70                    TRUE

Jesus Christ preached the spirit of poverty and humility, the preference for the weak and the lowly. By poverty, the Church understands detachment from the goods of the earth or such a use of these goods that it may save, and not seduce, souls. Thus she has never taught that riches are intrinsically evil, but only that it is evil to use them wrongly. By humility, the Church understands the individual's recognition that he has nothing of himself and possesses everything from God, and that he must keep the place that is his. Thus, the existence of social classes is a condition of the practice of the virtue of humility. As to the preference for the weak and the lowly, it would be absolutely impossible in a society where everyone was equal. The French Revolution, insofar as it sought to realize the complete political, social, and economic equality dreamt by its protagonists, was a Satanic movement inspired by pride.

FALSE

Jesus Christ preached poverty and humility, preference for the weak and the lowly. A society imbued with this spirit must eliminate all inequalities of fortune and social condition. The political and social reforms coming from the French Revolution were, consciously or not, of evangelical inspiration, and did concur to realize a truly Christian society.

Explanation: It is certain that inequalities, either in the political or in the social or economic domain have often been evil and this for two main motives: either because these inequalities were illegitimate and the fruit of oppression, or because they were so great as to deprive men of the means to live properly and decently. A typical example of exaggerated inequality was the harsh and undeserved inequality in which the workmen of the 19th century were kept due to the industrial revolution.¹ Contrary to what has been said, the Church has accomplished her duty in the struggle against such a plague. But in that struggle, her objective has always been to establish a hierarchical society within the limits of the natural order. It has never been the abolition of legitimate inequalities, dreamed of by the revolutionaries and aimed at by the action of Freemasonry, among others.²

71                    TRUE                                                             The Church intervenes in social questions so as to defend the natural law. Her objective is not to favor one class to the detriment of another, but to work so that the doctrine of Jesus Christ may govern the relations between the classes. She seconds the just aspirations of the workers as well as the authentic rights of the employers. The capitalist regime, in so far as it is founded on private property, is legitimate. The Church combats its abuses, but does not push for its destruction.

FALSE

The Church must make common cause with the worker in the struggle against the capitalist regime.

Explanation: The view that the Church is a kind of workingman's party whose purpose would be to defend only one class is becoming general among Catholics. But, contrary to this, the Church is above classes as well as she is above parties. Even if she has defended the just vindication of the workers, she has never ignored the rights of the employers. In an allocution to the Catholic Day of Vienna, the Holy Father declared quite clearly that the workers' question, a burning one in the first part of the century, was already surpassed by another, more important one, i.e., that of the class struggle inspired by socialism.³ It is more necessary than ever to show that the Church is the protector of all, workers and employers, and not only the systematic advocate of the ones against the others.

As for capitalism, it is necessary to dissipate the confusion made about it in current usage. The capitalist regime in itself, that is in so far as it is a system founded on private property and free initiative, bringing benefits within the bounds set by morality, is legitimate and cannot be confused with the abuses which it led to in many places.

One must not equate the legitimate defense of good working organization against the abuses of capitalism and the struggle of revolutionary organizations which proclaim the illegitimacy of the capitalist regime in itself. Whoever is associated with the activity of the latter organizations collaborates with Communism and incurs the blame contained in the Letter of the Sacred Congregation for the Seminaries to the Brazilian Episcopate: "The human directions so wisely favorable to the working classes which the Holy See has promulgated in the social domain, principally from Leo XIII to Pius XII, do not suffice for some, who promote the leftist movement to the point of nourishing a true friendship towards Bolshevik Communism, destroyer of religion and of all true goodness in a person."⁴

72                        TRUE

Wage-earning is entirely in conformity with the dignity of man and of the Christian. The working contract does not necessarily imply the participation of the worker in the ownership, direction, or profits of the business.

FALSE

Wage-earning is contrary to the dignity of man and intrinsically unjust. The worker's condition naturally conveys the right of participating in the ownership of the business, its direction, and its profits.

Explanation: Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI,⁵ and Pius XII teach that the policy of paying wages is of itself just and fitting to human dignity. The unhealthy economy of the 19th and 20th centuries has stripped the wage of its true character. According to the Church's doctrine, the relations between employers and employees possess something of a family character. Formerly, the employees were considered as integral members of the household, which included the conjugal, familial, and domestic society. The word "patron" comes from "pater, father" and the word "domestic" is derived from the notion according to which the domestics were formed and educated in the very house (domus) of the patron, recalling this character. This is enough to show that there is nothing demoralizing about the condition of a wage-earning employee. Likewise, in the industrial and commercial domain, the family character of these relations must be preserved. The Church wants patrons and workers to co-­operate with one another, insofar as this is possible, like the members of the same family, fathers and sons, who collaborate for the common welfare.

From the point of view of justice, the wage is a satisfactory system of remuneration as long as it realizes the conditions fixed by Pius XI, to wit, that it be sufficient to maintain honestly and worthily the worker and his family. By honest and worthy maintenance, we understand the necessary facility so that the prudent worker may be in a position to save.

The participation of the worker in the profits of the business is presented by Pius XI and Pius XII as recommendable, but never as mandatory.⁶ In certain cases, it may have good results. But this is not a system which should always be applied, and especially, it could not be imposed by law on an entire nation. The same must be said of the participation of the worker in the property or the direction of the business. With regards to the latter, the sense which the Catholic doctrine gives to this participation is such that the power of decision and the responsibility for the entire factory or business remain in the hands of the owner of the business.⁷

The biased sentence, carried to its ultimate logical consequences, would represent the abolition of the inequality of classes, the goal dreamed of by all revolutionaries.

74                      TRUE

Leo XIII teaches that the first claim to ownership of property derives, not from labor, but from occupation. Man is the owner not only of the fruit of his labor, that is, not only of the fruits of the earth, but also of the land itself. He can cultivate it himself or have it cultivated.

FALSE

The only right of property strictly speaking is the right of labor, so that man is only the owner of what he personally produces. The productive property he owns does not belong to him absolutely; he is just the steward of it, and only owns it in so far as he uses it, since absolute ownership of land belongs to the community alone.

Explanation:

The incorrect statement is "statolatric." That is why it leads to conclusions which would be admissible only in a statolatric conception. In fact, the existence of individual property proceeds from the idea that the State is not a god nor an end in itself, but rather a means. That is why the condition of the owner consists in the exercise of a personal and legitimate right, and not in the exercise of a right delegated by the State. And this is why also we say that the owner cannot in any way be confused with a simple manager.

Indeed, the manager must implement the rights and conditions delegated to him. That is the reason why the distinction between owner and manager is common in the legislation of non-communist countries.

73                      TRUE

According to St. Augustine, the supreme owner of riches is God. From this it follows that the owner must use his goods according to the sovereign will of God. But God is not identified with the collectivity. If God's power over all riches is absolute, the power of the collectivity is not. To transfer the rights of God to a collectivity is equivalent to divinizing the State and immolating the individual.

FALSE

According to St. Augustine, the only owner of riches is God. Man is only the manager. Thus riches belong to the collectivity and the owner is only its administrator for the common good.