March 2, 2004

E. Christian Brugger
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Institute for the Psychological Sciences
(published in Josephinum Journal of Theology, Summer 2004)

INTRODUCTION TO CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

Catholic social teaching (CST) has been increasingly promoted by the U.S. bishops over the past
twenty years and a number of useful documents have been published on the subject. i Each is more or less
pastoral and exhortational, not intended for academic audiences. Each asserts “principles” of Catholic
social teaching; but only limited references can be found to where those principles are asserted and
applied in modern Catholic ecclesiastical texts; moreover the documents fail to explain what a “principle”
of CST is and how principles are operative in the Church’s social teaching.
This paper is meant to supplement these texts. After a general introduction
defining the nature, origin, and operative terminology of CST, it itemizes and
explains twelve ethical principles that form the heart of the Church’s modern social
doctrine. The paper is intended for scholars and students interested in an inroad
into the extensive contemporary corpus of ecclesiastical writings on social
concerns. Concluding my discussion of each ethical principle is an endnote that
includes a more or less extensive list of references to ecclesiastical texts treating
the particular principle. References are chronologically ordered and illustrate the
continuity and development in papal teaching over a period of approximately one
hundred years.

Catholic Social Teaching: What is it?

The term “Catholic Social Teaching” is often taken to mean the tradition of
social reflection and critique beginning with Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) and
carrying through John Paul II’s Centisimus Annus (1991). Yet the Christian Church
from its inception engaged in more or less systematic refection on life in civil
society in light of the exigencies of Christian faith and proposed principles in light of
that analysis for Christians to follow in living their faith in society. CST reached a
certain maturity in the last hundred or so years during which time a series of
Church documents, primarily papal encyclicals--which now we associate with the
term Modern Catholic social teaching--were drafted in response to concrete
problems facing the Christian community as well as all members of civil society.
CST aims to provide a vision of social life compatible with the Gospel and with the vocation of
the Christian, whose end is both temporal and eternal. It aims to integrate faith and life--to examine and
formulate the social implications of Christian faith, to survey and analyze the complex reality of human
social existence in the light of the Gospel determining the compatibility of social ideas and movements
with authentic human good. Its primary subject matter is the human person in community and its
principal object is justice. Since the human person-- indeed all reality--can only fully be understood in
light of the revelation of Jesus Christ--“who fully reveals man to himself” (GS 22), the proclamation of
the Church’s social teaching is always at the same time a proclamation of Jesus Christ. In this way the
Church’s social teaching is an authentic instrument of evangelization. ii

Reason and Revelation

From where does the Church derive its social teaching? The one source of the Church’s ethical
teaching on the social order is the mind and will of God for human social existence. God has established

1
in accordance with his divine reason a moral order in which the human person finds his proper ends and
according to which he must conform his actions if he is to experience proper human fulfillment. To act
in accord with the moral order is man’s dignity; to do so is to be and become all that God intended.
Humans gain rational access to God’s intentions for human fulfillment through two modes, namely,
human reason and divine revelation. CST navigates a pathway between these two poles. It appeals on
the one hand to sources of revelation–scripture and tradition--to elucidate truths of the human person
(e.g., man is created, and created imago Dei) and support and ground particular moral arguments and
conclusions (e.g., “Thou shalt not kill,” i.e., it is never legitimate to intend to kill the innocent). It
appeals on the other hand to natural reason reflecting on life in civil society, growing in knowledge
through experience over time by trial and error, failure and success. Through reason and revelation the
Church derives its ethical framework for resolving social problems. Both are streams of moral truth
flowing from the one divine source, the latter in the form of divine law, the former in the form of natural
law. Since the two modes give us access to the same divine mind, they are complementary; each informs
and corrects the other.

Distinction between sacred vs. secular

CST acknowledges the legitimate distinction between the sacred and secular realms (i.e., between
the domains of Church and State) and proclaims the proper autonomy of each. Because the Church’s
divine mandate concerns the sacred realm and not the secular, the Church’s competence to teach
authoritatively pertains principally to sacred matters, i.e., to faith and morals. Its responsibility does not
lie in the endorsing of particular political parties or candidates, forms of government, or economic
systems, although its ethical teaching will inevitably at times support or be at odds with the ideas,
policies and sometimes even defining characteristics of certain of these. iii

A branch of moral theology

At the heart of the Church’s social teaching are a set of general ethical principles that can be
applied to the various situations in which the human person finds himself in civil society. Since these
principles are derived not only from reason but also from divine revelation, and since their purpose is to
guide human action, CST should be considered a branch of theology, in particular, moral theology.
Principles pertaining to themes and topics in moral theology therefore pertain as well to topics in CST. iv

Role of ethical principles

What are ethical principles? All men and women pursue happiness. The problem is they pursue
it at times in ways harmful to human good, their own or others’. As St. Augustine says in De Trinitate, it
is both true that we all will to live happily, and that we all do not will to live in a way which will make
us happy. Human reason can be swayed so that we give in to merely emotional motives; sometimes we
choose one good at the expense of another; sometimes we choose our own good at the expense of
someone else’s. In choosing, our reason needs guidance in order to choose for human goods in ways
which are fully consistent with the authentic good of individuals and communities.
This is where ethical principles come in. Ethical principles, also called ethical or moral norms,
are like sign posts directing human reason in ways that are compatible with human fulfillment. The most
universally recognized ethical principle is the Golden Rule, which directs us to do to others what we
would want them do to us. The Golden Rule, sometimes called the fairness principle, directs us away
from arbitrary self-centered choosing, from excluding from our considerations the perspectives of those
with whom we do not naturally identify. It does not tell us precisely what to do but rather how to do it:
“treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated.” In other words, be fair. So ethical principles are
rational guides that help us discriminate between good and bad possibilities for choice; they give
direction to practical reason for choosing human goods in morally good ways (i.e., in ways fully

2
consistent with human flourishing-- my own and others). Their general ethical guidance provides subject
matter for evaluating social, economic and political ideas and activities.
I have identified twelve dominant ethical principles proper to the body of modern CST. They
recur in different documents, take different formulations, are proposed in response to different problems
at different times, and yet their substance remains constant. A basic familiarity with the twelve is the
beginning of any serious inquiry into the subject of CST.

How are ethical principles operative in CST?

As I said, the twelve principles offer general normative moral guidance. But although their
guidance is general, their normativity is irrevocable. That is to say, all twelve are applicable all the time
acting as universal measuring sticks for judging the uprightness of social, political, and economic
endeavors. At times their application will be a matter of a straightforward conclusion derived from a
premise. When dealing with a clear violation of one or more of the principles, say, for example, in the
form of some proposed legislation permitting abortion, the application of the principle is clear: the kind
of activity under question always entails an immoral intent (i.e., the intent to kill the innocent), hence it
would be immoral to endorse legislation sanctioning such activity. We might say therefore that in
relation to the intentional violation of a moral principle their proscriptivity is absolute. Determining
violations of course will not always be as straightforward as the abortion example since intentions are
often inscrutable. Morever, actions whose intended ends and means are good sometimes promise to
bring about harms which are unreasonable in a given situation to permit.
But in relation to their positive application (i.e., what the principles enjoin) the conclusions to
which they direct often will not be a matter of a simple conclusion derived from a premise, but rather a
more complicated calculus based on the efficacy of certain means to certain ends in certain common
types of situations, on projected benefits and burdens entailed in competing possibilities, on risks and
costs, on the fairness of permitting foreseeable bad side-effects, on the requirements of changing
conditions, contingencies of circumstance, societal expectations, influence of markets, international
pressure, and so on. When asking what one or more ethical principle positively requires therefore there
often will be more than one valid answer. For example, questions pertaining to “just price” or a “living
wage,” whether raising the minimum wage is in the best interests of the poor, whether a tax cut should be
supported, whether going to war would be just, whether an interstate should be put through, a candidate
endorsed, a labor union joined, and so on, presuming all parties exclude intentions that violate the moral
norms, competing, even conflicting answers may be given. In many cases judgements will rest heavily
on empirical considerations. The need for virtue in public leadership is obviously of singular importance
since the often complex application of ethical principles is left to the prudential judgement of public
leaders.
The Church therefore will commit itself differently to conclusions depending on whether they
pertain to a negative application of a moral principle (i.e., concern a violation of a moral principle) or a
positive application. The Church will categorically oppose the deliberate violation of a moral norm,
while only tentatively endorsing their positive applications.
In translating the generality of ethical principles into concrete rules of action a three stage
deliberation is followed. First we assess the morally relevant facts of a situation; it is crucial to get the
facts correct before drawing any moral judgements. Second, based on those facts, and in light of the
morally applicable ethical principles, draw a moral judgment. And third, decide how that judgement
ought to be implemented into concrete action. For example, in judging whether or not to support a
declaration of war against Iraq, we begin by assessing the morally relevant facts: is there a just cause for
waging a war? This is assessed in part by determining whether or not there is a grave and imminent
danger posed to the common good by Iraq; are there for instance verifiable weapons of mass destruction?

3
But not only are there, since many nations possess such weapons, but is there a verifiable intent to use
them in the near future? If so, the principle of justice and the common good would sanction the use of
coercive force in defense of the community. Let us say that no such weapons are verifiable. A
judgement then may be made that there is no ‘just cause’ and that a declaration of war would be immoral.
Having concluded this the final step is to decide on a course of action (e.g., peaceful protest, civil
disobedience, etc.).v Though the facts of a situation can change, thus resulting in a change in moral
judgment, the principles by which the judgments are arrived at stay the same. Hence there is this twofold
dimension to the Church’s teaching: “on the one hand it is constant, for it remains identical in its
fundamental inspiration, in its ‘principles of reflection,’ in its ‘criteria of judgment,’ in its basic
‘directives for action,’ and above all in its vital link with the Gospel of the Lord. On the other hand, it is
ever new, because it is subject to the necessary and opportune adaptations suggested by the changes in
historical conditions and by the unceasing flow of the events which are the setting of the life of people
and society.” (SRS, 3)

vi
TWELVE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

MASTER PRINCIPLE
1. PRIMACY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Moral Principle: In formulating, assessing and revising social, political and economic policies,
activities, and structures, those and only those alternatives ought to be chosen which are compatible with
authentic human good.
Explanation: This principle is based upon the truth of the inherent and inalienable dignity of the
human person, a dignity revealed in the uniqueness of the human person’s place in all creation, rational
and free, bearing the image of God, as the object of God’s special redeeming love in Christ, and called to
supernatural life with him in heaven: “Truly great must be the value of human life,” John
Paul II exclaims, “if the Son of God has taken it up and made it the instrument of
the salvation of all humanity! (EV, 33)” Every person shares this God-like dignity, no matter
his physical or mental condition, race, religion, country of national origin, socio-economic status, caste,
etc. It follows that every social institution--political, economic, cultural--must serve the human person.
“Man precedes the State (RN, 7),” therefore any institution, structure or policy that subordinates the
person to non-personal dynamics, to ‘laws,’ profit, parties or ideologies, is judged to be morally
deficient.vii

DERIVATIVE PRINCIPLES
2. FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE STATE
Moral Principle: In formulating, assessing and revising public policy and law, public authority
ought to promote and defend policies which are compatible with the well-being of marriage and family.
Explanation: Genesis 1 & 2 reveal that the human person, created in God’s image male and
female, equal in dignity, is inherently social: man and women, in community, exist in a relationship of
complementarity. The community they form is a one-flesh unity in which husband and wife “cleave” to
each other. Jesus in Matthew 19 interprets the “one-fleshness” of Christian marriage as entailing the
conclusion that the marital bond is permanent. Sexual differentiation is revealed for purposes of
procreation (“Be fruitful and multiply. . .”) and the mutual perfection (filling-out) of the spouses (“At
last, this one is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones”)
Marriage and family constitutes the foundation of the Church, civil society and the State, the
irreducible and fundamental community of human society. In it are nurtured the qualities of character

4
that make possible the well-being of civil society: responsibility, honesty, religious commitment, and
ability to cooperate with others. The well-being of the family therefore is necessary for the well-being of
the whole human community. Society is like a body where multiple functions and complex systems need
to be coordinated if the body is function and function well; and marriage and family are like the organic
cells which make up that body and its systems. If a body’s cells degenerate, its systems will fail, and at
length the body will disintegrate and eventually die. The pope says: “The family is the basic cell of
society. It is the cradle of life and love, the place in which the individual ‘is born’ and ‘grows’. . .
Whole civilizations and the cohesiveness of peoples depend above all on the human quality of their
families. The Church . . . is deeply convinced . . . that ‘the path to the future passes through the family’”
(CL, 40).viii

3. JUSTICE, THE COMMON GOOD, RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS

Moral Principle: Public authority and all members of civil society should work together to
establish and maintain the common good, which is “the sum of those conditions of social life which
allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own
fulfillment.” (GS, 26)
Explanation: The classical definition of justice is a habit whereby we render to each person what
is his due with a constant and firm will. It is the virtue--the disposition of mind and will--which enables
us consistently to render to our neighbor what belongs to him. Justice secures what is his, what he is
owed, what he is entitled to. Reciprocally, injustice is a failure to render to another his due. Three basic
forms of justice have traditionally been identified. They look as it were in three directions each
corresponding to a basic relationship fundamental to the structure of communal life. The first is the
relation between individuals and subsidiary groups in civil society and is called commutative justice; it
governs the commutations (i.e., the interactions and exchanges) between members of a community and
guarantees that a basic fairness towards all is maintained according to the morally relevant details of a
situation. The second is the relation of the social whole–the community whose authority is embodied in
public authority– to the members of the community and is called distributive justice; public authority has
responsibility to see that benefits and burdens are equitably and fairly distributed across the community,
that conditions prevail in which individuals and groups have real access to the means of their own
fulfilment (i.e. that the common good is maintained and advanced), that members experience real benefit
in being law abiding and that transgressors of the law are not permitted to get off with their ill-gotten
gain. The third is the relationship of the members of a community to the social whole of which they are a
part and is called general justice; as the whole community has duties in relation to its members, so too
members have duties in relation to the whole, principally the duty to abide by just laws and work
towards, or at least not against, the common good.
What in fact belongs to our neighbor? What is his due? How does he come possess something
that has a claim on us? Let us look at the origin of justice claims. Justice derives from right, which in
turn derives from natural created equality, i.e., from our shared human nature. No obligation of justice
exists unless there is something (some ius, right) truly due another, i.e., something to which another has a
rightful claim, we might say something which is his by right. One may only speak of justice where right
is at stake. But what is right? Right is the correct order of a relationship as seen through the lens of the
three social relationships discussed above. In any given relationship moral claims and duties exist based
on the morally relevant elements of the situation. For example, it is morally relevant that in relation to
my children I am father. Fatherhood gives rises to duties (e.g., of providing for, educating and
disciplining my children) and privileges (e.g., of naming, forming and sharing intimacy with them) which
my relationship to another man’s children does not. Similarly, it is morally relevant to my relationship
with George W. Bush that he is President of the United States and I am a lawful citizen. Duties and

5
privileges prevail upon us both given this relationship.
Right can be divided into positive right and natural right. Positive right is right based on
agreement or common consent (e.g., treaties, contracts, promises, civil laws–pedestrian zones and traffic
laws, tax laws, mandatory draft, etc.); these rights and their incumbent duties arise from positive law
which is constituted by the prudential legislative judgements of lawmakers. There is also natural right
which is right based on human nature (e.g., the right to life, to pursue true knowledge, to inquire into
religious truth, to enter into human relationships); these are said to arise by prescription of God’s
naturally established moral order, also called the natural law. If positive right comes into apparent
conflict with natural right then positive right must yield. It is as if a caveat exists in the description of the
scope of every positive right which says, ‘yields in the face of natural right.’ For example, if I have a
right to drive down the road at a particular time of day and you happen to be walking across the street,
my positive right yields to your right not to be run over and killed, even though your walking on the
street at that time may be a violation on your part of a positive law. In fact, no conflict of right exists
since the scope of my positive right does not extend to running you down. It follows that if the natural
right of an individual or group is abrogated by positive law, including a law deriving from a majority, the
so-called positive right is invalid and any justice claim based upon it is a false claim. Since rights and
duties are always correlative (i.e., if I have a rightful claim--if something is “due” me, then by definition
someone or some institution has a rightful duty, or obligation, i.e., must do something or refrain from
doing something), the idea of a fundamental conflict of rights (strictly speaking) is a fiction. Natural
human rights, their promotion and protection, “are prerequisites for a dignified life in community.”
(EJFA, 79)
But if right grounds justice, upon what is right grounded? Human Equality. Right derives from
natural created equality, from our shared human nature: the doctrine of creation is the theological
foundation for a Christian theory of natural rights. Theologically speaking, we are all created by the
creative act of a loving God, hence we are all equal. We share a common human nature, which means no
individual or group is naturally superior to another. It follows that our actions should reflect our true
condition. Since natural right exists before the State, the State cannot deprive a person of natural rights.
The set of social conditions in which human rights are protected and the three forms of justice are
operative is itself the common good.ix

4. JUSTICE IN REMUNERATION: FAIR WAGE

Moral Principle: Remuneration for work should be determined in accordance with justice and
equity; which means that workers should be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life
and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner.
Explanation: A derivative principle of the principle of justice and the common good is the moral
requirement that workers be paid a just or fair wage. The tradition teaches that persons possess a natural
right to procure what is necessary in order to live. Many workers do this exclusively through what they
earn from their work. Natural justice requires that work be fairly remuneration by wages sufficient to
support a frugal and hardworking wage-earner and his family. The determination of what constitutes a
fair wage must take into consideration a variety of factors, first among which is the needs of the worker
and his family, but also the financial condition of the business, the circumstances of the market and the
kind of work being undertaken. The determination however should not be left to the laws of the
marketplace alone. The burden of meeting this moral requirement should not be borne solely by
businesses but should be considered the responsibility also of society and the State. x

5. THE SOLIDARITY OF MANKIND

6
 Moral Principle: The limited interests of nations, races, cultures and political parties ought to be
qualified in light of the truth that all men are children of the same common Father, all are redeemed and
made sons of God by Jesus Christ, and all share the same last end, namely God.
Explanation: The primordial human community is the community of mankind based on our
common origin, nature and destiny: every man and woman is created in the image of God, called to
sonship in Christ and destined for beatitude. All smaller communities, including nations, races, and
ethnic groups are derivative. Social ills, questions and conflicts therefore should be addressed in light of
this truth. International relations and foreign aid should likewise be assessed in light of it. In a special
way the perennial conflict between labor and capital should be qualified by it–“labor needs capital,
capital needs labor” (RN, 19; QA, 53; LE, 13.1). The “class conflict” answer that Marxism proposes is a
false solution.xi

6. PREFERENTIAL OPTION FOR THE POOR

Moral Principle: Public authority and the community ought to evaluate social, political and
economic plans and activities in the first place from the perspective of the poor.
Explanation: This principle is related to the principles of solidarity and justice and the common
good. Because each person or group should have fair access to the means of flourishing of a community;
and because the interests of the poor as a group are most vulnerable to harm; and because the poor
ordinarily have neither the leisure, income nor political influence to advance well their own interests;
those who have responsibility for the welfare of the community ought to factor the interests of the poor
into their considerations in a place of primacy. “The fulfillment of the basic needs of the poor is of the
highest priority.” (EJFA, 90) In effect, this principle requires that we see things from the poor’s
perspective, that we take the side of the poor, that we stand with the poor. It acts as a sort of ‘litmus
test’: how will this lifestyle, this policy or legislation, this social or economic initiative or institution
impact the poor? It is an imperative taught in the Old Testament when Israel is commanded to do justice
to the widow and orphan; it is taught in the New Testament in the form of the Golden Rule where Jesus
commands that we do to others as we would have them do to us. It is likewise grounded in the example
of the Lord and his ministry who lived like the poor, and preached the Gospel to the poor. xii

7. SUBSIDIARITY (Latin subsidium–“help, assistance”)

Moral Principle: A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a
community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of
need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the
common good. (CA, 48)
Explanation: Civil societies are communities of persons given identity and purpose by
geographical boundaries, shared institutions, common cultures and religions, and shared human interests.
Civil society is made up of smaller communities: families, neighborhoods, churches, professional
associations, fraternal, cultural, charitable and political organizations, communities of common interest.
Its members, seeking well-being for themselves, their families and the community as a whole, see the
need for more formal civil organization in which the complex needs of the common good can be
maintained and for an authority capable of establishing and enforcing laws for the common good. Thus
develops political society, or the State: the government with its authority, laws and structures. Political
society, as derivative of and instrumental to civil society, should leave to civil society (i.e., to the civil
community with its smaller intermediate communities) those functions and responsibilities which the

7
smaller communities can reasonably fulfill on their own. Civil society with its legitimate rights and
responsibilities, exists before the State; and the State exists in order to serve civil society. xiii

8. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Moral Principle: Private property is a natural right and ought not to arbitrarily be infringed.
Explanation: The Fathers on the whole were skeptical about private ownership. They taught that
private property was a fruit of the fall, hence if man had not sinned possessions would have been held in
common. Nevertheless in a fallen world its legitimacy must be conceded. Therefore it is correct to say
that the Church has traditionally taught that persons posses the right to own private property. Pope Leo
XIII was less skeptical. He argued that whatever is necessary for the preservation of humane social
existence is sanctioned by the natural law, and that the useful employment of the resources of the earth is
necessary. But the earth’s resources are rendered useful only with the investment of human creativity and
labor. When man exercises his skill and labor upon some resource of the earth he leaves upon it an
imprint as it were of his personality. It is right and good therefore that he should possess that thing for
his own. Moreover, to expect a person to exercise free, creative and personal initiative in the economic
field while at the same time forbidding him from exercising discretion over the disposing of the
achievement of such initiative is unrealistic and hence unreasonable. History illustrates that regimes that
have abolished private ownership have as a result suppressed human freedom, creativity, and initiative.
The right is implicitly taught in sacred Scripture insofar as seventh precept of the Decalogue implies the
legitimacy of private ownership. The right, however, is not absolute. It is qualified by the reciprocal
responsibility to use private property in a socially responsible way. xiv

9. UNIVERSAL PURPOSE OF THE WORLD’S RESOURCES

Moral Principle: Private property ought to be used in socially responsible ways with a view to
the common good.
Explanation: The principle of private ownership is derivative of the prior principle that the
resources of the earth are meant for the provision of all. This is an ancient principle taught repeatedly by
the Fathers of the Church: God created the world for everyone and everyone is entitled to derive from it
what he needs to subsist; as St. Cyprian writes, “Whatever belongs to God belongs to all.” ( On Works
and Almsgiving, 25). If someone therefore is in need and is unable to secure what is necessary for
survival, he rightfully may appropriate the surplus wealth of another, even against its owner’s will, since
its owner withholds it unjustly. This is not an exception to the seventh precept of the Decalogue
forbidding stealing since no one has the right to withhold surplus wealth from another in grave need. xv

10. PARTICIPATION
Moral Principle: Social institutions ought to be ordered in such a way as to make accessible to
all adult persons reasonable participation in the economic, political and cultural life of the community.
Explanation: This principle is rooted in the doctrine of creation, natural human sociability and
solidarity, and human freedom and responsibility. The common good of the community includes the
good of all its members. All member therefore should be free to contribute reasonably to the common
good by participating in those structures most central to the community’s well being. Moreover, the
human person is self-governing. To the extent that he is free and responsible he is ruled by no one other
than himself. Human self-rule implies that a person be free to make a reasonable contribution to the
maintenance and rule of the community of which he is a part. xvi

8
11. DIGNITY OF WORK & DIGNITY OF WORKERS
Moral Principle: Human labor should be valued more for its subject (i.e., the human person)
than its object (i.e., the kind of work that is done), and more for what it contributes to the human
person’s basic fulfillment, than for its economic profitability; workers should never be treated as mere
commodities to be bought and sold but should always be valued as the subject of work.
Foundation: Work has an objective and a subjective dimension. The former, called the
“transitive” dimension of work, refers to its quality insofar as it alters things–i.e., the world– outside the
worker, insofar as it “subdues the earth.” We see in God’s command to man in the first chapter of
Genesis to subdue the earth and have dominion the human person’s mandate to participate in the creative
activity of God and in that sense to reflect on earth the actions of his Creator. The subjective dimension
of work refers to work’s “intransitive” quality, that is, the quality by which human work shapes not only
the world outside the worker, but the worker’s very self. “Work,” John Paul II says, “is a good thing for
man -- a good thing for his humanity -- because through work man not only transforms nature, adapting it
to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes
“more a human being.” (LE, 9.3)” Work we see in Genesis 1-2 is a fundamental dimension of human
existence on earth, a ‘pre-fall’ phenomenon, suggesting that work is part of God’s original intention for
human flourishing. This principle directs us to value work for man’s sake and not man for the sake of
work. It entails the subordinate principle of the “priority of labor over capital” and guards against what
John Paul II calls the error of “economism,” that is, treating labor as a mere commodity to be bought and
sold; considering human labor “solely according to its economic purpose” (LE, 13.3)xvii

12. CENTRALITY OF RELIGION FOR A STABLE AND JUST SOCIAL ORDER

Moral Principle: Civil authority should safeguard the religious liberty of all its citizens by just
laws and by other appropriate means and help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious
life.
Explanation: The human person, by virtue of being created by God and for God, has not only a
natural end but a supernatural end. His fulfillment therefore is not limited to earthly fulfillment.
Although responsibility for the spiritual well-being of individuals and communities lies outside the
purview of the State--which is quite incompetent to preach the Gospel, conduct sacred liturgy, or
shepherd the Church, nevertheless it does fall to the State to protect freedom of religion and even to
favor–without coercion–religion in general, since its first duty is to defend and promote the common
good, and the good of religion is central to the common good. xviii

Endnotes

9
i. United States Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S.
Economy (1986), A Century of Catholic Social Teaching (1990), Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and
Directions (1998).

ii. SRS, 41: “The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor
even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its
own. Nor is it an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex
realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church's tradition.
Its main aim is to interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of the Gospel
teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once earthly and transcendent.”
SRS, 41: “In (her social teaching) the Church fulfills her mission to evangelize, for she offers her first
contribution to the solution of the urgent problem of development when she proclaims the truth about Christ, about
herself and about man, applying this truth to a concrete situation. As her instrument for reaching this goal, the Church
uses her social doctrine. In today's difficult situation, a more exact awareness and a wider diffusion of the "set of
principles for reflection, criteria for judgment and directives for action" proposed by the Church's teaching would be of
great help in promoting both the correct definition of the problems being faced and the best solution to them.”
SRS, 41:“The teaching and spreading of her social doctrine are part of the Church's evangelizing mission. And
since it is a doctrine aimed at guiding people's behavior, it consequently gives rise to a "commitment to justice,"
according to each individual's role, vocation and circumstances.”
CA, 54.1: “Man’s true identity is only fully revealed to him through faith, and it is precisely from faith that the
Church's social teaching begins. While drawing upon all the contributions made by the sciences and philosophy [i.e.,
resources of reason], her social teaching is aimed at helping man on the path of salvation.”
CA, 54.2: “The Church's social teaching is itself a valid instrument of evangelization. As such, it proclaims God
and his mystery of salvation in Christ to every human being, and for that very reason reveals man to himself. In this
light, and only in this light, does it concern itself with everything else.”
CA, 55.1: “The Church receives "the meaning of man" from Divine Revelation. ‘In order to know man,
authentic man, man in his fullness, one must know God’, said Pope Paul VI.”

iii. PP, no. 13: “The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political
activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit.
And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.'' Founded to
build the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to acquire temporal power, the Church openly avows that the two
powers--Church and State–are distinct from one another; that each is supreme in its own sphere of competency. (Leo
XIII) But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty “of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of
interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” (GS) Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees
these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive
contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities.”

iv. SRS, 41 “Its aim is thus to guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology
and particularly of moral theology.”
CA, 55.2: “Christian anthropology therefore is really a chapter of theology, and for this reason, the Church's
social doctrine, by its concern for man and by its interest in him and in the way he conducts himself in the world,
"belongs to the field . . . of theology and particularly of moral theology". The theological dimension is needed both for
interpreting and solving present-day problems in human society.”

v. MM, 236: “There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into
practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same
principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These
are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.”

vi. Key:
(CA)Centesimus Annus (100th anniv. of Rerum novarum) JP II (1991)
(CC) Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage) Pius XI. (1930)
(CL) Christifidelis Laici (On the Laity) JP II (1988)
(DV) Donum Vitae (On Respect for Human Life in Its Origin) CDF (1987)
(EJFA) Economic Justice for All (U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Letter) (1986)
(EN) Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization in the Modern World) Paul VI (1975)
 (EV) Evangelium Vitae (On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life) JP II (1995)
(GS) Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern World) Vatican II (1965)
(LE) Laborem Exercens (On Human Work) JP II (1981)
(MM) Mater et Magistra (Christianity and Social Progress) John XXIII (1961)
(OA) Octogesima Adveniens (A Call to Action: 80th anniv of Rerum novarum) Paul VI (1971)
(PP) Populorum Progressio (The Development of Peoples) Paul VI (1968)
(PT) Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth) John XXIII (1963)
(QA) Quadragesimo Anno (On 40th anniv. since Rerum novarum) Pius XI (1931)
(RN) Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes) Leo XIII (1891)
(SRS) Sollicitudo rei Socialis (On Social Concern) JP II. (1987)
(VS) Veritatis Splendor (On fundamental q’s on Church’s moral teaching) JP II (1993)

vii
. PT, 26: “Man as such, far from being an object or, as it were, an inert element in society, is rather its subject, its basis
and its purpose; and so must he be esteemed.”
MM, 191-192: “We must nevertheless state most emphatically that no statement of the problem (of world
poverty) and no solution to it is acceptable which does violence to man's essential dignity; those who propose such
solutions base them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life. The only possible solution to this
question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society,
and which respects and promotes true human values. First consideration must obviously be given to those values which
concern man's dignity generally, and the immense worth of each individual human life.”
MM, 194: “Human life is sacred--all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the
creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and
humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members.”
DV, 1: “The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the
inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it.”
GS, 12: “For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created "to the image of God," is capable of knowing
and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures that he might subdue them and use
them to God's glory. "What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and
crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his
feet" (Ps. 8:5-7).”
GS, 17: “For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man.”
GS, 18: “Although the mystery of death utterly beggars the imagination, the Church has been taught by divine
revelation and firmly teaches that man has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly
misery.”
GS, 22: “The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For
Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the
revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling
clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown. He Who
is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine
likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled, by
that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has
united Himself in some fashion with every man. . . Such is the mystery of man, and it is a great one, as seen by believers
in the light of Christian revelation.”
PP, 14: “The development We speak of here cannot be restricted to economic growth alone. To be authentic, it
must be well rounded; it must foster the development of each man and of the whole man. As an eminent specialist on this
question has rightly said: "We cannot allow economics to be separated from human realities, nor development from the
civilization in which it takes place. What counts for us is man--each individual man, each human group, and humanity as
a whole.''”
PP, 34: “Organized programs designed to increase productivity should have but one aim: to serve human nature.
They should reduce inequities, eliminate discrimination, free men from the bonds of servitude, and thus give them the
capacity, in the sphere of temporal realities, to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their
spiritual endowments. . . . It is not enough to develop technology so that the earth may become a more suitable living
place for human beings.”
SRS, 26: “The first positive note is the full awareness among large numbers of men and women of their own
dignity and of that of every human being. This awareness is expressed, for example, in the more lively concern that
human rights should be respected, and in the more vigorous rejection of their violation.”
 SRS, 35: “True development, in keeping with the specific needs of the human being-man or woman, child, adult
or old person-implies, especially for those who actively share in this process and are responsible for it, a lively awareness
of the value of the rights of all and of each person. It likewise implies a lively awareness of the need to respect the right
of every individual to the full use of the benefits offered by science and technology.”
EV, 2: “The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life
even in its temporal phase.”
EV, 25: “Precisely by contemplating the precious blood of Christ, the sign of his self-giving love (cf. Jn 13:1),
the believer learns to recognize and appreciate the almost divine dignity of every human being and can exclaim with ever
renewed and grateful wonder: "How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he ‘gained so great a Redeemer’
(Exsultet of the Easter Vigil), and if God ‘gave his only Son’ in order that man ‘should not perish but have eternal life’
(cf. Jn 3:16)!". MM, 219-20: “Individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social
institution. . . . On this basic principle, which guarantees the sacred dignity of the individual, the Church constructs her
social teaching.”
EV, 35: “The glory of God shines on the face of man.”
CCC, 1929-31 “Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person
represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose
defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of
history are strictly and responsibly in debt. Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his
dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral
legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society
undermines its own moral legitimacy.”
CCC, 1934: “Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the
same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine
beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.
CCC, 1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the
rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of
sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.
CCC, 2270: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person–among which
is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

viii. RN, 13: “A family, no less than a State, is . . . a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to
say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it
exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful
to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is
antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights
and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature.”
RN, 14: “The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate
control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding
distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme
necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts
of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to
yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and
strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority
can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to
the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in
civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born.”
GS, 47: “The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with
the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and family. Hence Christians and all men who hold this
community in high esteem sincerely rejoice in the various ways by which men today find help in fostering this
community of love and perfecting its life, and by which parents are assisted in their lofty calling.”
GS, 48: “The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by
His laws, and is rooted in the cojugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. Hence by that human act whereby
spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is
a lasting one. For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no
longer depends on human decisions alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various
benefits and purposes. All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal
development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity
of the family itself and of human society as a whole.”
GS, 48: “Christ the Lord abundantly blessed this many-faceted love, welling up as it does from the fountain of
divine love and structured as it is on the model of His union with His Church. . . . Authentic married love is caught up
into divine love and is governed and enriched by Christ's redeeming power and the saving activity of the Church, so that
this love may lead the spouses to God with powerful effect and may aid and strengthen them in sublime office of being a
father or a mother.”
GS, 50: “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children.
Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. . . .
Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between
persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly
ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and
maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.”
GS, 52: “The family is a kind of school of deeper humanity.”
GS, 52: “Thus the family, in which the various generations come together and help one another grow wiser and
harmonize personal rights with the other requirements of social life, is the foundation of society. All those, therefore,
who exercise influence over communities and social groups should work efficiently for the welfare of marriage and the
family. Public authority should regard it as a sacred duty to recognize, protect and promote their authentic nature, to
shield public morality and to favor the prosperity of home life.”
PT, 16: “The family, founded upon marriage freely contracted, one and indissoluble, must be regarded as the
natural, primary cell of human society. The interests of the family, therefore, must be taken very specially into
consideration in social and economic affairs, as well as in the spheres of faith and morals. For all of these have to do with
strengthening the family and assisting it in the fulfilment of its mission.
PT, 17: “Of course, the support and education of children is a right which belongs primarily to the parents.”
PP, 36: “The natural family, stable and monogamous--as fashioned by God and sanctified by Christianity–‘in
which different generations live together, helping each other to acquire greater wisdom and to harmonize personal rights
with other social needs, is the basis of society.’”
LE, 10.2: “It must be remembered and affirmed that the family constitutes one of the most important terms of
reference for shaping the social and ethical order of human work. . . . In fact, the family is simultaneously a community
made possible by work and the first school of work, within the home, for every person.”
LE, 19.4: “Experience confirms that there must be a social reevaluation of the mother’s role, of the toil
connected with it, and of the need that children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop into
responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to
make it possible for a mother-- without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination, and
without penalizing her as compared with other women -- to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating
them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work
outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts or hinders
these primary goals of the mission of a mother.”
CL, 40: “The first and basic expression of the social dimension of the person is the married couple and the
family.”
SRS, 33: “On the internal level of every nation, respect for all rights takes on great importance, especially: the
right to life at every stage of its existence; the rights of the family, as the basic social community, or "cell of society"”
CA, 39: “The first and fundamental structure for "human ecology" is the family, in which man receives his first
formative ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus what it actually
means to be a person. Here we mean the family founded on marriage, in which the mutual gift of self by husband and
wife creates an environment in which children can be born and develop their potentialities, become aware of their dignity
and prepare to face their unique and individual destiny. . . It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary
of life. The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life--the gift of God--can be properly welcomed and protected
against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human
growth.”
CA, 49: “In order to overcome today's widespread individualistic mentality, what is required is a concrete
commitment to solidarity and charity, beginning in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and the care
which the different generations give to one another. In this sense the family too can be called a community of work and
solidarity. It can happen, however, that when a family does decide to live up fully to its vocation, it finds itself without
the necessary support from the State and without sufficient resources. It is urgent therefore to promote not only family
policies, but also those social policies which have the family as their principle object, policies which assist the family by
providing adequate resources and efficient means of support, both for bringing up children and for looking after the
elderly, so as to avoid distancing the latter from the family unit and in order to strengthen relations between generations.”
ix. MM, 65: “To this end, a sane view of the common good must be present and operative in men invested
with public authority. They must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human
personality.”
MM, 151: “But the justification of all government action is the common good.”
(For a list of itemized rights see PT, 11-27)
PT, 30: “Once this is admitted, it follows that in human society one man's natural right gives rise to a
corresponding duty in other men; the duty, that is, of recognizing and respecting that right. Every basic human right
draws its authoritative force from the natural law, which confers it and attaches to it its respective duty. Hence, to claim
one's rights and ignore one's duties, or only half fulfill them, is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down
with the other.”
PT, 54: “The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities. . .
Authorities must obviously respect its nature, and at the same time adjust their legislation to meet the requirements of the
given situation.”
PT, 55: “The common good . . . is intimately bound up with human nature, can never exist
fully and completely unless the human person is taken into account at all times.”
PT, 56: “It is in the nature of the common good that every single citizen has the right to share in it–although in
different ways, depending on his tasks, merits and circumstances.”
PT, 60: “The common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief
concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended
and promoted.”.
PT, 84: “And lastly one must bear in mind that, even when it regulates the relations between States, authority
must be exercised for the promotion of the common good. That is the primary reason for its existence.”
PT, 85: “But one of the principal imperatives of the common good is the recognition of the moral order and the
unfailing observance of its precepts.”
PP, 24: “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly
used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good
sometimes demands their expropriation. Vatican II affirms this emphatically.”
SRS, 33: “Nor would a type of development which did not respect and promote human rights -- personal and
social, economic and political, including the rights of nations and of peoples -- be really worthy of man. Today, perhaps
more than in the past, the intrinsic contradiction of a development limited only to its economic element is seen more
clearly. Such development easily subjects the human person and his deepest needs to the demands of economic planning
and selfish profit. The intrinsic connection between authentic development and respect for human rights once again
reveals the moral character of development.”
CA, 11: “The State has the duty of watching over the common good and of ensuring that every sector of social
life, not excluding the economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each
sector.”
CA, 47: “Following the collapse of Communist totalitarianism and of many other totalitarian and "national
security" regimes, today we are witnessing a predominance, not without signs of opposition, of the democratic ideal,
together with lively attention to and concern for human rights. But for this very reason it is necessary for peoples in the
process of reforming their systems to give democracy an authentic and solid foundation through the explicit recognition
of those rights. . . . In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right
to live in the truth of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a person.”

x
. RN, 44: “each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no
other way than by what they can earn through their work. . . There 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.”
QA 63: “But except from pay for work, from what source can a man who has nothing else but work from which
to obtain food and the necessaries of life set anything aside for himself through practicing frugality?”
QA, 65. “We consider it more advisable . . . that, so far as is possible, the work-contract be somewhat modified
by a partnership-contract . . . . Workers and other employees thus become sharers in ownership or management or
participate in some fashion in the profits received.”
QA, 66. “The just amount of pay, however, must be calculated not on a single basis but on several, as Leo XIII
already wisely declared in these words: "To establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into
account."”
QA, 71: “In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. . . It is an
intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage
in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children.
Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs
adequately.”
QA, 72: “If, however, a business makes too little money, because of lack of energy or lack of initiative or
because of indifference to technical and economic progress, that must not be regarded a just reason for reducing the
compensation of the workers. But if the business in question is not making enough money to pay the workers an
equitable wage because it is being crushed by unjust burdens or forced to sell its product at less than a just price, those
who are thus the cause of the injury are guilty of grave wrong, for they deprive workers of their just wage and force them
under the pinch of necessity to accept a wage less than fair.”
QA, 72: “In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must
also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its
ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.”
MM, 33: “Of special doctrinal and practical importance is his affirmation that "if the social and individual
character of work be overlooked, it can be neither justly valued nor equitably recompensed." In determining wages,
therefore, justice demands that account be taken not only of the needs of the individual workers and their families, but
also of the financial state of the business concern for which they work and of "the economic welfare of the whole people."
(13)”
MM, 71: “We therefore consider it Our duty to reaffirm that the remuneration of work is not something that can
be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be
determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to
live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner.”
LE, 19.1: “The key problem of social ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done. In the context
of the present there is no more important way for securing a just relationship between the worker and the employer than
that constituted by remuneration for work.”
LE, 19.2-3: “A just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and,
in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important
one and, in a sense, the key means. This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the
work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly
maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is
called a family wage -- that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the
family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home -- or through other social
measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families.”
CA, 15.3: “Society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance of the worker and his
family, including a certain amount for savings. This requires a continuous effort to improve workers' training and
capability so that their work will be more skilled and productive, as well as careful controls and adequate legislative
measures to block shameful forms of exploitation.”

xi
. RN, 25. “But, if Christian precepts prevail, the respective classes will not only be united in the bonds of friendship, but
also in those of brotherly love. For they will understand and feel that all men are children of the same common Father,
who is God; that all have alike the same last end, which is God Himself, who alone can make either men or angels
absolutely and perfectly happy; that each and all are redeemed and made sons of God, by Jesus Christ, "the first -born
among many brethren"; that the blessings of nature and the gifts of grace belong to the whole human race in common,
and that from none except the unworthy is withheld the inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven. "If sons, heirs also; heirs
indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ."(22) Such is the scheme of duties and of rights which is shown forth to the world
by the Gospel. Would it not seem that, were society penetrated with ideas like these, strife must quickly cease?”
QA, 73: “If, however, matters come to an extreme crisis, it must be finally considered whether the business can
continue or the workers are to be cared for in some other way. In such a situation, certainly most serious, a feeling of
close relationship and a Christian concord of minds ought to prevail and function effectively among employers and
workers.”
MM, 23: “Finally, both workers and employers should regulate their mutual relations in accordance with the
principle of human solidarity and Christian brotherhood. Unrestricted competition in the liberal sense, and the Marxist
creed of class warfare; are clearly contrary to Christian teaching and the nature of man.”
MM,155: “It is therefore obvious that the solidarity of the human race and Christian brotherhood demand the
elimination as far as possible of these discrepancies. With this object in view, people all over the world must co -operate
actively with one another in all sorts of ways, so as to facilitate the movement of goods, capital and men from one
country to another. We shall have more to say on this point later on.”
MM, 157: “The solidarity which binds all men together as members of a common family makes it impossible for
wealthy nations to look with indifference upon the hunger, misery and poverty of other nations whose citizens are unable
to enjoy even elementary human rights.”
PT, 98-99: “Since relationships between States must be regulated in accordance with the principles of truth and
justice, States must further these relationships by taking positive steps to pool their material and spiritual resources. In
many cases this can be achieved by all kinds of mutual collaboration . . . . Thus, in pursuing their own interests, civil
societies, far from causing injury to others, must join plans and forces whenever the efforts of particular States cannot
achieve the desired goal.”
PT, 107: “We therefore take this opportunity of giving Our public approval and commendation to every
undertaking, founded on the principles of human solidarity or of Christian charity, which aims at relieving the distress of
those who are compelled to emigrate from their own country to another.”
PT, 121: “All men are united by their common origin and fellowship, their redemption by Christ, and their
supernatural destiny. They are called to form one Christian family. In Our encyclical Mater et Magistra, therefore, We
appealed to the more wealthy nations to render every kind of assistance to those States which are still in the process of
economic development.”
PP, 17: “Each man is also a member of society; hence he belongs to the community of man. It is not just certain
individuals but all men who are called to further the development of human society as a whole. Civilizations spring up,
flourish and die. As the waves of the sea gradually creep farther and farther in along the shoreline, so the human race
inches its way forward through history. We are the heirs of earlier generations, and we reap benefits from the efforts of
our contemporaries; we are under obligation to all men. Therefore we cannot disregard the welfare of those who will
come after us to increase the human family. The reality of human solidarity brings us not only benefits but also
obligations.”
PP, 44: “This duty concerns first and foremost the wealthier nations. Their obligations stem from the human and
supernatural brotherhood of man, and present a three-fold obligation: 1) mutual solidarity--the aid that the richer nations
must give to developing nations; 2) social justice--the rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations; 3)
universal charity--the effort to build a more humane world community, where all can give and receive, and where the
progress of some is not bought at the expense of others.”
SRS, 38: “When interdependence becomes recognized in this way, the correlative response as a moral and social
attitude, as a "virtue," is solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes
of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the
common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. . . .
The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its members recognize one another as persons. . . . Solidarity
helps us to see the "other"-whether a person, people or nation-not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capacity
and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded when no longer useful, but as our "neighbor," a
"helper" (cf. Gen 2:18-20), to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally
invited by God.”
SRS, 38: “It is above all a question of interdependence, sensed as a system determining relationships in the
contemporary world, in its economic, cultural, political and religious elements, and accepted as a moral category. When
interdependence becomes recognized in this way, the correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a "virtue," is
solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both
near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to
say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all . . . a commitment to the good
of one's neighbor with the readiness, in the gospel sense, to "lose oneself" for the sake of the other instead of exploiting
him, and to "serve him" instead of oppressing him for one's own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40-42; 20:25; Mk 10:42-45; Lk
22:25-27).”
SRS, 39: “The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its members recognize one another as
persons. Those who are more influential, because they have a greater share of goods and common services, should feel
responsible for the weaker and be ready to share with them all they possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in the
same spirit of solidarity, should not adopt a purely passive attitude or one that is destructive of the social fabric, but,
while claiming their legitimate rights, should do what they can for the good of all. The intermediate groups, in their turn,
should not selfishly insist on their particular interests, but respect the interests of others. Positive signs in the
contemporary world are the growing awareness of the solidarity of the poor among themselves, their efforts to support
one another, and their public demonstrations on the social scene which, without recourse to violence, present their own
needs and rights in the face of the inefficiency or corruption of the public authorities. . .
“The same criterion is applied by analogy in international relationships. Interdependence must be transformed
into solidarity, based upon the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. . .
“Solidarity helps us to see the "other"-- whether a person, people or nation -- not just as some kind of instrument,
with a work capacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded when no longer useful, but as
our "neighbor," a "helper" (cf. Gen 2:18-20), to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which
all are equally invited by God. . .
“In this way, the solidarity which we propose is the path to peace and at the same time to development. For
world peace is inconceivable unless the world's leaders come to recognize that interdependence in itself demands the
abandonment of the politics of blocs, the sacrifice of all forms of economic, military or political imperialism, and the
transformation of mutual distrust into collaboration. This is precisely the act proper to solidarity among individuals and
nations.”
SRS, 40: “Solidarity is undoubtedly a Christian virtue. In what has been said so far it has been possible to
identify many points of contact between solidarity and charity, which is the distinguishing mark of Christ's disciples (cf.
Jn 13:35). In the light of faith, solidarity seeks to go beyond itself, to take on the specifically Christian dimension of total
gratuity, forgiveness and reconciliation. One’s neighbor is then not only a human being with his or her own rights and a
fundamental equality with everyone else, but becomes the living image of God the Father, redeemed by the blood of
Jesus Christ and placed under the permanent action of the Holy Spirit. One’s neighbor must therefore be loved, even if an
enemy, with the same love with which the Lord loves him or her; and for that person's sake one must be ready for
sacrifice, even the ultimate one: to lay down one's life for the brethren (cf. 1 Jn 3:16). At that point, awareness of the
common fatherhood of God, of the brotherhood of all in Christ - "children in the Son" - and of the presence and
life-giving action of the Holy Spirit will bring to our vision of the world a new criterion for interpreting it. Beyond human
and natural bonds, already so close and strong, there is discerned in the light of faith a new model of the unity of the
human race, which must ultimately inspire our solidarity. This supreme model of unity, which is a reflection of the
intimate life of God, one God in three Persons, is what we Christians mean by the word "communion." This specifically
Christian communion, jealously preserved, extended and enriched with the Lord's help, is the soul of the Church's
vocation to be a "sacrament," in the sense already indicated. Solidarity therefore must play its part in the realization of
this divine plan, both on the level of individuals and on the level of national and international society.”
CA, 10: “In this way what we nowadays call the principle of solidarity, the validity of which both in the internal
order of each nation and in the international order I have discussed in the Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis, is clearly
seen to be one of the fundamental principles of the Christian view of social and political organization. This principle is
frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term "friendship", a concept already found in Greek philosophy. Pope
Pius XI refers to it with the equally meaningful term "social charity". Pope Paul VI, expanding the concept to cover the
many modern aspects of the social question, speaks of a "civilization of love".”

xii. RN, 32: “It lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the
utmost the interests of the poor.”
RN, 37: “Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim
to especial consideration. 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.”
EJFA, 75: “the obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the
powerless.”
EJFA, 75: “The poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the conscience of the nation.”
EJFA, 90: “the fulfillment of the basic needs of the poor is of the highest priority.”
SRS, 42: “Here I would like to indicate one of them (i.e., a dominant theme in CST): the option or love of
preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the
whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the
life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical
decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension
which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us,
cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care and,
above all, those without hope of a better future. It is impossible not to take account of the existence of these realities. To
ignore them would mean becoming like the "rich man" who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate
(cf. Lk 16:19-31).”
CA, 10: “the more that individuals are defenceless within a given society, the more they require the care and
concern of others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority.”
CA, 11: “Re-reading the Encyclical (Rerum Novarum) in the light of contemporary realities enables us to
appreciate the Church's constant concern for and dedication to categories of people who are especially beloved to the
Lord Jesus. The content of the text is an excellent testimony to the continuity within the Church of the so-called
"preferential option for the poor", an option which I defined as a "special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian
charity".”
CA, 57: “The Church is aware that her social message will gain credibility more
 immediately from the witness of actions than as a result of its internal logic and consistency. This awareness is also a
source of her preferential option for the poor, which is never exclusive or discriminatory towards other groups. This
option is not limited to material poverty, since it is well known that there are many other forms of poverty, especially in
modern society--not only economic but cultural and spiritual poverty as well. The Church's love for the poor, which is
essential for her and a part of her constant tradition, impels her to give attention to a world in which poverty is
threatening to assume massive proportions in spite of technological and economic progress.”

xiii. QA, 79: “As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were
done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty
principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely
wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the
community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater
and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature
to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”
MM, 117: “State and public ownership of property is very much on the increase today. This is explained by the
exigencies of the common good, which demand that public authority broaden its sphere of activity. But here, too, the
"principle of subsidiary function" must be observed. The State and other agencies of public law must not extend their
ownership beyond what is clearly required by considerations of the common good properly understood, and even then
there must be safeguards.”
PT, 141: “But it is no part of the duty of universal authority to limit the sphere of action of the public authority
of individual States, or to arrogate any of their functions to itself. On the contrary, its essential purpose is to create world
conditions in which the public authorities of each nation, its citizens and intermediate groups, can carry out their tasks,
fulfill their duties and claim their rights with greater security.”
CA, 15: “The State must contribute to the achievement of these goals both directly and indirectly. Indirectly and
according to the principle of subsidiarity, by creating favorable conditions for the free exercise of economic activity,
which will lead to abundant opportunities for employment and sources of wealth.”
CA, 48.4-5: “Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should
not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should
support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to
the common good. . . It would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and
who act as neighbors to those in need.”

xiv. RN, 6: “Every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of
distinction between man and the animal creation.”
RN, 7: “Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the
produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but forever recur; although
satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is
stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of
things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and
possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.”
RN, 8: “The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in
no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense
that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular,
and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual
races.”
RN, 9: “Here, again, we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. Truly,
that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life's well-being, is produced in great abundance from the soil,
but not until man has brought it into cultivation and expended upon it his solicitude and skill. Now, when man thus turns
the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own
that portion of nature's field which he cultivates -- that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his
personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it
without any one being justified in violating that right.”
RN, 11: “With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have
contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the
division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being
pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and
tranquillity of human existence.”
RN, 13: “That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must
in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the
human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should
provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his
children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to
enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no
other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by
inheritance.”
RN, 15: “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of
the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.”
RN, 22: “Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as
members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary.”
RN, 46: “This great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must
be held sacred and inviolable.”
QA, 49: “For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature,
public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal.”
MM, 19: “Secondly, private ownership of property, including that of productive goods, is a natural right which
the State cannot suppress. But it naturally entails a social obligation as well. It is a right which must be exercised not
only for one's own personal benefit but also for the benefit of others.”
MM, 109: “There is no reason for such a doubt to persist. The right of private ownership of goods, including
productive goods, has permanent validity. It is part of the natural order, which teaches that the individual is prior to
society and society must be ordered to the good of the individual. Moreover, it would be quite useless to insist on free
and personal initiative in the economic field, while at the same time withdrawing man's right to dispose freely of the
means indispensable to the achievement of such initiative. Further, history and experience testify that in those political
regimes which do not recognize the rights of private ownership of goods, productive included, the exercise of freedom in
almost every other direction is suppressed or stifled. This suggests, surely, that the exercise of freedom finds its
guarantee and incentive in the right of ownership.”
MM, 111: “Hence private ownership must be considered as a guarantee of the essential freedom of the
individual, and at the same time an indispensable element in a true social order.”

xv. RN, 22: “The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money . . . rests on the principle that it is one thing to
have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills. Private ownership, as we
have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but
absolutely necessary. "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. . . " . . . When what necessity
demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of
what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms." It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of
Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law.”
QA, 45-46: “The Church ha(s) (n)ever denied or questioned the twofold character of ownership, called usually
individual or social according as it regards either separate persons or the common good. For they have always
unanimously maintained that nature, rather the Creator Himself, has given man the right of private ownership not only
that individuals may be able to provide for themselves and their families but also that the goods which the Creator
destined for the entire family of mankind may through this institution truly serve this purpose. . . Accordingly, twin rocks
of shipwreck must be carefully avoided. For, as one is wrecked upon, or comes close to, what is known as
"individualism" by denying or minimizing the social and public character of the right of property, so by rejecting or
minimizing the private and individual character of this same right, one inevitably runs into "collectivism" or at least
closely approaches its tenets.”
QA, 47: “There must be first laid down as foundation a principle established by Leo XIII: The right of property is
distinct from its use. That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and
forbids invasion of others' rights through the exceeding of the limits of one's own property; but the duty of owners to use
their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which
"cannot be enforced by legal action." Therefore, they are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited
by the same boundaries.”
QA, 49: “It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of
ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define
these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the
State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more
accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted
to owners in the use of their property.”
QA, 50: “Furthermore, a person's superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life
fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of
the Church constantly declare in the most explicit language that the rich are bound by a very grave precept to practice
almsgiving, beneficence, and munificence.”
QA, 56: “the wise words of Our Predecessor: "However the earth may be apportioned among private owners, it
does not cease to serve the common interests of all." This same doctrine We ourselves also taught above in declaring that
the division of goods which results from private ownership was established by nature itself in order that created things
may serve the needs of mankind in fixed and stable order.”
MM, 43: “Concerning the use of material goods, Our Predecessor declared that the right of every man to use
these for his own sustenance is prior to every other economic right, even that of private property. The right to the private
possession of material goods is admittedly a natural one; nevertheless, in the objective order established by God, the right
to property cannot stand in the way of the axiomatic principle that "the goods which were created by God for all men
should flow to all alike, according to the principles of justice and charity.”
MM, 114: “As Our Predecessor Pius XII so rightly affirmed: The dignity of the human person "normally
demands the right to the use of the goods of the earth, to which corresponds the fundamental obligation of granting an
opportunity to possess property to all if possible." (33) This demand arises from the moral dignity of work. It also
guarantees "the conservation and perfection of a social order which makes possible a secure, even if modest, property to
all classes of people."”
MM, 119: “Our predecessors have insisted time and again on the social function inherent in the right of private
ownership, for it cannot be denied that in the plan of the Creator all of this world's goods are primarily intended for the
worthy support of the entire human race. Hence, as Leo XIII so wisely taught in Rerum Novarum: "whoever has received
from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and corporeal, or gifts of the mind,
has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may
employ them, as the steward of God's Providence, for the benefit of others. 'He that hath a talent,' says St. Gregory the
Great, 'let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that
hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility thereof with his neighbor'."”
MM, 121: “We should notice at this point that the right of private ownership is clearly sanctioned by the Gospel.
Yet at the same time, the divine Master frequently extends to the rich the insistent invitation to convert their material
goods into spiritual ones by conferring them on the poor.”
PP, 22: “All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be
subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation.
Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.”
PP, 22: “In the very first pages of Scripture we read these words: "Fill the earth and subdue it." This teaches us
that the whole of creation is for man, that he has been charged to give it meaning by his intelligent activity, to complete
and perfect it by his own efforts and to his own advantage. Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the
necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from
the earth.”
PP, 23: “"He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does
the love of God abide in him?" Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the
poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you
are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of
everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." These words indicate that the right to private property is not
absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the
bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private
property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs
conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active
involvement of individual citizens and social groups."”
GS, 69: “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human
beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in
abundance for all in like manner. Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of
peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of
earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as
his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others.”
GS, 69: “The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the
relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.
GS, 69: “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of
others.”
GS, 69: “Remember the aphorism of the Fathers: "Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed
him, you have killed him".”
LE, 14.2: “The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically
from the program of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism and put into practice in various countries in the decades
following the time of Leo’s Encyclical. At the same time it differs from the program of capitalism practiced by
liberalism and by the political systems inspired by it. In the latter case, the difference consists in the way the right to
ownership or property is understood. Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. On the
contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the
whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are
meant for everyone.”
LE, 19.2 “Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole ethical and social order, namely, the
principle of the common use of goods.”
SRS, 39: “The same criterion is applied by analogy in international relationships. Interdependence must be
transformed into solidarity, based upon the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. That which human
industry produces through the processing of raw materials, with the contribution of work, must serve equally for the good
of all.”
SRS, 42: “It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of
this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the
value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a "social mortgage," which means that it has an intrinsically
social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.”
CA, 30: “Pope Leo wrote: "those whom fortune favors are admonished ... that they should tremble at the
warnings of Jesus Christ ... and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for the use of all they
possess"; and quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas, he added: "But if the question be asked, how must one's possessions be
used? the Church replies without hesitation that man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as
common to all...", because "above the laws and judgments of men stands the law, the judgment of Christ".”
CA, 30: “While the Pope (Leo) proclaimed the right to private ownership, he affirmed with equal clarity that the
"use" of goods, while marked by freedom, is subordinated to their original common destination as created goods, as well
as to the will of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Gospel.”
CA, 30-31: “The Successors of Leo XIII have repeated this twofold affirmation: the necessity and therefore the
legitimacy of private ownership, as well as the limits which are imposed on it. The Second Vatican Council likewise
clearly restated the traditional doctrine . . . I have returned to this same doctrine, first in my address to the Third
Conference of the Latin American Bishops at Puebla, and later in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei
socialis. Re-reading this teaching on the right to property and the common destination of material wealth as it applies to
the present time, the question can be raised concerning the origin of the material goods which sustain human life, satisfy
people's needs and are an object of their rights. The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created
both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its
fruits (Gen 1:28).”
CA, 31: “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or
favoring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth's goods. The earth, by reason of its
fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God's first gift for the sustenance of human life. But the earth does
not yield its fruits without a particular human response to God's gift, that is to say, without work. It is through work that
man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the earth and making it a fitting home. In
this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of
individual property.”
John Locke on surplus property: “God, the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his
children such a Property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his Brother a Right to the
Surplusage of his Goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him when his pressing Want calls for it.” (Two Treatises, 1.42)

xvi. PT, 26: “Man’s personal dignity involves his right to take an active part in public life, and to make his own
contribution to the common welfare of his fellow citizens. As Pope Pius XII said, "man as such, far from being an object
or, as it were, an inert element in society, is rather its subject, its basis and its purpose; and so must he be esteemed."”
PT, 73-74: “A natural consequence of men’s dignity is unquestionably their right to take an active part in
government, though their degree of participation will necessarily depend on the stage of development reached by the
political community of which they are members. For the rest, this right to take part in government opens out to men a
new and extensive field of opportunity for service. A situation is created in which civic authorities can, from the greater
frequency of their contacts and discussions with the citizens, gain a clearer idea of what policies are in fact effectual for
the common good; and in a system which allows for a regular succession of public officials, the authority of these
officials, far from growing old and feeble, takes on a new vitality in keeping with the progressive development of human
society.”
EJFA, 78: “Justice demands that social institutions be ordered in a way that guarantees all persons the ability to
participate actively in the economic, political and cultural life of society.”
EJFA, 78: “Such participation is an essential expression of the social nature of human beings and of their
communitarian vocation.”

xvii. RN, 44: “A man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First of all, it is
personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts,
and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man’s labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a
man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey.”
QA 61: “we must strive that at least in the future the abundant fruits of production will accrue equitably to those
who are rich and will be distributed in ample sufficiency among the workers - not that these may become remiss in work,
for man is born to labor as the bird to fly - but that they may increase their property by thrift,”
QA 83: “Labor, as Our Predecessor explained well in his Encyclical,[48] is not a mere commodity. On the
contrary, the worker's human dignity in it must be recognized. It therefore cannot be bought and sold like a commodity.”
MM, 18: “They concern first of all the question of work, which must be regarded not merely as a commodity, but
as a specifically human activity. In the majority of cases a man's work is his sole means of livelihood. Its remuneration,
therefore, cannot be made to depend on the state of the market. It must be determined by the laws of justice and equity.
Any other procedure would be a clear violation of justice, even supposing the contract of work to have been freely
entered into by both parties.”
MM, 107: “And this is as it should be. Work, which is the immediate expression of a human personality, must
always be rated higher than the possession of external goods which of their very nature are merely instrumental. This
view of work is certainly an indication of an advance that has been made in our civilization.”
PP, 27: Work “is something willed and approved by God. . . "man must cooperate with Him in completing the
work of creation and engraving on the earth the spiritual imprint which he himself has received." God gave man
intelligence, sensitivity and the power of thought--tools with which to finish and perfect the work He began. Every
worker is, to some extent, a creator--be he artist, craftsman, executive, laborer or farmer. Bent over a material that resists
his efforts, the worker leaves his imprint on it, at the same time developing his own powers of persistence, inventiveness
and concentration.” (PP, no. 27)
GS, 35: “Human activity, to be sure, takes its significance from its relationship to man. Just as it proceeds from
man, so it is ordered toward man. For when a man works he not only alters things and society, he develops himself as
well. He learns much, he cultivates his resources, he goes outside of himself and beyond himself. Rightly understood
this kind of growth is of greater value than any external riches which can be garnered. A man is more precious for what
he is than for what he has. Similarly, all that men do to obtain greater justice, wider brotherhood, a more humane
disposition of social relationships has greater worth than technical advances. For these advances can supply the material
for human progress, but of themselves alone they can never actually bring it about. Hence, the norm of human activity is
this: that in accord with the divine plan and will, it harmonize with the genuine good of the human race, and that it allow
men as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfill it.”
GS, 39: “For after we have obeyed the Lord, and in His Spirit nurtured on earth the values of human dignity,
brotherhood and freedom, and indeed all the good fruits of our nature and enterprise, we will find them again, but freed of
stain, burnished and transfigured, when Christ hands over to the Father: ‘a kingdom eternal and universal, a kingdom of
truth and life, of holiness and grace, of justice, love and peace.’ On this earth that Kingdom is already present in mystery.
When the Lord returns it will be brought into full flower.” (cf., PP, 28.3)
LE, 6.2: “Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the “image of God” he is a person, that is to
say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a
tendency to self-realization. As a person, man is therefore the subject of work. As a person he works, he performs various
actions belonging to the work process; independently of their objective content, these actions must all serve to realize his
humanity, to fulfill the calling to be a person that is his by reason of his very humanity.”
LE, 4.2: “The Church finds in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis the source of her conviction that work
is a fundamental dimension of human existence on earth. . . Man is the image of God partly through the mandate
received from his Creator to subdue, to dominate, the earth. In carrying out this mandate, man, every human being,
reflects the very action of the Creator of the universe.”
LE, 6.3: “And so this “dominion” spoken of in the biblical text being meditated upon here refers not only to the
objective dimension of work but at the same time introduces us to an understanding of its subjective dimension.
Understood as a process whereby man and the human race subdue the earth, work corresponds to this basic biblical
concept only when throughout the process man manifests himself and confirms himself as the one who “dominates.” This
dominion, in a certain sense, refers to the subjective dimension even more than to the objective one: this dimension
conditions the very ethical nature of work. In fact there is no doubt that human work has an ethical value of its own,
which clearly and directly remains linked to the fact that the one who carries it out is a person, a conscious and free
subject, that is to say, a subject that decides about himself.”
LE, 6.5: “Christianity brought about a fundamental change of ideas in this field, taking the whole content of the
Gospel message as its point of departure, especially the fact that the one who, while being God, became like us in all
things devoted most of the years of his life on earth to manual work at the carpenter’s bench. This circumstance
constitutes in itself the most eloquent “Gospel of work,” showing that the basis for determining the value of human work
is not primarily the kind of work being done but the fact that the one who is doing it is a person. The sources of the
dignity of work are to be sought primarily in the subjective dimension, not in the objective one.”
LE, 6.6: “Let us try nevertheless to show that each sort (of work) is judged above all by the measure of the
dignity of the subject of work, that is to say the person, the individual who carries it out.”
LE, 9.3: “And yet, in spite of all this toil -- perhaps, in a sense, because of it -- work is a good thing for man.
Even though it bears the mark of a bonum arduum, in the terminology of Saint Thomas, this does not take away the fact
that, as such, it is a good thing for man. It is not only good in the sense that it is useful or something to enjoy; it is also
good as being something worthy, that is to say, something that corresponds to man’s dignity, that expresses this dignity
and increases it. If one wishes to define more clearly the ethical meaning of work, it is this truth that one must
particularly keep in mind. Work is a good thing for man -- a good thing for his humanity -- because through work man
not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in
a sense, becomes ‘more a human being.’”
LE, 12.1: “In view of this situation we must first of all recall a principle that has always been taught by the
Church: the principle of the priority of labor over capital. This principle directly concerns the process of production: in
this process labor is always a primary efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of means of production, remains
a mere instrument or instrumental cause.”
LE, 12.6: “We must emphasize and give prominence to the primacy of man in the production process, the
primacy of man over things. Everything contained in the concept of capital in the strict sense is only a collection of
things. Man, as the subject of work, and independently of the work that he does -- man alone is a person.”
LE, 15.1: “Thus, the principle of the priority of labor over capital is a postulate of the order of social morality.”
LE, 25.3: “The importance of rest: “Man ought to imitate God both in working and also in resting, since God
himself wished to present his own creative activity under the form of work and rest. This activity by God in the world
always continues.”(cf. CA, 7)
CA, 6: “Work thus belongs to the vocation of every person; indeed, man expresses and fulfils himself by
working. At the same time, work has a "social" dimension through its intimate relationship not only to the family, but
also to the common good, since "it may truly be said that it is only by the labor of working-men that States grow rich".”

xviii. RN, 27: “If human society is to be healed now, in no other way can it be healed save by a return to Christian life
and Christian institutions.”
RN, 32: “Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for
religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant
yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier.”
RN, 36: “Now, it is to the interest of the community, as well as of the individual, that peace and good order
should be maintained; that all things should be carried on in accordance with God's laws and those of nature; that the
discipline of family life should be observed and that religion should be obeyed; that a high standard of morality should
prevail, both in public and private life.”
RN, 40: “The working man, too, has interests in which he should be protected by the State; and first of all, there
are the interests of his soul. Life on earth, however good and desirable in itself, is not the final purpose for which man is
created; it is only the way and the means to that attainment of truth and that love of goodness in which the full life of the
soul consists. It is the soul which is made after the image and likeness of God; it is in the soul that the sovereignty resides
in virtue whereof man is commanded to rule the creatures below him and to use all the earth and the ocean for his profit
and advantage.”
RN, 41: “From this follows the obligation of the cessation from work and labor on Sundays and certain holy
days. The rest from labor is not to be understood as mere giving way to idleness; much less must it be an occasion for
spending money and for vicious indulgence, as many would have it to be; but it should be rest from labor, hallowed by
religion. Rest (combined with religious observances) disposes man to forget for a while the business of his everyday life,
to turn his thoughts to things heavenly, and to the worship which he so strictly owes to the eternal Godhead.”
RN, 57: “It is clear that they (working men’s associations) must pay special and chief attention to the duties of
religion and morality, and that social betterment should have this chiefly in view; otherwise they would lose wholly their
special character, and end by becoming little better than those societies which take no account whatever of religion.
What advantage can it be to a working man to obtain by means of a society material well-being, if he endangers his soul
for lack of spiritual food?”
QA, 35: “Side by side with these unions there should always be associations zealously engaged in imbuing and
forming their members in the teaching of religion and morality so that they in turn may be able to permeate the unions
with that good spirit which should direct them in all their activity.”
QA, 136: “ No genuine cure can be furnished for this lamentable ruin of souls, which, so long as it continues,
will frustrate all efforts to regenerate society, unless men return openly and sincerely to the teaching of the Gospel, to the
precepts of Him Who alone has the words of everlasting life, words which will never pass away, even if Heaven and earth
will pass away.”
MM, 176: “It pains Us, therefore, to observe the complete indifference to the true hierarchy of values shown by
so many people in the economically developed countries. Spiritual values are ignored, forgotten or denied, while the
progress of science, technology and economics is pursued for its own sake, as though material well-being were the be-all
and end-all of life. This attitude is contagious, especially when it infects the work that is being done for the less
developed countries, which have often preserved in their ancient traditions an acute and vital awareness of the more
important human values, on which the moral order rests.”
MM, 208: “But the moral order has no existence except in God; cut off from God it must necessarily disintegrate.
Moreover, man is not just a material organism. He consists also of spirit; he is endowed with reason and freedom. He
demands, therefore, a moral and religious order; and it is this order--and not considerations of a purely extraneous,
material order--which has the greatest validity in the solution of problems relating to his life as an individual and as a
member of society, and problems concerning individual states and their inter-relations.”
MM, 209-210: “It has been claimed that in an era of scientific and technical triumphs such
as ours man can well afford to rely on his own powers, and construct a very good civilization without God. But the truth
is that these very advances in science and technology frequently involve the whole human race in such difficulties as can
only be solved in the light of a sincere faith in God, the Creator and Ruler of man and his world. The almost limitless
horizons opened up by scientific research only go to confirm this truth. More and more men are beginning to realize . . .
the supreme importance of spiritual and moral values, if scientific and technical progress is to be used in the service of
civilization, and not involve the whole human race in irremediable disaster.”
MM, 213: “Finally, they (new ideologies) fail to take account of that deep-rooted sense of religion which exists
in all men everywhere, and which nothing, neither violence nor cunning, can eradicate.”
MM, 214: “The most fundamental modern error is that of imagining that man's natural sense of religion is
nothing more than the outcome of feeling or fantasy, to be eradicated from his soul as an anachronism and an obstacle to
human progress. And yet this very need for religion reveals a man for what he is: a being created by God and tending
always toward God. As we read in St. Augustine: "Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts can find no rest
until they rest in you".”
MM, 215: “Let men make all the technical and economic progress they can, there will be no peace nor justice in
the world until they return to a sense of their dignity as creatures and sons of God, who is the first and final cause of all
created being. Separated from God a man is but a monster, in himself and toward others; for the right ordering of human
society presupposes the right ordering of man's conscience with God, who is Himself the source of all justice, truth and
love.”
MM, 217: “The most perniciously typical aspect of the modern era consists in the absurd attempt to reconstruct a
solid and fruitful temporal order divorced from God, who is, in fact, the only foundation on which it can endure. In
seeking to enhance man's greatness, men fondly imagine that they can do so by drying up the source from which that
greatness springs and from which it is nourished. They want, that is, to restrain and, if possible, to eliminate the soul's
upward surge toward God. But today's experience of so much disillusionment and bloodshed only goes to confirm those
words of Scripture: "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."”
MM, 222: “First, We must reaffirm most strongly that this Catholic social doctrine is an integral part of the
Christian conception of life.”
PP, 21: “What are truly human conditions? The rise from poverty to the acquisition of life's necessities; the elimination
of social ills; broadening the horizons of knowledge; acquiring refinement and culture. From there one can go on to
acquire a growing awareness of other people's dignity, a taste for the spirit of poverty, (l8) an active interest in the
common good, and a desire for peace. Then man can acknowledge the highest values and God Himself, their author and
end. Finally and above all, there is faith--God's gift to men of good will--and our loving unity in Christ, who calls all
men to share God's life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men.”
PP, 42: “The ultimate goal is a fullbodied humanism. And does this not mean the fulfillment of the whole man
and of every man? A narrow humanism, closed in on itself and not open to the values of the spirit and to God who is
their source, could achieve apparent success, for man can set about organizing terrestrial realities without God. But
"closed off from God, they will end up being directed against man. A humanism closed off from other realities becomes
inhuman." True humanism points the way toward God and acknowledges the task to which we are called, the task which
offers us the real meaning of human life. Man is not the ultimate measure of man. Man becomes truly man only by
passing beyond himself. In the words of Pascal: "Man infinitely surpasses man."”
SRS, 39: “Solidarity helps us to see the "other"-- whether a person, people or nation -- not
just as some kind of instrument, with a work capacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded
when no longer useful, but as our "neighbor," a "helper" (cf. Gen 2:18-20), to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves,
in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God. Hence the importance of reawakening the religious
awareness of individuals and peoples.”
CA, 9: “To these rights Pope Leo XIII adds another right regarding the condition of the working class . . .
namely, the right to discharge freely one's religious duties. The Pope wished to proclaim this right within the context of
the other rights and duties of workers, notwithstanding the general opinion, even in his day, that such questions pertained
exclusively to an individual's private life. He affirms the need for Sunday rest so that people may turn their thoughts to
heavenly things and to the worship which they owe to Almighty God. No one can take away this human right, which is
based on a commandment . . . and consequently, the State must guarantee to the worker the exercise of this freedom. It
would not be mistaken to see in this clear statement a springboard for the principle of the right to religious freedom . . .
In this regard, one may ask whether existing laws and the practice of industrialized societies effectively ensure in our own
day the exercise of this basic right to Sunday rest.”
CA, 13: “If we then inquire as to the source of this mistaken concept of the nature of the person and the
"subjectivity" of society, we must reply that its first cause is atheism. It is by responding to the call of God contained in
the being of things that man becomes aware of his transcendent dignity. Every individual must give this response, which
constitutes the apex of his humanity, and no social mechanism or collective subject can substitute for it. The denial of
God deprives the person of his foundation, and consequently leads to a reorganization of the social order without
reference to the person's dignity and responsibility.”
CA, 24: “At the heart of every culture lies the attitude man takes to the greatest mystery: the mystery of God.
Different cultures are basically different ways of facing the question of the meaning of personal existence. When this
question is eliminated, the culture and moral life of nations are corrupted.”
CA, 24: “Marxism had promised to uproot the need for God from the human heart, but the results have shown
that it is not possible to succeed in this without throwing the heart into turmoil.”

CA, 29: “The apex of development is the exercise of the right and duty to seek God, to know him and to live in
accordance with that knowledge. In the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the principle that force predominates over
reason was carried to the extreme. Man was compelled to submit to a conception of reality imposed on him by coercion,
and not reached by virtue of his own reason and the exercise of his own freedom.”
CA, 41: “The concept of alienation needs to be led back to the Christian vision of reality, by recognizing in
alienation a reversal of means and ends. When man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and grandeur of
the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the possibility of benefitting from his humanity and of entering into
that relationship of solidarity and communion with others for which God created him. Indeed, it is through the free gift of
self that man truly finds himself. This gift is made possible by the human person's essential "capacity for transcendence".
Man cannot give himself to a purely human plan for reality, to an abstract ideal or to a false utopia. As a person, he can
give himself to another person or to other persons, and ultimately to God, who is the author of his being and who alone
can fully accept his gift. A man is alienated if he refuses to transcend himself and to live the experience of selfgiving and
of the formation of an authentic human community oriented towards his final destiny, which is God.”
CA, 44: “If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person
tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard
for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the
root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the
visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate --no
individual, group, class, nation or State.”
CA, 47: “In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right
to live in the truth of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a person.”
CA, 54: “However, man's true identity is only fully revealed to him through faith, and it is precisely from faith
that the Church's social teaching begins. While drawing upon all the contributions made by the sciences and philosophy,
her social teaching is aimed at helping man on the path of salvation.”