106

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

alienation would cease if there were a relaxation of doctrinal standards
has not been realized. Comprehension, once a source of strength to the
Church of England, has now become a source of weakness.21

Fr. Good relates that the Committee on Unity which reported to
the Council seemed surprised that Pope Pius XI, in 1928, made it
clear that submission to the papacy is the first condition of unity,
and seemed further surprised that there are no signs whatever of
any abatement of this demand in the last twenty years. Quite nat­
urally the Committee concluded that the prospects of intercom­
munion (with the Catholic Church) are unpromising for the pres­
ent. Fr. Good concludes: “The Lambeth Report of 1948 is a sad
commentary on the churches of the Anglican communion. It is a
series of doubts, concessions and inconsistencies, and the word
‘Comprehensiveness’ is put forward as the solution of all difficulties.
... It used to be disputed whether the Church of England still re­
tained its catholicity of dogma at the death of Henry VIII. We
are confident today that its dogma is non-existent.’’22
Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.

The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.
21 The Clergy Review, XXX, 2 (Aug. 1948), 84.
22 The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Fifth Series, LXXI, n. 977 (May 1949),
414.

Bishop Shahan

on the

Priesthood

The world is girdled with holy altars, at whose edge stands an army
of priests, chosen for the unbloody but saving immolation of the Lamb.
And between them all, and between them and the Lamb, there is a
divine solidarity of office. Whatever they may be worth as men, what­
ever be the insignia of rank and authority, they are all public agents
of the Savior, constituted for all men, for all their needs and hopes;
constituted forever in the sight of all men, leaders like Moses, priests
like Aaron, prophets like David,—nay, themselves daily, in one sublime
hour, the symbols and the vicars of Christ in His Passion, Death, and
Resurrection.

—Bishop Shahan, in “The Office of the Priesthood," printed in The Catho­
lic University Bulletin, July, 1900, p. 296.

i

I

7j
THE ’ CATHOLIC” VIEWPOINT ON
INDUSTRY COUNCILS
For the past fifteen years or so, literally thousands of Catholic
speakers and writers have been stirring up the millions to consider
seriously the contents of the encyclical, Quadragesimo anno. We
have been boasting that the real answer to our economic problems
will be found in the pages of any five-cent pamphlet carrying the
message. We have been challenging the world to forsake the social
framework within which it has been operating and adopt the prin­
ciples put forth by the Vatican.
Before we go much further and find ourselves trying to defend
a position that may cause us embarrassment, it might be well to
take stock and determine what this social doctrine of ours really
means and what may be some of the logical consequences.
The underlying thought of the Vocational Group concept is that
the workers be organized into their own unions, in each industry ;
employers be organized into their own freely chosen associations
and that the public (presumably to be represented by government)
joins with the other two parties in forming Industrial Councils,
dedicated to the common good, to work for mutual objectives har­
moniously agreed upon by the representatives of all three parties.
Technically, the scope of the Vocational Group extends beyond
the limited sphere of industrial life. The popular terminology of
“Industrial Councils,” however, has been accepted by the Adminis­
trative Board of the Welfare Council of the American Hierarchy.
We use the term in the sense expressed by the Bishops’ Committee
in its annual messages.
The purpose of this present article is to create discussion on the
subject with the hope that a clarification of some points may result.
It is the opinion of the writer that the Vocational Group concept
of industrial society is basic to the doctrine expressed in the en­
cyclical. We do not believe, however, that it is meant to be a blue­
print for any one, definite, form of economy. There are no hard
and fast lines drawn which must be followed.
Salvo meliore judicio, it is our contention that the teaching con­
tained in Quadragesimo anno is a declaration of principles which
outlines the nature of industrial society when it has developed to
such a stage that some definite order must be established. It indi107

108

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

cates the proper relationships which must prevail between the par­
ties involved if stability is to be maintained. It is not concerned so
much with the participation of individuals in industrial relation
negotiations, but rather points out how a properly functioning econ­
omy fits into the pattern of a properly functioning political order.
Some have objected to what they call the “monopoly feature” of
the Vocational Group set-up. Others insist that the papal proposal
is but one way of achieving an economic order. Neither dissent
seems valid to us.
The first objection, we believe, is based on the assumption that
the doctrine of the Vocational Group philosophy and the specific
“syndicate” structure cited are one and the same thing. We do not
think that they are.
The two topics are treated separately. The first deals with prin­
ciples. The second merely calls attention to an experiment. The
reference, evidently, is to Mussolini’s attempt at an ordered indus­
trial society. The Pope admits that certain features of the plan are
commendable, but we fail to see a complete “placet” for the plan in
the passage. To identify these two sections of the encyclical seems
to us a grand mistake.
Ultimately, a definite social framework will result from the ac­
ceptance and application of the principle. A “plan” must be evolved
from it. But in itself it can not be so labelled. The Form is to be
determined by the participants. As the Pope writes : “It is hardly
necessary to note that what Leo XIII taught concerning the form
of political government can, in due measure, be applied also to
vocational groups. Here, too, men may choose whatever form they
please, provided both justice and the common good be taken into
account.”1
On the other hand, we do not concur in the opinion that the Vo­
cational Group doctrine is merely a suggestion of one way of achiev­
ing an economic order. The papal plea does not make any sense to
us except on the basis that it lays down the principles which must
be followed regardless of what form the practical set-up is to take
when they are applied.
If this conclusion be correct, it places upon us the social obliga­
tion to promote the Industry Council concept as the unique and
1 Cf. the translation of Quadragesimo anno in Nell-Breuning’s Reorganisa­
tion of Social Economy, p. 424.

“CATHOLIC" VIEWPOINT ON INDUSTRY COUNCILS

109

Catholic viewpoint for the complete and adequate restoration of in­
dustrial society. It implies a rejection of the status quo unless it
can be shown that our present economy operates on principles that
are consistent with and not contrary to the papal doctrine. It is
the contention of the writer that the two are not compatible.
The insistence of the encyclical is on the re-establishment of a
Vocational Group society. The chief qualifications of those voca­
tional groups or guilds, as noted by Pius XI, are that they
are autonomous;
embrace whole industries and professions ;
are federated with other constituent groups;
possess the right of free organization,
assembly,
and vote;
that they should dedicate themselves to the common good,
and with governmental protection and assistance function
in the establishment of justice and the general toelfare in
economic life.
Study that outline and see if you can reconcile it with what today
goes by the name of Modern American Capitalism.
It is assumed, and the propoganda on the subject is profuse in­
deed, that our American economy is one of free enterprise. Often
times there are as many meanings given to the words as there are
men who proclaim them. Usually what is meant is that, allowed to
function without interference, the action and reaction of supply
and demand will, through competition, result in a balanced and
just distribution of the fruits of production.
Rev. Raymond McGowan, in one of his syndicated articles
pointed out quite clearly that we do not have in America any one
unified economic system. It is rather a conglomeration, a hodge­
podge of different and often conflicting applications of a variety of
principles. There is monopoly and near-monopoly, and the lack of
the same. There is government regulation of some industries and
the lack of it in others. There are restrictions by law upon some
parts of the economy and a contrary policy adopted toward other
segments. There is evidence even of free enterprise but not much
that is not affected in one way or another by the overshadowing
influence of Big Business.

110

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Describe the modern capitalistic “system” as you will, we fail to
see how it corresponds in any way to the concept of industrial so­
ciety put forth in the encyclical, Quadragesimo anno.
Aside from the isolated cases of varied co-operative enterprises
which you may find, the system as a “system” seems to us to be a
negation of the papal teaching.
Where is there any similarity between the Big Business economic
set-up now prevailing in America, with its concomitant class-war­
fare, and the Order of industrial society demanded by our Catholic
social doctrine?
It is the contention of the writer that we must accept this doctrine
of the Church and follow it to its logical conclusion or cease pre­
tending that there is a Catholic position on the .subjeci.
The logical conclusion involves: (1) A repudiation of the status
quo; (2) the frank admission that the Church advocates a limited
planned economy; and (3) a courageous teaching of the subject on
the same plane that we preach our doctrine on marriage, education,
etc. regardless of popular reaction to the subject.
The question is not : “Can we convince a prejudiced world that
this is the correct concept of industrial society?” The real issue is:
“What is the meaning of the papal pronouncements and are we
going to accept or reject them ?”
Our present economic system violates fundamental principles
which the Pope insists are necessary for a sound social order. It
ignores the very nature of industrial society.
The first basic principle which our Management-Finance con­
trolled economy ignores or violates is the Principle of Subsidiarity.
The whole concept of the Industry Council philosophy is based on
this principle. The primary demand of this principle is that no
higher and greater authority should usurp functions that belong to
a lesser society.
Capitalism, as it has developed, provides no means for its par­
ticipants to act upon the principle of subsidiarity. Pushing its bur­
dens back upon the political arm of the government, it has encour­
aged the State to intrude and encroach upon areas of economic
life that rightly belong to private enterprise. The result has been a
hybrid mixture of socially unstable institutions as Fr. McGowan
has indicated, and the establishment of an economic “system” which

“CATHOLIC” VIEWPOINT ON INDUSTRY COUNCILS

Hl

can not be defended by any one who accepts the Christian social
doctrine.
Even a cursory examination of Quadragesimo anno should con­
vince us of the futility of attempting to defend the so-called prin­
ciple of “free” enterprise. The need of repudiating it is inescapable.
In Quadragesimo anno Pius remarked: "Free competition,
though within certain limits just and productive of good results,
cannot be the ruling principle of the economic world. . . . Still less
can this function be exercised by the economic supremacy which
within recent times has taken the plaee of free competition’'2 A
little later he says: “Free competition is dead; economic dictator­
ship has taken its place.”3 Previously the indictment read: “This
accumulation of power, the characteristic note of the modern eco­
nomic order, is a natural result of limitless, free competition which
permits the survival of those only who are the strongest, which
often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed
to the dictates of conscience.”4
These, of course, are but random references to the popular eco­
nomic error of an “automatic” industrial order based upon a policy
of “free” enterprise as a guide and governor of an economy. But,
put even these few pieces together, study them in the light of the
tremendous economic power now wielded by a relatively few giant
corporations as revealed in reports of the Temporary National
Economic Committee in 1938 and the task of reconciling American
Capitalism with papal social doctrine becomes well nigh an impos­
sibility.
We have been so immersed in our own capitalistic environment,
our pattern of thought has been so moulded by the atmosphere in
which we have lived that it is difficult for us to envision any other.
His Holiness, Pius XI, however, from his vantage point on Vati­
can Hill is encumbered by none of the prejudicial influences which
might sway our thinking.
The encyclical presents papal thought on the subject of indus­
trial society with pointed insistency. And rightly so, we believe,
because to a world infatuated with Individualism and tortured by
a love of its own patched-up disorders, the Church is publicizing
what the real nature of industrial society actually is. “For as nature
induces those who dw’ell in close proximity to unite into municipali2 Ibid., pp. 424-25.

3 Ibid., p. 428.

4 Ibid.

112

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

ties,” says Pius XI, “so those who practice the same trade or pro­
fession, economic or otherwise, combine into vocational groups.
These groups, in a true sense autonomous, are considered by many
to be, if not essential to civil society, at least its natural and spon­
taneous development.”5
From this passage the noted interpreter of Quadragesimo anno
concludes that the union of citizens in civil society and the union
of members in the Vocational Groups “appear natural to the
Pope.”6
The Bishops’ Committee in its 1947 annual message said: “The
Christian view of economic life supports the demand for organiza­
tion of management, labor, agriculture and the professions under
government encouragement but not control, in joint effort to avoid
social conflict and to promote cooperation for the common good.”
Pius XI, by analogy, likens the inducement of natuic toward In­
dustrial Councils to that of citizens to form civil society. The
Bishops put it down as the Christian view of economic life.
If we understand the papal analogy correctly, Pius is telling us
that the idea is not so essential that it will be found even in primi­
tive society or in a pioneer industrial world. But as civil society
is formed, grows and develops into an ordered and stable State,
so, too must industrial society grow as a social organism—and for
the same reason. The very nature of human society dictates the
course of action.
How strong that sanction of nature is or under what specific
phase of the natural law it falls, the writer confesses that he does
not know at the present time. But that Pius XI puts it in these
terms is unmistakable and that Nell-Breuning, the classic inter­
preter of the encyclical, infers that the Vocational Groups represent
the natural status of a highly developed industrial society cannot be
gainsaid.
In confirmation of that premise might we not also ask the ques­
tion: “If the Industry Council relationship of capital and labor is
not rooted in nature in some way, before there is any thought of a
practical application, on what basis can ‘autonomy' be claimed for
the groups?” It is in dealing with this idea of industrial “autonomy”
and the relationship that it has to the State that the note of in­
sistence comes out clearly:
δ Ibid., p. 423.

6 Ibid., p. 222.

“CATHOLIC” VIEWPOINT ON INDUSTRY COUNCILS

113

Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to
the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accom­
plish, so too it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right
order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions
which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies. This is
a fundamental principle [The Principle of Subsidiarity J of social phi­
losophy, unshaken and unchangeable, and it retains its full truth today.7

The Sovereign Pontiff then remarks : “The aim of .social legislation
must therefore be the re-establishment of vocat ionol groups.”6 The
Outline Press translation by Dr. Francis Brown reads : “The so­
cial policy of the State must be the re-establishment of the Profes­
sions and Industries.” Aeta Apostolicac Scdis, June 1, 1931, gives
us the original text: “In reficiendos igitur ‘ordines,” ars politica
socialis incumbat necesse est.”
If this concept does not correspond to the “natural and spontane­
ous development” of civil society, as the encyclical states, and is not
so rooted in the very nature of society as to demand a juridical (au­
tonomous) order of its own, why should papal authority so bluntly
place the burden of establishing such an order upon the State?
Why does Pius link the nature of vocational group society so
closely to the nature of the State itself? To our mind, the develop­
ment of the argument reveals the real nature of industrial society.
Nor is it merely an empty, “up in the clouds” expression of a half­
formed opinion. It is pregnant with practical significance. It is
loaded with social dynamite.
The repudiation of our hybrid “free,” monopolistic, governmentregulated Capitalism flows directly from the acceptance of the prin­
ciple of the Vocational Group concept of industrial society. The
two are incompatible. If we were to be content merely with a
negative attitude of refusing assent to our present system, nothing
more than mild resentment might follow. It is when we draw out
the doctrine to its logical conclusion that the repercussions come
fast and hard.
Carry the contrast of the two philosophies to its logical conclu­
sion and you begin to understand why the immediate and spon­
taneous reaction to the Catholic viewpoint is frequently one of
opposition. If we merely enunciate the principle on the high plane
of theory alone (on a plane so removed from reality that it appears
7 Ibid., p. 422.

«Ihid., p. 428.

114

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

but a vague and illusory ideal), few protests are heard. Reduce it
to the level of a practical solution put forth to supplant the dis­
ordered conflict and confusion now prevailing, and a roar breaks
forth as the listener perceives the gash that is inflicted upon his
prejudices.
The reason for the pained expressions and the howl of dismay is
not hard to find. This truly radical and daringly different doctrine
of the Church runs counter to Modern Capitalism as it has de­
veloped in structure and operation. It brings us face to face with
the challenge of accepting the papal doctrine and rejecting the
modern economic order or shunting the encyclical aside as a weaklyexpressed suggestion and complacently conforming our convictions
to things as they are.
We maintain that the Industrial Council principle is not in itself
a formal, detailed “plan.” But the acceptance of the premise leads
directly to the necessity on the part of the participants in industrial
relations to establish the “form” that the economy will take.
When the Bishops’ Committee in its 1948 message says, “Co­
operation must be organized; freedom must be ordered,” we do not
believe that they are using the words metaphorically. They are
calling for a realignment of relationships between Capital and La­
bor which differs from what we have at present. The three par­
ticipants are to be Capital, Labor, and the Public.
You can not “organize” co-operation without establishing a so­
cial framework within which the co-operation is to take place. The
Industrial Council set-up is to be the framework. You can not
“order” freedom without placing limitations on the activities of the
individual. Nor can you place limitations upon three participating
parties without introducing some kind of an agency in which will
reside social authority.
* The content of this organizing and ordering is not some nebulous,
negative, vague, or illusory plea for co-operation in general. The
objectives are of the stuff that industrial relations are made of—
wages, prices, profits, production—the vital elements around which
the class struggle now revolves.
As a matter of fact it is at this focal point that the full meaning
of the encyclical is revealed. It is here that the Vocational Group
concept comes to grips with the contentions of the Free Enterprise
Individualists.

“CATHOLIC” VIEWPOINT ON INDUSTRY COUNCILS

115

■

1
'■ Î
u

Pius expresses the warning in rather strong language. He says:
Labor, indeed, is not a mere chattel, since the human dignity of the
workingman must be recognized in it, and consequently it cannot be
bought and sold like any piece of machinery. None the less, the demand
and supply of labor divides men on the labor market into two classes,
as into two camps, and the bargaining between these two parties trans­
forms the labor market into an arena where the two armies are engaged
in combat. To this grave disorder, which is leading society to ruin, a
remedy must be applied as speedily as possible. But there can not be
question of any perfect cure, except this opposition be done away with,
and well-ordered members of the social body come into being anew,
vocational groups namely, binding men together not according to the
position they occupy on the labor market, but according to the diverse
functions which they exercise in society.9

By the application of the formula of two plus two equals four,
what the Pope is saying is this: Bargaining over wages (and the
equivalent of wages) transforms the so-called labor market into an
arena. The cause of the class conflict must be eliminated. The only
way this can be done is by an agency to persuade the two parties
to accept an objective standard or by a social authority superior to
the conflicting parties which will determine a human wage on a
principle of justice and in the full light of the common good. The
Vocational Group set-up provides for either alternative.
Wages, however, are not absolutes. They are relatives. Their
value is necessarily related to prices and production. If you are to
eliminate wages from the competitive area of the labor market, so
too must prices and production and co-related elements fall under
the jurisdiction of the social authority delegated to deal with the
problem.
This does not mean a “totalitarian” control of the industrial
world. It certainly does not envision complete government control
or the relinquishing of the right of private property. It entails an
autonomous regulation of the economic order by the management­
labor participants themselves. As much of industrial relations must
be placed under restriction as is needed to establish order, to guar­
antee stability and to protect the public welfare. Competition is not
outlawed. But it is constrained and confined to definite channels
of operation.
*Ibid., P. 423.

N-i

116

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Unlimited competition is nothing more than the law of the
jungle applied to economics. State strictures on the practices of
competition gradually can grow into a creeping Socialism.
It is perfectly evident, nevertheless, if you wish to avoid State
control and you rule out “no control,’’ there can be but one basis
for Order—namely a self-regulated industrial societ)'. That is the
final aim of the Church’s doctrine. Nothing else makes sense. A
human society devoid of authority and order is a contradiction. It
is anarchy no matter what other name you might try to give it.
A possible misconception must be anticipated and avoided. It is
not as though the encyclical envisions the “mobilizing” of the
millions from some far distant place to live and work under a new
order by organizing and ordering them into a society alien from
what they now know. The groups are already there. They exist.
Inchoative in some instances; more fully developed in others.
But the industries—steel, rubber, textile, auto, communications,
etc., by their very existence and the common bond of producing
and distributing the same kind of goods which links the parties
together—are already functioning as social entities. It is in their
functioning, however, on a class-warfare principle as they do at
present, that the natural relationships have gone awry.
What the Church purposes to do is to reorientate the objectives
of the participating parties toward the mutual goal of the com­
mon good and to realign the relationships so that the proper
representation can be exercised by the three essential partners.
If we are to compete in the arena of public opinion with the
Communists and Socialists on the left and propaganda agencies
like the National Association of Manufacturers on the right, we
must boldly proclaim our doctrine.
In publicizing the Catholic position on industrial society we
have, it seems to us, but one of three choices. We can support :
’ ( 1 ) The status quo, which is in reality an implicit acceptance
of laissez faire as the original principle of the present economy
and of its natural consequent, monopoly; it condones increasing
government control to curb abuses rather than self-regulation as
the corrective.
(2) Complete government control, which, of course, is con­
trary to all that we hold.

‘CATHOLIC” VIEWPOINT ON INDUSTRY COUNCILS

117

(3) The promotion of Industrial Councils on all possible levels,
culminating in a social authority, autonomous, but within the
framework of the political democracy.
We believe the first possibility must be rejected. Despite the
comparable advantages of Modern Capitalism in contrast with
other existing economies and certain oases of order in the vast
desert of economic disorder, we have yet to discover a positive
principle of social order to justify it as a whole.
If the Industry Council principle represents the natural state
of industrial society we do not see how one can condone the capi­
talistic status quo any more than one might approve of divorce
as normal to domestic society, or aggression and anarchy to civil
society.
In origin, the capitalistic status quo defies the papal denuncia­
tion of free competition as a guiding principle for economic life ;
the Bishops’ Committee, in its 1940 annual message has passed
judgment upon it as “predicated on false principles.’’ In its present
structure and operation it repudiates the principle of subsidiarity
and runs counter to the exhortation of Pius that the “social policy
of the State must be the re-establishment of vocational groups.”10
/’The mongrel mixture of unilateral monopolistic private enterprise
gnd a constantly encroaching government interference contradicts
the encyclical teaching on the nature of both Industry and the
Stated
The second supposition stands self-condemned in the simple
stating of its terms.
The third of the three choices enumerated is the only one which
can be logically and consistently accepted in the light of the en­
cyclical teaching on Vocational groups. (Profit-sharing and other
piecemeal solutions offer no provision to date for the integrat­
ing of the disparate but interdependent activities that must be
co-ordinated. ^They are a step in the right direction toward the
papal goal. They are not, however, the adequate answer to the
problem})
Once you grant the inevitable conclusion of a natural Industry
Council economic order you must reject the unilateral domination
of industrial society. The relationship of the three parties (man­
agement, labor, and government) then must be determined. This

™Ibid., p. 422.

118

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

is a challenge to our Catholic philosophers which lays out a whole
world of research before them.
The taunting query pops up immediately, "What are the spe­
cific rights and duties of the participating groups ?'
To some, the difficulties inherent in answering that question
are overwhelming. Perhaps they are. The limitations of the
human intellect on the point, however, do not give us the right
to deny, distort or disregard the original premise from which the
question naturally flows.
Some tell us that we must first determine the “efficiency" and
“workability” of our doctrine before we strenuously advocate it
in public. Others shy away from it lest it be not adaptable to
American circumstances or prove unacceptable even to promi­
nent capitalists, whose “dogmatic” Catholic lives may be beyond
reproach.
We do not recognize this attitude as the traditional procedure
among Catholic students. It is not the normal approach to other
subjects whose content is derived from right reason and which
involves moral implications. Why introduce an innovation in the
field of human relations in the economic world ?
Many individuals consider divorce as a more “efficient” answer
to their problem than monogamy. You will find educators who
ridicule the Catholic viewpoint on education. They tell us it is
neither practically “adaptable” to American circumstances nor
acceptable to the experts in the field of education.
O. Henry, in one of his delightful quips on the foibles of human
fancy, remarks, “Tobin was always looking for the ‘unnatural’
in nature.” It may be all very well for O. Henry’s Mr. Tobin to
seek out the “unnatural” in nature if that be what his avocation in
life calls for. The Catholic philosopher and sociologist, however,
devotes his time and talent to exactly the opposite viewpoint. His
desire is to seek out the “natural” in nature and to reveal his
findings to his fellow men.
So intent are we in making known the nature of man and the
natural relationships which should exist among men that the
Popes have not hesitated to issue encyclicals, the source of whose
truth is not based on revelation alone. Whole sections of the social
doctrine appeal for their cogency not upon any dogmatic pro-

"CATHOLIC" VIEWPOINT ON INDUSTRY COUNCILS

Π9

nouncement but upon truths which can be deduced by natural
reasoning.
So intimately are the two sources, revelation and right reason,
linked that it is quite common to speak of the “Catholic” attitude
on some issue or subject even though there is no direct dogmatic
basis for the position.
The Vocational Group concept of industrial society, is, we believe, one of those deductions. In the treatment and teaching of
the subject, we do not believe that we have any right to look
at it merely in the light of how a prejudiced public may react
to it. Many practical men, experienced in the field, attest that
this is the economic order of the future, if there is to be any
free economic order in the years to come. Our present-day students and seminarians are the leaders of the future. Is there any
mandate in Catholic teaching that demands that we be always
twenty-five years behind the times and the teachings of the Vatican ?
The Church is not responsible for either the rise or the develop­
ment of Modem Capitalism. She has no divine commission to de­
fend it. She may suffer concomitant material losses if the system
collapses. But regardless of the present or the future of the
“paradise of free enterprise,” we still have the duty to promote
our own teaching. It is our conviction that we can do so without
fear of fallacy, in either the economic or the moral order, because
the doctrine has a firm foundation in the natural relationships
which should prevail in a properly ordered industrial society.
Quadragesimo anno is twenty-five, perhaps fifty years, in ad­
vance of the present generation. The refusal or reluctance of
Catholics to study and spread the doctrine, however, will not lessen
the time span for its acceptance.
The Socialists of fifty years ago were in a similar position. Their
pioneer efforts of propaganda are today paying dividends. If we
allow our opportunities to be lost by default, Socialism or Com­
munism will inevitably hold the place in the future which we will
have abdicated by indifference to our own doctrine. The very con­
dition of our present economy makes that conclusion appear to be
a certainty. If we wish to contribute to the defeat of Socialism
twenty-five years from now, we will proclaim our own teaching
today.
The one obstacle that stands in the way is that which Pius XI

i

;

f

<
*

' 5
.

'!

■

·,

120

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

remarked in the opening pages of Quadragesimo anno, as he com­
mented upon the popular reaction to the original Leonine pro­
nouncement. It “was so far and so unexpectedly in advance of its
time,” lamented Pius, “that the slow of heart ridiculed the study
of the new social philosophy, and the timid feared to scale its lofty
heights.”
Pius himself, however, was undeterred. He went right ahead
and wrote another encyclical, this time boldly championing the
principle of a vocational group society. It is inconceivable that the
Pope struggled to bring forth this immortal message merely as
practice in penmanship.
William J. Smith, S.J.

Crown Heights Associated Activities
Brooklyn, N. Y.

The Perpetual Infallibility of the Church

As the unity [of the Church] is perpetual, so is the infallibility.
Once infallible, always infallible: in the first, in the fifth, in the fif­
teenth, in the nineteenth century: the Divine Teacher always present,
and the organ of His voice always the same. A truncated infallibility
is impossible. To affirm that it has been suspended because of the sins
of men, denies the perpetuity of the office of the Holy Ghost, and even
of His presence; for to suppose Him present but dormant, is open to
the reproach of Elias; to suppose His office to be suspended, is to con­
ceive of the Divine Teacher after the manner of men. And further:
this theory denies altogether the true and divine character of the mys­
tical body as a creation of God, distinct from all individuals, and su­
perior to them all : not on probation, because not dependent upon any
human will, but on the Divine will alone ; and, therefore, not subject to
human infirmity, but impeccable, and the instrument of probation to
the world.
—Cardinal Manning, in The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost (New
York, 1875), pp. 88 f.

CAESAROPAPISM IN ACTION
Great names appear on the list of those who have fought for
the independence of the Church, for the primacy of the spiritual
over the material. Athanasius, Basil, John Chrysostom, Ambrose,
and Augustine are but a few of the noble men who in the course of
their lives have striven to make certain that the members of the
Church which Christ founded might enjoy the freedom which was
rightfully theirs as the children of God. Each in his own way, in
his own time and place, met the challenge of powers which would
have subjugated the Church to their own selfish interests ; and
each for the time, at least, with the help of God promised to those
who work for his interests, turned back the onslaught of those
powers. Others might or might not in their turn do as much, but
these champions wron their combats in their day.
Thus, when the Arian bishops, defeated at Nicea and still pro­
testing that decision, cast about for support outside the Church
which had decided against them they betook themselves to the
court of the Emperor at Constantinople. The aging Constantine
fell, to some extent, under their influence and ordered Athanasius,
the youthful successor of Alexander at Alexandria, who had fought
so strenuously against Arius, to receive him once more into his
communion. Careful as he had been, from the time he joined forces
with the Christians, not to interfere in matters ecclesiastical, the
Roman Emperor, with the long tradition of sovereignty over reli­
gion as well as civil affairs behind him and with a preoccupation to
preserve the peace of his realm at all costs, did not hesitate to tell
the bishop of Alexandria whom he should admit to his communion,
regardless of the decision taken at Nicea.
Athanasius, unable to accede to the command of the temporal
power in a matter such as this, refused to receive Arius and was
promptly sent into exile at Trier in the northwest territories of the
Empire. Constantine, however, contented himself with meting out
this punishment to a recalcitrant bishop and did not proceed, as his
son did later, to put another “bishop” in Athanasius’ place. By 337,
therefore, the new emperors, adopting a changed attitude, could
permit Athanasius to return to his see where he proceeded to rally
round him the bishops and monks of Egypt.
121