Spirituality

OSV News photo/Aude Guerrucci, Reuters

Friday, September 12, 2025Spirituality

Submit a Letter to the Editor

If the working class is miserable, does "Rerum Novarum" speak to the reasons why?

Pope Leo XIII did not write "Rerum Novarum" and then retired. He did not write "Rerum Novarum" first. He did not place the most emphasis in his magisterium on the themes of "Rerum Novarum." He did not think that the encyclical was important because it supported collective bargaining. In fact, looking back at it, on the 10th anniversary, he himself sharply corrected those who were interpreting it as a set of policy prescriptions:
"... it is the opinion of some, and the error is already very common, that the social question is merely an economic one, whereas in point of fact it is, above all, a moral and religious matter, and for that reason must be settled by the principles of morality and according to the dictates of religion. For, even though wages are doubled and the hours of labor are shortened and food is cheapened, yet, if the working man hearkens to the doctrines that are taught on this subject, as he is prone to do, and is prompted by the examples set before him to throw off respect for God and to enter upon a life of immorality, his labors and his gain will avail him naught." ("Graves de Communi Re," Jan. 18, 1901)
For us, the reality is far brighter. Real wages have doubled at least three times since Leo wrote, while average factory work hours have been halved. If the working class is miserable, does "Rerum Novarum" speak to the reasons why? Here is what Leo wrote:

"Trial and experience have made it abundantly clear that many a workman lives in cramped and miserable quarters, in spite of his shorter hours and larger wages, simply because he has cast aside the restraints of morality and religion. Take away the instinct which Christian wisdom has planted and nurtured in men's hearts, take away foresight, temperance, frugality, patience, and other rightful, natural habits, no matter how much he may strive, he will never achieve prosperity. That is the reason why We have incessantly exhorted Catholics to enter these associations for bettering the condition of the laboring classes, and to organize other undertakings with the same object in view; but We have likewise warned them that all this should be done under the auspices of religion, with its help and under its guidance."
And so "Rerum Novarum" as interpreted by its author would apparently tell American workers today to focus on acquiring virtues such as temperance and thrift, while seeking to belong only to those workers' associations which had a religious dimension, and could help provide the assistance of grace which comes through sound teaching and the sacraments.
But this is all to say by another route that to do justice to Leo XIII, we must read "Rerum Novarum" in the context that Leo provided for it. Go to the list of his encyclicals on the Vatican website (www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals.index.html) and peruse them.
He wrote his famous letter, which revived Thomistic philosophy, "Aeterni Patris," two years before "Rerum Novarum." Can we conclude that for Catholics, the study of philosophy should be prior to the study of economics, as the one discipline is under the other?
So believed Leo's assistant in drafting "Rerum Novarum," the astonishingly learned Jesuit philosopher, Mattheo Liberatore. It was understood at that time that clerics needed to be familiar with economics before attempting to teach on the "social question." To this end, Liberatore wrote his magnificent book on "Principles of Political Economy."
That book provided, as it were, the economic substructure of Leo's thought. But in that book, in full accord with Leo, he says that economics as a science is subordinated to political philosophy, which in turn is subordinated to moral theology, and then theology proper.
So, the revival of the themes of "Rerum Novarum" should properly take place in the context of a revival of the "Christian wisdom" of St. Thomas Aquinas?
But what else would be needed to interpret "Rerum Novarum" in context? May I suggest that we back away from the scheme for organizing Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD) used in the official "Compendium" and return instead to Leo's preferred mode or organization?
In the "Compendium," CSD is organized along the themes: dignity of the human person; common good; subsidiarity; and solidarity. These are fine themes, but the problem is they articulate principles that hold good for any association whatsoever. A Little League team needs to treat all its players with dignity, strive for the common good (playing well and fairly, to win), exemplify subsidiarity (play your own position), and show solidarity ("Hey, batter batter.")
For Leo, the structure was: God's sovereignty over political society; the family as a true society prior to the state; marriage as the most fundamental social bond (and therefore the horror of divorce as undermining the family and society); the right to private property as an expression of a father's genuine and prior authority; Christian education as the pathway by which children are formed so that, upon leaving the family, they can assume their proper role as Catholic laity and citizens; and the liberty of the church in working alongside the state ("as soul is to body") in all of these aspects.
The four themes of the "Compendium" work well enough for composing outlines of NGO white papers. But the fact that no one finds them objectionable is probably a sign of their lack of genuine, Leonine utility.

- Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD, with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book is "Be Good Bankers: The Economic Interpretation of Matthew's Gospel."