From the bulletin of December 27, 2020
Continuing our journey through Pope Leo XIII’s landmark document, we pick up this week with how the government should view religion and family. First, the pope lays out the principle that “the State must not absorb the individual or the family; both should be allowed free and untrammeled action so far as is consistent with the common good and the interest of others.” For this reason, “the safety of the commonwealth” is the reason for government’s existence and it is therefore its primary responsibility.
But this does not boil down to a libertarian approach where the government never intervenes. Precisely because the government is supposed to preserve and protect the common good, there are circumstances when it should act in a direct way. Pope Leo lists several things, but we can focus in on the claim that “the discipline of family life should be observed and that religion should be obeyed.” In other words, the government should act to protect both the family and religious freedom “if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed” or “if religion were found to suffer through the workers not having time and opportunity afforded them to practice its duties.” An example of this would be if employers forced their workers to choose between working 7 days a week or lose their job. Or if a company refused to respect the time an employee needs to spend with their spouse and children. Indeed, at the time this was written, there was a widespread practice of excessive working hours that took away from rest, religion, and family. Even children were being forced to work, often for terribly low pay. Thus, the pope supported measures to set age limits, hourly limits, and minimum wages to ensure that companies could no longer take advantage of the desperate and poor. He also supported the right of workers to go on strike and to form unions so that they could counteract the massive power a company had over any individual employee.
Some people might read that and think the pope was radical or liberal or leftist. But that’s simply not true and too simple. Pope Leo was not interested in political loyalties or labels. In reality, he wanted to recognize the legitimate concerns and sufferings of workers precisely so that more radical ideas like communism did not become popular. He notes that “there are not a few who are imbued with evil principles and eager for revolutionary change, whose main purpose is to stir up disorder and incite their fellows to acts of violence. The authority of the law should intervene to put restraint upon such firebrands, to save the working classes from being led astray by their maneuvers, and to protect lawful owners from spoliation.”
Some who argue against things like minimum wage or unions point out that it is up to a person to negotiate fair terms for themselves. But this ignores the reality of having nothing to bargain with. A company who can hire anyone they want has a lot more sway than the one person who either has to accept an unfair job or starve. Desperation will force people to accept unfair contracts and unfair contracts lead to resentment and resentment leads to revolution. Knowing well that resentment is poisonous, the Church has always taught the importance of forgiveness, but also of seeking justice. The one suffering injustice ought to forgive, but those who witness injustice done to others ought to intervene to make it right. Especially in the face of large and powerful corporations, it is often only the government that has the power needed to influence it, though large organizations of citizens (like unions) can also be helpful. Of course these things are themselves capable of corruption and abuse, but that doesn’t mean we simply abandon the poor and destitute to being abused by the rich and powerful.
Next week, we’ll pick up this theme as it applies specifically to questions of rest and of wages, keeping in mind our eternal destiny.
– In Christ,
Fr. Albert