As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, the alternatives for a socio-economic system are capitalism, socialism (“Communism”), and what Fulton Sheen called “diffused possession” (“Catholicism”), and others “social Christianity.” Leo XIII expressed a preference for the term “Christian Democracy” over “Social Christianity,” which too easily becomes “Christian socialism.” (See Graves de Communi Re, §§ 4-5, 10.)
In any event, trying to reconcile the demand that the right to private property be regarded as “sacred and inviolable” (Rerum Novarum, § 46.) under human law based on justice, and yet not absolute under divine law based on charity, however, the social Christian paints him- or herself into a corner. Bound by the assumption that past savings are the only source of financing for new capital, social Christians can only hope and pray for a change of heart on the part of the wealthy, and urge the poor to resist the blandishments of socialism. (Cf. Rerum Novarum, §§ 25, 61.)
Unfortunately, if we wait for the wealthy to have a change of heart before things can get better for the poor, we shall all be waiting a very long time. Added to that is the fact that socialism, as Orestes Brownson pointed out, is so very attractive to the poor and their champions that it has the potential to “deceive the very elect, so that no flesh should be saved.” (Orestes Brownson, “Socialism and the Church,” Brownson’s Quarterly Review, January, 1849.)
Karl Marx
Within the barriers imposed by reliance on past savings as the only source of financing for new
capital formation, the rich can more or less honestly
claim that, were they deprived of their wealth, little or no new capital would be financed. Few if any jobs would be created. The rich can also claim
that, if their savings finance new capital formation, simple justice dictates that they own the new capital for which they have paid.
Out of frustration, social reformers and activists try to justify based on bad faith what cannot be justified on the basis of sound reason. Seeing that the traditional understanding of private property seems to be standing in the way of implementing something they accept on faith as God’s Will, they change the definition of private property from a natural right inherent in every human being, to something granted by the State as an expedient. They become socialists and abolish private property. (“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Karl Mark and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Books, 1967, 96; cf. Rerum Novarum, § 15.)
If liberty (freedom of association/contract) gets in the way, then liberty, too, must be abolished. The so-called “logic of gift” (See Michael Naughton, The Logic of Gift: Rethinking Business as a Community of Persons. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press, 2012.) based on wild emotion and false charity must replace God’s gift of logic based on calm reason and true justice. (See Fulton J. Sheen, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy: A Critical Study in the Light of the Philosophy of Saint Thomas. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., Ltd, 1925.) This abolishes not only freedom under God, but under anything else.
In all this the reformers and activists claim to be enforcing God’s law. They conveniently ignore the fact Christians have been carefully instructed to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matt. 22:21.) Based on their private interpretation of something they accept on faith as God’s Will, their opinion overrides merely human ordinances based on reason, that is, knowledge. (Presumably based on reason; lex ratio v. lex voluntas. See Rommen, The Natural Law, op. cit., 36.) They try to render unto God that which belongs to Caesar or set up Caesar in the place of God.
Pope Leo XIII
This, however, is precisely what Leo
XIII warned them not to do. (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (“On the Christian Constitution of States”), 1885, §
48; Rerum Novarum, §§ 7, 30.) In
their desire to take revenge for what they see as the crimes of the wealthy and
privileged against the poor, they forget that they themselves are not God. They turn social Christianity into Christian socialism, and then into fascist
socialism or communism in a vain effort to make their ideal systems
work.
Fortunately there is a way out of the slavery of past savings, and one that we think Sheen would immediately have appreciated. We believe that the problem is, in large measure, the result of the evolution of a social, monetary, tax, and financial system that operates for the benefit of a few, and to the detriment of the many. This flawed system creates barriers to economic opportunity (primarily ownership of capital) out of outdated methods of finance and money creation as well as a failure or refusal to understand the results of advancing technology.
To be precise, the principal reason for the rapid growth of moral relativism in the world today, and the cause of the shift from social Christianity to Christian socialism, is that the system as it developed failed to include the essential triad of principles of economic justice. Louis O. Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), and the Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler first articulated the basis of three interdependent principles that, like the legs of a tripod, combine to form a mutually supportive, interconnected and logical system for sustaining a just, balanced, and free economic system. Kelso and Adler described these principles in Chapter 5 of their best-selling collaboration, The Capitalist Manifesto. (Kelso and Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto, op. cit.) As we describe and explain them,
Louis O. Kelso
1.
Participative Justice. This is how one makes “input” to the economic process to make
a living. It requires equal opportunity in gaining access to private property
in productive assets as well as equality of opportunity to engage in productive
work. Participative justice does not guarantee equal results but requires that
every person be guaranteed by society’s institutions the equal human right to
make a productive contribution to the economy, both through one’s labor (as a
worker) and through one’s productive capital (as an owner). Thus, this
principle rejects monopolies, special privileges, and other exclusionary social
barriers to economic self-reliance and personal freedom.
2. Distributive Justice. This is the out-take principle described in legal terms as the form of justice “which should govern the distribution of rewards and punishments. It assigns to each person the rewards which his or her personal merit or services deserve, or the proper punishment for his crimes.” (“Justice,” Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1951.)
Distributive justice is based on the exchange or market value of one’s economic contributions — that all people have a right to receive a proportionate, market-deter-mined share of the value of the marketable goods and services they produce with their labor contributions, their capital contributions, or both. In contrast to a controlled or command economy, this respects human dignity by making each economic “vote” count.
Pope John Paul I
This understanding of distributive
justice based on inputs must be clearly differentiated
from definitions that base distribution on need. Sheen makes this clear when critiquing the Marxist
dictum, “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” (Freedom Under God, 65. This is more
usually rendered, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to
his needs,” as Marx expressed it in his Critique
of the Gotha Program (1875).) Distribution on need is a valid principle for
charity, a
moral responsibility, but
not for justice,
which (of course) is also a moral responsibility.
Charity does have its proper role, however. As Pope John Paul I stated in a talk given during a “general audience” during his brief pontificate, “Charity is the soul of justice.” (John Paul I, General Audience, Wednesday, September 6, 1978.) Nevertheless, as Augustine of Hippo observed, “Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.” Charity should never be regarded as a substitute for justice, but as the fulfillment of justice. As Moses Maimonides explained,
The greatest level [of charity], above which there is no greater, is to support [your fellow man] by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand until he need no longer be dependent upon others. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Charity, 10:7-14.)
3. Harmonic Justice. This is the feedback principle, also known as “social justice,” that rebalances participative justice and distributive justice when the system violates either essential principle. Harmonic justice includes a concept of limitation that discourages personal greed and prevents social monopolies. Social justice holds that every person has a personal responsibility to organize with others to correct their organizations, institutions, laws and the social order itself at every level whenever the principles of participative justice or distributive justice are violated or not operating properly. (See the foreword to the CESJ edition of Father William J. Ferree’s pamphlet, Introduction to Social Justice (1948).
#30#