Rerum Novarum Revisited

Rerum Novarum Revisited

With the publication of Caritas in Veritate, I think it is timely to take a look back on the encyclical that gave birth to Catholic social teaching nearly 120 years ago, Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. Part of the reason I believe it is timely is that Benedict himself noted a tendency among certain commentators on the Church’s social doctrine to divide it up into “pre” and “post” Vatican II ways of thinking, and rejected this analysis. He stressed instead the consistency of the Church’s social teaching over time.

Another reason is that the publication of Rerum Novarum forces us to make one of two conclusions about the history of “capitalism” (an ever dubious phrase that I am reluctant to use at all) and that of the Church: either capitalism was deformed to the point where only a serious moral correction would render it acceptable to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, or the Papacy was either the victim or the perpetrator of a great hoax. This has direct implications for the debates we continue to have today amongst ourselves. Is this thing called “capitalism” self-correcting? Or does it require an external moral critique to advance the correction?

The answer of the Church since 1891 (at least) has been the latter, not the former. And it is clear that the Church’s narrative of the rise and eventually corruption of industrial capitalism is completely at odds with that of its latter-day apologists – writers such as Thomas Woods and Michael Novak, who often seek to absolve capitalism of any and all historical wrongdoing, and who view its development as the greatest thing that ever happened to humanity (presumably, of course, besides Christianity). In this view it is either explicitly or implicitly claimed that pre-capitalist societies were necessarily undesirable, places of ignorance, filth, and oppression.

The early social encyclicals of the Church, on the other hand, while recognizing the irreversible transformations wrought by industrialization, expressed a conviction that some of the values of the medieval society over which the Church presided for more than a thousand years could be resurrected within the new modes of production and exchange. The deplorable situation of the worker at the turn of the 20th century, Pope Leo explains, is a result of the following:

“[T]he ancient workingmen’s guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition.” (3)

After denouncing usury, Leo also condemns the divide between the ‘capitalist’ and the worker:

“[T]he hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” (3)

This does not sound like the “politically incorrect” version of history that some authors wish to present, in which the very situation Leo describes is dismissed as a left-wing propaganda fantasy. In those days, these dangers were real enough to command the serious attention of the Papacy; and to think, there wasn’t even a Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice!

The following paragraphs in RN are a defense of private property against the arguments of the socialists. It is beyond clear, however, that a defense of private property does not equal a defense of wealth acquisition without limits. In CV, Pope Benedict re-emphasizes a balance between rights and duties, specifically condemning any “right to excess” and insisting upon a duty to serve the common good. In doing so he is in keeping with the very tradition set down by Leo XIII. In RN, Leo writes,

“It is lawful,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.”” But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? – the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need… (22)

Leo does not insist that the state directly force the wealthy to use their private property to this end. But he is quite unambiguous on the question of whether or not the state has a right to intervene in economic affairs: it absolutely does have that right. Paragraph 36 lists some of the situations in which the state may intervene (some of which, undoubtedly, would strike us as strange today). In the next paragraph, the Church’s preferential option for the poor with regard to state intervention is expressed:

“The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.” (37)

Is it lawful for the state to tax private wealth and use it in various ways to support the poor and the working class? Within reasonable limits , it is. Pope Leo makes a distinction that shouldn’t be, but often is, completely overlooked in heated polemics:

The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether.” (47)

Pope Benedict’s concern with global poverty also has an important precedent in Rerum Novarum, for the conditions of which Pope Leo spoke continue to persist in many third world countries that have, for various reasons, not been able to enjoy the benefits labor laws that respect the dignity of the worker. Anyone reading the following passage would have to conclude that what many Western-based multinationals do in the third world is worthy of severe condemnation:

“[T]here underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.” (45)

It may well be that a Western multinational offers an Indian or a Chinese peasant a higher income than he might have gotten working in the fields. But that does not automatically translate into a ‘just wage’ that meets the conditions of either Leo’s position or that of the modern Church. There can be no doubt that some companies – not all, but some – seek to relocate to third world countries where labor rights are weak or non-existent, where workers who organize are threatened with repression and violence, in order to take advantage of these conditions. There are also those who would continue to erode the rights of labor in developed countries to bring them to parity with the less developed.

Finally, while Benedict did not say as much about distributist ideas as I would have liked, I can’t write about RN without presenting Leo’s own argument for distributism, which remains valid to this day, even if we wouldn’t think of it in such agrarian terms:

We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.
Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. (46-47)

10 Responses to Rerum Novarum Revisited

  • Very nicely done!

  • either capitalism was deformed to the point where only a serious moral correction would render it acceptable to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, or the Papacy was either the victim or the perpetrator of a great hoax. This has direct implications for the debates we continue to have today amongst ourselves. Is this thing called “capitalism” self-correcting? Or does it require an external moral critique to advance the correction?

    I’m not sure that a process being self correcting means that its practitioners are not open to critique — nor come to that am I really clear that Leo XIII was speaking against capitalism in the sense that Novak endorses it. (I haven’t read any Woods, that I recall, so I can’t speak to him.)

    To start with the first point, think of this analogy: Natural selection is a self correcting process when it comes to heritable traits, biological or cultural. The trait of eating one’s own children will be selected against. However, the mere fact that it is a self correcting system does not mean that one should sit back and say, “Well, Bill over there keeps eating his own children, but really in the end this will be corrected by the give and take of natural selection so we’d better let him do that and wait for things to sort themselves out.”

    Clearly not. The fact that a system is self correcting does not mean that those operating within it should not be subject to moral rebuke.

    In similar fashion, while it’s true that businesses which do not pay their workers enough will see their labor poor dry up (or will struggle because of the low quality of the work that is done for them), and companies that sell dangerous or badly made products will lose their reputations and go out of business, etc., this does not mean that these people are not doing something wrong from which they should be urged to turn away.

    So I don’t think that any “apologist” for capitalism is going to disagree with Leo’s assessment for 1880s era industrialism that:

    “[T]he hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” (3)

    Not just that, but some of that concentration was attained in very non-free market ways. There was a strong aristocratic sense still at play in the world at that time, and many large companies were helped by exclusive contracts and guarantees enforced by the governments — the very opposite of protecting the poor from the rich.

    What free market apologists are objecting to is that one throw the baby out with the bathwater in regards to capitalism: abandoning free market approaches in favor of centralization and excessive regulation as if the moral lapses of people operating within the free market meant that the markets themselves should be abandoned. Or as the old line goes: The problem with socialism is socialism; the problem with capitalism is capitalists.

    In this regard, I’d note that Leo does not call for the abolition or indeed the significant reworking of capitalism as an economic system. What he does advocate is two things:

    1) Widening the number of capitalists, empowering all people to be in business for themselves as much as possible rather than having ownership heavily concentrated among the rich and powerful.

    2) Government assistance for and protection of the poorest in accordance with the common good, rather than government implicitly seeking to protect the interests of the ruling class against the working class.

    But neither of these is, I think, necessarily in contradiction with a free market economy.

    Also, this is a minor historical beef, but:

    The early social encyclicals of the Church, on the other hand, while recognizing the irreversible transformations wrought by industrialization, expressed a conviction that some of the values of the medieval society over which the Church presided for more than a thousand years could be resurrected within the new modes of production and exchange.

    This is perhaps a too easy contrast when the reality was a bit more mixed up. The medieval guilds were primarily of skilled artisans, whereas those really being crushed in the industrial revolution were usually unskilled workers — mostly of an agricultural background (who in the middle ages would have been serfs or near serfs) who had found themselves pushed into cities looking for work as a result of the rapid decrease in the number of people needed to work the land with new methods and tools. Laborers (as opposed to artisans) had generally not belonged to guilds in the middle ages. But since the laborers of the industrial revolution lived in cities in the way that the craftsmen of the medieval guilds had (and Leo clearly didn’t want the industrialists to go on treating them as peasants as had been the case up to that point — especially as their location in cities made them in many ways even more vulnerable to mistreatment than peasants) Leo took the guilds as a model even though the situation was not analogous. But let’s be clear: the original guilds were effectively alliances of business owners (master craftsmen) and they often worked to keep too much competition from coming into the field and thus reducing the profits of the guild members.

  • Point by point, my friend.

    “I’m not sure that a process being self correcting means that its practitioners are not open to critique —”

    Some might say it renders the critique superfluous. Some do say it, or they imply it with their rhetoric. Those that don’t, I have no argument with.

    Why else would Leo, and then later Pius XI, have to condemn economic liberalism and the invisible hand argument? See Quadragesimo Anno 88 for a more explicit denunciation.

    “nor come to that am I really clear that Leo XIII was speaking against capitalism in the sense that Novak endorses it.”

    I read Novak’s commentary before the publication of CV, which was nothing but a pre-emptive historical defense of the bounties of capitalism without the slightest recognition of the situations that gave birth to Catholic social doctrine. He and Woods (in his rather pointless critiques of distributism) and others act as if these situations never existed, or were so insignificant that they aren’t worth seriously critiquing.

    “The fact that a system is self correcting does not mean that those operating within it should not be subject to moral rebuke.”

    Again, it seems superfluous. Marxism has the same problem. In the determinist scheme, “history” will eventually work out all of the kinks. That is why Marx developed no moral philosophy and left the task for others – who never really succeeded. The same tendencies are to be found in the “self-regulating” thesis. It isn’t historical determinism but rather ahistorical determinism.

    “So I don’t think that any “apologist” for capitalism is going to disagree with Leo’s assessment for 1880s era industrialism”

    Really? My experience tells me otherwise. I’m not saying that there are many who would offer no critique, but there are many who minimize, trivialize, and downplay those situations which the Church placed great importance on. So with due respect, I believe you are mistaken.

    “There was a strong aristocratic sense still at play in the world at that time”

    I’m sorry, but this is also just a very dubious proposition. The “aristocratic” sense that was prevalent in the Middle Ages involved a very strong sense of obligation between the classes. With privilege and wealth came not just a sense of responsibility but a legal obligation to render certain services to those under your care.

    In the world, at the time of industrial capitalism there was a sense alright – of Social Darwinism, of the idea that the market was an arena where the strong dominated and eliminated the weak (an idea Benedict recognized and condemned in CV, by the way).

    Blaming the excesses of capitalism in its early years on the holdovers of aristocratic sentiments ignores a centuries worth of ‘bourgeois’ revolutions, beginning with the French (and possibly further back with the English Civil War) of a violent struggle for power between the capitalists and the aristocracy (which was also a continuation of the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism).

    “In this regard, I’d note that Leo does not call for the abolition or indeed the significant reworking of capitalism as an economic system.”

    I don’t think Leo even uses the word “capitalism”, and I don’t like using it either. Leo defends private property and calls for peace between the classes. These are his concerns.

    You might say he is for “widening the number of capitalists” – you might say that is what distributism is all about. And as you know, its what I am all about. But is not for accepting vast inequalities in wealth as some sort of natural and morally justified outcome of free competition. Neither is any other Pope that follows him. But there are plenty today who do defend that – plenty of Catholics too.

    “The medieval guilds were primarily of skilled artisans, whereas those really being crushed in the industrial revolution were usually unskilled workers”

    Are you saying that industrialization didn’t kill the guilds? By its very nature industrialization simplifies a lot of labor that was once considered skilled.

    “But let’s be clear: the original guilds were effectively alliances of business owners (master craftsmen) and they often worked to keep too much competition from coming into the field and thus reducing the profits of the guild members.”

    And lets also be clear – the 400 or so year history of capitalism’s development saw the dispossession of millions of peasants. Reviving a guild system presupposes a distribution of private property to enough people to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

  • Joe,

    And lets also be clear – the 400 or so year history of capitalism’s development saw the dispossession of millions of peasants. Reviving a guild system presupposes a distribution of private property to enough people to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

    “There you go again”.

    It may be possible to dismantle free market capitalism (Obama is sure trying), it is not really possible to dismantle industrialization which is really what ended the guild system.

    The thing that strikes me, is that those places where free markets and capitalism have been the order of the day opportunity abounds for all, it is only in places where free markets have been oppressed by government (sometimes in collusion with outside forces, including multi-nationals). In the US particularly, the vast majority of people are employed in small businesses. The key driver of success is hard work, not inheritence, or “redistribution”.

    Increased socialism in Europe and elsewhere has not liberated the workers but only further enslaved them.

  • Not all points, but some major ones:

    >“I’m not sure that a process being self correcting means that its practitioners are not open to critique —”

    Some might say it renders the critique superfluous. Some do say it, or they imply it with their rhetoric. Those that don’t, I have no argument with.

    Why else would Leo, and then later Pius XI, have to condemn economic liberalism and the invisible hand argument? See Quadragesimo Anno 88 for a more explicit denunciation.

    Again, I really don’t see how pointing out that a system is self correcting (and is better than other systems available) makes it superfluous to make moral critiques of people working within the system. In the most basic sense:

    Taking it as the case that free market analysis is correct that treating either employees or customers badly will eventually boomerang back on the business owner and cause him to either change his ways or go out of business, the existence of these self correcting mechanisms in no way mean that the original actions were not morally wrong in the first place, and thus subject to critique and condemnation.

    So on the one hand, I strongly support free market economics _because_ I think they’re self correcting, because given enough time free exchange will allow many injustices and inequalities to be corrected naturally. However, I certainly think that on a day by day basis it’s incumbent upon people in business to behave in a moral fashion and treat both their customers and employees morally.

    I think that, to the extent that it often looks like free marketeers are defending injustices, what you’re seeing is more that people are insisting that the abuses that take place within the system at times do not justify abandoning the system as a whole, for a command economy or fixed wages and prices, or some such.

    I read Novak’s commentary before the publication of CV, which was nothing but a pre-emptive historical defense of the bounties of capitalism without the slightest recognition of the situations that gave birth to Catholic social doctrine. He and Woods (in his rather pointless critiques of distributism) and others act as if these situations never existed, or were so insignificant that they aren’t worth seriously critiquing.

    At the same time, one of Novak’s big themes is the importance of morality in order for capitalism to work. His Democratic Capitalism is still on my “to read” pile, but I have read several of his extended articles and lectures to businessmen, and one of his major themes there is that without a moral and open society, the free market will start to be torn apart and break down. He’s certainly not a “laissez faire” advocate in the sense of holding that one need only worry about what the market will bear and not what is right, but he is a strong free market advocate in the sense that he doesn’t want to see the immorality of capitalists in some situations used as an excuse to ditch the system as a whole.

    I think this is one of the senses in which Catholics often talk past each other. I think it’s common when people with different basic worldviews are arguing for people to be reluctant to admit the missteps of their preferred system. So for instance, if a supporter of democracy and one of monarchy are arguing, the monarchist will be reluctant to accept attacks on evils committed by specific monarchs, and the democrat will defend the sovereignty of the people despite the fact that democracy often does effectively mean lowest-common-denominator populism.

    I’m sorry, but this is also just a very dubious proposition. The “aristocratic” sense that was prevalent in the Middle Ages involved a very strong sense of obligation between the classes. With privilege and wealth came not just a sense of responsibility but a legal obligation to render certain services to those under your care.

    I was using “aristocratic” in a somewhat more general sense of their being a privileged class who owned the majority of the wealth and land and expected the government to act in their favor.

    This is probably a topic for another day, but it’s also worth noting that while I admire feudalism and think many attacks on it are excessive, the “obligations” that a lord had to his serfs were pretty minuscule compared to how much he extracted from them.

    Are you saying that industrialization didn’t kill the guilds? By its very nature industrialization simplifies a lot of labor that was once considered skilled.

    Well, a lot of things contributed to the death of the guilds, which were mostly gone before the industrial revolution per se showed up.

    The medieval burghers who had made up the guilds were the group most drawn to protestantism, masonry, and secular liberalism, which rather ate into the base of the medieval guilds which tended to be very tied to the Church. With better technology and transportation, the old cartel/monopoly structures the guilds had often pursued came under too much pressure to survive. But overall, the skilled townsman class who had been guild members in the 1200s to 1500s were the ones who ended up in the artisan, mercantile and skilled labor groups which ended up being the capitalists — it was dispossessed agricultural labor combined with the urban poor who had always been locked out of the guild system who found themselves as actual industrial labor most of the time.

    So I think Leo’s use of the guild analogy served two purposes:

    - It essentially created the goal of taking people who were in origin peasant or urban poor and bringing them into a burgher level of social organization — essentially trying to make working class be middle class. (Overall, I’d say this has been pretty successful in the developed world.)

    - It also created a Catholic paradigm for labor movements — baptizing something which up to that point had been strongly associated with anti-clericalism and even atheism.

    And lets also be clear – the 400 or so year history of capitalism’s development saw the dispossession of millions of peasants. Reviving a guild system presupposes a distribution of private property to enough people to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

    I’m not sure that the problems with the agricultural/peasant population in 1800-1900 can really be laid at the doorstep of “capitalism” so much as that development in agricultural techniques and technology allowed fewer people to farm more productively than in the past. This left a lot of people who weren’t really needed to work the land and tended to gravitate towards the cities where they showed up as unskilled labor, thus creating conditions for exploitation in the new factories.

  • In October 1924, in the Illus London news, Chesterton wrote about Belloc’s The Servile State:

    “It suggests that employers and employed, in a world of contracts conditioned by capitalism, have come to a crisis in which both feel insecure. Thus one is afraid of strikes and the other of unemployment. Both might find a superficial relief in a new
    settlement… The worker would no longer be threatened with the sack. The master
    would no longer be threatened with the strike… But this sensible settlement would be a servile settlement. It would reproduce exactly the essential
    realities of the slave state of antiquity… it would not reproduce anything in the least resembling a bureaucracy; still less the turning of all citizens into officials of the State…
    …[Arnold Lunn] answers Mr. Belloc’s argument without yielding to the weakness of hearing it… It is hard and historical fact that the guilds were an attempt to organise trade upon a Christian theory of fellowship and mutual help. It is an equally hard historical fact that modern industrial capitalism was nothing of the sort… It was and is founded on a non-Christian theory of the advantages of selfishness and materialism… [Mr. Lunn] must not be surprised if we look for suggestions to those who built on brotherhood and not on betrayal, and tried to
    be ruled by reason and not by chance”.

    The serfs could be cheated, but they could not be dispossessed. They had [more or less] the possibility of food and shelter.

    The guilds were not the forerunners of industrial capitalism; nor were they monopolies. They provided work with guaranteed quality of workmanship and took care of the members when they fell ill.

    Curiously, I found much to agree with in Garry Wills’ POLITICS AND CATHOLIC FREEDOM [1964]. He has nothing but praise for the papal encyclicals from Pius IX to Pius XII and John XXIII. He does an excellent analysis of the encyclicals, showing how they tie together.

    [It was only with Humanae Viate that he shifted course, to become the house Catholic of THE NEW YORK REVIEW].

  • Actually, I should probably quality my statement about guilds a bit: There were really two kinds of guilds in the high to late middle ages, though the difference could be a little fuzzy in some cases.

    There were craftsmen’s guilds which served an economic purpose. These are the guilds who guild halls still adorn the old sections of some of Europe’s cities, and which were major economic powers in the major towns and cities such as London. They did engage in fairly monopolistic practices — keeping too many people from entering a trade and working to keep supply down so that prices would remain high. The full members (master craftsmen) were fairly wealthy and their descendants ended up as the professional and capitalist classes.

    I’d always kind of assumed that Leo XIII was referring to these guilds. However, there were also guilds that were primarily social and spiritual in purpose, yet were sometimes organized according to profession. These guilds did not have nearly the barriers to entry that skilled trade guilds did, and did not wield significant trade power, but they did have a large place to play in local parish and social service work. For instance, it was a shepherds guild in Wakefield which was responsible for the composition of the Second Shepherds Play which wart of the annual religious play cycle in Wakefield, and is a staple of early English literature studies. These guilds worked a lot like the modern KofC or Fraternal Order of Police, but were much bigger players in the local communities than their modern equivalents, and they did provide services such as stipends for widows of members and assistance for members who fell on hard times.

    Honestly, if Leo XIII was thinking of guilds more on this model, I’m all for it. But I’m not really clear that’s what a lot of union advocates had in mind.

  • Darwin,

    “So on the one hand, I strongly support free market economics _because_ I think they’re self correcting, because given enough time free exchange will allow many injustices and inequalities to be corrected naturally.”

    Is it your contention that the moral critique of the Church and other institutions, the political pressure of organized labor, and the threat of revolutionary uprising were coincidental but not necessary forces of capitalism’s reform?

    “what you’re seeing is more that people are insisting that the abuses that take place within the system at times do not justify abandoning the system as a whole”

    I don’t argue that the ‘system as a whole’ must be abandoned, thats for sure. But you would simply be wrong if you did not acknowledge that there are those who look upon even abandoning it in part as unacceptable.

    “I was using “aristocratic” in a somewhat more general sense of their being a privileged class who owned the majority of the wealth and land and expected the government to act in their favor.”

    And why shouldn’t they? This is yet another area that I have a hard time with libertarians on: the notion that politics can somehow be rendered immune from commodification.

    This privileged class still expects governments to act in their favor. And it is why I cannot fathom how, for instance, the massive fortunes of American CEOs can be defended on the grounds of private property while at the same time libertarians want to get “business out of politics” or “politics out of business”.

    At this point it isn’t the critics of capitalism that look utopian but its apologists – we are supposed to believe in a possible world where men with billions of dollars at their disposal, by some magic, keep themselves disengaged from the political process. Self-interest dominates the consumer, the entrepreneur, and everyone else supposedly for the common good; but not where it concerns the wealthy and any desire to influence the political system.

    Those who reject a utopian vision ought to reject the utopian idea that you can have a class of multi-billionares that doesn’t seek to, and often succeed in, bending the system to their will.

    “I’m not sure that the problems with the agricultural/peasant population in 1800-1900 can really be laid at the doorstep of “capitalism”

    What about the enclosure movement and the dispossession of the Church in England? That’s why I said 400 years, and not 200. The process was a very protracted one.

  • I don’t know if you are familiar with our site, the Catholic World Report, but we have a “Round-Table” wherein J. Brian Benestad, Francis J. Beckwith, Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., Richard Garnett, Thomas S. Hibbs, Paul Kengor, George Neumayr, Joseph Pearce, Tracey Rowland, Father James V. Schall, and Rev. Robert A. Sirico share their thoughts on Caritas in Veritate.

    It’s located at:
    (http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121:cwr-round-table-caritas-in-veritate&catid=36:cwr2009&Itemid=53).

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .