They Lied to You About Rerum Novarum

In his first address to the College of Cardinals, Leo XIV explained his choice of name was inspired by “Pope Leo XIII [who] in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution.” 

I knew of Rerum Novarum as the foundation of Catholic Social Teaching, and I had accepted the common claim that it rejects both socialism and capitalism. But there was a certain dissatisfaction about this understanding, a sense that I must have been missing something. As the daughter of Cuban exiles, I could not fathom how the Church could reject these two systems to the same degree when one had lifted millions out of poverty while the other had slaughtered millions in the name of equality.

So, now that Leo XIV had given this encyclical a place of honor in his new pontificate, I stopped relying on secondhand interpretations and read it for myself. 

What Does Rerum Novarum Really Say?

As I read it, disbelief gave way to outrage. How misled I had been! This was no evenhanded critique of socialism on the one hand and capitalism on the other! It was a strong condemnation of socialism backed by a vigorous, principled defense of private property and the family. And, even more radically for our day, it was an explanation of why socialism hurts the poor rather than helps them. Leo never once promotes government redistribution of wealth as a general policy, but he does say—several times!—that only when private property is held sacred (yes, sacred) can we truly help the needy.

I could hardly think of a more provocative statement these days, certain to make most modern social justice warriors uncomfortable. 

And it seems others feel the same. The opening paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on Rerum Novarum (RN) contains what I now know are multiple misrepresentations: 

It supports the rights of labor to form trade unions [true], and rejects both socialism and capitalism [false] while affirming the right to private property [true, though vastly understated] and to a living wage [misleading, given how the term is used today].

Does RN champion the right to form unions governed by Christian morality? Absolutely, and with good reason. 

Does it critique the treatment of workers as means to an end, inhumane working conditions, defrauding workers of their wages, and other practices where the rich and powerful treat workers as slaves? Yes, strongly. But capitalism hardly has a monopoly on these—it’s got nothing on atheistic Communism. And as the horrors of Communism began to be made known two generations after Leo XIII wrote RN, the Church has left absolutely no doubt that Communism is evil and irreconcilable with Christianity.

What Is a “Living Wage”?

One point from the Wikipedia entry is especially salient today: the “living wage” claim. Does RN argue that workers have the right to a living wage? Yes, though it does not use that term. Here is how RN expresses the idea (emphasis added):

Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages should support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner…. If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided…

Do you believe the average Wikipedia reader thinks this is what “living wage” means? Sadly, the term is often used by those aiming to stoke division and envy, and nothing will put that fire out more quickly than realizing Catholic Social Teaching emphasizes property ownership as a natural right, requires wages to reflect the individual’s situation, and places demands on how employees spend their earnings. And that, Leo XIII argues, is how you get a more equitable distribution of property. Equity! 

The Injustice of a Uniform Wage

But it gets even worse for the “wage gap” crowd. If, as Leo XIII claims, “it is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten,” then “a workman’s wages [must] be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children….” And it follows, then, that employers cannot pay everyone the same for the same work. Christian employers must, for example, pay a father of five more than they do a young, unmarried woman. 

Ironically, paying employees different wages for the same work based on family status (e.g., whether they have children) is not praised as an example of social justice but would, in fact, almost certainly violate U.S. employment discrimination laws and could result in serious consequences. But there is, as Leo XIII contends, “a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man.” As a matter of distributive justice (which RN notes is an end of government), the father of five is due more than is the young, single woman because it is a sacred law of nature that he must provide for his wife and children.

Mutual Responsibilities

Similar to family relationships, RN describes the relationship between employers and employees as one of mutual responsibility. Employers have more responsibilities; chief among them are to provide humane and moral working conditions and a wage that supports a thrifty, well-behaved wage earner and his family; The employee, for his part, must put in an honest day’s work and wisely steward his earnings, save for the future, and not squander money on vices. 

Leo XIII derives this employee responsibility from Christian anthropology and the created order. Unlike any other animal, he points out, man has the ability to plan for his and his family’s future; and property rights flow, in part, from this responsibility (and not any collectivist ideology—the family precedes the state).

A final warning from Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum bears taking to heart. Leo XIII repeatedly condemns those who work up “the poor man’s envy of the rich” to incite violence and tear at the fabric of society: “They delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present.” Similarly, put no faith in their promises of a secular utopia. “If human society is to be healed now, in no other way can it be healed save by a return to Christian life and Christian institutions.”

For a correct understanding of the foundations of Catholic Social Teaching, examine Rerum Novarum for yourself! Make no mistake, its meaning is at the center of a propaganda war that counts on you not reading it.