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

[Crocus]

It is certainly not true in our society that the poor can procure what they need to live only from their wages. The proliferation of social programs attests to that. That alone would change the application of the encyclical.

The proliferation social programs is for the “widows & orphans” (those unable to work). It is not true justice for workers to have to rely on these programs to supplement wages that are too low.

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. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part.”(27) Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice - with that justice which is called distributive - toward each and every class alike.”

 

[Jen95]

The Heritage Foundation

Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

www.heritage.org

Social Justice: Not What You Think It Is​

" Here is Leo XIII’s attack on the very ideal of equality as a social ideal:

Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that in civil society, the lowest cannot be made equal with the highest. Socialists, of course, agitate the contrary, but all struggling against nature is in vain. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents nor the skill nor the health nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments.

These words are in one of the older translations of the encyclical. Here is the more modern translation on the Vatican Web site:

It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition.[9]"

It’s really a rather simple observation, and I would love to linger on this, but I dare not. He goes on:

Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.[10]

The fact that we’re unequal is a benefit, “for to carry on its affairs, community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services. And to perform these diverse services, men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings.”[11] This becomes his defense of the crucial role of the ownership of private property for incarnate beings like ourselves. If we were angels, we wouldn’t need property. But if a human being is going to be free, he has to own his own stuff; he has to have a place to which he can repair that somebody can’t take away from him.

Thus, Leo XIII did not mean by “social justice” equality. On the contrary, Leo held that it’s good that there’s an unequal society. Some people are fitted for different kinds of work, and it’s wonderful to be able to find the work that fits your talents. This had been an argument that the founders of the United States used to justify a commercial system: that it provided more opportunities for a wider range of skills than farming life did, so it allowed a much larger range of talents to mature and to develop as people found different niches for themselves.

 

[Crocus]

Sufficient income, very important. Hope for the future, ability to obtain property, very important.

#46 Rerum Novarum
"If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.”

@Jen95, I know it’s application, not part of assent to the encyclical but, any ideas what the law can do to promote ownership? Don’t have to answer.

 

[Dovekin]

Leo XIII:

the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.”

It is certainly not true in our society that the poor can procure what they need to live only from their wages.

And yet, you think your statement is an accurate restatement of Leo’s position, even though it is a direct negation of it? If the Pope says A and you say “A is certainly not true”, you think you are accurately presenting what the Pope said?

As I already explained, this is a statement of moral theology. Each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live. The application of it is a separate issue. It may be that you are concerned about different circumstances. But there is a point to talking about this in abstract, as a statement of moral theology apart from circumstances.

 

[Jen95]

What is your phrase - “deep red pills”? I am not familiar with it.

All those quotes are from the Holy Father Leo XIII.

One wouldn’t want to be a cafeteria Catholic, and pick and choose what one likes from a particular encyclical, would we?

Your example of $15 / hour at 45 hours a week. Yep, that’s about $35,000. That’s not going to support a family in modern America’s suburbs but could provide basic sustenance in a basic house in the Midwest. Is that what the Church would like us to do? Isn’t that a more accurate vision of how people were living in the 1890s for the most part?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Washing in Naples, end of the 19th century. Source: Library of Congress.

https://www.lifeinitaly.com/history/life-italy-during-19th-century

 

[Crocus]

Here is Leo XIII’s attack on the very ideal of equality as a social ideal:

No one advocated such “equality” on this thread.

The pope clearly did not support socialism, or communism for that matter. He did say workers should receive a just wage, sufficient for human dignity, and of enough incentive to save for future property ownership.

The rights and duties of capital and labour, moral theology for harmony in society.

 

[Jen95]

How many people would move to one of the cheapest cities in order for the mom to stay home with the family, if they couldn’t afford to somewhere else?
I think Pope Leo would approve!

11 of the Most Affordable Cities in the U.S.

Whether you’re a single young professional or just starting a family, conserving funds for the future is always going to be your highest priority.

www.mentalfloss.com

 

[Jen95]

Sufficient income, very important. Hope for the future, ability to obtain property, very important.

#46 Rerum Novarum
"If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.”

@Jen95, I know it’s application, not part of assent to the encyclical but, any ideas what the law can do to promote ownership? Don’t have to answer.

How can “the law” promote ownership? You don’t want to know…a lot of it’s Republican stuff…

How to Encourage Entrepreneurship in Your Town

A strong town needs strong local businesses.

www.strongtowns.org

 

[Jen95]

Jen95:

Here is Leo XIII’s attack on the very ideal of equality as a social ideal:

No one advocated such “equality” on this thread.

The pope clearly did not support socialism, or communism for that matter. He did say workers should receive a just wage, sufficient for human dignity, and of enough incentive to save for future property ownership.

The rights and duties of capital and labour, moral theology for harmony in society.

I"m confused - - isn’t the thread about Catholic social teaching - and what that means? Don’t a lot of people who are very concerned about “social justice” and the church’s social teaching have a lot of overlap with people who are concerned about equality? Am I supposed to pretend that they’re not the same people?

 

[Crocus]

How can “the law” promote ownership? You don’t want to know…a lot of it’s Republican stuff…

Why is that funny?

 

[Jen95]

Jen95:

How can “the law” promote ownership? You don’t want to know…a lot of it’s Republican stuff…

Why is that funny?

Because it’s typically “progressives” or “liberal” people who heavily promote the “social justice” views of the Church, and when you closely examine “Rerum Novarum”, it’s pretty darn conservative!

And I think that’s funny!

 

[Crocus]

Because it’s typically “progressives” or “liberal” people who heavily promote the “social justice” views of the Church, and when you closely examine “Rerum Novarum”, it’s pretty darn conservative!

And I think that’s funny!

That’s where we differ!
I think that’s tragic.

The papal encyclicals are moral, not political.

 

[Jen95]

You think it’s tragic that “Rerum Novrum” is conservative? i.e. espouses conservative morality and economic theory?
Don’t you think all Pope Leo’s economic statements have some bearing on political views?

 

[Crocus]

No I didn’t say that. You said it’s conservative, Republican, which is a political statement.

 

[Jen95]

Sorry, just having a hard time understanding what you think is tragic, exactly:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But enough about that - - what do you think about his views on women and the authority of fathers?

 

[Crocus]

Don’t a lot of people who are very concerned about “social justice” and the church’s social teaching have a lot of overlap with people who are concerned about equality?

You say so. No one else expressed concern about equality on this thread, which it is not about.

 

[Jen95]

Jen95:

Don’t a lot of people who are very concerned about “social justice” and the church’s social teaching have a lot of overlap with people who are concerned about equality?

You say so. No one else expressed concern about equality on this thread, which it is not about.

Not on this thread. But in my observance, there is an overlap between people who are heavily concerned with “social justice” and income / economic inequality. I guess you have observed differently:

World Day of Social Justice: Ending Income Inequality is Our Biggest Challenge

In November of 2007, the United Nations declared February 20 as the World Day of Social Justice. According to their website, "Observance of World Day of Social Justice should support efforts of the international community in poverty eradication,…

www.mic.com

 

[Crocus]

Sorry, just having a hard time understanding what you think is tragic, exactly:

I think it’s tragic that Catholics get so tied up in politics, left right left right left right. Is it left or right that a worker should receive a wage sufficient to decently feed, clothe, shelter himself and his family, and carefully put aside enough to one day purchase private property, as the encyclical says? I think it’s moral, not political, or should be.

 

[Jen95]

Jen95:

Sorry, just having a hard time understanding what you think is tragic, exactly:

I think it’s tragic that Catholics get so tied up in politics, left right left right left right. Is it left or right that a worker should receive a wage sufficient to decently feed, clothe, shelter himself and his family, and carefully put aside enough to one day purchase private property, as the encyclical says? I think it’s moral, not political, or should be.

You can think it’s tragic that Catholics get tied up in politics, but that’s how Americans try to change law. And law governs us and the state of our economic system. I’m sorry if you don’t like that. “shrug”

Here are some hypotheticals:
If a Catholic man (who didn’t finish high school) works at a fast food place, marries and has 8 children, how much should the fast food place pay him?

What if a Catholic man is an attorney, and has 1 child. How much should he get paid?

What if a Catholic man is a music director at a small Catholic church. He has a Bachelor’s degree in music and $25,000 in student loans. How much should the Church pay him? He has four children with his wife. What if he has three additional children out of wedlock with three other women, for a total of seven children.
What do you say? What would Pope Leo say?

 

[Crocus]

What would Pope Leo say?

Just saying, I don’t think Pope Leo would say how much. (Neither would I.) One of your quotes above acknowledges different skills, education, abilities. The principle remains, workers basic rights.

From #20:
and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine.