Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Reading Rerum Novarum, Part III

Reading Rerum Novarum, Part III

Last updated on: June 22, 2020 at 1:06 pm by David Cruz-Uribe

Reading Rerum Novarum, Part III 2020-06-22T13:06:49-05:00 David Cruz-Uribe

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is a continuation of my reflections and ramblings on Rerum Novarum. You can read the previous two posts in Part I and Part II.

Our discussion got off to an interesting start. One of the women who belongs to the reading group called attention to a number of references to women and gender roles that sound, frankly, sexist to modern ears. For instance, we have the categorical declaration that

Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well- being of the family. (par 42)

Earlier in the text, Leo XII, in his discussion of “peace and good order” warned of the “danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes” (par. 36). The language about “modesty” was a read flag for me: in previous years I have blogged extensively about (see here and here) and I am openly critical of the way this virtue is interpreted in some conservative Catholic circles. Thankfully, our discussion did not get bogged on this, but turned to the more important question of what positive ideas we can take from the encyclical. One point which was immediately brought out was that passages like these must be grounded in Leo XIII’s very deep concern for the family, a point he returns to multiple times in the text. It should also be noted that in the same paragraph quoted above, the encyclical has very strong language about child labor. Though not a categorical condemnation (which would come later), it is still very powerful, especially given the prevalence of child labor in mills and mines:

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. (par. 42)

Finally, though looking ahead to our next discussion on wages, Leo’s discussion of women was linked to the question of what we now call a living wage, and the ways in which the legitimate desire of women to be part of the workforce has become since the 1970s the “two-income trap” where married couples find they need two incomes in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Rather than framing it as a requirement of women to stay home, the sense of our discussion is that the economic system must recognize the importance of child care and domestic labor as “work” (whether done by men or women), and be structured in a way that supports it.

Moving on, we turned to the more philosophical question of Leo XIII’s definition of the state. His definition in paragraph 32 was rather generic: “any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law, and to those dictates of the divine wisdom.” He goes on to refer to an earlier encyclical, Immortale Dei, on the Christian Constitution of States. There was some discussion of the connection between this encyclical and Augustine’s ideas on the state from the City of God, and the way this Platonic formulation of the state differs from both Aristotle and Aquinas. I don’t know enough about this (I wish I did), but it would be interesting to chase down, especially if Leo is breaking in any way from Aquinas, for whom he had the utmost respect.

But, looking at this definition and the ways in which the encyclical lays out the duties of the state, it is clear that Leo XIII categorically rejects any libertarian notion of the state. The state has an active role: “Rulers should, nevertheless, anxiously safeguard the community and all its members” (par 35); the state has “the duty of safeguarding private property by legal enactment and protection” (par 38); “The working man, too, has interests in which he should be protected by the State” (par 40). While the state “must not absorb the individual or the family” (par 35), it has a very broad role to play. We saw here the beginnings of the ideals of solidarity and subsidiarity: that social action is best taken at the lowest practical level, but that the higher levels (up to the state), have a duty to support and work to protect the interests of the lower levels.

Though we did not talk about it, and it is not mentioned directly in the text, it would be interesting to try to discern what Leo XIII would think of supra-national bodies, such as the United Nations or even the recently founded (at the time) International Committee of the Red Cross. This is probably outside of the scope of his thinking, though one could argue that he envisions the Church itself as such an organization. The legitimacy and role of secular organizations would have to wait.

One feature of the encyclical’s discussion of the role of the state is that it makes very explicit what later Catholic thought would call the preferential option for the poor. While, on the one hand, the state must treat all of its citizens equal before the law, it must do so in a way that is solicitous of the particular situation of the poor and marginalized. As noted above, the state has a duty to protect the interests of the working class. Earlier, he writes

Hereby, then, 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. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them. (par 32, emphasis added)

And someone in the group called to our attention this passage, where he elaborates on this rejection of the charge of “under interference” by the state:

The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State.

I really want to contrast this positive obligation on the state with the more neutral, hands-off approach which governed much “liberal” thought in the 19th century, and with the “law and order” approach common in conservative thought then and now. I am also, for some reason, reminded of a quote by Antole France, a French writer who was a younger contemporary of Leo XIII:

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

A question I brought up at this point concerns the failure of the state to live up to the duties that Leo XIII lays out for it. What recourse do citizens of the state have when the state fails to deliver on the duties laid out by “reason and natural law“? In particular, what should the working class do when the state fails to intervene against the rapaciousness and greed of the capitalists? This was a pressing concern, having already led to riots and the violent overthrow of the states. Indeed, the Papal States had been abolished only 20 years before this encyclical was written, and the great revolts of 1848 were still very much alive in political memory.

This is not directly addressed in the encyclical itself, though Leo XIII’s repeated references to peace and order, and his categorical injunctions (discussed last time) to the workers to not resort to violence, suggest what the answer is. One of our members found his position outlined in an earlier encyclical, Quod Apositolici Muneris, On Socialism, written 13 years before in 1878. In it, he appears to categorically rule out revolution ever being a legitimate option:

And if at any time it happen that the power of the State is rashly and tyrannically wielded by princes, the teaching of the Catholic church does not allow an insurrection on private authority against them, lest public order be only the more disturbed, and lest society take greater hurt therefrom. And when affairs come to such a pass that there is no other hope of safety, she teaches that relief may be hastened by the merits of Christian patience and by earnest prayers to God. (par. 7)

The only exception he allows (and it is not clear how broadly he intended it to be interpreted) is in the following sentence:

But, if the will of legislators and princes shall have sanctioned or commanded anything repugnant to the divine or natural law, the dignity and duty of the Christian name, as well as the judgment of the Apostle, urge that “God is to be obeyed rather than man.” (par. 7)

Not surprisingly, considering how often he comes up, we all asked the same question: what was Aquinas’ position on revolt and rebellion? A very brief search suggests that this position taken by Leo XIII is a distillation of Aquinas, though perhaps some nuance has been lost. One article I found summarizes Aquinas this way:

The only exception Aquinas made was for the case of tyrannical rule, where he argued that subjects are not bound to obey tyrannical orders from the ruler. Still, Aquinas argued that subjects should simply withhold obedience to wrongful orders, not rise in armed rebellion. While in extreme cases it is not a sin to overthrow a tyrant, it is subordinate rulers who should take the lead in this task (here Aquinas anticipated Calvin on the overthrow of an unjust ruler by “lesser magistrates”), not the people at large. The underlying reason is the responsibility the subordinate rulers have to use their ordering power in the service of justice and peace; other people may have the individual right of self-defense, but they do not have this larger responsibility for the common good, given that the overthrow of a tyrannical government by popular uprising may lead to social and political chaos and even worse injustice than that under the tyrant.

While I don’t have the time or knowledge here, I think the position and concerns of Leo XIII (and Aquinas) should be brought into dialog with theories of democratic governance and the extent to which rulers rule because of the consent of the governed. Or, in other words, to what extent do “the people” share in the duties of “subordinate rulers” to maintain justice and peace and to act when they are not upheld? (The article I cite does indeed point to such an evolution, one which began in post-Reformation Europe as political philosophy had to deal with a disjuncture between the religion of rulers and that of the ruled.)

Returning to the encyclical, one member of the group suggested that Leo XIII saw the Church as an institution whose duty was to reign in the excesses of the state. This seems consonant with the discussion of the role of the Church in the earlier part of the encyclical, but it does raise two further questions: by what means can the Church influence the state, beyond moral suasion? The Church at the time found itself between two classes, and was struggling to find a way to be an “honest broker” between the two. And, second, what if the Church fails in its duty to reign in the state? It was pointed out that many times in the 20th century the Church, in its legitimate desire to combat communism, had often allied itself with tyrannical states who committed multiple grievous evils in the name of “anti-communism.” Though I did not mention it at the time, the Spanish Civil war came to mind, as well as the Church in El Salvador (and other parts of Latin America), though with some powerful exceptions (such as St. Oscar Romero).

It seems to me that the Church, to fulfill its role, needs to take on a prophetic stance that takes sides. This is a position which will evolve over the next century in Catholic thought. The seeds were implicit in Rerum Novarum, but concerns for peace and order prevented them from being fully realized then. And, if we are going to be honest, from being fully realized today, as well.

The discussion concluded at this point, and we will move on this week to the final section of the encyclical, which treats just wages and unions, among other things.

Catholic Social Teaching

David Cruz-Uribe

Papal Social Encyclicals

Immortale Dei

Leo XIII

Quod Apositolici Muneri

Rerum Novarum

Previous Post

June 21, 2020

Another Thought on the Knights of Columbus

Next Post

June 23, 2020 Thank You For Your Support

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the key message of Proverbs about how to live?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Win battles Amass riches Seek power Pursue wisdom