| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SOCIAL DOCTRINE
Catholic Social Teaching: John Paul II,
Centesimus Annus, I
by Thomas Storck, M.A.
(Eighth in a Series)
In this article I will begin the discussion of Centesimus Annus, the
latest social encyclical, written to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of Rerum
Novarum, and issued on May 1, 1991. In some quarters Centesimus was hailed as a new
direction in papal social teaching, and even as a repudiation of past doctrine. However,
as we will see, this was not at all the case. But because this charge has been widely
made, I will devote much of this article and the next to showing the continuity of
Centesimus with the prior social doctrine of the Church.
One of the reasons, I think, that Centesimus seemed to some to indicate
a new direction in Catholic teaching, was that its constant counterpoint, the thing always
on the Pope’s mind and which underlies most of what he says, was his experience of a
totalitarian communist economy in Poland. He was thus familiar with the heavy, and
inefficient, hand of centralized state planning and of a lack of freedom in economic
initiatives. In certain passages of the encyclical, such as chapter three or the beginning
of chapter five, one can see his preoccupation with the absence of freedom that
characterized such regimes. Thus his good words, even praise, for open economies. But such
praise is always qualified. For John Paul is at pains to point out that freedom, even
economic freedom, must be rooted in the truth, and as a result he is clear that economic
activity must be circumscribed by a legal order that points it toward justice and the
common good. (cf. nos. 4, 11, 15, 17, 34, 36, 42, 48 and 58.)1 In our discussion of the
encyclical we will see how often the Holy Father returns to this theme.
Centesimus Annus opens with a brief introduction followed by six
chapters. In the introduction John Paul states that he is looking at Rerum Novarum
“in order to discover anew the richness of the fundamental principles which it
formulated...” (no. 3). Moreover, he states that in Centesimus he “seeks to show
the fruitfulness of the principles enunciated by Leo XIII, which belong to the
Church’s doctrinal patrimony and, as such, involve the exercise of her teaching
authority” (ibid.). Thus far from seeking to set a new course for social doctrine,
the Pontiff roots his own teaching firmly in that of Pope Leo.
Following this, he devotes the first chapter to Rerum Novarum. He notes
the “radical changes which had taken place in the political, economic and social
fields” at the time of that encyclical. As a result of these economic changes, labor
had become
a commodity to be freely bought and sold on the market, its price determined by the law of supply and demand, without taking into account the bare minimum required for the support of the individual and his family. (no. 4)
John Paul describes this situation as a “grave injustice” (ibid.), and he
summarizes some of the points Leo XIII made in response. He notes that Leo “affirmed
the fundamental rights of workers” as well as the right to private property,
mentioning that the earlier pontiff had been “well aware that private property is not
an absolute value.” Leo had also proclaimed the “necessary complementary
principles, such as the universal destination of the earth’s goods” (no. 6).
Then Pope John Paul discusses Rerum Novarum’s vindication of the right “to form
private associations,” such as professional associations or labor unions. And in this
human right “we find the reason for the Church’s defense and approval of the
establishment of what are commonly called trade unions...because the right of association
is a natural right of the human being” (no. 7).
Next the Holy Father mentions other rights of the worker which had been
specified by Pope Leo. These include rights to reasonable working hours and periods of
rest, to a safe workplace, and to a just wage. Indeed, John Paul affirms: “A
workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and
his children.” And immediately he quotes Leo XIII, “If through necessity or fear
of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor
will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice” (no. 8). John
Paul then goes on to say,
Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called “unbridled capitalism” was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity. Unfortunately, even today one finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of children or women, working hours, the hygienic conditions of the workplace and fair pay.... (ibid.)
John Paul speaks of Leo XIII’s discussion of two erroneous
socio-political theories, socialism and liberalism. And here I must again mention that
liberalism, as used in the papal social encyclicals, does not mean what we here in the
United States mean by liberalism. It is the European usage of the term, which approaches
what we would call Libertarianism, or the “unbridled capitalism” which supports
a market free of restraints. Socialism, for the most part, is no longer a temptation to
most people, but free-market liberalism is currently enjoying a resurgence. John Paul
reminds his readers that “the State has the duty of watching over the common good and
of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic one, contributes
to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each sector” (no.
11). This is in contrast to the free-market liberal or Libertarian view of the state,
which sees it as merely enforcing peace and preventing fraud. Indeed, if this contrast
between Catholic teaching and liberal dogma is fully grasped, it will be found to contain
a profound commentary on modern society and modern economics.
I cannot leave this first chapter of Centesimus without noting the Holy
Father’s statements that “to spread her social doctrine pertains to the
Church’s evangelizing mission and is an essential part of the Christian message”
and that the “`new evangelization’ which the modern world urgently needs...must
include among its essential elements a proclamation of the Church’s social
doctrine” (no. 5).
We can see, I think, by looking at the first chapter of John
Paul’s encyclical, that far from weakening the doctrine of his predecessors, the Holy
Father is determined to reaffirm and apply it to today. Exactly how he does this we shall
see in the remainder of our discussion.
In the second chapter of Centesimus, John Paul begins his analysis of
the situation since Rerum Novarum, including the situation of today. In the first place
the Pontiff speaks of socialism, which in Leo XIII’s time was “still only a
social philosophy, and not yet a fully structured movement,” let alone in control of
“a strong and powerful State...” (no. 12). But Pope Leo divined the evils of
socialism quite clearly. Moreover, as Pius XI had pointed out earlier (Quadragesimo Anno,
nos. 117-119),2 and as John Paul points out now, “the root error of socialism is
anthropological in nature” (Centesimus Annus, no. 13). That is to say, since
socialism conceives of man wrongly, it necessarily conceives of society wrongly, and in
turn, conceives of the economy wrongly. And this wrong conception of man is the notion
that the human person is merely “an element, a molecule within the social organism,
so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the
socio-economic mechanism” (ibid.). Socialism also ignores the fact of man’s
power of free choice and “the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises
in the face of good or evil” (ibid.). And ultimately these errors are rooted in
socialism’s atheism, which “deprives the person of his foundation, and
consequently leads to a reorganization of the social order without reference to the
person’s dignity and responsibility” (ibid.).
If the socialist errors about God and man lead to an evil
socio-economic system, “from the Christian vision of the human person there
necessarily follows a correct picture of society” (ibid.). That is, if we correctly
perceive the truth about God and man, we will correctly perceive the truth about society,
including the economic system. But the Pope immediately continues by pointing out that
atheism is not confined just to the socialists.
The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality in a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight concerning man’s true greatness, his transcendence in respect to earthly realities...and, above all, the need for salvation.... (no. 13)
Now the “mechanistic” viewpoint which John Paul II is criticizing here is, of
course, that of the founders of economic science and capitalistic doctrine, such as Adam
Smith in Scotland and the Physiocrats in France. John Paul’s repeated statements that
the economic order requires a legal framework to point the market toward the common good,
shows that he does not fully accept the tradition of economics stemming from these
thinkers.
After this the Pontiff takes up this very theme, which he had earlier
touched on, namely, the need for a “juridical framework within which economic affairs
are to be conducted...” (no. 15). That is, although economic activity must have a
“legitimate sphere of autonomy,” at the same time it must respect certain
necessities of the human person, and there must be some means to guarantee that this is
done. For example, “society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the
maintenance of the worker and his family” and “working hours” must be such
as not to oppress the worker (ibid.). Both Leo XIII and Pius XI had made the same points
in their social encyclicals. Here John Paul mentions not only the State’s role in
achieving these goods for the worker, but the “decisive” role of unions in this
as well.
Next the Pontiff makes two points which should give us, especially here
in the United States, pause. We are apt to contrast our social system with communism by
pointing out the freedom that we have and the lack of freedom that existed and exists
under Marxism. We even called ourselves the Free World, not the Just World or the Godly
World. And John Paul describes here the root error related to freedom, namely “an
understanding of human freedom which detaches it from obedience to the truth...which leads
to an unbridled affirmation of self-interest and which refuses to be limited by any demand
of justice” (no. 17). If we recall that the economic model which affirms the
unlimited self-interest of the individual has often been championed as an alternative to
communism, this passage should make us think twice about the implications of this.
Then the Pope writes of the situation after World War II, of the
Marxist totalitarian states and alternatives proposed against communism. Among these was
the affluent society or the consumer society. It seeks to defeat Marxism on the level of pure materialism by showing how a free-market society can achieve a greater satisfaction of material human needs than Communism, while equally excluding spiritual values. In reality, while on the one hand it is true that this social model shows the failure of Marxism to contribute to a humane and better society, on the other hand, insofar as it denies an autonomous existence and value to morality, law, culture and religion, it agrees with Marxism, in the sense that it totally reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs. (no. 19)
Where was this “affluent society” or “consumer society” located? At
times we have boasted of our affluence, but surely we must recognize that the Pontiff is
speaking of us here! It is our society that has tried to surpass communism on a purely
material level. And although we have succeeded well enough at that, surely there is more
to living than possessing an abundance of things. As our Lord said, “...a man’s
life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).
In the next chapter of the encyclical, chapter three, John Paul II
discusses the events of the year 1989, the year that chiefly saw the fall of communist
governments throughout eastern Europe. The Pope discusses the reasons for the fall of
these regimes, and he identifies three. The first is “the violation of the rights of
workers.” He mentions, of course, the Solidarity movement in his native Poland, and
that the workers because of “a hard, lived experience of work and of
oppression...recovered and... rediscovered the content and principles of the Church’s
social doctrine” (no. 23). The experience of simply living and working in the
“workers’ paradise” of communism rightly convinced them of the injustice of
their position.
Secondly, the Pontiff mentions the “inefficiency of the economic
system,” which is more than the inability to produce a sufficiency of goods, but
involves a restriction of human freedom. And connected to this, he adds communism’s
practice of understanding “the human person on the basis of economics alone,” a
practice which is basic to Marxist philosophy. For a “human being is understood in a
more complete way when situated within the sphere of culture through language, history,
and the position one takes towards the fundamental events of life...” (no. 24). In
other words, we are more than producing and consuming beings—even the lower animals
do that. What makes us distinctly human is a complex of factors revolving around a
culture.
Then thirdly the Holy Father specifies “the spiritual void brought
about by atheism” as in fact the principal cause. This had “deprived the younger
generations of a sense of direction,” but in some cases this ultimately brought them
to Christ, “as the existentially adequate response to the desire in every human heart
for goodness, truth and life” (no. 24).
This fact shows the insufficiency of merely political or social systems
to fulfill man’s longings. In making use of merely political means to bring about
justice and peace, politics can become a “`secular religion’ which operates
under the illusion of creating paradise in this world” (no. 25). But the Kingdom of
God, in but not of this world, “throws light on the order of human society”
(ibid.). In this light we can better see what is needed for a true rebuilding of human
society. Then the Holy Father touches on several topics as he closes this chapter,
including the effort to reconstruct Europe after the fall of communism, and the fact that
aid for this project “must not lead to a slackening of efforts to sustain and assist
the countries of the Third World...” (28). And finally, the Pope, echoing Paul
VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio, reminds us that “development must not be
understood solely in economic terms, but in a way that is fully human” (no. 29). And
most importantly, the “apex of development is the exercise of the right and duty to
seek God, to know him and to live in accordance with that knowledge” (ibid.).
In the next and concluding article in this series I will discuss the
final three chapters of Centesimus.
Thomas Storck is a writer living in Maryland.
End Notes
1 References are to the edition of Centesimus Annus published by the
Daughters of St. Paul.
2 Section references to Quadragesimo Anno are from Seven Great
Encyclicals (Paulist Press, c. 1963).
Return to
Catholic Faith Table of Contents
(© Copyright 1998, As translated into HTML for Catholic Information Center on Internet by Jill Gooler 9/19/98)