REVIEW OF 90 YEARS OF U.S. ROMAN CATHOLOCISM, COMMONWEAL AND NCR

Two great liberal U.S. American Roman Catholic publications celebrate anniversaries this year Commonweal (90^th) and The National Catholic Reporter (50th). 

   I am now approaching the finish line for the eightieth year of my Roman Catholic life so I have lived many of the stories the publications relate. I feel a need to comment –I knew and know many of the news makers.  They influenced my life as well as the Church itself. Let us consider Commonweal from its beginning in 1924 to the National Catholic Reporter’s start in 1964.  Catholic Worker co-founder Dorothy Day would be a link.  She was introduced to her Catholic Worker co-founder Peter Maurin by a Commonweal Editor. (Anniversary Issue, October 24^th, 2014, The Commonweal Catholic, p. 16)  In 1932 Dorothy covered a Hunger March in Washington, D.C. for Commonweal.  Dorothy Day’s struggle for justice and peace continued after Vatican II until her death in 1980.

   

                                                  Dorothy Day, 1916

Commonweal anniversary issue, ‘90 Years of Debate,’ provides a launching pad.  Years of ‘debate’ – why – isn’t the Pope infallible? (see Authoritative & Ignored, p. 20)  The Commonweal editorial explains,

Liberal democracy, very much in retreat between the last century’s two world wars, received little encouragement from the church in its struggle with authoritarian forces.  Yet Commonweal refused to abandon its belief in either democracy or Catholic truth, consistently arguing that in the modern world the health of one was very much related to the health of the other.

This is a unifying statement that anticipates a certain understanding of Faith itself.  The split that debate tries to bring together is expressed by this statement of the editorial:

Two Faiths … The editors (founders in 1924) insisted that a certain religious piety-an outlook rooted in a larger transcendent hope not only with democracy’s celebration of the common man, but crucial to forging consensus about the common good in a pluralistic society. (Anniversary issue – p. 5)

Commonweal was very important in this debate, but why didn’t the anniversary issue or website mention Thomistic philosopher Mortimer Adler of the University of Chicago?  Adler, who was Jewish and not a Catholic, contended that the political theory of Thomas Aquinas supported 20^th century democracy.  Adler expressed his opinion during the ‘in between’ period of the two world wars when it was not clear that U.S. Catholics would join the fight against fascism. (Mortimer J. Adler and Walter Farrell, O.P., “The Theory of Democracy,” The Thomist, Sheed and Ward, Baltimore, MD, July, 1941, pp.397 – 449.)  In March of 1939 Adler had an article in Commonweal entitled – ‘Education and Democracy.’  He wrote several other articles for Commonweal. (Also see –Adler, Mortimer J. Philosopher at Large, Macmillan Publishing, N.Y. 1977, p. 390.)

   But the debate was not just over democracy it was also about going to war.  In December of 1940 Paul Kalinauskas and Ed Marciniak wrote a piece in the Chicago Catholic Worker pleading the case for conscientious objection.  During the Korean War, December 20, 1950, Dorothy Day wrote in her diary:

Wrote an answer to Commonweal editorial, ‘Blood, Sweat and Tears.’  The footnote explains:  Dorothy was critical of a Commonweal editorial supporting national defense. (Dorothy Day, Duty of Delight, Marquette Press, 2008, p.149 )

   

Since Catholic Social Teaching has been swept under the rug, it is not surprising that another regrettable omission in the anniversary edition and website was the father of U.S. American Catholic Social Teaching, Rev. John Ryan.  Ryan advocated for independent democratic labor unions with participants of all faith denominations as well as atheists and agnostics.  He said that strikes, when the last resort, were legitimate.  The Vatican was not supportive of labor on these issues until Vatican II.  Ryan was an advisor to the National Catholic War Council – predecessor to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  The founding editor of Commonweal, Michael Williams, also worked for the National Catholic War Council. (Commonweal, October 24, 2014, p.5)   The 1934, April 13^th, edition of Commonweal featured an article by John Ryan entitled ‘The New Deal and Social Justice.’ Father Ryan would be disappointed that no union logo was found in the anniversary issue indicating that Commonweal does not use a union printer.

      

   Commonweal was not blinded by ‘liberalism.’ The change of attitude brought about by Vatican II is indicated by articles written by Jordan Bishop, O.P. for Commonweal warning of a crisis in Latin America because of U.S. imperialism.  Through the years Bishop wrote many articles for Commonweal.  For example, Bishop wrote in 1967 about the French journalist Regis Debray who was captured in Bolivia with Che Guevara:

(Debray has two premises) “ … the first, is that a real revolution leading to some sort of socialism as yet undefined and liberation from the North American colonial empire is an evident necessity shared by such diverse elements as Fidel Castro, the Young Christian Democrats … And some would contend by Paul VI of Populorum Progressio.”  (Commonweal, Nov. 1967)

 Why publish these articles? The founders of Commonweal had faith in democracy and opposed communism, but were open to ‘debate.’

     

        Let’s move to consideration of the National Catholic Reporter with the onset of the watershed point of Vatican II.  But first, NCR published a special edition on the 50^th anniversary of the Council with many important articles.  None of the articles pinpointed the ‘why’ of Vatican II as well as Cathleen Kaveny, Boston College theologian, in the 90^th anniversary issue of Commonweal (p. 13):

Catholics were appalled by the carnage of the Second World War and the unimaginable evil of the Holocaust, and they were horrified by the possibility of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. Questions about moral presumptions of the modern state including the United States had to be asked.  Catechism-trained Catholics had participated in the Nazi horrors, often with blind obedience to authority.  The goal of post-Vatican II Catholic catechesis was not to foster obedience but to cultivate responsible men and women who were shaped by the Catholic Christian vision, sensitive to the debt to the Jewish people, and independent enough to stand up to injustice, even if sanctioned by church or state.

Next posting – a commentary on the 50^th anniversary issue of the National Catholic Reporter

The Working Catholic: Thanksgiving Images by Bill Droel

Our image of Thanksgiving Day is influenced by famous paintings, including from 1915 The First Thanksgiving by Jean Louis Ferris (1893-1930) and from 1943 the still popular Four Freedoms by Norman Rockwell (1894-1978). These images serve a purpose even though they compress history and though celebrations in most homes are not as serene as the paintings.

The Statue of Liberty is second only to “that star-spangled banner” as a symbol of our beautiful country. It is also a fitting image for Thanksgiving even though again historical facts about the statue have been compressed.

Frederic Auguste Bartholdi (1834-1904), the son of Italian immigrants to France, was involved with a circle of people who considered the French movement for liberty to be their gift to the United States and they raised money to donate a statue symbolizing that gift. A preview of the gift appeared at the Philadelphia Expo in 1876, but it took until 1880 before a complete statue was delivered to the U.S. embassy in Paris. The French circle wanted the gift to keep moving in the sense that the U.S. should support and sustain liberty among freedom-seeking movements around the world.

It wasn’t until 1886, however, that the statue was dedicated in New York’s Upper Bay. In the meantime a private fundraising campaign in our country was needed to secure the statue’s site, particularly to finance its pedestal. Part of the fundraising was the auction of a 14-line sonnet, The New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus (1849-1887). Her ancestors were Jewish-Russians who emigrated here before the Revolutionary War. At the time her poem was commissioned, Lazarus, sufficiently known in literary society, was volunteering at Emigrant Aid Society on the Lower East Side. The poem was mostly neglected but in 1903 it was written on a bronze tablet and only in 1945 was it mounted on the statue’s pedestal. The poem and the statue came to represent the thankful generosity of our country’s residents. So thankful, in fact, that we could open our hearts to “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

The statue’s symbolism of thanksgiving is, of course, reinforced by its proximity to Ellis Island. (I’m biased toward my home state of New York. But for the record, Ellis Island is mostly in New Jersey and Liberty Island itself is in New York.)

From 1892 to 1954 thousands of immigrants (including my grandmother), having just passed by the Statue of Liberty, gave thanks on Ellis Island for their arrival to our land of opportunity. Each generation of arrivals enriched our country with creativity, social capital, culture and faith—gifts to subsequent generations. Thus the table prayer on November 27, 2014 is not only one of thanks for God’s bounty, thanks for the privilege of residing in this country, thanks for the family and friends gathered, but also thanks for our ancestors and for those new arrivals who keep the gift moving.

Droel edits INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a free newsletter about faith and work.

The Working Catholic: Gifts That Keep Moving by Bill Droel

This is the season for gratitude. First up is our national day of Thanksgiving on which we express gratitude to God for our beautiful country and for our relatives, even those who are a tad rowdy at the day’s get together. Thereafter begins three and a half weeks of giving gifts at Christmas parties and at a family reunion or two.

Unfortunately, some essential features of gratitude have been lost over the years. First, a true gift must be given with a generous spirit. Not allowed are feelings like: “If I get him one, then I suppose I have to give her one even though she doesn’t…” Or, “I wish they’d have Christmas only once every ten years so I wouldn’t have to bother with shopping for and wrapping all this junk…” In other words, a true gift must not be the result of any coercion, including subjective feelings of guilt or resentment.

Second and yet at the same time, a gift is different from a monetary trade in that it imposes a non-quantifiable obligation on the recipient. A true gift is implicitly reciprocal and its essence is lost if the gift is not re-gifted. 

Take the phrase Indian Giver. It is offensive, like the name of the NFL team in our nation’s capital. But specific to our lesson here about gratitude, our understanding of the phrase is also historically inaccurate.

Those who know something about the beginning of our country know that Thomas Hutchinson (1711-1780) was a wealthy merchant in Massachusetts, loyal to the British occupation. He was perhaps the first to put the phrase Indian Giver in writing. Given his cultural assumptions, Hutchinson and many others thought that Indians take back a gift as soon it is given. Indians, Hutchinson wrote, put gifts in the category of monetary trade in “which an equivalent return is expected.” The next thing you know, Indians will expect the settlers from Europe to give back the country to them.

Anthropologist Lewis Hyde of Kenyon College in Ohio explains that Native Americans had a profound notion of gratitude and that a phrase for someone who abuses a gift might better be Settler Giver.

Hyde sets a scene in his book The Gift (Vintage, 1979). A Puritan visits an Indian lodge. In hospitality the Indians invite the visitor to smoke a peace pipe. Upon leaving the lodge, the Indians give the red stone pipe to the Puritan. He displays it at home for awhile and then, so impressed with its decorative carving and feathers, he sends it to a museum in England. Later, other Indians visit the Puritan settlement and are astonished to learn that not only do the Puritans have no intention of giving them the pipe, but that it is now stagnating in a museum. The custom, not understood by the Puritans, is that every gift contains a spirit of generosity and that gifts circulate from tribe to tribe or house to house in order to symbolize mutuality. From the Indians’ point of view, the Puritans were the stingy, uncivilized ones.

“A cardinal property of the gift,” Hyde says, is that “whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away, not kept.” Given away not given back. “It is better if the gift is not returned [to its original donor] but is given instead to some new, third party,” writes Hyde. In a sense, giving is about passing around some useless thing. The power is in the circle of beneficiaries/givers. The action of the circle is “the container in which the gift moves.” Once a gift is treated like a market commodity, Hyde concludes, it only strengthens the negative spirits of selfish individualism and clannishness. To be continued….

Droel is editor of INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a free newsletter about faith and work.

The Working Catholic: Gifts That Keep Moving by Bill Droel

Thanksgiving, Part I

This past summer Oracle, Arizona reflected back to us two defining cultural images.

Oracle with a population of about 4,000 is 40 miles north of Tucson and it is slightly more than 100 miles north of Mexico.  It was founded in the late 1870s as a mining town. It seems that Albert Weldon from New Brunswick, Canada took a ship, named Oracle, around Cape Horn and made his way to the Santa Catalina mountain area in Arizona. Two other immigrant prospectors joined him: Jimmy Lee from Ireland and Alex McKay from Scotland. They found gold and named their mine Oracle, in thanksgiving for a sturdy ship and for their discovery. By 1880 about 70 mines were staked in the area and a post office named Oracle opened to serve the workers.

  The first image from this past summer is of an ad hoc ecumenical group called 'Heart To Heart' that extends assistance to refugee children. This first image also includes donors to Catholic Community Services who have filled storerooms with food and clothing for the children. It includes about 100 people from South Side Presbyterian Church and other groups standing along the road in Oracle with signs greeting the children; signs in Spanish like Friends, don’t be afraid. Finally, this image includes leaders from Pima County Interfaith Council who are circulating a petition. Its provisions stress the need for each refugee child to have a specific attorney for a time, the need for access by pastors to detention centers or shelters and the need for a maximum one-year refugee card to ease a child’s anxiety while waiting out the refugee process.

 The second image is of a Tea Party group, perhaps 60 people, standing alongside an Oracle street, shouting insults at refugee children. Adam Kwasman, a 31-year old member of the Arizona House of Representatives, was among the protestors. As Amy Davidson in The New Yorker (7/28/14) explains, Kwasman and company made two mistakes. First, the bus that the protestors harassed was filled with quizzical YMCA children (not refugees) on their way to a camping site. Second and contrary to the protestors’ claim, refugee children are not “illegal,” under the Wilberforce Act. Signed by President George Bush in 2008, the law stipulates that children, except those from Canada or Mexico, must have a judicial hearing before their immigration status is determined. From the time they come to the U.S. until a judge renders a decision, those children are legal. 

So, those are two salient images of U.S. culture—the first an image of gratitude and the second an image of resentment.

Gratitude is the recognition that everything, including life itself, is ultimately a gift from someone, somewhere. For most people in our country, that someone is God. In the example at hand it is the recognition that nations must have borders and have clear, enforceable immigration policies. It is also, however, the recognition that no one in this country, except for Native Americans (who are .9% of the population; 4.6% in Arizona) has prior ownership of land or resources. Further, it is the recognition that our beautiful country enjoys freedom and opportunity because its laws and its culture have always attracted and retained immigrants.

Resentment is the opposite of gratitude. It is the feeling that: #1. I have made it, to a degree. And I have made it through my own hard work; and #2. That a group just below me is getting ahead undeservedly.  And further that the group below is somehow getting ahead at my expense.

There is an unarticulated side-effect to resentment, explains Fr. Henri Nouwen (1932-1996). It is a murky fear or a dragging suspicion that “you have made yourself totally dependent” on something you cannot name and a feeling of powerlessness over the dependency. Resentment “is a smoldering passion preventing us from asking forgiveness.” 

Each November our country pauses for an entire day to bring the first image of thanksgiving to the fore. Perhaps we need to institute a day of forgiveness for our resentment, a national Yom Kippur.

Droel edits INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a newsletter about faith and work.

CHANGE OF DOGMA IN THE SOCIAL ENCYCLICALS

   It could be claimed that ‘preferential option for the poor’ is a consistent dogma for Catholic Social Teaching since the beginning, (Rerum Novarum, 1891) but concern for the poor is quite different than the ‘preferential option.’

   Jesuit economist Perry Roets, S.J. wrote in 1991 that his mentor, renowned economist Bernard Dempsey, S.J., would have had trouble accepting the radical ‘preferential option’ dogma.  Roets described Dempsey who died a couple of years before Vatican II:

Dempsey never really understood the powerlessness of ordinary people forced to remain poor for extended periods.  …It would be interesting to see Dempsey wrestle with the emphasis given recently by both the Church and his own Society of Jesus to this  ‘preferential option for the poor.’                                                                                                      (Roets, Perry J. The Economic Ideas of Bernard W. Dempsey, S.J., Marquette University Press, 1991, p. 38)

Bill Brennan, S.J. (1920 – 2014) lived “Preferential Option for the Poor.”

He is pictured here holding a cross at an S.O.A. protest at Fort Benning, GA.  The cross bears the name of Luis Espinal, S.J. martyred in Bolivia. 

But even more than fifty years after Vatican II Thomas Massaro , S.J. cautions:

In one sense, the notion of the preferential option for the poor is relatively new to Catholic social teaching, as this phrase appeared in no papal social encyclical until 1987 and in no official Church documents at all until 1979.                                                                     (Boston College C21 Resources, Fall 2014, p.32)

Massaro is referring to the John Paul II Encyclical of 1987 Solicitudo Rei and the Latin American Bishops (C.E.L.A.M.) document for the Puebla Mexico conferences in 1979.  Massaro fails to recognize the revolutionary document that first officially expresses the Church’s ‘preferential option for the poor.’ The document from the 1968 C.E.L.A.M. conference in Medellin states:

El particular mandato del Senior de ‘evangelizar a los pobres’ debe llevarnos a una distribucion de los esfuerzos y del personel Apostolic que de preferencia efectiva al los sectores mas pobres y necesitados y a los segregados por cualquier causa, alentandoy y accelerando las iniciativas y studios que con ese fin ya se hacen. Translation: The specific command of the Lord to bring ‘the Good News’ to the poor ought to raise us to use our forces and our Church personnel to give effective preference to those most poor and segregated for whatever reason, raising and accelerating those initiatives and investigations which actualize the           ‘Good News.’ (Documentos Finales de Medellin, 1968, XIV, 3.2, p.176)

This is a value statement that challenges the modern guide of political policy ‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’ The ‘greatest good’ should include all people, and let us first consider the poor who have nothing. The statement goes beyond       Vatican II’s concern for the poor and moves us to a revolutionary criterion.  

   The Bishops of Latin America witnessed poverty caused by political and economic structures.   With reference to Jesus who denounced the poverty caused by Imperial Rome, the Medellin Bishops declared that poverty was not of God and that the Reign of God was present only in so far as justice for the poor prevailed.

   Francis, the first American Pope, emphasized ‘preferential option for the poor’ in his message, The Joy of the Gospel. Francis quotes John Paul II:

          Without the preferential option for the poor, ‘the proclamation of      The Gospel which is itself the prime form of charity, risks being        misunderstood or submerged by the ocean of words which daily engulfs us        in today’s society of mass communications.’ #199

Francis continues following the lead of Medellin: ‘The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed.’ #202  The Apostolic exhortation Joy of the Gospel resurrects Jesus’ claim to radically overthrow oppression by insisting that ‘the last shall be first’ and preaching this ‘Good News’ to the poor.

   Pope Francis has witnessed the political and structural suppression of the poor in Latin America and pleads for preferential solidarity with them.  It is not just the poor of Buenos Aires or Chicago or London; what about Africa and Asia?   Roman Catholic Social Teaching has had a global range, but especially since the 21^st Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.  Francis’ message is political and crafted for the Faith community; it is not designed for isolated individual choices. 

The Working Catholic By Bill Droel

          Relevant Saint? 

   October is a great month for saints: St. Therese Lisieux (the Little Flower), St. Boniface, St. Damien of Hawaii, St. Teresa Avila, St. Luke, St. Jean de Brebeuf of Canada, St. John Paul II and several more. And October is also the month for the second most popular Christian ever, St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226). But is St. Francis relevant?

No, not unless the goal is for young adults to quit their jobs, abandon their cell phones, roam about begging and maybe repairing a church building here or there. All the while dressed in a long hooded jacket.

Wait a minute: young adults do wear hoodies. Back in the old days a hoodie was called a capuche. St. Francis never picked a standard color, sometimes appearing in black or dark green. He didn’t intend to establish a uniform for his friends and he hardly was making a fashion statement, even a counter-cultural one. Eventually one group among his followers picked a standard color that reminded people of coffee mixed with foaming cream. That type of coffee, now popular with young adults, was called cappuccino. Thus, that group of followers were then and now called the Capuchins.

St. Francis never did anything; he never launched a project; he had no four step program. Instead, he spent his career extending gestures. And for some reason, the young adults of his time thought he was interesting. So much so that hundreds joined him, creating the Francis movement.

His gesture toward the latest innovation in town summarizes all his others. You see, before the 13^th century few people needed any time-keeping device other than direct observation of the sun. But when the mercantile economy emerged in Europe, people wanted to keep appointments. So a clock tower was installed in the public square. St. Francis turned his back to the clock to remind people that a life fixated on clocks (be they now a cell phone app) and tight schedules and transactions is not ultimately satisfying.

It was the same message he tried to impart by disrobing in front of a church tribunal that was mediating a dispute between St. Francis and his father, a prominent clothier. St. Francis took off all his clothes. Fashion, ornaments, car accessories, and mansions are all ultimately unsatisfying.

St. Francis once made a courageous anti-war gesture. It was during the Crusades. He and a friend decided to walk across enemy lines and meet with Malik al-Kamil, the sultan of Egypt. In a surprising return gesture, the sultan conversed with St. Francis during an entire week. The gesture did not dissuade the so-called Christians from continuing their wrong-headed attacks. But once again, many young adults saw an alternative to senseless war.

Young adults today are understandably disenchanted. Star athletes betray their profession by abusing other people and by cheating in the very nature of competition. Prominent business leaders engage in pseudo-commerce, peddling products that are unhealthy and some that don’t even exist. Bishops cover-up the egregious behavior of some employees. Politicians needlessly stoke resentment and racism.

To be disenchanted means to be away from the magic. Who wouldn’t be jaded when it comes to the magical or miraculous in daily life? Disenchantment is a fixed by-product of modern life. People assume that modern culture will provide meaning, but in its drive for efficiency our culture must dispel enchantment. We are left with, at best, an upbeat and vacuously positive approach to life, otherwise known as self-help.

Science and technology and individuality are gifts that come wrapped within the modern and they are to be cherished. But we need also to be caught up or taken up or drawn in. Enchantment means to be aware of the alluring and mysterious; to be awake to hues, shades, dialect, mood and gaps in sequence. Enchantment is outside of clock time. It is a belief that the so-called past is existentially present and that the current moment has a future.

St. Francis was enchanting to many young adults. We need him today.

Bill Droel edits INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a newsletter about faith and work.

CLEANSING THE DEPOSIT(S)

    Joanne and I recently made a presentation to a local Protestant Church looking for renewed support for Voces de la Frontera’s Sanctuary Movement.  

    We are working with the possibility of moving someone – or a family into Sanctuary in response to Congress’ and the President’s unwillingness to act.

   It seemed out of context but a question was raised about Voces’ support for immigrant workers in the recent Palermo Pizza strike.  The best response was given by a congregation member, a professor of history at Marquette University, who noted the importance of protests in U.S. American history.  He cited the Civil Rights movement as an example.  A neighboring Protestant church was remembered as being part of the Underground Railroad before the U.S. Civil War. Coincidently the homily for the liturgy which preceded the discussion emphasized the Christian tradition of challenging authority.  

   

   Of course the Church agreed to support us, but the discussion triggered some thoughts on Faith and about Faith in action.

   Despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church in Milwaukee refused to support the immigrant workers at Palermo, it could be argued that the right to protest – the right to strike is basic to Catholic Social Teaching, but this was not always the case.  What changed? 

  The first American Pope, Francis, in his proclamation The Joy of the Gospel cites the need to properly explain the ‘deposit of faith.’ Changes in the doctrine of Catholic Social Teaching could provide a model.  Francis quotes John XXIII from his opening remarks for the Second Vatican Council, “The deposit of the faith is one thing  … the way it is expressed is another.” (The Joy of the Gospel, IV, para. 41)  Let us remember that explaining Faith is the role of theology. 

   What is the ‘deposit of faith?’  Leo XIII in 1899 wrote an Encyclical – a letter to Cardinal Gibbons – called ‘Americanism.’  Leo feared heresy in the U.S. Church.  Pope Leo quoted Vatican Council I, (Const. de Fid.  Cath., c. iv).  Among Leo’s problems with the U.S. were 1890’s labor protests – e.g. the Pullman strike and the demonstration in Washington of Coxey’s Army. (Documents of American Catholic History, Ed. John Tracy Ellis, Bruce Publishing, Milwaukee, WI, 1956, p.524)

          The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed like a    theory of philosophy which is to be elaborated by the human      understanding, but as a divine deposit delivered to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared … That sense of sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and is not to be departed from under the specious context of more profound understanding. (Leo XIII, Encyclical on Americanism, Jan. 22, 1899)

‘Deposit of faith’ appears to be a particularly Roman Catholic term but could be related to 2 Timothy 1-14 but that is more than a stretch.  The Roman Catholic ‘deposit of faith’ would include the social encyclicals.  Note that Francis’ view and John XXIII’s understanding of the ‘deposit of faith’ is quite different than that of Leo XIII.

   Let’s look at perhaps one of the most important changes in Catholic Social Teaching, the doctrine on the right to strike.  Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno establishes the notion of a state governed by “corporate economics” and proclaims: (1931)

Strikes and lockouts are forbidden. If the contending parties cannot come to an agreement, public authority intervenes.      (Q.A. #94)

 More than 30 years later Vatican II – Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope) changes the teaching:  

Even in present day circumstances, however, the strike can still be necessary, though ultimate, means for the defense of workers own rights and fulfillment of their just demands.  (G.S. #68) 

Before Vatican II, U.S. ‘labor priests’ such as John Ryan also stated that strikes were legitimate as a last resort.  (The Church and Labor, J.A. Ryan and J. Husslein, N.Y., The McMillan Co. 1920, p. 287 and p. 298.)

    

   The Vatican II pronouncement was significant in that it indicated a break with the corporate economics of the past.  Instead of viewing society as a body where parts are significant but need to be controlled by the head, the church recognized labor unions as independent. 

Vatican II Gaudium et Spes went further.

Hence the workers themselves should have a share also in controlling these institutions, (labor unions} either in person or freely elected delegates. (G.S. #68)

This statement indicated that the fascist style ‘corporate economics’ of Portugal, Austria and Spain considered ideal before W.W. II were no longer acceptable.

   The political acumen of John XXIII made the change possible.  He was not locked into dogma but considered the common good of all people as his criterion.  For John XXIII peace depended on justice.  The reasonable course of action was first of all to respect the freedom of people to determine their own mode of existence.  Subsequent Popes have emphasized the rights of workers in the realm of economics but have created a wall of hostility between dogma and politics.  The refusal of the Milwaukee Archdiocese to support the immigrant workers at Palermo indicates that the money of wealthy donors and the convenient cover of dogma have had a blinding effect. 

   This article only considered one dramatic change in the social encyclicals, but there were others as well.  Changes in Catholic Social Teaching were based on a consideration of the common good and a reasonable response to the times.  Dogma was at best secondary.  As Benevolent Dictator, Pope Francis, using the social encyclicals as a model, could quickly change the Church to be inclusive and practical.