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

[otjm]

Since the topic is Catholic Social Teaching, from which comes the Church’s stance on social justice, it should be obvious. And the blogger was not speaking directly of the Church’s stance on social justice; but the comment can be made by analogy.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Amen! Thank you! Prayerful heartfelt warm well wishes for the Peace of Christ that surpasses all understanding; for compassionate inner harmony for The Kingdom of God dwell more deeply with in; and in each of our witness!
~ The Lord Jesus, foreshadowed by John The Baptist who prepared ‘The Way of The Lord,’ Preached turn toward (God and God’s Ways and away for inner moral virtue and away from the harming sin & vice)-[Repent] for The Kingdom of God is at hand.
~ There is nothing new under the sun, the patriarchs & prophets & kings acceptable in The Sight of The Lord - *always* strove to bring about reverence for God and God's Ways and oppose anything ungodly within and without. This way their is more of God's Peace reaching hearts and minds, great and small for true success, with more children encouraged to desire God and God's Ways.
~ The Kingdom of God opposes ‘worldliness.’ Enmity with God grows whenever anyone or humanity in every venue apart from The Lord God tries to solve one’s own problems or the problems within venues. The world’s system of (intellectual elitist humanism) along side (moral relativism) - which can be expressed as ‘[we are god]’ and ‘[we decide what is moral]’ [or] [Tower of Babel] and [a form of godliness denying the Power of God revealing The Law of God written on every heart].
*note: also can be expressed as ‘Babylon’ & ‘The Whore of Babylon’ since government needs religion; whereby religion is often called ‘a woman.’ I supposed because God is espoused(in relationship) to us by how we learn and practice God’s Ways in true ways (Christianity) or false ways that falls short no matter how many tenets of those religions agree with the truth of Christianity.
~
The governments of the world, (false religious tyrannical oligarchies, i.e. Islamic) or (secular humanist tyrannical oligarchies, i.e. Communist China) or (‘propaganda’ oligarchies oppressing the free expression of relationship with God & free speech to foster intellectual elitist secular humanism) —> have oppressed the world more and more through world side organizations like The United Nations. This world system or ‘new world order’ with exalting secular humanist moral relativism creates a fear mongering '[over population - legalize helpless child murder - instead of a healthy concern to conserve the environment environmental extremism along side extremism in protecting animals.]
Thus: govern by worshiping nature along side diminish the exalting The Sacredness of human life - with legalized helpless child murder.
~
Many ‘elders of the family(predestined impartially known to God through Jesus Christ, by Grace to receive salvation) of The Lord God Almighty & people of God in general’ are cowardly to stand up for The Kingdom of God; where by The Laws of God are written in every heart.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

~
Only The Lord God Almighty knows what will happen to anyone, and the nations of the world if we do not repent, for The Kingdom of God, by our beloved Redeemer Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever - is always at hand. He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life : no one gets to Heaven apart from Him. Joy to the world, The Lord (had, has, and will) Come, Emanuel (God With Us) - let every heart prepare Him room; and everyone & every venue foster and encourage a desire for The Kingdom of God.
~
A prayerful heartfelt earnest desire well wishes for (God Who is Love)'s Peace & Joy fill each and every heart & mind & spirit beyond human understanding - to receive more and more willingness to conform to Beloved Redeemer Jesus - beyond all human understanding. Amen.
~
Come Lord Jesus!

 

[Crocus]

Would giving to the worker “his due share” imply without any reference to having earned that share?

You say “due share” as if what is due is assumed. Do you mean “due” as a function of his mere existence as a human being without any reference to having done something to earn that share?

What “social justice” implies is primarily justice. That would mean “ due share” has more to do with what is earned being what is due, and what is not earned is not to be assumed to be due .

Paul seems quite clear regarding what is due to those who work and those who do not.

1. As one cannot prosper without the other, employers and workers have responsibility towards each other.
2. Talking about workers (those who cannot work are treated elsewhere).
3. “Earned” places a value on the worker’s effort; the encyclical RN warns against undervaluing that effort, to the detriment of harmony between the parties, and by extension to the whole society. The theme runs throughout Rerum Novarum, but #s 44-47 hit most points, if you’re interested in where I’m coming from.

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-x...nts/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, …
Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them

The bolded above, from #47, is a significant observation of the present illness, whereby motivation tends to drain, in direct proportion to insufficient distribution of the common wealth to workers (or who would work if not so discouraged by the sum of their lot in life). When the majority of people are afforded the hope to attain ownership, the social justice encyclicals will be seen to be that much further along.

The symptoms of injustice are seen everywhere among the poor, the working poor, the mentally ill, the incarcerated.

Here is just one measure:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[o_mlly]

Here is just one measure:

This 2011 chart (data from 2007) would be alarming if 1) the 80% of the population holding 7% of the wealth were a static group year-over-year, and 2) 7% of the wealth (net worth) is insufficient to live a decent life.

https://www.usnews.com/news/electio...erica-inequality-persists-in-household-wealth

As a whole, American households have seen their wealth, also called net worth, grow 58% from a low of $68 trillion, or $577,000 per household, in the first quarter of 2009 to $107 trillion, or $881,000 per household, in the second quarter of 2019, based on an inflation-adjusted dataset from the Federal Reserve.

Some are entitled by justice to more, and some to less, of economic goods. Society has always included those who have more and those who have less. Justice requires that no one has less than is needed for living a decent life and no one having more than is compatible with everyone having enough.

 

[Ender]

Here is just one measure:

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/catholic/original/3X/3/2/32ffd1c57c31bcd14662d61cc1e033542682ea35.png

This is the argument from envy. Here’s a more realistic way to evaluate wealth in America.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the poverty line for an individual in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., was $10,830 in 2010. Compared to global measures of GDP per capita for 2010, an individual at the poverty line in the United States has an income in between the average for Lithuania and Seychelles, ranked 49th and 50th. This may sound less than ideal for those of us accustomed to the lifestyle and conveniences of the first world. But put differently, someone at the poverty line in the United States is in the top 14% of the global income distribution.

The egalitarian argument against the US is the great disparity in wealth, which purposely ignores the actual level of wealth among the great majority. If inequality is proof of injustice then apparently Venezuela and China are models of what a just society would look like.

…the bottom 10% of the U.S. income distribution falls in the upper 30% of the global income distribution.

I wonder if it is considered unjust for the poor in our country to be better off than 70% of the rest of the world?

 

[HarryStotle]

Crocus:

Here is just one measure:

This 2011chart would be alarming if 1) the 80% of the population holding 7% of the wealth were a static group year-over-year, and 2) 7% of the wealth (net worth) is insufficient to live a decent life.

It is also deceptive because “the wealth” is primarily determined – I would assume – as fixed assets and not as generated income and the like.

Considering that about 25% of the population is under 18 (children and adolescents) and that many others are not concerned with owning assets but with earning income, it would be deceptive to assume that those 80% are being hard done by.

Perhaps fixed assets in the hands of those incapable of or unwilling to properly manage them is a bad idea to begin with.

What that means is this issue is entirely more complex than one very simplistic data presentation and that we ought not be outraged by what may not be exceptionally outrageous to begin with.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Except for the helpless children in the womb, because they deserve food, drink, amniotic sac clothing, shelter and all the rest just like anyone else.
*Anyone who sells social justice, combined with mandated contributing to the delinquency of minors
in schools & other venues combined with restricting Sacredness of Every Human Life;
is not working for humanity but ‘social justice’ apart from God calling a massive amount of human beings expendable. Giving them power for one’s own economic ideas is pandering.
~
Doing this is contrary to The Gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ, unless someone cherry picks and distorts it. The Law of God is written on every heart; and we have The Declaration of Independence;
for self evident Creator given right to life.
~
Some say, well we are not talking ‘socialism,’ but they still, like Vladimir Lenin, for social justice;
legalize and promote the murder of helpless children; around 100 years ago. Learn from this example, please! At what not to do.
~
May we all repent of standing by, because of the distortions & obscuring this in the educational, media, and other venues. This obscurity was put in place by ‘We The People,’ consenting that persons for this get power; not nearly enough peaceful assembly, not nearly enough addressing our grievances - as our Constitution gives us clear freedom to do. Thousands murdered every single day. An atrocity which pierces the clouds for vindication. O Lord help hearts repent and give clarity of witness for others to do so, also.
~
Peace.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.

• 2 Chronicles 7:14

 

[Crocus]

… the bottom 10% of the U.S. income distribution falls in the upper 30% of the global income distribution.

So, everybody’s doing it? Not a great defense. The encyclicals speak further, extending responsibility for promoting justice, to parts of the world beyond one’s own country.

Edit:

This is the argument from envy.

No it isn’t. The Pope forbids envy, then goes on to speak of rights, responsibilities and justice.

 

[Ender]

So, everybody’s doing it? Not a great defense. The encyclicals speak further, extending responsibility for promoting justice, to parts of the world beyond one’s own country.

Everybody’s doing what? I would like to understand how injustice is defined in regard to relative wealth, because if our wealthy are in an unjust relationship with our poor it would seem that our poor are at the same time in an unjust relationship in regard to world’s poor. How shall we rectify this injustice? I’m afraid the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

But with lower ends getting relative scrap, how can they save for retirement much less emergencies, there’s a reason why the inequality issue is gaining, like what about a lot of people struggling with basic living costs like housing and health care and what about many who may seem to be shuttered from brighter and more stabler futures and opportunities like those from poorer circumstances like poorer communities and tougher backgrounds?

 

[Crocus]

Justice requires that no one has less than is needed for living a decent life

On board.

As a whole, American households have seen their wealth, also called net worth, grow 58% from a low of $68 trillion, or $577,000 per household, in the first quarter of 2009 to $107 trillion, or $881,000 per household, in the second quarter of 2019, based on an inflation-adjusted dataset from the Federal Reserve.

Would you say that all the 80% who share in 7% of the wealth enjoy access to decent work, decent pay, decent benefits in accord with the social justice encyclicals? Are you satisfied that our (society’s) work is done in that regard?

 

[Ender]

But with lower ends getting relative scrap…

Relative to what? Certainly not relative to the rest of the world. And is this the argument: it’s not fair that someone has more than someone else? because this sure sounds like the complaint.

how can they save for retirement much less emergencies, there’s a reason why the inequality issue is gaining, like what about a lot of people struggling with basic living costs like housing and health care and what about many who may seem to be shuttered from brighter and more stabler futures and opportunities like those from poorer circumstances like poorer communities and tougher backgrounds?

Poorer circumstances…you mean like Haiti, Bangladesh, Botswana? What I dislike are arguments that use the existence of inequalities as proof that they exist unjustly. Where is the discussion of what is involved in creating the wealth in the first place?

I heard many years ago that the average Italian rice farmer was 20 times as productive as the average rice farmer in Somalia. So, is the Italian farmer being unfair to the Somali? Is this inequality unjust?

Yes, people are struggling. To some extent that’s man’s lot, but I do not accept the implication that because someone has gotten rich he did it at the expense of someone else. That may be how it is done in third world countries, but in normal capitalist countries wealth is created, not stolen, and confiscating the wealth from those who created it to give to those who have not seems like a really bad social model.

The best we can do is create conditions such that individuals can use their ingenuity and drive to create more wealth, coupled with social programs to assist those who cannot. The major problem is distinguishing between those who need it, and those who want it because it’s easier than working for it.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

The major problem is distinguishing between those who need it, and those who want it because it’s easier than working for it.

I think another issue is also that low wage workers are having to rely on social assistance to make living costs manageable. And there may be a gap between the low income and comfortably middle class and in many areas, it’s harder and harder for the working class (and middle) to manage like cities and metropolitan areas with rising rents and heated housing markets (something transplants can cause while seeking to better their own situation but ending up perpetuating the cycle further).

If we could revamp and improve the welfare system to get people in jobs that don’t require public benefits or family supporting employment, maybe dependency could wind down (while tax receipts increase). Maybe even use the uplifted people as mentors or social supports for currently low income people which can help further this development.

 

[Ender]

If we could revamp and improve the welfare system…

Sure, a better system would be…better, but there is enormous disagreement over what should be done, which is reasonable. What is not reasonable, and what I find offensive, is the perception that those who disagree over what is best are “dissenting from Catholic Social Teaching”, which is what this entire thread has been about.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

The source is from a Catholic source though. Would like to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut from the rest of my post.

 

[Crocus]

What that means is this issue is entirely more complex than one very simplistic data presentation and that we ought not be outraged by what may not be exceptionally outrageous to begin with.

Exceptionally outrageous? Just plain outrageous is well, not confidence inspiring. Shouldn’t we be concerned about the lower levels of the 80% in that graph, those most affected?

What do you think of this one:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Income inequality is the extent to which income is distributed unevenly in a country. It is an important indicator of equity in an economy, and has implications for other social outcomes such as crime and life satisfaction.

Although the 17 peer countries are among the wealthiest in the world, the income per capita figure does not tell us how this income is distributed. Income inequality within a country is often masked by the national average.

Many economists have pointed out the shortcomings of income per capita as a measure of well-being. For example, income per capita actually rises as crime rises if the country spends more money to fight that rising crime—on a larger police force or improved intelligence technologies.

 

[Crocus]

I’m afraid the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor.

Be not afraid.
The direction is not at all to make everyone poor.
The Pope endorses modesty in finances together with greater participation from those who are marginalized through unemployment, underemployment, and insufficient wages.
Don’t despair of inability to bring justice, only of will. If you want more participants in the economy you/we must ask for it.

 

[Ender]

Income inequality is the extent to which income is distributed unevenly in a country.

If income was in fact “distributed” then inequality probably would be unjust, but in those cases (think first world nations) where it is created that argument has very little traction. What is the argument that it is unjust for one person to create more wealth than another?

The Pope endorses modesty in finances…

That’s not a very helpful term in deciding what approach is best.

…together with greater participation from those who are marginalized through unemployment, underemployment, and insufficient wages.

Ah, well then we’ve pretty much done that, what with unemployment at all time lows.