Rerum Novarum: Major Themes
- Work and the economy, with special emphasis on the respective rights and duties of capital and labor.
- The nature of the common good and the obligation to promote it.
- The role of the state in society.
Work and the Economy
Pope Leo XIII was deeply concerned with the state of workers. In that time, he argued, “working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition.” (3)
At the same time, however, Leo abhorred socialism, writing of socialists that “They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.” (4) Rerum novarumoffers a qualified defense of private property. On the one hand, Leo contends that the right to private property is based on natural law. (6)[1]On the other hand, however, Leo cautions that wealth must be used for the welfare of all, especially the indigent.
True, 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, "for no one ought to live other than becomingly.” But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. (22)
Returning to the plight of the worker, Leo advocated both state intervention in the economy and collective action by workers.
- “Daily labor … should be so regulated as not to be protracted over longer hours than strength admits.” (42)
- “And, in regard to children, great care should be taken not to place them in workshops and factories until their bodies and minds are sufficiently developed. For, just as very rough weather destroys the buds of spring, so does too early an experience of life's hard toil blight the young promise of a child's faculties, and render any true education impossible.” (42)
- “The most important of all [beneficial societies] are workingmen's unions, for these virtually include all the rest. History attests what excellent results were brought about by the artificers' guilds of olden times. They were the means of affording not only many advantages to the workmen, but in no small degree of promoting the advancement of art, as numerous monuments remain to bear witness. Such unions should be suited to the requirements of this our age - an age of wider education, of different habits, and of far more numerous requirements in daily life.” (49)
In speaking of the right of workers to associate together, however, Leo was not talking about modern trade unions:
Associations of every kind, and especially those of working men, are now far more common than heretofore. As regards many of these there is no need at present to inquire whence they spring, what are their objects, or what the means they imply. 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 well-being; 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. (54)
Instead, he seems to have had in mind some form of Catholic workers’ association, apparently to be modeled on the medieval guild system.
It was only later Papal documents, such as Pope Pius X’s encyclical letter Singulari quadam, that more explicitly refer to organizations akin to modern trade unions (sydicatus):
… where either the laws of a country, or certain special economic institutions, or that deplorable dissension of minds and hearts so widespread in contemporary society and an urgent necessity of combating with united purpose and strength the massed ranks of revolutionarists, have prevented Catholics from founding purely Catholic labor unions. Under these conditions, Catholics seem almost forced to join secular labor unions. These unions, however, should always profess justice and equity and give Catholic members full freedom to care for their own conscience and obey the laws of the Church. It is clearly the office of bishops, when they know that these associations are on account of circumstances necessary and are not dangerous to religion, to approve of Catholic workers joining them, keeping before their eyes, however, the principles and precautions laid down by Our Predecessor, Pius X of holy memory.[24] Among these precautions the first and chief is this: Side by side with these unions there should always be associations zealously engaged in imbuing and forming their members in the teaching of religion and morality so that they in turn may be able to permeate the unions with that good spirit which should direct them in all their activity. As a result, the religious associations will bear good fruit even beyond the circle of their own membership. (Quadragesimo Anno, 35)
The Common Good
The English translationof Rerum Novarumrefers explicitly to the “common good” five times, but nowhere defines it. Leo probably felt it unnecessary to do so, because the term can be traced in Catholic theology back through Aquinas to Augustine.
The Compendium defines it as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily.” (164)
Pope Leo acknowledged a role for the State in advancing the common good (so much for the libertarian night watchman state), observing that “it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good.” (32)
Leo also posits that all citizens “can and ought to contribute to that common good in which individuals share so advantageously to themselves,” while acknowledging that the ways on which each individual does so can and must vary by their condition and that of society. (34)
Leo also returns to the question of private property, explicitly rejecting the socialist notion that the common good can justify “any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people's possessions.” He therefore condemned radical revolutionaries “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.” (38)
The Role of the State in Society
Church and State
Lucia Silecchia observes that:
The Church sees its place as neither beholden to nor bound by any particular order. Instead, while contributing a moral framework of law and policy making, Catholic social teaching remains hospitable to a wide variety of political regimes and parties.
How wide? In other words, are there political regimes and parties the Church views as illegitimate?
Rerum Novarumdoes not speak to this question, but its principles lay the framework on which later encyclicals build a somewhat qualified preference for democracy and opposition to totalitarianism and dictatorships.
Subsidiarity
Lucia Silecchia observes that:
… Octogesima Adveniensteaches, "[t]he domain of politics is wide and comprehensive, but it is not exclusive," [so] the Church's teaching is directed to all the institutions that can shape society. These include, but are not limited to, families, religious communities, schools, social and fraternal organizations, private charitable organizations, lay professionals in all fields, and, in some ways most importantly, individuals. (284)
Although Rerum Novarumdoes not explicitly discuss subsidiarity by name, the concept is clearly embedded in it. Pope Leo XIII emphasizes, for example, that “the State must not absorb the individual or the family; both should be allowed free and untrammelled action so far as is consistent with the common good and the interest of others.” (35) Later he again touches on what became the principle of subsidiarity, remarking that “Private societies, … although they exist within the body politic, and are severally part of the commonwealth, cannot nevertheless be absolutely, and as such, prohibited by public authority.” (51)
Practical Applications
I posed two questions to the class that attempted to get them thinking about how CST can be used to understand public policy questions. In part, however, I did do to illustrate how CST is often a blunt instrument for answering specific questions. It’s much better at laying out broad principles.
- At most corporations today, the chief executive officer (CEO) earns vastly more than the median worker. To cite just a couple of examples, Kohl’s reported a pay ratio of 1,264 to 1, with the median worker making $8,975 compared to the CEO’s pay of $11.3 million. Under Armour reported a pay ratio of 378 to 1, with median employee paid $10,686 a year. What would Pope Leo likely have said about such disparities? Does Rerum Novarum suggest any policy responses to such disparities?
I don’t think Pope Leo would have condemned inequalities of wealth out of hand. “It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level.” (17) Instead, Leo wrote that:
The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. … His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages axe 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. (20)
Rerum Novarum is thus less concerned with the CEOs wages than with ensuring that all workers are paid a just wage.
Having said that, however, Pope Leo introduces the important CST concept of stewardship:
… those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles; that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ—threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord—and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men's minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. "It is lawful," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence."" But if the question be asked: How must one's possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: "Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world... to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’" True, 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, "for no one ought to live other than becomingly." But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms." (22)
In sum, the Pope reminds the wealthy that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
- What limitations on the right of private property would Pope Leo regard as legitimate? Consider, for example, the following: Environmental regulations that prevent a landowner from damaging the habitat of endangered species? Trespassing laws that allow landowners to expel the homeless from their property? In the United Kingdom, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gave hikers a conditional right to access most areas of uncultivated private land.
This question is really designed to tee up for future classes the question of whether Pope Leo XIII’s strong defense of private property is something of an outlier in CST. Aquinas’ defense of private property rested on prudential grounds rather than natural law. Post-Rerum Novarumpapal encyclicals, moreover, made clear that the right to possess private property is limited. Pope John Paul II, for example, wrote in Laborem Exercensthat:
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. (14)
The Compendium thus affirms that “regulated interventions are necessary” to ensure the just use of goods. (173)
[1]Interestingly, although the title of the encyclical invokes the “new things” of the late 19th Century, Pope Leo’s analysis of private property (5-9) seems far more concerned with property in an agrarian society (i.e., land) than with the burgeoning industrial society of the time.
