Dissent From Catholic Social Teaching: A Study In Irony - Inside The Vatican

[Crocus]

A lot of people end up owing little to nothing on their taxes as a result of this reduction.

That’s nice. Really it is for those it helped, but as noted above, the exemption is out for 2018-2025 (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act).

 

[pnewton]

Suggestions that one plan is more moral than another are not.

And that is precisely the type of view I cannot agree with.

 

[pnewton]

You are apparently behind in your reading on the tax code.

That may be. I know Trump did some things people said were rather family unfriendly, but I did not know specifics.

 

[pnewton]

Which vehicle should I drive, pnewton?

Morally? That is up to your own conscience. Legally? I see know problem having people who pollute more pay more, then leave the choice to them.

 

[Jen95]

How about practically? If people have one or two cars, both of which are big enough to fit a family, you seem to have a problem with individual people driving said car to make trips with just one person. But we don’t all have a fleet of tiny passenger cars that just fit one person, like you want us to drive. Some of us don’t even think tiny passenger cars are safe on the same roadways with semi trucks.

 

[pnewton]

you seem to have a problem with individual people driving said car to make trips with just one person.

Just to be clear, this is not my problem per se. I quoted Laudatio Si to illustrate the “problem” we all face and all Catholics should consider in their choices. Personally, I have no judgement for any individual decision. However, what I see, in its totality represents a societal disregard for the environment. I may have not judge anyone for disposing of trash on the side of the road, depending the circumstances. There surely must be times it could be justified. But if I saw litter constantly being tossed, I would say that we had a disregard for the environment.

 

[Ender]

And that is precisely the type of view I cannot agree with.

That a particular proposal is thought to be harmful does not make it immoral even if true. What makes the act of supporting a bad plan immoral is the reason behind the support. Two people can both support or oppose the exact same plan, and one be sinful and the other not; it all depends on their belief about the plan, not the final outcome the plan will actually have.

Calling one proposal moral and another immoral is not a judgment of the plans. It is a judgment of the motivation of the people who choose one over the other, and it is the type of judgment we are specifically forbidden to make.

 

[pnewton]

And while applying much of it to actual political policies does require Prudential judgement, I happen to think applying it to our individual actions is more cut and dried.

That is my understanding as well. I like how Otto von Bismark described politics as the art of the possible. Personal actions are always about doing what is right, not just what is prudent.

 

[o_mlly]

I must have missed that in the catechism. I did find this though from Laudatio Si.

We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the less harmful alternative or to find short-term solutions.

Well, what you did find is good enough to support my point: the tax code is immoral if used to socially engineer the behaviors of taxpayers.

Your citation from Laudatio Si teaches that unless and until alternative fuel technology is accessible that the continued use of fossil fuels is legitimate. Not mentioned, but also true by inference, is the continued use of biomass, a more polluting alternative to fossil fuel, by the poor in under/undeveloped countries to heat and cook must also be legitimate.

One would cry out injustice if the poor were denied cheap energy to heat their homes and cook their food. Perhaps not as loud but a similar cry of injustice is also warranted when some who by accident of birth are made to carry more burden then their fair share.

Your proposed “tax on SUV’s” would do just that. People who need large vehicles, e.g., large people or large families, would be treated unjustly. The politicians and tax lawyers, when the unintended consequences are realized, would only make more changes to the tax code in a doomed attempt to use a blunt instrument as if it were a scalpel. The tax code is an ineffective and grossly inefficient means to alter taxpayers behaviors. It would also be an immoral use in your proposal.

 

[pnewton]

Well, what you did find is good enough to support my point: the tax code is immoral if used to socially engineer the behaviors of taxpayers.

I will have to leave you to your opinion. After reading your post, I find nothing that makes any sense to me, as social engineering is not mentioned, nor is the tax code. But if you believe that Pope Francis is some sort or laissz faire capitalist, then I will use this to balance
all the time he has been accused of being a socialist.

The rest of your complaints will not affect my opinion. It simply does not mesh with the reality I witness daily. But we live in a democracy. I will continue to support the environment, and continue to oppose consumerism and conspicuous consumption, at least politically, and live what I see a morally conscientious life when it come to social teaching, like the issue of pollution.

 

[o_mlly]

I will continue to support the environment, and continue to oppose consumerism and conspicuous consumption, at least politically, and live what I see a morally conscientious life when it come to social teaching, like the issue of pollution.

Go in peace, my son. But please do keep up on your reading.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I don’t think a just wage is necessarily a living wage (by which seems to be meant a wage sufficient to support a family) and neither does the Church. Most people who work for the Church do not make a living wage, at least at the parochial level. Ought not the Church to be the first to pay “a living wage,” if that is necessary to be just?

If not a living wage then what, maybe the Republicans could present wage subsidies (or a boosted EITC) and expanded Medicaid as an alternative, though wouldn’t that definitely subsidize those corporations(though a subsidized job for a teen seems like a good way to help them support their family ans build experience)? I know I’m being partisan but don’t Republicans have that hurdle on how it’s harder for people to support themselves and their families (though lowering rent and expanding access to child care would help) especially with living costs raises, if they were serious about alternatives, why not make substantive efforts to significantly increase affordable housing to provide low cost housing options?

 

[Ender]

I don’t think a just wage is necessarily a living wage (by which seems to be meant a wage sufficient to support a family) and neither does the Church. Most people who work for the Church do not make a living wage, at least at the parochial level. Ought not the Church to be the first to pay “a living wage,” if that is necessary to be just?

This observation pretty much answers the question as to whether a just wage requires a living wage. If the church doesn’t pay a living wage to its own workers then it seems pretty obvious that it is not a moral obligation to do so…therefore a just wage clearly is not the same as a living wage.

 

[Annie]

Well, whose policies drive rents up?

 

[Crocus]

I don’t think a just wage is necessarily a living wage (by which seems to be meant a wage sufficient to support a family) and neither does the Church. Most people who work for the Church do not make a living wage, at least at the parochial level. Ought not the Church to be the first to pay “a living wage,” if that is necessary to be just?

In continuing to read, trying to understand the documents of the Church, and letters of the bishops, I am starting to think that the just wage referred to, is actually something above that which is required to live.

Think about that: what is just and right, is more than a living wage; it is a decent living, more than living “hand to mouth.”

The Church certainly does affirm a decent wage; parishes ought to provide that for their employees. Each parish (the people that make up the parish) must ask itself why, if it is not doing that.

The OP of this thread is about whether Catholics assent or dissent to papal encyclicals on social justice. We are asked to “look, judge and act” (Pope Francis, I think). When Catholics give assent to the teaching, they are in a position to work to achieve the fullness.

 

[Ender]

The OP of this thread is about whether Catholics assent or dissent to papal encyclicals on social justice.

No, that’s not accurate. What is being asked is whether Catholics agree with the interpretations of Catholic Social Teaching given by SJW’s (for lack of a more descriptive term). The assumption being that to disagree with those interpretations constitutes dissent from the church, with the disagreement over whether the requirement to pay a just wage equals the requirement to pay a living wage being exactly the type of dispute at issue.

As @Annie pointed out, parishes don’t pay living wages to most of their employees which seems to leave only two reasonable possibilities: either a living wage is not a moral obligation, or virtually all parishes in the world are acting immorally. I’m going with the first option.

 

[Crocus]

The assumption being that to disagree with those interpretations constitutes dissent from the church, with the disagreement over whether the requirement to pay a just wage equals the requirement to pay a living wage being exactly the type of dispute at issue.

Let’s be clear what you (Ender) are saying here: “the correct interpretation of the Church encyclicals on social justice is to dismiss a living wage as a requirement.”

Is it your opinion that some working people do not deserve to be paid sufficient to support their daily needs? That’s what it sounds like to me. How am I wrong to perceive that?

Here is recent from USCCB. Thoughts on interpretation of just/living wage?
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...dignity-of-work-and-the-rights-of-workers.cfm

 

[tafan2]

Nothing wrong with saying G in peace", but the “my son” is rather patronizing.

 

[tafan2]

As @Annie pointed out, parishes don’t pay living wages to most of their employees which seems to leave only two reasonable possibilities: either a living wage is not a moral obligation, or virtually all parishes in the world are acting immorally. I’m going with the first option.

Depending on the employee situation, I would go with the second. For sure. The sin is born by all of us parishioners who do not support our parishes well enough.

 

[Ender]

Is it your opinion that some working people do not deserve to be paid sufficient to support their daily needs? That’s what it sounds like to me. How am I wrong to perceive that?

That is exactly what I’m saying, nor did I suggest you were wrong to suggest it. What I’m also saying is that I disagree with your interpretation that the relevant encyclicals require that employers pay a living wage. Given that (it would seem) virtually no parish actually pays such a wage it would seem that most bishops and priests don’t see this as a requirement either.

Regarding the USCCB article:

“we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone…”
That’s a commendable goal…

All people have the right to economic initiative, to productive work, to just wages…
Still looking…

No. There is nothing in that document that suggests a just wage is in fact a living wage sufficient to cover every employees daily needs.

Depending on the employee situation, I would go with the second. For sure. The sin is born by all of us parishioners who do not support our parishes well enough.

It doesn’t matter whether the parishes are supported well enough or not, just as no consideration has been given to whether other small businesses make enough. Either a living wage is a moral obligation or it isn’t, and I don’t share in any parish’s guilt for failing their moral duties. If you’re going to hold a Wendy’s franchise owner morally responsible for paying his employees a living wage regardless of his economic circumstances then the same standards apply to priests and bishops. It’s their sin, not mine. I don’t employ those people.