ENCYCLICAL LETTER
Laborum
Exercens
On
HUman Work
On the ninetieth
anniversary of Rerum Novarum
His Holiness John Paul II
September 14, 1981
PART II
14. Work and Ownership
The historical process briefly presented here has certainly
gone beyond its initial phase, but it is still taking place
and indeed is spreading in the relationships between nations
and continents. It needs to be specified further from
another point of view. It is obvious that, when we speak of
opposition between labour and capital, we are not dealing
only with abstract concepts or "impersonal forces" operating
in economic production. Behind both concepts there are
people, living, actual people: on the one side are those who
do the work without being the owners of the means of
production, and on the other side those who act as
entrepreneurs and who own these means or represent the
owners. Thus the issue of ownership or property enters from
the beginning into the whole of this difficult historical
process. The Encyclical Rerum Novarum, which has the social
question as its theme, stresses this issue also, recalling
and confirming the Church's teaching on ownership, on the
right to private property even when it is a question of the
means of production. The Encyclical Mater et Magistra did
the same.
The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is
still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the
programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism and put
into pratice in various countries in the decades following
the time of Leo XIII's Encyclical. At the same time it
differs from the programme of capitalism practised 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.
Furthermore, in the Church's teaching, ownership has never
been understood in a way that could constitute grounds for
social conflict in labour. As mentioned above, property is
acquired first of all through work in order that it may
serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the
means of production. Isolating these means as a separate
property in order to set it up in the form of "capital" in
opposition to "labour"-and even to practise exploitation of
labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and
their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,
they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because
the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in
the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or
collective ownership-is that they should serve labour, and
thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the
achievement of the first principle of this order, namely,
the universal destination of goods and the right to common
use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in
consideration of human labour and of common access to the
goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization,
in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In
the course of the decades since the publication of the
Encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Church's teaching has always
recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments
formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the
well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas
Aquinas22.
In the present document, which has human work as its main
theme, it is right to confirm all the effort with which the
Church's teaching has striven and continues to strive always
to ensure the priority of work and, thereby, man's character
as a subject in social life and, especially, in the dynamic
structure of the whole economic process. From this point of
view the position of "rigid" capitalism continues to remain
unacceptable, namely the position that defends the exclusive
right to private ownership of the means of production as an
untouchable "dogma" of economic life. The principle of
respect for work demands that this right should undergo a
constructive revision, both in theory and in practice. If it
is true that capital, as the whole of the means of
production, is at the same time the product of the work of
generations, it is equally true that capital is being
unceasingly created through the work done with the help of
all these means of production, and these means can be seen
as a great workbench at which the present generation of
workers is working day after day. Obviously we are dealing
here with different kinds of work, not only so-called manual
labour but also the many forms of intellectual work,
including white-collar work and management.
In the light of the above, the many proposals put forward by
experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest
Magisterium of the Church take on special significance23:
proposals for joint ownership of the means of work, sharing
by the workers in the management and/or profits of
businesses, so-called shareholding by labour, etc. Whether
these various proposals can or cannot be applied concretely,
it is clear that recognition of the proper position of
labour and the worker in the production process demands
various adaptations in the sphere of the right to ownership
of the means of production. This is so not only in view of
older situations but also, first and foremost, in view of
the whole of the situation and the problems in the second
half of the present century with regard to the so-called
Third World and the various new independent countries that
have arisen, especially in Africa but elsewhere as well, in
place of the colonial territories of the past.
Therefore, while the position of "rigid" capitalism must
undergo continual revision, in order to be reformed from the
point of view of human rights, both human rights in the
widest sense and those linked with man's work, it must be
stated that, from the same point of view, these many deeply
desired reforms cannot be achieved by an a priori
elimination of private ownership of the means of production.
For it must be noted that merely taking these means of
production (capital) out of the hands of their private
owners is not enough to ensure their satisfactory
socialization. They cease to be the property of a certain
social group, namely the private owners, and become the
property of organized society, coming under the
administration and direct control of another group of
people, namely those who, though not owning them, from the
fact of exercising power in society manage them on the level
of the whole national or the local economy.
This group in authority may carry out its task
satisfactorily from the point of view of the priority of
labour; but it may also carry it out badly by claiming for
itself a monopoly of the administration and disposal of the
means of production and not refraining even from offending
basic human rights. Thus, merely converting the means of
production into State property in the collectivist system is
by no means equivalent to "socializing" that property. We
can speak of socializing only when the subject character of
society is ensured, that is to say, when on the basis of his
work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a
part-owner of the great workbench at which he is working
with every one else. A way towards that goal could be found
by associating labour with the ownership of capital, as far
as possible, and by producing a wide range of intermediate
bodies with economic, social and cultural purposes; they
would be bodies enjoying real autonomy with regard to the
public powers, pursuing their specific aims in honest
collaboration with each other and in subordination to the
demands of the common good, and they would be living
communities both in form and in substance, in the sense that
the members of each body would be looked upon and treated as
persons and encouraged to take an active part in the life of
the body24.
15. The "Personalist" Argument
Thus, the principle of the priority of labour over capital
is a postulate of the order of social morality. It has key
importance both in the system built on the principle of
private ownership of the means of production and also in the
system in which private ownership of these means has been
limited even in a radical way. Labour is in a sense
inseparable from capital; in no way does it accept the
antinomy, that is to say, the separation and opposition with
regard to the means of production that has weighed upon
human life in recent centuries as a result of merely
economic premises. When man works, using all the means of
production, he also wishes the fruit of this work to be used
by himself and others, and he wishes to be able to take part
in the very work process as a sharer in responsibility and
creativity at the workbench to which he applies himself.
From this spring certain specific rights of workers,
corresponding to the obligation of work. They will be
discussed later. But here it must be emphasized, in general
terms, that the person who works desires not only due
remuneration for his work; he also wishes that, within the
production process, provision be made for him to be able to
know that in his work, even on something that is owned in
common, he is working "for himself". This awareness is
extinguished within him in a system of excessive
bureaucratic centralization, which makes the worker feel
that he is just a cog in a huge machine moved from above,
that he is for more reasons than one a mere production
instrument rather than a true subject of work with an
initiative of his own. The Church's teaching has always
expressed the strong and deep convinction that man's work
concerns not only the economy but also, and especially,
personal values. The economic system itself and the
production process benefit precisely when these personal
values are fully respected. In the mind of Saint Thomas
Aquinas25, this is the principal reason in favour of private
ownership of the means of production. While we accept that
for certain well founded reasons exceptions can be made to
the principle of private ownership-in our own time we even
see that the system of "socialized ownership" has been
introduced-nevertheless the personalist argument still holds
good both on the level of principles and on the practical
level. If it is to be rational and fruitful, any
socialization of the means of production must take this
argument into consideration. Every effort must be made to
ensure that in this kind of system also the human person can
preserve his awareness of working "for himself". If this is
not done, incalculable damage is inevitably done throughout
the economic process, not only economic damage but first and
foremost damage to man.
IV. RIGHTS OF WORKERS
16. Within the Broad Context of Human Rights
While work, in all its many senses, is an obligation, that
is to say a duty, it is also a source of rights on the part
of the worker. These rights must be examined in the broad
context of human rights as a whole, which are connatural
with man, and many of which are proclaimed by various
international organizations and increasingly guaranteed by
the individual States for their citizens Respect for this
broad range of human rights constitutes the fundamental
condition for peace in the modern world: peace both within
individual countries and societies and in international
relations, as the Church's Magisterium has several times
noted, especially since the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The
human rights that flow from work are part of the broader
context of those fundamental rights of the person.
However, within this context they have a specific character
corresponding to the specific nature of human work as
outlined above. It is in keeping with this character that we
must view them. Work is, as has been said, an obligation,
that is to say, a duty, on the part of man. This is true in
all the many meanings of the word. Man must work, both
because the Creator has commanded it and because of his own
humanity, which requires work in order to be maintained and
developed. Man must work out of regard for others,
especially his own family, but also for the society he
belongs to, the country of which he is a child, and the
whole human family of which he is a member, since he is the
heir to the work of generations and at the same time a
sharer in building the future of those who will come after
him in the succession of history. All this constitutes the
moral obligation of work, understood in its wide sense. When
we have to consider the moral rights, corresponding to this
obligation, of every person with regard to work, we must
always keep before our eyes the whole vast range of points
of reference in which the labour of every working subject is
manifested.
For when we speak of the obligation of work and of the
rights of the worker that correspond to this obligation, we
think in the first place of the relationship between the
employer, direct or indirect, and the worker.
The distinction between the direct and the indirect employer
is seen to be very important when one considers both the way
in which labour is actually organized and the possibility of
the formation of just or unjust relationships in the field
of labour.
Since the direct employer is the person or institution with
whom the worker enters directly into a work contract in
accordance with definite conditions, we must understand as
the indirect employer many different factors, other than the
direct employer, that exercise a determining influence on
the shaping both of the work contract and, consequently, of
just or unjust relationships in the field of human labour.
17. Direct and Indirect Employer
The concept of indirect employer includes both persons and
institutions of various kinds, and also collective labour
contracts and the principles of conduct which are laid down
by these persons and institutions and which determine the
whole socioeconomic system or are its result. The concept of
"indirect employer" thus refers to many different elements.
The responsibility of the indirect employer differs from
that of the direct employer-the term itself indicates that
the responsibility is less direct-but it remains a true
responsibility: the indirect employer substantially
determines one or other facet of the labour relationship,
thus conditioning the conduct of the direct employer when
the latter determines in concrete terms the actual work
contract and labour relations. This is not to absolve the
direct employer from his own responsibility, but only to
draw attention to the whole network of influences that
condition his conduct. When it is a question of establishing
an ethically correct labour policy, all these influences
must be kept in mind. A policy is correct when the objective
rights of the worker are fully respected.
The concept of indirect employer is applicable to every
society, and in the first place to the State. For it is the
State that must conduct a just labour policy. However, it is
common knowledge that in the present system of economic
relations in the world there are numerous links between
individual States, links that find expression, for instance,
in the import and export process, that is to say, in the
mutual exchange of economic goods, whether raw materials,
semimanufactured goods, or finished industrial products.
These links also create mutual dependence, and as a result
it would be difficult to speak, in the case of any State,
even the economically most powerful, of complete
self-sufficiency or autarky.
Such a system of mutual dependence is in itself normal.
However, it can easily become an occasion for various forms
of exploitation or injustice and as a result influence the
labour policy of individual States; and finally it can
influence the individual worker, who is the proper subject
of labour. For instance the highly industrialized countries,
and even more the businesses that direct on a large scale
the means of industrial production (the companies referred
to as multinational or transnational), fix the highest
possible prices for their products, while trying at the same
time to fix the lowest possible prices for raw materials or
semi-manufactured goods. This is one of the causes of an
ever increasing disproportion between national incomes. The
gap between most of the richest countries and the poorest
ones is not diminishing or being stabilized but is
increasing more and more, to the detriment, obviously, of
the poor countries. Evidently this must have an effect on
local labour policy and on the worker's situation in the
economically disadvantaged societies. Finding himself in a
system thus conditioned, the direct employer fixes working
conditions below the objective requirements of the workers,
especially if he himself wishes to obtain the highest
possible profits from the business which he runs (or from
the businesses which he runs, in the case of a situation of
"socialized" ownership of the means of production).
It is easy to see that this framework of forms of dependence
linked with the concept of the indirect employer is
enormously extensive and complicated. It is determined, in a
sense, by all the elements that are decisive for economic
life within a given society and state, but also by much
wider links and forms of dependence. The attainment of the
worker's rights cannot however be doomed to be merely a
result of economic systems which on a larger or smaller
scale are guided chiefly by the criterion of maximum profit.
On the contrary, it is respect for the objective rights of
the worker-every kind of worker: manual or intellectual,
industrial or agricultural, etc.-that must constitute the
adequate and fundamental criterion for shaping the whole
economy, both on the level of the individual society and
State and within the whole of the world economic policy and
of the systems of international relationships that derive
from it.
Influence in this direction should be exercised by all the
International Organizations whose concern it is, beginning
with the United Nations Organization. It appears that the
International Labour Organization and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other
bodies too have fresh contributions to offer on this point
in particular. Within the individual States there are
ministries or public departments and also various social
institutions set up for this purpose. All of this
effectively indicates the importance of the indirect
employer-as has been said above-in achieving full respect
for the worker's rights, since the rights of the human
person are the key element in the whole of the social moral
order.
18. The Employment Issue
When we consider the rights of workers in relation to the
"indirect employer", that is to say, all the agents at the
national and international level that are responsible for
the whole orientation of labour policy, we must first direct
our attention to a fundamental issue: the question of
finding work, or, in other words, the issue of suitable
employment for all who are capable of it. The opposite of a
just and right situation in this field is unemployment, that
is to say the lack of work for those who are capable of it.
It can be a question of general unemployment or of
unemployment in certain sectors of work. The role of the
agents included under the title of indirect employer is to
act against unemployment, which in all cases is an evil, and
which, when it reaches a certain level, can become a real
social disaster. It is particularly painful when it
especially affects young people, who after appropriate
cultural, technical and professional preparation fail to
find work, and see their sincere wish to work and their
readiness to take on their own responsibility for the
economic and social development of the community sadly
frustrated. The obligation to provide unemployment benefits,
that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants
indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and
their families, is a duty springing from the fundamental
principle of the moral order in this sphere, namely the
principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in
another and still simpler way, the right to life and
subsistence.
In order to meet the danger of unemployment and to ensure
employment for all, the agents defined here as "indirect
employer" must make provision for overall planning with
regard to the different kinds of work by which not only the
economic life but also the cultural life of a given society
is shaped; they must also give attention to organizing that
work in a correct and rational way. In the final analysis
this overall concern weighs on the shoulders of the State,
but it cannot mean onesided centralization by the public
authorities. Instead, what is in question is a just and
rational coordination, within the framework of which the
initiative of individuals, free groups and local work
centres and complexes must be safeguarded, keeping in mind
what has been said above with regard to the subject
character of human labour.
The fact of the mutual dependence of societies and States
and the need to collaborate in various areas mean that,
while preserving the sovereign rights of each society and
State in the field of planning and organizing labour in its
own society, action in this important area must also be
taken in the dimension of international collaboration by
means of the necessary treaties and agreements. Here too the
criterion for these pacts and agreements must more and more
be the criterion of human work considered as a fundamental
right of all human beings, work which gives similar rights
to all those who work, in such a way that the living
standard of the workers in the different societies will less
and less show those disturbing differences which are unjust
and are apt to provoke even violent reactions. The
International Organizations have an enormous part to play in
this area. They must let themselves be guided by an exact
diagnosis of the complex situations and of the influence
exercised by natural, historical, civil and other such
circumstances. They must also be more highly operative with
regard to plans for action jointly decided on, that is to
say, they must be more effective in carrying them out.
In this direction it is possible to actuate a plan for
universal and proportionate progress by all, in accordance
with the guidelines of Paul VI's Encyclical Populorum
Progressio. It must be stressed that the constitutive
element in this progress and also the most adequate way to
verify it in a spirit of justice and peace, which the Church
proclaims and for which she does not cease to pray to the
Father of all individuals and of all peoples, is the
continual reappraisal of man's work, both in the aspect of
its objective finality and in the aspect of the dignity of
the subject of all work, that is to say, man. The progress
in question must be made through man and for man and it must
produce its fruit in man. A test of this progress will be
the increasingly mature recognition of the purpose of work
and increasingly universal respect for the rights inherent
in work in conformity with the dignity of man, the subject
of work.
Rational planning and the proper organization of human
labour in keeping with individual societies and States
should also facilitate the discovery of the right
proportions between the different kinds of employment: work
on the land, in industry, in the various services,
white-collar work and scientific or artistic work, in
accordance with the capacities of individuals and for the
common good of each society and of the whole of mankind. The
organization of human life in accordance with the many
possibilities of labour should be matched by a suitable
system of instruction and education, aimed first of all at
developing mature human beings, but also aimed at preparing
people specifically for assuming to good advantage an
appropriate place in the vast and socially differentiated
world of work.
As we view the whole human family throughout the world, we
cannot fail to be struck by a disconcerting fact of immense
proportions: the fact that, while conspicuous natural
resources remain unused, there are huge numbers of people
who are unemployed or under-employed and countless
multitudes of people suffering from hunger. This is a fact
that without any doubt demonstrates that both within the
individual political communities and in their relationships
on the continental and world level there is something wrong
with the organization of work and employment, precisely at
the most critical and socially most important points.
19. Wages and Other Social Benefits
After outlining the important role that concern for
providing employment for all workers plays in safeguarding
respect for the inalienable rights of man in view of his
work, it is worthwhile taking a closer look at these rights,
which in the final analysis are formed within the
relationship between worker and direct employer. All that
has been said above on the subject of the indirect employer
is aimed at defining these relationships more exactly, by
showing the many forms of conditioning within which these
relationships are indirectly formed. This consideration does
not however have a purely descriptive purpose; it is not a
brief treatise on economics or politics. It is a matter of
highlighting the deontological and moral aspect. 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. Whether the work is
done in a system of private ownership of the means of
production or in a system where ownership has undergone a
certain "socialization", the relationship between the
employer (first and foremost the direct employer) and the
worker is resolved on the basis of the wage, that is through
just remuneration for work done.
It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic
system and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in
the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which man's
work is properly remunerated in the system. 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. In every system, regardless of the fundamental
relationships within it between capital and labour, wages,
that is to say remuneration for work, are still a practical
means whereby the vast majority of people can have access to
those goods which are intended for common use: both the
goods of nature and manufactured goods. Both kinds of goods
become accessible to the worker through the wage which he
receives as remuneration for his work. Hence, in every case,
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 fot 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. These grants should
correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of
dependents for as long as they are not in a position to
assume proper responsibility for their own lives.
Experience confirms that there must be a social
re-evaluation 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 mother26.
In this context it should be emphasized that, on a more
general level, the whole labour process must be organized
and adapted in such a way as to respect the requirements of
the person and his or her forms of life, above all life in
the home, taking into account the individual's age and sex.
It is a fact that in many societies women work in nearly
every sector of life. But it is fitting that they should be
able to fulfil their tasks in accordance with their own
nature, without being discriminated against and without
being excluded from jobs for which they are capable, but
also without lack of respect for their family aspirations
and for their specific role in contributing, together with
men, to the good of society. The true advancement of women
requires that labour should be structured in such a way that
women do not have to pay for their advancement by abandoning
what is specific to them and at the expense of the family,
in which women as mothers have an irreplaceable role.
Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure
the life and health of workers and their families play a
part here. The expenses involved in health care, especially
in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical
assistance should be easily available for workers, and that
as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of
charge. Another sector regarding benefits is the sector
associated with the right to rest. In the first place this
involves a regular weekly rest comprising at least Sunday,
and also a longer period of rest, namely the holiday or
vacation taken once a year or possibly in several shorter
periods during the year. A third sector concerns the right
to a pension and to insurance for old age and in case of
accidents at work. Within the sphere of these principal
rights, there develops a whole system of particular rights
which, together with remuneration for work, determine the
correct relationship between worker and employer. Among
these rights there should never be overlooked the right to a
working environment and to manufacturing processes which are
not harmful to the workers' physical health or to their
moral integrity.
20. Importance of Unions
All these rights, together with the need for the workers
themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right:
the right of association, that is to form associations for
the purpose of defending the vital interests of those
employed in the various professions. These associations are
called labour or trade unions. The vital interests of the
workers are to a certain extent common for all of them; at
the same time however each type of work, each profession,
has its own specific character which should find a
particular reflection in these organizations.
In a sense, unions go back to the mediaeval guilds of
artisans, insofar as those organizations brought together
people belonging to the same craft and thus on the basis of
their work. However, unions differ from the guilds on this
essential point: the modern unions grew up from the struggle
of the workers-workers in general but especially the
industrial workers-to protect their just rights vis-a-vis
the entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production.
Their task is to defend the existential interests of workers
in all sectors in which their rights are concerned. The
experience of history teaches that organizations of this
type are an indispensable element of social life, especially
in modern industrialized societies. Obviously, this does not
mean that only industrial workers can set up associations of
this type. Representatives of every profession can use them
to ensure their own rights. Thus there are unions of
agricultural workers and of white-collar workers; there are
also employers' associations. All, as has been said above,
are further divided into groups or subgroups according to
particular professional specializations.
Catholic social teaching does not hold that unions are no
more than a reflection of the "class" structure of society
and that they are a mouthpiece for a class struggle which
inevitably governs social life. They are indeed a mouthpiece
for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of
working people in accordance with their individual
professions. However, this struggle should be seen as a
normal endeavour "for" the just good: in the present case,
for the good which corresponds to the needs and merits of
working people associated by profession; but it is not a
struggle "against" others. Even if in controversial
questions the struggle takes on a character of opposition
towards others, this is because it aims at the good of
social justice, not for the sake of "struggle" or in order
to eliminate the opponent. It is characteristic of work that
it first and foremost unites people. In this consists its
social power: the power to build a community. In the final
analysis, both those who work and those who manage the means
of production or who own them must in some way be united in
this community. In the light of this fundamental structure
of all work-in the light of the fact that, in the final
analysis, labour and capital are indispensable components of
the process of production in any social system-it is clear
that, even if it is because of their work needs that people
unite to secure their rights, their union remains a
constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it
is impossible to ignore it.
Just efforts to secure the rights of workers who are united
by the same profession should always take into account the
limitations imposed by the general economic situation of the
country. Union demands cannot be turned into a kind of group
or class "egoism", although they can and should also aim at
correcting-with a view to the common good of the whole of
society- everything defective in the system of ownership of
the means of production or in the way these are managed.
Social and socioeconomic life is certainly like a system of
"connected vessels", and every social activity directed
towards safeguarding the rights of particular groups should
adapt itself to this system.
In this sense, union activity undoubtedly enters the field
of politics, understood as prudent concern for the common
good. However, the role of unions is not to "play politics"
in the sense that the expression is commonly understood
today. Unions do not have the character of political parties
struggling for power; they should not be subjected to the
decision of political parties or have too close links with
them. In fact, in such a situation they easily lose contact
with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights
of workers within the £ramework of the common good of the
whole of society; instead they become an instrument used for
other purposes.
Speaking of the protection of the just rights of workers
according to their individual professions, we must of course
always keep in mind that which determines the subjective
character of work in each profession, but at the same time,
indeed before all else, we must keep in mind that which
conditions the specific dignity of the subject of the work.
The activity of union organizations opens up many
possibilities in this respect, including their efforts to
instruct and educate the workers and to foster their
selfeducation. Praise is due to the work of the schools,
what are known as workers' or people's universities and the
training programmes and courses which have developed and are
still developing this field of activity. It is always to be
hoped that, thanks to the work of their unions, workers will
not only have more, but above all be more: in other words,
that they will realize their humanity more fully in every
respect.
One method used by unions in pursuing the just rights of
their members is the strike or work stoppage, as a kind of
ultimatum to the competent bodies, especially the employers.
This method is recognized by Catholic social teaching as
legitimate in the proper conditions and within just limits.
In this connection workers should be assured the right to
strike, without being subjected to personal penal sanctions
for taking part in a strike. While admitting that it is a
legitimate means, we must at the same time emphasize that a
strike remains, in a sense, an extreme means. It must not be
abused; it must not be abused especially for "political"
purposes. Furthermore it must never be forgotten that, when
essential community services are in question, they must in
every case be ensured, if necessary by means of appropriate
legislation. Abuse of the strike weapon can lead to the
paralysis of the whole of socioeconomic life, and this is
contrary to the requirements of the common good of society,
which also corresponds to the properly understood nature of
work itself.
21. Dignity of Agricultural Work
All that has been said thus far on the dignity of work, on
the objective and subjective dimension of human work, can be
directly applied to the question of agricultural work and to
the situation of the person who cultivates the earth by
toiling in the fields. This is a vast sector of work on our
planet, a sector not restricted to one or other continent,
nor limited to the societies which have already attained a
certain level of development and progress. The world of
agriculture, which provides society with the goods it needs
for its daily sustenance, is of fundamental importance. The
conditions of the rural population and of agricultural work
vary from place to place, and the social position of
agricultural workers differs from country to country. This
depends not only on the level of development of agricultural
technology but also, and perhaps more, on the recognition of
the just rights of agricultural workers and, finally, on the
level of awareness regarding the social ethics of work.
Agricultural work involves considerable difficulties,
including unremitting and sometimes exhausting physical
effort and a lack of appreciation on the part of society, to
the point of making agricultural people feel that they are
social outcasts and of speeding up the phenomenon of their
mass exodus from the countryside to the cities and
unfortunately to still more dehumanizing living conditions.
Added to this are the lack of adequate professional training
and of proper equipment, the spread of a certain
individualism, and also objectively unjust situations. In
certain developing countries, millions of people are forced
to cultivate the land belonging to others and are exploited
by the big landowners, without any hope of ever being able
to gain possession of even a small piece of land of their
own. There is a lack of forms of legal protection for the
agricultural workers themselves and for their families in
case of old age, sickness or unemployment. Long days of hard
physical work are paid miserably. Land which could be
cultivated is left abandoned by the owners. Legal titles to
possession of a small portion of land that someone has
personally cultivated for years are disregarded or left
defenceless against the "land hunger" of more powerful
individuals or groups. But even in the economically
developed countries, where scientific research,
technological achievements and State policy have brought
agriculture to a very advanced level, the right to work can
be infringed when the farm workers are denied the
possibility of sharing in decisions concerning their
services, or when they are denied the right to free
association with a view to their just advancement socially,
culturally and economically.
In many situations radical and urgent changes are therefore
needed in order to restore to agriculture-and to rural
people-their just value as the basis for a healthy economy,
within the social community's development as a whole. Thus
it is necessary to proclaim and promote the dignity of work,
of all work but especially of agricultural work, in which
man so eloquently "subdues" the earth he has received as a
gift from God and affirms his "dominion" in the visible
world.
22. The Disabled Person and Work
Recently, national communities and international
organizations have turned their attention to another
question connected with work, one full of implications: the
question of disabled people. They too are fully human
subjects with corresponding innate, sacred and inviolable
rights, and, in spite of the limitations and sufferings
affecting their bodies and faculties, they point up more
clearly the dignity and greatness of man. Since disabled
people are subjects with all their rights, they should be
helped to participate in the life of society in all its
aspects and at all the levels accessible to their
capacities. The disabled person is one of us and
participates fully in the same humanity that we possess. It
would be radically unworthy of man, and a denial of our
common humanity, to admit to the life of the community, and
thus admit to work, only those who are fully functional. To
do so would be to practise a serious form of discrimination,
that of the strong and healthy against the weak and sick.
Work in the objective sense should be subordinated, in this
circumstance too, to the dignity of man, to the subject of
work and not to economic advantage.
The various bodies involved in the world of labour, both the
direct and the indirect employer, should therefore by means
of effective and appropriate measures foster the right of
disabled people to professional training and work, so that
they can be given a productive activity suited to them. Many
practical problems arise at this point, as well as legal and
economic ones; but the community, that is to say, the public
authorities, associations and intermediate groups, business
enterprises and the disabled themselves should pool their
ideas and resources so as to attain this goal that must not
be shirked: that disabled people may be offered work
according to their capabilities, for this is demanded by
their dignity as persons and as subjects of work. Each
community will be able to set up suitable structures for
finding or creating jobs for such people both in the usual
public or private enterprises, by offering them ordinary or
suitably adapted jobs, and in what are called "protected"
enterprises and surroundings.
Careful attention must be devoted to the physical and
psychological working conditions of disabled people-as for
all workers-to their just remuneration, to the possibility
of their promotion, and to the elimination of various
obstacles. Without hiding the fact that this is a complex
and difficult task, it is to be hoped that a correct concept
of labour in the subjective sense will produce a situation
which will make it possible for disabled people to feel that
they are not cut off from the working world or dependent
upon society, but that they are full-scale subjects of work,
useful, respected for their human dignity and called to
contribute to the progress and welfare of their families and
of the community according to their particular capacities.
23. Work and the Emigration Question
Finally, we must say at least a few words on the subject of
emigration in search of work. This is an age-old phenomenon
which nevertheless continues to be repeated and is still
today very widespread as a result of the complexities of
modern life. Man has the right to leave his native land for
various motives-and also the right to return-in order to
seek better conditions of life in another country. This fact
is certainly not without difficulties of various kinds.
Above all it generally constitutes a loss for the country
which is left behind. It is the departure of a person who is
also a member of a great community united by history,
tradition and culture; and that person must begin life in
the midst of another society united by a different culture
and very often by a different language. In this case, it is
the loss of a subject of work, whose efforts of mind and
body could contribute to the common good of his own country,
but these efforts, this contribution, are instead offered to
another society which in a sense has less right to them than
the person's country of origin.
Nevertheless, even if emigration is in some aspects an evil,
in certain circumstances it is, as the phrase goes, a
necessary evil. Everything should be done-and certainly much
is being done to this end-to prevent this material evil from
causing greater moral harm; indeed every possible effort
should be made to ensure that it may bring benefit to the
emigrant's personal, family and social life, both for the
country to which he goes and the country which he leaves. In
this area much depends on just legislation, in particular
with regard to the rights of workers. It is obvious that the
question of just legislation enters into the context of the
present considerations, especially from the point of view of
these rights.
The most important thing is that the person working away
from his native land, whether as a permanent emigrant or as
a seasonal worker, should not be placed at a disadvantage in
comparison with the other workers in that society in the
matter of working rights. Emigration in search of work must
in no way become an opportunity for financial or social
exploitation. As regards the work relationship, the same
criteria should be applied to immigrant workers as to all
other workers in the society concerned. The value of work
should be measured by the same standard and not according to
the difference in nationality, religion or race. For even
greater reason the situation of constraint in which the
emigrant may find himself should not be exploited. All these
circumstances should categorically give way, after special
qualifications have of course been taken into consideration,
to the fundamental value of work, which is bound up with the
dignity of the human person. Once more the fundamental
principle must be repeated: the hierarchy of values and the
profound meaning of work itself require that capital should
be at the service of labour and not labour at the service of
capital.
V. ELEMENTS FOR A SPIRITUALITY OF WORK
24. A Particular Task for the Church
It is right to devote the last part of these reflections
about human work, on the occasion of the ninetieth
anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, to the
spirituality of work in the Christian sense. Since work in
its subjective aspect is always a personal action, an actus
personae, it follows that the whole person, body and spirit,
participates in it, whether it is manual or intellectual
work. It is also to the whole person that the word of the
living God is directed, the evangelical message of
salvation, in which we find many points which concern human
work and which throw particular light on it. These points
need to be properly assimilated: an inner effort on the part
of the human spirit, guided by faith, hope and charity, is
needed in order that through these points the work of the
individual human being may be given the meaning which it has
in the eyes of God and by means of which work enters into
the salvation process on a par with the other ordinary yet
particularly important components of its texture.
The Church considers it her duty to speak out on work from
the viewpoint of its human value and of the moral order to
which it belongs, and she sees this as one of her important
tasks within the service that she renders to the evangelical
message as a whole. At the same time she sees it as her
particular duty to form a spirituality of work which will
help all people to come closer, through work, to God, the
Creator and Redeemer, to participate in his salvific plan
for man and the world and to deepen their friendship with
Christ in their lives by accepting, through faith, a living
participation in his threefold mission as Priest, Prophet
and King, as the Second Vatican Council so eloquently
teaches.
25. Work as a Sharing in the Activity of the Creator
As the Second Vatican Council says, "throughout the course
of the centuries, men have laboured to better the
circumstances of their lives through a monumental amount of
individual and collective effort. To believers, this point
is settled: considered in itself, such human activity
accords with God's will. For man, created to God's image,
received a mandate to subject to himself the earth and all
that it contains, and to govern the world with justice and
holiness; a mandate to relate himself and the totality of
things to him who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and
Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of all things to
man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth"27.
The word of God's revelation is profoundly marked by the
fundamental truth that man, created in the image of God,
shares by his work in the activity of the Creator and that,
within the limits of his own human capabilities, man in a
sense continues to develop that activity, and perfects it as
he advances further and further in the discovery of the
resources and values contained in the whole of creation. We
find this truth at the very beginning of Sacred Scripture,
in the Book of Genesis, where the creation activity itself
is presented in the form of "work" done by God during "six
days"28, "resting" on the seventh day29. Besides, the last
book of Sacred Scripture echoes the same respect for what
God has done through his creative "work" when it proclaims:
"Great and wonderful are your deeds, O Lord God the
Almighty"30; this is similar to the Book of Genesis, which
concludes the description of each day of creation with the
statement: "And God saw that it was good"31.
This description of creation, which we find in the very
first chapter of the Book of Genesis, is also in a sense the
first "gospel of work". For it shows what the dignity of
work consists of: it teaches that man ought to imitate God,
his Creator, in working, because man alone has the unique
characteristic of likeness to God. 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, as the words of Christ attest: "My Father is
working still ..."32: he works with creative power by
sustaining in existence the world that he called into being
from nothing, and he works with salvific power in the hearts
of those whom from the beginning he has destined for
"rest"33 in union with himself in his "Father's house"34.
Therefore man's work too not only requires a rest every
"seventh day"35), but also cannot consist in the mere
exercise of human strength in external action; it must leave
room for man to prepare himself, by becoming more and more
what in the will of God he ought to be, for the "rest" that
the Lord reserves for his servants and friends36.
Awareness that man's work is a participation in God's
activity ought to permeate, as the Council teaches, even
"the most ordinary everyday activities. For, while providing
the substance of life for themselves and their families, men
and women are performing their activities in a way which
appropriately benefits society. They can justly consider
that by their labour they are unfolding the Creator's work,
consulting the advantages of their brothers and sisters, and
contributing by their personal industry to the realization
in history of the divine plan"37.
This Christian spirituality of work should be a heritage
shared by all. Especially in the modern age, the
spirituality of work should show the maturity called for by
the tensions and restlessness of mind and heart. "Far from
thinking that works produced by man's own talent and energy
are in opposition to God's power, and that the rational
creature exists as a kind of rival to the Creator,
Christians are convinced that the triumphs of the human race
are a sign of God's greatness and the flowering of his own
mysterious design. For the greater man's power becomes, the
farther his individual and community responsibility extends.
... People are not deterred by the Christian message from
building up the world, or impelled to neglect the welfare of
their fellows. They are, rather, more stringently bound to
do these very things"38.
The knowledge that by means of work man shares in the work
of creation constitutes the most profound motive for
undertaking it in various sectors. "The faithful,
therefore", we read in the Constitution Lumen Gentium, "must
learn the deepest meaning and the value of all creation, and
its orientation to the praise of God. Even by their secular
activity they must assist one another to live holier lives.
In this way the world will be permeated by the spirit of
Christ and more effectively achieve its purpose in justice,
charity and peace... Therefore, by their competence in
secular fields and by their personal activity, elevated from
within by the grace of Christ, let them work vigorously so
that by human labour, technical skill, and civil culture
created goods may be perfected according to the design of
the Creator and the light of his Word"39.
26. Christ , the Man of Work
The truth that by means of work man participates in the
activity of God himself, his Creator, was given particular
prominence by Jesus Christ-the Jesus at whom many of his
first listeners in Nazareth "were astonished, saying, 'Where
did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to
him?.. Is not this the carpenter?'"40. For Jesus not only
proclaimed but first and foremost fulfilled by his deeds the
"gospel", the word of eternal Wisdom, that had been
entrusted to him. Therefore this was also "the gospel of
work", because he who proclaimed it was himself a man of
work, a craftsman like Joseph of Nazareth41. And if we do
not find in his words a special command to work-but rather
on one occasion a prohibition against too much anxiety about
work and life42- at the same time the eloquence of the life
of Christ is unequivocal: he belongs to the "working world",
he has appreciation and respect for human work. It can
indeed be said that he looks with love upon human work and
the different forms that it takes, seeing in each one of
these forms a particular facet of man's likeness with God,
the Creator and Father. Is it not he who says: "My Father is
the vinedresser"43, and in various ways puts into his
teaching the fundamental truth about work which is already
expressed in the whole tradition of the Old Testament,
beginning with the Book of Genesis?
The books of the Old Testament contain many references to
human work and to the individual professions exercised by
man: for example, the doctor44, the pharmacist45, the
craftsman or artist46, the blacksmith47-we could apply these
words to today's foundry-workers-the potter48, the farmer49,
the scholar50, the sailor51, the builder52, the musician53,
the shepherd54, and the fisherman55. The words of praise for
the work of women are well known56. In his parables on the
Kingdom of God Jesus Christ constantly refers to human work:
that of the shepherd57, the farmer58, the doctor59, the
sower60, the householder61, the servant62, the steward63,
the fisherman64, the merchant65, the labourer66. He also
speaks of the various form of women's work67. He compares
the apostolate to the manual work of harvesters68 or
fishermen69. He refers to the work of scholars too70.
This teaching of Christ on work, based on the example of his
life during his years in Nazareth, finds a particularly
lively echo in the teaching of the Apostle Paul. Paul boasts
of working at his trade (he was probably a tent-maker)71,
and thanks to that work he was able even as an Apostle to
earn his own bread72. "With toil and labour we worked night
and day, that we might not burden any of you"73. Hence his
instructions, in the form of exhortation and command, on the
subject of work: "Now such persons we command and exhort in
the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to
earn their own living", he writes to the Thessalonians74. In
fact, noting that some "are living in idleness ... not doing
any work"75, the Apostle does not hesitate to say in the
same context: "If any one will not work, let him not eat"76.
In another passage he encourages his readers: "Whatever your
task, work heartly, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing
that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your
reward"77.
The teachings of the Apostle of the Gentiles obviously have
key importance for the morality and spirituality of human
work. They are an important complement to the great though
discreet gospel of work that we find in the life and
parables of Christ, in what Jesus "did and taught"78.
On the basis of these illuminations emanating from the
Source himself, the Church has always proclaimed what we
find expressed in modern terms in the teaching of the Second
Vatican Council: "Just as human activity proceeds from man,
so it is ordered towards 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 ... Hence, the norm of human activity is
this: that in accord with the divine plan and will, it
should harmonize with the genuine good of the human race,
and allow people as individuals and as members of society to
pursue their total vocation and fulfil it"79.
Such a vision of the values of human work, or in other words
such a spirituality of work, fully explains what we read in
the same section of the Council's Pastoral Constitution with
regard to the right meaning of progress: "A person is more
precious for what he is than for what he has. Similarly, all
that people do to obtain greater justice, wider brotherhood,
and a more humane ordering 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"80.
This teaching on the question of progress and development-a
subject that dominates presentday thought-can be understood
only as the fruit of a tested spirituality of human work;
and it is only on the basis of such a spirituality that it
can be realized and put into practice. This is the teaching,
and also the programme, that has its roots in "the gospel of
work".
27. Human Work in the Light of the Cross and the
Resurrection of Christ
There is yet another aspect of human work, an essential
dimension of it, that is profoundly imbued with the
spirituality based on the Gospel. All work, whether manual
or intellectual, is inevitably linked with toil. The Book of
Genesis expresses it in a truly penetrating manner: the
original blessing of work contained in the very mystery of
creation and connected with man's elevation as the image of
God is contrasted with the curse that sin brought with it:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat
of it all the days of your life"81. This toil connected with
work marks the way of human life on earth and constitutes an
announcement of death: "In the sweat of your face you shall
eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you
were taken"82. Almost as an echo of these words, the author
of one of the Wisdom books says: "Then I considered all that
my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it"83.
There is no one on earth who could not apply these words to
himself.
In a sense, the final word of the Gospel on this matter as
on others is found in the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ.
It is here that we must seek an answer to these problems so
important for the spirituality of human work. The Paschal
Mystery contains the Cross of Christ and his obedience unto
death, which the Apostle contrasts with the disobedience
which from the beginning has burdened man's history on
earth84. It also contains the elevation of Christ, who by
means of death on a Cross returns to his disciples in the
Resurrection with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Sweat and toil, which work necessarily involves the present
condition of the human race, present the Christian and
everyone who is called to follow Christ with the possibility
of sharing lovingly in the work that Christ came to do85.
This work of salvation came about through suffering and
death on a Cross. By enduring the toil of work in union with
Christ crucified for us, man in a way collaborates with the
Son of God for the redemption of humanity. He shows himself
a true disciple of Christ by carrying the cross in his turn
every day86 in the activity that he is called upon to
perform.
Christ, "undergoing death itself for all of us sinners,
taught us by example that we too must shoulder that cross
which the world and the flesh inflict upon those who pursue
peace and justice"; but also, at the same time, "appointed
Lord by his Resurrection and given all authority in heaven
and on earth, Christ is nòw at work in people's hearts
through the power of his Spirit... He animates, purifies,
and strengthens those noble longings too, by which the human
family strives to make its life more human and to render the
whole earth submissive to this goal"87.
The Christian finds in human work a small part of the Cross
of Christ and accepts it in the same spirit of redemption in
which Christ accepted his Cross for us. In work, thanks to
the light that penetrates us from the Resurrection of
Christ, we always find a glimmer of new life, of the new
good, as if it were an announcement of "the new heavens and
the new earth"88 in which man and the world participate
precisely through the toil that goes with work. Through
toil-and never without it. On the one hand this confirms the
indispensability of the Cross in the spirituality of human
work; on the other hand the Cross which this toil
constitutes reveals a new good springing from work itself,
from work understood in depth and in all its aspects and
never apart from work.
Is this new good-the fruit of human work-already a small
part of that "new earth" where justice dwells89? If it is
true that the many forms of toil that go with man's work are
a small part of the Cross of Christ, what is the
relationship of this new good to the Resurrection of Christ?
The Council seeks to reply to this question also, drawing
light from the very sources of the revealed word:
"Therefore, while we are warned that it profits a man
nothing if he gains the whole world and loses himself (cf.
Lk 9: 25), the expectation of a new earth must not weaken
but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one.
For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which
even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the
new age. Earthly progress must be carefully distinguished
from the growth of Christ's kingdom. Nevertheless, to the
extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering
of human society, it is of vital concern to the Kingdom of
God"90.
In these present reflections devoted to human work we have
tried to emphasize everything that seemed essential to it,
since it is through man's labour that not only "the fruits
of our activity" but also "human dignity, brotherhood and
freedom" must increase on earth91. Let the Christian who
listens to the word of the living God, uniting work with
prayer, know the place that his work has not only in earthly
progress but also in the development ot the Kingdom of God,
to which we are all called through the power of the Holy
Spirit and through the word of the Gospel.
In concluding these reflections, I gladly impart the
Apostolic Blessing to all of you, venerable Brothers and
beloved sons and daughters.
I prepared this document for publication on 15 May last, on
the ninetieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum,
but it is only after my stay in hospital that I have been
able to revise it definitively.
Given at Castel Gandolfo, on the fourteenth day of
September, the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross, in the
year 1981, the third of the Pontificate.
JOHN PAUL II
PART I
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
