Bishops as Prophets of Social Catholicism
The 1919 Bishops' Program of Social Reconstruction
In recent posts, I have sought to foster a renewed appreciation of the tradition of social Catholicism that has both inspired and embodied the Social Doctrine of the Church, a doctrine that has developed out of the deepest wellsprings of the Catholic faith.1
In contrast to this “social Catholic” way of living Christian charity in the modern world of constitutional and democratic—i.e., “liberal”—states, I have begun to illustrate an alternative socio-political stance advanced by influential Catholics, to the extent that the former is largely unknown. We have already seen how the intellectual forces supporting this socially conservative alternative have tended to be the most intellectually accomplished, powerfully placed, and zealous Catholics of their times. This alternative approach generally follows from speculative and metaphysical consideration of the moral order with an emphasis on matters of sexual and marital ethics.
We have so far seen this orientation in some of the most prominent Catholic intellectuals of the early twentieth century, including Louis Billot SJ, Pedro Descoqs SJ, and Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP. Their alternative to the reformist, participationist and dialogical path of social Catholicism seeks a neo-integralist alliance of “throne and altar” so that the coercive power of the state can be employed to enforce this morality. From this perspective, to support a “liberalism” that fails to do so is to fail in upholding fundamental truths about God and the world as known through the Catholic faith.
In this post, I will further elucidate the tradition of social Catholicism by introducing the 1919 United States “Bishops’ Program of Social Reconstruction” that illustrates a key intervention from this tradition. In my opinion, this illustration of the practical fruits of social Catholicism was surprisingly prescient in anticipating what would later be adopted in much of the developed world. Seen in this way, the 1919 Bishop’s Program can be understood as an illustration of the merits of the social Catholic approach of working in solidarity for solutions to pressing social problems.
In my next post, I will then introduce what seems to have been the most effective source of opposition to such social reforms. This is the widespread opposition from those with narrower goals such as maximizing wealth and power. It includes especially the use of this wealth by such people to propagate a rival ideology, namely the laissez faire vision that opposes public / government intervention in the economy, precisely because it limits the political and economic power that elite financial interests would otherwise enjoy.
The 1919 Bishop’s Program of Social Reconstruction
Although the United States Bishops had neither the structures nor the consensus to intervene as a body on matters of social reform before the First World War, the postwar years presented a new situation. The bishops had formed the National Catholic War Council in 1917 to coordinate Catholic efforts related to the war, and had employed a public relations firm to highlight Catholic contributions. This desire to improve the public standing of Catholics was well-founded given the discrimination that many of them were still experiencing in many aspects of American life. Through especially the work of Msgr. John A. Ryan, the bishops had also slowly come to see the alignment between the reforms indicated in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 social encyclical Rerum novarum: On Capital and Labor and those more broadly advanced during the progressive era (1897-1920). With the help of their public relations consultant, the bishops reached consensus on the desirability of a statement to show the Church as a partner in the shared work of building “a more just and humane social order” after the horrors of The Great War.2
The obvious choice to write this statement was John Ryan. As an exemplar of the social Catholicism I have been illustrating, Ryan put official Catholic teaching in dialogue with the broader conversation of the day to advance what he saw as best reflecting the Catholic harmony between faith and reason. Encouraged by Rerum novarum’s endorsement of the use of state power to enact needed reforms, Ryan had published in 1909 his “A Program of Social Reform by Legislation,”3 the title of which indicated his well-founded conviction that only legislation could achieve reforms given the asymmetrical power and influence of the wealthy that had been manifest during the so-called Gilded Age of Ryan’s youth. Ryan’s 1909 program prefigured what he would write in The “1919 Bishops’ Program of Social Reconstruction.”
[Courtesy of Catholic University of America]
Summary and Assessment of Reform Proposals
Compared to our contemporary entanglement in culture war politics, the first section of the Bishops’ program does something refreshingly straightforward. That is, it summarizes and assesses the main reform proposals being discussed not only in the United States but more broadly. It considers those of the British Labor Party, the American Federation of Labor, The British Quaker Employers, the National Chamber of Commerce, and the Interdenominational Conference of Social Service Unions.4 In summary, the survey rejects extreme calls for “profound change” and proposes what it calls a “practical program.” I will focus on summarizing this practical program with a few remarks regarding the relation to contemporary debates.
The Bishops’ Practical Program of Reforms
These practical proposals of the Bishops’ Program begins by building upon prior experience, encouraging the continuation and enhancement of programs that have proven successful (13). The first point in addressing postwar social challenges is to facilitate the employment of discharged soldiers and sailors, whether in their previous occupations, in more attractive ones, on farms, or in industrial work. To facilitate the increased cultivation of land and to foster ownership of property to support families, it calls for “government loans” so men can “establish themselves as farmers” (14). Here we might note how social Catholics both recognize the centrality of personal initiative but do not hesitate to employ public institutions to provide needed assistance.
Second, the Bishops’ Program encourages the continuation of the United States Employment Service to facilitate “the cooperation of many agencies,” and “a national system of labor exchanges, acting in harmony with state, municipal and private employment bureaus” (15). Third, it discusses the situation of women who had taken positions during the war that were traditionally held by men. While assuming that women will move out of positions considered unsuitable for them (i.e., dangerous ones), it includes what can be seen as an enlightened insistence that women should receive “equal pay for equal amounts and quality of work” (16).
Fourth, it praises the fruits that have come from the “War Labor Board” including preventing “innumerable strikes” and raising “wages to decent levels in many different industries throughout the country.” On this basis, it encourages that the Board “be continued in existence by Congress, and endowed with all the power for effective action that it can possess under the federal constitution.” The Bishops’ Program praises the fact that this board had been guided by “a few fundamental principles” including “a family living wage for all male adult laborers,” the right of “labor to organize and deal with employers by chosen representatives,” and the prohibition of “coercion on nonunion laborers by members of the union” (17).
Fifth, the Bishop’s Program argues at some length that wage levels from during the war should not be lowered for the majority of workers (18-19). This is a reflection of Ryan’s emphasis on the importance of “the family living wage” as a minimum. We might also note that these paragraphs suggest considerable attention to the most reliable sources of wage information for various segments of the economy. It similarly advocates a legal minimum wage (24), and in general emphasizes the importance of increased incomes for those of the working classes (37).
The sixth point encourages that the experience and knowledge gained through successful federal housing projects for war workers be drawn upon by cities to address “congestion and other forms of bad housing [that] are disgracefully apparent” (20).
The seventh topic treats concerns about the “cost of living” which had risen 75% over the last several years, which echoes recent discussions of inflation following the Covid-19 pandemic. The Bishops’ Program judges that the wartime government price controls are unsustainable. It instead emphasizes “abolishing monopolistic extortion” (21), which it sees as a major source of inflation, again echoing contemporary discussions. It also encourages Americans to learn from the success of cooperatives in England and Scotland (22-3), a topic that will be revisited below. For the Bishops’ Program, participation in cooperatives has many benefits beyond minimizing costs, and gaining freedom from monopolistic businesses. It also fosters the development of the skills needed to participate more effectively in the economy and broader society.
The eighth topic concerns a comprehensive program of social insurance addressing illness, invalidity, unemployment and old age. It seeks to fund this—as far as possible—through “a levy on industry,” with the state making only “slight and temporary” contributions and workers contributing only from that portion of their income that exceeds the family living wage. It asserts that the “ideal to be kept in mind is a condition in which all the workers would themselves have the income and the responsibility of providing for all the needs and contingencies of life, both present and future” (25). It also encourages a continuation and expansion of “the life insurance offered to soldiers and sailors during the war” (26). These judgments reflect, of course, experience before the establishment of modern social security systems.
The section concludes on the topic of health care, a perennial concern.
A vast amount of unnecessary sickness and suffering exists among the poor and the lower middle classes because they cannot afford the advantages of any other treatment except that provided by the general practitioner. Every effort should be made to supply wage earners and their families with specialized medical care through development of group medicine. Free medical care should be given only to those who cannot afford to pay (27).
Modern Catholic Social Doctrine has generally considered health care a right rather than a privilege.
Another section expands upon “right of labor to organize and to deal with employers through representatives.” It goes beyond these basics—and others like safety and sanitation standards—by encouraging the broad involvement of employees in industrial management. This would include employee involvement in determining the nature of products produced, the “processes and machinery” through which they are produced, the “engagement and dismissal of employees” who produce them, the hours worked, rates of pay and bonuses received, “shop discipline,” and “relations with trade unions.” It concludes that such practices would benefit all concerned (28), which would seem to have been shown by subsequent experience.
The Bishops’ Program also advocates for a “substantially universal” program of “vocational training.” Such development of employable skills, however, must “not deprive children of the working classes of at least the elements of a cultural education,” nor result in “a state monopoly of education.” This topic has surprising contemporary relevance given the many, and often well-paying, job openings in the skilled trades, the lack of candidates to fill them, and the inability of the young to afford housing (30).
Like many of the topics already discussed, the topic of “child labor” (31-32) also has considerable contemporary relevance. For the 1919 Bishops’ Program, “the continuous employment of children in industry before the age of sixteen years”—which limits their education and future lives—is increasingly and laudably coming to be opposed by public opinion. In their view, it is rightly opposed by legislation such as that which will “impose a tax of ten percent on all goods made by children,” thereby discouraging child labor. The relevance of this position is that some American states are instead today removing such obstacles to child labor.
Towards the end of the Bishops’ Program, it revisits the question of “fundamental reforms” (34) of the socio-economic order based on “the private ownership of capital,” such as through the adoption of a “collectivist organization of industry,” that is socialism. It argues that such change is unlikely and would mean “bureaucracy, political tyranny, the helplessness of the individual as a factor in the ordering of his own life, and in general social inefficiency and decadence.”
It discusses, however, the main “defects of the present system” (35) and what can be done in response to them. The defects are put under the headings of inefficiency and waste as manifest especially in “insufficient incomes for the great majority of wage earners” and “unnecessarily large incomes for a small minority of privileged capitalists.” Once again, we have echoes of contemporary problems that have been the topic of lively debate since especially the 2008 financial crisis. The Bishops’ Program asserts that the reforms it has proposed would ameliorate these problems “in great measure,” although the reformist program was largely dropped during the “roaring twenties,” as I will discuss in future posts.
The Program speaks further of the need for forms of “copartnership,” where workers become more than “mere wage earners,” and at least part owners “of the instruments of production” (36). This can be achieved through “cooperative productive societies” in which “workers own and manage the industries themselves,” or through “copartnership arrangements,” where workers “own a substantial part of the corporate stock and exercise a reasonable share in the management.” Although this approach would “to a great extent” mean “the abolition of the wages system,” it would not abolish private ownership as “the instruments of production would still be owned by individuals, not by the state.”
To achieve such reforms “a new spirit” (38) through which public policy would recognize “that human beings cannot be trusted with the immense opportunities for oppression and extortion that go with the possession of monopoly power” (38). The Bishops’ Program, moreover, calls for “heavy taxation of incomes, excess profits, and inheritances,” along with methods “by which genuine competition may be restored and maintained among businesses.” It sees a place for public service monopolies, which must, however, “be restricted by law to a fair or average return on their actual investment.” The Bishops’ Program recognizes the existence of “exceptional businessmen,” but claims that good public policy will ensure that they avoid becoming “a menace rather than a benefit to industry and society.” Once again, such concerns about the price gouging and political power of monopolies are arguably even more urgent today.
The Bishops’ Program concludes by emphasizing the need for “a Christian view” (40), which recognizes the need for reform of both life and institutions. Whereas the program as described so far had focused on the reform of institutions, these will not suffice without the reform of the lives of both “labor and capital,” workers and owners. Workers need to give “an honest day's work in return for a fair wage” while the capitalist must “learn the long-forgotten truth that wealth is stewardship, that profitmaking is not the basic justification of business enterprise, and that there are such things as fair profits, fair interest, and fair prices.” Once again, after forty years of neoliberal economics that focused business on maximizing profit, the Bishops’ Program offers a message of surprising relevance, and is supported by ample scholarship as I will discuss in future posts.
Unfortunately, as I will discuss in my next post, this program was immediately attacked as socialism by the monopolists it sought to reform as the era of “progressive reform” gave way to the “roaring twenties.” After the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, many of these reforms came to be accepted, and became part of the mixed economies of the so-called “postwar era” that followed the Second World War and—for the first time—lifted broad segments of the population out of economic precarity to a more dignified existence.
These wellsprings include the Old Testament witness to the centrality of justice, and to a special concern for the most vulnerable as exemplified by the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger. They include the fulfillment of this revelation in the person of Jesus Christ, who the Catholic faith holds is the one awaited by Israel to bring justice (see Isaiah 42:1-4; 45:8), who proclaimed his kingdom as bringing “good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18ff) and said that his followers would be known by their love (Jn 13:35).
In this paragraph, I draw upon Joseph M. McShane, SJ, “The Bishop’s Program of Social Reconstruction of 1919,” in The New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought, ed. Judith Dwyer (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994), 88-91.
Ryan, John A. “A Program of Social Reform by Legislation,” The Catholic World, Vol. 89, No. 532 (July 1909), pp. 433-444.
For example, the Bishops’ Program is critical of the proposals the British Labor Party, which reflect the thought of the Fabian socialist Sidney Webb (para. 3), including “immediate radical reforms, leading ultimately to complete socialism,” which it concludes “cannot be approved by Catholics” (4). Regarding the proposals and demands of the American Federation of Labor, the Bishops’ Program judges them to be “more practical and more moderate and reasonable” (5). It is critical, however, of a potentially confiscatory land tax proposal, of the insufficient consideration given to “the weaker sections of the working class,” and its insufficiency in helping workers to “aspire to become owners …of the instruments of production” (6). In these last remarks, we can see a special concern for the most vulnerable, which—given the Old Testament emphases on justice and the special concern for the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger—will characterize any social ethics that would claim to reflect biblical revelation. The Bishops’ Program praises the proposal of the British Quaker Employers as perhaps “the most definite and comprehensive” (7-8), and upon which it will draw. It gives a mixed review of the views of “American Employers” while praising the proposals from the Interdenominational Conference located in Great Britain, which included Catholics. This section merits a careful reading.