CST & The Law Seminar: Notes on Pope John XXIII's Encyclical Mater et Magistra

This session we read two encyclicals by Pope John XXIII:  Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher) and Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth).

The world had radically changed in the seventy years between Pope Leo XIII began the modern era of Catholic social teaching with his encyclical Rerum Novarum,which we discussed last time. Two world wars, the Great Depression, the beginning of the Cold War, the beginning of decolonization, and huge technical advances in a host of fields. An event I think many overlook or underestimate, moreover, was the signing of the Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy. It ensured the political independence of the Vatican, while freeing the Popes to travel the world as ambassadors of the faith.

All of these developments find voice in the two encyclicals. In this post, I focus on Mater et Magistra.

Mater et Magistra

William F. Buckley, Jr., supposedly quipped “Mater si, magistra no,” which translates literally as "Mother yes, teacher no.” In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, however, the Vatican stated that: “Insofar as it is part of the Church's moral teaching, the Church's social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it.” (CSD ¶ 80) Does this mean that lay Catholics may not criticize the Social Teaching? Does it mean that the laity has no role in operationalizing the principles of Catholic Social Thought in law and policy?

No. To the contrary, it is the task of Catholic intellectuals to exercise critical reflective judgment with respect to society, the Church, and the relationship between the two. On course, there is a fine line between the exercise of critical evaluative judgment and dissent.[1] When it comes to issues such as the degree of state intervention in the economy, however, the Church outlines basic principles but recognizes substantial latitude with respect to their translation into public policy. Nowhere, for example, does the Church state what percentage of the economy should by controlled by the state, thus leaving a great deal of room for prudential judgment by Catholics. In promulgating their controversial pastoral letter on the economy, for example, the Bishops expressly acknowledged that their “prudential judgments” about specific policy recommendations were not made “with the same kind of authority that marks our declarations of principle.”[2] Likewise, Pope John Paul II explicitly stated that the Catholic “church has no models to present” with respect to the economy and the state.[3]

The Compendium thus posits that:

[CST] is not a prerogative of a certain component of the ecclesial body but of the entire community; it is the expression of the way that the Church understands society and of her position regarding social structures and changes. The whole of the Church community — priests, religious and laity — participates in the formulation of this social doctrine, each according to the different tasks, charisms and ministries found within her. (CSD ¶ 79)

Implicit in Buckley’s quip is the view held by many that Mater et Magistra marked a sharp discontinuity with prior Church teaching.

In the first part of Mater et Magistra, Pope John reviews Rerum Novarum(1891) and Quadragesimo Anno(1931). In his view, Rerum Novarumwas particularly concerned with rebutting the notion that economic life was exclusively contractual. It rejected the idea that there was no correlation between economics and morality.

Pope John argues that Quadragesimo Anno (literally "In the 40th Year") was issued by Pope Pius XI to reaffirm “the right and duty of the Catholic Church to work for an equitable solution of the many pressing problems weighing upon human society.” (M&M ¶ 28). Pope John further specified two critical teachings to be drawn from Quadragesimo Anno: (1) The “supreme criterion in economic matters … must not be the special interests of individuals or groups, nor unregulated competition, economic despotism, national prestige or imperialism, nor any other aim of this sort.” (M&M ¶ 38) (2) “… man's aim must be to achieve in social justice a national and international juridical order, with its network of public and private institutions, in which all economic activity can be conducted not merely for private gain but also in the interests of the common good.” (M&M ¶ 38).

While both of these sections implicitly purport to be simply a restatement of what those earlier encyclicals stated, many critics saw a shift towards acceptance of the socialization of economic activity and the power of the state. On the other hand, other commentators argued for the essential continuity between Rerum Novarum and Mater et Magistra.

Whether or not Mater et Magistra marks a discontinuity or merely an evolution in CST, there is no doubt that it marked a change in tone and world view. Indeed, contemporary commentary on Mater et Magistra emphasized the shift in tone from hostility towards modernity and economic class warfare to a more modern and balanced appraisal.

Mater et Magistra: Major Themes

1. The Church is properly concerned not only with eternal questions, but also “he exigencies of man's daily life, with his livelihood and education, and his general, temporal welfare and prosperity.” (M&M ¶ 3)
2. The legitimate role of the Church in addressing social justice.
3. Mater et Magistrais intended to affirm the teachings of those encyclicals but also to update them for the radically changed conditions of the early 1960s.
4. Private property and initiative are worthy and deserving of priority, but the public authorities have a role to play not only in promoting economic growth but also in ensuring social justice. (M&M ¶¶ 51-52)
5. The Church embraces the principle of subsidiarity:
   1. Pope John embraces Quadragesimo Anno’s definition of subsidiarity: “Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to a community what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so too it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, for a larger and higher association to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower societies. Of its very nature the true aim of all social activity should be to help members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them." (M&M ¶ 53)
   2. For example, with respect to state ownership of property, the Pope cautioned that: “The State and other agencies of public law must not extend their ownership beyond what is clearly required by considerations of the common good properly understood, and even then there must be safeguards.” (M&M ¶ 117)
6. The common good is embraced at both the national and international level:
   1. “On the national level [the demands of the common good] include: employment of the greatest possible number of workers; care lest privileged classes arise, even among the workers; maintenance of equilibrium between wages and prices; the need to make goods and services accessible to the greatest number; elimination, or at least the restriction, of inequalities in the various branches of the economy—that is, between agriculture, industry and services; creation of a proper balance between economic expansion and the development of social services, especially through the activity of public authorities; the best possible adjustment of the means of production to the progress of science and technology; seeing to it that the benefits which make possible a more human way of life will be available not merely to the present generation but to the coming generations as well.” (M&M ¶ 79)
   2. “The demands of the common good on the international level include: the avoidance of all forms of unfair competition between the economies of different countries; the fostering of mutual collaboration and good will; and effective co-operation in the development of economically less advanced communities.” (M&M ¶ 80)
7. Human dignity is recognized as a foundational principle of CST. Indeed, it has been suggested that “Mater et magistra is essentially an application of human dignity to various human institutions such as property, government, and work.”
   1. “John XXIII explains that the dignity of workers and the development of their personalities entails three basic principles in the workplace: 1) the principle of equity which he translates into just remuneration; 2) the principle of participation which he translates into more involvement in the production process; and 3) the principle of the common good which he translates into the production of useful and needed products.”
   2. As one of my students aptly observed, “Subsidiarity is tied into the idea of human dignity; that people are able to live the fullest, most spiritual life possible when they have more autonomy and control over their own lives and are free from coercive oversight of the state. Subsidiarity promotes this ideal by encouraging people to become more involved in their community and to work in solving problems with their neighbors; this creates bonds of mutual trust and good will among one another, which is one of the principles Catholic Social Thought seeks to encourage.”

Mater et Magistra: Miscellaneous Notes

1. In light of recent proposals by the U.K. Labour Party to give workers 10% of the stock of companies, it is interesting to note that Pope John endorsed the idea that “workers should be allocated shares in the firms for which they work, especially when they are paid no more than a minimum wage” (M&M ¶ 75), so as to ensure that “a just share only of the fruits of production be permitted to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy, and that an ample sufficiency be supplied to the workers." (M&M ¶ 77)
   1. ESOPs and profit sharing plans, of course, are alternatives ways of accomplishing that goal.
2. In his extensive discussion of the rights and duties of workers, Pope John addresses not only their rights to fair wages, but also their rights to “participate” in the enterprise. The form of such participation, however, is left undefined. (M&M ¶¶ 91-96) It thus cannot be said, for example, that the Pope endorsed codetermination or other specific forms of employee participation.
3. The Pope’s discussion of private property is a classic example of the Catholic “both/and” approach to issues.
   1. As Bishop Robert Barron explains, the Catholic “both/and” “celebrates the union of contraries—grace and nature, faith and reason, Scripture and tradition, body and soul in a way that the full energy of each opposing element remains in place.”
   2. As Bishop Barron elsewhere explains, CST thus embraces both subsidiarity and solidarity. “Solidarity without subsidiarity can easily devolve into a kind of totalitarianism whereby “justice” is achieved either through outright manipulation and intimidation or through more subtle forms of social engineering. But subsidiarity without solidarity can result in a society marked by rampant individualism, a Gordon Gekko “greed is good” mentality, and an Ayn Rand/Nietzschean “objectivism” that positively celebrates the powerful person’s dominance of the weak.”
   3. “Catholic social theory involves the subtle balancing of these two great principles so as to avoid these two characteristic pitfalls. It does, for example, consistently advocate the free market, entrepreneurial enterprise, profit-making; and it holds out against all forms of Marxism and extreme socialism. But it also insists that the market be circumscribed by clear moral imperatives and that the wealthy realize their sacred obligation to aid the less advantaged.”
   4. “Not one or the other, nor some bland compromise between the two, but both, advocated with equal vigor.”
4. Mater et Magistra devotes considerable attention to the then-emerging issue of international aid and development. The process of decolonization was creating many new countries, most of which were afflicted by rampant poverty.

[1]On the legitimacy of dissent from the magisterium of the Church, compare Christopher Wolfe, The Ideal of a (Catholic) Law School, 78 Marq. L. Rev. 487, 497-98 (1995) (arguing there is no “right to dissent” as that term is broadly understood) with Michael J. Perry, The Idea of a Catholic University, 78 Marq. L. Rev. 325, 346 (1995) (arguing that “Catholics can and do, without forfeiting our identity as Catholics, dissent from one or another theological proposition”).

[2]The Catholic Challenge to the American Economy: Reflections on the U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy xii (Thomas M. Gannon ed. 1987).

[3]John Paul II, Centesimus Annus ¶ 43.