FREEDOM, EQUALITY, PARTICIPATION: How Leo Dehon Anticipated Changes In Official Catholic Social Teachings

This brief essay will examine the Catholic teaching on social justice and, in particular, will reflect on the contemporary relevance of Leo Dehon's understanding of „The Reign of the Heart of Jesus in Souls and in Societies.” My starting point will be an article by Father Charles Curran on changes that have taken place in official Catholic social teachings in the past 100 years. Then, I will offer a detailed reading of a speech that Leo Dehon gave to the alumni of Collège Saint Jean in September 1907. And finally, I will conclude by briefly referring to the conditions of the working poor in my country and estimate what impact that social remedies of the past might have on the current situation in America.

In an essay entitled „The Changing Anthropological Bases of Catholic Social Teaching”¹⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote1sym%23sdfootnote1sym Charles Curran highlights the general reluctance in the past to admit any development in papal social teaching. Not only did the popes themselves stress continuity with their „predecessors of happy memory,” but Catholic commentators also were frequently uncritical and failed to account for the particular historical circumstances that conditioned these teachings. Since the 1960s, however, „development has become so pronounced that no one could deny its existence” (171-172).

He cites the sharp contrast between Pope Paul VI's apostolic letter Octogesima adveniens (1971) and the extensive encyclical teachings of Leo XIII. Curran quotes Paul VI who wrote:

„While scientific and technological progress continues to overturn people's surroundings, their patterns of knowledge, work, consumption, and relationships, two aspirations persistently make themselves felt in these new contexts, and they grow stronger to the extent that people become better informed and better educated: the aspiration to equality and the aspiration to participation, two forms of human dignity and freedom.”²⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote2sym%23sdfootnote2sym

This pope, like his predecessors, emphasizes the primacy of human dignity as the inalienable endowment of every person but, unlike Pope Leo and his predecessors, Paul VI affirms that freedom, equality, and active participation in social and political life are essential elements of human dignity. Leo, who lived through a century in which liberalism had enshrined individual self-interest and judgment as the ultimate value, either rejected or minimized the notions of liberty, equality, and participation because he viewed these ideas as the root cause of all the problems in modern society (174).

Pope Leo condemned the modern claim to liberty as an attempt to usurp the sovereignty of divine truth and replace it with individual opinion. For him, freedom of worship is the refusal to honor the one true God in the way that he has indicated this should be done in a correct and thorough manner. Freedom of speech and of the press would degrade and obscure the truth by giving error equal right to exist, causing confusion in the minds of the people. And the only true freedom of conscience is the liberty to find and follow the will of God and to obey his commandments. According to Leo's way of thinking the modern concept of liberty is the attempt to be free from divine authority in order to do whatever the individual pleases (172-173).

If Leo did not rejected the modern concept of equality outright, he minimized it and instead emphasized that inequality – in strength, intelligence, character – is an undeniable fact of nature. In his hierarchical view of society these natural inequalities entail social inequalities which are necessary if everyone is to fulfill the role and function which is proper to each. Curran cites the pope's conclusion, „as the abilities of all are not equal . . . it is most repugnant to reason to endeavor to confine all within the same measure, and to extend complete equality to the institutions of civil life” (173). In other words, people have no right of equal access to the benefits of society because the inherent inequalities of nature make some of them unfit to enjoy and profit from these goods. Although he admits that all human beings are equal in their origin, nature, and destiny, some of them will naturally endure more of life's hardships and sufferings because of their innate lack of ability or talent.

Similarly, his hierarchical view of society prevented him from fully embracing the modern call for the full participation of all in social and political life. He maintained his predecessor's ban on Catholic participation in Italian politics, but he would later urge Catholics in other countries, particularly France, to take a full part in the public life of their societies.³⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote3sym%23sdfootnote3sym Curran points out that Leo's typical word for the rulers of society is principes, the Latin word for princes, patricians, distinguished men. In the pope's judgment the majority of people were untutored children who needed the continual protection and guidance of the better class to whom they owed gratitude and reverence. Not only were the people considered unfit to manage their own affairs, but their participation in social and political matters was looked upon as a threat to stability. Recognition of the sovereignty of the people would mean that they no longer owed obedience to divine law in their public and private lives and, as a consequence, the rule of the majority would supplant the rule of God (173-175).

In fairness to Leo, his criticism of liberalism correctly identifies the problems that result when it is unchecked by legislation, concern for the common good, and the notion of duties commensurate with rights. In the 19th century this was not merely a theoretical problem, the church and civil society were suffering from the effects of the practical implementation of liberal principles. It is easy to understand how a siege mentality could develop when powerful forces from a variety of sources were changing the social, economic, and political landscape in profound and disturbing ways. Leo's usual response to these threats was outright condemnation and reaffirmation of the church's traditional principles and prerogatives. A contemporary Italian journal wrote of him: „The new Pope does not . . . curse, he does not threaten . . . The form is sweet, but the substance is absolute, hard, intransigent.”⁴⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote4sym%23sdfootnote4sym But he also displayed the ability to sort through liberalism's excesses and he acknowledged a limited place for the modern demands for liberty, equality, and participation.

Particularly in his 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum, On the Rights of Workers, he lays down the stepping stones that will aid the church in the 20th century to bridge the divide between legitimate aspirations for self-determination and the unbridled desire for autonomy. In addition to upholding the basic rights of individuals, in this encyclical he cautiously affirms that, whenever the rights or interests of individuals or a class of people are threatened with injustices that cannot be corrected in any other way, the State must step in to meet them, and that „the poor and the helpless have a claim to special consideration” (n. 29).⁵⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote5sym%23sdfootnote5sym In regard to equality, the pope, in his typical fashion, recognizes innate differences in abilities and well-being, but he declares that the rights and interests „of all are equal whether high or low. The poor are members of the national community equally with the rich . . . therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working people, or else that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each shall have his due” (n. 27). He also calls for a living wage (n. 34) and, in acknowledging the right of workers to organize themselves in unions and other benevolent associations to promote their own interests (n. 36), he confirms that participation in determining one's own destiny is an essential aspect of human dignity.

With more than 100 years hindsight we may view Pope Leo's initial steps toward liberty, equality, and participation as overly cautious, but it should not be forgotten that he was not only stepping back from the views of his predecessors but he was also modifying some of his own earlier positions. When it was published Rerum novarum sent shock waves across the world of Roman Catholicism, particularly in France where, it is fair to say, that it was not accepted by the majority of the hierarchy or of the faithful. A vivid reminder of the passions it stirred is captured in Georges Bernanos's novel The Diary of a Country Priest in a scene where the curé of the title visits an older priest who tells him:

„. . . that famous encyclical of Leo XIII, „Rerum Novarum,” you can read that without turning a hair, like any instruction for keeping Lent. But when it was published, sonny, it was like an earthquake. The enthusiasm! At that time I was curé de Norenfontes, in the heart of the mining district. The simple notion that a man's work is not a commodity, subject to the law of supply and demand, that you have no right to speculate on wages, on the lives of men, as you do on grain, sugar or coffee – why it set people's consciences upside-down! I was called a 'socialist' for having explained it in the pulpit to my [miners], and the pious peasants had me sent off to Montreuil in disgrace.”⁶⁾6

Leo's message was bold for its time and it laid the foundation for further unfolding of the ideals of liberty, equality, and participation at the Second Vatican Council and in the social writings of the popes, especially since John XXIII.

Having considered Charles Curran's critique of the church's social teaching 100 years ago and in particular his judgment that it underestimated the important values of freedom, equality, and participation, now I intend to examine a speech that Leo Dehon gave in 1907, four years after the death of Pope Leo. Viewed from the aspect of its style, its length, and its intended audience, this is hardly a text that would likely be considered as a major statement of his position on social values and issues. It is only about 3,000 words long. It is not an academic address like his conferences in Rome, nor is it characterized by the detailed analysis and precision of many of the talks he gave at social congresses throughout France. Nevertheless, André Perroux, S.C.J., who edited and commented on this text in a recent issue of Dehoniana, said of it: „Everything we would like to rediscover can be found in the 'address' which we can now read. This is one of the most important of the speeches he gave in the course of these alumni reunions.”⁷⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote7sym%23sdfootnote7sym

His address is what we would call an after-dinner speech. As such, it is not developed in classic scholastic fashion which begins by stating a thesis, then elaborates it in a three-part argument, and concludes by demonstrating how the facts and reasoning put in evidence offer proof the original thesis. That is the kind of presentation that is heard in the classroom or lecture hall. This speech is composed more along the lines of a musical piece which has a major theme that recurs as a leitmotif with variations throughout the entire composition. Its pacing, its tone, and its coloration are all determined by the audience. September 1907 marked the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of Collège Saint Jean, which meant that most of the alumni in attendance that day were young men in their '20s and '30s. The entire tenor of the piece is pitched to that specific audience.

The effect of the speech is persuasive and moving, even stirring, though the source of its power may not be immediately apparent. When Leo Dehon was a seminarian he read and commented on Saint Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana, a book that actually has very little to say about the content and meaning of Christian doctrines but is more concerned about effective methods for Christian preaching and teaching. Dehon (NHV, VI, 27-28) took special notice of Augustine's insistence that an orator will hold his audience's attention to the extent that he accomplishes the threefold aim of teaching them, of delighting them, and of moving them (4. 74), which he later rephrases as „to be listened to with understanding, with pleasure, and with obedience” (4. 87).⁸⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote8sym%23sdfootnote8sym He goes on to say: „So when advocating something to be acted on the Christian orator should not only teach his listeners so as to impart instruction, and delight them so as to hold their attention, but also move them so as to conquer their minds” (4. 79).

To teach so that others may learn something new and useful, to delight so that their minds do not wander, and to win over hearts and minds so that they will be moved to act: such is Augustine's ideal for Christian preachers and teachers, and this threefold purpose is very much in evidence in Leo Dehon's address to the alumni. As a teacher, he points out the mistakes made by previous generations of Catholics who stubbornly rejected a democratic form of government while hoping for a return of the monarchy; he informs them of some of the specific problems that the working poor face and of practical remedies that will improve their material and moral well-being. He also engages his audience personally and directly by reminding them that young people uniquely possess the qualities of enthusiasm and passion that are needed in these times, and he draws on concrete examples from contemporary events and their collective past to illustrate how others much like themselves have been successful. And, above all, he aims to move them to act, marshaling all his data, his evidence, and his arguments, in language that is as impassioned with righteous conviction as it is clear-sighted in its intended aims and surefooted on its principles and motives. It is hard to imagine that a young man in his '20s or '30s would not be stirred from the depths of his soul to the soles of his feet after hearing this speech.

It is in the seventh paragraph of the body of the speech where Father Dehon announces his main theme and the principal ideas of the speech.

„The dominant, basic, and persistent aspirations of the people can be reduced to three. They resolutely and insistently want to maintain a representative form of government that achieves (in principle at least) political equality; they want freedom of association, and they want social reforms. If the people realize that we are sincerely (and also resolutely) prepared to support their wishes and demands, they will come back to us in the long run. But if they suspect us of being opposed and hostile to their claims, they will turn away from us and continue to vilify and despise a religious society in which they see only a stranger who is allied with the fortunate of this world and is an enemy of social progress.”⁹⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote9sym%23sdfootnote9sym

There are three principal ideas in this paragraph; he is saying that the people want three social reforms: a representative form of government, equality of all people before the law, and freedom of association. In other words, representation, equality, and freedom are the three social reforms desired by the people. The theme of the paragraph, as distinguished from its ideas, and which is the theme of the entire address, is that these aspirations of the people are legitimate and Catholics should support them in practical and effective ways. They should do this for two reasons, first, not only is this the wave of the future and the direction in which human and social evolution is heading, but these values find their origin and true meaning in Christian tradition; and, second, failure to support these efforts distorts the message of the gospel and makes all attempts at evangelization futile, resulting in the continued alienation of the people from the church.

This paragraph takes on additional significance when it is read in conjunction with Charles Curran's contention that the church's initial endorsement of freedom, equality, and participation was feeble and inconclusive. Despite the genuine boldness of Leo XIII's initiatives in Rerum Novarum, it would take another 75 to 80 years before these values would be embraced in a wholehearted and far reaching way that results in meaningful changes in church policy and practice. Yet just four years after Pope Leo's death Father Dehon is proposing democratic participation in decision making, equality in economic and political matters, and freedom of assembly and association as the building blocks of his program of Christian social renewal. It is worth giving this text a closer reading to see if the substance of his proposals and Curran's list of changes in official church teaching bear a similarity to one another in more than a verbal way.

He begins by telling the audience of young men that this speech is meant specifically for them. They are not young people who have become old before their time, and so they should hold on to their youthfulness and remain forever young. The characteristics of youth are sometimes excessive but their youthful exuberance has an enduring value because it is easier to reduce the level of their high-spiritedness than it is to produce it from nothing. He acknowledges that the standing of their social class has diminished but it is still significant, and when they work in a concerted way they can still be a positive force to bring about change for the better. Therefore they should intensify their efforts in this regard; Catholics of the previous generation have been ineffective because they have held on to out-of-date ideas and obsolete proposals.¹⁰⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote10sym%23sdfootnote10sym

Then, after stating his theme and his principal ideas, he goes on to specify in more detail the three social reforms he is proposing. He says that „the people have become aware of their dignity and their rights,” they know that they have a legitimate claim to equal status and protection in society. Regarding their economic situation „they prefer the system of participation,” some sort of profit-sharing plan, instead of merely „being wage-earners;” and politically they prefer the republic, which is a representative form of government. By sharing in the wealth they produce and by participating in the legislative process through free elections, the citizen and worker „can be an enlightened agent” in determining his own future.¹¹⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote11sym%23sdfootnote11sym

Concerning the separation of Church and State, which Pope Leo XIII had condemned,¹²⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote12sym%23sdfootnote12sym Father Dehon endorses the concept but denounces the policies which brought it about in France. This is currently the position of the French hierarchy today. In a 1997 pastoral letter they acknowledged that the Law of Separation was „an institutional solution that… offered Catholics of France the possibility of being loyal actors in civil society,” and they affirmed that secularity (laïcité) has had a positive effect, while at the same time they recognize that in its origins it was an anti-Catholic ideology bent on destroying the church.¹³⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote13sym%23sdfootnote13sym Father Dehon continues in this vein, specifically noting that as the people have become better educated they intend „to participate in political and economic action . . . and give their opinions on the great social reforms which were intended to improve their lot.” He also calls for a closer examination of the situation because in some industries workers are prospering while in others they are suffering.¹⁴⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote14sym%23sdfootnote14sym

He then refers to the current pope (Pius X) and his predecessor who have encouraged Catholics to ride the wave of the future which is democracy, social progress for the people, and self-determination of the workers. In the next few paragraphs he cites the diocese of Bergamo in northern Italy as a shining example of what can be achieved when Catholics take the lead in this movement. He quotes Leo XIII's teaching that the progressive improvement of society through equal participation in political and economic decisions is grounded on gospel principles and he continues this theme that Christian tradition alone provides the means to attain these desired goals.¹⁵⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote15sym%23sdfootnote15sym The final section, „Forward Then, Children of the Light,” is more rhetorical as he encourages his listeners to avoid the mistakes of the past and to draw inspiration from the successes and heroic figures who have earned for France the title „the eldest daughter of the Church,” a role she desperately needs to fulfill in the future.

Clearly, the world is a very different place today than it was 100 years ago. But that truism should not be allowed to blind us to the shocking conditions of the working poor, even in the United States, which are depressingly similar to those that Leo Dehon fought to change in France a century ago. The central concern in Catholic teaching on social issues is human work. This has been true since Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, whose official title in English is translated as The Condition of Labor; in all likelihood it will continue to be its principal focus well into the future. In his 1981 encyclical Laborem exercens Pope John Paul II stated quite simply that „work as a human issue is at the very center of the 'social question'” (n. 2). As American journalist Studs Terkel wrote in the opening paragraph of his now-classic 1972 book on Working, or How People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do:

„This book, being about work, is, by its very nature, about violence – to the spirit as well as to the body. It is about ulcers as well as accidents, about shouting matches as well as fistfights, about nervous breakdowns as well as kicking the dog around. It is, above all (or beneath all), about daily humiliations. To survive the day is triumph enough for the walking wounded among the great many of us.¹⁶⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote16sym%23sdfootnote16sym

A more recent book in this tradition which describes the gritty, hardscrabble existence of the working poor is Barbara Ehrenreich's journalistic exposé Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.¹⁷⁾http://www.scj.org/scj_homp/we-scj/beatification_dehon/35-xtsreign-mcguire.html#sdfootnote17sym%23sdfootnote17sym Her goal was to find jobs in three different states, doing three different kinds of entry-level work, and to earn enough money to survive for a month while saving enough to pay a second month's rent. In all, she worked as a waitress at „family-style” restaurants in Key West, Florida, she was employed by a housecleaning service in Portland, Maine, and she took a job with Wal-Mart in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her job-search in each state took on a similar pattern. The first challenge, and often the most daunting one, was to find affordable housing. Usually rent is considered to be affordable if it amounts to less than one-third of a person's income, but the majority of the poor spend more than 50% of their income for housing (170, n. 7). The jobs she took typically paid between $6 and $7 an hour, a sum so meager that she and many of her coworkers had to get a second job in order to survive. None of the jobs offered medical insurance. All the jobs she worked were physically demanding and exacted a toll on her body and her health. Many workers have to take pain-killers to make it through the day.

By the end of her experiment in the low-wage world Ehrenreich concluded „that no job, no matter how lowly, is truly 'unskilled.'” Each of her jobs „required concentration, and most demanded that [she] master new terms, new tools, and new skills” (193). She gave herself high marks for her work ethic; she displayed punctuality, cleanliness, cheerfulness, and obedience – all the essential traits to hold down a job (196). But these qualities were not enough to compensate for the low pay scales. She said what surprised and offended her the most about the low-wage workplace „was the extent to which one is required to surrender one's basic civil rights and… self-respect.” She had to endure purse and locker searches, drug tests, intrusive and demeaning personality tests, rules forbidding talking to other workers, and intimidation against organizing (208-209). To her shock and dismay she discovered that low-wage workers „dwell in a place that is neither free nor in any way democratic. When you enter the low-wage workplace… you check many of your civil liberties at the door, leave America and all it supposedly stands for, and learn to zip your lips for the duration of the shift” (210). It is a world that has created „not just an economy but a culture of extreme inequality” (212).

Freedom, equality, and democratic participation: the three hard-gained insights of Catholic social teaching since the time of Leo XIII, the three building blocks of Leo Dehon's program of social renewal, are the same three qualities that Barbara Ehrenreich found lacking in the work environment of low-wage earners, and their absence is at the root of the economic poverty and moral degradation which condemns them to live in a permanent underclass. A century ago Leo Dehon identified participation in the decisions affecting them, freedom of association, and social and political equality as fundamental rights belonging to workers, and these very reforms still remain an urgent need for millions of dispossessed wage-slaves who labor hopelessly in a waste land of dead-end jobs in the United States today.

Paul J. McGuire, S.C.J.

Dehon Study Center

Franklin, WI 53132