Societal Shifts of the Industrial Revolution Echoed Today
A comparative analysis of Vatican works Rerum Novarum, 1891 and Antiqua et nova, 2025 as a means of analyzing societal shifts brought forth by the Industrial Revolution and the AI Revolution.
The newly selected Pope chose Leo XIV as his papal name. He did so to honor Leo XIII, a Pope who was head of the Church from 1878 to 1903. The reasoning was that Leo XIII ushered the world and his followers through the industrial revolution of the late 1800s and he will be tasked with ushering the world through the AI revolution. Pope Leo XIII created the renowned 1891 work, Rerum Novarum, an open letter, passed to all Catholic patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops, which addressed the condition of the working class in the face of rapid industrialization and technological innovation. This year, the Church has put forth a new work titled Antiqua et nova. It is a work on the relationship between Artificial Intelligence and human intelligence. These two documents showcase the similarities in the thematic guidance offered to the public in the face of societal shifts brought on by a technological revolution. The documents both address threats to human dignity, socio economic inequality, workers rights and legal reform. The direct corresponding topics addressed by the Church in both time periods serve to highlight the parallels between the two times and suggest we may extrapolate the triumphs and missteps of the late 1800s to better guide us in the navigation of today’s changing world.
On Human Dignity
The two texts in question both address the concepts of the threat to human dignity in the face of life altering technological innovation, the challenges that those innovations present to society and the choices that are now confronting each individual. The difference reflected is that in the past, the technology that shifted and shaped society was to be electively interacted with and the Pope was recommending care in how that elected interaction was to be carried out with a mind to man’s higher life and purpose. The recommendations addressed individuals and their personal relation to the new technology, preaching caution and priorities on a personal level. Our current advice is not given on an individualistic level, but a societal top-down level, preaching caution instead to the creators of the technology, not the users. It is preaching guidance for innovation itself in the age of AI and not just the use of a new technology. This contrast in how human dignity is protected reflects the changing nature of innovation and the unwieldy, secular and divided nature of the current public.
Rerum Novarum, 1891
No man may with impunity outrage that human dignity which God Himself treats with great reverence, nor stand in the way of that higher life which is the preparation of the eternal life of heaven. Nay, more; no man has in this matter power over himself. To consent to any treatment which is calculated to defeat the end and purpose of his being is beyond his right; he cannot give up his soul to servitude, for it is not man's own rights which are here in question, but the rights of God, the most sacred and inviolable of rights. 40
Antiqua et nova, 2025
The intrinsic dignity of every man and every woman must be the key criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these will prove ethically sound to the extent that they help respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life. 42
On Socio Economic Inequality
The two documents both address socio economic inequality, however, Rerum Novarum addresses the idea that some have already benefited economically and therefore socially from the 19th century’s industrial revolution and then guides them on principles of the church’s teachings which may alleviate some inequality through charitable giving. It speaks to the soul and the conscience of the follower. In contrast, Antiqua et nova highlights the role that the new technology can play in perpetuating the existing digital divide which is largely set upon socio economic lines that determine access to and comfort with emerging technology.
Rerum Novarum, 1891
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. 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. When what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. Of that which remaineth, give alms."
Antiqua et nova, 2025
Evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in material wealth, which are also significant, but also differences in access to political and social influence. In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new forms of poverty, widen the “digital divide,” and worsen existing social inequalities. 52
On Workers Rights
The address of workers rights in both works highlights the importance of the work itself as well as the workers role and his relationship to his employer. Rerum Novarum, however, focuses on the individual’s agreement and their quality of life derived from their wage, with the impetus being rooted in Christian theory. Antiqua et nova confronts the possibility that work and the worker itself could be rendered obsolete through today’s emerging technology. It focuses on guiding how the technology should be implemented in order to ensure that the worker is an integral part of the work produced and that the worker maintains a symbiosis with the technology to avoid being replaced or made redundant in the face of AI adoption.
Rerum Novarum, 1891
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. 45
Antiqua et nova, 2025
Since work is a “part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfillment,” “the goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replaces human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity”—rather, it should promote human labor. Seen in this light, AI should assist, not replace, human judgment. Similarly, it must never degrade creativity or reduce workers to mere “cogs in a machine.” Therefore, “respect for the dignity of laborers and the importance of employment for the economic well-being of individuals, families, and societies, for job security and just wages, ought to be a high priority for the international community as these forms of technology penetrate more deeply into our workplaces.” 70
On Legal Reform
The comments on legal reform both reference the occasions where regulation becomes necessary but Rerum Novarum also focuses on the limits of the law in matters related to new technology. This could be contextual in an age where the Church’s power was more comparable to the legal levers available to a worker in mainstream society. The focus of the legal discussions in Rerum Novarum are on the workers rights directly and when they are potentially violated by employers who are employing the new technologies of the day, whereas the legal discussions of Antiqua et nova focus on protections from the technologies themselves. The focus of Antiqua et nova is ensuring that legal accountability be clearly determined and that the public in general is protected using newly drafted regulatory frameworks to protect their right to privacy.
Rerum Novarum, 1891
If employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust - 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 limits must be determined by the nature of the occasion which calls for the law's interference - the principle being that the law must not undertake more, nor proceed further, than is required for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the mischief. 36
Antiqua et nova, 2025
Regulatory frameworks should ensure that all legal entities remain accountable for the use of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability. Moreover, those using AI should be careful not to become overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society’s already high reliance on technology. 46
Although both Rerum Novarum and Antiqua et nova have both been drafted to deal with vastly differing moments in time and emerging technologies, they both serve to address the same societal-level concerns from the Church to its followers and the greater public. The key difference isn’t in the year or the risks, but instead, the manner in which the issues are being addressed due to the timing within the revolution as well as the nature of the technology emerging at the time. Rerum Novarum more often speaks directly to the individual about how they choose to function in this new society and how they interact with the technology as well as the shifts it has already created. Antiqua et nova more often speaks to the technology directly and its current day creators in a voice which projects future challenges and encourages consideration of future implications through the shaping of the technology itself. Rerum Novarum is a bottom up approach, whereas Antiqua et nova is top down. From the Church’s writings, we can deduce that emerging technology isn’t seen necessarily as a threat to a societal future with which individuals need counsel on interacting with but a potential tool to consciously shape society and its future. The Church is wisely drawing from the lessons of the past to advise during the creation of the tool itself in order to recommend that the tool be shaped with its teachings, rather than relying on the advice to individuals on interaction once the tool is adopted. This method of addressing the role of new technology in society should be an example to every government, community, family and individual. The earlier we can project the impact of new technology, the greater influence over the outcome we can have while it's still in development and the better the outcome will be.