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

[o_mlly]

It is the Church’s opinion that everyone should be paid a just wage. [What it takes to pay a Just Wage | Catholic Moral Theology

A blogger’s web site? Usually Rerum Novarum is the cited document. We are no longer the laissez-faire state that Pope Leo XIII responded to in 1891.

The worker has a duty in as much as he/she is gifted to acquire the skills to earn a living wage.

… when detached from a framework of duties which grants them their full meaning, can run wild, leading to an escalation of demands which is effectively unlimited and indiscriminate. An overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties. Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become license ( Caritas in Veritate (“In Charity and Truth”) , Pope Benedict XVI, 2009).

We all pay a special Walmart Tax.

An article authored by a professor from Berkley published in the Washington Post? No, the minimum wage is not the problem. He is quite misinformed.

 

[o_mlly]

I thought you were denying corporate welfare existed …

I am. Does anyone who indirectly benefits from ill conceived legislation become a welfare recipient? The connotation is as outrageous as it is groundless.

 

[Crocus]

It is the Church’s opinion that everyone should be paid a just wage.

From the article you posted (sorry my formatting is out of order right now):

"These demands seem to go beyond what can be expected of a business. So . . .

Government needs to foster just wages. Its work is not primarily the payment of wages but to ensure that “the economic system as a whole” supports the payment of a just wage."

And again:

" The Church must continue its work on behalf of the poor. Like the government, the church is not primarily responsible for paying wages. Its role is to help make the economic system as a whole favorable to workers and their dependents so that they can live a life with physical and spiritual dignity."

I do hope people read the full article. It proposes some workable solutions for fulfilling the principles of justice.

 

[tafan2]

Ok, you disagree with the name. How about “government largess towards corporations”? Industry subsidies? Government corporate handouts? Really doesn’t matter, they exist.

 

[tafan2]

I do hope people read the full article. It proposes some workable solutions for fulfilling the principles of justice.

Sorry, need to catch up. Are you referring to the article in the OP?

 

[o_mlly]

Ok, you disagree with the name. …
… government largess towards corporations … Government corporate handouts … Really doesn’t matter, they exist.

No, I disagree with the implicit connotation. If they exist then show me one bill entitled with either phrase above or similar phraseology. These are merely leftists slogans invented to move public opinion from our private free enterprise capitalism to government controlled socialism.

 

[Crocus]

Sorry, from blog post cited by @blackforest

What it takes to pay a Just Wage | Catholic Moral Theology

Suggests some practical steps. But yes lots to read up on, including subsequent encyclicals.

Found this on an old thread, with historical timeline up to 2009:

The busy Christian's guide to Catholic social teaching - U.S. Catholic

 

[tafan2]

So there are no real government subsidies? They are a figment of my imagination.

 

[o_mlly]

So there are no real government subsidies? They are a figment of my imagination.

Government subsidies, yes. Corporate welfare, no.

 

[tafan2]

Twiddle Dee/ twiddle dum. Doesn’t really matter the name

 

[blackforest]

A blogger’s web site?

Yes. And?

Usually Rerum Novarum is the cited document.

It isn’t in this post, something you’d know if you read it.

An article authored by a professor from Berkley published in the Washington Post? No, the minimum wage is not the problem. He is quite misinformed.

Feel free to rebut the points of his argument.

From the article you posted (sorry my formatting is out of order right now):

Oh, it’s a great article. To pay for food, utilities, housing, clothing, health care, education, etc. . . . people need money. That money needs to come from somewhere. Ideally, it’s earned honestly through labor and compensation. When that’s not enough, it comes from Medicaid, SNAP, etc.

The problem is that far too many conservatives bristle at the mention of either one.

Ok, you disagree with the name. How about “government largess towards corporations”? Industry subsidies? Government corporate handouts? Really doesn’t matter, they exist.

Exactly. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Or as John Oliver would call it . . repurposed bovine manure, (RPM).

No, I disagree with the implicit connotation. If they exist then show me one bill entitled with either phrase above or similar phraseology.

It’s like calling an abortion a “pregnancy termination.” The bills will contain euphemisms like “subsidies.” We prefer to cut through the RPM and call a spade a spade.

 

[o_mlly]

Feel free to rebut the points of his argument.

That’s not the way it works here. I don’t argue with URL’s. Feel free to make your own argument.

It’s like calling an abortion a “pregnancy termination.” The bills will contain euphemisms like “subsidies.” We prefer to cut through the RPM and call a spade a spade.

Who is “we”?

 

[blackforest]

That’s not the way it works here. I don’t argue with URL’s. Feel free to make your own argument.

Either provide an actual argument against the article - not an ad hominem substitute for an argument - or don’t say anything at all. This just doesn’t cut it.

A blogger’s web site?

An article authored by a professor from Berkley published in the Washington Post?

 

[Annie]

A just wage would therefore be a living wage, which Walmart does not provide to all employees.

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?

I said above that society contributed resources for the poor all along.

In addition, apprentices (entry-level workers ) were given room, board, and training.

I don’t think it is corporate welfare to subsidize the wages of employees who are in entry level positions or slightly above. The point of those positions is to be a starting point, not to be careers in themselves. If people just starting out need that help, and LeafbyNiggle would say that the help should be even greater for those with children, that is due to circumstances some of which are out of their control.

 

[o_mlly]

Either provide an actual argument against the article - not an ad hominem substitute for an argument - or don’t say anything at all. This just doesn’t cut it.

The article contains no arguments, only opinions. Do you have an argument in support of your opinion? It appears not.

It’s intellectually lazy to copy/paste a URL on general issue rather than to defend your specific claim that Walmart clerks are paid an unfair wage. I put it to your again:

Unless you can make the argument that Walmart clerks are paid an unfair wage, you only offer us your opinion.

Do you have an argument or not?

 

[o_mlly]

Socialism, as opposed to private property capitalism, is an economic system in which the scarce resources of the society are owned and allocated by the central government. The few who control the government decide for the many what, how and to whom goods and services will be provided.

The socialists, leftists, progressives, or liberals – whatever they wish to be called – do not value tradition believing they have a better way to organize society. There is no perfect way to organize society but there are worse ways.

The USA was founded on traditional values of the family (collectively, the small autonomous community), Judaeo-Christian religion and free enterprise private property. The elites decided in the mid-twentieth century that they could do better. First, religion was attacked and removed from the public square. Things only got worse for society. Then the elites attacked the family. Things got worse still. Rather than blame themselves for the decline in society, the liberals now attack the last value the founders held as necessary for a stable community – free enterprise. If they succeed, history shows that it will not end well.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Capitalism is inherently unstable because it depends on “other” people spending money.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

Like the businessman, the Church is also limited to what it can pay employees based upon revenues. If the baskets are light so will be the paychecks.

 

[JoeFreedom]

If this is an article to bash conservatives let’s talk about how the Liberals and Democrats keep the poor continuously poor so they stay in power. If one knows their history it was the Democrats who voted to keep guns out of hands of blacks to keep them dependent. If one knows their history Martin Luther King Jr Was a Republican. Let’s not say conservatives don’t care about social justice. We just disagree with how the government implements social justice.

 

[pnewton]

Where is the social justice when benefits fall narrowly and costs broadly?

While the may not have thought most things through, the benefits do no fall narrowly regarding environmental issues. They extend not only to all living, but all who will live. The subtitle for Lautatio Si is “Care for our Common Home.”