By Andy Gustafson
For our Business, Faith, and Common Good class this week we read parts of Centesimus Annus (100 years) written in 1991 by Pope John Paul II to mark the 100th anniversary of POpe Pius XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891). Pope John Paul II, having seen the fall of Communist Soviet Union, was quite clear about the problems of materialistic socialism (communism). Here are a couple things he says (my comments in blue)
First, socialism (which Pope JP II equates with the marxism he experienced) has a false view of the human being as a purely materialistic mechanical being without dignity or freedom, and subject to the system. Here is Pope John Paul II:
13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call “his own”, and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.
Today we see this everywhere– the notion that my identity is simply a social construct, or amalgamation of the society relationships and situation into which I have been placed. This leads to viewing most human behavior as manipulatable, and so one finds business ethics articles, for example, where suggestions are made for example to use lemon-scented lysol in the workplace because it leads to 11% more ethical behavior… Pope JP II Continues:
In contrast, from the Christian vision of the human person there necessarily follows a correct picture of society. According to Rerum novarum and the whole social doctrine of the Church, the social nature of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the common good. This is what I have called the “subjectivity” of society which, together with the subjectivity of the individual, was cancelled out by “Real Socialism”.40
If we then inquire as to the source of this mistaken concept of the nature of the person and the “subjectivity” of society, we must reply that its first cause is atheism. It is by responding to the call of God contained in the being of things that man becomes aware of his transcendent dignity. Every individual must give this response, which constitutes the apex of his humanity, and no social mechanism or collective subject can substitute for it. The denial of God deprives the person of his foundation, and consequently leads to a reorganization of the social order without reference to the person’s dignity and responsibility.
Of course, we are talking about the logic of theories and ideologies here. I am certain we know extraordinarily moral good wonderful people who are atheists, and plenty of mean morally challenged somewhat dispicable people who are theists. 🙂
The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality in a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight concerning man’s true greatness, his transcendence in respect to earthly realities, the contradiction in his heart between the desire for the fullness of what is good and his own inability to attain it and, above all, the need for salvation which results from this situation.
Pope John Paul II goes on to criticize Marxism and militarism for the same reasons:
14. From the same atheistic source, socialism also derives its choice of the means of action condemned in Rerum novarum, namely, class struggle. ….
However, what is condemned in class struggle is the idea that conflict is not restrained by ethical or juridical considerations, or by respect for the dignity of others (and consequently of oneself); a reasonable compromise is thus excluded, and what is pursued is not the general good of society, but a partisan interest which replaces the common good and sets out to destroy whatever stands in its way. In a word, it is a question of transferring to the sphere of internal conflict between social groups the doctrine of “total war”, which the militarism and imperialism of that time brought to bear on international relations. As a result of this doctrine, the search for a proper balance between the interests of the various nations was replaced by attempts to impose the absolute domination of one’s own side through the destruction of the other side’s capacity to resist, using every possible means, not excluding the use of lies, terror tactics against citizens, and weapons of utter destruction (which precisely in those years were beginning to be designed). Therefore class struggle in the Marxist sense and militarism have the same root, namely, atheism and contempt for the human person, which place the principle of force above that of reason and law.
The Catholic Church has typically been against state control of the means of production, in large part because there is dignity in private ownership, and rights and responsibilities which come with owning wealth (an obligation to share excess with others for the common good), and this freedom and responsibility (which are at the root of human dignity) are not available under socialism (or communism):
15. Rerum novarum is opposed to State control of the means of production, which would reduce every citizen to being a “cog” in the State machine. It is no less forceful in criticizing a concept of the State which completely excludes the economic sector from the State’s range of interest and action. There is certainly a legitimate sphere of autonomy in economic life which the State should not enter. The State, however, has the task of determining the juridical framework within which economic affairs are to be conducted, and thus of safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience.43
In this regard, Rerum novarum points the way to just reforms which can restore dignity to work as the free activity of man. These reforms imply that society and the State will both assume responsibility, especially for protecting the worker from the nightmare of unemployment. Historically, this has happened in two converging ways: either through economic policies aimed at ensuring balanced growth and full employment, or through unemployment insurance and retraining programmes capable of ensuring a smooth transfer of workers from crisis sectors to those in expansion.
(Par 24) But the true cause of the new developments was the spiritual void brought about by atheism, which deprived the younger generations of a sense of direction and in many cases led them, in the irrepressible search for personal identity and for the meaning of life, to rediscover the religious roots of their national cultures, and to rediscover the person of Christ himself as the existentially adequate response to the desire in every human heart for goodness, truth and life. This search was supported by the witness of those who, in difficult circumstances and under persecution, remained faithful to God. Marxism had promised to uproot the need for God from the human heart, but the results have shown that it is not possible to succeed in this without throwing the heart into turmoil.
Pope Leo XIII wrote about the problems of socialism and importance of private property 128 years ago, and Pope John Paul II highlighted this especially in terms of the problems arising from trying to have an economic system based in atheism 28 years ago– namely, that there isn’t a proper conception of the dignity of human beings in a marxist materialist worldview. No dignity, no freedom, no personal responsibility.
It is important to note, however, that Pope John Paul II points out that insofar as they both seem to view human beings in primarily materialist terms, marxism which expects salvation through political transformation and free market consumerism which expects salvation through free market consumption are both mistaken:
(from Par. 19) Another kind of response, practical in nature, is represented by the affluent society or the consumer society. It seeks to defeat Marxism on the level of pure materialism by showing how a free-market society can achieve a greater satisfaction of material human needs than Communism, while equally excluding spiritual values. In reality, while on the one hand it is true that this social model shows the failure of Marxism to contribute to a humane and better society, on the other hand, insofar as it denies an autonomous existence and value to morality, law, culture and religion, it agrees with Marxism, in the sense that it totally reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs.
Marxism and consumerism both fail to understand human beings properly, since both have reduced human beings to having only economic and material needs.
Pope John Paul II is primarily reflecting here on Rerum Novarum, written in 1891 to criticize both socialism and rampant unregulated industrialization, both of which did not properly respect the dignity of human individuals. It is remarkable how relevant much of these writings are relevant today, nearly 130 years later.
Andy Gustafson
Jason Stansubury spoke to a packed room on Thursday night (10/3) on the topic of “Sin in Business”. Stansbury, the executive director of the Society of Business Ethics (2017-2022) holds a chair in business ethics where he teaches at Calvin University.
This year’s BFCGI Symposium will take place Friday September 13th from 2-5 in Harper 3023, with a reception to follow, as a final conclusion to 
So every three years, there is a gambling and risk-taking conference held in Las Vegas. Its a great conference because you have all types– social scientists in sociology, psychology, criminology, political science, and then mathematicians and economists, as well as policymakers, industry representatives, and regulators. I’ve talked to a CEO from Australia who runs an organization helping to set policies for betting clubs, a casino regulator from Boston, a lawyer who specializes in money laundering from Switzerland, a politician and regulator from Austria, a consultant who was instrumental in setting up a lot of the Iowa casinos early on… and a whole lot more interesting people.
Business, Faith, and the Common Good Institute 