bearing gossip, but most of his attack was
blunt, confrontational, overt and public, and widely perceived as
personal and spiteful. In the process he alienated masses of
McGlynn's loyal parishioners, and sympathizers around the country,
as other hierarchs looked on aghast in helpless dismay. The flow of
Peter's Pence to Rome was cut sharply, attracting curial attention
in a most compelling way.
Several other hierarchs, both in the U.S. and Europe urged a
different course. Prominent among these was James Cardinal Gibbons,
Abp. of Baltimore. Gibbons through his rep. in Rome, Denis
O'Connell, saw danger in making martyrs of George and McGlynn, "which
might make George a hero of the Roman Inquisition, ... " He
urged silence, and "demanded absolutely that George be left in
"It would be undignified for Rome to notice George with a
condemnation." (Ellis, p.580- 82)
Gibbons urged instead that Leo issue an encyclical.
"(Gibbons) told the Pope by letter that he did not pretend
that the false theories of George should be tolerated by the Church,
but ... in his different encyclicals, the Pope had ... convinced
readers (on other matters). ... A similar instruction in the same
form ... on matters touching the right of property, would bear the
same authority." (Ellis, p.582).
The same sentiments flooded in from other quarters, including the
voices of Zigliara, Mazzella, and Abp. Ireland of St. Paul (Molony,
pp. 79, 85, 108). George was to be made a non-person, semper infra
Symptomatic of this tack was the amazing stratagem of placing
George's works on The Index, but then keeping that fact from the
public! This would seem to defeat the whole purpose of The Index,
unless the idea was to pass the word quietly to a few insiders with
clout, and highly developed skill in quietly spreading slander.
Another ploy was to play dumb about what George really said.
Neither Leo nor any of his stable of erudite, advanced scholars ever
seemed to get what George was saying. They persisted in treating him
as a kind of open-range commonizer, whom they lumped with all "socialists,"
although neither George nor most socialists held such a view.
The Vatican intellectuals did not arrive there by being stupid. It
is hard to be generous and interpret their slow learning as being
sincerely simple. Back in New York, Michael Corrigan was indeed a
bit thick, and in any case was too carried away by power anxiety and
personal spite to think clearly. The Jesuits and Dominicans of Rome,
on the other hand, were highly educated, learned men, far from the
scene of George as a political threat. Being multi-lingual they were
above semantic naÇvetQ. Mazzella and Zigliara had studied all
of George's works in the process of excommunicating McGlynn, and
consigning George to The Index. Leo was a renowned Latinist and a
deep student of Aquinas. These were not dull oafs, but highly
literate readers, capable of understanding and interpreting words
accurately. They can only have chosen to play dumb to trade on the
presumed naÇvetQ and credulity of their readers.
Finally, they emerge from the cover of confusion long enough to
condemn George's policy in R.N. itself, while keeping his name out
of it. Under "Unjust Taxes" R.N. warns that "excessive
taxes" will render real reforms impossible by exhausting
private means. Zeroing in on the target they write:
"The State would act in an unjust and inhumane manner were
it to exact more than is just from private owners (of land) under
the guise of a tax."
Take that, nameless wily covetous utopian with obsolete notions
seeking to stir up the masses with false doctrines and move them to
violence. One has to wonder why the authors of R.N., who seem so
incapable of grasping the essential Georgist position, suddenly can
state it so simply and clearly.
It took a few decades, but mainline economists slowly learned from
the Catholics. As documented in Gaffney and Harrison (1994), they
gradually stopped attacking George and McGlynn, and gave them the
silent treatment. This has been depressingly effective: few people
today have even heard of George and McGlynn.
8. Excursions and alarums
George had made much of everyone's right of access to land. R.N.
subtly twists this around: the "right to property" means
that everyone has a right to buy some else's property - with nothing
said about "just price." "Worker savings" were
urged, to enable workers to buy land, and "thus to canonize the
concept of private property" (Molony, p.96). Yet, at the same
time, the authors of R.N. decided that a "just wage" was
one high enough for the subsistence of the worker, but not of the
worker's family (p. 120). It was not explained how the workers might
save from such a wage.
The spectre of bloody revolution was waved at Henry George by
referring in R.N. to the "spirit of revolutionary change,"
as expressed by Karl Marx. As neither one is named in R.N., but
George's land tax is specified, it is fair to infer that the
tarbrush was aimed at George, a man who never touched any weapon but
the ballot box.
Certain hierarchs perceived Henry George and Fr. Edward McGlynn as
dangerous threats to the R.C.C. This was not just in spite of
George's and McGlynn's deep religiosity, but in part because of it.
Their fault lay in using religious concepts like morality and
natural law to dispute the philosophical basis of private property
in land, in which the hierarchs showed themselves to have a
paramount interest; and to advance a practical means of doing
something about it.
In response, Pope Leo XIII issued R.N., which redefined Catholic
social doctrine from 1891 to the present. This encyclical manifests
an obsession with upholding private property in land, to which it
subordinates its ostensible goal of showing concern for the working
poor and the unemployed. Detailed? analysis of its provenance, made
available by modern Catholic scholars, reveals it to be primarily a
reaction to the ideas of? Henry George, and their injection by Fr.
Edward McGlynn into R.C.C. doctrines. The sources also reveal a
conscious strategy of countering George and McGlynn by traducing
their motives, misstating their ideas, and suppressing their names.
In this respect, it seems to provide a model for the stratagem
gradually adopted over the next 40 years by the economics
profession, as outlined in Gaffney and Harrison (1994), The
Corruption of Economics.
- Aarons, Mark, and John Loftus, 1991. Unholy Trinity. New York:
St. Martin's Press
- A. Alvarez, Fr. Juan, 1917. Estudio Filos£fico Crftico del
Libro 'Progreso y Miseria,' de Henry George, un sus Cuestiones
Fundamentales y el Alivio Social. Madrid: Perlado, Pßez y
- Compa±ia. Imprimatur: Obispo de Madrid-Alcßla.
- Andelson, Robert, 1979a. "Cathrein's Careless Clerical
Critique." Chap. 9 in Andelson (ed.), pp.126-36.
- Andelson, Robert V., 1979b. "Ryan and his Domestication of
Natural Law." Chap. 24 in
- Andelson, Robert V. (ed.), 1979c. Critics of Henry George.
Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
- Barker, Charles A., 1955, Henry George. New York: Oxford
- Bell, Stephen, 1938. Rebel, Priest and Prophet. NY: The
- Busey, James L., 1979. "Alcßzar's 'Most Voluminous
of all Assaults'." Chap. 23 in Andelson (ed.), pp.326-41.
- Cathrein, Victor, 1889. The Champions of Agrarian Socialism: a
Refutation of Émile de Laveleye and Henry George. Transl.
Rev. J.U. Heinzle. Buffalo: Peter Paul & Bro.
- Crofts, A.M., 1948, Property and Poverty, a treatise on private
ownership according to the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas. St.
Saviour's, Dublin, C.16: Irish Rosary Office.
- Cunningham, Sister Miriam Ann, 1950, "A Thomistic
Appraisal of the Philosophy of Henry George." MA "dissertation,"
School of Philosophy, Cath. U. (Sees the single tax as an "agrarian"
reform, says Yisroel Pensack.)
- Curran, Robert Emmett, 1978. Michael Augustine Corrigan and the
Shaping of Conservative Catholicism in America, 1878-1902. NY:
- Ellis, John Tracy, (date not reproduced). The Life of James
Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-1921. Vol. I.
Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company.
- Gaffney, Mason, 1987. "The Philippines: Land Reform
through Tax Reform." Paper delivered to Conference on Land
Reform and Development in the Philippines, World Affairs Council,
San Francisco, 20 Oct 87, pp.1-9.
- Gaffney, Mason, and Fred Harrison, 1994. The Corruption of
Economics. London: Shepheard-Walwyn.
- Gaffney, Edward McGlynn, Jr., 1997. Review of Georges Passelecq
and Bernard Suchecky, The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI, The Los
Angeles Times, 7 Sept., Book Review Section, p.10
- Geiger, George R., 1933, The Philosophy of Henry George. New
York: The Macmillan Co.
- George, Henry, 1891. The Condition of Labor: an Open Letter to
Pope Leo XIII. Rpt. 1965, New York: The Robert Schalkenbach
- Gibbons, James Cardinal, 1887. "A SON EMINENCE LE CARDINAL
SIMEONI, PRÉFET DE LA S. CONGRÉGATION DE LA
PROPAGANDE." Sujet: La Question des Qcrits de Henri George.
From the "Archives Archdiocese Baltimore," copy of
letter in French from "J. Card. GIBBONS, ArchQvWque de
Baltimore." 28 Fevrier 1887. Written from Rome.
- Gilhooley, Fr. James, 1983. "Soggarth Aroon, 'The Precious
Priest'." America, March 19, pp.205-07
- Hudson, Michael, and Baruch Levine, 1996. Privatization in the
Ancient Near East and Classical World. Peabody Museum Bulletin #5.
Cambridge: Peabody Museum.
- Isacsson, Alfred, O. Carm., n.d. (ca. 1996). The Determined
Doctor, The Story of Edward McGlynn. Tarrytown, NY: The Vestigium
- Leo XIII, 1891. Rerum Novarum. Vatican City.
- Malone, xx, 1918, Dr. Edward McGlynn. New York. Press
- McGlynn, Edward, 1887. "The New Know-Nothingism and the
Old." The North American Review, August, 192-205.
- Molony, John, 1991. The Worker Question. A new historical
perspective on Rerum Novarum. North Blackburn, Victoria,
Australia: Collins Dove.
- Preuss, Arthur (ed.), 1908. The Fundamental Fallacy of
Socialism. An exposition of the question of landownership:
comprising an authentic account of the famous McGlynn case.
(Revision and enlargement of contributions to the Catholic
Fortnightly Review, Arthur Preuss, Ed. St. Louis, and Freiburg
(Baden): B. Herder. Imprimatur, Joannes J. Glennon, Archeprocopus
St. Ludovici, 1907. Copyright 1908 by Joseph Gummersbach.
[microform]: Minifiche CAB, Am. Theological Library Assn (ATLA)
Monograph Preservation Program; ATLA Fiche 1986-1010
- Regal, Charles, n.d. "Father Edward McGlynn's Views on
Land, Poverty, and the Church," unpublished paper reported in
Newsletter, Henry George School of California, June, 1975, p.1
- Ryan, Fr. John A., 1916, Distributive Justice (Rev. ed. 1927
New York: Macmillan).
- Speek, Peter A., 1917. The Single Tax and the Labor Movement.
Madison: Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin No. 878 (Ph.D.
- Tawney, R.H., rpt. 1961. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.
NY: Penguin Books.
- De Concilio, Januarius, 1888. "The Right of Individual
Ownership - Does it Spring from the Natural or the Human Law?"
American Catholic Quarterly Review 13 (April), pp.270-303.
- Nuesse, C. Joseph, 1985. "Henry George and Rerum Novarum."
- Zwierlein, Frederick J., 1946. Letters of Abp. Corrigan to
Bishop McQuaid and Allied Documents. Rochester.