By Today, on the 135th anniversary of the release of Rerum Novarum, EWTN News takes a look at the significance of this historic encyclical.
When Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church on May 8, 2025, he chose the name Leo XIV in part, he said a few days later, to honor Leo XIII and his historical encyclical Rerum Novarum, a foundational document in Catholic social teaching that addressed the challenges of the industrial revolution.
Now, Pope Leo says, it can help us, along with the full body of social teaching, to navigate the developments of artificial intelligence.
Today, on the 135th anniversary of the release of Rerum Novarum — published May 15, 1891 — EWTN News takes a look at the significance of this encylical.
As European society was grappling with the impact of the industrial revolution and the rise of socialist ideology in the late 1800s, Pope Leo XIII issued a papal encyclical that expressed empathy with the discontentment of laborers but outright condemnation of the socialist movements of the time.
The encyclical emphasizes a need for reforms to protect the dignity of the working class while maintaining a relationship with capital and the existence of private property.
The message was promulgated fewer than 50 years after Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto” in 1848 and after Pope Pius IX denounced both socialism and communism in his 1849 encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum.
Pope Leo XIII’s teachings can still help inform readers on the proper relationship between labor and capital.
Leo XIII writes of a “great mistake” embraced by the socialist-leaning labor movements, which is the notion that “class is naturally hostile to class” and “wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict.”
This view, he asserts, is “so false … that the direct contrary is the truth.”
“It [is] ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic,” Leo XIII teaches. “Each needs the other: Capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital.”
The pontiff, who reigned from 1878 until his death in 1903, saw a need “in drawing the rich and the working class together” amid the strife brewing between these groups throughout the continent.
This can be done, he said, by “reminding each of its duties to the other” and “of the obligations of justice.”
For the laborer, this includes a duty “fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon” and to never destroy property, resort to violence, or riot to achieve a goal.
For the wealthy owner, this includes a duty to “respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character” and to never “misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain or to value them solely for their physical powers.”
“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,” Leo XIII says.
Leo XIII contends that employers must pay workers the whole of their wages and workers must do all of the work to which they agreed. But, in the context of wages, he adds that this “is not complete” because workers must be able to support themselves and their families.
“Wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner,” Leo XIII writes. “… 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.”
In certain cases, Leo XIII encourages the intervention of government, such as when “employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust,” when “conditions [were] repugnant to their dignity as human beings,” and when “health were endangered by excessive labor.” He adds that such interventions should not “proceed further than [what] is required for the remedy of the evil.”
Leo XIII also expresses support for “societies for mutual help” and “workingmen’s unions” but also exerts caution against any associations that promote values contrary to Catholic teaching. He encourages the creation of associations that are rooted in Catholic teaching.
The pontiff says there is much agreement “that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.” Yet, he accuses socialists of “working on the poor man’s envy of the rich” to “do away with private property” and turn “individual possessions” into “the common property of all, to be administered by the state or by municipal bodies.”
“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,” Leo XIII says. “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.”
Using this remedy to resolve poor conditions for the laborer, the pontiff contends, “is manifestly against justice” because “every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.” He further argues that government intrusion into the rights of property and the right to provide for one’s family is “a great and pernicious error.”
“That right to property … [must] 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,” Leo XIII says. “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.”
Rerum Novarum set the foundations of Catholic social teaching about labor. Other popes have since built on the teachings laid out in the encyclical, including Pope Pius XI’s 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno on the 40th anniversary of Leo XIII’s writing and Pope John Paul II’s 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens on the 90th anniversary.
This story was first published on Sept. 2, 2024, and was updated on May 15, 2025 and again on May 15, 2026.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Since 1891 the focus, yes, on “property” and on cooperation between “labor” and “capital” presents itself more as a special case–of what is a much broader assault on the gifted ex-istence or contingency (!) of the human person as a creature, and on the sub-sistent Creator as the self-sufficient and freely self-disclosing Triune One—as in the historical event (!) of the Incarnation.
Three points and a question:
FIRST, after Leo XIII and during the 20th century, the core issue of the Industrial Revolution played out much differently in the developed West than in Bushido Japan, or in late-czarist Russia, or in late-dynastic China where the bourgeois and proletarian classes of society did not even exist (the quaint prophet Karl Marx’s foundational premise).
SECOND, today, what is to be said about a valid but now expanded Rerum Novarum? When the permanently “transcendent dignity of the human person” (the centerpiece of consolidated Catholic Social Teaching) is a grammar and vocabulary totally unrecognized in the post-modern context, and in the 7th-century Islamic context armed with modern weapons, and in the context of oxymoronic Artificial Intelligence—as possibly substituting a cosmic digital hologram for a universe of analog real stuff?
THIRD, Marx recognized that anyone who admits this radical dependency of man (our “contingency”) has already admitted to the independent subsistence of God. About the reality of Ultimate Reality, he imposed a restriction: “this question is FORBIDDEN to socialist man.” (Karl Marx, “Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society”, 1967; cited in Frederick D. Wilhelmson, “Citizen of Rome, 1980, p. 107).
QUESTION: Marx’s 19th-century ideology was simply one ethnocentric version of identify politics manufactured by early West European economic circumstances. How for the perennial Catholic Church to witness to the reality of the Logos/Christ, now, in our retribalized, mutually alienated and always fallen “world” in all its noisy new flavors and colors?