Talk:Rerum novarum

Lack of a Critical Section.

There is no section of criticism in the article. For example, it can be argued that the concept of a "fair wage" is meaningless - and if this "fair" wage is declared above what supply and demand would produce, then it means unemployment. Also, as the late W.H. Hutt pointed out in the "Strike Threat System" - unions and collective bargaining are not an "alternative" to state intervention as they rest upon it (otherwise an employer would hire other people when a "strike" is called and the para military practice of "picketing" would be treated as obstruction of the entrance or exit of a place of business) and that collective bargaining tends to lead to mass unemployment. Also the astonishing rise (yes rise) in the living standards of workers was obvious by 1891 - Pope Leo XIII writes more as if wages and conditions of work were still as they had been in the 1830s or 1840s.2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:AD2B:A9D:173E:AEDF (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In the very first paragraph Pope Leo XIII writes about the "prevailing moral degeneracy" - in 1891, the height of the Victorian Age. Was society less "morally degenerate" in 1791 or 1691? And Pope Leo XIII also writes (again in the very first paragraph) of the utter poverty of the masses - in 1891 when living standards had never been higher in human history. This article desperately needs a Critical Section - as it is the claims that Pope Leo XIII made in 1891 go unchallenged.2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:4D44:3FC8:294A:1F2D (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
"Anglican clergyman with evangelical leanings, and brought a sensibility to the modern Catholic Church that had its origins in the work of John Wesley" -I'm thinking that might have a point of view problem. I place this here to see if any of the writers of this article wish to change their work before I attempt. gren
 * This page has obviously been vandalised. As I'm not a registered user I cannot revert the vandalisms. The template now places the page on deletion requests instead of being just an alert - so I cannot use that to raise the alarm. What to do?  --157.157.209.20 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The passage "At the time his support for unions and a living wage were viewed as radically leftist. Yet other statements seem to be opposed to capitalism as well" is awkward to me as it seems to be saying the document was seen as "Radically leftist, yet opposed to capitalism." I suppose the point is that not only the support for unions and a living wage were opposed to capitalism, but there must be a better way to put this. I also intend to add something about Distributism. Zerobot 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "Radically leftist, yet opposed socialism" would be more accurate and meaningful. Opposing socialism, communism, and the Manchester capitalism made it a bit unusual.--T. Anthony 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

POV
"The encyclical and its impact" section is pure propaganda. There are numerous biased claims, a few of them are that it states that the book "refuted" the claims of socialists, and the section says, "While individual positions or statements have been debated, the work was remarkable as a summary of many issues raised by the industrial revolution and modern democratic societies." The vast majority of people disagree the basic claims of the encynical (or at least large sections of it), not only indivdual statements. This article also fails to include critism of it and its assosication with fascism. 72.139.119.165 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made the section NPOV now, but work could still be done on it. 72.139.119.165 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is now part of the Roman Catholic's agenda for propagating their faith. It needs to be completely revamped as to what this document was and what it means and fascist dictators that used this document to support them in the tyrannical dictates in their countries. Propaganda by Catholic editors on wikipedia should be hindered. The readers and researchers in wikipedia community deserve the truth. Not the output of the Roman agenda through their Universal Church which the pope says is the only Christian church on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlthe5th (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Note what has happened to the article Fascism. A year or two ago it mentioned how the text from 1891 from the pope was the origin of corporatism which later became fascism. Now that background has been removed. Look at the article Corporatism, click on History and go back two pages of 500 changes. Then you find this text: "Corporatism is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict, and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which influenced Catholic trade unions that organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology. Theoretical underpinnings came from the medieval traditions of guilds and craft-based economics; and later, syndicalism. Corporatism was encouraged by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno."

As Wikipedia has become more and more important, it is often the first source people turn to for information, powerful interest groups, like the Catholic church or its devotees have become involved in rewriting articles which can damage its reputation.

If you read Rerum Novarum carefully you will see that the pope expresses his concerns over the class struggle, the workers unions and the workers movements growing power. The pope suggests a counter-strategy. Instead of horizontal labor unions, where the poor workers in many factories and corporations go together and get a lot of power the pope suggests vertical labor unions, in which all workers in a certain corporation, from the rich owner down to the lowest paid workers form a labor union which then has to be loyal to the company, the corporation. That vertical organization would defuse the workers movement and the socialist parties. Roger491127 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Patrick_Joseph_Buchanan
When Pat describes himself w/ what sounds like this phrase, this term, to which element does he refer, please?

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

God on the side of the poor
This document wasn't the first expression of that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics
Shouldn't the bolded translated title also be italicized even though it is not the actual Ecclesiatical Latin title but rather a translation? 75.216.205.78 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation of title
"Rerum novarum" does not mean "On the New Things"! To translate "res novae" by "new things" is like translating "hot dog" into French as "chien chaud." "Res novae" is a fixed phrase or idiom meaning (to quote the Oxford Latin Dictionary) "constitutional changes, revolution." That is what it has always meant in Latin, and that is how Leo is using it here: "Rerum novarum semel excitata cupidine, quae diu quidem commovet civitates..." is rendered (in the Wikisource translation) "That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world..." It should be translated "Of revolution" if it must be translated in the first line of the article. I am not going to make the change myself because I can foresee the Wikiwar that would ensue and I have no stomach for it, not to mention no desire to spend my time monitoring this article and talk page. But I'm putting it here so that anyone who cares about the actual meaning of Latin, as opposed to what you get by looking things up word by word in a beginner's dictionary, and cares more about this article than I do can have a go at correcting it. Languagehat (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, "Of revolution" is misleading—that could imply revolution is the topic of the encyclical, which it isn't, it's just the first two words. That's why I wrote "if it must be translated in the first line"; it doesn't make much sense to translate the first two words out of context. Languagehat (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. The article is about the entire encyclical so just translating the first two words, out of context, is not necessary. Especially given the problematic/misleading nature of the translation. SQGibbon (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Article name change and changes to first paragraphs
Here are proposed edits to the article, to its name and to the first paragraphs. Welcome any thoughts on them. Would like to submit the final edits on Tue 11-15-16. This is my first Talk post. frank435 R Rerum novarum From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Down loaded 12 November 2016 at 9:20 ET Includes 10 November 2016 edits by  AndyFinkenstadt

1-change article name from” Rerum Novarum” to “Rerum Novarum Introduction” or “Introduction to Rerum Novarum” (no preference for either one ,please indicate yours) (reason-more accurate as to what article is about and more compliant with wiki guidelines)

2-paragraphs changes

Rerum Novarum is considered a foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching.[6]

(reason - moved from latter paragraph to first statement b, informs user upfront of the notability of the encyclical ,relevancy of this article and encourages them to read more)

Rerum Novarum (from its first two words, Latin for "of revolutionary change"[n 1]), or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, is an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891. It was an open letter, to "patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops(31), concerning Catholic doctrine on the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor”(2), that addressed the condition of the working classes.

This article is intended to provide an introduction .to the encyclical, providing some insight into its purpose ,scope ,depth and  the actionable information the encyclical provides.

(reason-provides user with the intent ,purpose of the article, make it more compliant with wiki guidelines and encourages them to read more)

Further information can be obtained about Rerum Novarum ,for example, from other wiki articles and the english version ,downloadable using  the Vatican site link in this article.

The English translation is approximately 14000 words with 64 numbered paragraphs. This article references 15 of the 64 numbered paragraphs.

(reason- from MS word counts and my counts ,more accurate and transparent as to scope of article is about and more compliant with wiki guidelines)

Rerum Novarum discussed the relationships and mutual duties between labor and capital, as well as government and its citizens. Of primary concern was the need for some amelioration of "The misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class."[5] It supported the rights of labor to form unions, rejected socialism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property.

Rerum Novarum is considered a foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching.[6]

Many of the positions in Rerum Novarum were supplemented by later encyclicals, in particular Pius XI's Quadragesimo anno (1931), John XXIII's Mater et magistra (1961), and John Paul II's Centesimus annus (1991). Frank435 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose name change. Why unnecessarily limit the scope? This is not a tutorial or a class, it is an encyclopedia article. All the other encyclical articles are named the same way. Elizium23 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)