#Rerum novarum | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

upon-the-waters · 2 years

Text

Rerum Novarum: Part One

I’ve been studying Catholic social teaching/Christian democracy a bit lately, and decided to do a read-through of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on capital and labor; the title is Latin for “Of Revolutionary Change.” Some bullet points as a sort of TL;DR, except it also gets fairly long. I’ve decided to split this analysis into multiple parts-- this post goes through Nos. 1-15.

- Rerum Novarum condemns laissez-faire capitalism in no uncertain terms, calling it “the greed of unchecked competition" and “rapacious usury.”

- “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.” Pope Leo called out the top 1% all the way back in 1891, which I think is pretty neat.

- The one thing I wish Rerum Novarum addressed was the community of Christians in Acts-- the Bible’s pretty dang clear that the early church “had all things in common,” and “no one said that anything that belonged to him was his own” i.e., they were proto-socialists. (Acts 2:44, 4:32) Pope Leo just kinda launches ahead with his belief that the abolition of private property would “rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.” Which, to be fair, the Bible is also pretty clear that stealing and coveting is wrong, and it’s easy to logically infer an affirmation of private property from that: you can’t steal or covet something that already belongs to everyone, including you.

EDIT: I should clarify again that I’ve only just started reading Rerum Novarum, and for all I know it does go back later and discuss the socialism in Acts-- however, from a rhetorical standpoint it had a perfect point to do so in Nos. 5-15 when it argues against socialism, as those two Bible verses can essentially unravel any arguments on the topic the Pope might have and I’d like to see his attempts at refuting them.

- Also there’s some gross patriarchal BS about male headship, but it’s 1891 and the Catholic Church, so I wasn’t really expecting anything else. However, I do technically agree with his statement that government shouldn’t intrude in and control the family unit, which is sort of libertarianism, I guess? It’s libertarianism but with the perception as the family as the unit of society rather than the individual. Even then, Pope Leo concedes that a family in dire need that cannot be provided for in any other way may have no other option than relying on public aid, and the government may also have to step in if family members are depriving each other of natural rights.

There’s still some interesting arguments against socialism, though:

- “They [socialists] would deprive him [the wage-earner] of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and bettering his life.” In other words, capitalism allows people to be rewarded for their hard work, while socialism provides no motivation for people to work at all (since they’d all get the same resources/quality of life regardless of their work). Thus, why should people work at all under socialism?

- I don’t really follow his logic on this one as much, but Pope Leo also talks about how humans and animals are fundamentally different (which I agree with), and from there concludes that while all living creatures can possess things temporarily, it is a uniquely human right to possess things permanently. This raises some interesting questions for me: How do animals possess things, if they do so at all? Does my dog (who, interestingly enough, is named Leo) possess his own food and toys, or are they possessed by the humans that care for him and allotted for him to use? Perhaps this is the distinction between wild and domestic animals-- wild animals are able to “own” their things without having humans control them. Surely there must be some example of an animal in the wild that keeps something for years/its entire lifespan-- perhaps a nest or other type of habitat. Does a bear own the cave that it sleeps in? Would the community of animals that live in the Amazon rainforest own the forest, thus making human exploitation of it theft? Why would Pope Leo say that only humans can possess things permanently?

- “Man proceeds the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.” I like this one-- I personally believe in inherent human rights that are given to us by God, and even many atheists would likely agree with the principle of “certain unalienable rights,” as the American Declaration of Independence phrases it, even if they don’t necessarily believe they come from a Creator. These rights are guaranteed by a well-functioning and ethical state, but they are not PROVIDED by the state. However, one could easily make a counter-argument that a socialist state would be necessary in order to truly guarantee these rights.

- “Is it just that the fruit of a man’s own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by anyone else?” On the surface level, I’d say no. But the thing about capitalism in our modern society is that, as Pope Leo mentions earlier, these “fruits of labor” ARE being enjoyed by the megarich. You could argue that this is actually another way of saying that the workers should own, maybe not the means of production, but certainly the results of production.

All of this is even more interesting in light of the fact that 1891 and 2022 are very different times, and Pope Francis has been pretty critical of capitalism for several years now as far as I’m aware-- whether or not he’s actually socialist is up for debate. People have a lot of arguments for one or the other, but unless Pope Francis actually comes out and says straight-up that he’s a socialist I would be careful in labeling him as one. You can be highly critical of capitalism and still not necessarily socialist, which is how I would describe my current economic leanings.

I’d actually be super interested in hearing some commentary and POLITE discourse from both capitalists and socialists on this post, so long as it’s kept civil.

#rerum novarum #catholic social teaching #christian democracy #capitalism #socialism

2 notes · View notes

mrsjdavis · 1 month

Text

If someone's got their foot on your neck, kicking the guy beside you (who is in your same predicament) is not going to get you anywhere. Also, deleting replies doesn't mean you are right. And that feeling of resentment that turns you against your peers and your representatives? That's a TEMPTATION. Resist it and THINK and PRAY.

#Rerum Novarum #Solidarity #living wages aren't making things more expensive #what about me selfish is not a Christian principle

0 notes

cristianesimocattolico · 3 months

Text

Dal PCI al PD passando per la DC

21 gennaio 1921: nasce il Partito Comunista Italiano. Il grave errore del Cattolicesimo Democratico. Continue reading Untitled

View On WordPress

#DC #Divini Redemptoris #dottrina sociale #Jacques Maritain #marxismo #pci #Rerum novarum #social-comunismo #socialcomunismo

0 notes

brunopino · 4 months

Text

Per ricordare Mons. Camillo Sorgente, il vescovo venuto da Salerno a Cosenza che attuò la Rerum Novarum

View On WordPress

#Camillo Sorgente #Rerum Novarum

0 notes

iberiancadre · 4 months

Text

Cannot stand seeing people on my dash celebrating the Pope's statement that "marxists and catholics have the same mission" because those people clearly have no idea about the historical cooption of class politics by the church.

this kind of bullshit goes back to 1891, when Pope Leo XIII published the Rerum Novarum encyclical, addressing the situation of the working class and what the church's stand should be on it. It is, essentially, a socialdemocratic text that defends unionization while denouncing socialists and "capitalism". It still defends private property and the right of capitalists to their profits. This encyclical really made the figure of a worker priest relevant, a low-level priest that's aware of workers' issues and "defends" them. What this figure accomplished was the promotion of class conciliation and therefore a rejection of workers' liberation.

And this is no different. The pope might not outright reject marxism, but in practice, by bringing it down to the level of the catholic church he dilutes marxism into nothing more than "can we pretty please raise the minimum wage according to inflation". The church is, at its core, nothing more than another institution used by capital to appease workers into non-violence and peaceful activism. The very same institution that coexisted with fascism in the 30s and later became a rabid anticommunist tool is now talking about marxists, give me a fucking break.

This is what I'm talking about. How anti-church can you really be if some "good opinions" makes you partial to them. It doesn't matter what the headlines say the pope thinks about trans or gay people if in their actual theology it's just forgiveness for who they think are astray. The church's compassion for any oppressed group does not come from principle, it comes from pity at people who reject the church's teachings. It's no better than the "as long as it's in private" kind of homophobia and transphobia.

#real marxist hours

1K notes · View notes

locustheologicus · 3 months

Video

youtube

Mother Frances Cabrini: The Saint of the Immigrants (and a model for those of us who serve the immigrant communities)

The National Endowment for the Humanities offers a wonderful resource on the life of St. Frances Cabrini, the first American Saint. The article goes into the depth of Mother Cabrini who is describes as “a woman fully Italian and fully American, a pragmatic and empathetic leader, and a remarkable humanitarian whose faith charged her tireless work for impoverished and marginalized immigrants.”

In 1889 she was commissioned by Pope Leo XIII, the author of Rerum Novarum, the famed encyclical which would give birth to Catholic social teaching, to go with her Italian community to America. Pope Leo XIII recognized the challenges that migrants faced in America and he wanted to make sure the Church was responding to their social and spiritual needs.

How sad and fraught with trouble is the state of those who yearly emigrate in bodies to America for the means of living is so well known to you that there is no need of us to speak of it at length. . . . It is, indeed, piteous that so many unhappy sons of Italy, driven by want to seek another land, should encounter ills greater than those from which they would fly. And it often happens that to the toils of every kind by which their physical life is wasted, is added the far more wretched ruin of their souls. – Pope Leo XIII

Evidently it was recognized that many of the American Catholic community shared in the anti-immigrant prejudice that the majority of America had for the Italian community at that time. She came to New York and saw the plight that the immigrants suffered as they were either neglected or abused from those who wanted to use them for cheap labor.

My thoughts run to our many immigrants who arrive annually on the shores of the Atlantic, moving into the already overcrowded cities of the East, and there they encounter many difficulties and meager wages. In our small sphere we are helping to solve important social problems, in every State and every city where our houses are opened. In these homes, we receive the orphans, the sick, the poor: thousands of children are instructed, not only that, but the good that is done is immense, through contact with the people who facilitate our institutions. – Mother Cabrini

Her community went to the poorest immigrant communities in New York. Her Missionary Sisters went to communities where allegedly the police feared to go. The social injustices of the late 1800′s was daunting. In 1890, one year after Mother Cabrini came to New York, Jacob Riis published “How the Other Half Lives,” documenting the intense squalor where immigrants lived in New York City.

Mother Cabrini did not let this stop her. Her goal was not to solve the political issue but to respond to the needs they encountered.

What we as women cannot do on a large scale to help solve grave social ills is being done in our small sphere of influence in every state and city where we have opened houses. In them we shelter and care for orphans, the sick and the poor. – Mother Cabrini

The movie that is about to come out tells the story of Mother Cabrini and the courage she had to organize institutional responses to the plight of the immigrant. Mother Cabrini and her Missionary Sisters set up schools, orphanages, and hospitals. In the end, they opened sixty-seven institutions in nine countries, on three continents. The movie depicts the challenges she faces throughout American society including the pressure from the political system and the local Catholic Church. A local church that walks a fine line between the prophetic Gospel values on one side and corruptive influences of local politics on the other. Mother Cabrini’s story has much to offer us as we respond to the current immigrant crisis that once again befalls our great city. Once again we have some Catholics and political conservatives that either promote an anti-immigrant position or are to timid to support the new arrivals. But we also have other Catholics who, in the spirit of Mother Cabrini, champion the social teachings of the Church that began under Pope Leo XIII and continue with Pope Francis.

With immigrants, take this path of integration into society. It is not a work of charity to leave immigrants where they are. No. Charity involves taking them and integrating them, with education, with job placement, with all these things. - Pope Francis

The work of Catholic Charities has been to promote the values of our social tradition and to follow the powerful model of saints like Mother Cabrini. Mother Frances Cabrini teaches us how to recognize the preferential option for the poor and struggle to promote the dignity of all people, especially those who are socially marginalized. In the movie you can hear her prophetically yelling “we are all human beings, we are all the same,” to the powers that be in the New York City. This is a central principle of Catholic social teaching that needs to be enforced now just as it needed to be heard then.

It is worth remembering that in order to respond to these challenges Mother Cabrini surrounded herself with prayer. This was necessary so the God could guide her and keep her centered on these values as she responded to the deep social challenges that the migrant community, and those who served them, encountered.

Fortify me with the grace of Your Holy Spirit and give Your peace to my soul that I may be free from all needless anxiety and worry. Help me to desire always that which is pleasing and acceptable to You so that Your will may be my will. – Mother Cabrini

Here is a one page biography on Mother Frances Cabrini to download. It includes the following prayer of intercession:

Good and loving God, Thank you for the beautiful example of your servant, Frances Cabrini. Help her life to inspire us to listen to your call, persevere in working for the poor, and tirelessly put others before ourselves. Bless the poor and the immigrants around us and those who work for them. Strengthen the efforts of all the saints striving on your earth today. Amen.

#youtube #cabrini

6 notes · View notes

broken-academia · 2 years

Text

“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.”

— Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum: On the Duties of Capital & Labor (7)

#catholic #2022 #ba reads #pope leo xiii

55 notes · View notes

dhr-ao3 · 5 months

Text

Cupiditas rerum novarum

Cupiditas rerum novarum https://ift.tt/CKglU2v by Jero3000 Уявляєш, десь є реальність, в якій ми дружили з самого дитинства. А є реальність, в якій ми навіть не знайомі. Cupiditas rerum novarum (лат) - сильне бажання неіснуючих речей Words: 789, Chapters: 1/1, Language: Українська Fandoms: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling Rating: Teen And Up Audiences Warnings: Major Character Death Categories: F/M Characters: Hermione Granger, Draco Malfoy, Ron Weasley Relationships: Hermione Granger/Draco Malfoy Additional Tags: Alternate Universe, Alternate Universe - Reincarnation, Portraits, DramioneUA, українською, Драміонаукраїнською, Ukrainian|українською via AO3 works tagged 'Hermione Granger/Draco Malfoy' https://ift.tt/XKM8AEl December 06, 2023 at 02:19PM

#IFTTT #Dramione #Draco x Hermione

2 notes · View notes

exaltabo-te-domine · 1 year

Text

"[...] but wealthy owners and all masters of labour 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."

Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII

6 notes · View notes

eternal-echoes · 1 year

Text

“Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life. These three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.”

- Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

#Catholic #Christianity #quotes #Pope Leo XIII #politics #distributism

14 notes · View notes

jloisse · 1 year

Text

"La société civile a été fondée pour protéger le droit naturel, non pour l'anéantir"

Léon XIII, Encyclique Rerum novarum, 1891

8 notes · View notes

rosecorcoranwrites · 1 year

Note

(Sorry for taking so long)

Some of the magisterial documents that concern me:

Catechism of Trent, Rerum Novarum 20,36,42,, Quadragesimo Anno 71, casti conubii 120, Pius XII speech to Catholic female organizations (on April 24, 1952) etc

These documents seem to treat women working as a concession rather than as something that should be strived for (usage of the words “should”, “like it or not” etc)

Which on one hand, yes, I don’t think the modern feminist notion of “women have to be like men in order to contribute” is good, and corporate work culture and such isn’t really good for anyone, and of course there are differences between men and women that should be respected.

But on the other hand, because of my overthinking brain, I get to wondering if God thinks people working outside of their usual role/men and women who don’t fit their “role” is just something like Old Testament laws we consider unfortunate today, something God “tolerates/tolerated” rather than something He “wants”

It’s probably more of a me problem

No worries about taking long. I am also super busy, so it’s hard for me to find time to focus on things. Anywho, I couldn’t find the text for the Pope Pius XII’ 1952 speech, which wouldn’t be magisterial, as it is just a speech and not an encycliacal or what have you, so we can set it to one side. As for the rest:

The Catechism of Trent:

To train up their children in the practice of virtue, and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns, should also be especial objects of [wives’] attention and study. Unless compelled by necessity to go abroad, they should also cheerfully remain at home ; and should never leave home without the permission of their husbands.

I’ve read some people’s take on this that their husband’s permission can be understood to implicit rather than explicit. For example, when my mom was a stay-at-home-mom, we would go hiking and shopping and picketing when I was little, but my dad knew we were doing that and wouldn’t have asked us not to.

I have my own take on the passage. The Catechism of Trent was written in 1566, so “home” might not mean a literal house, but more likely a farm or village. Neither spouse should run off to the next village without letting their spouse know, and it’s not unreasonable for a husband to say, “Yeah, don’t go to the next village, because I need you here to help with the (insert myriad duties that weren’t automated at the time).” Running a household back in the day was far more than only child-rearing, and was essentially a job in itself, with cooking, mending clothes, and—if the family owned a shop or farm—helping to run that.

Bringing this perspective to modern day, I think we can agree it is better for families, in general, to “settle down” in one location and build a life there. When children are young, it makes sense for the mother to be the one to stay at home (ie, the hometown) while her husband’s work may require travel. Obviously this is not to say the family can’t take vacations, and necessity (sick relatives, or important speaking engagements on the wife’s part, etc) would allow for the wife’s traveling.

Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor

I assume the concerning passages are:

20. “Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age.”

This actually proves that the Church is fine with women working, as it implies that there is work—paid work, by an employer, which is suited to the different sexes.

It is also important, just above this line, that it says, “the employer is bound to see that the worker […] be not led away to neglect his home and family.” This applies to both men and women. Context is important for all of these passages, as the document itself concerns treating workers justly so as to have a just society. If society makes it such that work outside the home interferes with family life—for both men and women—than it’s an unjust society (spoiler alert: we’re living in such a society).

36. “…if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed; […] if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; […] if health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age - in such cases, there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law.”

The church is saying that the law should step in if family life becomes untenable due to work or if a woman’s health is endangered by her work. I don’t see a problem with this. Now that middle clause about mixing the sexes might sound startling, but read it carefully: "IF in workshops and factories THERE WERE danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; […] it WOULD BE right to invoke the aid and authority of the law.” It’s not saying that there will be immorality do to the mixing of the sexes but that if there is, the law has to step in. Which secular society agrees with. It’s why we have sexual harassment laws.

Notice, too, that merely by mentioning men and women working in workshops and factories and women being endangered by excessive labor, the Church is acknowledging that women do and can have jobs.

42. “Finally, work which is quite suitable for a strong man cannot rightly be required from a woman or a child. […] 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.”

I don’t see a problem with this, either. There are jobs which, frankly, don’t suit women. Dangerous jobs, jobs which require back breaking labor, or jobs which require heavy lifting in a pinch come to mind. The Church is saying don’t force women into hard labor. As for our nature being “fitted to home-work”, that doesn’t mean we can do nothing else. There are plenty of jobs which are not back breaking and that do preserve modesty—medicine, teaching, office work, and so on. So long as those jobs don’t interfere with the the family, there’s no reason a woman shouldn’t pursue them.

Quadragesimo Anno 71

71. “That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children

Many things to note here. First, the acknowledgement that wives can help run farms and shops (which they always have done), and that this is not considered an occupation outside the home. Onto the part about mothers, again, notice the language: “to abuse the years of childhood” “intolerable abuse […] for mothers […] to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children.

This does not mean that mothers cannot have jobs, hobbies, or interests. Mothers of children should not be forced to work because their husbands are not granted a living wage. Mothers of children ought to stay home with their kids. Again, “staying home with your kids” does not mean you can’t also pursue your own interests and hobbies. It just means that your job is to take care of the kids. Once your kids are more grown, and that may mean being school aged or teenagers—that’s probably a matter of prudential judgement—feel free to go back to a paid job.

Casti Connubbii:

120. if even the mother of the family to the great harm of the home, is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor; […] it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God's commands are rendered difficult for them”

Again, this isn’t saying women can’t work, it’s just saying they should not be compelled to do so, and that it would be better if they could focus on homemaking.

TLDR:

I would not say that documents “treat women working as a concession”, though they do treat mothers of young children working as such (note that there are many mothers of older children and people like me: unmarried women). I do agree that they don’t treat mothers working as “something that should be strived for”, but so what?

I’m gonna get on my soapbox here. You yourself said “corporate work culture and such isn’t really good for anyone” Correct. So stop buying into it. Lose the capitalist notion that a person’s worth comes from their paid occupation. Lose the notion that to “do anything” means to be paid to do it. Christians should not be striving to get a job; we should be striving to become saints. The same goes for men and women. It’s frankly toxic to see a person’s worth as centered in their career. To do so leads people to despair when they lose their jobs or cannot get the one’s they want.

God doesn’t care what job you have, he cares about if you love Him and the people around you. If you can love and serve your family while holding down a job, great. The odds are that you probably can’t do that while raising young children. So make the sacrifice and stop working outside the home for a few years. Your family—and you—will be better for it. Then, when your kids are older—maybe in grade school, or maybe older than that—go back to work if you feel like it. The fact there are women saints with jobs proves that God is fine with women working. And as for men working, I wouldn't say that's something God wants, as the reason we even have to labor is because of the Fall, but I digress....

I don’t think you’re overthinking it, I think you’re buying into a combo of feminist and capitalist rhetoric that says a woman’s worth (a man’s) comes from their place a cog in the capitalist machine, and that the goal of life is to have a fulfilling job. It's not. The goal of life for married people is to create a healthy and holy family. Yes, women's role in this usually involves childrearing while men's involves earning a living wage, but how is that unfortunate? You cannot claim to respect mothers while acting like what they are doing is not as worthy as having a career. And, I'll say it again, nothing about being a mother precludes one from having a career so long as your kids come first.

#ask and answer #sorry if I sound mean #it's just like... I hate capitalism so much?#I also hat e Communism #but Capitalism as an ideology (not as an economic system) has utterly warped our entire society #from how we view hobbies to art to the family #it's awful and I hate it

4 notes · View notes