Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII
- Very Average Joe
- 7 minutes ago
- 10 min read
Pope Leo XIII (b. 2 March 1810 – d. 20 July 1903), born Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi Pecci, began his pontificate on 20 February 1878. His papacy is the fourth longest in the history of the Church. He is known for having composed the Prayer to Archangel St Michael and for the encyclical “Humanum Genus” on freemasonry published on 20 April 1884.
The encyclical “Rerum Novarum” was published on 15 May 1891. It is subtitled “On Capital and Labor” or “On the Condition of the Working Classes”. The document is approximately 14,100 words in 64 paragraphs.
This is in response to the “spirit of revolutionary change” occurring at the time in the sphere of politics as well as economics, obviously referring to socialism, which had “taken a deeper hold on the public mind”.
Whilst the pope notes the “marvelous discoveries of science”, he also points out “the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses” and, finally, “the prevailing moral degeneracy”.
Leo XIII admits the discussion regarding the duties of rich and poor and capital and labor “is not easy” but it is necessary, particularly when “crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men’s judgments and to stir up the people to revolt”.
The pope begins pointing out that workmen’s guilds have been abolished with no other protective organization or laws taking their place. In fact, “[p]ublic institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion”.
The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.
No names are mentioned but nothing has fundamentally changed. And note the mention of “usury”.
The socialists claim to fix this problem by “transferring property from private individuals to the community” so that each can get a “fair share”. This obviously “distort the functions of the State” since it conveniently manages such measures. It also strips away the liberty of the wage-earner to dispose of his property.
Man’s needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.
More fundamentally, private ownership does not contradict the law of nature.
Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates—that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.
Leo XIII reminds the audience of the divine law from which civil law should be derived:
The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another’s: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.” (Deutoronomy 5:21)
The right to property is not only for the individual but the family which is a smaller unit of society.
No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God’s authority from the beginning: “Increase and multiply.” (Genesis 1:28) Hence we have the family, the “society” of a man’s house—a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.
The father of the household has the duty to provide for the family, which the State should not hinder.
Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, “at least equal rights”; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.
The State should only step in when members of society need help, “for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.”
The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.
As for the labor itself, socialism takes away “any interest in exerting his talents or his industry”.
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.
Leo XIII then discusses the flaws of socialism’s assumptions and arguments. He criticizes the assumption that society can be reduced to “one dead level”. Materially, no one is equal and this “inequality” is not necessarily “disadvantageous”. This variation allows each to choose a part that suits them when it comes to contributing to society. Of course, all men are created in the image of God and He wants to save everyone; in this respect, all are equal.
He then reminds the audience that the need to work in a fallen world will not cease in this lifetime. Alleviating the sufferings of the poor should not fall into that delusion and those who promise otherwise “will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present”.
He criticizes the assumption that “class is naturally hostile to class” when they need to and can work together.
Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital.
Of course, this requires the worker to be faithful in performing their duties and not, for example, engage in riot. Likewise, employers must deal justly with their employees.
Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this—that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers … which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.” [James 5:4] Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred.
Nonetheless, there is value in suffering.
Jesus Christ, when He redeemed us with plentiful redemption, took not away the pains and sorrows which in such large proportion are woven together in the web of our mortal life. He transformed them into motives of virtue and occasions of merit; and no man can hope for eternal reward unless he follow in the blood-stained footprints of his Savior.
Whether one is rich or poor, “the only important thing is to use them aright”. Private property is right and necessary and “no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life”.
Nonetheless, Christian charity demands that one uses one’s gifts, whatever they are, for the benefit of others. In the end, a strict account must be given to God.
Of course, that does not mean the poor should remain poor. The Church desires them to “rise above poverty and wretchedness, and better their condition in life; and for this she makes a strong endeavor”. Historically, the Church has always tried to provide for the poor “in order to spare them the shame of begging”. Despite that, some blame the Church for society’s ills.
They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State.
This is a subtle way of saying socialists use helping the poor as an excuse for more control.
It is by the labor of the working class that “States grow rich”. Therefore, the State should do nothing to impede family life and the practice of religion, and that they can enjoy the benefits of their work. Order needs to be maintained and the State should step in if:
“by a strike of workers or concerted interruption of work there should be imminent danger of disturbance to the public peace”
“if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed”
“if religion were found to suffer through the workers not having time and opportunity afforded them to practice its duties”
“in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil”
“employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust, or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings”
“health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age.”
The extent the State acts should be proportional, that “the law must not undertake more, nor proceed further, than is required for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the mischief”.
Leo XIII assumes that most workers are honest enough to simply make an honest living. However, he warns that there are
…not a few who are imbued with evil principles and eager for revolutionary change, whose main purpose is to stir up disorder and incite their fellows to acts of violence. The authority of the law should intervene to put restraint upon such firebrands, to save the working classes from being led astray by their maneuvers, and to protect lawful owners from spoliation.
As for wages, although agreements are made by free consent between employer and employee, one obviously important consideration is that the worker needs to work in order to live. Therefore, wages should be sufficient to live on.
If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.
Apart from that, the pope does not discuss the nature of capital (money) or money creation. That is arguably another discussion but it would be helpful if he did. The last section addresses organizations, associations and institutions such as, but not limited to, unions that help workers in their time of need and “draw the two classes more closely together”.
Leo XIII quotes from St Thomas Aquinas about public and private societies. Even though the latter exists in and involves the public, insofar as it does not cause trouble, the State should not forbid them since it exists to safeguard the wellbeing of man, including the natural right to conduct private matters. This comment is made in the context of the State attacking the Church and its religious orders.
In many places the State authorities have laid violent hands on these communities, and committed manifold injustice against them; it has placed them under control of the civil law, taken away their rights as corporate bodies, and despoiled them of their property, in such property the Church had her rights, each member of the body had his or her rights, and there were also the rights of those who had founded or endowed these communities for a definite purpose, and, furthermore, of those for whose benefit and assistance they had their being.
At the same time, there are organizations that exist for nefarious purposes that should be disbanded. Whilst Leo XIII does not explicitly state secret societies, no doubt the below is at least partly referring to those that have been infiltrated by them.
Now, there is a good deal of evidence in favor of the opinion that many of these societies are in the hands of secret leaders, and are managed on principles ill-according with Christianity and the public wellbeing; and that they do their utmost to get within their grasp the whole field of labor, and force working men either to join them or to starve. Under these circumstances Christian working men must do one of two things: either join associations in which their religion will be exposed to peril, or form associations among themselves and unite their forces so as to shake off courageously the yoke of so unrighteous and intolerable an oppression. No one who does not wish to expose man’s chief good to extreme risk will for a moment hesitate to say that the second alternative should by all means be adopted.
The pope advises that the general rule for these organizations is to look to God and religion first, that one does not lose one’s soul whilst trying to improve their life. He finishes with a reminder that the early Christians, although poor, converted many by their good conduct and example.
We are told that it was cast as a reproach on the Christians in the early ages of the Church that the greater number among them had to live by begging or by labor. Yet, destitute though they were of wealth and influence, they ended by winning over to their side the favor of the rich and the goodwill of the powerful.
Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!
