What Does Rerum Novarum Really Say? (Guest: Veronica Burchard)

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreignica. Welcome to the program. [00:00:13] Speaker B: Thanks so much for having me, Eric. [00:00:15] Speaker A: Yeah. So you wrote a book. A Pocket Guide to Rerum Navarrem is the official name of it. And so we want to talk about that. Before we do, though, you know, I should know this. Well, what actually do you do it? Sophia. [00:00:32] Speaker B: What exactly would you say you do here? Exactly? [00:00:35] Speaker A: Yeah, right. That's right. That's from Office Space. Oh, my God. [00:00:39] Speaker B: Sorry. It's just bad association. [00:00:41] Speaker A: But good reference, though. Yeah. [00:00:44] Speaker B: I have two roles, so I'm the chief operating officer at Sophia Institute, which means I kind of just help oversee all the different departments in our various apostolates. Sophia Institute Press, Sophia Teachers, Crisis Fraternity Publications, Benedictus. All these amazing things that I get to be a part of. And then I'm the executive director of Sofia Teachers, which is an organization that serves Catholic educators. We try to just kind of make their jobs easier, help give them materials to authentically teach the Catholic faith to their students, live it out better themselves, help their students do the same. [00:01:27] Speaker A: Okay, I should have known that. I know, but that's great. And Sophia, I mean, for those who don't know, it's awesome. Sophia Institute Press. And I don't say that just because they published my last few books, but they really do have just great, great books that they're publishing. And the Sophia Institute for Teachers is doing great work helping Catholic teachers all around the country. It really is amazing. I remember. Okay, I'm just going to tell this story because it's. I think it's kind of funny. I remember when I first was approached by Charlie McKinney, who's the president of Sophia Institute Press, about running Crisis. And what was funny is I told him, first of all, I didn't even know that. And he published one of my books. I didn't know who Charlie was, but also, like, I was like, you know, Sophia, I remember them back in the day from, like, you know, the 90s and 2000s. And I kind of thought they had dropped off the ma, And I think they did for a little while. [00:02:24] Speaker B: They almost did. Yeah. [00:02:26] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, really almost went under. And then Charlie was like, yeah, we're changing that. And then it's like, Sophia's been everywhere the past, you know, five years particularly, but, like, it's just been become the dominant Catholic publisher in my mind. And again, I'm not just saying that because they publish my books, but really just. Just great stuff. So. So anyway, that saying, you're doing a good job. So that's basically the point of that. [00:02:48] Speaker B: So thanks. Thanks, Eric. It really has been a really exciting time to, to work at Sophia. [00:02:54] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, just great. And speaking of books that Sophie and Sue Press publishes, that's what we want to talk about is the Pocket Guide to Navarre. But really just Ram Navarrem is on everybody's mind right now because of our new pope. Pope Leo xiv of course, took the name of Leo xiii and he specifically said that's who he's kind of looking towards. And he's looking towards how Leo XIII had to address the Industrial Revolution. And now he, he's addressing, you know, going to address the AI Revolution and all that. And so people have been talking a lot about Leo xiii, Ram Navaram, but. And I think this might have been one of the reasons you guys published this and you wrote this is there's a lot of misconceptions about Ram Navaram. And so why don't you first just kind of give us a background of Leo the 13th and Ram Navarrem, like why he wrote it, kind of what the purpose of it is, what's the context of when he. Of when he wrote it? [00:03:54] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, great question. So Pope Leo is writing around the Industrial Revolution and specifically the challenges that he saw in society that were kind of brought about by the Industrial Revolution, the effects that it was having on families, on individuals and specifically working people. And, and what he was, was responding to was not, not really only that, but he was responding to the response that the, that socialism was proposing at the time. So, you know, you could say like he was, he was responding to the Industrial Revolution and that's true, but he was also responding to people who were claiming that socialism was the answer. Right. So that the challenges of the Industrial revol, these inhumane working conditions, you know, the plight of poor people, this is obviously a legitimate, you know, good, important, necessary concern for the church and, and for humanity. And so, but what he saw was socialism, socialists, the, the. And he was writing before, you know, we saw a lot of the horrors that would come. You know, the Bolshevik Revolution and communism was really kind of prescient and, and, you know, prophetic. But what he saw was like the, the, the seeds, these arguments and these ideas that the socialists were putting forth were actually going to harm people, the people that they were claiming to help. It was actually going to harm them. And so Leah was writing about why socialism is the wrong response to the challenges of the Industrial Revolution that particular time. [00:05:41] Speaker A: Yeah, that's interesting because if you look at the second half of the 19th century, that really is when socialism is kicking off. Marx of course is 1850s, 60s, that time period. And you see it growing particularly in Europe and Russia. Obviously as you said, it doesn't kick off until I mean really become powerful as a kind of a nation state power until the after World War II. I mean, I'm sorry World War I, but like that really was in the air of Europe at the time was socialism is the answer to the problems of the industrial revolution. I think though that's because I even said that Rome Varum was like written as response to Industrial revolution. But I think that's a good correction that that's not just, that's not the, that's not just what was. It's really response like you said. Yes, the problems industrial revolution, but also the problems of, of socialism. So I think that's, that's a great point now and we'll get back, I want to get back to the socialism in a minute. But like what would you say then? Like he's writing this and so what are his major themes? Is it mostly a condemnation of socialism? Is it condemnation industrial revolution? Is it more like, more nuanced than that? Like what are the major themes that he's talking about in the document? [00:06:52] Speaker B: Yeah, it's really interesting because there's several themes and I'll just kind of tick through them in order. But the first one, which is almost half the document is this like just full throated defense of private property. You know, just really unapologetic defense of it and kind of staking this claim that you know, not only we're not just saying it's acceptable and will tolerate it, but no, it's actually like a good. And it's the, it's the way that the poor needy will be able to improve their lot in life. And by denying them private property you're taking away their, their dignity, their ability to, you know, to support themselves and support their families and chart a better path forward. Then in the, in the second half he kind of goes through the family, you know, why property rights. If they, if they in here, you know, they reside in one man, then how much more so do they in a father, right? And so the families kind of right to self determination and to, to chart their own path. And then he kind of gets into subsidiarity, solidarity. How can then the working people, how can, how can they form associations which we might call unions today? What should that look like? How should they be governed? What are the responsibilities of employers and the responsibilities of employees? And that's kind of how he rounds it out with this sense that these associations have to be governed from Christian principles or they're going to fail utterly. And same for all of society that until we return to putting Christ at the center, nothing is going to come to any good. [00:08:35] Speaker A: Yeah. So why private property though? Like. Okay, I mean, I think probably most of the people who are listening to this are, you know, capitalists on some level, or accept that private property is important. But why is it important? Like why is Leo say in the Catholic tradition, why does it say that private property, like not the American answer, you know, we have a right to it or like that. But why is it actually important for the poor particularly that private property is, is defended? [00:09:03] Speaker B: Well, it's interesting because, you know, he's coming from, Leo is coming from this place, this very Catholic place, that all of our rights actually flow from responsibilities. And so anything that we legitimately have a right to like private property or like religion to, to, to worship our Creator, it comes from a responsibility. We have a responsibility to God and therefore we have the right to practice our religion. We have a responsibility correspondingly to ourselves and our families to care for ourselves and for each other. And so, and therefore we must then it flows from that, have a right to the goods of the earth, not just now, but in the future. So Leo talks about how, because we have this ability to plan, you know, man unlike any of the other animals, we have the ability to look into the future and, you know, make good decisions about how we're going to use our resources. So therefore we must have a right to not just, you know, what we can gather today, you know, to live as like hunter gatherers, but to, to establish a home, a civilization that's going to, you know, endure. And so that's where our property rights come from. And it's only through that ability to control the fruits of your labor. You know, has this beautiful part where he talks about how when you and other philosophers make this point too, that when you sort of put yourself, you know, in, into the land, you know, or you build something like that's properly yours, right? And so, and it's through that that the poor, but all of us, everyone is able to just kind of have that, that, that self determination, that ability to provide for oneself and one's family. So that is, that's kind of the crux of why we have property rights is because we have a responsibility to care for ourselves and our, our families, our children. [00:11:08] Speaker A: Now, okay, so private property is the kind of the, the linchpin of capitalism. I mean, free Market economics, everything, private properties. Without it, the whole, the whole system falls apart. That, that's like the, the most essential ingredient for any capitalistic society. However, I've heard from everybody on the Internet, so it must be true that Pope Leo condemns capitalism as much as he condemns socialism in rarem Navarre and other places. And so yet you're saying that he's talking about private property. So does he actually do, does he condemn capitalism? And if, or does he kind of half condemn it? Like, what does he say about capitalism, its relationship to private property? [00:11:51] Speaker B: Yes, I had heard the same thing. And, and just to, you know, to kind of go back to that point you made about the, the claim that Rarem Novarum, you know, oh, condemns capitalism and socialism equally. And so me personally just being the, I'm first generation in this country, my parents are Cuban exiles. And so I have like a really, you know, fairly intimate experience with, with communism in practice and how that can affect people. And I'd read other, you know, other encyclicals of the Church, you know, pretty, pretty strongly condemning communism. So I was like, how. I must be missing something. You know, how can this, how can, how can it be that even handed of a document, you know, so that was one of my motivations for, for reading it actually, when Pope Leo XIV said that that's why he was taking his name and this document. So it's like, okay, I've got to read this for myself. You know, what does it actually say? And so I don't think it's even really fair to say that he condemns capitalism. It's more, I mean, he definitely criticizes the excesses of capitalism. And I just think condemns is too strong a word. But more like when you, when you have this, this tendency to put profit over people and forget that the human person, you know, has to be the center and, and the, the reason for society is the human person. When you cast that aside, when you have great power imbalance, you know, between these wealthy capitalists and between, you know, between capital and labor, then something has to be done. Something's not right here. This, this just can never really be fair. But, you know, given that half the document is, is, is protect, is about protecting the rights of private property. I mean, he says it has to be held sacred, inviolable. Like, these are really strong terms. I had to read it a few times to make sure I was, I was understanding. Know capitalism is the one economic system that, you know, that isn't based on coercion in some way and allows you to use your property for the good of others, you know, who can freely exchange. And if you create something of value and someone else chooses to buy it and both people, you know, profit from that transaction, I mean, I suppose that's, or at least believe they're going to profit from it. Right. I guess you could say that's an idealistic view. But you know, at its heart, if, if, yeah, to your point, like if you can't, Private property is the, is the, the foundation of, of a capitalist economy. And so it's, it's, it's, it kind of strains credibility to say that he's condemning capitalism when the whole kind of, the whole point of his encyclical is that if you, if you want to help the poor, the first thing, the one thing you must do is protect private property and hold it sacred and inviolable. [00:14:46] Speaker A: Right, okay, so condemning socialism, criticizing capitalism. Okay, I'm just going to be blunt here. I'm pretty radical free market defender and so I might not even like his criticisms of capitalism. I will put that out there. But like an example you gave was the idea of putting profit over people. And that's something very commonly said in, in the Catholic world. But of course, from a free market perspective, profit is not considered this evil. It's the incentive so that you work, so that you do things. It's like the whole point is, is that we're not, we're over a fallen race. We don't, you know, we, we need incentives, incentives to work and, and to, we're not all just like living in this Garden of Eden where we're just like, hey, I'm gonna make something to help somebody else out. That's just not the way it works. However, if we make something and people want it and they really need it, like I make a better, you know, type of shoe and it really helps people that it lasts longer and it's better and stuff like that. Well, the way I know that is because, is profit because people buy it and they realize, hey, this is what I want. And so I make profit and that incentivizes me to make more and more. If nobody buys it, it could be the best shoe in the world. But it tells me it's not really helping anybody or I'm pricing it way too high or something like that. It's not worth what, what I'm pricing it at. And so I don't have profit and I go out of business, which I should go out of business because people didn't want it so like, how do you know how? Like Leo, or maybe even just generally people who follow Leo the 13th. Like, what would be an example of like an illegitimate way for a Catholic to put profit over people? Like, I don't have a lot of great examples in my own head. That's why I'm wondering. [00:16:36] Speaker B: Sure. Well, first of all, I love everything you said and I cannot say that I disagree with any of it. And yes, profit is a moral good in that it's evidence that you've created value, you've taken resources and you've done something innovative with them. You've been entrepreneurial and it's a sign that people found it valuable. So agree. An example of putting profit over people would, would be that, that Leo mentions in his encyclical, inhumane working hours, for example. You know, really bad, dangerous conditions in factories that don't take into account who the worker is. You know, he, and you know, it wouldn't be politically correct to say now, but you know, he talks about how men and women need different working conditions, conditions for children, neglecting the need for children to receive an education and having them work again, you know, really long hours in poor conditions. These would be examples even today. You know, another example could be not taking into account an individual's situation when determining their wages. So, you know, again from the encyclical, an example of this would be refusing to pay a wage that can support the term he uses is a well behaved wage earner and his family. And so it's interesting because, you know, under rare Navarre, it would probably be illegal to follow some of its, some of its prescriptions because, you know, it would probably run afoul of labor law in the US to pay two people a different salary for the same job because one is a single woman, say, and the other is a father of seven. Catholic social teaching would say, you, you must pay the father of seven more as a, as just a way of, of recognizing his humanity and who he is and what his responsibilities are. So, but yes, the refusal to pay a just wage in that sense would be putting profits over people. But, and, and interestingly, I think we also have to give credit to capitalism there for not eradicating it. Right. But for, for making those conditions that I just described, you know, much less common and not as proliferated as they were before because of that, of the competition that is, you know, that is a, is a part of capitalism, is that just as companies have to compete for, for customers, they also have to compete for employees. And so in addition to the good work that, that some of the good work that some unions have done in the past and that the, you know, the betterment of conditions, the, the weekend, for example, you know, or more humane working hours also came about because people have, have a choice about where to work. And so companies that want to attract, attract talent, attract good workers, you know, if they offer better conditions, it's that free market that allows that to flourish. So a nod to your free market there, Eric. [00:19:51] Speaker A: Right. So it's not necessarily even saying, or maybe is. Let me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Leo isn't necessarily saying that the government has to step in and order certain, like, wage levels depending on a person's background and their situation, but saying that Catholic employers should take these things into consideration when they're hiring, when they're, when they're paying and things like that. [00:20:18] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. There's not a. Because another misunderstanding that I had come across is that Rarim Nuvaram says it's, it's just or even necessary for government to set a minimum wage, but it's, he says no such thing. And it's more a role for the government to step in, in, in sort of, I guess, what you call, like, the, you know, the really egregious cases where private, where private organizations and associations have been unable to, to protect people. [00:20:49] Speaker A: Okay. I can't help myself as far as, like, just, I, I feel like I'm just trying, I'm disagreeing with, with Pope Leo too much, but I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm Catholic, so I'm, like, trying to, you know, set my thoughts properly. But, like, the just wage thing, because I remember talking to my kids about this one time and like, specifically like, paying people depending on, like, their background. Like, I admit I don't like that. I recoil from that. I've run businesses before in the past, and I feel like there's a couple reasons. First, I feel like if it was generally that, you know, you pay more to, let's say a dad of seven kids, which is what I am, to, let's say some, some, you know, kid who's single, somebody who's single. But we're, let's, we're saying we're identical workers as far as what we can produce and everything like that. Well, if I'm a company, I'm, I'm hiring the, the single guy then if it's like, it's, if it's understood because I, I, I, I get the exact same amount of work and I get, you know, but I actually can pay less than I'm paying because the other guy, I'm not paying him more because of something he produces for me. I can understand somebody thinking that also. Like, I feel like there's a little bit of a knowledge problem here in that what if that single guy who's in his 30s actually supports, like his family back home? Let's say he's, you know, legal immigrant or something like that, or even, not even legal. Maybe he's in Ohio and his family lives in California or something like that. And his, you know, he's basically sending his pay, a lot of his pay to them. Like his, maybe his brother's in a terrible situation and, you know, is disabled and he's supporting that family and he's supporting someone and he's doing all of that, but he's not advertising that when he walks in. And so like, all of a sudden I'm paying him less than the dad with seven kids. But really he's got the same obligation, you know, similar, maybe financial obligations, but I don't know that as the employer. And like, there's a certain. How can I know that? Like, am I going to really grill people at their interview about, I mean, as you said, it would run afoul of labor laws, but let's take that away for a second. Am I going to really grill him about, okay, first, I want to know how you could do this job. But second, I want to know your whole background, all your financial obligations and all that. And maybe it's a guy who's got seven kids and he's been terrible with his money. He's been very irresponsible with it. He's in a really bad bind. And he's like, oh, man, I need to make this much in order to make ends meet. Why? Because he has, like, loan payments that are like through the roof. Because he's like, blew out credit cards in the past on vacations and stuff. And I know Leo addresses that when he says the well behaved worker. So. But like, those are all things that come to my mind immediately when, when we start getting these discussions. I kind of wonder what, what would Leo, I mean, you can't know for sure, but what would Pope Leo say to me? Like, we just say, eric, shut up. You need to just learn Catholicism better. Or would he have, like, arguments against it where he's okay? I mean, what, what do you think Leo would say in that situation? [00:23:44] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I mean, those are, those are valid points. I mean, getting the The, That. That human relationship, though, I think between employer and employee is. And the. The moral qualities of everything we do with our money is the. He would. I think he would return to those two points and say, you know, hey, I'm writing in this time of the Industrial Revolution where we're. [00:24:12] Speaker A: We're. [00:24:13] Speaker B: We're trying to make it that humans aren't cogs and machines, right? Well, Eric, you're talking about people like they're cogs and machines, you know? [00:24:21] Speaker A: Right. [00:24:21] Speaker B: Show here even. I don't. I don't believe this, Eric. I'm just. I'm talking, like. [00:24:27] Speaker A: I mean, I might be very much. I mean, I know when I was an employer, when I was. And I had people working for me, I did try to treat them as human beings. But I will say part of this might be my background, might be a little bit, because the first time I worked for a startup Internet company in the late 90s during the dot com boom, and we blew up, I was literally. I was working in a friend's basement, just he and I. And, you know, he started and I came to work for him. And then literally we had 300 employees within, like, two years. It was just insane. And I was like 26 or 27. It was just. It was crazy. But I still remember, and I hope this person doesn't listen to this podcast. I don't think anybody will. They do. But. But this. This. This employee came to me and she wanted a raise simply because they had some financial issues in her, her and her husband. And I kind of gathered from talking to her, it kind of was because they had been financially kind of irresponsible. Maybe I'm being judgmental, but, like, it didn't seem like it was like, oh, say my husband got in an accident. Now, whatever. It was more just like we got these college loans and we got this stuff, you know, and she just wanted to raise for that reason. And I remember being, like, offended by that. And I was like, you work hard. Because I literally. There was another woman who worked for me who was like the best employee ever. And she never once asked for a raise or anything like that. She never once. And I was like, I will do anything to keep her on board. I'll pay, you know, And I made sure she got raises. And so it was like this whole thing of, like, I. I really felt like her. Her coming to me and asking race because of her personal background, it just rubbed me the wrong way. And I don't think I ever got over it. [00:26:05] Speaker B: I can see that. I Mean, I think there she's appealing to your. Whether she knew it or not. I mean, that's more a question charity rather than justice. Right? Like, yeah. [00:26:14] Speaker A: And she didn't know I was a jerk. So yeah, I do think it was that. And I felt like that, that actually is, that's a great point. And what I'm trying to say is like a business is not a charity. I mean, obviously if it's a charity run as business, but I mean a business in general, like we were an Internet company, we're not a charity. Like, I do think businesses should help charities. Like you should take some of your profits and donate them to charities. Absolutely, you should do that. But the business itself shouldn't, in my opinion, should not be considered a charity. Like the employees are not, are like charitable clients. They're part of the company. Like trying to make the, you know, with the purpose of trying to, whatever it is we're producing to do, produce the best, to satisfy our customers as best as possible. That's how I kind of look at it. And I mean, maybe Leo would tell me you gotta like look a little bit bigger than that. I don't know. So anyway, so I know I'm getting off on this, but I think he'd agree with you. [00:27:14] Speaker B: For the record, I think he would agree with you. And I. And I don't think that the examples that you gave there as, I mean, and they're probably not uncommon. Right. But that's not what Rarim Navarro would advocate for because again, there is that, that frequent return to the well behaved wage earner, like that's the, that is the condition or the responsibility of the employer to the employee. And not to, you know, to sort of enable or you know, to support those bad moral choices would not be something that it would, it would advocate. [00:27:48] Speaker A: And Leo would probably be supportive of that. Tell me if I think it's what you said earlier, like in that example I gave before of the seven guy with seven kids, but then also the single guy who's supporting his family, like the employer would get to know the employee and would discover that over time because they're investing in their lives on some level and then might say, you know, listen, I'm going to give you a raise. Not because the guy was like, I came to him like, oh, I got this sad story or something like that, but more just because it's like, hey, I want, I want you as an employee to stay with me. I know you have this situation and like you might go to somebody else who can Pay you more, I might lose you. You're a good employee, so I'm gonna, for that reason pay you more than maybe I originally agreed to just simply because. So is that kind of more the, the atmosphere that Leo would, I would kind of see? [00:28:38] Speaker B: Yeah, I think so. And also just, that's also just a beautiful testimony to the free market. You know, to your original point, it's very, I think, quite compatible these things because. Yeah, in that you're not treating your employees like cogs and machines. You're just seeing them as a means to an end, to accomplish whatever you guys are there to do, but just always regarding them in their humanity. And yeah, to your point, that might mean that you pay them more because you value them as an employee and you don't want them to go somewhere else, which of course they can, because we're in a free market. [00:29:13] Speaker A: Right. And that's, that's the case with like, you know, when you run a business, you want to treat your employees very well. It's really stupid from a business standpoint not to treat them well. And like I said about those two women who work for me and you know, two examples. One was great, I did everything I could and she stayed with us. And honestly, the woman who asked for the race, she later left us not that long afterwards. And like, you know, it's like I wasn't that upset about it because, you know, it just wasn't, it didn't really harm us that much and you know, maybe she got a better deal somewhere else. But like, I wanted to keep the, the top employees because they just helped, you know, our business, the hard working ones, things like that. So I want to apply though something you said about like the, the crazy working hours and things like that, that, that was existent back then. Well, we kind of are back to that. And I'm thinking of particularly one of my favorite companies, which is SpaceX. Elon is, is like well known for. He drives his employees, I mean, like really almost in the ground. I mean they work insane hours at these companies. I mean he expects them to basically their whole life to be, you know, working for the company and stuff like that. That's, I mean, I've read, you know, book about him and I've heard it say he said these things. So I think it's true, but like at the same time. So that's all true. That seems to go against kind of what we're, what we're talking about here, what Pope Leo is talking about. But at the same time people are lining up to work for him. And they're very excited because, I mean, you get to build a rocket to Mars. I mean, how much cooler can that be? So, like, what is the balance there? Like, should we condemn Elon because he's treating these employees so harshly? Or is it like, well, they're free to work somewhere else in our market. They. And they choose to work there voluntarily. It's not like he's forcing them to work there. So is there a problem here? Is it, you know, or like, well, if that's what people want to do, that's what they can do. [00:31:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I think that, that, that choice element that you mentioned, I think is really key because when, when Leo the 13th is writing, he's talking about people who really don't have a choice. And so I think that the people who are working at SpaceX, I don't know, and maybe I'm being stereotypical, but I'm. That these are probably all. Or mainly young men, maybe some young, some young women too. Probably not having started families yet. Or maybe they have and they, they want to work really hard to make a lot of money to support that family really well that the, they still retain, though, I think, in our day and age. And I think Leo would agree that they're retaining that agency. They do have a meaningful choice to work somewhere else if they want. It's not a matter. So he's writing about people who are trying to feed their families, you know, that literally, you know, are a paycheck away from, from starving, you know, from not being able to put food on the table. And so in that kind of situation, you know, and all the factories have the same conditions at that time. Like, so you can't just say, oh, I'm going to go work at a different factory, because they're all the same then. And so he was really trying to reach people's hearts at that time and to affect that change that, you know, which then, you know, is kind of taken up and did lead to some important reforms. And now, you know, we look back and it's a, it's a very different time for us because the church was on the, you know, on the leading edge of that issue, I think. But nowadays, I think it's. I don't think that the same critique would be coming from Leo. I think, just because of that. In fact, I think he might. As long as they're not, I mean, seriously, as long as they're not neglecting their religious duties, you know, as long as they're still keeping the Sabbath holy They're, they're putting, you know, they're keeping their prayer life front and center. Their, their wives or spouses and children are well cared for. You know, if they're working long hours, I mean, that's, that's actually good for the family, you know. So I think, I think, I think, I think he'd be, I think he'd be down. I think you'd be all right with this. [00:33:23] Speaker A: Yeah. And like, you know, good, because I didn't want to condemn SpaceX because I like. No. Well, I mean, it's interesting because, you know, as you said, probably the typical employee at SpaceX is a highly educated engineer type who can get jobs at a lot of places. They're not, they're not like, you know, desperate to find a job. They want to work there because they want to do something that they think is very important. And, and that can be okay, like you say, as long as the, the basics of Catholic life are obviously taken care of. So, and the truth is people are different personalities. I just read the other day where a lot of like CEO, like founder types of companies, these high power people, they're basically saying there is no such thing as work life balance in their world. Like, they're basically saying that if you want to be, if you want to build a company like an Elon or something like that, a Steve Jobs, you know, Larry Elson, whoever, then you're not going to have a work life balance wants. And I think that's actually refreshing that they're honest about it because it's true. And the, but because they also, if you read them more carefully, they say, listen, that's not for everybody. If you don't, if you, if you, the most important thing is your family, that's great. We're not saying anything against that. But you're not going to build some, you know, SpaceX or something like that. And I think that's all legitimate. I mean, you know, obviously we're not endorsing Elon Musk's personal life in any way here, but at the same time, it's like if you are, especially if you're like a single man and you have an idea for a company and you want to just go crazy building, you think it really will help the world or whatever, go for it. I mean, there's nothing, you know, you can work 80, 90 hours a week and that you're not violating any Catholic social teaching by doing so. But for those of us who don't want to do that, who would rather, because I work crazy Hours for a while with that Internet startup. I mean, yeah, it was, it was insane. We had actually, back in the day, we had these beepers. You're old enough. [00:35:12] Speaker B: Yes. [00:35:14] Speaker A: So like, it was when it was like doctors, the only ones who had them. But then we started getting. Because we had set up with a certain server we were hosting coming. A server went down, certain people would get a beep to say, okay, you got to get this back up. And at the beginning, I was literally the only guy who had a beeper. And so like 24, 7, that thing goes off, I have to get up. I have to immediately start working on it. And early on it was like going off, I mean, all the time. I mean, just all through the night and stuff like that. And I. My work habit back then was I get up more and go right down to my base. I was working from home work, come up for meals and then be there until bedtime. And it was not healthy, and I'm not doing that anymore. But it was, I was young, you know, and we were just, you know. [00:35:56] Speaker B: I also think this is a Gen X thing, right? [00:35:59] Speaker A: Yeah, right. [00:36:01] Speaker B: Us Gen Xers, we have a, you know, like, at. In around my office, you know, we'll have these, these conversations about work life balance and, you know, how do you keep your work life separate from your personal life? And I admit I'm kind of like, wait, what do you mean? Like, this is my life. Like, but yeah, you do have to. You have to, you have to watch that and keep it in check. And, and like you said, just not. [00:36:23] Speaker A: Yeah. And of course, I was working from home, so made a little better. I was around. But like, as the kids start getting older, I definitely was like, okay, I'm not doing this anymore. I gotta be a little more balanced on that. Anyway, I want to talk about something else that you mentioned, which was the importance of the family. So, you know, I, I, people watch this podcast, know I have libertarian leanings. But one of my biggest problems, libertarian leaning libertarians, is like, to focus on the individual. Whereas, like, you know, the communist socialists, they focus on, like, the community. But I feel like this is where Leo is really saying, in the Catholic world, there is a third way. I don't like the third way terminology a lot of times because it's like, I don't know, they, they're trying to be like, we're not capitalists, we're not socialists. But, like, I do feel like this is it, the emphasis on the family. How did Leo kind of see in Catholic society in general? See, the family is kind of the central unit of the economy and, and like, and our society. [00:37:17] Speaker B: Yeah. He says so many times, I kind of lost count in the document, you know, that the family precedes the state. Like that is, you know, he kind of, he has this theme that he goes to and so really like, you know, we're coming up on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration, you're probably aware, next year. So there's this, there's a lot of talk about, you know, about the philosophy of the Declaration and, and yes, it's individualism and just this idea that, that, you know, that we're like John Locke and Jefferson and, and men of those times might have said, you know, we're born into a state of nature, but really we're born into a family. Like that is the natural condition of, of every, of every human being. And so, yeah, the family being that. That fundamental unit is a recurring theme and you know, is just. Is really wonderful because it encapsulates so many principles of Catholic social teaching, like subsidiarity and, and just the dignity of the human person, you know, all these beautiful concepts and things that are so important in society, like, you know, marriage being held sacred and the education of children. And. And so it's just, it was really affirming in that way, you know, as a Catholic, to read it because, yeah, this is just the most precious thing. And it was front and center in this encyclical, which, you know, today, like, you never really hear about that part of it. And yeah, it's just a really beautiful testimony that he gives just about how central and irreplaceable the family is and how it came before the state and, and most of the time it doesn't need the state's help, you know. Yeah, I know there's, you know, there's different points of view on to what extent the state should be involved in even being involved in marriage at all. I think Leah would say, I would agree, you know, that, yeah, the, the state has an interest in the well being of children and the rearing of children and their development. And so since that, that is a legitimate end of government, then, yeah, the, the husband, wife, that family unit is, is the fundamental cell of society. [00:39:31] Speaker A: Yeah. An actual marriage, not the fake marriage that we have these days. I think some of the things we were talking about kind of refer back to the family in that we were talking about the, the wages given to an employee. You're not just looking at the employee, the individual, but you're looking at the family situation, the work hours, the, the, the, the weight conditions have to do with like their ability to be a good father or, you know, in the family and a husband, things like that, wherever the case may be. So I do think all that stuff, family is kind of the central point there because it is the basis of society. So I think that's good. And you brought up another point though, and this is the one that, you know, people talk about, some Catholics do, but I don't think, I'm not sure how much we understand it. And that subsidiarity, like, okay, so is it true? Like, it seems like today you get your more progressive Catholics, they emphasize the solidarity aspect. The more conservative Catholics emphasize the subsidiarity aspect. Is it really a case where it's equal or is there is. There is. Does Leo have more of an emphasis on one than the other? Does one like serve the other or how does that, how do those two things kind of relate to each other? [00:40:42] Speaker B: I think like so many Catholic things, it's a, both. And I guess like when I read it, the, the subsidiarity part does. Maybe it just speaks to me more strongly. But I think they're both there, right? Because, but they don't contradict. But there's a proper ordering of things. And so, you know, you can even just go to something as simple as the Ten Commandments. And there are specific commandments to honor your parents, you know, don't commit adultery. Like our family units are that most fundamental thing. And so this idea of subsidiarity, that the lowest or the smallest possible community or society, you know, should handle things, and then only if they can't, should a higher ordered body step in, you know, or agency or level of whatever, whatever it is, respecting that can sometimes be difficult and lead to things that are, you know, unhappy because if someone's not, you know, doing the best job that they could as a, as a wife or a mother or a husband or a father, but really nothing can change the fact that that is the father's responsibility or, you know, the parents responsibility. So kind of respecting that is super important as far as like understanding subsidiarity and the need for those higher levels to, to respect the lower levels and step in when needed to support, but not try to overrun. And so I see multiple warnings about that from Leo about how it would distort the role of government to be, you know, in like to make government a charity basically would. And obviously, you know, answering the socialist call to just eradicate private property just One of the things he was responding to at the time and for the government to basically enforce that, you know, quote, unquote, equality in society would completely distort and pervert society and be super harmful. So I don't know if that. [00:42:56] Speaker A: Yeah, well, yeah, I kind of want to apply that though, then, to today. Like, how would you say after, like really studying. NAVARRO how would you say today, for example, where are some examples of where, like in America, like we're violating the principles that he is laying out there, whether it be in government or the economy or whatever. What would you say are some, like, big ones where you'd say that really doesn't jive with what Leo was talking about in Rome? NAVARRO oh, man. There are more like, you know, give me 400. Yeah, yeah. [00:43:33] Speaker B: I mean, direct assistance from government. Like, who is it that did the veto of the Texas seat bill? Was that Grover Cleveland? [00:43:43] Speaker A: I don't remember. Yeah, I know what you're talking about, though. [00:43:45] Speaker B: There's a president who vetoed a federal. I'm going to answer your question in a moment, but I'm just kind of working my way there. The. I was post Dust Bowl, I could be getting the history wrong, but there, there had been a drought in Texas. Right. And the Texas farmers had eaten their seed corn. And so Congress took up this bill to give them direct assistance and grove. And I believe it was Grover Cleveland vetoed it. But his veto message, everybody should read because I don't, I, I don't think he was Catholic, but it had some really great Catholic principles in it. But. And one of the things he does is he makes this point that when the government takes on this role of charity, it deprives the people of the bonds of brotherhood that would be there if we were actually helping each other instead of sort of, sort of outsourcing it to. [00:44:38] Speaker A: Right. [00:44:39] Speaker B: A level of government. Now, I think local government is completely different thing. State governments, like, there's proper powers associated with different levels of government. And so I'm not saying that local governments providing, you know, direct assistance or kind of welfare safety nets. I'm not saying that that would violate subsidiarity at all. Like, it probably very much in keeping with it, but federal government, totally different thing. So that, that might be one example. I think education is, is another. I have some. Maybe some strong. [00:45:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm sure you do. [00:45:17] Speaker B: But yeah, like, there are things that are really rightfully the domain of the family that when. I mean. And all you have to do is kind of look at like the Great Society, you Know, these, these government programs that effectively tried to replace the family and the intent, I, I mean, actually I can't know what's in anybody's hearts, but I think sometimes people have trouble looking past the intent of a law. Like, oh, this law was intended to help families, or this law is intended to help the poor, but does it, you know, so asking that question, I think is, is important. But even just, you know, at a more basic fundamental level, thinking of subsidiarity, which I think federalism is a, you know, it's not the exact same thing, but our federal system, you know, with the national government having its powers that are proper to it and state governments and local governments, I think that kind of approximates, you know, is pretty on par with what a, what a, what a good understanding of subsidiarity might be. It's like the reasons that the national government has the powers it's, it does is because those are things only the national government should do, like make war. You know, the post office, those, those things. If you look at the powers of the federal government, the enumerated ones, they're actually pretty few compared to the states, which are numerous and indefinite according to James Madison. There's a reason for that. [00:46:40] Speaker A: So. [00:46:41] Speaker B: Yeah, so. [00:46:43] Speaker A: So there's many. We could go on and on about those, I'm sure. [00:46:45] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:46:46] Speaker A: Okay, now I want to, I'm gonna ask a kind of a funny question, I think, which is, you know, we talked about the beginning, how Pope Leo XIV took the name particularly like, kind of as a callback to Leo XIII responding to industrial revolution, as you said, and also the response to that and kind of like the AI revolution that's going on now. Okay, so Pope Leo XIV calls you up and he's like, veronica, I want you to be my top advisor when I'm writing my encyclical about AI and like how we should, how we should, you know, respond to this, this revolution, this work revolution based on principles of arms of like that. What's like the advice you give him overall? Like, what does he say? What should he say, do you think, when it comes to like how AI is changing our economy, our work life, things like that, and applying Catholic social teaching to it, so. [00:47:39] Speaker B: Well, first of all, that's a totally ridiculous question. But yeah, I think it's gonna happen. [00:47:45] Speaker A: I think you on the horn before you watch this interview. He's gonna get you on the horn before you know it. [00:47:51] Speaker B: Yeah, I need to get him, get him a copy. But the. Yeah, there's two, I think General, like Forms of AI, right? There's AI and generative AI and the, the purposes and the places where they're used. Right. So I would say, I think there's, there's, there's artificial intelligence that helps, Let me see, I want to say this correctly, that helps people think or work with the precision of a machine. So like AI that reads X rays or, you know, CT scans or weather maps, you know, things that require a person to have, you know, really almost like superhuman discernment and, you know, to be able to like, detect, you know, changes in patterns. Like where a person needs to be more like a machine. To do a good job well. To do a job well. Great. Bring in the AI, Right, because that's actually like, that's a help. That is a. I would call that just a, A clear good. But then on the flip side, AI that tries to make the. Make the computer appear human or do things that only a human can do. I would say only a human can do, like art, you know, or philosophy or theology. So where there's. And even more like sinisterly like where this idea that you would have AI teachers or AI, you know, doing anything directly with children, where there's not a human, like intermediary, but you've got this, this machine that is essentially presenting itself as human, especially when you have children who might not be able to tell the difference. So that takes my breath away of what could happen in a couple of generations if we forget what it means to be human, you know, so that, that's probably what I would tell him, to be aware of those two different types or applications of AI and think, you know, is it, is it helping the person be more like a machine? Yes. On the flip side, if it's trying to make the human. Sorry, if it's trying to make the machine impersonate a person or present itself or take on these human tendencies, I would be wary. [00:50:21] Speaker A: I like that distinction. In fact, that's one of my frustrations with the AI discussion. I've been seeing online a lot of what I call the Catholic prophets of AI doom, where it's just like all AI is evil. It's the worst evil. It's going to bring down civilization and stuff. And I'm like, okay, I'm definitely know that there's some serious dangers with AI, but like, it's just like this generic umbrella that covers everything. And really it's like, you know, do you remember this? I always like this example. Do you remember back in the 90s, Microsoft Word had that little clippy, like that's not going to bring down the downfall society. That's an AI thing. It was, it was dumb. But you know, only, only Gen X and probably understand that reference anyway. But the point is, is that like I'm, I'm hoping and I think he will. I think Pope Leo with his background is going to understand the distinctions that it's not, he's not going to just say all AI. I was actually talking to. I'm going to call her out. I don't care. I, I'm talking one of my daughters and she just hates AI and one of my adult daughters and she was saying how. Saying well, Pop Leo is probably gonna write something about this. I think it's gonna probably be balanced a Catholic view. She like, I hope he just condemns it all and says it all. You have to reject it all. I'm like, I don't think he's gonna do that. But I did think it was kind of funny. [00:51:33] Speaker B: I have a son who I love very much who feels the same as your daughter. [00:51:37] Speaker A: Okay. Yeah. I think there's something interesting about that, that some of these younger people, they really are they. I think they might see things a little bit differently than we do as far as like with technology and stuff. And because they've grown up with it in a different way than we did, we actually grew up without it and then, you know, we adapted to it. Whereas they, it's been part of their. I assume your children probably about the same age as mine. So yeah, I think that's interesting. But I also think that, yeah. So I think we have to distinction. I think that was great. Your distinction was a very good one because there's like, I'm thinking of like there's some stuff AI can be so good at. Like for example, like the telescopes, like the James Webb telescope and stuff. They, they like, they get so much data. There is no way a human can go through that data or a ton of humans can go through that data and make any sense of it. But an AI program can whip through that stuff and really process it to make it something that humans can be like, okay, this is actually useful information now. [00:52:32] Speaker B: Right. And, and yeah, and that point too about the ends for which is used, I mean that goes for any technology. Right? But yeah, maybe probably even more so for AI that it has to be used for a purpose that's good for humanity. You can't separate those, the means and ends. [00:52:46] Speaker A: Right. And to tie everything together. I just want to note that Sophie Institute Press will be publishing my upcoming book on the Catholic Guide to Artificial Intelligence. [00:52:56] Speaker B: Nice. [00:52:56] Speaker A: So, you know, that's. [00:52:58] Speaker B: I can't wait to read it. [00:52:59] Speaker A: Yes. It's kind of funny, though, because I'm writing it right now. And I told Sophia, I said. I said, I'm definitely. I. And I'm supposed to get finished by the end of the year this year, and they'll probably come out in the spring. However, I was like, I kind of want to see if Pope Leo puts something out, because I don't want to have my book come out, like. And Pope Leo. And I miss Pope Leo, what he says about it, because I think it's gonna be very important. So we're kind of waiting on that. So as far as people wondering when it's going to come out, I don't really know because I was going to say spring. But if Leo. If it looks like Lou's about to put out a document on AI, I need to. I mean, obviously we have to use that as a major guidepost for us in understanding it. So anyway. [00:53:37] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a tough waiting game. Yeah, I know. [00:53:41] Speaker A: I mean, the reason I. I like, if he wasn't going to write for a while, then it's like, well, we just put the book out, but he. [00:53:46] Speaker B: Right. I know what they're saying. Any day now. [00:53:49] Speaker A: There's a news report that's being written, so that tells me it probably will be out by spring at the latest. So we'll see. Okay, so I think we're gonna wrap it up there. But this has been great. So a pocket guy to. Rarem Navarro is a great. And really. Why don't you just real quick. We didn't really talk too much about the book, which is fine. Why don't you just explain, like, what the book does? Because I was a little surprised when I got it. It wasn't what I thought it was going to be, and I liked it, but I just wanted to. Why don't you explain what the book is, like, how it's, like, formatted and all that stuff, like what you guys did. [00:54:21] Speaker B: Yeah, well, first and foremost, we wanted people to read the document. So it contains Rerum Navarre, but then it also, like, this is probably trademark, so I probably shouldn't say this. We also have, like, kind of like a little Cliff Notes version of it. So if you can kind of picture a left and right side of the book, on one side you have the text of the encyclical, and on the left you have what he. What Leo wrote, which, you know, the vocabulary can be a little challenging. Sentence structure, you know, can be a little challenging. Well, it can be very challenging, honestly. So there is a very faithful digest, you know, of the key points written in. In. In really kind of easy to understand language. So I. I hope that that is a help for anyone who, you know, wants to tackle the document, but with a little support, you know. [00:55:09] Speaker A: Right. [00:55:10] Speaker B: So definitely don't only read the digest, read both. But the little digest can kind of just help you put in context the. The actual writing of the Pope. And then there's this really cool forward by one of Pope Leo XIV's former associates. A quick little introduction from me. And so I think it's just so important that this document is, like, people cite it all the time. It's really heralded as, you know, this, like, foundation of, quote, unquote, modern Catholic social teaching. You really have to know what it says because there is. I just do think there is a lot of misinformation about it. I think. I think not everybody who says things about it that turn out to be wrong is. It's, you know, lying or anything. I think it just, you know, it kind of took on a life of its own because it was so seminal, you know, such an important work. But I think it's really important to read it for yourself. [00:56:02] Speaker A: Yeah. And that's why I didn't realize was that this pocket guide contains the entire encyclical. [00:56:07] Speaker B: Yes. [00:56:07] Speaker A: And so the point of this is to get you to read the encyclical and understand it. Not because I thought it was going to be a booklet of you telling us what it actually says. But that's not what it is. It's like, okay, here's what you read it and then I'll help you understand. So, like, because some of the language, you know, it's over 130 years old or something like that, so it's going to have some language and just how people wrote back then and stuff like that. So I think it was very great because that's what we want. We want people to actually read the document, not just what people say about it. And this allows you to do that and understand what it's saying. So I think. I think it's a great little book. So I'll put a link to that, obviously, in the show notes so people can buy that from Sophia. Of course. [00:56:45] Speaker B: Absolutely. [00:56:46] Speaker A: Okay. Well, thanks a lot, Veronica. I really appreciate you being on the program. [00:56:50] Speaker B: Thank you so much, Eric. It was such a pleasure. [00:56:52] Speaker A: Yeah. Okay, everybody. Until next time. God love you, Sam.