"Discuss and contrast the measures of social reform proposed by Leo XIII and Pius XI. Were they adequate?"

Synopsis

In 'Rerum Novarum' (1891), LeoXIII proposed a three-fold solution to the 'Social Question' through a more equitable distribution of wealth and property brought about by a restoration of religious values in public life, through the formation of associations of workers to advance and protect their own interests and through the intervention of the state to ensure the good order of society where the rights of all were protected.

Forty years later Pius XI again wrote on these issues in his encyclical 'Quadragesimo Anno' in which he re-affirmed much of the teaching of Rerum Novarum, but as an alternative to the two extremes of capitalism and communism which he condemned, he argued for the structural reform of society through the establishment of the corporate state.

In this essay these measures will be described more fully and their adequacy assessed.

ESSAY

Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical 'Rerum Novarum' was a watershed in the history of the Catholic Church. Despite its limitations, it represented the most authoritative Church statement on a number of burning social issues that had progressively emerged in Europe during the course of the nineteenth century. Whilst the encyclical named many of the injustices associated with industrialization and the economic life of its day, it also set out a number of basic principles and suggested ways in which these injustices could be addressed. More importantly it gave encouragement and impetus to those within the Church who had long urged engagement with the 'Social Question'.

The encyclical was written in response to the widespread social dislocation that had appeared in Europe and America as a result of industrialization with its consequent overcrowding, poverty, misery and the destruction of family life. Leo was also alarmed at the rise of revolutionary theories and their threat to the established social order including the church. For much of the preceding one hundred years from the time of the French Revolution the church in Europe had been in retreat culminating in the loss of the Papal States, and in many parts of Europe its authority and position was under attack as liberal, and secular forms of government replaced the ancient monarchies. It is in this context that the solutions Leo proposed need to be considered.

Leo proposed three important measures of social reform to address these issues. His first and most fundamental solution was to urge a renewal of the Christian life and a return to the living of gospel values "if society is to be cured now, in no other way can it be cured but by a return to the Christian life and Christian institutions."[1] He envisioned a world where capital and labour recognized their mutual dependence and that their shared Christian principles would lead to harmonious co-operation.[2] In particular while re-affirming the individual's right to private property, Leo also stressed the responsibility on everyone, in charity, to share with those in need. [3]

Whilst this was the ideal, Leo was realistic enough to recognize that further measures were needed. For this reason he supported the right of workers to form associations to protect and advance their interests. He even saw this as essential, recognizing that the demise of the medieval guilds had left workers with no defence against exploitation. Nevertheless, fearful that members of the faithful might be led astray or perhaps influenced by socialist ideas, Leo favoured the formation of specifically Catholic associations [4].

Thirdly he emphasised that the role of the state was to regulate to ensure an economic and social environment based on Christian Principles. Importantly he stressed that the state was not to be an instrument of the ruling class but rather had a clear responsibility to protect the poor. [5]

Whilst 'Rerum Novarum' was a document which contributed profoundly to the establishment of a more just social, order a number of criticisms could be levelled in regard to the adequacy of Leo�s proposals. Leo placed great faith in the goodwill of the rich in appealing to their charitable responsibilities. Likewise he seemed to fail to recognize that frequently the power of the state is closely identified with the wealthy classes. This raises the issue of what happens if the rich ignore their call to charity and the state fails to intervene to protect the worker?

The encyclical is unclear on the issue of how far workers may go to claim their rights. For example Leo is ambivalent in regard to strikes. Whilst he does not deny the right to strike, he speaks of strikes posing a threat to order and condemns the destruction of property and any resort to violence. [6] It seems that Leo attempted to challenge the economic sphere without disturbing the political sphere, but this is not really possible when the rich wield political power to control the economic sphere. As Dorr puts it
"he did not distinguish between on the one hand an altogether unacceptable level of violent or disruptive action, and on the other hand, a certain level of disturbance and instability that may be necessary if structural injustices are to be overcome despite the resistance of powerful groups." [7]

If his call for conversion fell on deaf ears it seems Leo opted for reluctant acquiescence to unjust structures rather than to allow disorder. This diminished the effectiveness of 'Rerum Novarum' as a cry on behalf of the poor. [8]

Finally Leo's favouring of the formation of specifically Catholic Associations also had two unfortunate consequences. It first of all fragmented the labour movement thereby weakening it, and secondly by diminishing the Catholic voice in secular trade unions it unintentionally assisted in the growth of anti-catholic attitudes within them. [9]

Some forty years after 'Rerum Novarum' the then pope Pius XI again addressed the issue of social justice in his encyclical 'Quadragesimo Anno' published in 1931. It was a very different world in which he was writing. Whilst the last vestiges of the ancient order had been largely swept away in the aftermath of the First World War new forms of authoritarian government had begun to emerge. Pius had recently arrived at a settlement with one of them. He had negotiated an agreement with Mussolini in regard to the Vatican state through the Lateran Treaty of 1929, but an uneasy tension still existed between the Church and the Fascist Italian government. [10]

The process of industrialization had continued throughout the world in the forty years since Leo had first addressed the issues arising from it, but there had been considerable progress in improving the wages and conditions of workers over that time; due in no small part to the influence of the Church�s teaching as Pius pointed out in the first part of his encyclical. Nevertheless at the time of writing the world had been plunged into the misery of the Great Depression, an event which again raised serious questions about the whole capitalist system.

The fears that had so concerned Leo about socialism and its threat to the social order had also been drastically realized with the Communist revolution in Russia and communist ideas had continued to gain support in Europe. The depression was only likely to further build that support. This then is the context in which the teachings of 'Quadragesimo Anno' need to be understood.

Much of the encyclical reaffirmed the principles and teachings set out in 'Rerum Novarum', although these were extended in some parts and with some significant change of emphasis in other parts. Thus we find continued support for the rights of the worker to a just wage, fair conditions, freedom of association and a fair share in profits generated by their labour. The right to private property was again acknowledged but this time with more stress on the responsibilities for its use in justice not only in charity. [11] The term 'social justice' makes its first appearance in a church document. [12] Significantly Pius also states that "it is rightly contended that certain forms of property must be reserved to the State since they carry with them an opportunity for domination too great to be left to private individuals without injury to the community at large." [13]

The tone of the encyclical is much more sympathetic to moderate socialist ideals which are recognized to "often strikingly approach the just demands of Christian social reformers" [14]. Nevertheless whilst supportive of trade unions, even 'secular' trade unions, Pius is implacably opposed to communism and ultimately rejects even moderate socialism because fundamentally it was seen to "conceive human society in a way utterly alien to Christian truth" [15]

The encyclical is less sympathetic towards the shortcomings of the capitalist system. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is strongly condemned as is the associated power and domination that results "economic dictatorship has replaced a free market" [16]

Like his predecessor Pius was greatly concerned with preserving the harmony of the social order. His solution rejected the two extremes of capitalism and communism but instead envisaged the formation of associations across class divisions. He proposed the intervention of the state to bring about a re-structuring to introduce a system of 'corporations'. In these groups, labour, capital, and consumers together with the help of government would work for the good of a particular vocation or industry. There would also be a higher group coordinating all the different vocations and industries. This vision was consistent with the principle of subsidiarity which had been identified by Pius as being fundamental in the ordering of society. [17]

At the same time Pius recognized that this reconstruction must be preceded by "a profound renewal of the Christian spirit from which so many of those engaged in economic activity have in many places unhappily departed." [18] He envisioned that this would be brought about by the action of zealous, well-trained apostles of Catholic Action; members of the laity drawn from the ranks of all classes and professions. [19]

Whilst noble in concept and attractive in theory the main problem with the 'corporate state' as proposed by Pius was just that. It only existed in theory, leaving aside the distorted version that had already been introduced in fascist Italy. Whatever chance it had of ever being widely accepted disappeared when it became (unfairly) identified with authoritarian regimes eg Italy and Austria. Over time the successors of Pius realized that there was little if any chance that this vision would ever be adopted on a global level and it was quietly allowed to disappear from subsequent church statements on social and economic questions.

Another criticism of the encyclical can be levelled at the way in which it dealt with the issue of socialism. Whilst Pius condemned the evil effects of capitalism he still believed it could be reformed. At the same time whilst recognizing the positive aspects of socialism he condemned it as a system. This seems rather inconsistent as capitalism is hardly any less �godless� than the socialism Pius rejects. Further whilst he distinguishes between the extreme of communism and a more moderate socialism he seems unable to allow for the existence or development of a Christian form of socialism, despite the fact that already in different parts of the world, including Australia, there were people who were happy to be described as a 'catholic socialist'. Just as Leo's rejection of the notion of catholics joining non-catholics in trade unions hindered progress towards attaining justice for workers so it can be argued that the prohibition on Catholics associating with Socialists in Germany for example, divided and weakened those who shared an opposition to Hitler and his policies and thus facilitated his rise to power.

Despite these criticisms 'Quadragessimo Anno' is rightly regarded as having made an important contribution to the development of the Church�s social teaching. It not only built on the foundation set out in 'Rerum Novarum' but helped establish the credentials of the church as a visionary rather than a reactionary force, upheld the right and duty of the church to speak on matters of social concern and demonstrated its prophetic role in identifying and challenging the injustices of its time.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Rerum Novarum 22 in Catholic Social Thought - The Documentary Heritage
David J. O'Brien, & Thomas A. Shannon, (eds)
(New York: Orbis Books, 1992) p24

[2] Rerum Novarum 15-16

[3] Rerum Novarum 19

[4] Rerum Novarum 40

[5] Rerum Novarum 26

[6] Rerum Novarum 31

[7] D. Dorr,
Option for the Poor - A Hundred Years of Vatican Social Teaching
(Blackburn: Collins Dove, 1992) p27

[8] ibid

[9] Dorr, Option for the Poor, p31

[10] B. Duncan,
The Church�s Social Teaching: from Rerum Novarum to 1931
(Blackburn: Collins Dove, 1991) p118

[11] Quadragesimo Anno 137 in Catholic Social Thought - The Documentary Heritage
David J. O'Brien, & Thomas A. Shannon, (eds)
(New York: Orbis Books, 1992) p74

[12] Quadragessimo Anno 57

[13] Quadragesimo Anno 114

[14] ibid

[15] Quadragesimo Anno 117

[16] Quadragesimo Anno 109

[17] Quadragesimo Anno 79

[18] Quadragesimo Anno 127

[19] Quadragesimo Anno 141

Bibliography

Dorr, Donal.
Option for the Poor - A Hundred Years of Vatican Social Teaching
Blackburn: Collins Dove 1992. Revised edition.

Duncan, Bruce.
The Church's Social Teaching - from Rerum Novarum to 1931
Blackburn: Collins Dove, 1991.

Husslein, Joseph. (ed)
Social Wellsprings - Eighteen Encyclicals of Social Reconstruction by Pope Pius XI Vol. 2.
Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1942.

Molony, John.
The Worker Question
Blackburn: Collins Dove, 1991.

O'Brien, David J & Shannon, Thomas A. (eds)
Catholic Social Thought - The Documentary Heritage
New York: Orbis Books, 1992.

HOME