St. Francis de Sales Cathedral

Rerum Novarum

Rerum Novarum gives us a vision of the social order rooted in Christian teachings—like sin and redemption, human dignity, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, care for creation, rights and responsibilities, a preference for the vulnerable, and the universal destination of goods. It reminds us that work is not just for making money or being productive, but about ultimate purpose and building God’s kingdom.

As we begin our next industrial revolution (A.I., robotics, etc.), we need this clarity more than ever. We need principles to root our economic and political platforms in, truths that challenge and annoy us because they refuse to conform to our agendas, and wisdom that transcends the temporal concerns that dominate so much of the social landscape today. We need Rerum Novarum.

Here are some things to know about Rerum Novarum that help give some context:

It annoyed everyone when it came out—challenging folks on both sides of the political and economic aisles.
The title, Rerum Novarum, means “of new things,” and was written amidst the social upheaval of the first Industrial Revolution.
It argues widespread ownership is healthy, but concentrated ownership is not—inspiring Chesterton’s famous quip that the problem with capitalism is that “there are too few capitalists.”
Pre-empting the workers’ rights movements by decades, it would come to shape labor laws, inspire reforms, and help give rise to the modern middle class.
It was written for normal people living paycheck to paycheck, and uses plain language about real problems (like rent, wages, inflation, abusive managers, the stress of supporting a family, etc.).
It argues that the worker must be lifted up not just with money, but with ownership—tools, land, skills, responsibility—and continues to inspire the employee-ownership movement.
It reminds us that the poor are not a problem to be solved, but human persons that we need (even more than they need us).
Pope Leo XIII wrote all of this at age 81, proving that you’re never too old to change the world.

Let’s imagine the world Pope Leo XIII was writing to in 1891: Electricity is new, telephones feel like magic, and factories powered by steam and steel are dramatically reshaping life. Families flood into cities for new kinds of work, but wages are low and protections scarce. A new ownership class is emerging, though it’s accessible only to an elite few. We’re enamored with new, clever machines, though unsure whether they’re saving us or replacing us.

“Revolutionary change” in the political sphere has been the norm for all of human history. But this revolution is unprecedented. This is a revolution in the economic sphere—how we work, make a living, and provide the basic necessities for everyday life. It brings a new kind of confusion…and new kinds of problems. This is how Pope Leo sets the stage as he begins this unprecedented encyclical.

Do any of Pope Leo’s observations of this “revolutionary change” still ring true for you today?

Week 1

RERUM NOVARUM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII

ON CAPITAL AND LABOR

Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor

1. That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and rulers of nations are all busied with it - actually there is no question which has taken deeper hold on the public mind.

Pope Leo kicked off the encyclical, acknowledging that “revolutionary change” had come to the economic sphere in more dramatic fashion than ever before. This week, he sets out the essential task of the entire encyclical: to “define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor.”

We will inevitably disagree on our social solutions if we can’t first agree on the “rights and mutual duties” of all sides. That’s the bold task this encyclical sets out to accomplish.

Why do you think agreeing on “rights and duties”—before proposing solutions—is still so important in today’s debates?

Week 2

2. Therefore, venerable brethren, as on former occasions when it seemed opportune to refute false teaching, We have addressed you in the interests of the Church and of the common weal, and have issued letters bearing on political power, human liberty, the Christian constitution of the State, and like matters, so have We thought it expedient now to speak on the condition of the working classes. It is a subject on which We have already touched more than once, incidentally. But in the present letter, the responsibility of the apostolic office urges Us to treat the question of set purpose and in detail, in order that no misapprehension may exist as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement. The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that 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.

Pope Leo wastes no time before painting some bright red lines. He acknowledges the vulnerability of workers and the urgent need to help them, but then immediately squashes the idea of socialism—State control of resources and the means of production—as a viable solution.

Though socialism can seem an appealing solution, it naturally undermines the sacredness of private property, which is essential to human dignity. He argues that such proposals inevitably produce even worse injustices, ultimately hurting the very laborers they are meant to protect.

What have we done since Pope Leo’s time that has improved these issues? Or made them worse?

Week 3

3. In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. 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.

4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. 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.

Pope Leo makes a crucial point: wages aren’t just payment for labor—they’re the worker’s means to secure a future. If a man saves his earnings and buys a small piece of land, that property is simply his wages in another form. And the right to use, save, invest, and dispose of one’s earnings freely is essential to human dignity.

Why emphasize this? Because some voices of the time—especially socialist proposals—suggested transferring private property to collective ownership managed by the State. That would mean workers could earn wages but not truly own or control the fruits of their labor, removing the very path by which they might improve their condition.

Leo rejects that move decisively. For him, protecting the personal use of wages is protecting the worker’s freedom, responsibility, and hope for a better life.

(Note: “Remunerative labor” is just labor for which someone is compensated.)

Why is the ability to save and build a future privately—rather than depend on collective control—so important for human dignity?

Week 4

5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

6. What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.

Last week we saw Pope Leo defend the worker’s right not just to earn wages, but to use and save them as he sees fit—including by acquiring property. This week, he deepens that claim by showing why land holds a special place among all forms of private property.

Leo argues that among all types of private property, land is unique. Tools wear out, wages disappear, and machines rust. But the earth produces again and again. Because our needs recur, we need a lasting source to meet them—not only consumption today, but provision for tomorrow.

Even if we aren’t directly farming that land, it still carries a unique stability. A modest plot can shelter a family, appreciate over time, or become a home base for work and community. It anchors people to a place, linking many generations of people. Owning land isn’t merely another form of wealth or capital. It’s a foundation of human security, responsibility, and participation in God’s providence. He says, “There is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces.

Do you think access to land still shapes a family’s long-term security today? Why or why not?

Week 5

7. This becomes still more clearly evident if man's nature be considered a little more deeply. For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. 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.

8. The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.

This next part makes the striking claim that when man adds his labor to something (not just land, but any form of capital) and improves it, that “by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field…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.”

Here we see that compensation for labor is not so easily reduced to mere wages, and that “ownership” is not as simple as whose name is on the deed. Rather, it’s bound up in the mystery of human work, stewardship, and the mark—the very "impress"—of one’s personality left upon what is made or cultivated.

What do you think of this idea that by laboring to improve something, you acquire a real kind of ownership over it?

Week 6

9. Here, again, we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. Truly, that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life's well-being, is produced in great abundance from the soil, but not until man has brought it into cultivation and expended upon it his solicitude and skill. 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.

10. So strong and convincing are these arguments that it seems amazing that some should now be setting up anew certain obsolete opinions in opposition to what is here laid down. They assert that it is right for private persons to have the use of the soil and its various fruits, but that it is unjust for any one to possess outright either the land on which he has built or the estate which he has brought under cultivation. But those who deny these rights do not perceive that they are defrauding man of what his own labor has produced. For the soil which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition; it was wild before, now it is fruitful; was barren, but now brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved the land becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else? As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.

This week, Pope Leo points out that the rights of the family and to private property don’t come from the State—they are rooted in both natural law and divine law. Civil laws exist to uphold and protect these more fundamental rights, not to grant them. Pope Leo quotes the Ten Commandments (“Thou shalt not covet… thy neighbour’s house, nor his field,” etc.) showing private property to be a sacred, moral reality. And then he turns to the natural rights of the family—that first human society, much “older than any State” and which exists independently of and prior to the State.

Private property ownership secures human dignity, and the family secures society. Both demand that human laws conform to the higher law, not the other way around.

How does recognizing property and family as prior to the State change the way we think about modern laws and policies?

Week 7

11. With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force. 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 neighbour'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."

12. The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in much stronger light when considered in relation to man's social and domestic obligations. In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to observing virginity, or to bind themselves by the marriage tie. 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." 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.

This week, Pope Leo extends his argument by showing that the right to private property finds one of its fullest expressions in the generational family. A father’s obligation to provide for his children cannot be met by wages alone; it requires ownership of productive property that can endure and be handed on. The right to inherit, then, is not a social convenience but a natural extension of parental duty and love.

Our modern reverence for radical individualism, along with the many fractured families, presents a massive disadvantage for all. Rather than standing on the shoulders of those who came before us—building upon generations of work and sacrifice—we increasingly expect each person to start over alone. As a result, the State finds more and more cause to intervene where it shouldn’t have to, attempting to perform functions that properly and most naturally belong to the family. Leo sees this not as progress, but as a tremendous loss and destructive to the family.

How might recovering a stronger sense of inheritance—material, moral, and spiritual—change the way we think about work, family, and responsibility today?

Week 8

13. That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. 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.

14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents." 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.

By this point in Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII is no longer defending private property in theory—he is warning about what happens when it is denied. Socialism’s promise of equality, he argues, does not lift people up. It flattens society downward. When property is made common, responsibility dissolves, initiative dries up, and resentment replaces cooperation. What emerges is not justice, but a new form of servitude.

For Leo, this is not speculation but a judgment rooted in human nature. Deprive people of the right to own, improve, and pass on property, and you rob them not only of security, but of a reason to strive. That is why he calls the ”inviolability of private property” the first and most fundamental principle of any real remedy for the working class.

Later popes would confirm his warning. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI reaffirmed Leo’s rejection of collectivism, and in Centesimus Annus, John Paul II pointed to socialism’s collapse as evidence that systems severing ownership from responsibility ultimately harm the poor most.

But Leo then sharpens the claim: no solution will succeed without religion and the Church. Laws can restrain injustice, but without the Church, reform loses its compass.

Where do you see modern attempts at social reform inevitably fail because “they leave out the Church”?

Week 9

15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. 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. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

16. We approach the subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us, for no practical solution of this question will be found apart from the intervention of religion and of the Church. It is We who are the chief guardian of religion and the chief dispenser of what pertains to the Church; and by keeping silence we would seem to neglect the duty incumbent on us. Doubtless, this most serious question demands the attention and the efforts of others besides ourselves - to wit, of the rulers of States, of employers of labor, of the wealthy, aye, of the working classes themselves, for whom We are pleading. But We affirm without hesitation that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the Church. It is the Church that insists, on the authority of the Gospel, upon those teachings whereby the conflict can be brought to an end, or rendered, at least, far less bitter; the Church uses her efforts not only to enlighten the mind, but to direct by her precepts the life and conduct of each and all; the Church improves and betters the condition of the working man by means of numerous organizations; does her best to enlist the services of all classes in discussing and endeavoring to further in the most practical way, the interests of the working classes; and considers that for this purpose recourse should be had, in due measure and degree, to the intervention of the law and of State authority.

Pope Leo XIII reminds us that inequality is inevitable—people differ in talent, strength, and circumstances, and trying to erase these differences is not only futile but unjust. Those who promise a life free from hardship are offering illusions that often lead to greater suffering. Even before the Fall, labor was part of life, and afterwards, toil became unavoidable. Hardship isn’t a punishment but a condition of human existence that shapes character and dignity.

Later popes continued Leo’s rejection of purely materialist fixes for social problems. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI insisted that neither unfettered markets nor socialist schemes alone can secure justice and human dignity. And real solace comes not from escaping difficulty, but from seeking a higher, spiritual source of meaning.

What are some ways we often fall prey to the pursuit and promises of “pain-free” lives, equality of outcomes, and a kind of utopia on Earth?

Week 10

17. 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. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such unequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition. As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly idle; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. "Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life."

18. In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently - who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment - they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as We have said, for the solace to its troubles.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that rich and poor are naturally destined to clash—that class conflict is baked into human society. Pope Leo XIII calls that notion outright false. In paragraph 19, he uses a striking analogy: just as the different parts of the human body are arranged to work together, so too are capital and labor—and all classes of people—meant to operate in harmony. Each needs the other. Without workers, capital cannot produce; without capital, workers cannot thrive.

When the Church and religion are excluded from social and political solutions—as they largely are today—class conflict runs unchecked, fueling chaos and division. Pope Leo reminds us that Christian institutions—especially the Church—play a crucial role in maintaining balance by calling each class to its duties and upholding justice.

How can we allow the Church to play a more central role in how we solve political and social problems?

Week 11

19. The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.

This week, Pope Leo gives us a clear, practical list of duties workers and employers owe to each other—duties that are ultimately informed by religion and divine law. We've been intimidated into thinking religion has no place in the modern workplace. Of course, this is false. Without its influence, capital will inevitably “misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain.” And the relationships tend to devolve into transactional and contractual arrangements, where neither owes the other anything beyond labor or wages.

How can employers today do as Pope Leo says—keeping in mind the worker’s "religion and the good of his soul" and not leading him "to neglect his home and family"?

Week 12

20. Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. 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. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. 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 Sabaoth." 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. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?

Pope Leo reminds us that the ultimate goal of all social and economic arrangements is not merely to fix temporal problems or achieve comfort in this life. The Church, guided by Christ, aims higher: to build God’s Kingdom and make saints. True justice, fairness, and goodwill between classes are not ends in themselves, but steps along the way to eternal life. Wealth, work, and even suffering gain real meaning when seen in this light.

As Leo quotes Scripture: “If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.” Labor, hardship, and human relationships are opportunities to grow in virtue, to participate in Christ’s redemption, and to store up eternal reward. By keeping our eyes on eternity, our work becomes more than a transaction, our duties more than obligations, and our trials more than burdens—they become instruments of sanctification and glory.

If we believe this, how should that change the way we approach solving the problems of society or at work?

Week 13

21. But the Church, with Jesus Christ as her Master and Guide, aims higher still. She lays down precepts yet more perfect, and tries to bind class to class in friendliness and good feeling. The things of earth cannot be understood or valued aright without taking into consideration the life to come, the life that will know no death. Exclude the idea of futurity, and forthwith the very notion of what is good and right would perish; nay, the whole scheme of the universe would become a dark and unfathomable mystery. The great truth which we learn from nature herself is also the grand Christian dogma on which religion rests as on its foundation - that, when we have given up this present life, then shall we really begin to live. God has not created us for the perishable and transitory things of earth, but for things heavenly and everlasting; He has given us this world as a place of exile, and not as our abiding place. As for riches and the other things which men call good and desirable, whether we have them in abundance, or are lacking in them-so far as eternal happiness is concerned - it makes no difference; the only important thing is to use them aright. 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 Saviour. "If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him." Christ's labors and sufferings, accepted of His own free will, have marvellously sweetened all suffering and all labor. And not only by His example, but by His grace and by the hope held forth of everlasting recompense, has He made pain and grief more easy to endure; "for that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory."

We love to tout the “right” to private property, but do we just as enthusiastically embrace the responsibility that comes with it?

Pope Leo says it’s “one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills.” Yes, private ownership is a natural right, but it does not follow that therefore we are morally justified in using our possessions however we like. Once we have what we need for ourselves, everything else we receive is to be given to those who need it. And this is to be enforced not by human law, but by Christian obligation.

How do we know when we have “enough,” so that we may freely give whatever else we have to others who are still in need?

Week 14

22. Therefore, 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." It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving - ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive"; and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself - "As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me." To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others. "He that hath a talent," said St. Gregory the Great, "let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor."

In a culture that treats wealth as worth and poverty as failure, Pope Leo offers a quiet but radical correction. Poverty, he insists, is no shame—and honest labor is a dignity Christ Himself embraced. The Son of God chose the workshop, not the palace. True nobility has nothing to do with income or status; it lies in virtue, which is equally available to rich and poor alike. Pope Leo reminds us; God shows a special tenderness toward those who suffer, calling the poor blessed and drawing near to the weary and burdened. When this truth is remembered, pride softens, envy fades, and the walls between rich and poor begin to fall.

How can we make sure we’re measuring “success” ultimately by growth in virtue rather than professional or social progress?

Week 15

23. As for those who possess not the gifts of fortune, they are taught by the Church that in God's sight poverty is no disgrace, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in earning their bread by labor. This is enforced by what we see in Christ Himself, who, "whereas He was rich, for our sakes became poor"; and who, being the Son of God, and God Himself, chose to seem and to be considered the son of a carpenter - nay, did not disdain to spend a great part of His life as a carpenter Himself. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?"

24. From contemplation of this divine Model, it is more easy to understand that the true worth and nobility of man lie in his moral qualities, that is, in virtue; that virtue is, moreover, the common inheritance of men, equally within the reach of high and low, rich and poor; and that virtue, and virtue alone, wherever found, will be followed by the rewards of everlasting happiness. Nay, God Himself seems to incline rather to those who suffer misfortune; for Jesus Christ calls the poor "blessed"; He lovingly invites those in labor and grief to come to Him for solace; and He displays the tenderest charity toward the lowly and the oppressed. These reflections cannot fail to keep down the pride of the well-to-do, and to give heart to the unfortunate; to move the former to be generous and the latter to be moderate in their desires. Thus, the separation which pride would set up tends to disappear, nor will it be difficult to make rich and poor join hands in friendly concord.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse