Especially these
days, people seem confused about the proper role of the State. Many, if not most people haven’t bothered to
find out what the State is supposed to be doing or even what the State really
is — a social tool, not the “Mortall God” of totalitarian philosopher Thomas
Hobbes. That is why we usually list the
pillar having to do with the social tool of the State before the others — as
did Father Heinrich Pesch.
Here CESJ finds
itself in full agreement with Father Pesch — in theory, at least — and Father
Pesch’s Lehrbuch was, by his own
admission, not to be construed as a handbook for economic practice, but as a
work of theory. (Jacques Yenni, S.J., “Pesch’s Goal of the Economy” Social Order, April, 1951, 175.) As one expert on solidarism explained,
 |
| Individuals, not the State, are primarily responsible for themselves. |
The attainment of
their private material welfare by individuals and private social units, such as
families, is a matter of double causation.
It must be the immediate product
of their own self-responsible efforts and initiative. And it is, secondly, the mediate product of the public material welfare.
Thus, individuals
and non-public social groups have the direct
responsibility for realizing their private material welfare. (2, 289 and
316; 3, 826 [these are references to the Lehrbuch,
volume and page number]) To allow for
self-responsibility, social economy must be organized on a basis of private enterprise
and considerable freedom to compete in productive activity and in the
determination of one’s consumption pattern.
(2, 316; 5, 123) [Emphasis in original.] (Ibid., 172.)
That is, the
normal way of doing things is for people to secure their “private material
welfare” by their own efforts. The State
or other social body, “public material welfare,” is permitted to offer
assistance to “individuals and non-public social groups” under the principle of
double effect (“a matter of double causation”).
“The goal of social economy does not involve a full provision for all
the wants of all the citizens. To assign
such a goal to the economic system would be to demand, in effect, the very
disappearance of the ‘problem of economy’ itself.” (Ibid., 170.)
 |
| Wage slavery is still slavery |
This “principle
of double effect” allows an unintended evil, in this case, the imposition of
dependency status on “individuals and private social units” and a measure of
degradation of human dignity, as an expedient in order to meet material needs
in an emergency. Thus, such good or morally indifferent mechanisms
as the living wage, family allowances, health benefits, and so on, may be
necessary to maintain people in a manner otherwise consistent with the demands
of human dignity, and there is nothing wrong with them per se . . . but they have the unintended evil effect of undermining that same
human dignity. A living wage system is
still a wage system, and is a "structure of sin" because it takes for granted the dependent status of the worker
and his or her family.
The unintended
evil is only allowed as long as the intended good outweighs it. Keeping people alive and well is more
important than how they are kept
alive and well — as long as it is not done by objectively evil means. The State cannot, for example, tax the rich
to the point where the rich become poor themselves and eligible for state or
private assistance, (Rerum
Novarum, § 67.) or burden an
employer with paying a living wage when it would drive him into bankruptcy. (Quadragesimo Anno, § 72.)
 |
| When our tools are in charge. . . . |
Further, any
action allowed under the principle of double effect is permitted only as long
as there is no other way to achieve the necessary and desired end. The State may not, for example, continue
social welfare programs when there is other recourse for people to meet their “material
welfare,” such as widespread ownership of the means of production and access to
the means of acquiring and possessing property.
The State is only a tool, and tools should not be in charge.
Social welfare
programs (“public material welfare”) become morally reprehensible when the
unintended evil becomes intended. That
is, when the intent becomes to keep people economically dependent on the State
or their wealthy private employers. As
Father Pesch stated, the “social economy must be organized on a basis of
private enterprise and considerable freedom to compete in productive activity
and in the determination of one’s consumption pattern,” in order “to allow for
self-responsibility.” (See also Rev. John Francis Murphy, S.T.L., The Moral Obligation of the Individual to
Participate in Catholic Action. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of
America Press, 1958.)
 |
| Those benefits have a price tag attached: your freedom. |
Father Pesch’s
idea was that the State’s “mediate product” of enabling citizens to secure
their own welfare is subordinate to the “immediate product” of it being the
primary duty of the citizens themselves to secure that welfare. This fits in perfectly with CESJ’s “limited
economic role for the State.”
Father Pesch’s concept
also reinforces CESJ’s pillar of “free and open markets,” for, if markets do
not offer free access to all participants, the ordinary citizen can hardly be
held responsible for securing his own welfare through his own efforts. No one, after all, is obligated to do the
impossible. CESJ would only add that, by
means of the act of social justice as defined by Pius XI and systematized by
Father William J. Ferree, S.M., Ph.D., one of CESJ’s co-founders, continuing
efforts must be made to organize society along more just lines.
Why did Father
Pesch insist on limiting the power of the social tool of the State? He was, in part, reacting to the Germanic
tendency to give too great a role to the State.
This tendency was most marked in Catholics, of course, among the
socialists, whom Father Pesch singled out as a special focus of
instruction. Certain of his latter day
disciples have disagreed, particularly those who are socialists, but as Father
Pesch remarked, “Socialism as a ‘scientific’ system is dead, but the socialists
are still with us.” (Lehrbuch,
1, 380.) In this, however, he came up against what
seemed to be an almost inherent idiosyncrasy of the German character. As analyzed by Alfred Diamant,
 |
| Alfred Diamant |
Austrian Catholics failed to devise political and social
institutions which correctly expressed their basic propositions. Instead of providing for the undisturbed
development of a multitude of social organs and for a reasonably clear
distinction between State and society, Austrian Catholics continuously exalted
the position of the State at the expense of all other social organs. This can be traced primarily to their concept
of State and law as instruments for the enforcement of moral and ethical
standards. A State which claims the
right to enforce such standards inevitably will seriously weaken, if not
destroy, the area of society, the area of voluntary action. Austrian Catholics might have recognized
theoretically the right of a variety of social organs to apply these moral and
ethical standards, derived from theology and natural law, but a long étatiste tradition predisposed them to
appeal to the State and to use the State for enforcement of such standards. (Alfred Diamant,
Austrian Catholics and the Social
Question, 1918-1933. Gainesville,
Flordia: University of Florida Press, 1959, 13-14.)
We therefore necessarily
conclude that a living wage system, the usual panacea today for individual
economic ills, is a short-term expedient, permitted under the principle of
double effect to address an emergency situation. It is not a long-term solution to the
economic or social ills of society. The
natural way for man to support himself and his dependents is the ancient and
sacred institution of private property.
In this the views of Father Heinrich Pesch and CESJ appear to be
perfectly consistent.
#30#
