Unit III: Classic Texts—Leo XIII and Pius XI

OVERVIEW

 In this unit, we get a sense of the historical foundation for Catholic social teaching in Leo XIII”s Rerum Novarum and Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno. Although each of these documents responds to a particular set of social problems and reflects the language and assumptions of the period in which it was authored, together they provide an early and influential exposition of the social responsibilities of the Church and the relationship of the Church to the state and other social institutions. As we will see, Catholic social teaching is continually evolving as it responds to the problems and possibilities of each age. However, even in these documents, set as they are within a social, economic, and political situation very different from our own, we find themes that will thread all the way through the social encyclicals, e.g., a certain suspicion both of socialism and of capitalism; criticism of the exploitation of workers; and a moral defense of the “living wage.”

I. General Background on Encyclicals

Encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno are pastoral letters written by or under the authority of the pope and addressed to the universal Church. Since Vatican II (1962-65), most encyclicals treating social issues have been addressed, not just to the Church, but to “all persons of good will.” Encyclicals have authority for Roman Catholics, but they do not have the same degree of authority as some other teachings, e.g., doctrinal pronouncements made by an ecumenical council. Although an encyclical may be written by the pope’s own hand, they are more often collaborative efforts, going through one or more drafts with one or more authors. The “social encyclicals” are the collection of encyclicals that focus specifically on social problems, generally beginning with Rerum Novarum and continuing through the most recent, Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II.

II. Some Limitations of the Social Encyclical

The social encyclicals are a rich resource for articulating a theological and ethical stance on contemporary social issues. However, there are three liabilities that we need to acknowledge. First, social encyclicals are essentially letters written in response to pressing issues posed to the Church’s leadership. As John Coleman, S.J. puts it, “they deal with …the temporal, the historically passing, with a reading of the ‘signs of the times’ and an assessment of movements and institutions of a given age which may or may not be accurate" (in Curran and McCormick, p. 170).  It is important, therefore, to read them with an eye to their historical setting and with an appreciation of the limits of this form. Even where the encyclicals reflect wide consultation, we are unlikely to find the technical analysis of social, economic and political realities that we would find in academic literature.  Assessments of movements and trends (e.g., socialism) will reflect the assumptions of the writer/s and the assumptions of the period in which the encyclical was written. Later readers will find some of these assumptions naïve or misguided. (Of course, in other places, the authors will prove to have been surprisingly prescient.)

Second, although they are practical in focus, the social encyclicals tend to be exhortatory rather than programmatic. In other words, they tend to call for social reform in broad, idealistic terms and under rubrics (e.g, “solidarity”) that admit of various interpretations.  The encyclicals generally recognize the great diversity of forms of social, economic, and political organization within the universal Church and tend not to provide specific recommendations regarding the means to the ends in question. (Pastoral letters and statements by national Bishops’ Conferences tend to be much more specific in their recommendations.) In addition, despite their prophetic and reforming impulse, the social encyclicals tend to be conservative on matters of social change.

Third, as a consequence of their generality, the social encyclicals can be employed to justify virtually opposite positions on particular issues. Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus, issued on the one hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, has been championed by politically liberal Catholics as a critique of capitalism and by politically conservative Catholics as a defense of capitalism. In addition to attempting to understand these documents within their historical setting, therefore, we want to be alert to the potential for multiple interpretations of key principles and values and, even more important, the potential for multiple interpretations of these principles and values at the level of application. We should also be alert to development within the tradition. Some positions (e.g., on the origin and limits of the right to private property) will shift as we move through the social encyclicals.

Leo XIII: Rerum Novarum (1891)

 Rerum Novarum is a response to the effects of industrialization on persons and communities. It is also "the first detailed program for the reform of labor conditions ever to come from the Holy See." (Richard Camp, in Curran and McCormack, p. 36)

Rerum Novarum

• Defines the rights and responsibilities of capital and labor
• Describes the proper role of government
• Condemns atheistic socialism

A) Background:

The primary intellectual influence on Rerum Novarum is a movement, initiated by German priest Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler, called “Social Catholicism”. From 1848 onward, in weekly sermons as Archbishop of Mainz and through addresses to the German Catholic Assembly, Ketteler sought to raise the social consciousness of German Catholics. Ketteler condemned the hallmarks of early capitalism: instrumentalization of human labor, ruthless competition, and extreme individualism. Leo XIII was familiar with Ketteler’s writings and would later called him “our great predecessor on the social question” (Mich, p. 7).

Ketteler inspired the birth of Catholic Worker’s clubs and other associations of Catholic laity devoted to study and advocacy on social problems. One such was the Fribourg Union, a “theological and moral ‘think tank’ of concerned laity and clergy” who were committed to shaping public opinion on social questions and also to developing a body of social doctrine that could be presented to Leo XIII (Mich, p. 10). In general, the Fribourg Union and other “Social Catholics” “sought a plan for Christian society that avoided the two conflicting ideologies” of the day: socialism and capitalism (Mich, p. 10). Their vision of society came to be known as “corporatist”. Roughly, corporatism held that society should be a “living organism composed of social cells, each with its own specific role and responsibilities and guided by their distinct authority” (Mich, p. 13).  Corporatism sought to reclaim the guild economy of the Middle Ages, built around the association of vocational or occupational groups of trades and employers (Mich, p.76). A sound society builds on natural relationship and associations.

Marvin Mich identifies four central themes of the “Social Catholics”: 1) Charity is not enough to alleviate the misery of the poor. 2) Work must be seen not as a commodity, but as a personal reflection of the worker. A just wage is determined both by the negotiated value of human work and the means necessary for dignified existence. 3) The intervention of the state is legitimate only when free exchange systems are oppressive to the worker. 4) The right to private property is limited right (Mich, p. 11).

Leo XIII was regularly briefed on the activities of the Fribourg Union and met with its leadership 1888. Many of their positions were adopted in Rerum Novarum.

B) Several factors contributed to Leo’s decision to issue a doctrinal statement on “the social question.”

• Public controversy of the role of labor unions; pressure by American bishops to publicly support membership in labor unions for Catholics
• Concern that the Church was losing workers to socialist movements and associations
• Experience of the workers’ pilgrimage to Rome in 1888.
• Increasingly bitter public debates over the limits of state intervention into the market

Leo became convinced that the most effective way to fight socialism (the cause of which he, and Social Catholics in general, viewed as antithetical to Catholicism) was to “eliminate poverty all together, not merely by the temporary expedient of charity, but by a permanent readjustment in the workers' standard of living and their position in society” (Richard Camp, in Curran and McCormick, p. 34).  He also sided with those who believed that the state not only had a right to intervene for the sake of addressing the exploitation of workers, but an obligation to do so under a specific set of conditions. Unlike his predecessors, Leo accepted the rise of capitalism and the emergence of the secular state as a given to which the church had no choice but to respond.  Rerum Novarum was issued on May 15, 1891.

C) Criticisms of Rerum Novarum

• RN rests on a distorted perception of economic realities in the 1890’s. It assumes a cliché view of capitalism, i.e. capitalism enables the few to monopolize wealth and reduces the many to pauperism” (see O’Brien and Shannon, p. 15), that does not recognize the improvements in living standards brought about in other industrial nations in Europe (e.g., England and Germany), the rise of small businesses in this period, and the birth of a new middle class.
• RN fails to attend to the relationship between economic development and production. As Camp observes: “Italy was oppressively poor in the nineteenth century not because she was capitalistic, but because she wasn’t capitalistic enough. Italy had failed to develop modern industry rapidly enough to meet the needs of her expanding population, and the masses therefore suffered not so much from a concentration of wealth but a system that produced it too slowly to provide sufficient stable and well-paid employment” (in Curran and McCormick, p. 41).
• RN”S statement on the meaning or work is defensive rather than positive. A truly theological analysis of work will not  appear until the contemporary encyclicals of John Paul II.
• It is generally agreed that Leo’s treatment of private property is a misreading of Aquinas in the direction of an absolute rather than limited right. Quadragesimo Anno corrects the distortion.
• The Church takes an arrogant, triumphalistic role in RN. Later social encyclicals, particularly those issued after Vatican II, will cast the church in a much more cooperative, dialogic role with respect to other social institutions and actors.

D) The legacy of Rerum Novarum

Despite criticisms, many allowed by the benefit of historical hindsight, there is no doubt about the significance of Rerum Novarum for Catholic social teaching.  We will see many of the central concerns of Rerum Novarum reappear throughout Catholic social teaching (e.g., the dignity of work and the limited justification for state intervention). The lasting contributions of Rerum Novarum are summarized well by Mich (p. 75):

• Rerum Novarum initiates the beginning of a reapproachment between the official church and modern political thought and the realities of capitalist, secular economies.
• RN legitimates trade unions
• RN supports the developing social consciousness of modern Roman Catholics and inspires a body of social doctrine.
• In RN, Leo becomes the first pope to break the allegiance of the hierarchy to the aristocracy and to recognize the suffering of the poor as a public scandal.
• Establishes the human character of work (as opposed its treatment as a commodity) as a theological principle. 

Pius XI: Quadragesimo Anno—After Forty Years (1931)

In many ways, although he corrects and develops themes in some key places (e.g., the nature and limits of private property), Pius XI continues the direction for social action set by Leo. However, Pius XI’s situation is quite different from Leo’s. “During his 17-year papacy (1922-1939) he faced . . .the ongoing economic crisis marked by famine in Russia, financial collapse in Germany, the stock market crash, and worldwide economic depression” (Mich, p. 75). As O’Brien and Shannon note, “World War I had shattered liberal confidence. Parlimentary democracy seemed almost helpless in the face of the mass movements of fascism and communism” (p. 40). In this context, Pius seeks in QA to offer a “middle way”, a compelling vision for a “Christian social order,” founded on the law of justice and inspired by ideals of Christian charity and concern for the common good. At the heart of his social vision is the principle of subsidiarity, which supports vital cooperative networks of intermediate institutions and  organizations and which limits the intervention of the state to matters where local action is insufficient. Ultimately, the vision Pius offers will fail to be a compelling alternative to liberalism’s draw. Although the encyclical was published in full in the New York Times, it failed to generate much reaction, positive or negative. However, the definition of social justice and the principle of solidarity presented in QA will have lasting impact on the tradition.

A) Background

Quadragesimo Anno is also influenced by the Social Catholicism movement.  Pius XI rejects some of the extreme forms of corporatism popular in his time (some of which function as mere facades for totalitarian governments). However, a form of corporatism (which comes to be called “solidarism”) is the central inspiration for the “Christian social order” developed in QA. The encyclical was authored by German Jesuit Oswald von Nell-Breuning, who was heavily influenced by the late Heinrich Pesch, S.J. It is Pesch’s model for the "vertical society” that QA draws on in the developing the Catholic “middle way.”

Mich (p. 77) gives a helpful summary of the central tenets of Pesch’s model:

"In brief, solidarism was an organic view of society and the economy in which the prosperity of the entire nation was accomplished through the harmonious cooperation and interdependence of all the segments of the economy and society. All individual and group activity was subordinated to the common good of social prosperity. The cooperation of all was seen as a duty, not as something voluntary. Pesch’s theory of solidarism attempted to safeguard the individual and social dimensions of the human community: it avoided the individualism of capitalism and the class war of collectivism."

B) Criticisms of Quadragesimo Anno

Many readers have cast QA as hopelessly nostalgic, a document that pines for the social order of medieval times. Although its organic model of social cooperation is attractive to Catholic sensibilities toward the common good, the document does not give clear direction for defining the proper activism of the state. The language of Pius is often paternalistic and arrogant, in keeping with the overall tendencies of papal documents of this period. Although Pius XI rejected fascism, he has often been accused of being too conciliatory toward fascist governments, especially that of Mussolini (Mich, p. 77). 

C) Lasting legacy of Quadragesimo Anno

Like Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno committed the Church squarely on the side of the poor and underscored social action as a duty for the Christian. As we have seen, the encyclical also contributes some of the conceptual language we continue to employ in the Catholic social tradition:

• QA develops the concept of social justice, a concern for right relationship within society that extends beyond the interactions of individuals.
• QA develops the principle of subsidiarity: the establishment of intermediary groups between individuals and the state and the limitation of the intervention of the state to situations that cannot be handled on the intermediate level.
• Develops a more authentically Thomistic account of the nature and scope of private property
• Underscores the right to a living wage. 

Discussion Questions for Unit III 

1. If you were to write an encyclical like Rerum Novarum, what “new things” would you begin with? To use a later term, what are our “signs of the times” ?
2. Compare and contrast the right to private property as presented in Rerum Novarum #4-8 (O’Brien and Shannon, pp. 15-17), with the right to private property in Quadragesimo Anno #44-52 (O’Brien and Shannon, pp. 51-54). What is Pius XI worried about in giving his corrective to RN? Does either argument for a right to private property make sense to you? 

References 

Camp, Richard L. “The Rights and Duties of Labor and Capital,” Official Catholic Social Teaching: Readings in Moral Theology, No. 5, Edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, S.J. (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986): 32-50.

Coleman, John. S.J., “Development of Church Social Teaching,” in Official Catholic Social Teaching, Readings in Moral Theology, No. 5, ed(s). Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick, S.J. (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1986): 169-187.

Mich, Marvin L. Krier, Catholic Social Teaching and Movements, (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1998).

O’Brien, David A. and Thomas A. Shannon, Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992).