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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crocus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus told the rich young man that if he wanted to be perfect, to give away all his goods to the poor, and then come follow Him.

I don’t know if that was a prescription for an economic system or not. If all Christians gave all their goods to the poor in order to follow Jesus, would the economy prosper or collapse?

After giving away their goods, should they keep their jobs? Someone has to be earning money in order to give it away. And the rich are capable of giving more than others. Do we have statistics on the giving habits of the very rich?

What would we advise the owner of a multi-billion dollar company to do? Should he give all profits to charity? Or should he expand the company so as to be able to employ thousands of additional workers, paying them a living wage. Charity is important. So is providing jobs.

Which is better: a society in which there are a few very rich and many who live comfortably, or a society in which there are no rich and everyone is just barely getting by?
 
How about a society in which everyone has at least food, shelter, clothing, modest recreation, hope for bettering their lives; some (many) are very rich; most have a very comfortable standard of living.
Maximus1 said:
Never say never
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would hope for such a society, a society in which everyone can earn a decent living, as well as a society which provides opportunity to become richer, or to opt for poverty, such as joining an order whose members take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and stability. But even in such religious orders, work is required, while personal wealth is not accumulated.

The fact that some are able to become extremely wealthy doesn’t bother me. Such individuals are responsible for justly distributing their income and their wealth.

But I know some individuals who simply do not desire to work. Though capable of work, they seem to be satisfied living on inherited wealth or depending on others to supply their needs. But that can’t be a long term plan; at some point the money runs out. So personal responsibility always has to be taken into account as well.
 
Take the time to read the Catechism on the subject.
Early Christians were very radical on the subject
 
I didn’t say anything except to quote Jesus Christ on a Catholic website.
You aren’t talking to a Democrat you are talking to the Gospel.
 
Laborem Exercens:

“ The recent stage of human history, especially that of certain societies, brings a correct affirmation of technology as a basic coefficient of economic progress; but, at the same time, this affirmation has been accompanied by and continues to be accompanied by the raising of essential questions concerning human work in relationship to its subject, which is man. These questions are particularly charged with content and tension of an ethical and an ethical and social character. They therefore constitute a continual challenge for institutions of many kinds, for States and governments, for systems and international organizations; they also constitute a challenge for the Church.”

——————
” Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the “image of God” he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a tendency to self-realization. As a person, man is therefore the subject ot work. As a person he works, he performs various actions belonging to the work process; independently of their objective content, these actions must all serve to realize his humanity, to fulfil the calling to be a person that is his by reason of his very humanity.“
 
Last edited:
Cont.)

———————-
“
The ancient world introduced its own typical differentiation of people into dasses according to the type of work done. Work which demanded from the worker the exercise of physical strength, the work of muscles and hands, was considered unworthy of free men, and was therefore given to slaves. By broadening certain aspects that already belonged to the Old Testament, Christianity brought about a fundamental change of ideas in this field, taking the whole content of the Gospel message as its point of departure, especially the fact that the one who, while being God, became like us in all things[11])devoted most of the years of his life on earth to manual work at the carpenter’s bench. This circumstance constitutes in itself the most eloquent “Gospel of work”, showing that the basis for determining the value of human work is not primarily the kind of work being done but the fact that the one who is doing it is a person. The sources of the dignity of work are to be sought primarily in the subjective dimension, not in the objective one.

Such a concept practically does away with the very basis of the ancient differentiation of people into classes according to the kind of work done. This does not mean that, from the objective point of view, human work cannot and must not be rated and qualified in any way. It only means that the primary basis of tbe value of work is man himself, who is its subject. This leads immediately to a very important conclusion of an ethical nature: however true it may be that man is destined for work and called to it, in the first place work is “for man” and not man “for work”. Through this conclusion one rightly comes to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the objective one. Given this way of understanding things, and presupposing that different sorts of work that people do can have greater or lesser objective value, let us try nevertheless to show that each sort is judged above all by the measure of the dignity of the subject of work, that is to say the person, the individual who carries it out. On the other hand: independently of the work that every man does, and presupposing that this work constitutes a purpose-at times a very demanding one-of his activity, this purpose does not possess a definitive meaning in itself. In fact, in the final analysis it is always man who is the purpose of the work, whatever work it is that is done by man-even if the common scale of values rates it as the merest “service”, as the most monotonous even the most alienating work.“

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
I would hope for such a society, a society in which everyone can earn a decent living, as well as a society which provides opportunity to become richer,
Click to expand...
The social justice encyclicals present this as more than a mere hope, it is an imperative, that is measurable by objective results.

#19, Laborem Exercens
Hence, in every case, a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and, in a sense, the key means.

This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
See you got into “spheres” he mentioned.
It is to be read in full no doubt!
Thanks for helping out, Crocus…
 
I highly recommend it. I am learning as I go along, thanks to the challenging questions posed and support from fellow Catholics. Thanks. 🙂
 
Crocus said:
The social justice encyclicals present this as more than a mere hope, it is an imperative, that is measurable by objective results.

#19, Laborem Exercens
Hence, in every case, a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and, in a sense, the key means.

This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. I presume that the encyclical has in mind the traditional family. But how about states where the traditional family is being destroyed, such as in states which promote the ongoing sexual revolution?

Also I presume that the just wage sufficient for a family would not necessarily be equally applied to a teenage worker in his first job or those in part time work and other such circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
Also to be considered is that businesses do not spring into being fully grown and fully functional. If a married man starts a business out of his garage, he may not expect to make a profit the first year. He will not be paying himself or any workers a living wage. If the business grows, the wages will also grow. I’ve heard of some successful tech companies who paid their workers very little in the beginning years. Employees were paid in company stock which was not worth much. Then when the company became a huge success and following an inital public stock offering, those employees became instant millionaires.
 
blackforest said:
So what’s the problem? I personally suspect it’s related to the Americanist heresy with which the brilliant Pope Leo XIII took issue late in the 19th century. It involves a lingering pretension that vibrant young America often knows better than backward old Rome even about matters of faith and morals; and it dies hard!
Click to expand...
The problem here is that this is nothing but rhetoric.

What precisely does this person know about the “Americanist” heresy and how it actually infringes on old Rome’s views of faith and morals? Is it sufficient to deride everything American by referencing the “Americanist” heresy, as if it means nothing more than a condemnation of everything coming from America.

Any specifics about the heresy and the current state of Americanism that makes you love “the conclusion,” or are we to be content to speak in generalities?
 
Let me further add…

A summary of the article:

The author (Deborah Tomlinson) details an historical account of how terms like “social justice” and the current progressivist positions on politics and the economy came to be.
Short version:
Charles Coughlin made terms like the living wage and social justice became watchwords. John Ryan was largely responsible for making the idea of living wage accepted speech. Heinrich Pesch placed the “universal solidarity of the entire human race” at the top level of his schema and went on to include “the solidarity of the family, solidarity among citizens of the same State, and solidarity among colleagues at the occupational level…”

Then she begins beating on free market and conservatism:
Flaws of the free market ideology had been identified in social encyclicals dating back to Rerum Novarum. The virtue of social justice is treated by bashing conservatives and extolling social justice as “justice” the cardinal virtue. [A confusion of terms.]

She alludes to what she believes were the issues that conservatives like Robert Scirico, Michael Novak and George Weigel have had with the Church’s social teachings.

Unfortunately those issues are never made clear, nor does she go on to address specifically what their disagreements might have been, just that they existed and that they might be “related to the Americanist heresy with which the brilliant Pope Leo XIII took issue.”

So, a socialist scree where Church teaching is made out to be socialist, but with no real discussion of what the terms social justice or justice as the cardinal virtue actually are. And no real discussion of what the flaws with free market ideology are, just that there are flaws. And no treatment or indication that she understands what the Americanist heresy was, as defined by Pope Leo, just that that is (hint, hint) the root of the problem.

Leading us to believe that America as the epitome of free market ideology is heretical for promoting individual human rights over solidarity or socialism or social justice or something.

Nothing but rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
So what’s the problem? I personally suspect it’s related to the Americanist heresy with which the brilliant Pope Leo XIII took issue late in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
For good measure, I read the Encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae by Pope Leo XIII and it appears that Americanism isn’t quite what the author cited in that OP piece made it out to be.

In summary, here is what Pope Leo states is the crucial issue…
…the biography of Isaac Thomas Hecker, … has excited not a little controversy, on account of certain opinions brought forward concerning the way of leading Christian life.

We, therefore, on account of our apostolic office, having to guard the integrity of the faith and the security of the faithful, are desirous of writing to you more at length concerning this whole matter.

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind.
Click to expand...
A plain reading of that passage is that Americanism doesn’t critique the basis for the US Constitution or the freedoms thereby offered to individuals. The Pope even commends those freedoms and the spirit that guides the American way: “…we have often considered and admired the noble gifts of your nation which enable the American people to be alive to every good work which promotes the good of humanity and the splendor of civilization.”

What the Pope is getting at as the crucial problem is very like the problem that Pope Pius X identified as the modernist heresy: it is problematic for the Church to shape teachings to conform to the latest norms in society in order to be more acceptable to those who promote social change, for its own sake. That would mean all of the latest progressivist causes such as gay marriage, abortion, women priests, hate speech, liberal/leftist/progressivist values, moral relativism, redefining social justice as equality of outcomes, transgenderism, etc. You know everything that was thought questionable ten minutes ago, but the progressives are falling over themselves just now to make the most recent norm to which everyone ought to subscribe.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
Laborem Exercens:…
Click to expand...
What does this tell me about what the minimum wage should be set to? About whether to support Medicare for all or not? About how much should be spent on defense?

What these encyclicals teach is for us to care. What they do not specify, however, are particular policies that ought to be implemented. I keep pointing out what ought to be obvious: these choices are prudential, and I keep getting responses suggesting that if only I cared more I wouldn’t say that.

That we have to make practical decisions in no way suggests that we are free to ignore our responsibilities toward others and it is astonishing to me that this concept seems so hard to grasp. I think what it shows is that people who argue this way are so tied to the idea that their political opponents are simply evil (greedy, selfish, …) that they can’t conceive of even the possibility that a reasonable person might believe a different approach might be better.
 
It stands to faith and reason that it would have been handed down from The Apostles to form communes no matter what your vocations happens to be.
Individuals and married couples included.
Some do not realize that when the Church at Jerusalem suffered because of oppression all put their possessions at the Apostles feet, this was because of then need of that particular place. The Evangelists that went to other places took up collections at the Church in their location to help the Church at Jerusalem. The Church never condemned private ownership of property and business, and these venues and neighborhood, even under duress gave means of sharing The Gospel.
If it was meant to be literal no matter what Vocation someone is called to be in, then it would have been handed down that way throughout the centuries.
~
Be very wary of private interpretations of Holy Scripture and Church writings in application. “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation.” - 2 Peter 1:20 We do know, of course, that prophesy is not ‘fortune telling,’ but given to warn how individuals, families, groups and even societies live their lives. There are many who claim some form of veiled ‘collectivist’ anthropomorphic solutions in Jesus Christ’s Name. For example, so called ‘liberation theology’ in Latin America refuted and Exhorted against by John Paul ii.
From Leo xiii, to Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, even Dostoevsky’s writings warned of a mimic false compassion material based philosophy for earthly needs that many will not realize springs up to mimic Jesus Christ.
 
Catholic social doctrine does not require you give up all. Jesus did.
And the first Christian community in THE BOOK OF ACTS took those donations of people who owned property( not all obviously) and distributed EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED.
SO
IN a capitalist economy, we do not provide that all important second part.
The second question," What am I going to live on," is not addressed. Leaving my family vulnerable completely.
So to answer your question, our system of government and economy does not permit the " give your money" part in accordance with Jesus word. The Catechism takes this into account.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top