Quadragesimo Anno - a Summary

To understand where Pope Francis is coming from in economics you have to read the writings that affected him. Quadragesimo Anno is a very good place to start.

If you wish to read the whole document, without my emphasis (capitalized) and my commentary notes, here is the link to it at the Vatican's website:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

From Quadragesimo Anno (1931) - Pope Pius XI

Paragraph 4:

“ . . . THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT IN THEIR ABUNDANT RICHES THE RESULT OF INEVITABLE ECONOMIC LAWS AND ACCORDINGLY, AS IF IT WERE FOR CHARITY TO VEIL THE VIOLATION OF JUSTICE WHICH LAWMAKERS NOT ONLY TOLERATED BUT AT TIMES SANCTIONED, WANTED THE WHOLE CARE OF SUPPORTING THE POOR  COMMITTED TO CHARITY ALONE. THE WORKERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, CRUSHED BY THEIR HARD LOT, WERE BARELY ENDURING IT AND WERE REFUSING LONGER TO BEND THEIR NECKS BENEATH SO GALLING A YOKE; AND SOME OF THEM, CARRIED AWAY BY THE HEAT OF EVIL COUNSEL, WERE SEEKING THE OVERTURN OF EVERYTHING, while others, whom Christian training restrained from such evil designs, stood firm in the judgment that much in this had to be wholly and speedily changed”.

Note: The powers that be wanted “ . . . the whole care of supporting the poor committed to charity alone.” And isn’t it interesting that over 83 years later, and with very strong voices, many who will soon be sitting in Congress are saying the same thing and fully and deliberately intend to put up social structures that will do this evil thing.

Charity being used to “veil the violation of justice”. True then; still true now. Sad how little the hearts of many men and women have changed in over eight decades.  Sadder still that many American Catholics today are following this lie and think they are doing good works and helping the poor or else use this teaching as an excuse not to give any charity at all - especially to those who beg from them.

And the consequence of all this - a reaction from the oppressed which is just as evil: getting "carried away by the heat of evil counsel" -  desiring justice by overthrowing everything and collectivizing it all so that no one owns anything with the State being in absolute control. 

Paragraph 5:

“The same feeling those many Catholics, BOTH PRIESTS AND LAYMEN, shared, whom a truly wonderful charity had long spurred on to relieve the unmerited poverty of the non-owning workers, and who COULD IN NO WAY CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT SO ENORMOUS AND UNJUST AN IN EQUALITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS WORLD'S GOODS TRULY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGNS OF THE ALL-WISE CREATOR.

Note: it never has; but many believe it’s always been that way. Do you see Pope Francis’ teaching: “The root of evil is inequality” here?

Paragraph 6:

“Those men were without question sincerely seeking an immediate remedy for this lamentable disorganization of States and a secure safeguard against worse dangers. Yet such is the weakness of even the best of human minds that, now rejected as dangerous innovators, now hindered in the good work by their very associates advocating other courses of action, and, uncertain in the face of various opinions, they were at a loss which way to turn”.

Paragraph 7:

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum, whose 40th  anniversary is celebrated here “ . . . took it upon himself with great courage to defend ‘the cause of the workers whom the present age had handed over, each alone and defenseless, to the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors.’ He sought no help from either Liberalism or Socialism, for the one had proved that it was utterly unable to solve the social problem aright, and the other, proposing a remedy far worse than the evil itself, would have plunged human society into great dangers”.

Paragraph 14:

“ . . . THE TEACHING OF LEO XIII, SO NOBLE AND LOFTY AND SO UTTERLY NEW TO WORLDLY EARS, WAS HELD SUSPECT BY SOME, EVEN AMONG CATHOLICS, AND TO CERTAIN ONES IT EVEN GAVE OFFENSE For it boldly attacked and overturned the idols of Liberalism, ignored long-standing prejudices, and was in advance of its time beyond all expectation, so that the slow of heart disdained to study this new social philosophy and the timid feared to scale so lofty a height..There were some also who stood, indeed, in awe at its splendor, but regarded it as a utopian ideal desirable rather than attainable in practice”.

Note: “ . . . and to certain [Catholics] it even gave offense.” And in 2014 to their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren it continues to give offense, and in response they are kicking violently against the goad; the last group is even teaching their own children, the great-great grandchildren, still innocents, to do it. It’s not an unattainable “utopian ideal”. It is an error to hold that belief - especially for Catholics (translation of “utopian ideal” here taken from the Daughters of St. Paul, St. Paul Editions).

Note: "Liberalism" is not what we understand today as being "liberal"; rather, it refers to a system of economics from which, among others, free market capitalism is derived.  Both it and socialism will be denounced later in the encyclical.

Paragraph 25: 

“Leo XIII, boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BE THOUGHT A MERE GUARDIAN OF LAW AND OF GOOD ORDER, BUT RATHER MUST PUT FORTH EVERY EFFORT SO THAT ‘THROUGH THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS . . . BOTH PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING MAY DEVELOP SPONTANEOUSLY OUT OF THE VERY STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE.’ Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. ‘FOR THE NATION, AS IT WERE, OF THE RICH IS GUARDED BY ITS OWN DEFENSES AND IS IN LESS NEED OF GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION, WHEREAS THE SUFFERING MULTITUDE, WITHOUT THE MEANS TO PROTECT ITSELF RELIES ESPECIALLY ON THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE. WHEREFORE, SINCE WAGEWORKERS ARE NUMBERED AMONG THE GREAT MASS OF THE NEEDY, THE STATE MUST INCLUDE THEM UNDER ITS SPECIAL CARE AND FORESIGHT."

Note: here you find, properly defined, the role of the State in economic affairs. It goes clear contrary to what many voices in our country are saying, even many Catholic voices, and certainly is not in sync at all with many of those who will be taking office in Congress early next year (2015).

Paragraph 30:

“FOR AT THAT TIME IN MANY NATIONS THOSE AT THE HELM OF STATE, PLAINLY IMBUED WITH LIBERALISM, WERE SHOWING LITTLE FAVOR TO WORKERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF THIS TYPE; NAY, RATHER THEY OPENLY OPPOSED THEM, and while

going out of their way to recognize similar organizations of other classes and show favor to them, they were with criminal injustice denying the natural right to form associations to those who needed it most to defend themselves from ill treatment at the hands of the powerful. There were EVEN SOME CATHOLICS WHO LOOKED ASKANCE AT THE EFFORTS OF WORKERS TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS OF THIS TYPE AS IF THEY SMACKED OF A SOCIALISTIC OR  REVOLUTIONARY SPIRIT”.

Note: Worker’s unions. “ . . [E]ven Some Catholics Who Looked Askance at the Efforts of Workers to Form Associations . . .” My! And in 2014, going 2015, there are still many Catholics still behaving this way.

Paragraph 32: 

“With respect to the founding of these societies, the Encyclical Rerum Novarum most fittingly declared that "WORKERS' ASSOCIATIONS OUGHT TO BE SO CONSTITUTED AND SO GOVERNED AS TO FURNISH THE MOST SUITABLE AND MOST CONVENIENT MEANS TO ATTAIN THE OBJECT PROPOSED, WHICH CONSISTS IN THIS, THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION SECURE, SO FAR AS IS POSSIBLE, AN INCREASE IN THE GOODS OF BODY, OF SOUL, AND OF PROPERTY,"

Paragraph 35:

“THESE UNIONS, HOWEVER, SHOULD ALWAYS PROFESS JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND GIVE CATHOLIC MEMBERS FULL FREEDOM TO CARE FOR THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE AND OBEY THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH. It is clearly the office of bishops, when they know that these associations are on account of circumstances necessary and are not dangerous to religion, to approve of Catholic workers joining them, keeping before their eyes, however, the principles and precautions laid down by Our Predecessor, Pius X of holy memory.[24] Among these precautions the first and chief is this: Side by side with THESE UNIONS THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE ASSOCIATIONS ZEALOUSLY ENGAGED IN IMBUING AND FORMING THEIR MEMBERS IN THE TEACHING OF RELIGION AND MORALITY SO THAT THEY IN TURN MAY BE ABLE TO PERMEATE THE UNIONS WITH THAT GOOD SPIRIT which should direct them in all their activity.”

Paragraph 38:

“BUT IF THIS CANNOT BE SAID OF ORGANIZATIONS which Our same Predecessor intensely desired ESTABLISHED AMONG EMPLOYERS AND MANAGERS OF INDUSTRY - AND WE CERTAINLY REGRET THAT THEY ARE SO FEW - THE CONDITION IS NOT WHOLLY DUE TO THE WILL OF MEN BUT TO FAR GRAVER DIFFICULTIES THAT HINDER ASSOCIATIONS OF THIS KIND WHICH WE KNOW WELL AND ESTIMATE AT THEIR FULL VALUE. THERE IS, HOWEVER, STRONG HOPE THAT THESE OBSTACLES ALSO WILL BE REMOVED SOON, and even now We greet with the deepest joy of Our soul, certain by no means insignificant attempts in this direction, the rich fruits of which promise a still richer harvest

in the future.

Note: And the world still is waiting for these “employer organizations” to come.

Paragraph 39:

“LEO'S ENCYCLICAL HAS PROVED ITSELF THE MAGNA CHARTA UPON WHICH ALL CHRISTIAN ACTIVITY IN THE SOCIAL FIELD OUGHT TO BE BASED, as on a foundation. And THOSE WHO WOULD SEEM TO HOLD IN LITTLE ESTEEM THIS PAPAL ENCYCLICAL and its commemoration either BLASPHEME WHAT THEY KNOW NOT, OR UNDERSTAND NOTHING OF WHAT THEY ARE ONLY SUPERFICIALLY ACQUAINTED WITH, OR IF THEY DO UNDERSTAND CONVICT THEMSELVES FORMALLY OF INJUSTICE AND INGRATITUDE.

Note: “[B]laspheme what they know not [or] . . . if they do understand convict themselves formally of injustice and ingratitude”. And men and women in and out of the Church did that to this Encyclical and every single one right to Pope Francis’ most recent one. Lots and lots of work here to do to even get the Catholic faithful on the right mark - that’s sure!

Paragraph 41:

“[T]hat principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that THERE RESIDES IN US THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO PRONOUNCE WITH SUPREME AUTHORITY UPON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC MATTERS. Certainly the Church was not given the commission to guide men to an only fleeting and perishable happiness but to that which is eternal. Indeed" the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns"; however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in ALL THINGS THAT ARE CONNECTED WITH THE MORAL LAW.”

Note: this is the answer to "why" any Pope has the right to comment on economics (and even on the environment as Pope Francis will soon be doing) - because "all things are connected with the moral law."

Paragraphs 44-45:

“OUR PREDECESSOR OF HAPPY MEMORY [LEO XXII) STRONGLY DEFENDED THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY AGAINST THE TENETS OF THE SOCIALISTS OF HIS TIME BY SHOWING THAT ITS ABOLITION WOULD RESULT, NOT TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE WORKING CLASS, BUT TO THEIR EXTREME HARM. YET SINCE THERE ARE SOME WHO CALUMNIATE THE SUPREME PONTIFF, AND THE CHURCH HERSELF, AS IF SHE HAD TAKEN AND WERE STILL TAKING THE PART OF THE RICH AGAINST THE NON-OWNING WORKERS - CERTAINLY NO ACCUSATION IS MORE UNJUST THAN THAT - and since Catholics are at variance with one another concerning the true and exact mind of Leo, it has seemed best to vindicate this, that is, the Catholic teaching on this matter from calumnies and safeguard it from false interpretations.

First, then, let it be considered as certain and established THAT NEITHER LEO NOR THOSE THEOLOGIANS WHO HAVE TAUGHT UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND AUTHORITY OF THE

CHURCH HAVE EVER DENIED OR QUESTIONED THE TWOFOLD CHARACTER OF OWNERSHIP, CALLED USUALLY INDIVIDUAL OR SOCIAL ACCORDING AS IT REGARDS

EITHER SEPARATE PERSONS OR THE COMMON GOOD. FOR THEY HAVE ALWAYS UNANIMOUSLY MAINTAINED THAT NATURE, RATHER THE CREATOR HIMSELF, HAS GIVEN MAN THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP NOT ONLY THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES . . .”

Paragraph 46:

“ACCORDINGLY, TWIN ROCKS OF SHIPWRECK MUST BE CAREFULLY AVOIDED. FOR, AS ONE IS WRECKED UPON, OR COMES CLOSE TO, WHAT IS KNOWN AS "INDIVIDUALISM" BY DENYING OR MINIMIZING THE SOCIAL AND PUBLIC CHARACTER OF THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY, SO BY REJECTING OR MINIMIZING THE PRIVATE AND INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OF THIS SAME RIGHT, ONE INEVITABLY RUNS INTO "COLLECTIVISM" OR AT LEAST CLOSELY APPROACHES ITS TENETS. UNLESS THIS IS KEPT IN MIND, ONE IS SWEPT FROM HIS COURSE UPON THE SHOALS OF THAT MORAL, JURIDICAL, AND SOCIAL MODERNISM which We denounced in the Encyclical issued at the beginning of Our Pontificate. And, in particular, let those realize this who, in their desire for innovation, do not scruple to reproach the Church with infamous calumnies, as if she

had allowed to creep into the teachings of her theologians a pagan concept of ownership which must be completely replaced by another that they with amazing ignorance call "Christian."

Note: here in the unabashed condemnation of both Capitalism and Socialism: the TWIN rocks of moral shipwreck.

Note: Pius XI admonishes those (Socialists) who assert that the Church’s understanding of private property is a concept borrowed from paganism and therefore must be replaced with something in their astounding ignorance they call “Christian”.

Paragraph 47:

“In order to place definite limits on the controversies that have arisen over ownership and its inherent duties there must be first laid down as foundation a principle established by Leo XIII: The right of property is distinct from its use. That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others' rights through the exceeding of the limits of one's own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which "cannot be enforced by legal action." Therefore, THEY ARE IN ERROR WHO ASSERT THAT OWNERSHIP AND ITS RIGHT USE ARE LIMITED by the same boundaries; and it is much FARTHER STILL FROM THE TRUTH TO HOLD THAT A RIGHT TO PROPERTY IS DESTROYED OR LOST BY REASON OF ABUSE OR NON-USE”.

Paragraph 48:

IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT WE HAVE TERMED THE INDIVIDUAL AND AT THE SAME TIME SOCIAL CHARACTER OF OWNERSHIP, THAT MEN MUST CONSIDER IN THIS MATTER NOT ONLY THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE BUT ALSO THE COMMON GOOD. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. THEREFORE, PUBLIC AUTHORITY, UNDER THE GUIDING LIGHT ALWAYS OF THE NATURAL AND DIVINE LAW, CAN DETERMINE MORE ACCURATELY UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE TRUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMON GOOD, WHAT IS PERMITTED AND WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED TO OWNERS IN

THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.

Paragraph 49:

It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. TO DEFINE THESE DUTIES IN DETAIL WHEN NECESSITY REQUIRES AND THE NATURAL LAW HAS NOT DONE SO, IS THE FUNCTION OF THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE STATE. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property . . . That the State is not permitted to discharge its duty arbitrarily is, however, clear. THE NATURAL RIGHT ITSELF BOTH OF OWNING GOODS PRIVATELY AND OF PASSING THEM ON BY INHERITANCE OUGHT ALWAYS TO REMAIN INTACT AND INVIOLATE, SINCE THIS INDEED IS A RIGHT THAT THE STATE CANNOT TAKE AWAY: "For man is older than the State," and also "domestic living together is prior both in thought and in fact to uniting into a polity." Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. "For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature, PUBLIC AUTHORITY CANNOT ABOLISH IT, BUT CAN ONLY CONTROL ITS EXERCISE AND BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE COMMON WEAL." YET WHEN THE STATE BRINGS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP INTO HARMONY WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMON GOOD, IT DOES NOT COMMIT A HOSTILE ACT AGAINST PRIVATE OWNERS BUT RATHER DOES THEM A FRIENDLY SERVICE; for it.

Note: the right of private property is solidly affirmed by the Pope, but he also just as solidly affirms that the right is not absolute as there is a social contract - the common good - which overarches it and the State has a role to see to it that common good does not get lost in the right of private property and not simply to act as the enforcer of social order.  See how far the USA’s economic system is from what is right and just? Indeed many here, in fact a lot of American Catholics I think, WOULD hold that for the State to bring ownership into harmony with the common good IS an overtly a hostile act against the free-wheeling economy of the Nation.

Paragraph 50:

“ . . . a person's superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the SACRED SCRIPTURES AND THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH CONSTANTLY DECLARE IN THE MOST EXPLICIT LANGUAGE THAT THE RICH ARE BOUND BY A VERY GRAVE PRECEPT TO PRACTICE ALMSGIVING, BENEFICENCE, AND MUNIFICENCE”.

Note: “Superfluous income” is defined: that which one “ . . . does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity”. That’s clear, but some still try, through sophistry, to bend “fittingly” and “with dignity” to allow them to acquire scandalous affluence. That’s a sin. There’s only so much wealth a person needs and Holy Father says exactly what that means.

Note: with of course the understanding that it, charity, is not to be done as the sole response to social evils which the cause of poverty/pauperism . . .

Paragraph 52:

That ownership is originally acquired both by occupancy of a thing not owned by any one and by labor, or, as is said, by specification, the tradition of all ages . . . For, whatever some idly say to the contrary, NO INJURY IS DONE TO ANY PERSON WHEN A THING IS OCCUPIED THAT IS AVAILABLE TO ALL BUT BELONGS TO NO ONE; HOWEVER, ONLY THAT LABOR WHICH A MAN PERFORMS IN HIS OWN NAME AND BY VIRTUE OF WHICH A NEW FORM OR INCREASE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO A THING GRANTS HIM TITLE TO THESE FRUITS.

Paragraph: 53: Far different is the nature of work that is hired out to others and expended on the property of others. To this indeed especially applies what Leo XIII says is "incontestible," namely, that "the wealth of nations originates from no other source than from the labor of workers."[38] For is it not plain that the enormous volume of goods that makes up human wealth is produced by and issues from the hands of the workers that either toil unaided or have their efficiency marvelously increased by being equipped with tools or machines? EVERY ONE KNOWS, TOO, THAT NO NATION HAS EVER RISEN OUT OF WANT AND POVERTY TO A BETTER AND NOBLER CONDITION SAVE BY THE ENORMOUS AND COMBINED TOIL OF ALL THE PEOPLE, BOTH THOSE WHO MANAGE WORK AND THOSE WHO CARRY OUT DIRECTIONS. BUT IT IS NO LESS EVIDENT THAT, HAD NOT GOD THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, IN KEEPING WITH HIS GOODNESS, FIRST GENEROUSLY BESTOWED NATURAL RICHES AND RESOURCES - THE WEALTH AND FORCES OF NATURE - SUCH SUPREME EFFORTS WOULD HAVE BEEN IDLE AND VAIN, INDEED COULD NEVER EVEN HAVE BEGUN. FOR WHAT ELSE IS WORK BUT TO USE OR EXERCISE THE ENERGIES OF MIND AND BODY ON OR THROUGH THESE VERY THINGS? And in the application of natural resources to human use the law of nature, or rather God's will promulgated by it, demands that right order be observed. This order consists in this: that each thing have its proper owner. Hence it follows that unless a man is expending labor on his own property, the labor of one person and the property of another must be associated, for neither can produce anything without the other. Leo XIII certainly had this in mind when he wrote: "NEITHER CAPITAL CAN DO WITHOUT LABOR, NOR LABOR WITHOUT CAPITAL."

Paragraph 54:

“ Property, that is, "capital," has undoubtedly long been able to appropriate too much to itself. Whatever was produced, whatever returns accrued, capital claimed for itself, hardly leaving to the worker enough to restore and renew his strength. FOR THE DOCTRINE WAS PREACHED THAT ALL ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL FALLS BY AN ABSOLUTELY INSUPERABLE ECONOMIC LAW TO THE RICH, AND THAT BY THE SAME LAW THE WORKERS ARE GIVEN OVER AND BOUND TO PERPETUAL WANT, TO THE SCANTIEST OF LIVELIHOODS.”

Note: this “doctrine” of accumulation is condemned as a falsehood, a lie, by the Holy Father.

Paragraph 55:

“And therefore, to the harassed workers there have come "INTELLECTUALS," AS THEY ARE CALLED, SETTING UP IN OPPOSITION TO A FICTITIOUS LAW THE EQUALLY FICTITIOUS MORAL PRINCIPLE THAT ALL PRODUCTS AND PROFITS, SAVE ONLY ENOUGH TO REPAIR AND RENEW CAPITAL, BELONG BY VERY RIGHT TO THE WORKERS. This error, much more specious than that of certain of the Socialists who hold that whatever serves to produce goods ought to be transferred to the State, or, as they say "socialized," is consequently all the more dangerous and the more apt to deceive the unwary. IT IS AN ALLURING POISON WHICH MANY HAVE EAGERLY DRUNK WHOM OPEN SOCIALISM HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO DECEIVE.

Note: here Pius XI condemns the response - Socialism that “alluring poison”.

Paragraph 57:

“ . . . [T]HE RICHES THAT ECONOMIC-SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS CONSTANTLY INCREASE OUGHT TO BE SO DISTRIBUTED AMONG INDIVIDUAL PERSONS AND CLASSES THAT THE COMMON ADVANTAGE OF ALL . . . WILL BE SAFEGUARDED; IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THE COMMON GOOD OF ALL SOCIETY WILL BE KEPT INVIOLATE. By this law of social justice, ONE CLASS IS FORBIDDEN TO EXCLUDE THE OTHER FROM SHARING IN THE BENEFITS. HENCE THE CLASS OF THE WEALTHY VIOLATES THIS LAW NO LESS, WHEN, AS IF FREE FROM CARE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS WEALTH, IT THINKS IT THE RIGHT ORDER OF THINGS FOR IT TO GET EVERYTHING AND THE WORKER NOTHING, than does THE NON-OWNING WORKING CLASS WHEN, ANGERED DEEPLY AT OUTRAGED JUSTICE AND TOO READY TO ASSERT WRONGLY THE ONE RIGHT IT IS CONSCIOUS OF, IT DEMANDS FOR ITSELF EVERYTHING AS IF PRODUCED BY ITS OWN HANDS, AND ATTACKS AND SEEKS TO ABOLISH, THEREFORE, ALL PROPERTY AND RETURNS OR INCOMES, OF WHATEVER KIND THEY ARE OR WHATEVER THE FUNCTION THEY PERFORM IN HUMAN SOCIETY, that have not been obtained by labor, and for no other reason save that they are of such a nature. And in this connection WE MUST NOT PASS OVER THE UNWARRANTED AND UNMERITED APPEAL MADE BY SOME TO THE APOSTLE WHEN HE SAID: "IF ANY MAN WILL NOT WORK NEITHER LET HIM EAT."[41] FOR THE APOSTLE IS PASSING JUDGMENT ON THOSE WHO ARE UNWILLING TO WORK, ALTHOUGH THEY CAN AND OUGHT TO, AND HE ADMONISHES US THAT WE OUGHT DILIGENTLY TO USE OUR TIME AND ENERGIES OF BODY, AND MIND AND NOT BE A BURDEN TO OTHERS WHEN WE CAN PROVIDE FOR OURSELVES. BUT THE APOSTLE IN NO WISE TEACHES THAT LABOR IS THE SOLE TITLE TO A LIVING OR AN INCOME.

Note: Stupendous! See how wisely Pius XI steered a course between those two ship wrecks - hitting them both for their excesses - and even using Holy Scripture to justify their own evildoing!

Paragraph 59:

“EACH CLASS, THEREFORE, MUST BE GIVEN ITS OWN SHARE OF GOODS, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice”.

Note: “GIVEN” - not bestowed; not gifted; not donated! GIVEN! It is a right!

Paragraph 60:

Yet while it is true that the status of non owning worker is to be carefully distinguished from pauperism, nevertheless the immense multitude of the non-owning workers on the one hand and the enormous riches of certain very wealthy men on the other establish an unanswerable argument that the riches which are so abundantly produced in our age of "industrialism," as it is called, are not rightly distributed and equitably made available to the various classes of the people.

Paragraph 61:

THEREFORE, WITH ALL OUR STRENGTH AND EFFORT WE MUST STRIVE THAT AT LEAST IN THE FUTURE THE ABUNDANT FRUITS OF PRODUCTION WILL ACCRUE EQUITABLY TO THOSE WHO ARE RICH AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED IN AMPLE SUFFICIENCY AMONG THE WORKERS - NOT THAT THESE MAY BECOME REMISS IN WORK, FOR MAN IS BORN TO LABOR AS THE BIRD TO FLY - but that they may increase their property by thrift, that they may bear, by wise management of this increase in property, the burdens of family life with greater ease and security, and that, emerging from the insecure lot in life in whose uncertainties non-owning workers are cast, they may be able not only to endure the vicissitudes of earthly existence but have also assurance that when their lives are ended they will provide in some measure for those they leave after them.

Note: “not these may become remiss in their work”. In another translation I have from the Daughters of St. Paul the word ‘remiss’ is translated as “slack” - meaning that loosely translated that phrase could be restated as “not that they may become slackers” - a favorite worldview of the right-wing conservatives on workers who cry out to heaven for justice - deeming them as lazy and wanting it all handed to them on a silver platter. Obviously that is NOT the view coming from papal teaching as clearly seen here. A great saying here too: “. . . for man is born to labor as the bird to fly.” That does not mean “to toil” - that is the curse of original sin. To labor is in humanity’s very nature.

Paragraph 63:

“ . . . IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT THESE PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE UNLESS THE NON-OWNING WORKERS THROUGH INDUSTRY AND THRIFT ADVANCE TO THE STATE

OF POSSESSING SOME LITTLE PROPERTY.BUT EXCEPT FROM PAY FOR WORK, FROM WHAT SOURCE CAN A MAN WHO HAS NOTHING ELSE BUT WORK FROM WHICH TO OBTAIN FOOD AND THE NECESSARIES OF LIFE SET ANYTHING ASIDE FOR HIMSELF THROUGH PRACTICING FRUGALITY?

Note: Here the Pope begins to take up the great questions of what is a JUST WAGE.

Paragraphs 65-67:

We consider it more advisable, however, in the present condition of human society that, so far as is possible, the work-contract be somewhat modified by a partnership-contract, as is already being done in various ways and with no small advantage to workers and owners. Workers and other employees thus become sharers in ownership or management or participate in some fashion in the profits received.

The just amount of pay, however, must be calculated not on a single basis but on several, as Leo XIII already wisely declared in these words: "To establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account."  By this statement he plainly condemned the shallowness of those who think that this most difficult matter is easily solved by the application of a single rule or measure - and one quite false.

Paragraph 68:

FOR THEY ARE GREATLY IN ERROR WHO DO NOT HESITATE TO SPREAD THE PRINCIPLE THAT LABOR IS WORTH AND MUST BE PAID AS MUCH AS ITS PRODUCTS ARE WORTH, and that consequently the one who hires out his labor has the right to demand all that is produced through his labor. How far this is from the truth is evident from that we have already explained in treating of property and labor.

Note: the JUST WAGE defined . . . and is NOT just the worth as determined by what is paid for

the products produced!!!

Paragraph 71:

“ . . . THE WORKER MUST BE PAID A WAGE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIM AND HIS FAMILY. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But TO ABUSE THE YEARS OF CHILDHOOD AND THE LIMITED STRENGTH OF WOMEN IS GROSSLY WRONG. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, FOR MOTHERS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FATHER'S LOW WAGE TO BE FORCED TO ENGAGE IN GAINFUL OCCUPATIONS OUTSIDE THE HOME TO THE NEGLECT OF THEIR PROPER CARES AND DUTIES, ESPECIALLYTHE TRAINING OF CHILDREN. EVERY EFFORT MUST THEREFORE BE MADE THAT FATHERS OF FAMILIES RECEIVE A WAGE LARGE ENOUGH TO MEET  ORDINARY FAMILY NEEDS ADEQUATELY.

Note: And how our own age continues to violate this. Only now it’s also single mom’s toiling just to put bread on the table from a pittance paid by their employers - a pittance determined by the lie their wages are only worth what they produce.

Paragraph 76:

WHAT WE HAVE THUS FAR STATED REGARDING AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY AND REGARDING JUST WAGES CONCERNS INDIVIDUAL PERSONS AND ONLY INDIRECTLY TOUCHES SOCIAL ORDER, to the restoration of which according to the principles of sound philosophy and to its perfection according to the sublime precepts of the law of the Gospel, Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, devoted all his thought and care.

Paragraph 77:

Still, in order that what he so happily initiated may be solidly established, that WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED, AND THAT EVEN MORE COPIOUS AND RICHER BENEFITS MAY ACCRUE TO THE FAMILY OF MANKIND, TWO THINGS ARE ESPECIALLY NECESSARY: REFORM OF INSTITUTIONS AND CORRECTION OF MORALS.

Paragraph 79:

WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE REFORM OF INSTITUTIONS, THE STATE COMES CHIEFLY TO MIND, NOT AS IF UNIVERSAL WELL-BEING WERE TO BE EXPECTED FROM ITS ACTIVITY, BUT BECAUSE THINGS HAVE COME TO SUCH A PASS THROUGH THE EVIL OF WHAT WE HAVE TERMED "INDIVIDUALISM" THAT, FOLLOWING UPON THE OVERTHROW AND NEAR EXTINCTION OF THAT RICH SOCIAL LIFE WHICH WAS ONCE HIGHLY DEVELOPED THROUGH ASSOCIATIONS OF VARIOUS KINDS, THERE REMAIN VIRTUALLY ONLY INDIVIDUALS AND THE STATE. THIS IS TO THE GREAT HARM OF THE STATE ITSELF; FOR, WITH A STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL GOVERNANCE LOST, AND WITH THE TAKING OVER OF ALL THE BURDENS WHICH THE WRECKED ASSOCIATIONS ONCE BORE. THE STATE HAS BEEN OVERWHELMED AND CRUSHED BY ALMOST INFINITE TASKS AND DUTIES.

Note: hardly ever do I see this paragraph mentioned from those with a "progressive" view. Here is something for the other side to chew on as it falls right in line with their worldview. But this not exclusive - the whole must be taken into account. Again, Pius XI leans neither left or right - but entirely radical - outside of any worldview but Christ's.

Paragraph 79:

As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: JUST AS IT IS GRAVELY WRONG TO TAKE FROM INDIVIDUALS WHAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH BY THEIR OWN INITIATIVE AND INDUSTRY AND GIVE IT TO THE COMMUNITY, SO ALSO IT IS AN INJUSTICE AND AT THE SAME TIME A GRAVE EVIL AND DISTURBANCE OF RIGHT ORDER TO ASSIGN TO A GREATER AND HIGHER ASSOCIATION WHAT LESSER AND SUBORDINATE ORGANIZATIONS CAN DO. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.

Note: This is the great principle of subsidarity - most succinctly expressed by Pope Pius XI - it is what is says.

Paragraph 80

THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OUGHT, THEREFORE, TO LET SUBORDINATE GROUPS HANDLE MATTERS AND CONCERNS OF LESSER IMPORTANCE, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE DISSIPATE ITS EFFORTS GREATLY. THEREBY THE STATE WILL MORE FREELY, POWERFULLY, AND EFFECTIVELY DO ALL THOSE THINGS THAT BELONG TO IT ALONE BECAUSE IT ALONE CAN DO THEM: DIRECTING, WATCHING, URGING, RESTRAINING, AS OCCASION REQUIRES AND NECESSITY DEMANDS. THEREFORE, THOSE IN POWER SHOULD BE SURE THAT THE MORE PERFECTLY A GRADUATED ORDER IS KEPT AMONG THE VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS, IN OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF "SUBSIDIARY FUNCTION," THE STRONGER SOCIAL AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVENESS WILL BE THE HAPPIER AND MORE PROSPEROUS THE CONDITION OF THE STATE.

Paragraph 88:

“Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of ECONOMIC LIFE CANNOT BE LEFT TO A FREE COMPETITION OF FORCES. FOR FROM THIS SOURCE, AS FROM A POISONED SPRING, HAVE ORIGINATED AND SPREAD ALL THE ERRORS OF “INDIVIDUALIST” ECONOMIC TEACHING”. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect”.

Take special note: this capitalized section here highlights one of the most famous parts of this encyclical. Without hesitation Pius XI called “individualist” economics a “poisoned spring” and infers that to imbibe from it is to poison oneself - giving a person such a skewed world view as to be incapable of living or teaching what is true, right and just on economics and unable to see how to truly exercise charity which without justice may in fact, in the attempt to meet daily basic needs that sustain human life (like food, potable water, clothing, shelter and medical care), perpetuate the evil social structures that cause so much suffering from the continuous lack of these needs in the mass of the world’s people.

Note: this “principle of self-direction” is what the Holy Father called “economic dictatorship”.

Paragraph 88:

“Loftier and nobler principles - social justice and social charity - must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully. Hence, THE INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES OF PEOPLES AND, PARTICULARLY THOSE OF ALL SOCIAL LIFE, OUGHT TO BE PENETRATED WITH THIS JUSTICE, and IT IS MOST NECESSARY THAT IT BE TRULY EFFECTIVE, THAT IS, ESTABLISH A JURIDICAL AND SOCIAL ORDER which will, as it were, give form and shape to all economic life. SOCIAL CHARITY, MOREOVER, OUGHT TO BE AS THE SOUL OF THIS ORDER, an order which public authority ought to be ever ready effectively to protect and defend”.

Paragraph 107:

“This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as it were, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience”.

Note: One could state: “ . . . those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience”. . . are the only ones who deserve to survive. The idea of “the survival fittest” (the haves), upon which Free Market Capitalism is based, is condemned here.

Paragraph 108:

“This accumulation of might and of power generates in turn three kinds of conflict. First, there is the struggle for economic supremacy itself; then there is the bitter fight to gain supremacy over the State in order to use in economic struggles its resources and authority; finally there is conflict between States themselves, not only because countries employ their power and shape their policies to promote every economic advantage of their citizens, but also because they seek to decide political controversies that arise among nations through the use of their economic supremacy and strength”.

Note: Reading between the lines, the Holy Father is teaching us what the ultimate cause of war  is.

Paragraph 109:

“Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel”.

Note: as true in 1931 as it is today. Some would say this is “crony Capitalism” defined (that is not real Capitalism) while still holding to Free Market Capitalism, properly exercised frees us. Both come from Liberalism - both do evil, therefore. There’s no out here for those looking for one.

TWO FORMS OF SOCIALISM DESCRIBED:

Paragraph 112:

“COMMUNISM TEACHES AND SEEKS TWO OBJECTIVES: UNRELENTING CLASS WARFARE AND ABSOLUTE EXTERMINATION OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. NOT SECRETLY OR BY HIDDEN METHODS DOES IT DO THIS, BUT PUBLICLY, OPENLY, AND BY EMPLOYING EVERY AND ALL MEANS, EVEN THE MOST VIOLENT. To achieve these objectives there is nothing which it does not dare, nothing for which it has respect or reverence; and when it has come to power, it is incredible and portent like in its cruelty and inhumanity”. “We cannot without deep sorrow contemplate the heedlessness of those who apparently make light of these impending dangers, and with sluggish inertia allow the widespread propagation of doctrine which seeks by violence and slaughter to destroy society altogether. ALL THE MORE GRAVELY TO BE CONDEMNED IS THE FOLLY OF THOSE WHO NEGLECT TO REMOVE OR CHANGE THE CONDITIONS THAT INFLAME THE MINDS OF PEOPLES, AND PAVE THE WAY FOR THE OVERTHROW AND DESTRUCTION OF SOCIETY”.

Paragraph 113:

“THE OTHER SECTION, WHICH HAS KEPT THE NAME SOCIALISM, IS SURELY MORE MODERATE. IT NOT ONLY PROFESSES THE REJECTION OF VIOLENCE BUT MODIFIES AND TEMPERS TO SOME DEGREE, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. One might say that, terrified by its own principles and by the conclusions drawn therefrom by Communism, SOCIALISM INCLINES TOWARD AND IN A CERTAIN MEASURE APPROACHES THE TRUTHS WHICH CHRISTIAN TRADITION HAS ALWAYS HELD SACRED; FOR IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT ITS DEMANDS AT TIMES COME VERY NEAR THOSE THAT CHRISTIAN REFORMERS OF SOCIETY JUSTLY INSIST UPON”.

Note: I call/name this Socialism a “kinder-gentler” Socialism - yes, as I keep in mind a “kinder gentler” conservatism (which, of course means, that neither is kinder nor gentler - they just seem

so).

Paragraph 114:

“For if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice, and if this is not that blessed social peace which we all seek, it can and ought to be the point of departure from which to move forward to the mutual cooperation of the Industries and Professions. So also the war declared on private ownership, more and more abated, is being so restricted that now, finally, not the possession itself of the means of production is attacked but rather a kind of sovereignty over society which ownership has, contrary to all right, seized and usurped. For such sovereignty belongs in reality not to owners but to the public authority. If the foregoing happens, it can come even to the point that imperceptibly these ideas of the more moderate socialism will no longer differ from the desires and demands of those who are striving to remold human society on the basis of Christian principles”. “For certain kinds of property, it is rightly contended, ought to be reserved to the State since they carry with them a dominating power so great that cannot without danger to the general welfare be entrusted to private individuals”.

Paragraph 115:

“Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists”.

Paragraph 116:

“YET LET NO ONE THINK THAT ALL THE SOCIALIST GROUPS OR FACTIONS THAT ARE

NOT COMMUNIST HAVE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, RECOVERED THEIR SENSES TO THIS EXTENT EITHER IN FACT OR IN NAME. FOR THE MOST PART THEY DO NOT REJECT THE CLASS STRUGGLE OR THE ABOLITION OF OWNERSHIP, BUT ONLY IN SOME DEGREE MODIFY THEM”. “There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists [because some of what the Christians strive for they also strive for - my note)] will be drawn to us. A vain hope! THOSE WHO WANT TO BE APOSTLES AMONG SOCIALISTS OUGHT TO PROFESS CHRISTIAN TRUTH WHOLE AND ENTIRE, OPENLY AND SINCERELY, AND NOT CONNIVE AT ERROR IN ANY WAY. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity”.

Paragraph 120:

“If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; NO ONE CAN BE AT THE SAME TIME A GOOD CATHOLIC AND A TRUE SOCIALIST”.

Note: to the conservatively inclined Catholics: don’t to try use this saying as the whole meaning of this papal teaching - as you should have seen, by now, both socialist and capitalist economics are unabashedly trashed. To the liberals: don’t selectively forget what is taught here - I have yet to see modern progressive Catholics mention this saying in their writings.

From Paragraph 136:

“THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN PRODUCING GOODS, THEREFORE, ARE NOT FORBIDDEN TO INCREASE THEIR FORTUNE IN A JUST AND LAWFUL MANNER; FOR IT

IS ONLY FAIR that he who renders service to the community and makes it richer should also, through the increased wealth of the community, be made richer himself according to his position, provided that all these things be sought with due respect for the laws of God and without impairing the rights of others and that they be employed in accordance with faith and right reason”.

Note: the acquisition of personal wealth is NOT condemned by the Holy Father “ . . . provided that all these things be sought with due respect for the laws of God and without impairing the rights of others . . .” As long as one rightly exercises the social obligations that the holding of private property requires (as taught in the forgoing paragraphs) one may acquire wealth.

Paragraph 137:

“ADMITTEDLY, NO VICARIOUS CHARITY CAN SUBSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WHICH IS DUE AS AN OBLIGATION AND IS WRONGFULLY DENIED. YET EVEN SUPPOSING THAT EVERYONE SHOULD FINALLY RECEIVE ALL THAT IS DUE HIM, THE WIDEST FIELD FOR CHARITY WILL ALWAYS REMAIN OPEN. FOR JUSTICE ALONE CAN, IF FAITHFULLY OBSERVED, REMOVE THE CAUSES OF SOCIAL CONFLICT BUT CAN NEVER BRING ABOUT UNION OF MINDS AND HEARTS.”Yet even supposing that everyone should finally receive all that is due him, the widest field for charity will always remain open. For justice alone can, if faithfully observed, remove the causes of social conflict but can never bring about union of minds and hearts. Indeed all the institutions for the establishment of peace and the promotion of mutual help among men, however perfect these may seem, have the principal foundation of their stability in the mutual bond of minds and hearts whereby the members are united with one another. If this bond is lacking, the best of regulations come to naught, as we have learned by too frequent experience. And so, then only will true cooperation be possible for a single common good when the constituent parts of society deeply feel themselves members of one great family and children of the same Heavenly Father; nay, that they are one body in Christ, "but severally members one of another," so that "if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with it." For then the rich and others in positions of power will change their former indifference toward their poorer brothers into a solicitous and active love, listen with kindliness to their just demands, and freely forgive their possible mistakes and faults. And the workers, sincerely putting aside every feeling of hatred or envy which the promoters of social conflict so cunningly exploit, will not only accept without rancor the place in human society assigned them by Divine Providence, but rather will hold it in esteem, knowing well that everyone according to his function and duty is toiling usefully and honorably for the common good and is following closely in the footsteps of Him Who, being in the form of God, willed to be a carpenter among men and be known as the son of a carpenter.

Note: Justice needs charity to keep from just simply rendering what is due - with no heart - only attending to rules and regulation - the absolute balanced scale; charity needs justice to keep from simply bandaging over a gaping, wreaking social wound while making excuses for donors who give to salve over conscience, but have no real desire to go beyond that to real change that asks them to give their “superfluous income” to those who need it.

Paragraph 141:

“For We are now confronted, as more than once before in the history of the Church, with a world that in large part has almost fallen back into paganism. That these whole classes of men may be brought back to Christ Whom they have denied, we must recruit and train from among them, themselves, auxiliary soldiers of the Church who know them well and their minds and wishes, and can reach their hearts with a tender brotherly love. The first and immediate APOSTLES TO THE WORKERS OUGHT TO BE WORKERS; THE APOSTLES TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW INDUSTRY AND TRADE OUGHT TO BE FROM AMONG THEM THEMSELVES”.

Note: there appear to plenty of apostles, of the workers, going to the workers. But there doesn’t seem to be any apostles going to those “ . . . who follow industry and trade” out of them. Why? I think it may be it’s because nobody wants to try - it’s too hard - or are afraid to try to form the children of wealthy Catholics according to the Church’s social doctrine. I note that even Catholic universities today, which have colleges of business, whether out of fear of losing students due to the anger of their parents (raised as Free Market Capitalists themselves and having became wealthy that way) who refuse to accept, misunderstand or do not know about Church social doctrine or just plain greed, seem more interested in teaching their students how to succeed in business on the basis of Free Market Capitalism, but are unwilling to teach them what an heresy is it to follow it and emphasizing, as they should, the responsibility of the “have will-bes” to properly exercise their Christian duties in the realm of economics as taught by this Holy Father, his predecessors and his successors to the current

one - Pope Francis.

Finally: Given the inclination of this nation’s current mentality on economics, yes, I’m sure that Free Market Capitalism has no place being taught in our Catholic institutions of higher learning other than to help students to learn what is and how it does not go along with Christian life. That it is an heresy, an evil to be avoided.

And Socialism, too, needs to treated the same way there for in trying to avoid one evil a man or woman, in error going that route, could just as easily end up in Hell forever while doing a lot horrendous damage to others and human society along the way.

“Ego delustro sic non tu poteris nutu”. 

I disabuse so you can’t snooze.

The Church on Capitalism by Joseph Torma

The Church on Capitalism

by Joseph Torma

(Catholic Worker, June-July, 2014; Vol. LXXXI, No. 4)

" . . . the social economic system is unjust at its root.: - Evangelii Gaudium

These words of Pope Francis in reference to capitalism tell us it is time again for the Catholic Worker to theologically reflect on why capitalism, as a type of economics, is a practical heresy.  It is a continuation of our responsibility to "blow the dynamite" of Catholic Social Teaching, as called for by Peter Maurin in his first Easy Essay.

Economics can be described as simply as the science of how society produces, distributes, and consumes goods and services.  The task, in this case, is to develop a way of evaluating economics from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching, a tradition that extends over more than one hundred years. I use a unique method of interpretation that can be called the competitist/cooperatist frame of reference.

Economically, society can be (and has been) structured in two different ways. "Competitism" represents the choice to structure society in a conflictive manner so as to provide for the elimination of the weakest individuals and the survival of the fittest individuals whom the race would depend (winners and losers). In contrast, "Cooperatism" represents a choice to fit all individuals into a society in such a way that the strengths of each person offset the weaknesses of the others to assure survival.

The dictionary defines competition as "a rivalry between individuals or groups or nations; it arises whenever two or more parties strive for something that all cannot obtain."  Any system which distributes resources or power this way reflects the competitist option.  Capitalism does this by definition: " . . . an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods . . . and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods mainly by competition in a free market." Because a free market is unrestricted by government regulations on behalf of the common good, its systemically produces winners and loses.  The only way that capitalism can be reformed into a system compatible with Christianity is if it were no longer structured to produce losers.  In which case it would no longer be a competitive system and therefore would not be capitalism.

To overcome ignorance or denial of the realities involved in capitalism, it is helpful for people to be able to recognize the categories of winners and loses in our competitist system.  Most simply put, a competitist enterprise consists of concern for capital costs, labor costs and profit margin.  As long as the market is expanding, the enterprise can increase the share of each of these categories.  But when a market is saturated (as is inevitable in a competitive free market), choices have to be made.   Capital costs can be reduced just so far, and the product cheapened just so much, before people stop purchasing the product.  Profit margins must be maintained, and even increased, because the enterprise is competing for investment dollars.  That leaves labor costs.  The enterprise has no choice but reduce these costs.  This leads to reducing wages and benefits, increasing workloads, and, eventually outsourcing jobs or moving the enterprise itself to a cheaper labor market.  The workers become poor then, not because they are not productive - as is often claimed - but because much of their productivity has been delivered as unearned income to investors so that the corporations can continue in existence.

A practical example of this is a utilities company that has monopoly in a certain city.  Activists noted that the company had no competition for its utilities service and, therefore, should be able to reduce their rates for the sake of the common good. The company answered, in a newspaper advertisement, that it still had competitors - the competitors of the investment dollar.

In 1931 Pope Pius XI pointed out in Quadrageismo Anno that economic competition leads to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, which ultimately results in war.  This is especially important to remember when we encounter references to a market economy in the writings of of recent popes.  In 1991 in Centesiums Annus, in defending his reference to "socialization" in his 1981 encyclical Laborem Excerens (On Human Work) Pope John Paul II referred positively to a "market economy".  However, he explicitly said he did not want to call it capitalism and praised the "producers', consumers', and credit cooperatives."

This means that the private ownership  of the means of production is not restricted to capitalism and can also exist in the context of a cooperative economic system (a cooperative market).  Joint planning by private owners in the interest of the community is, in fact, "a middle way" between a command economy such as socialism, which involves state control of the means of production on behalf of the community, and a free market economy (capitalism) in which private control is structured, through competition, to benefit a relative few.

Most people are aware that Pius XI condemned "atheistic communism" in 1937, but much less known is the equivalent condemnation of capitalism by Pope Pius XII in 1950: "The harmful effects of both capitalism and communism should prompt all, but especially priests, to embrace the Church's social teaching wholeheartedly, to make it known to others and to take every opportunity of carrying it into effect.   It is in fact the only teaching capable of remedying our widespread evils. It combines justice and charity in a perfect synthesis, and calls for an order of society divided from one another by barriers of self-interest, but all closely bound together in unanimity of purpose and brotherly love" (Menti Nostrae). This reflects the cooperatist not competitist, option.

Cooperatism accepts entrepreneurship as an expression of human creativity, but it can and must exist within a network of cooperative institutions democratically controlled by the worker-owners.  This disconnecting of entrepreneurship from competitive planning makes individual creativity still good (although bounded by the common good as understood by the community as a whole) while minimizing risk and avoiding the 80-90% long-term failure built into the competitive arrangement.

This middle way reflects the radical emphasis found in Vatican II that "everybody should look upon his or her neighbor (without any exception) as another self (Gaudium et Spes).  We must consider every act intended to benefit ourselves in light of its effect on others.   Likewise, we must consider everything that happens to others as really affecting us.  This seems to call into question all competitive economic arrangements wherein joint activity leading to benefit some (winners) depends on lack of benefit to others (losers).  In contrast to this, as pointed out by Gaudium et Spes, there is the need for the careful structuring of society as a family, reflecting that God is Father (the Lord's Prayer), and thus we are all brothers and sisters.

Probably what is most significant about family is that  it is a structure in which rights and duties come from membership in the family itself and do not depend on what a person can accomplish.  This is reflected in Pope John XXIII's statement in Pacem in Terris that "Any human society if it is to be well-ordered and productive, must lay down as a foundation principle: that every human person . . . has rights and duties of his own flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature, which are therefore universal, inviolable, and inalienable".

This means that society is responsible for the structural reality which Vatican II calls "the common good" - "the total sum of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily . . . They ought, therefore, to have a ready access to all that is necessary for living a genuinely human life: for example: food, clothing, housing, the right to freely choose their state of life and set up a family, the right to education, to work, to their good name, to respect to proper knowledge, to the right to act according to the dictates of conscience and to safeguard their privacy, and rightful freedom, including freedom of religion." (Gaudium et Spes)

This situation in which there is a ready and thorough access to fulfillment must be part of the legal social structure and not dependant on charity.  As Pope Pius XI said "no vicarious charity can substitute for justice which is due as an obligation and is wrongfully denied."  All of these statements clearly reflect the coopertist option in regard to property, work and government.

The right of everyone to privately owned goods is a consistent opinion of the Church and this constitutes a constraint on the amount of private property that can be accumulated by an individual.  According to Pope Paul VI in Populorum Progressio, "All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to subordinated to this principle" [of the universal right].  In other words, an economic system designed to produce inequality, as competition is, is an invalid system.

As regards work, in 1891 Pope Leo XIII taught that "It must . . . be specifically provided that the worker at no time be without sufficient work" (Rerum Novarum).  In other words, availablity of adequate work cannot depened on the competitive market which will "supply" only what the controllers of wealth "demand" and not on what is needed or desired by the needy.

The second aspect of work to be considered is the "just wage", which is extremely important because, according to Pope John Paull II, "a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socio-economic system."  Pope Pius XI had already described the just wage: "In the first place the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. . . adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and, indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs."  What may surprise many people about this teaching is that the primary basis for assigning the amount of remuneration for work is not the kind of work being done, but, rather, the needs of the worker since, as pointed out by Pope John Paul II, the subject (the producer) is more important than the object (the product).

What this does is call into question an entire competitive economic system in which individual enterprises can survive only by denying workers their basic rights.  Pope Pius XI wrote "Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on a opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces . . . and so then, only will true cooperation be possible for a single common good when the constituent parts of society feel themselves members of one great family."  In an economic system this would require "associating labor with the ownership of capital, as far as possible" according to Pope John Paul II.

Since the Church believes that decision-making should not be left to free competition, who is responsible for it?  The Church has made it clear from the beginning that the responsibility for the common good is a key responsibility of government.  According to Pius XI, the state is to "define these duties [of the common good] in detail when necessity requires" and "make all human society conform to the needs of the common good; that is to the norm of social justice."  John Paul II confirms that "provision for all planning . . . weighs on the shoulder of the State." (Laborem Exercens).

The Church's preference for the cooperatist option is clear and had been for years.  In 1945, a Jesuit theologian, Rev. William Smith stated: "Present-day capitalism in practice . . . runs counter to the social doctrines of the Church principles . . . The Catholic Attitude condemns it and looks forward to a renewed organic society, the activities of which will be conducted on the principle of cooperation."  Even today, because competition by its nature intend inequality Pope Francis has tweeted that "inequality is the root of social evil."  If the Catholic Worker doesn't blow the dynamite by exposing the heresy of competitist economics to light who will?

WHERE HAVE ALL THE SCOOTERS GONE?

I haven't meandered here a while. But here I am back with some thoughts I typed up and saved back in August of 2013.

Here it is:

“Where Have All the Scooters Gone”?

“Americans still perceive scooters as recreational runabouts or luxury items . . . [p]eople who use two wheeled transportation to get to work here in America do so because they want to, whereas people in Europe and Asian countries do it because they HAVE to because of fuel costs. So until fuel costs get to that point here, the popularity of scooters and small motorcycles will be limited to a small market”. (From a blog post in 2012 at http://www.scooterfile.com/sf-feature/the-dilemma-of-scooters-and-gas-prices-part-two/)

I have tried for eight years to follow the Gandhian motto in the area of personal transportation: “Be the change to you want to see.”

In 2005, during the wake of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation and high gasoline prices it caused and coming completely awake on the issue of global warming as a result,  I realized Americans who though comprising two percent of the world’s population, burn twenty-five percent of its fossil fuels, have got to change - have to got to stop pouring so much carbon in the air.

I personally decided to live that and within three weeks after the hurricane struck I bought my first motor scooter and began using public transportation when the weather didn’t allow me to ride it. For me riding a scooter was and is a matter of primarily saving the planet for future generations and secondarily for saving money or having fun.

The use of the personal automobile as the main mode of transportation and its production I saw then, and still see now, are a major culprits in the warming of the planet. I believed and still believe that to prevent a huge multi-generational planet-wide catastrophe from striking, that a major change in how Americans get about and how they live was needed and still needs to happen.

However, I realized that most people weren’t going to change willingly - especially when it came to changing a whole way of life passed on from parents to children for over a century. If change was going to come it would have to come through other means than the weather; it would have to come from something that could not be resisted.

So, I came to count on change coming from an economic one – the crash caused by the Great Recession in 2008-09.  The automobile industry was tottering then - it looked like it would fall of its own weight if just left to itself. I saw General Motors and Chrysler disintegrating in an unstoppable industry collapse. I even saw the still viable Ford Motor Company, its founder being one of the progenitors of the car culture, ultimately forced to change not only how it did business, but what it made - if it wanted to survive.

However, a legislative solution was proposed to stave off this disaster: offer the automobile industry an huge monetary “Stimulus”. It was to be paid directly as a “loan” from the U.S. Treasury (really the American people). Discussion began in late 2008 in Congress. As I wanted the auto industry to fall, I opposed it from ever being enacted.

Yet I was amazed to see just how much Americans wanted their car culture survive - no matter what. They were willing to pay whatever was necessary. So, the “Stimulus” was enacted in 2009 - with newly elected President Obama, the auto industry heads, the fossil fuel industry leaders, the powerful UAW leading the way and the majority of American people following enthusiastically behind. Billions of dollars were transfused from the U.S. Government’s coffers into G.M. and Chrysler. Thousands of investors were wiped out in the process, BUT the automobile industry (and all of its dependant subsidiaries)  were saved. Those who had to pay the ultimate financial price of losing it all were quietly counseled to accept their sacrifice as the necessary price to ‘save the nation.’

And despite all the complaints, jokes, smart-aleck quips and histrionics coming from the right-wing about G.M. becoming “Government Motors” the fact remained - conservative Americans did not want the automobile industry to collapse either.  They did not like how it was done but, grudgingly acquiesced and accepted “Government Motors” as the way.

I had hoped that common sense, high gasoline prices, intense weather disasters and an industry’s collapse  would show Americans the folly of trying to hold on to a way of life that is not sustainable and inspire an altruism in the younger folks leading them to turn their backs on the car culture. I had hoped these would voluntarily do the right thing to preserve the planet for themselves, their kids and their kids kids.

But the collapse did not happen.  No sense of altruism ever rose from the young folks. Now I see Gen-X and the Millennials, all grown mature  adults raising families of their own, applauding as vast amounts of monies get poured into rebuilding and adding to existing roadways - expanding suburbia and sprawl while leaving the urban areas and local mass transit systems languishing and national mass transit, once the envy of the world, even more of a shadow of what it was.  I see them urging industry and the government to “frack our way to oil independence”. I see them rooting the Canadians on as they squeeze oil from sand to be piped across fragile ecosystems south to the United States as diluted bitumen (dilbit) ready for refining to a usable state.

The fact is  - the younger crowd want their turn at the “white picket fence” way of life aka the “American Dream” as their parents had.  They want it so much that they are willing to deny what America is doing to the climate; they are even willing to damage the environment to get it.

For now, it seems, Americans are willing to pay whatever price they must pay or suffer whatever they must suffer to keep that very fragile life-style based on the car and fossil fuels intact. To paraphrase from Frank Herbert’s Dune: “The oil must flow”.

And I? I am still at it, still trying to “be the change” I want to see. These days I am riding as the sole scooterist in a sea of gas guzzling SUV’s, luxury cars, huge pick-up trucks, Hummers, and minivans (owned and operated by many of those kids whom I had such great hopes to be a catalyst for change in 2008).

I’ve owned five different scooters since September 17, 2005 - the current being a Honda PCX 150. I have had Piaggio’s Vespa LX150 and its three-wheeled marvel the MP3ie  - the 250 cc engine version.  The scooter bust in late 2008 and again in 2012 drove the local dealerships of that scooter dedicated company out of business locally. That left me to buy from and get serviced by indifferent motor-sport dealerships whose focus is recreational and for whom scooters are merely an annoying side-line.

Yet, I must endeavor to persevere in hope that in time “being the change I want to see” will come while I can still see it or accept that when it does come I will have laid the foundation for a new way of life, but probably will not be here watch it rise and come to fruition.

So, “Where have all the scooters gone”? Gone to oblivion every one. When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?