Making democracy work


Christian Democracy Series No. 3

k



“Christian teaching alone, in its ma-

jestic integrity, can give full meaning

and compelling motive to the demand

for human rights and liberties because
it alone gives worth and dignity to

human personality.” — Pope Pius XI,
Apostolic Letter on the Catholic Univer-

sity of America, at the opening of its

Jubilee Year, October, 1938.

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE U. S. A.

BY THE PAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK, N. Y.



MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK

BY

JEROME G. KERWIN, Ph.D.

Department of Politics, University of Chicago

OUR SUNDAY VISITOR LIBRARY

HUNTINGTON, INDIANA

Christian Democracy Series

No. 3

Published for

THE SOCIAL ACTION DEPARTMENT

N. C. W. C.

by

THE PAULIST PRESS
401 West 59th Street

New York



r

Nihil Obstat:
Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.,

Censor Librorum.

Imprimatur

:

•b Francis J. Spellman,

Archbishop of New York.

New York, July 22, 1939.

OeaMed



FOREWORD

In considering the problem of making
democracy work, Dr. Kerwin examines first
the nature and purpose of government and

of democracy. His emphasis on the neces-

sity for economic democracy alongside of

political democracy and on the responsi-

bility of citizens in the United States, espe-

cially Catholic citizens, for the perfecting

of both, deserves interest and further study.

Social Action Department
National Catholic Welfare Conference





Making Democracy Work
By

Jerome G. Kerwin, Ph.D.

Department of Politics, University of Chicago

I. GOVERNMENT AND ITS AIMS

“MAN’S natural instinct moves him to live in civil society,
for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with

the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of
developing his mental and moral faculties,” said the great
Pontiff, Leo XIII . 1 This instinct divinely implanted in man
leads him to form the State, which is a necessary and perfect
society ordained by God for the satisfaction of human needs.
The end and purpose of the State is, therefore, the promotion
of human welfare. It is especially to be noted that it exists
for man and that man does not exist for the State. The politi-
cal order, in other words, serves man’s ends and is not an end
in itself. It is not a mystical entity before which men bow
down in idolatrous worship. While worthy of respect and
man’s service, it may not command what Divine Law forbids
nor assume supremacy over all the activities and interests of
men. The assertion of our modern totalitarians that nothing
lies beyond the orbit of state regulation is contrary to Chris-
tian belief and to practice throughout the ages.

Men possess natural rights with which they are endowed
by God Himself. They are given to men in order that they
may pursue those ends which God has intended. It is note-
worthy that in the Declaration of Independence the doctrine
of natural rights is asserted as it came down to modern times
from the great Catholic philosophers: “We hold these truths
to be self evident . . . that men are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights among which are the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Frequently, as
in the American Constitution, the variable form appears of
life, liberty and property. Men must possess all three in

1 Encyclical, The Christian Constitution of States.

5



order to attain that higher end which God has ordained. These
are man’s natural rights. The State, therefore, • must leave

to men a certain sphere of action unconfined by civil authority.
As the State does not create natural rights, the State may not
divest man of them. Of these natural rights Monsignor Ryan
says: “Life and liberty cover a very large part of the field

of natural rights; the pursuit of happiness implies the rights

of marriage and of property, which embrace the remainder of

that field. Man’s natural rights may, therefore, be summar-

ized as those of life, liberty, marriage and property. Liberty

is, of course, a wide conception extending to physical move-

ment, education, religion, speech and writing. Under the

head of life is included immunity from all forms of arbitrary

physical assault. All these rights belong to the citizen as a

human being because they are all necessary for his existence,

for the development of his personality, for reasonable human

living, and for attainment of the end which God commands

him to attain. In the United States they are all likewise rights

of the citizen as a citizen.”
2

The State then does not create these rights, despite the

opinion of many economists and political scientists of our own

day. The State, however, does grant certain rights which are

generally classed as civil and political. Chief among the

former are those protections guaranteed by state and federal

constitutions in America, which prevent arbitrary action on

the part of the organs of government in criminal trials, and

which insure the exercise of democratic action through free-

dom of press, speech and assemblage. The political rights

are those of suffrage and of holding office. Drastic modifica-

tion by the State of civil and political rights are theoretically

permissible, although in the democratic order such modifica-

tions create dangerous precedents from which may result the

complete destruction of popular government. In the demo-

cratic State an alert citizenry will jealously guard its civil

and political rights against any encroachment. Particularly

are these rights protections to minority groups. They consti-

tute a guarantee for reasonable and orderly dissent against

governmental reprisals of the jail or the concentration camp.

They constitute a peaceful alternative to the violent upheaval

which, of necessity, characterizes movements of dissent and

change in dictatorial and absolutist systems.

2 Church and State, Ryan and Millar, p. 277.

6



Historical Ideas of Government

In the Middle Ages there was no conception of the State
such as we have today. People in those days understood that
there were two powers—spiritual and temporal. The spiritual
power was exercised by the universal Church under the Pope;
the temporal power was exercised theoretically by the Holy
Roman Emperor and those holding title to rule in his name.
In some cases the authority to rule in a temporal sense came
from the Pope as feudal lord over fiefs and principalities.
The ideal conception was that of one universal spiritual power
and one universal temporal power.

In the temporal sphere power was exercised in loose fashion
over many groups and subdivisions. As the political scientists
put it, the political order was pluralistic. Men belonged very
often to many groups. The primary group to which all be-
longed was the family. They may also have been members
of trade guilds or municipal corporations and of feudal en-
tities which governed their activities. The laws of princes and
kings dealt largely with men in groups and associations.

The whole medieval system is well described by Otto von
Gierke, a very able scholar of the political theory of the
Middle Ages:

“The properly medieval system of thought started from
the idea of the whole and of unity, but to every lesser unit
down to and including the individual it ascribed an inherent
life, a purpose of its own, and an intrinsic value within the
harmoniously articulated organism of the world-whole filled
with the Divine Spirit. Thus in accordance with the medieval
scheme of things it attained a construction of the social whole
which in effect was federalists through and through. While
it postulates the visible unity of mankind in Church and
Empire, yet by reason of the dualism of the two Swords it
not only starts throughout from the idea of two allied Orders,
but it limits even this unity to those relations in which joint
action is demanded by the general purpose of all mankind.
Thus for it the unity is neither absolute nor exclusive, but
forms the over-arching dome of a social structure organized
as an independent whole. And this principle is repeated in
its various gradations down to the smallest local, vocational
and domestic groups. Everywhere in the Church and in the
State the unitary total body consists of living memberbodies,

7



each of which, though itself a whole, necessarily requires con-
nection with the larger whole. Each has a purpose of its own,
and consists of parts which it procreates and dominates, and
which in their turn are wholes. Between the highest Univer-
sality or ‘All-Community’ and the essential unity of the in-
dividual there is a series of intermediate unities, in each of
which lesser and lower units are comprised and combined.” 3

With the revival of the Roman Law in the twelfth century,
and as a result of the growing national consciousness among
people, strong centralized units of government arose to dis-
pute the claims of one universal temporal dominion under the
Emperor and one universal spiritual dominion under the
Pope.

r

Strong nation States holding a new conception of abso-
lute State sovereignty allowed little room for the autonomy
of natural groups or the check which spiritual authority sought
to impose. War and conquest among States necessitated ever-
increasing centralized control and uniformity in administra-
tion. The trend right down to our own day—with the excep-
tion of the establishment of such geographic federalisms as

are found in Switzerland, Canada, the United States—has been
towards a tightening of the reigns of temporal authority in

centralized governments. Modern speed in communication
has made this more possible and the extensive scope of eco-
nomic problems has made necessary national solutions of
matters formerly of local concern.

Catholic vs. Recent and Current Theories

In our own day the pluralistic conception of the State is
not accepted among most political and economic theorists. In
Catholic theory, however, the family is regarded as the

primary unit for the promotion of temporal welfare. It is

the first source of temporal lav/ for man. Secondly, it is
recognized by Catholic writers that there are a great many
other associations, voluntary in nature, to which men belong
and through which man’s welfare is promoted. The sphere of
the State then is to promote the common welfare in so far
as that welfare may not be promoted by the family and vol-
untary associations.

3 The Development of Political Theory

,

translated by Bernard Freyd.
New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 1938.

8



This does not mean that the State in its functions is
limited, as the laissez-faire individualists of the past century
and many capitalists of today would have us believe. The
Catholic theory of the sphere of State action is not individu-
alistic. The theory that in their economic life men are free to
do what they wish with their own, free of social and political
control, does not come to us from Catholic sources. The
nineteenth century idea of the State as a policeman that
preserves order within the nation and enforces respect without,
has had many stout defenders going back to the time of John
Locke and Adam Smith. The extreme interpretations of the
theory came with Herbert Spencer and the anarchists. Spencer
held that all positive functions of the State should be ruled
out. If people died from starvation, if men ruined the better
part of their lives in factories, if disease and contagion took
the lives of thousands, it was no concern of the State. At-
tempting to apply Darwin's biological concepts to the political
order, Spencer believed that State intervention preserved the
weak in society, who if left to themselvs would die off. As
in the animal world of the jungle so in political society the
fittest would survive if government did not intervene to
arrest the process.

While Spencer would have preserved the State and some
of its functions, the anarchists started with the principle that
the State and its government are evil and had their origin in
the attempt of the strong to enslave the weak. They would,
therefore, abolish the organized State and “free" man from the
evil of force which, maintained by political society, degraded
man and made criminals of many.

Many conservatives of our own day would deny relation-
ship to the anarchists, but in theory they often hold that the
State is an evil, and government functions should be reduced
to an absolute minimum. They would make exception for
that type of government action which promoted industries by
tariffs and subsidies. The current idea that government is
always inefficient and corrupt most frequently arises from this
group, who are generally blind to the inefficiency and cor-
ruption often found in private industry. A candid examina-
tion would quite likely show as much efficiency and honesty
in government administration as one finds in the business
world.

9



The Aim of Government Action

The Catholic point of view is that of positive government

action to promote the common good. If a positive human

need exists and there is no adequate manner of handling it

except through governmental action, then it is the positive

duty of government to adopt such means suitable to the situa-

tion as will preserve life and human dignity even if through

that action people of means are called upon to sacrifice some

of their comforts and luxuries. The aim of State action, it

should be remembered, is the common good, the good of all,

and in the attainment of that good it may be necessary

for the government to adopt such legislation as will raise

the standards of living of those classes and peoples who live

precarious existences in the economic sense. If in so balanc-

ing the scales, the government makes necessary the bearing of

heavier burdens of taxation by the well-to-do, there can be

no just opposition from the latter. It is not only the func-

tion of the State by its protective activities to make life pos-

sible, but having made life possible it becomes its function

to make life good. If it improves housing conditions of the

poor and in so doing removes crime-breeding slums, if it re-

moves that horrible specter of dependent old age, if it pro-

vides wholesome recreation through the maintenance of parks

and playgrounds, if it provides opportunities for cultural ad-

vancement through public concerts and instruction in the arts,

if it performs these functions and divers others, it will have

to call for funds from those in society who live in economic

security; but in so doing it is not denying the good life to

the latter class. The tendency always is to resent and resist

taxation.

People very often believe that money contributed to the

public treasury is money thrown in the wastebasket. What

we have become accustomed to, we do not appreciate. Police,

fire, health protection, public education, highways,
public

parks, water supply and hundreds of other services, the citizen

receives for his public contribution. If he is a person earning

thirty-six hundred dollars a year and to all units of govern-

ment pays in taxes about sixty dollars, he will often complain

of the “terrific burden” of taxation. Yet the overpayment

he makes for other services he regards as nothing at all. He

will pay in one year eighty dollars for two commodities such

to



as gas and electricity to a private company, and he raises but
a feeble cry against such charges. It behooves the citizen

to reflect more often on his duties and obligations to his com-
munity, on the services he receives from his government, and
in all charity to remember that extraordinary exactions in
times of stress are imposed for the benefit of people whose
very lives are dependent upon excess contributions by those
who live in relative economic security.

In the present order of society, many functions are per-
formed by the State and its subdivisions which ideally should
be performed by non-profit-making voluntary associations.
In the United States, however, more functions are performed
by local subdivisions such as states, counties and cities than
in any other country in the world. We hear a great deal about
the overpowering accumulation of activities of the government
at Washington, but it should be remembered that nowhere
else in the world does one find such powerful local units as

our states and cities. While the power of the central gov-
ernment has increased, so has the power of the states and
cities, as the people have called for more government services.
No cities anywhere have the local autonomy of the American
cities; no states in any other federal system have the sphere
of free action which the American states enjoy. When all
is said, and done, we have in this country a geographical and
functional decentralization which is amazing, considering the
world-wide trend towards centralized governmental control

of the last hundred years.

II. ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT
The Corporative or Guild Order

When society is organized in functional groups such as
professional and trade associations, each enjoying a measure
of autonomy, and co-operating with the State in promoting
the general welfare, a different kind of local self-government
exists. Such an order is often given the name of economic
federalism, or to use the term which has been applied to the
system advocated in the papal encyclicals, the corporate order,
or the system of autonomous occupational groups, or the guild
order. Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno sets out the
principles of such an order, wisely omitting those details which

11



must vary from time to time and place to place. In the
United States the adoption of the ill-fated N. R. A. brought
us close to the system, the one outstanding weakness of the
N. R. A., however, being its emphasis on employer control of
industry as distinguished from the joint method of employer-
employee supervision which one should expect in a true guild
system. Under the guild or corporate order, control of eco-
nomic life would be decentralized to the extent of each indus-
try’s laying down the rules and regulations for its operation,
subject always to a supervisory power of co-ordination by the
State among corporations. Such a system would also envisage
existence of many voluntary associations for cultural inter-
ests and mutual benefit. Carried a step beyond the encyclicals
it would be possible to think of the system as providing for
a guild parliament which, associated with the customary kind
of legislative body on a co-ordinate or co-operative basis,
would provide the general laws of the State.

Within each association or “corporation” a large measure
of self-government would prevail. Economic democracy within
the corporation would exist side by side with political de-
mocracy such as we enjoy in this country today. However,
the corporate order does contemplate a citizenry able to bear
the burdens which a democratic order presupposes. Initiative,
self-control, and respect for law would be essential. The im-
portance for this order of a citizenry trained in democratic
methods, is illustrated by the corporate experiment in Austria
under Dolfuss. In that State while many of the features of
the system of autonomous occupational groups were adopted,
new organizations were created by the government in which
the citizens in charge, untrained in democratic operations,
spent days on end debating the most trivial matters such as
the names of the corporation or the official titles of its officers.
So lacking in background, in methods of self-government, were
the Austrian people that little enthusiasm existed for the guild
order.

Practical experience for both employees and employers in
this type of guild order is already provided in the labor unions

and employers’ associations now existing. True enough, the
experience in some cases resembles the worst features of
democratic political practice with boss control, “fixed” elec-

tions, ballot-box stuffing, and the other practices of corrupt
politics which exists here and there in America. Indeed these

12



organizations often give us cross section views of regrettable

but effective machine operation. Yet these practices are not
so universal as to condemn the organizations nor the effec-
tiveness of the educative value in democratic procedure which
they give. Upon the existing system of employee and em-
ployer organizations the corporate order may be built.

Of the corporate order Pope Pius XI in his encyclical,
Quadragesimo Anno

,

says: “When we speak of the reform of
institutions, it is principally the State we have in mind. Not
indeed as if universal salvation were to be hoped for from
its intervention, but because, on account of the vice of ‘indi-
vidualism,’ as we have called it, things have come to such a
pass that the extensive social life which was at one time
evolved through a variety of organically linked institutions is

now shattered and almost extinct and there remain almost
only individual men on the one hand and the State on the
other, to the great detriment of this very State itself. The
State has lost its form of social organization, and has taken
on all the burdens once performed by the associations now
extinct, and is overwhelmed and oppressed by an almost in-
finite number of charges and duties.” Continuing he says:
“the State should leave to the smaller groups the settlement

of affairs and of cases of minor importance, on which the civil
authority would otherwise use up too much effort. It will
thus be able to carry out with greater freedom, power, and
success all those tasks which belong to it alone because it
alone can accomplish them, directing, watching, stimulating

and restraining, as circumstances indicate or necessity de-
mands.” 4

In the corporate order which His Holiness had in mind,
the idea of genuine economic democracy with labor holding
the position of partner with capital stands out significantly.

In our present order of society this is a difficult idea for owners

of industry to accept. While leaders of industry willingly
accept the notion of political democracy, which some among
them feel they can control for their own ends, they regard the
partnership of labor in industry as a radical innovation de-

priving them of their power over what they regard as their
own domain, which is theirs by way of conquest. Their atti-
tude is understandable in a world which looks upon the eco-

4 Quotations from the Catholic Social Guild edition, Oxford, Eng-
land, pp. 30, 31.

13



nomic autocracy of capitalism as being responsible in large
measure for our great material advance. Catholic employers
of labor, with a few exceptions, seem no more kindly disposed
to the partnership of labor in industry than non-Catholic
employers. Various paternalistic schemes of partnership

—

some adopted to promote company unions—have been in-
dorsed by employers, but to grant labor a genuinely free and
independent voice in industry is not accepted by most of the
employers, Catholic or non-Catholic, in this land.

To deprive employees of this much control is to deprive
them of a voice in the regulation of many conditions affecting
their lives. Men spend at least eight hours of every day in
pursuit of a living for themselves or their families. Yet over
the conditions affecting those eight hours of work they have
little effective control or voice. It is true that through relent-

less and only partially successful warfare, labor has obtained
recognition for its organizations. These organizations are
generally successful in defending labor's rights, but efforts to

undermine the hard-won gains of the unions go on ceaselessly.
The struggle of labor unions to secure some share in forming
the rules affecting workers in industry today is not unlike the

struggle that was bitterly waged for centuries by the middle
and lower classes for suffrage. In other words, we are working
out through bitter strife a satisfactory solution of labor's

servile position in industry today . 5

Pope Pius XI made an appeal to Christian conscience to
acknowledge the genuine partnership of workers and owners;
and while all speak in high terms of his noble appeal, not
enough effort is made to put the Christian ideal into practice.
There never can be a thoroughly successful political democracy
functioning side by side with a powerful economic autocracy.
Those who control economic power may frustrate all political
efforts. We have had many evidences of this in the operations
of our own political system. The tremendous pressure on
government exercised in times past by the representatives of

5 That labor’s position in industry is changing and that labor has
evolved a philosophy of co-operation is evinced in many ways, e. g.,
the A. F. of L. program Industry's Manifest Duty, issued in 1923

;
the

system obtaining in most of the railroads which involves (a) acceptance
of collective bargaining; (b) joint meetings of committees of em-
ployers’ associations and of unions to work out and support legislation
affecting labor; (c) a committee to work out plans for the good of the
whole industry.—Editor.

14



great wealth, form part of the more distressing side of our

national history.

This is not to deny that labor has made great strides.
Never before has labor’s position been more favorable (espe-

cially in its relations with a national administration) than at

the present time. Nor have labor leaders ever shown a greater
interest in the unskilled groups who in the past have been
shamefully neglected by government and organized labor

alike. Of the position of labor in the twenties Louis M.
Hacker says

:

“The gains of the working class—in higher wages, lower
hours, better working conditions—were, as has been said, gen-
erally confined to the so-called aristocrats of labor, that is to

say, the well-organized skilled craft workers. There was an

outstanding reason for this: the upper levels of the workers

also profited from the creation of expanding opportunities for

capitalist enterprise outside of the boundaries of the United

States. From the nineteen-hundreds on and notably with
the outbreak of the World War, America had become an
imperialist nation as, more and more, our exports began to

consist of manufactured goods and investable capital. Skilled

workers were in a superior bargaining position and with the

tacit consent of employers they were able to create virtual

job monopolies as a result of which they could obtain real

concessions. This, of course, was a condition that could exist

only during a period of growing foreign trade; and such was

the case, with only minor and temporary setbacks, from 1915

to the end of the twenties.

“It was no accident, therefore, that the years in question

were years of waning trade-union militancy. Class collabora-

tion was the keynote of traditional trade unionism; and the

unskilled were compelled to fend for themselves. One finds,
therefore, that whereas membership in American trade unions

grew fairly steadily until the end of the World War, it began

thenceforth to decline. Industrial disputes also decreased in

numbers and duration. In 1897, there had been 447,000

American trade unionists; in 1900, 868,500; by 1914, 2,716,

900; and in 1920—the all-time peak until 1937—5,110,800.
By 1922, the trade unions had lost a million members; and
in 1929 the total membership was 4,330,000.” 6

6 American Problems of Today, Louis M. Hacker. F. S. Crofts &
Company, New York, 1938.

15



The neglect of the unskilled, especially the Negroes, threw
wide open the door to radical agitators from the I. W. W. and
Communist groups. In suppressing these left-wing agents and
their movements the conservative labor leaders were no less
active than the conservative capitalist employers. Yet very
little of a constructive nature was done by the aristocracy of
labor to relieve conditions among the unskilled labor prole-
tariat. The recognition in part of this problem by the C. I. O.
resulted in a phenomenal growth of this representative of
industrial unionism. From the legislative point of view a
series of acts both state and federal beginning with the
Norris-LaGuardia Act of 193 2,

7 and running through the
N. R. A., the Guffey Act, the Social Security Act, and the
Wagner Act, a protection was given to labor such as it has
never before enjoyed—and this has been true despite occa-
sional serious setbacks administered by the Supreme Court
relying upon peculiarly rigid interpretations of the federal
taxing and commerce powers.8 However, during the present
year (1939) a wave of reaction appears to have set in through-
out the country with the demands for revision of the Wagner
Act and with the passage by many legislatures of drastic
limitations upon strikers and labor unions. The sad part
about this reaction is the aid which agricultural leaders are
very often giving to conservative business groups in the pas-
sage of this legislation. It is, nevertheless, safe to say that

labor will not revert either in its own outlook or in the law
to its unsatisfactory position before the thirties.

The Totalitarian "Corporate State"

It is charged in some circles today that the corporate or
guild order is one and the same as the Fascist State or the
National Socialist State. As evidence it is pointed out that
totalitarian States either adopt corporativeness as part of

7 An act forbidding the use against labor in strikes of that peculiar
American legal device, the injunction. Injunctions under this act might
not be issued by the federal courts (1) when workers ceased or refused
to perform work; (2) on a worker becoming a member of a trade
union; (3) upon the payment of strike or unemployment benefits to
strikers; (4) the giving of publicity to a strike; (5) peaceable assembly.

8 Among the most drastic critics of the decisions of the Supreme
Court from 1933 through 1935 were such eminent authorities on con-
stitutional law as Thomas Reed Powell of Harvard, and Edward S.
Corwin of Princeton.

16



their system, or at least talk of adopting it. Mussolini

preaches a modified corporate order and, say some people, he
has adopted the idea in Italy. So in other Fascist and semi-
Fascist systems, a corporate State is adopted as the ideal.

Let us see what Pope Pius XI had to say about existing
(totalitarian) corporate systems. This “new syndical and
corporative order/’ he says in Quadragesima Anno

,

“possesses

too great an administrative and political complexity and . . .
it serves particular political aims (the italics are my own)
rather than leading to the launching and promoting of a
better social order.” In other words, one may suspect that
it serves a useful purpose in Mussolini’s program to adopt
in his own day something like a Catholic recommenda-
tion for reforms of the social and civil order, in a country
largely Catholic.

In totalitarian systems as a whole the dictatorial idea

of the corporate and guild order is almost the reverse of
Pope Pius’ recommendations. In the case of Italy it should
be remembered that Mussolini was at one time a revolu-
tionary syndicalist. The syndicalists, following the prin-
ciples of the French political theorist, Georges Sorel, be-

lieved that the political order (the State) was an evil that
should be abolished. In this they were at one with the an-

archists. With the State abolished, men should be organized
in wholly autonomous associations according to their economic
interests. In these associations men would have all the gov-
ernment which was needed, and except for a general congress
of economic groups there would be no centralized govern-
mental authority. These associations would own the natural
resources necessary for turning out the commodities in which

they were interested. Political parties and politics in the
generally accepted sense of the term would not exist. These
people evidently forgot that struggles for power within their
economic associations would furnish a brand of politics dif-
fering in no degree of intensity from politics in the ordinary
State. Some of these groups believed that the syndicalist
order which they envisaged would come about by a break-
down in modern top-heavy States; most, however (and Mus-
solini was one), believed that the syndicalist order could only
be brought about by violent revolution. The chief weapon
that the syndicalists relied upon was the general strike and
sabotage. Two lessons Mussolini learned from this group

17



which came to hand in later days were: the use of violence and

the federated or corporative idea of society. He used both
to accomplish his ends.

It is very important, however, that one should grasp the

difference between the corporate order as effective in totali-

tarian States and the corporate order of Pope Pius’ encyclical.

In the Catholic theory a deflation of State activities and

functions is contemplated. In the totalitarian version, the

State is supreme in all ways of life—spiritual and temporal.
Such economic groups as exist in Germany or Italy are cen-

trally controlled by the State. Their officials are to all intents

and purposes named by the State. They are simply arms of

the central power, and true autonomy for them does not exist.

The corporations, as used by Mussolini, are instruments of

extending State control over workers and employers alike,

but particularly over workers. He could not even tolerate,
in his new Italy, the Catholic Popular Party which would

have brought about in time an order of free, voluntary eco-

nomic associations resulting in genuine economic democracy.

It is well-nigh impossible to conceive of the Catholic economic

federalism in the regimented order of the totalitarian State.

It would seem that only in a State where the natural rights of

man and most of the civil and political rights which we rec-

ognize in this country are accepted and guaranteed, will the

corporative order possess the best chances for success and

perpetuation.

A Guild Order for the United States

Government Units

In the United States what elements already exist and what

institutions should be encouraged to aid us in at least approxi-

mating the corporative order? The decentralization of power

effected in this country by our federal system should be pre-

served as a principle of action. However, it should be remem-

bered that politics is a practical philosophy wherein the

pragmatic test of workableness must be constantly used. Cer-

tain political war cries, such as “States’ rights,” only tend to

hinder us from arriving at solutions beneficial to the common

good. In our day and age there are certain problems of social

and economic life that can only be worked out satisfactorily

18



on a national scale. Every grant of power to the national
government is not in se contrary to the public good. Means
of communication by travel or otherwise can be effectively
regulated satisfactorily in the United States only on a nation-
wide scale. The same holds true of many other matters now
before us. The sole question to be asked in any case of exten-
sion of federal powers is: “Is this the most effective means of
control for the general good?” In our own day and for
generations to come, our local governments will retain enough
power to make of them strong and virile units of control.

Co-operatives

Besides the federal plan of government now in operation,
various schemes of consumer and producer co-operation are
now in operation or are about to be put in operation. While
in this country we have not gone as far in the operation of
co-operatives as the peoples of certain European states have
gone, co-operatives deserve serious consideration from Catho-
lics. Credit unions, hospitalization and medical-care groups
are * all institutions that should be encouraged by Catholic
citizens. Very often State, local, or federal governments may
give a helping hand to such organizations by supplying plans
and directions and even by the use of limited funds for initially
aiding them. In the United States it is often said that our
men and women are great “joiners.” They take to association
with their fellows for any kind of enterprise. This is not to
be deplored. Upon it we may build a federated society such
as is found nowhere else in the world.

Labor-Capital Co-operation

More difficult of attainment will be the education of all
people in this country to a realization of the importance and
necessity of the trade union as an integral part of our indus-
trial system. At the present time the union is an army or-
ganized for battle against the entrenched forces of Bourbon
Capitalism. It is a force that often spends valuable time
on the sole item of the wage scale to the neglect of building
up a constructive labor philosophy. Its members are not
generally recognized as partners in industry, and many an
otherwise well-disposed employer would oppose to the death

19



such partnership after one or two encounters with bullying

labor bosses and labor racketeers. Unfortunately in this
country, labor has to set its own house in order by terminat-
ing its senseless civil war, cleaning out the racketeers

9 and
adopting a program of ultimate aims, chief of which will be
to establish the dignity of labor in a society where everyone

now expects to be a carefree capitalist . 10

There are people in this country today who would con-
demn the whole labor movement due to the activities of un-
worthy representatives of a good cause. The unfairness of
such a point of view should be obvious. Efforts have been

made and continue to be made with no little success to purge
labor’s ranks of bosses and labor racketeers. These efforts

have not received the publicity which they deserve. On the
contrary, employers’ associations, crime commissions and the

like, tend to give more publicity to the things that remain

undone in the reform of labor unions. Great emphasis will

be laid upon unethical practices in, let us say, the Building

Trades Group, wherein reform has moved slowly. These
things should indeed receive publicity. But one cannot escape

the conclusion that the underlying motive in all this publicity

is far too often the discrediting of the whole labor movement.

Business has too many skeletons in its own closet to take
such an attitude.

Needless to say, hoping for a better understanding between

labor and capital and the ultimate partnership of labor with

capital in industry is insufficient. Some legislative action

will be necessary to bring this about. That legislation will

normally have to follow in general the lines laid down for the

late N. R. A. With the principle of the Jones, Laughlin Steel

Case before us, which in effect states that the national govern-

ment may regulate conditions of labor in firms that draw raw
material from outside of the State and export finished prod-

ucts across State lines, it is probably safe to say that a new

N. R, A. including the larger industries and those holding

government contracts would be regarded as constitutional,

under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Care would

have to be taken that industrial codes received Congressional

9 See Denis T. Lynch, Criminals and Politicians, Macmillan, New
York, 1932.

10 For a program of aims emphasizing labor’s dignity see Industry's

Manifest Duty, American Federation of Labor, Washington, 1923.

20



approval, inasmuch as administrative approval seems to be
blocked by the Supreme Court decision in the N. R. A. case.
The Legislature may not evidently delegate the power to
approve and draw up codes to the executive authority. Great-
est attention of all will have to be given to the role of labor
in both the drawing up and the approval of the codes.

One lesson learned from our first experience with this type
of industrial set-up, was that we were too ambitious and too
much was attempted. As a result we were caught up in a
whirl of dizzy activity in which reasonable direction seemed
out of the question. In addition the multiple rules and regu-
lations and consequent red tape tried the patience of the
best disposed employers and government officials. In time
the tangled skein would have been unraveled, but we are an
impatient people when it comes to getting things done. The
action of the Supreme Court in declaring the N. R. A. uncon-
stitutional brought an end to the necessity of waiting. Never-
theless, such a system as the N. R. A. would provide the
necessary education in co-operation for both employers and
workers. The realization in time would come to both that
they have common ends and common responsibilities. On
a smaller scale state and local N. R. A.’s might be provided
for small industries.

Agriculture

Interesting developments in the field of self-government in
agriculture may ensue from the practice established in the
1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act where a marketing quota
for tobacco, corn, wheat, cotton and rice may be fixed upon
approval in a referendum of two-thirds of the producers in
any one of these commodities.

III. THE CITIZEN AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
Political Duties

In democratic theory the importance of the individual
citizen is always stressed; in democratic action the individual
citizen bears the grave responsibilities attendant upon the choice
of officials and public policies. In no other form of govern-
ment does the citizen bear such a burden. To participate

21



effectively in the democratic process he must be alert to public

needs; he must inform himself as best he can on public affairs;

he must use the suffrage given him when the State, through its
election process, provides the means for his doing so. The
success of the democratic system largely depends upon all

citizens carefully and honestly exercising the voting privilege.

It is neither wise nor patriotic for the citizen to neglect his

political privileges—privileges which generations have fought
for and for which men have given their lives. What would
be the consternaton among vote-slackers if they were sud-
denly informed they had lost the privilege of participation in

elections

!

r

Politics and Public Servants

The democratic process is carried on by means of the
peaceful struggle among political parties for control of the
government offices. Our party process is a peaceful substitu-

tion for the violent means that was formerly and is even now
used in certain parts of the world. The purpose of a political
party is the seizure of the main offices of government for the

purpose of carrying out a definite program. Yet to many
high-minded people anything savoring of the political is low,

disgusting, and dishonest. Some citizens nonchalantly pro-
claim, “Oh, I never engaged in politics!” Since politics is

the process of forming policy, such people have made the
damaging admission that they are totally negligent in their

public duties and not a little ignorant of what they are saying.

In any group where intelligent human beings come together
for the purpose of organization there is politics.

Politics is not peculiar to government. It happens to be

the dynamic force behind government, but it is found also

elsewhere. In our great business organizations, for instance,

the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Man-
ufacturers Association; in our trade unions; in our profes-

sional groups such as the American Medical Association and

the Bar Association; in the D. A. R.; in the American Legion;

in the Parent-Teacher groups; in our schools, colleges, and

churches there is politics. In fact, wherever two or three are

gathered together, different opinions as to the proper course

of action are bound to arise, and the struggle to bring about

the acceptance of one course as against another is politics-

22



nothing more. Many people who boast of the fact that they
shun their public duties by never participating in politics
would make an ordinary ward politician turn green with envy
if he could but observe their political prowess in business
activities. One might very reasonably raise the question
whether there breathes a soul so dead that he never has
participated in politics.

There exists a feeling among many good people that poli-
tics in the public sense is a dirty game. There are those who
believe that politics in this reprehensible sense pervades all

of government . 11 As a matter of sober fact, partisan politics
(Republican versus Democratic) plays a comparatively small

role in the day to day operation of government. (The larger
part of the legislation passed in Congress and in the state
legislatures is not passed on party lines.)

The routine operation of governmental administration in
city, state and nation goes on quite undisturbed by party
warfare. Most of the people connected with government
serve for many years very faithfully and with low compensa-
tion, with little or no consideration of party battles. One
might grow rhapsodic in praise of the public servant, whose
number is legion, whose name never appears in the daily press
because no suspicion of scandal surrounds him. While no
statistics exist to substantiate this fact, many and good au-
thorities hold that there is less dishonesty and inefficiency in
government administration than in business at large. Social
scientists whose life-long studies have brought them constantly
into contact with public administration have felt that the
public at large has little appreciation of the excellence of

the public service. We are constantly made aware of gov-
ernmental inadequacies because the full spotlight of publicity

penetrates the remotest corners of our governmental halls.

Political campaigns keep before us the shortcomings of our

public officials to such an extent that in our urban centers

particularly, the ordinary voter goes to the polls with the

cynical reflection that one group of gangsters is going out

and a new group of the same genus but of different species is
coming in. All due allowance must be made for the exaggera-
tions of election campaigns. Serving as popular checks upon

11 For an interesting article against the party system of today see
“Parties and the Common Good,” by Mortimer J. Adler, Review of
Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-83, January, 1939.

23

/



public officials, elections are full of drama and fiction with
all the necessary villains and heroes thrown in. Yet, taking
all things together the American public has shown that it not
only knows the game, but that in the long run it knows how
to get what it wants.

Political and Economic Corruption

Looking back over American political history one sees
many stirring battles in which the forces of progress, honesty
and wisdom have gone down to temporary defeat, but the
victory of the forces of reaction and corruption has been
short-lived. The period of the 1870’s and 1880’s reeked with
charges of corruption, real and fancied, but for the most part,
real. In 1888 the British commentator on American institu-
tions, Lord Bryce, wrote that democracy in American cities
was a conspicuous failure. The states and the national gov-
ernments provided scandals that reached into executive offices
and legislative halls. The extent of the spoils system may be
judged from the fact that in one department of the national
government bunks had to be provided for the scores of extra
and useless people appointed so that they would not get in
the way of the regular employees who were working. Wealthy
barons of industry bought legislators, governors and mayors.
Political bosses stuffed ballot boxes and in addition paid lib-
erally for votes that voters thought little of selling. Boss
Tweed could dare those who would expose him and with a
shrug of the shoulders declare: “Well, what are you going
to do about it?”

Let it not be thought, however, that this corruption in-

fested public life only. This was the period of the great
industrial expansion, when in the economic field success re-
warded the efforts of the unscrupulous. • Corruption existed
in government, but it also characterized to an even greater
degree the activities of the leaders of business. Men played
for high stakes no matter in what field they played. The
efforts of reformers in those days apparently yielded few or

no lasting results, as the late Lincoln Steffens shows in his
Autobiography

;
but it is to the everlasting credit of American

democracy that this dismal picture has changed. The cease-
less struggle for reform put forward by such men as Cleve-
land, Theodore Roosevelt, Golden Rule Jones, Tom Johnson,

24



Brand Whitlock, Carl Schurz and many others brought
definite results. Considering the vast operations of govern-

ment today carried on by ordinary individuals with all the

human weaknesses, moral and intellectual, that plague the
human race, it is amazing that corruption and inefficiency
exist on the small scale that it does in these United States.

The loud protest that greets any hint of public scandal in
itself proves not only the rarity of malfeasance, but the

wholesome resentment of the great mass of Americans toward

the public defaulter and corruptionist.

All this is said not to deny or excuse the corruption that

exists. There is still enough of it in our cities and counties.

At least we know it. The Nazi leaders surrounding Hitler
have accumulated sufficient wealth to keep themselves and

their descendants in luxury and comfort; the German people
may know this, but what can they do about it? In other
words, we not only have the means of knowing officials who
profit illicitly from public office, but we can and very often
do take a just vengeance upon them. If, however, democracy
in this land is ever overthrown during the present and im-

mediate future generations, it will not be because of the

preachings of visionary radicals, but largely because of the

machinations of unfaithful public servants who think more
of their own enrichment than they do of the public welfare.
A political order rotten from within is easily overthrown in
a crisis. And corruption in public life has a way of creating
among citizens, particularly of the younger generation, a
cynical attitude towards public life which results in the dis-

astrous shirking of public responsibility. The Roman Empire
is used too often perhaps as a horrible example of everything

a person wishes to decry, but it is interesting to note how the
cities of the early Empire, having still a remnant of Greek
democracy, lost all self-government by reason of the political
bosses of the day having bought off the citizens from taking
any effective part in public life.

The most ominous signs which we possess today are the
existence of city machines that live on the profit gathered

from the underworld of prostitution, vice, and gambling, or
on the more “refined” sources of income from the sale of
privileges to large corporations, the blackmailing of business,

especially the utilities (This latter is generally done by intro-
ducing an ordinance “in the interest of public safety” that

25



would lay a great burden in taxes or regulation upon the
utility If the people who run the utility see the proper
person in the political organization and come to terms the
ordinance is killed in committee of the council.), and of letting
city contracts to favorite bidders, of fixing real estate assess-
ments for a consideration, of assessing office-holders, and of
buying land for the purpose of selling it later to the city at
a huge personal profit. Such organizations are led by astute
and unscrupulous leaders, occasionally demagogues, that buy
off church and business leaders with large gifts to charity and
adornment of the city with public buildings. It is true, how-
ever, that the rise of the W. P. A., the P. W. A., and the
organized charities has diminished to some extent the impor-
tance of gifts from questionable public figures.

When one thinks of such situations, one’s mind runs back
to the great St. Ambrose of Milan with his public condemna-
tion of the Roman Emperor himself. What would St. Ambrose
have said about the depredations of predatory politicians who
use the Church and their Faith to shield their crimes? The
Catholic citizen, or any citizen, should know that the con-
scious approval of corrupt politicians and machines constitutes
a grave crime against the State and, under the moral law, a
serious sin. It is all the more serious in that the political
malefactor poses as an outstanding patriot; wrapped in the
American flag he inveighs against the Communist and all sub-
versive forces, while he himself does more to undermine the
foundations of the established political order than any left-
wing leader in the country.

Civic Groups and Political Organizations

To offset the activity of corrupt politicians every patriotic
citizen should be aligned with some group or some activity
that makes for the improvement of public morals and efficient
public administration. One does not have to be a reformer
in the odious sense of that term. Nor does one have to align
himself with those organizations, well-meaning and honest
though they be, that are ever engaged in crusades and man-
hunts to find who are less American than they are. Granted
that one can have a lot of fun in a very serious way by working
with the aforementioned societies, yet the records will gen-
erally show that such societies are generally engaged in spread-

26



ing hatred, in catching the wrong man, and in doing the wrong

thing in the wrong way at every turn. Organizations formed
for the improvement of civil service, clean elections, beneficial

social legislation and the like indulge in little drama and

flag-waving, but in a quiet way are responsible for untold
benefits to our democratic order. Volumes might be written

on the role of these civic groups in the democratic order. It

is sufficient to say that in the United States they have given

us a long honor roll of self-sacrificing heroes whose deeds are

known but whose names are completely forgotten. They have
labored in our cities, in our states, and at the nation’s capital

with patriotic devotion and without hope for any reward. They
are the hope of those who believe in good government through
this democratic process.

Previously, I said that politics is necessary for the opera-

tion of the democratic order. Or, to put it in another way,

political parties are necessary. The popular myth about po-
litical parties is that they are run by a group of selfish and
cunning professionals who gain fortunes at the expense of the
poor defenseless taxpayer. We have never had in this country
a real national political boss because of the decentralized

nature of our system of government. Few of those who have
come near to that high standing have been wealthy men in
the popularly accepted meaning of that term. If one goes

down the list of outstanding national political leaders, such
as Marcy, Hanna, Platt, Penrose, Barnes, Roger Sullivan,

Farley, one cannot distinguish one wealthy man amongst
them. The same holds true of the greater number of our local
leaders. As a matter of fact many of these political leaders
have died poor men. Compared to our tycoons of industry,
our political leaders are engaged in a thankless and profitless

occupation as self-sacrificing angels.

Why do men devote time and effort to political organiza-
tions? It is true that for many of them it is a means of
livelihood, but to the greater number it is the game itself

that attracts. Some people are so constituted that they can
sniff the smoke of party battle from afar and cannot resist

entering the fray. Party politics has a fascination that attracts

thousands who have not the slightest thought of personal
reward. During an ordinary presidential election almost three

million citizens are engaged in some manner of party work;

with the exception of a very small group of office workers no

27



compensation comes to these workers. Some are motivated
by the thought of future jobs in the government service. By
far the larger number picture themselves engaged in a crucial
battle for the right and are idealistic in their motives. Post-
master General Farley, the Chairman of the Democratic Na-
tional Committee and one of the greatest political leaders the
country has ever seen, says in his recent book, Behind the
Ballots'. “But those people who are inclined to imagine that
patronage, and patronage alone, is the only thing that keeps
a political party knit together are off on a tangent that is
about as far wrong as anything humanly could be. I am con-
vinced that with the help of a few simple ingredients like
time, patience, and hard work, I could construct a major
political party in the United States without the aid of a single
job to hand out to deserving partisans. In fact, untold thou-
sands of loyal soldiers in the Democratic army have been
toiling for years without receiving tangible reward for their
services and without asking for any such reward” [page 237 ].

In another place he says: “Moreover, I am perfectly con-
scious of the fact that when political organizations begin
thinking about jobs and nothing else, when they forget that
the public business should come first, they have commenced
their own death chant without realizing it” [page 237 ],

IV. CATHOLICS IN OUR DEMOCRACY

For the most part Catholics have fared well in modern
times in democratic States in the great number of which they
have also been minority groups. They have carried on their
religious activities free of hampering government restrictions.
Their numbers have increased and they have shown a vitality
born of independence that has not always had the respect
of all classes and have been a force to be reckoned with in
secular and religious affairs alike. In the democratic State the
Catholic viewpoint meets not only with tolerance but with
the full protection of the law. While much is tolerated that
Catholics cannot accept, Catholics realize that they do not
live in a Catholic State and that the peace, good order, and
good will of the community requires that the point of view
of no one religious group can be imposed upon the people.

28



While error may be asserted, truth may also be asserted to
combat it. Following the law of charity and the spirit of
democracy as well, we Catholics live in harmony with those
who disagree with us. Democracy, incorporating as it does in
the philosophy that underlies it so much of genuine Catholic
truth (it is understood, however, that there is strictly speak-

ing no such thing as a Catholic form of government), particu-

larly in its respect for the dignity of man and his natural
rights, deserves the whole-hearted devotion, allegiance, and
gratitude of Catholics everywhere living under its inestimable

benefits. Their association with any group with totalitarian

aims is little short of suicidal. In the words of the great Italian

priest, Father Sturzo, now in exile in England because of
Italian totalitarianism: “Nor can he (i.e., the Catholic), in
my modest opinion, associate himself with parties that seek
to establish dictatorial forms of government and to suppress

civil and political liberties. For thus he would co-operate

in making the State the master of bodies and souls, persons
and things, in the public and private domain, and in creating

a permanent discrimination between the dominant party and

those subject to it.”
12

In an article a short time ago I wrote of democracy: “It

is the sole form of government today where the sanctity of

the individual, the responsibility of the individual, and the

freedom of the individual is recognized and respected. Men
under the democratic form may be free to become great sinners,
but they are also free to become great saints. Men are free
to abuse the liberty given them as men abuse the free will
that God has given them, but without that freedom men
do not attain to that fully developed temporal or spiritual

maturity—responsible citizens of the State, and responsible
sons of the Church. Only in the democratic States today is

the thoroughly Catholic doctrine of natural rights recognized

in theory and in practice. Only in the democratic States

does man still possess a sphere of action free of governmental
control and interference. Surely in this, our day, Catholic

preference for democracy should be widely known—for that
12 Don Luigi Sturzo was founder of the Popular Party in Italy, a

party founded on Catholic principles. In the short time of its exis-

tence after the War until the coming of Mussolini, it grew to be the
second largest party in Italy and, no doubt, would have come into
control of the government had it not been for the seizure of power
by the Fascists.

29



democracy where our churches and schools flourish, where
our people freely attend the divine services, where our priests
are free to teach the Gospel, where our press suffers no oppres-
sion from governmental censors, where our voices are heard
in the councils of the nation, and where our youth may be
reared in the fear and love of God without bowing down in
idolatry before a mere man who calls himself leader and who
thinks of himself as God.” 13

N. C. W. C. STUDY CLUB OUTLINE

I. Government and Its Aims (pp. 5-8)

1. Why does man live in civil society? In the State?
2. What is the purpose of the State?

3. Why are men endowed with natural rights which cannot be touched
by the State? What are they?

4. What political and civil rights does the State grant in this country?

5. What was the ideal conception of spiritual and temporal power
in the Middle Ages?

6. Describe the “pluralistic” political order of the Middle Ages.

7. What caused the growth of strong centralized units of govern-
ment and what is the trend today?

Suggested paper: Review of “The End of the State” in “The
State and the Church,” by Ryan and Millar. New York: Mac-
millan, 1922.

II. Catholic vs. Recent and Current Theories (pp. 8-11)

1. What place do the family and voluntary organizations hold in
the Catholic theory of the State?

2. Was the nineteenth century idea of the State as a policeman a
Catholic one? Explain the extreme interpretations of this idea
advancd by (a) Spencer, (b) the anarchists.

3. What is the Catholic view as to the aim of government action?

4. In considering taxes what elements concerning the public good
should the citizen bear in mind?

5. Does the State today do too much? How does the United States
compare with other governments?

Suggested paper: Review of “The History of Democratic Theory,”
by Moorhouse F. X. Millar, S.J., in “The State and the Church,”
by Ryan and Millar. New York: Macmillan, 1922.

13 “Public Concerns of an American Catholic,” Social Problems, \ol.
1, No. 7, September, 1938.

30



III. Economic Democracy and Government

The Corporative or Guild Order (pp. 11-16)

1. How would control of economic life be decentralized under the
corporative or guild order advocated by Pope Pius XI?

2. Would a corporative order be possible among persons untrained
in democratic operations?

3. How do the unions and employers’ associations furnish a possible
basis for the guild order?

4. When Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical, “Reconstructing the Social
Order,” says that the State should be reformed what relation to
economic institutions did he have in mind?

5. What is the position of labor in the corporate order? The posi-
tion of labor today?

6. May there be a thoroughly successful political democracy without
economic democracy? Why?

7. What reasons are advanced by Louis Hacker for the recent growth
in trade unionism?

8. How were the unskilled workers benefited by the rise of the
C. I. O.?

9. What recent acts of Congress guarantee protection to the workers?
Suggested paper: “The Guilds” (see Chapter I in “Toward So-

cial Justice,” N. C. W. C., 15c, and “The Sound Old Guilds,” by
Matthew Clancy, The Paulist Press, 5c.).

IV. Economic Democracy and Government (Cont’d.) (pp. 16-21)

1. Why do some people identify the corporative or guild order with
the “Corporative State”? What does the Pope have to say on
this?

2. What are the syndicalist and anarchist ideas of a federated or
corporative society?

3. Contrast the Pope’s idea of a corporate order and that effective in
totalitarian states?

4. Discuss the following as institutions which can help the United
States to attain to the guild order: (a) Units of local government;
(b) Co-operatives; (c) Labor-capital partnership; (d) Agricul-
tural legislation.

5. Why do the following difficulties stand in the way of recognition
of the unions as an integral part of our industrial system? (a)
Racketeering; (b) Civil War.

6. What is frequently the motive in concentrating public attention
on the defects of the labor movement?

7. Is legislative action necessary to bring about the partnership of
capital and labor? What lines should this action take?

8. What was the fundamental defect of the late N. R. A. in this
regard ?

9. What should be the place of labor in this legislation?
Suggested paper: “A New Guild Order.” (See “Organized Social

Justice,” The Paulist Press, 5c, and “New Guilds,” The Paulist
Press, 5c.)

31



V. The Citizen and Good Government (pp. 21-28)

1. What are the duties of the citizen with regard to: (a) public
needs; (b) public affairs; (c) voter’s privilege.

2. How is the political democratic process carried on?
3. What is politics? What is the general record with regard to the

honesty of public servants?

4. Describe (a) political, (b) economic corruption rampant in the
1870’s and 1880’s.

5. What is the danger to democracy from corruption in public life?
6. What are the worst indications of political corruption today?
7. With what sort of groups should citizens align themselves in order

to offset the activities of corrupt politicians?

8. Are political parties dominated by selfish and cunning profes-
sionals ?

Suggested paper: Review of “The Duties of the Citizen” in “The
State and the Church,” by Ryan and Millar. New York: Mac-
millan, 1922.

VI. Catholics in Our Democracy (pp. 28-30)

1. How do Catholics fare in democratic states?
2. In a democracy in which they are a minority, what is the Catholic

point of view toward toleration of what Catholics cannot accept
in principle?

3. What are Father Sturzos’ views as to the morality of a Catholic’s
support of groups which seek to establish totalitarianism?

4. What are some of the advantages to Catholics in a democracy?
Suggested paper: Review of “Catholicism and Americanism,” by

Most Rev. John Ireland, D.D., in “The State and the Church,” by
Ryan and Millar. New York: Macmillan, 1922.

32



SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY CLUBS
ON CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY

1. The study club is not a group to listen to lectures. It
is for informal discussion. It is small—ten or twelve
to twenty or so—so as to permit general discussion.

2. There is a discussion leader.
3. The group may consist of persons of various occupations

and interests or of special groups. A number of small
study groups established within each organization is
desirable.

4. Meetings are once a week or once every two weeks or
once a month.

5. Every member should have at least the text and the
outline.

6. Reference Shelf or Table is helpful.

7. The discussion, as a rule, follows the outline point by
point. The section of the text to be discussed should
be read before the meeting by each member.

8. Use questions at the end of the meeting to recapitulate.
9. Reports or papers called for by the outline should be

brief.

10. Short summary of previous meeting by different mem-
ber each time ensures continuity.

11. Begin meeting and close it on time.
12. The purposes of the group are:

(a) So its members will know the teaching of the
Church on social and political relations.

(b) So they can speak at Catholic meetings.
(c) So they can be leaders in the activity of Catholic

organizations.
(d) So they can apply the teachings in their civic life.
(e) So they can guide the civic and political organiza-

tions to which they belong.
(f) So they will be better Catholics.

(g) So they will be better citizens.

13. If the group is an offshoot or a part of another organi-
zation they should report their conclusions to the par-
ent organization, because one of the chief purposes of
the club or committee is to pass on their information,
point of view and enthusiasm to the Catholics of their
community and to make the club’s work definitely a part
of the parent organization’s work.

For further information and assistance
,
write

:

NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE
Social Action Department

1312 Massachusetts Avenue NW.# Washington, D. C.



Christian Democracy Series
Popular pamphlets on the problems and institu-

tions of American democracy from the viewpoint of
Christian teaching. All contain study outlines.

1. THE CITIZEN, THE CHURCH AND THE
STATE

By Right Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D.

2. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY vs. RACISM,
COMMUNISM

By Right Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D.

3. MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK
By Jerome G. Kerwin, Ph.D.

Titles in Preparation

A PRIMER OF DEMOCRACY

THE CATHOLIC BACKGROUND
OF DEMOCRACY

MORALITY AND PUBLIC OFFICE

CIVIL RIGHTS

MR. PRIVATE CITIZEN

5 cents each, $3.50 the 100, $30.00 the 1,000

( Carriage Extra)

THE PAUL 1ST PRESS
401 West 59th Street New York, N. Y.