For ease of reading, analysis and commentary will be posted separately from the summary. Numbers indicated in brackets correspond to the paragraphs of the translation found on the Vatican archive web site.
[1] Revolutionary change is no longer a mere theory but is now getting
practical application in increased antagonism between workers and their
employers. People at every level of society are consumed with these
problems. [2] Since there are many different opinions about what should be done
about the growing tension between workers and employers, it seems expedient for
the Church to offer guidance by pointing out the principles that should guide
public deliberations on the proper relationship between workers and employers.
[3] No one would deny that, ever since the ancient trade guilds were abolished,
working men have increasingly been taken advantage of by their employers, the
powerless many being treated like slaves by a powerful and wealthy few. [4] The
socialist “solution” is to do away with private property altogether so that no
one can become rich and powerful, but this would actually result in much worse
conditions for everyone – not too mention the fact that this “solution” is itself grossly unjust.
[5] Anyone who offers his labor for wages is seeking, besides the bare means
of survival, to have a little savings, which for security’s sake he may invest
in land. Private property, then, is simply a man’s saved wages given durable
form. So when the socialists propose to do away with private property, they are
depriving the working man of the right to invest his savings and making a
better life for himself. [6] The socialist proposal also strips man of his
humanity; unlike the beast who looks only to survive for the moment, man’s
rational nature allows him to look to the future and to plan for its needs; therefore
it is only human to wish to secure durable, stable possessions that will serve man's needs not just for today but in the future. [7] In order to do this, a man must
have not only the use but also the possession of land that will supply his
needs. Since man precedes the State, he has the right to provide for his own
needs, without intervention of the State.
[8] Even when the earth is parceled out to particular private owners, it
still serves the needs of all, since those who are not landowners nevertheless
procure the fruits of the earth with the wages earned as remuneration for their
labor. So private ownership of property does not interfere with anyone’s
opportunity to enjoy the fruits of that property. [9] Land is most fruitful
when man cultivates it by means of his own ingenuity and toil; when he does so,
he truly makes the land his own, and it is only just that he should, in fact,
own it. [10] Therefore, to deny private ownership of property is to steal from
a man the fruits of his own labor. [11] Private ownership of property, then, is
just, according to natural law, and according to all just civil law. Moreover,
divine law severely forbids coveting what belongs to another.
[12] So far we have been talking about just the individual man, but the
argument becomes even more compelling if we consider man in his domestic
context, i.e., as a husband and father. No human law can abolish the rights and
obligations of marriage and the family. The family, in fact, is the most basic
society, and precedes the State. [13] Since nature makes a man the head of, and
chief provider for, his family, and since it is natural for a father to want his
children to be able to carry on when he himself is gone, it is right that he should be
able to provide an inheritance of property. And since the family precedes the
State, its rights also precede those of the State; anyone who would deny
this is detestable. [14] Therefore, the socialist idea that the State can
interfere in the internal relations of the family is both wrong and unjust,
although if a family is in such distress that it finds itself helpless and
friendless, the family should be given public aid, since it forms part of the
common wealth. Similarly, public authority should intervene when a household
suffers from grave internal disturbance, in order to make each party behave
justly, but these extremes are the only cases in which the State may intervene.
So the socialist idea that the state can usurp the father’s place in governing
the family violates natural justice and destroys the home.
[15] It is plain, then, that the socialist plan is destructive and
unnatural. If the conditions of the masses are to be improved, the right to
private property must be respected. Let’s consider what sort of remedy would be
more just and effective. [16] It is appropriate for the Church to weigh in on
this matter, since it is her task instruct men in how to live well, and She
Herself cares for the poor and works for the good of all. [17] First of all, we
must take into account human nature, which the socialists seem to ignore or
pretend they can change by making all men equal. The fact is that all men are
not the equal, with respect to natural abilities and proclivities. A just
society provides opportunities for each man to take part in the way in which he
is best able, and which suits him best. [18] Similarly, the socialists are
lying or deluded when they promise that they can build a perfect world, free
from suffering and injustice, and it is cruel for them to promise what can
never be.
[19] One of the biggest errors of the socialists is to insist that the
classes are naturally and inevitably hostile to one another – when, in fact,
just the opposite is true. The classes need each other, for capital can do
nothing without labor, and labor likewise needs capital. And both need the
Church to help them act justly toward each other. [20] Workers must be dutiful in
carrying out the labor for which they have willingly contracted, and they should
behave with respect toward their employer and his property. Likewise, employers
should respect the human dignity of workers, paying them a just wage and allowing
them time to fulfill their familial and religious obligations. By no means may
they take advantage of a man’s neediness to satisfy their own greed, nor should
they manufacture ways to deduct from a man’s just wages. In fact, because the
worker has such scanty means, those means should all the more be respected.
These basic principles alone, if followed scrupulously, would suffice to maintain good relations between labor and capital.
[21] But the Church, following her Master, can do better than this, because She
reminds men that God has created them for better things than what this earthly
life can offer. Since we are just passing through this life on our way to eternal rewards, we should not
cling to riches and other worldly goods, but simply use well whatever we have,
be it little or much. Christ, by his own suffering, did not eliminate human
suffering and toil, but transformed them into opportunities for virtue. [22] So
the wealthy should beware lest worldly riches become an obstacle to eternal
happiness, and should give generously of their surplus to those who have
little. Whoever has been given much, in wealth, talent, or skill, should use it
for the benefit of others. [23] And those who have little should remember that
there is no shame in poverty, since Christ Himself became poor for our sakes.
[24] The true worth of a man is in his virtue, which can be attained by rich
and poor alike and will win for them both eternal happiness. In fact, God seems
to prefer the poor and lowly, always showing them tender love, so the rich
should be generous in giving and the poor should not be grasping. [25] If the
rich and the poor alike keep these Christian precepts in mind, they will be
bound together in bonds of love and brotherhood, realizing that they are both
sons of God and co-heirs of Christ. Strife between the classes would cease if
everyone bore these things in mind.
