Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Rerum Novarum, Part IV: The Role of the State in Capital and Labor
We must now turn our attention to a very important aspect of the discussion of economy, capital, and labor. Indeed, whether or not one acknowledges it, the role of the State is an integral part to these areas. We have outlined the basic rights of man as an individual, man in society, the rights of businessowners, and the rights of wage-earners. We must now consider the rights of Society, and that which rules society.
In considering this question, there are two serious errors, which are adverse reactions to each other. It is literally going from one extreme to the other. There are those uncontrolled capitalists who believe the State has absolutely no business in the affairs of capital and labor. They believe in a completely hands off approach. In reaction to this extreme, one has the communists, who make capital and labor one of the state's primary business affairs, to where everything is controlled by the State. We must beware of both extremes. These extremes will be touched upon more in-depth in this commentary.
"It is sufficient, therefore, to inquire what part the State should play in the work of remedy and relief.
32 By the State we here understand, not the particular form of government prevailing in this or that nation, but the State as rightly apprehended; that is to say, any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law, and to those dictates of the divine wisdom which we have expounded in the encyclical On the Christian Constitution of the State.[26] The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land -- through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference -- since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them. "
Kevin Tierney: As Always, we must be quick to point out the Catholic Church does not uphold one form of government over the other. What the Catholic Church does do is outline principles by which any ruling body worthy of the title "government" must follow. Here Leo advocates something that many today believe are two mutually exclusive principles, that of private prosperity, and the public good. Liberalism has been known for it's class warfare, and does everything in it's power to drive home the idea that a vibrant respect for private prosperity somehow damages the public good, as you have a tale of "two America's" where those who win life's lottery seek only to garner more money and oppress those who do not have it. To solve the problem, the liberal advocates taking the private propsperity of those who make money, and redistributing it to those who do not. This is why we hear so much of "tax cuts for the rich." Under the name of a balanced tax cut, many times we see tax cuts for people who do not even pay taxes, and indeed, that is exactly what such programs as the "Earned Income Tax Credit" are, socialism pure and simple.
On the other extreme, we have the crass individualism of many today who believe that nothing should prevent them for attaining more prosperity. While it is certainly there money and in general they may do with it as they please, they cannot, by a matter of divine and natural law, use their wealth to disadvantage others. We must remember these two extremes as we move on, and see how this great Pontiff avoids both.
The State is not to serve only one specific group of people. We hear of political parties for "the working man" to the exclusion of those who give the working man his job. Other times, people are in the pocket of big business, to the point where the individual situation of the worker is largely ignored. The State should be neither of these extremes, yet the servant of both. Many might wonder why I chose the word servant, in that the State rules and governs, it would seem service is out of the question. Yet the Catholic Church has always held that a ruler of anything is first and foremost a servant. Christ is Our King, but he taught us this example by taking on the form of a bondservant, and in the process, was exalted higher than any name. Likewise the first Pontiff Peter rightly addresses fellow Bishops as "your fellow elder", which is where we get the idea of the Pope being "Servant of the Servants of God." Through just and effective rule, one does not strip the authority and power of another, but rightly magnifies it. Hence the State, by serving in leadership, has as it's goal the ultimate elevation of society according to the principles of God. In one's general laws, the State should seek to alleviate the pain of the working class, so later on, they will not have to constantly come to the aid of that class. The same holds true for business owners to a lesser degree, as they have more means capable of shielding themselves from adversity. Here Leo annunciates a strong respect for the rule of law, because a strong rule of law prevents one man from stepping above the law, as you had many times in Reformation-post Reformation times, where the King believed he was appointed to rule directly from God, and hence laws did not apply to him.
"33. There is another and deeper consideration which must not be lost sight of. As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal. The members of the working classes are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth; and it need hardly be said that they are in every city very largely in the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part."[27] Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice -- with that justice which is called distributive -- toward each and every class alike. "
Kevin Tierney: Here we must understand that each person is an equal citizen, in that he is no more or less a member of society than the other. Belonging to a special class does not mean you possess more rights under law than others. A system of law which recognizes the equal rights of citizens is a system of law which no doubt will flourish prosperity and goodwill.
"34. But although all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to that common good in which individuals share so advantageously to themselves, yet it should not be supposed that all can contribute in the like way and to the same extent. No matter what changes may occur in forms of government, there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State. Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them."
Kevin Tierney: This is a recurring theme throughout the encyclical, but one that is worth repeating a thousand times, the fact that there will always be differences in classes, and that these differences, rather than being frowned upon, should be encouraged. One need only look at the perfect society, the Catholic Church. There is not a cookie-cutter shape so to speak for people in the Church, in that they must all be one thing, or all things. One can see this even amongst the Apostles, for on one hand, you have the penetrating rhetoric of a St. Paul, and on the other, you have a deeply spiritual account of the Lord's life in the Gospel of St. John. Likewise, for the Church she has her bishops, priests, deacons, evangelists, confessors, apologists, theologians, all these different groups are vital for a healthy Church. Rather than frown upon these differences, the Church cherishes these different charisms, and when they are actively fostered, one can hardly deny the vibrancy of the Church.
Likewise in society, there are those who make the laws, those who see them enforced, those who counsel in times of peril, those who defend her in times of peril, those who labor in the marketplaces of society, and those who own them are all necessary class distinctions that will not go away. Pitting one class against the other is ultimately counter-productive to a healthy society. In today's culture of crass individualism however, this line of thought is completely anathema. Therefore, not only should we point out the flaws of the Culture of Death (as indeed, many secular conservatives and Evangelical Protestants can do quite nicely) but as Catholics, provide a Catholic answer to the solution. We must have the negative assertions (the problems with the Culture of Death) and also the positive assertions (how to bring about the Culture of Christ.)
"36. Whenever the general interest or any particular class suffers, or is threatened with harm, which can in no other way be met or prevented, the public authority must step in to deal with it."
Kevin Tierney: Again, we see the notion of a subsidarity here. Government should never be the first step to becoming involved when suffering occurs, but the last. Since the family is the core of any society, logically, when one is unable at the time to have the means to help themselves, they should first turn to the family. After this, the Church, then various organizations, to where finally, if all else fails, the government should provide assistance. The government does not exist to provide entitlements to the people. Many Catholic misunderstand this point, thinking that a government that is active in providing "social justice" to the people through massive government programs is a government that is defending the social aspects of Catholicism. Rather, a government that provides all these programs overstate it's natural boundaries, usurping the centrality of the family in the life of society. It does not take a village to raise a child, but a strong family.
"If by a strike of workers or concerted interruption of work there should be imminent danger of disturbance to the public peace; or if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed; if religion were found to suffer through the workers not having time and opportunity afforded them to practice its duties; if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; or if employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust, or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings; finally, if health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age -- in such cases, there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law. The limits must be determined by the nature of the occasion which calls for the law's interference -- the principle being that the law must not undertake more, nor proceed further, than is required for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the mischief. "
Kevin Tierney: There is much that could be said about this paragraph. Many times those who lead the labor movement seem to think that it's a good thing when their strikes shut down society as a whole, as a proof of how powerful they are. Such is barbaric. On the other hand, there are those business owners who believe that they may do whatever they want to the worker with impunity. Leo condemns both positions. A strike that crumbles society does not lead to an increase of good in society, nor does this unchecked capitalism. In both extremes, the state not only should intervene, but must intervene, but only in so far as to correct the problem. There is not to be a permanent involvement in the problem, but a remedy of the situation from the State's limited authority. Furthermore, this should only be when necessary. Later in the encyclical, Leo outlines certain steps to keep government out of these affairs, to ehance prosperity and goodwill amongst the classes.
"41. From this follows the obligation of the cessation from work and labor on Sundays and certain holy days. The rest from labor is not to be understood as mere giving way to idleness; much less must it be an occasion for spending money and for vicious indulgence, as many would have it to be; but it should be rest from labor, hallowed by religion. Rest (combined with religious observances) disposes man to forget for a while the business of his everyday life, to turn his thoughts to things heavenly, and to the worship which he so strictly owes to the eternal Godhead. It is this, above all, which is the reason and motive of Sunday rest; a rest sanctioned by God's great law of the Ancient Covenant -- "Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day,''[31] and taught to the world by His own mysterious "rest" after the creation of man: "He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."[32] "
Kevin Tierney: In today's fast paced society, many do not understand the point of not working on Sunday. Sunday is primarily a day of the Lord. Therefore, that day should be kept holy. Furthermore, a man is able, when not being constantly worked, to reflect upon those things in his life, and combined with religious observance, becomes more disciplined and calm, more able to effectively carry out his duties to society.
We shall next turn our attention to the issue of wages, certainly one of the most important aspects of labor, as the worker is worth his hire.
We must now turn our attention to a very important aspect of the discussion of economy, capital, and labor. Indeed, whether or not one acknowledges it, the role of the State is an integral part to these areas. We have outlined the basic rights of man as an individual, man in society, the rights of businessowners, and the rights of wage-earners. We must now consider the rights of Society, and that which rules society.
In considering this question, there are two serious errors, which are adverse reactions to each other. It is literally going from one extreme to the other. There are those uncontrolled capitalists who believe the State has absolutely no business in the affairs of capital and labor. They believe in a completely hands off approach. In reaction to this extreme, one has the communists, who make capital and labor one of the state's primary business affairs, to where everything is controlled by the State. We must beware of both extremes. These extremes will be touched upon more in-depth in this commentary.
"It is sufficient, therefore, to inquire what part the State should play in the work of remedy and relief.
32 By the State we here understand, not the particular form of government prevailing in this or that nation, but the State as rightly apprehended; that is to say, any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law, and to those dictates of the divine wisdom which we have expounded in the encyclical On the Christian Constitution of the State.[26] The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land -- through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference -- since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them. "
Kevin Tierney: As Always, we must be quick to point out the Catholic Church does not uphold one form of government over the other. What the Catholic Church does do is outline principles by which any ruling body worthy of the title "government" must follow. Here Leo advocates something that many today believe are two mutually exclusive principles, that of private prosperity, and the public good. Liberalism has been known for it's class warfare, and does everything in it's power to drive home the idea that a vibrant respect for private prosperity somehow damages the public good, as you have a tale of "two America's" where those who win life's lottery seek only to garner more money and oppress those who do not have it. To solve the problem, the liberal advocates taking the private propsperity of those who make money, and redistributing it to those who do not. This is why we hear so much of "tax cuts for the rich." Under the name of a balanced tax cut, many times we see tax cuts for people who do not even pay taxes, and indeed, that is exactly what such programs as the "Earned Income Tax Credit" are, socialism pure and simple.
On the other extreme, we have the crass individualism of many today who believe that nothing should prevent them for attaining more prosperity. While it is certainly there money and in general they may do with it as they please, they cannot, by a matter of divine and natural law, use their wealth to disadvantage others. We must remember these two extremes as we move on, and see how this great Pontiff avoids both.
The State is not to serve only one specific group of people. We hear of political parties for "the working man" to the exclusion of those who give the working man his job. Other times, people are in the pocket of big business, to the point where the individual situation of the worker is largely ignored. The State should be neither of these extremes, yet the servant of both. Many might wonder why I chose the word servant, in that the State rules and governs, it would seem service is out of the question. Yet the Catholic Church has always held that a ruler of anything is first and foremost a servant. Christ is Our King, but he taught us this example by taking on the form of a bondservant, and in the process, was exalted higher than any name. Likewise the first Pontiff Peter rightly addresses fellow Bishops as "your fellow elder", which is where we get the idea of the Pope being "Servant of the Servants of God." Through just and effective rule, one does not strip the authority and power of another, but rightly magnifies it. Hence the State, by serving in leadership, has as it's goal the ultimate elevation of society according to the principles of God. In one's general laws, the State should seek to alleviate the pain of the working class, so later on, they will not have to constantly come to the aid of that class. The same holds true for business owners to a lesser degree, as they have more means capable of shielding themselves from adversity. Here Leo annunciates a strong respect for the rule of law, because a strong rule of law prevents one man from stepping above the law, as you had many times in Reformation-post Reformation times, where the King believed he was appointed to rule directly from God, and hence laws did not apply to him.
"33. There is another and deeper consideration which must not be lost sight of. As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal. The members of the working classes are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth; and it need hardly be said that they are in every city very largely in the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part."[27] Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice -- with that justice which is called distributive -- toward each and every class alike. "
Kevin Tierney: Here we must understand that each person is an equal citizen, in that he is no more or less a member of society than the other. Belonging to a special class does not mean you possess more rights under law than others. A system of law which recognizes the equal rights of citizens is a system of law which no doubt will flourish prosperity and goodwill.
"34. But although all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to that common good in which individuals share so advantageously to themselves, yet it should not be supposed that all can contribute in the like way and to the same extent. No matter what changes may occur in forms of government, there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State. Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them."
Kevin Tierney: This is a recurring theme throughout the encyclical, but one that is worth repeating a thousand times, the fact that there will always be differences in classes, and that these differences, rather than being frowned upon, should be encouraged. One need only look at the perfect society, the Catholic Church. There is not a cookie-cutter shape so to speak for people in the Church, in that they must all be one thing, or all things. One can see this even amongst the Apostles, for on one hand, you have the penetrating rhetoric of a St. Paul, and on the other, you have a deeply spiritual account of the Lord's life in the Gospel of St. John. Likewise, for the Church she has her bishops, priests, deacons, evangelists, confessors, apologists, theologians, all these different groups are vital for a healthy Church. Rather than frown upon these differences, the Church cherishes these different charisms, and when they are actively fostered, one can hardly deny the vibrancy of the Church.
Likewise in society, there are those who make the laws, those who see them enforced, those who counsel in times of peril, those who defend her in times of peril, those who labor in the marketplaces of society, and those who own them are all necessary class distinctions that will not go away. Pitting one class against the other is ultimately counter-productive to a healthy society. In today's culture of crass individualism however, this line of thought is completely anathema. Therefore, not only should we point out the flaws of the Culture of Death (as indeed, many secular conservatives and Evangelical Protestants can do quite nicely) but as Catholics, provide a Catholic answer to the solution. We must have the negative assertions (the problems with the Culture of Death) and also the positive assertions (how to bring about the Culture of Christ.)
"36. Whenever the general interest or any particular class suffers, or is threatened with harm, which can in no other way be met or prevented, the public authority must step in to deal with it."
Kevin Tierney: Again, we see the notion of a subsidarity here. Government should never be the first step to becoming involved when suffering occurs, but the last. Since the family is the core of any society, logically, when one is unable at the time to have the means to help themselves, they should first turn to the family. After this, the Church, then various organizations, to where finally, if all else fails, the government should provide assistance. The government does not exist to provide entitlements to the people. Many Catholic misunderstand this point, thinking that a government that is active in providing "social justice" to the people through massive government programs is a government that is defending the social aspects of Catholicism. Rather, a government that provides all these programs overstate it's natural boundaries, usurping the centrality of the family in the life of society. It does not take a village to raise a child, but a strong family.
"If by a strike of workers or concerted interruption of work there should be imminent danger of disturbance to the public peace; or if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed; if religion were found to suffer through the workers not having time and opportunity afforded them to practice its duties; if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; or if employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust, or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings; finally, if health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age -- in such cases, there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law. The limits must be determined by the nature of the occasion which calls for the law's interference -- the principle being that the law must not undertake more, nor proceed further, than is required for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the mischief. "
Kevin Tierney: There is much that could be said about this paragraph. Many times those who lead the labor movement seem to think that it's a good thing when their strikes shut down society as a whole, as a proof of how powerful they are. Such is barbaric. On the other hand, there are those business owners who believe that they may do whatever they want to the worker with impunity. Leo condemns both positions. A strike that crumbles society does not lead to an increase of good in society, nor does this unchecked capitalism. In both extremes, the state not only should intervene, but must intervene, but only in so far as to correct the problem. There is not to be a permanent involvement in the problem, but a remedy of the situation from the State's limited authority. Furthermore, this should only be when necessary. Later in the encyclical, Leo outlines certain steps to keep government out of these affairs, to ehance prosperity and goodwill amongst the classes.
"41. From this follows the obligation of the cessation from work and labor on Sundays and certain holy days. The rest from labor is not to be understood as mere giving way to idleness; much less must it be an occasion for spending money and for vicious indulgence, as many would have it to be; but it should be rest from labor, hallowed by religion. Rest (combined with religious observances) disposes man to forget for a while the business of his everyday life, to turn his thoughts to things heavenly, and to the worship which he so strictly owes to the eternal Godhead. It is this, above all, which is the reason and motive of Sunday rest; a rest sanctioned by God's great law of the Ancient Covenant -- "Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day,''[31] and taught to the world by His own mysterious "rest" after the creation of man: "He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."[32] "
Kevin Tierney: In today's fast paced society, many do not understand the point of not working on Sunday. Sunday is primarily a day of the Lord. Therefore, that day should be kept holy. Furthermore, a man is able, when not being constantly worked, to reflect upon those things in his life, and combined with religious observance, becomes more disciplined and calm, more able to effectively carry out his duties to society.
We shall next turn our attention to the issue of wages, certainly one of the most important aspects of labor, as the worker is worth his hire.
