Rerum Novarum and Our Modern AI Moment - Part One

With the election of Pope Leo XIV and his cognizant choosing of the name Leo to draw a connection to his predecessor, Leo XIII, from the Vatican:

Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.

So what is Rerum Novarum and how might it link to our understanding of our present moment and AI? More importantly, how can we connect this to our role as Catholic educators?

Pope Leo XIV (left) and Pope Leo XIII (right). Credit: Left: Ettore Ferrari, ANSA via AMNA, Right: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain via Greekreporter.com

This series aims to read through Rerum Novarum and provide commentary and perspective from my own viewpoint. Please note - I am not a theologian or expert. I am purposely approaching this with untrained eyes and aiming to introduce this referenced work in a personal way.

The encyclical (an official papal, pastoral letter to the Church) can be found here and consists of 64 numbered paragraphs. From Wikipedia:

Rerum Novarum, or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, is an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891. It is an open letter, passed to all Catholic patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops, that addressed the condition of the working class. It discusses the relationships and mutual duties between labor and capital, as well as government and its citizens. Of primary concern is the need for poverty amelioration of the working class. It supports the rights of labor to form trade unions, and rejects both socialism and unrestricted capitalism, while affirming the right to private property.

A foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching, many of the positions in Rerum Novarum are supplemented by later encyclicals, in particular Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno (1931), John XXIII's Mater et Magistra (1961), Paul VI's Octogesima Adveniens (1971), and John Paul II's Centesimus Annus (1991), each of which commemorates an anniversary of the publication of Rerum Novarum. It also inspired Catholic activism and influenced distributists. Socialists generally contest the encyclical's interpretation of socialism, and some socialists, particularly Christian socialists, interpret Rerum Novarum as not rejecting socialism, argue that divine law justifies the abolition of private property, and emphasize its anti-capitalist character.

A couple of notes about my praxis here. I will refer to His Holiness as Leo for simplicity and all quotes are drawn from the current paragraph summarized, in less otherwise noted. I will aim to divide up the paragraphs of Rerum Novarum - this is my division not a formal one - based on the topics Pope Leo addresses. Today I'll cover the first two sections, an introduction and an argument against Socialism - the first "solution" presented in the modern age.

Section 1: Paragraphs 1-3, Introduction

Paragraph 1: Leo describes the circumstances of the age and the necessity for the document. "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"

P2: Leo defines his goal: "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."

P3: Leo digs more into how we came to this situation seeing the decline of guilds and rise of capitalism as the root of this evil. "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."

Section 2: Paragraphs 4-11, Contra Socialism

P4: Leo addresses Socialism (defined as the effort by which "individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies") which presents an alternative but descries it "powerless" and "emphatically unjust" for it "would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community."

P5: Leo provides an understanding of personal property contra socialists: "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."

P6: Leo continues to argue against socialism, focusing on the necessity of property for man. Leo draws a distinction between creatures and humans, marking the difference in the power of reason. This sense of reason relates to property in that "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."

P7: Two key points occur in this paragraph - (1) Man has future needs both here on earth and in heaven. This prompts both future plan and continual work. (2) Man does this without need of the State; the government is not required to force a person to work or save up resources.

P8: Work is good and the owning of private property does not contradict the idea that the earth is a gift to all. This is true for those who labor on the land and those who do not: "all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling"

P9: Further proof of this is that cultivation bears greater fruit than wildness.

P10: Presents an argument for socialism and Leo argues against it on the basis that the man should enjoy what the land he cultivated produced: "is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor."

P11: Leo sums up showing that both common sense, common law, and natural law all affirm the right to property: "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."

We will stop there as Leo proceeds to examine the idea of the family, classes, and more.

Analysis

Socialism remains a utopian-driven force in today's society. It intersects with the idea that a benevolent AI would govern our future and resources in such a way as to eliminate work and class disparity. Leo emphasizes church teaching that labor and its fruits are good.

The abrogation of labor in favor of an AI-managed future speaks to a fundamental disconnect between the nature of man and the goal of some tech-idealists. The elimination of work in favor of the efficiency of machines, likewise, can be read as a troubling attack on this. I don't believe Leo and the Church would argue to keep automation out of industry all together (sorry elevator operators); but instead a careful consideration. Is the graphic design by DALL-E the equivalent to the artistic prowess of a trained and experienced artist? Is the efficiency of an AI diagnostician superior to the bed-side manner of a physician?

Likewise, will such an abrogation of labor lead to a decadent society, a question best considered in the peripheral of The Culture. The danger of AI lies not only its malevolent and negative side effects but in its seduction to remove decision-making, challenge, and difficulties from the human experience. Could "benevolent AI" be just as malignant in poisoning the human soul?