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

[Dovekin]

I read it, and maybe I missed something, but what exactly or how exactly did conservatives oppose social teaching, according to the author?

I thought the article was quite clear on this. Here are specific examples of dismissing Church teaching from the article.

William F. Buckley: “ the National Review protested editorially with the lament, “ Mater si; Magistra no! ” A more explicit rejection of the Church’s magisterium is scarcely imaginable!”

Michael Novak: “concocted a fanciful economic system in his book…traditional Catholic social teaching did not fare at all well.”

George Weigel: “Pope Benedict’s social encyclical Caritas in Veritate had scarcely appeared when he went public, designating it as a “Duck-billed Platypus.””

Father Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute: “he should be well-versed in moral theology of which Catholic social teaching is a part”

 

[Beryllos]

universal living wage at either the federal or state level is absurd

I gather from your and others’ remarks that the term “living wage” may be understood, in the media or in the context of politics, as universal, uniform, federal, or state.

I’m looking at the slightly bigger picture of a problem in need of a solution. Minimum- or low-wage workers can’t support a family. Some say it is their fault. Some say, “It is their problem, not mine.”

I say it reveals a failure of charity, a failure to love our neighbor.

If our neighbor is suffering in poverty while we are living richly, that is unjust. If we do not bring about justice in this world, Jesus will set things right in the next; see the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

William F. Buckley: “ the National Review protested editorially with the lament, “ Mater si; Magistra no! ” A more explicit rejection of the Church’s magisterium is scarcely imaginable!”

But it was unclear precisely what he was referring to, and there were no links.
The reason I say this was WFB was very known for his staunch Catholicism, so I would have liked more information about where he dissented and why.

 

[Dovekin]

From #44 Rerum Novarum:

“The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.”

The idea that we could have a universal living wage at either the federal or state level is absurd considering how wildly the cost of living varies in this country.

The idea that we cannot have a universal living wage is a direct contradiction of CST, as has been shown by @Crocus. Of course, if you mean the same wage in every place, it is absurd, but I doubt that anyone was suggesting that.

The wide variations in cost of living are a consequence of free markets, so it is possible a living wage would reduce the absurdity of a uniform living wage.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’m looking at the slightly bigger picture of a problem in need of a solution. Minimum- or low-wage workers can’t support a family. Some say it is their fault. Some say it is their problem, not mine.

But this is one of those places where things get sticky.
Who is entitled to a living wage for their work?
How is this determined?
None of my children made a living wage during their high school and college jobs. They made minimum wage. And worked part time.
Except when they worked in a restaurant and made less than minimum wage + tips.
However, they lived at home and didn’t have to pay for room and board and health care etc or even for clothes (although they preferred to buy their own.

 

[Dovekin]

The article was focused on the irony of dissent by “staunch Catholics.” He demonstrated that dissent quite clearly by quoting “Magistra, No!”

If you want to know why Buckley rejected the magisterium that way, you should be able to find an explanation fairly easily. The fact that he dissented was well established in the article without conveying the details.

 

[Beryllos]

But this is one of those places where things get sticky.

Yes, it is a problem. There are questions. It’s not easy to find answers and solutions, because there is a lot of non-love in the world. Exhibits A and B are our political and economic institutions. Exhibit C, our media.

All that the average Christian can do is to keep working on it, keep moving toward love, and pray and hope.

 

[Dovekin]

Who is entitled to a living wage for their work?
How is this determined?

Everyone is entitled to a living wage, as determined by Pope Leo XIII.

How that is administered is determined by others, and that is most certainly problematic, just like many other moral imperatives. It does not mean we abandon the moral principle because applying it is difficult.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Of course, if you mean the same wage in every place, it is absurd, but I doubt that anyone was suggesting that.

That’s the problem. Our politicians are suggesting exactly that. A universal $15 minimum wage that would bankrupt countless small businesses (mostly service industry businesses) in rural America.

 

[Elf01]

That’s the problem. Our politicians are suggesting exactly that. A universal $15 minimum wage that would bankrupt countless small businesses (mostly service industry businesses) in rural America.

Well the typical attitude I see towards working people who don’t earn one is move, find another job, or study something else.

On saying that a living wage will be determined by cost of living.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

If you want to know why Buckley rejected the magisterium that way, you should be able to find an explanation fairly easily. The fact that he dissented was well established in the article without conveying the details.

You may be right, but I’ve learned through long experiences that an essayist can make any claim they want, as opposed to more rigorous academic styles of exposition.

I mean, maybe he totally said it and meant it on the way the essayist claims. Or maybe it was taken out of context. I’ve seen that happen many times, too.

So I’m not wrong to want a link.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

It does not mean we abandon the moral principle because applying it is difficult.

Who is saying we should abandon it?

My beef is with people who fling bumper sticker slogans around and imagine they “won” some argument.

Seriously, I don’t lnow a single person out there cackling and rubbing their hands together with glee at the thought of the downtrodden masses.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

I cover social teaching quite simply in my middle school Religion class. It’s called the Gospel.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

With so many point-of-sale donation opportunities now, I would think many millions of dollars are collected each day to feed the hungry.

 

[Dovekin]

Who is saying we should abandon it?

The implication in your post is that people like your children should not get paid a living wage (because they have other supports).

You were asking a pragmatic question. My response was to emphasize that there is a moral point that answers your questions. Once the morality is established, we can discuss the application. My remarks were addressed to anyone who might try to use your position to abandon the moral principle. I did not mean you were trying to do that, just trying to establish the moral principle against a possible objection.

 

[Ender]

I asked a couple of times what is a just wage (if not a living wage).

We can start with this: the justness of a wage has zero to do with how much money a worker needs. A just wage is related to how difficult or dangerous the job, and how many people can do it.

From #44 Rerum Novarum:

“The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.”

That one person has a right to earn a living does not mean that another person has an obligation to provide it. Suppose the husband in a family of four needs $40K/yr to make ends meet. If he takes a job at Burger King does the owner of that franchise have the obligation to pay him that amount? If he had such an obligation he would never hire the man in the first place when he could hire a high school kid and pay him perhaps $10K. One man’s rights cannot impose an obligation on someone else.

Seems to me, “what is required in order to live” sounds pretty close to “a living wage.”

Again, your right to earn a living does not translate into my obligation to provide it.

 

[Dovekin]

I’m not wrong to want a link.

Wikipedia on the phrase.

 

[Ender]

The fact that he dissented was well established in the article without conveying the details.

To disagree with the prudential judgments of the clergy, including those of popes, is not to dissent from the church. Judgments - opinions - do not oblige our assent.

Everyone is entitled to a living wage, as determined by Pope Leo XIII.

That determination is yours, not Pope Leo’s. That’s your interpretation.

 

[Crocus]

That one person has a right to earn a living does not mean that another person has an obligation to provide it.

From #33 Rerum Novarum:

“the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due.”

 

[Beryllos]

We can start with this: the justness of a wage has zero to do with how much money a worker needs. A just wage is related to how difficult or dangerous the job, and how many people can do it.

You are attempting to redefine the term, and it appears that you are conflating it with free-market economic theory.