The Catholic Response to the Industrial Revolution

Rerum Novarum

Feisal asked me to speak on the subject of the Catholic response to the Industrial Revolution, which begins with Rerum novarum, the encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 that laid the foundation for modern Roman Catholic social teaching. Considered by many conservative Catholics to be extremely progressive, and by liberal Catholics to be extremely conservative, Rerum novarum (Latin: “Of New Things”) enunciated the late 19th-century Catholic position on social justice, especially in relation to the problems created by the Industrial Revolution, and it emphasized the church’s right to make pronouncements on social issues as they relate to moral questions. It is also considered the first social encyclical, a pastoral letter that addresses a specific current social issue. Many popes of the 20th and 21st centuries have promulgated encyclicals that expand on the teaching of Rerum novarum.

Impact of the Industrial Revolution

Having begun in Britain in the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution spread to other parts of the world and fundamentally transformed society, introducing new technologies and new ways of living and working. Local economies that had been based on agriculture and handicrafts became dominated by industry and machine manufacturing. Guilds and feudalism gave way to companies and capitalism, and new social classes developed as modes of production sped up and became increasingly specialized. These classes were divided into upper, middle, and working (or lower), according to the type of work performed, income level, and material wealth (including property).

In response to these rapid changes, thinkers became concerned about the effects of industry on society, especially on the working class. Economists and other social scientists developed new ideologies—namely, socialism and communism—that aimed to overthrow capitalism and abolish private property. In 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto, which became one of the principal programmatic statements of the European socialist and communist parties in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

One year after The Communist Manifesto was published, Pope Pius IX issued the encyclical Nostis et nobiscum (“You Know as We Do”), which condemned socialism and communism. His response to these ideologies, as well as his approach to the papacy, is important in understanding Leo XIII’s decision to promulgate Rerum novarum more than 40 years later.

Reign of Pius IX: Troubled relations between church and state

Pius IX was a conservative who reigned for more than 31 years (1846–78), the longest papacy in history. His accomplishments included defining the doctrine of papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council (1869–70), which Pius had called to respond to what he considered the rising problems of contemporary society and the expectations of the church to modernize.

Pius’s papacy saw other revolutionary changes in the relations between the Roman Catholic Church and European states. In 1870 Italy annexed much of the territory belonging to the Papal States and made Rome (the seat of the church) the Italian capital. To protest this incorporation into a unified Italy, Pius (and several popes thereafter) remained a voluntary “prisoner of the Vatican,” never leaving the small territory of the papal grounds. This situation lasted nearly 60 years. Other hostilities between church and state raged elsewhere. For example, between about 1871 and 1887 the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck waged a bitter struggle, known as Kulturkampf, to subject the Roman Catholic Church in Germany to state controls. Bismarck’s battle was partly a response to Pius’s doctrine of papal infallibility. Among the chancellor’s orders was the exclusion of religious teachers from all state schools in Germany and the suppression of the Jesuits there.

Reign of Leo XIII: A new spirit

Having succeeded Pius IX in 1878, Leo XIII aligned with his predecessor’s vision of the church in some respects: like Pius, he opposed secular liberalism and considered the traditional doctrine of the Christian state as an ideal. But Leo’s papacy ultimately characterized a new spirit.

Before becoming pope, Leo had served as bishop of the small, obscure diocese of Perugia, Italy, for 32 years, and he had used his ample leisure to read Christian philosophy, particularly that of St. Thomas Aquinas (quoted in five sections of Rerum novarum). From his reading, he became interested in the problem of the relations between the church and modern society, and he was increasingly convinced that church authorities were mistaken in taking a fearful, negative attitude toward the aspirations of the times.

Leo had also served as a papal nuncio (ambassador) in Belgium early in his career, which gave him important skills in diplomacy. After being elected to the papacy, he became known for his diplomatic relations with civil governments, and he concerned himself with renewing the dialogue between the church and the world.

Main points of Rerum novarum

Addressed to the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, Rerum novarum begins with piercing urgency:

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.

Immediately, the document makes clear that the church must have a role in addressing the current conditions of the working class and reconciling different opinions on the matter. However, it cautions, “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.”

Leo's encyclical began by pointing to a new revolution transforming the world, not political in nature, but economic. "New Developments in industry, new technologies striking out on new paths, changed the relations of employer and employee, abundant wealth among a very small number and destitution among the masses, increased self-reliance among the workers as well as a closer bond of union have caused conflict to hold forth." The changes, he noted, were so "momentous" that they kept "men's mind in anxious expectation." There were difficult problems to resolve, the pope acknowledged, but "all are agreed that the poor must be speedily and fittingly cared for, since the great majority of them live undeservedly in miserable and wretched conditions."

Leo XIII believed that the root of the problem was the decline of the old trade guilds of medieval origin and the failure of modern government to pay attention to "traditional religious teaching." Inspired by the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and Aquinas' vision of an organic community knitting rich and poor together in reciprocal relation, Rerum Novarum in some ways looked not forward but back to a medieval golden age. In this sense it was a conservative document, or, conservatives believed that they could read it as such. They took notice of Leo's attack on the Socialists, for "exciting the enmity of the poor towards the rich" and advocating a program that "violates the rights of lawful owners, perverts the functions of the state... throws governments into confusion [and] actually injures the workers themselves."

Indeed, a particular concern of Rerum novarum is the threat of socialism, which “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.” Drawing from scripture and the writings of Aquinas, Rerum novarum identifies the right of private property as the foundation on which the remedy for the social problems at hand must be based, and yet the document affirms the duties of citizens to uphold the common good, regardless of private wealth:

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 [St. Paul] with, ‘Command the rich of this world…to offer with no stint, to apportion largely [1 Timothy 6:17–18].’ ”

Yet if Pope Leo XIII attacked Socialism in Rerum Novarum and gave hope to conservatives, he also assailed unregulated capitalism and encouraged reforms. Workers owed their bosses conscientious work, but "no laws either human or divine, permit them [the owners] for their own profit to oppress the needy and the wretched or to seek gain from another's want." The "principal" duty of an owner is "to give every worker what is justly due him." Leo XIII argued that "free contracts" between workers and owners must always be "an element of natural justice, one greater and more ancient that the free consent of contracting parties, namely that the wage shall not be less than enough to support a worker who is thrifty and upright." Leo contended that "in the case of the worker there are many things which the power of the state should protect... " Leo also gave support, if vaguely and cautiously worded, to the organization of workers. Many interpreted Leo's endorsement of workers' associations as an endorsement of unions.

The main points of Rerum novarum are:

the necessity of private property, which the document upholds as a natural right

the dignity of labor and workers

the mutual responsibilities of employers and workers, including workers’ right to a fair wage and their duty to respect their employers’ property

the right of workers to organize and form unions

the state’s role in protecting the rights of all citizens, especially the poor and vulnerable, and in ensuring workers a living wage and tolerable working conditions

the church’s role in recognizing societal changes, serving as a moral authority, and caring for the poor

the false solution offered by socialism

the necessity of collaboration to achieve and maintain social harmony

Rerum novarum sees collaboration between workers and employers and between church and state as the solution to the problems of the Industrial Revolution. The church’s role is paramount: “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.”

The encyclical ends with another appeal to the bishops, that “they should never cease to urge upon men of every class, upon the high-placed as well as the lowly, the Gospel doctrines of Christian life; by every means in their power they must strive to secure the good of the people.”

Distributism

The quotation I mentioned earlier

“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.

set the stage for the development of Principle of Distributism.

The term generally refers to a theory of economics developed by Catholic thinkers in the early twentieth century.  It was developed following the encyclical Rerum Novarum.  Two key intellectual figures in the development of the theory were Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton.  In this article, we will sketch out the main tenets of this movement.

Is it an economic theory?

First, both Belloc and Chesterton would deny that they were developing any new economic theory. They were merely explaining perennial Catholic moral principles and applying them to the current situation in the world.  Likewise, Leo XIII would not have admitted that he was developing or creating any new Catholic teaching. He was merely stating those perennial principles and applying them to new situations. 

Secondly, unlike modern academic economists and Communists Leo, Chesterton, and Belloc would not make a distinction between economics and ethics or morality. Agreeing with Aristotle they understood economics to be a subdiscipline of moral philosophy. Economics is not only descriptive, explaining how commerce or markets work, but also normative. Since all economics involves human activity – animals do not have economies – it is a species of morality which is the science of free human action.  It would be equivalent to saying that politics has nothing to do with morality, something most modern politicians probably believe. Pope Leo, and later Pope Pius XI, as well as Belloc and Chesterton saw the Catholic theory, now referred to as distributism, as in opposition to both capitalism and communism. 

Now, both ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’ are complex and cover many variations. Yet, if we boil them down to their essences, they are based on the same flawed principles. They are both utilitarian and materialist. Their ends are limited to maximizing financial and economic resources and admit no constraint on these pursuits. They place material advancement as the primary end of human activity. As Belloc demonstrates in his book, The Servile State, both systems tend to the same end albeit by different means.  Classical liberal capitalism and communism, both end in the concentration of wealth and means of production in the hands of a small minority of the population.

Communism achieved this end by the civil government, seizing private property and appropriating economic resources, and the means of production into the hands of an oligarchy controlling the state. Capitalism achieves the same, and through an unregulated market for competition that ends with the means of production and other economic wealth, being concentrated in the hands of the few who survive this Darwinian battle of the fittest.

From the perspective of the majority of a nation, the results are virtually indistinguishable. Wealth and means of production are concentrated in the hands of the few regardless of whether those few are called government employees or transnational conglomerate executives. The effect is the same. Thus, distributism is attacked on both sides by capitalists and communists alike since it resists both of their attempts to concentrate wealth.

What Are Distributism’s Core Principles?

We can distill distributism into three core principles. First, the primary and essential element, not only of political society but also of economic society, is the family. The very word economics is derived from the Greek meaning household management. The primary focus of economics should be the family. Recognizing that families are not self-sufficient economics contains principles, governing economic transactions between families, but the primary unit is the family.

The second core principle is related. It is the principle known as subsidiarity. According to these principle decisions, laws and regulations should be made by the authority that is closest to the activity and should only be taken by a higher or more distant authority when the closest authority is not capable of making the decision or making and enforcing the laws or regulations.  This means the primary regulation of economic activity should occur on the local level. Local is, obviously, a relative concept. What is local can be determined by many factors such as the state of communication and travel. Thus ‘local’ in the 21st century can have a wider net than in the ninth century. Yet the principle is the same. Most economic activity and exchange should occur among families in close proximity. This principle is an example of much common sense that is not very common today. Does it not make more sense for a family to buy its produce from a local farm rather than having to pay for the same produce to be shipped across the globe? Yet this is often what happens in our so-called modern sophisticated economy.

As to laws and regulations, these will be more suited to the problems at hand and less authoritarian to the extent they are adopted by local authorities, who know the particularities of the local situation better than distant authorities. The primary regulators of economic activity in the medieval ages were the guilds. We could dedicate an entire talk to the topic of the guilds, but for now, we must remember that our concepts of labor unions or large national organizations like the American Medical Association. There is no relationship to the guilds. The guilds were fundamentally local. Their jurisdiction was often coterminous with a parish or at most a diocese. These guilds would supervise economic activity within their scope and geographic location. They would work to prevent the monopolization of resources or trade. The local blacksmith guild would concern itself with the blacksmiths within its territory. Certainly, there would have been communication and some coordination among the guilds, but their focus remained local. The history of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries has been one of aggregating power to control economic activity at the national and globalist levels. Even within the United States, we’ve seen in our short history, a massive transfer of power from local municipalities and states to the federal government.

Before leaving this principle, we must note that there is a limit on subsidiarity. To the extent any problem is greater than can be solved by a local authority, then, and only then, can a higher authority intervene. Thus, for example, the regulation of the weights and measures of coinage was the province of the king. In order to facilitate the necessary trade between local communities for items that could not be procured locally a standardized system needed to be developed. No individual locality would be able to develop and enforce such a system. Therefore the regulation of the monetary system was rightly within the domain of the national authority.

The third core principle of distributism is the wide distribution of property. Yet by the word property, they were not referring to a wide distribution of consumer goods. The Distributist focus was on economic property, property that is used to generate things to satisfy human needs. The communists will apply the term the means of production to this concept. What property constitutes economic property depends on the nature of the specific economy. In a primarily agrarian economy, the most significant element of property is arable land.  As an industrial economy develops this would include raw materials, energy, and other mechanical equipment. 

The three fundamental tenets of the theory or related. The family and local community should be the primary focus of economic activity. Individual families and communities should have the ability to acquire and retain economic resources and the freedom to regulate their use. Recognizing that many resources are distributed unevenly around the world, the theory encourages a free and fair system of exchange on the national and international levels so that local communities and families can have access to acquire necessary resources that are not within their proximity.  The primary goal of law and regulation is to prevent the monopolization of these economic resources. It is to prevent either the communistic government or corporate elites from cornering access to these resources, and therefore creating a globalist one-world economy that is not oriented to the family or the community but to the ends or goals of the globalist elite.

As with all principles, there can certainly be an acceptable range of discussion and disagreement about the precise policies directives, or means to achieve the implementation of these principles. Therefore, any individual adhering to the Distributist understanding of economics could certainly disagree as to matters of detail with others of the same persuasion. One of the most difficult practical issues on which there can be disagreement is how to implement these core catholic principles once a society has degenerated so far away from them like our own. It is easier to discuss principles to prevent the corruption of economics by liberalism or communism, but harder to theorize how to put the genie back in the bottle. 

Analogously it is easier to see how modernism and liberalism have corrupted the church and then it is to devise a practical plan to reverse this damage. It is not enough to say ‘teach the truth’ again when there are hundreds of millions of Catholics, who are malformed now both liturgically and doctrinally.  This is an important point to understand because the enemies of distributism will attempt to refute the principles by claiming its adherence does not have a unified agreed plan for implementing its principles. This is a red herring argument. It is liberal and communist thinking that has concentrated wealth in the hands of governments and multi-billion dollar transnational corporations. Liberals then blame those advanced and Catholic principles for struggling to articulate ways of undoing this damage.

The Catholic Land Movement & Rerum novarum

Finally, Rerum novarum set the stage for the Catholic Land Movement if only briefly in the following quotations:

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.

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.

Based on these principles the Catholic Land Movement emphasizes multi-generational homesteads as a means to cultivate family stability rooted in Catholic faith, enabling parents to raise children amid daily agrarian rhythms infused with religious observance and moral instruction.

These homesteads support extended family networks that prioritize generational continuity on the land, fostering environments where faith formation occurs through shared labor and proximity to nature. Ownership of productive rural property plays a central role in enabling home-based worship, such as family-led prayer and the reception of sacraments, alongside homeschooling tailored to Catholic doctrine, which participants view as essential for insulating youth from urban secularism's influences.

This setup allows for consistent moral formation, with daily life on the homestead serving as a practical embodiment of virtues like stewardship and subsidiarity, promoting self-reliant family units oriented toward spiritual growth over material pursuits.

Ancient Christian Parallels

This somewhat parallels Early Christian communities, as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles, which emphasized shared land stewardship by selling properties—and distributing the proceeds to meet communal needs, ensuring no one lacked essentials while maintaining unity of purpose. This voluntary practice reflected a collective approach to resources, where believers regarded their possessions as held in common for the benefit of all, administered through apostolic oversight.

Patristic writings extended this ethos, portraying agricultural labor and land care as integral to Christian virtue and stewardship of creation, though often within frameworks of monastic self-sufficiency rather than broad communal redistribution. The integration of faith cycles with agricultural seasons in early Christianity paralleled ancient customs, as liturgical observances and communal gatherings aligned with harvest times to celebrate divine provision and the earth's rhythms.

While early models favored communal sharing over individual holdings, the modern Catholic Land Movement revives distributist ideals through self-owned family homesteads, prioritizing personal self-sufficiency and rural resettlement against urbanization.