A couple of days
ago the media were once again ecstatic over yet another fundamental change in
Catholic doctrine announced by Everybody’s Favorite Pope, Francis™. It seems that in a radical move, EFPF™ has
come down Big Time in favor of the Universal Basic Income, or UBI. Or so the Usual Suspects very loudly claim. . . .
 |
| "Really? I said that?" |
The problem is
that Pope Francis — the real one, not the media image — doesn’t actually appear
to have said what the Usual Suspects desperately want (and need) him to have
said. As quoted in “The
Pope Just Endorsed Universal Basic Income; Andrew Yang’s Response: Wow,” what
the pope actually said — and we repeat, this is as quoted in the article
itself —
In an Easter letter to world
leaders, Pope Francis opined that “this may be the time to consider a universal
basic wage which would acknowledge and dignify the noble, essential tasks you
carry out.”
“It would ensure and concretely
achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without
rights,” the Pope argued.
In the letter, Francis argued
that many workers, including “street vendors, recyclers, carnies, small
farmers, construction workers, dressmakers, the different kinds of caregivers”
were being “excluded from the benefits of globalization,” while “the lockdowns
are becoming unbearable.”
Read that very
carefully. Now read it again, and
pay very close attention to the words used, such as “wage,” “tasks,” and
“worker.”
 |
| "Father, when will they stop putting words in My Vicar's mouth?" |
Now read — and we
quote — how the article defines the UBI:
The
idea is to hand out sums of money, either fixed or dependent on a number of
socioeconomic factors, on a regular basis, providing the populace with
enough funds to meet basic needs — and maybe even achieve financial stability.
Do you see the
problem yet? If not, here is a somewhat
more generic definition of the UBI:
Universal
basic income (UBI) is a model for providing all citizens of a country or
other geographic area with a given sum of money, regardless of their income,
resources or employment status. The purpose of the UBI is to prevent or
reduce poverty and increase equality among citizens.
You see it now,
don’t you? The UBI is intended to be
paid to everyone, regardless, without qualification. What Pope
Francis suggested — not “endorsed” — is that a basic wage be paid
to “many workers,” not to “all citizens.” What Pope Francis said, and what the
article claimed he said, are two different things! And this by their own statements!
D’oh.
Further, the UBI
is proposed as a permanent solution.
Reading Pope Francis’s actual words, he seems to be proposing a “UBW”
as a temporary expedient “while ‘the lockdowns are becoming unbearable.’”
Double d’oh.
 |
| "Justice and charity, not socialism." |
Broadly speaking,
if this is what Pope Francis is really saying, it is consistent with
established Catholic social teaching as well as common sense. As Pope Pius XI made clear,
Since the present
system of economy is founded chiefly upon ownership and labor, the principles
of right reason, that is, of Christian social philosophy, must be kept in mind
regarding ownership and labor and their association together, and must be put
into actual practice. First, so as to avoid the reefs of individualism and
collectivism. the twofold character, that is individual and social, both of
capital or ownership and of work or labor must be given due and rightful
weight. Relations of one to the other must be made to conform to the laws of
strictest justice — commutative justice, as it is called — with the support,
however, of Christian charity. (Quadragesimo Anno, § 110.)
In purely
economic terms — that is, in free market terms — this means that workers are to be paid the
fair market value of their labor in strict, that is, commutative justice. If
that is not enough, out of charity they should be paid an additional amount sufficient
to meet common domestic needs adequately.
This is not,
however, a permanent solution, but an expedient until society can be
restructured to function more justly. To
make that clear, Pius XI followed this injunction with a reminder that instituting
socialism — distribution on the basis of need instead of the relative value of
inputs as the normal way of running the economy — is not the answer. Why? Because —
[w]hether considered
as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains
truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points
which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the
Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to
Christian truth. . . . If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth
(which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based
nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable
with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are
contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true
socialist. (Ibid., 117, 120.)
 |
| "I thought I was rather clear. . . ." |
But if the
so-called “living wage” (or Universal Basic Wage, Frontier Wage, Family Wage, etc.,
etc., etc.) is not the solution, but a stopgap, what is
the answer? According to Pope Leo XIII,
it’s widespread capital ownership:
If a workman's wages be
sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his
children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift,
and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings
and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to
this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by
assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and
inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should
be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners. (Rerum Novarum, § 46.)
Read objectively,
the whole reason for paying a “sufficient” wage is to enable workers to
be able to save to purchase capital to have ownership income (profits) to supplement or replace
labor income (wages). Wages are not an
end in themselves, but a means to an end, in this case (according to Leo XIII),
ownership of capital.
As a side note,
some authorities (or who think they are authorities) “edit” this passage to read “as many
as possible of the workers” instead of “as many as possible of the people.” This is based on imposing the socialist
doctrine that only labor creates property. Given that only labor creates private property (which Leo XIII denied), capital ownership,
inheritance, and all other means of gaining income except labor are
illegitimate.
 |
| "Latinum est? Non potest legi?" |
Looking at the
official Latin, however, reveals something surprising to these authorities. Substituting workers for people
does violence to the official text as well as to the clear meaning of the preceding
forty-five paragraphs that recognize the legitimacy of private property per
se, not just as the result of labor, even if private property originated in the “mixing” of one's labor with the offerings of nature, as, e.g., John Locke and John Paul II asserted:
Neque enim efficaci ratione
dirimi caussam, de qua agitur, posse vidimus, nisi hoc sumpto et constituto,
ius privatorum bonorum sanctum esse oportere. Quamobrem favere huic iuri leges
debent, et quoad potest, providere ut quamplurimi ex
multitudine rem habere malint.
There is,
however, a serious problem with our understanding of this particular teaching —
and which (in our opinion) also happens to be the reason so many people jump to
the conclusion that the popes couldn’t possibly mean what they clearly do mean. That is the question of money. We already know that it takes a lifetime to
save enough out of even a generous wage to purchase an adequate capital
stake. Is there, however, another way?
#30#