Details zum Objekt: Instytucja własności w myśli polskich solidarystów katolickich okresu międzywojennego

Beschreibung

• PLMET:
  
  http://confluence.man.poznan.pl/community/display/FBCMETGUIDE
• Title:
  
  
  Instytucja własności w myśli polskich solidarystów katolickich okresu międzywojennego
• Alternative title:
  
  
  The institution of property in the thought of Polish Catholic solidarists of the interwar period
   ;
  
  Ìnstitucìâ vlasnostì v rozumìnnì polʹsʹkih katolicʹkih solìdaristìv mìžvoênnogo perìodu
• Group publication title:
  
  
  Wrocławsko-Lwowskie Zeszyty Prawnicze = Vroclavs'ko-L'vìvs'kij Ûridičnij Zbìrnik. 2022, 13
• Creator:
  
  
  Firlej, Bartosz
  
• Subject and Keywords:
  
  
  Catholic solidarism
   ;
  Polish political and legal thought
   ;
  property
   ;
  interwar period
   ;
  catholic social teaching
   ;
  
  
  solidaryzm katolicki
   ;
  polska myśl polityczno-prawna
   ;
  własność
   ;
  dwudziestolecie międzywojenne
   ;
  katolicka nauka społeczna
   ;
  
  katolicʹkij solìdarizm
   ;
  polʹsʹka polìtično-pravova dumka
   ;
  vlas-nìstʹ
   ;
  mìžvoênne dvadčâtirìččâ
   ;
  katolicʹka suspìlʹna nauka
• Abstract:
  
  
  The subject of the paper is an analysis of the views of representatives of Polish Catholic solidarism on the institution of property, its social role, desired shape and possible and necessary limitations. The most important representatives of Polish Catholic solidarism were: Fr. Antoni Szymański, Fr. Aleksander Wóycicki, Prof. Leopold Caro, Fr. Antoni Roszkowski, Prof. Ludwik Górski, Fr. Jan Urban, Bishop Teodor Kubina, Fr. Jan Piwowarczyk, Prof. Juliusz Makarewicz, as well as the later Primate of Poland, Fr. Stefan Wyszyński. Representatives of this current considered property to be the basis of the state’s legal and political system and founded this concept on theological premises. Referring to the encyclical Rerum novarum, they recognized God as the owner of all that was created by Him. Another source of property, in their opinion, was human labour. Bishop Kubina especially strongly emphasized this factor, saying that God performs some kind of work on the objects of His property, maintaining their existence. Since man is created in the image of God, he must take care of his own property, and thus man, in some sense, shares in God’s work of creation. Leopold Caro, analyzing theories of the origin of property, argued that not only labour, but also capital creates property; however, priority in terms of protection should be given to property derived from labour. Catholic solidarists (including Fr. Antoni Szymański), referring to the concept of Léon Duguit, emphasized the social function of property and pointed out that only property fulfilling this function deserves protection. Based on Catholic social teaching, Polish Catholic solidarists saw significant threats to property rights on the side of both socialism and capitalism. According to Catholic solidarists, private property was not an unlimited right, as it was perceived under Roman law. This institution was associated with a number of obligations on the part of the owner. Bishop Kubina recognized that the Creator allowed social inequalities, but that people would try to overcome them. Leopold Caro argued that property should be used to help the economically weaker social strata. Caro was the most outspoken of the Catholic solidarist circle on the permissible restrictions on ownership. He argued that they may be introduced due to the maintenance of social order, the threat of natural disasters, the economic needs of the state (for example, construction of infrastructure) or related to state security, as well as protection against the effects of excessive concentration or improper allocation of property. The scholar was also a supporter of the institution of expropriation for public purposes. The size and boundaries of the limitations were to be determined by the current social and state needs. The views of Polish Catholic solidarists on the land reform were not uniform. Polish Catholic solidarists promoted the position of Leo XIII regarding the necessity to distribute property among the general public. This was emphasized in numerous works by Leopold Caro. Juliusz Makarewicz added an argument according to which the distribution of property in society is a sine qua non condition for maintaining the principle of equality of individuals in society. Private property was perceived by the representatives of the analyzed current as a necessary social institution.
   ;
  
  Predmetom cìêï stattì ê analìz poglâdìv ta rozumìnnâ predstavnikìv polʹsʹkogo katolicʹkogo vlasnostì solìdarizmu u stavlennì do ìnstitucìï vlasnostì, ïï suspìlʹnoï rolì, bažanoï formi razom ìz neobhìdnimi omežennâmi. Do najvažlivìših predstavni solìdarizmu u stavlennì do ìnstitucìï vlasnostkìv polʹsʹkogo katolicʹkogo solìdarizmu slìd vìdnesti: o. Antonìâ Šimansʹkogo, o. Aleksandra Vujčìcʹkogo, prof. Leopolʹda Karo, o. Antonìâ Roškovsʹkogo, prof. Lûdvìka G̀ursʹkogo, o. Âna Urbana, Êp. Teodora Kubìnu, o. Âna Pìvovarčika, prof. Ûlìuša Makarevìča, a takož pìznìšogo primasa – Stefana Višinsʹkogo. Predstavniki cʹogo ruhu viznavali, ŝo osnovoû deržavnogo ladu ê vlasnìstʹ, bazuûči pri čomu cû ìstinu na teologìčnih pìdvalinah. Opiraûčisʹ na enciklìku Rerum novarum, viznavali Boga za vlasnika vsʹogo, ŝo nim bulo stvoreno. Nastupnim džerelom vlasnostì, na ïh perekonannâ, bula lûdsʹka pracâ. Ìz osoblivim natiskom pìdkreslûvav vagu cʹogo činnika Êpiskop Kubìna, vìdstoûûči dumku, ŝo Bog nače sam vikonuê robotu nad predmetom svoêï vlasnostì, zabezpečuûûči tim samim jogo ìsnuvannâ. A oskìlʹki lûdina stvorena na obraz ta podobu Božu, to musitʹ pìkluvatisʹ svoêû vlasnìstû ì vìdpovìdno, takim činom, lûdina u pevnomu značennì maê svoû častku u sotvorenomu Bogom tvorì. Leopolʹd Karo, analìzuûči teorìû pohodžennâ vlasnostì, stverdžuvav, ŝo ne tìlʹki pracâ, ale ì takož kapìtal služitʹ dlâ stvorennâ pev vlasnostì, prote peršìstʹ povinna naležati vlasnostì, ŝo vinikla ìz pracì. Katolicʹkì solìdaristi (zokrema o. Antonìj Šimansʹkij), rozglâdaûči koncepcìû Leona Dûg̀ì, nagološuvali na značennì suspìlʹnoï funkcìï vlasnostì ì vkazuvali na te, ŝo tìlʹki ta vlasnìstʹ, âka realìzovuê tu funkcìû, zaslugovuê na zahist. Opiraûčisʹ na katolicʹku suspìlʹnu nauku, polʹsʹkì katolicʹkì tu solìdaristi vbačali suttêvì zagrozi dlâ vlasnostì âk z boku socìalìzmu, tak ì kapìtalìzmu. Na dumku katolicʹkih solìdaristìv, privatna vlasnìstʹ ne stanovila soboû neobmežene pravo, tak âk ce rozumìlosʹ v kontekstì rimsʹkogo prava. Ìz cìêû ìnstitucìêû pov`âzuvavsâ cìlij râd obov`âzkìv ìz boku vlasnika. Êpiskop Kubìna buv perekonanij, ŝo Tvorecʹ dopustiv socìalʹnu nerìvnìstʹ, tìlʹki dlâ togo, ŝob lûdi samì mogli ïï vipraviti. Leopolʹd Karo tverdiv, ŝo vlasnìstʹ povinna buti vikoristana dlâ pìdtrimki socìalʹnih verstv, âkì ekonomìčno ê slabkimi. Leopolʹd Karo – odin ìz avtorìv kola katolicʹkih solìdaristìv, kotrij najbìlʹš točno vislovivsâ na temu dopustimih obmeženʹ vlasnostì. Zokrema kazav, ŝo možutʹ voni (obmežennâ) buti vprovadženì z oglâdu na zberežennâ suspìlʹnogo ladu, zagrozu stihìjnogo liha, ekonomìčnih potreb deržavi (napr. budìvnictvo ìnfrastrukturi) abo buti zv`âzanimi z bezpekoû deržavi, a takož zahistom pered naslìdkami nadmìrnoï koncentracìï abo nepravilʹnoï alokacìï vlasnostì. Včenij buv takož prihilʹnikom ìnstitucìï eksproprìacìï na potrebi gromadsʹkostì. Pri cʹomu rozmìri ta mìri obmeženʹ viznačaûtʹsâ aktualʹnimi suspìlʹno-deržavnimi potrebami. Ŝo stosuêtʹsâ poglâdìv na temu sìlʹsʹkogospodarsʹkoï reformi, to voni u katolicʹkih solìdaristìv u Polʹŝì ne buli odnostajnimi. Polʹsʹkì katolicʹkì solìdaristi propaguvali pozicìû Leva XIII, ŝo stosuvalosʹ neobhìdnostì rozpoširennâ vlasnostì sered širokih mas suspìlʹstva. Na cʹomu zokrema nagološuvav u svoï čiselʹnih pracâh Leopolʹd Karo. Ûlìuš Makarevìč do cʹogo dodavav ŝe takij argument, zgìdno z âkim rozpoširennâ u suspìlʹstvì vlasnostì ê umovoû sine qua non zberežennâ principu rìvnostì sub`êktìv u suspìlʹstvì. Privatna vlasnìstʹ rozglâdalasʹ predstavnikami analìzovanogo ruhu âk neobhìdna suspìlʹna ìnstitucìâ.
• Place of publishing:
  
  
  Wrocław
• Publisher:
  
  
  Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego
• Contributor:
  
  
  Bojko, Andrìj Mihajlovič
  :
  Redaktor,
   ;
  Marszał, Maciej
  :
  Redaktor,
• Institution:
  
  
  Uniwersytet Wrocławski. Wydział Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii. Koło Naukowe Prawa Finansowego
   ;
  Lʹvìvsʹkij nacìonalʹnij unìversitet ìm. Ìvana Franka. Ûridičnij fakulʹtet
• Date issued:
  
  2022
• Resource Type:
  
  
  text
   ;
  
  
  tekst
• Detailed Type:
  
  
  article
   ;
  
  
  artykuł
• Identifier:
  
  oai:repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl:140565  ;
  ISSN 2082-4939
• Source:
  
  PAd P 102216 II
• Language:
  
  pol
• Abstract Language :
  
  eng
   ;
  ukr
• Is version of:
  
  
  Czasopisma Naukowe w Sieci
• Access rights:
  
  
  The use of this material is allowed only with accordance of applicable rules of fair use or other exceptions provided by law, and any broader use requires the permission of the authorized entity
   ;
  
  
  Korzystanie z tego materiału jest możliwe zgodnie z właściwymi przepisami o dozwolonym użytku lub innych wyjątkach przewidzianych w przepisach prawa, a korzystanie w szerszym zakresie wymaga uzyskania zgody uprawnionego
• License:
  
  
  Making materials available on the basis of the agreement with the owner of the property copyrights
   ;
  
  
  Udostępnianie na podstawie umowy z właścicielem majątkowych praw autorskich
• Rights holder:
  
  Copyright by Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego Sp. z o.o.
   ;
  Copyright by CNS
• Autor opisu:
  
  WR U/PAdks

Das Objekt befindet sich in den Sammlungen:

Zusätzliche Informationen

• Erstellungsdatum: 2024-01-12
• Zuletzt geändert am: 2024-02-29
• Anzahl der Ansichten des Inhaltsobjekts: 55
• Sie können auch die Beschreibung des Objekts in diesen Formaten herunterladen:
  RDF
   ;
  OAI-PMH
• Laden Sie das IIIF-Manifest herunter:
  https://repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/iiif-manifest/manifest/140565/PDF.json