DIFFUSED 0 WIVERSHIP Doctrine v. Fact

SIR,—Evidently Mr. Rissik holds that a discussion may be conducted round any point, at any distance from that point,
It is true that I have certain convictions on the incompatibility of Industrialism with Catholic Social Doctrine. But I have not made that point in this discussion. The points I
have made are as follows:— I. That the existence of a Social Doctrine offers the only possibility of securing agreement among Catholics.
2. That Messrs. Brech and Rissik put themselves out of court in this connection by assigning primacy and priority to " technological and scientific progress."
Those are the points, and they are the only points I am prepared to discuss at this stage, As I said in my first letter, when they are' agreed " we can go on from there."
In the meantime, lest any of your readers he impressed by Mr. Rissik's demand that I should state my positive knowledge of the
Catholic authorities and principles on the back of a postage stamp, I may point out that they were set forth at some length (and even so, inadequately) three years ago in The Sun of Justice, and that my analysis remains without substantial challenge so far as I am aware.
Meanwhile I ask Mr. Riesik two plain questions which can be answered in a letter:
1. Does he agree that there is a Catholic Social Doctrine which must necessarily prevail over any conflicting social fact?
2. If so, does he agree that to say we must retain inuustriausin is to deny the Catholic Social Doctrine?
H. ROBBINS.
Weeford Cottage, Hill, Sutton Coldfield.
Economics and Nothing Else?
Sut,-1 see that Mr. Benvenisti's latest articles are entitled " Musings of an Irresponsible Machinist."
Mr. Benvenisti often accuses Catholic apologists of simplifying social problems by ignoring the principle of economics, and I daresay this is often enouga true. But Mr. Benvenisti is himself just as guilty of this defect through paying attention to economics and nothing else. For instance, in last week's article he says that the important problem of our day is the problem of security. This is a gross simplification. The great problem is how to attain security and retain liberty. Again, he says that the leading Catholic laymen arc thinking in terms of sweating private employers and starving and overworked workmen, But the most intelligent Catholic leaders are not thinking like that at all. They are thinking in terms of the docile workman, being controlled and provided for in all his needs, from the cradle to the grave, by an all-embracing, and all powerful State, Mr. Benvenisti seems to take no account of such a possibility or its consequences. Another example of Mr. Benvenisti's deficiency is the way he talks about modern methods of production and distribution being the raw materials on which Christian principles have to work. Christian principles are based on the Natural Law, and modern methods of doing business must pass the test like everything else.
But the point with which I am mosl con
cerned is Mr. Benvenisti's advocacy of a planned economy through the control of in
vestment. This is important because the same view is held by many other people, including Socialists, Fabian economists, . and
members of the Catholic Social Guild. It is based essentially on large-scale methods of production and therefore proletarianism. This is inevitable because the control of the Planning Authority is exercised through the control of investment, and small-scale producers do not resort to the capital market. If producers attempt to escape the control by financing their businesses out of private savings or reserved profits, businesses will have to be socialised or else the Planning Authority will lose its control.
Now I am not going to attempt to defend
the principle of ownership myself here, but I defy Ray honest man to read Res-um Novartim and then deny that it teaches that the right to private property is inherent in human nature, that it is normal to human society, and that the owning of property should be encouraged. I also defy him to find any justification for transferring all economic initiative to the hands of a single authority such as is advocated by the exponents of a planned economy. I do not blame such organisations as the Catholic Social Guild for failing to achieve a Christian social order, foi that would be difficult enough, God knows. But I do complain that they are not even working in the right direction; Rerum Alovarant is not being preached, it is being shelved. The best advice I can give is a careful re-reading of the Encyclical; it might prove startling but could do nothing but good.
I. A. RILEY.
6, South Avenue, Leigh, Lancs.