Having trouble with social teaching

[markomalley]

*** The right to a just wage.**
  **The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.**

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is a wonderful document, isn’t it? It reflects a summary (compendium) of the social teaching of the Magesterium over the ages. (*It was therefore hoped that a compendium of all this material should be compiled, systematically **presenting *(not defining, mind you, just presenting what has already been defined) the foundations of Catholic social doctrine. – Introduction)

For that reason, you should always, always, always look at the footnotes. For example, the footnote for the first item you highlighted (The right to a just wage) is footnote number 651 (Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter* Laborem Exercens*, 19: AAS 73 (1981), 625-629.)

The key part out of Laborem Exercens 19 that discusses wages is:

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. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family fot his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.
​

You realize that a “family wage” would be considered strictly illegal in this country, right? But that is what is meant by a “Just Wage” in the Compendium.

You might alwo want to refer back to Rerum Novarum 46:

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.
​

Is that what you had in mind?

Or take the other one you highlighted: The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.
*
That refers to footnote 655, which says: (Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens*, 18: AAS 73 (1981), 622-625.)

So let us review what Laborem Exercens 18 has to say:

When we consider the rights of workers in relation to the “indirect employer”, that is to say, all the agents at the national and international level that are responsible for the whole orientation of labour policy, we must first direct our attention to a *fundamental issue: *the question of finding work, or, in other words, the issue of *suitable employment for all who are capable of it. *The opposite of a just and right situation in this field is unemployment, that is to say the lack of work for those who are capable of it. It can be a question of general unemployment or of unemployment in certain sectors of work. The role of the agents included under the title of indirect employer is *to act against unemployment, *which in all cases is an evil, and which, when it reaches a certain level, can become a real social disaster. It is particularly painful when it especially affects young people, who after appropriate cultural, technical and professional preparation fail to find work, and see their sincere wish to work and their readiness to take on their own responsibility for the economic and social development of the community sadly frustrated. The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty springing from the fundamental principle of the moral order in this sphere, namely the principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in another and still simpler way, the right to life and subsistence.
​

You will note that John Paul II’s objective here is not to provide welfare payments (such as what you asserted in an earlier post), but to provide unemployment benefits for those people who are unable to find work, despite their honest efforts to do so, and only for the period of time where work was not available. It does not include payments for people who simply sit on their tails and will not work (or will not work in jobs that are “beneath them”)

You say that you are a distributionist. Social welfare payments are directly in opposition to distributionist theory. 100% against it. How can you call yourself a distributionist and be in favor of a “social assistance state”? (Which was, by the way, directly condemned by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus 48)

That’s why I asked you in another thread to define what you mean by distributionism. The system you appear to be endorsing through your posting is most definitely not the system described by Chesterton and Belloc.

 

[portarica]

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is a wonderful document, isn’t it? It reflects a summary (compendium) of the social teaching of the Magesterium over the ages. (*It was therefore hoped that a compendium of all this material should be compiled, systematically **presenting *(not defining, mind you, just presenting what has already been defined) the foundations of Catholic social doctrine. – Introduction)

For that reason, you should always, always, always look at the footnotes. For example, the footnote for the first item you highlighted (The right to a just wage) is footnote number 651 (Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter* Laborem Exercens*, 19: AAS 73 (1981), 625-629.)

The key part out of Laborem Exercens 19 that discusses wages is:

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. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family fot his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.
​

You realize that a “family wage” would be considered strictly illegal in this country, right? But that is what is meant by a “Just Wage” in the Compendium.

You might alwo want to refer back to Rerum Novarum 46:

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.
​

Is that what you had in mind?

Or take the other one you highlighted: The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.
*
That refers to footnote 655, which says: (Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens*, 18: AAS 73 (1981), 622-625.)

So let us review what Laborem Exercens 18 has to say:

When we consider the rights of workers in relation to the “indirect employer”, that is to say, all the agents at the national and international level that are responsible for the whole orientation of labour policy, we must first direct our attention to a *fundamental issue: *the question of finding work, or, in other words, the issue of *suitable employment for all who are capable of it. *The opposite of a just and right situation in this field is unemployment, that is to say the lack of work for those who are capable of it. It can be a question of general unemployment or of unemployment in certain sectors of work. The role of the agents included under the title of indirect employer is *to act against unemployment, *which in all cases is an evil, and which, when it reaches a certain level, can become a real social disaster. It is particularly painful when it especially affects young people, who after appropriate cultural, technical and professional preparation fail to find work, and see their sincere wish to work and their readiness to take on their own responsibility for the economic and social development of the community sadly frustrated. The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty springing from the fundamental principle of the moral order in this sphere, namely the principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in another and still simpler way, the right to life and subsistence.
​

You will note that John Paul II’s objective here is not to provide welfare payments (such as what you asserted in an earlier post), but to provide unemployment benefits for those people who are unable to find work, despite their honest efforts to do so, and only for the period of time where work was not available. It does not include payments for people who simply sit on their tails and will not work (or will not work in jobs that are “beneath them”)

You say that you are a distributionist. Social welfare payments are directly in opposition to distributionist theory. 100% against it. How can you call yourself a distributionist and be in favor of a “social assistance state”? (Which was, by the way, directly condemned by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus 48)

That’s why I asked you in another thread to define what you mean by distributionism. The system you appear to be endorsing through your posting is most definitely not the system described by Chesterton and Belloc.

Read what you posted about a family wage, enough for a single wage earner to support his family.

And in the context of being Catholic, that is a family with lots of kids.

And what you cited brings to mind the 50’ and 60’s when a wage earner in factory could support his family securely.

What has changed since then in the relationship between capital and labor, what has happened to the disparity between the wages of the CEO and the floor worker?

Thanks for the insight into the problem that your post gives.

Peace

 

[markomalley]

Read what you posted about a family wage, enough for a single wage earner to support his family.

And in the context of being Catholic, that is a family with lots of kids.

And what you cited brings to mind the 50’ and 60’s when a wage earner in factory could support his family securely.

What has changed since then in the relationship between capital and labor, what has happened to the disparity between the wages of the CEO and the floor worker?

Thanks for the insight into the problem that your post gives.

Peace

Sorry to break this to you but I agree with most of what you are saying.It is a tragedy that in our society both spouses must work, some with multiple jobs, in order to make ends meet. The materialistic nature of our society tends to breed that in, doesn’t it?

The "keep up with the Jones’s mentality that started in the immediate postwar years is the genesis of that and truly needs to stop before we consume ourselves to death.

Surprised?

The difference between what I am saying though and what socialists say is that I recognize that the only way it is going to change is with a change in the hearts of men. The socialists want this virtue to come by government fiat. And that will never work.

 

[portarica]

Sorry to break this to you but I agree with most of what you are saying.It is a tragedy that in our society both spouses must work, some with multiple jobs, in order to make ends meet. The materialistic nature of our society tends to breed that in, doesn’t it?

The "keep up with the Jones’s mentality that started in the immediate postwar years is the genesis of that and truly needs to stop before we consume ourselves to death.

Surprised?

The difference between what I am saying though and what socialists say is that I recognize that the only way it is going to change is with a change in the hearts of men. The socialists want this virtue to come by government fiat. And that will never work.

Do you think when governments have programs that echo the sentiments regarding the family wage it is because those governing have had a change of heart?

Why do you think it isn’t OK for government to have a change of heart?

Please name one program or advance in the context of a family wage that that came about because there was a change of heart among those with the economic wherewithal to install that change as a result of that change of heart?

Peace

 

[Joe_5859]

If the state takes away welfare, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will stave to death. No pope or Christian can support that. You don’t seem to want to understand. This is no different to murder. People can twist the truth and blame the victim however they want, but its not going to change the reality of our situation; and whether its justice in this world or the next, we can be sure that justice will be served. So i would be careful about what it is that you support.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I put the word “welfare state” in quotation marks because it is a term I have seen many political pundits use as shorthand to refer to, basically, what they perceive to be the Democratic party’s social and economic policies. When I say the bishops don’t advocate the “welfare state”, I mean that they do not unilaterally and unequivocally endorse the Democratic party’s policies. I did not mean to imply that the bishops think we should abolish the welfare system altogether.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You might alwo want to refer back to Rerum Novarum 46:

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.
​

Is that what you had in mind? “unemployment benefits”

This seems to me to be an accurate depiction of what is called a just wage; that which fulfills the material dignity of human beings.

Or take the other one you highlighted: The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.That refers to footnote 655, which says: (Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens**, 18: AAS 73 (1981), 622-625.)

It is particularly painful when it especially affects young people, who after appropriate cultural, technical and professional preparation fail to find work, and see their sincere wish to work and their readiness to take on their own responsibility for the economic and social development of the community sadly frustrated. The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty springing from the fundamental principle of the moral order in this sphere, namely the principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in another and still simpler way, the right to life and subsistence.
[/INDENT][/INDENT]You will note that John Paul II’s objective here is not to provide welfare payments (such as what you asserted in an earlier post), but to provide unemployment benefits for those people who are unable to find work, despite their honest efforts to do so, and only for the period of time where work was not available. It does not include payments for people who simply sit on their tails and will not work (or will not work in jobs that are “beneath them”)

I don’t understand the difference. Unfortunately you are making a straw-man of what i was arguing about. It seems to me that your distinction is based purely on your willingness to judge those you suspect to be lazy and dishonest, because it makes you feel secure about your own life. Or perhaps they are really two different things. I doubt it. But what i truly meant was “unemployment benefits”. I don’t make assumptions about poor people, since i see it as a great moral injustice that there are poor people in the first place. To be poor is to lack something that is true to ones material dignity; it is to lack the adequate material fulfillment which would be present in a just wage. Giving this fact it is not surprising to me that people would develop all kinds of psychological impediments and insecurities that would lead them to become institutionalized in their present situation. That is not the fault of the poor, but rather it is the fault of the system, and thus one is not justified in taking support away from them. This is not the answer to solving the problem. Its not fare to blame the poor. Blaming the victim is easy; but the reality is far more complicated then you think since generations of people are literally born in to poverty and poor families. This reflects the greed and the selfishness of those who have the means of production. Why would one be happy with his brother and sister being poor or living in poverty? Only greedy evil people are happy with this situation.

Please be careful to note that I am not advocating that people should be given things by society and not give back. I am advocating the fulfillment of human dignity. Once one provides the means of human dignity to those without it, they will be in a sufficient position to give back to society both materially and psychologically. They should have it by default, and then you have the right to judge their use of it.
markomalley;7202258:

You say that you are a distributionist. Social welfare payments are directly in opposition to distributionist theory. 100% against it. How can you call yourself a distributionist and be in favor of a “social assistance state”? (Which was, by the way, directly condemned by John Paul II in Centesimus Annus 48)

Perhaps then i am not in complete agreement with what is truly meant by distrubutism. But then again perhaps i do agree fully with distrubutism, and in reality you are expressing their ideas out of context, since it seems reasonable to me to assume that even Chesterton and Belloc realize that in the “context” of the present system, unemployment benefit is necessary to avert starvation, so long as this particular system of economics exists. You would do well by taking your own advice and reading things in context.

In a truly just system i would argue that everybody would have their own means of production and the sufficient tools and land necessary to support their own families through their own labor and production of capital; rather than relying on the corporations or the “state” to define our wages and dictate capital. In this context, it would not be necessary for there to be such a thing as “unemployment benefits” because the conditions which gave rise to the need would no-longer exist. I suppose the fulfillment of such a system would take the form of some kind of “neo-farming” based on modern technology. I am not yet sure how it would manifest itself. All i know is that it would have to be based on modern technology and future inventions.

 

[edwest2]

In Congressional testimony October 23, 2008, Greenspan thought he had erred on financial deregulation. *The New York Times *wrote, “a humbled Mr Greenspan admitted he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.” What a confused “concession” as a sort of mea culpa following the financial meltdown!

The root of the crisis can be found in the federal finagling going back to the Carter era. The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress, its chairman government appointed, endowed with monopoly privileges, and with principles opposed to those of the free market because dedicated to central economic planning, – the discredited idea of the twentieth century.

Economist Larry Kudlow and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Steve Moore point to the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) that purported to prevent denying mortgages to black borrowers - by pressuring banks to make home loans in “low and moderate-income neighborhoods.” Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the “credit needs” of “predominantly minority neighborhoods.” The higher a bank’s rating, the more likely that regulators would say yes when the bank sought to open a new branch or undertake a merger or acquisition. (30/3/2008)
The debacle of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie May and Freddie Mac, that bought loans from the Banks and often bundled them as mortgage–backed securities for sale to investors, enabled the banks to issue more mortgages, fuelling the inflation of home prices by artificially diverting resources into mortgage lending. These are known as sub-prime mortgage securities. Adjustable rate mortgages, fueled by people speculating in house purchases, and artificially low interest rates created by the Federal Reserve, were a major factor in defaults as prices fell in 2006.

Federal intervention creating a feeling of prosperity stimulates the boom-bust cycle, resulting in an inevitable crash. The free market is always blamed for that crash. These artificial booms, wrote economist Henry Hazlitt, must end "in a crisis and a slump, and . . .worse than the slump itself may be the public delusion that the slump has been caused, not by the previous inflation, but by the inherent defects of ‘capitalism.’ " (What You Should Know About Inflation, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand, 1965, 18).
The same political establishment now blamed the banks and Wall Street for the subprime mortgage crisis.
More intervention cannot solve previous interventions which have distorted free enterprise.

I watched Mr. Greenspan on TV giving his little speech. My point is this – Greed, not any high-falutin’ economic policy, caused this. It’s no more complicated than that.

Enron, Global Crossing – anyone care to explain those? How about the Savings & Loan Scandal? No. When people are given access to a lot of money, they sometimes end up scheming to get more, illegally.

Greed, not some arcane economic theory, has allowed the American people to be robbed often in the last 30 years.

By the way, I blame the banks and Wall Street 100%.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter2]

By the way, I blame the banks and Wall Street 100%.

God bless,
Ed

 

[andyandely1997]

Yea and i guess they started welfare for the fun of it.

Still did not answer the question, who was starving to death in the United States? And how come all this money given to the poor has not solved the problem yet? Who runs most of the large cities within our country? Is it not the Democrats, who say they are on the side of the poor. What has their War Against Poverty accomplished over the past 40 years?

 

[andyandely1997]

I watched Mr. Greenspan on TV giving his little speech. My point is this – Greed, not any high-falutin’ economic policy, caused this. It’s no more complicated than that.

Enron, Global Crossing – anyone care to explain those? How about the Savings & Loan Scandal? No. When people are given access to a lot of money, they sometimes end up scheming to get more, illegally.

Greed, not some arcane economic theory, has allowed the American people to be robbed often in the last 30 years.

By the way, I blame the banks and Wall Street 100%.

God bless,
Ed

Greed does play a major role, but envy is also one of the seven deadly sins. As stated in an earlier post, there are too many Americans trying to live above what they can afford. What bank forced anyone to buy a house they could not afford. Who changed the rules in the 90’s, which led banks to lower the standards on home loans along with no down payments. There was a good reason for the down payment, to keep buyers within their price range. Oh yeah, it was the government, through Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, who bought up these loans from the banks. And who is stuck with the bill, estimated at almost $250 billion, to bailout Fannie & Freddie, the American taxpayer again.

 

[Abu]

andyandely1997
You are correct.

Unlike the very sharp depression of 1920-21 which was short because it was sensibly handled with virtually no intervention, the Great Depression was caused by pumping money into the economy.

Even Alan Greenspan has highlighted the “excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy," resulting, finally, in an American economic collapse in the Great Depression beginning in 1929 and extending, mostly, until 1941. This judgment which Greenspan makes about the “excess credit” that directly brought about the Great Depression was made in a 1966 article in Ayn Rand’s Objectivist magazine and subsequently republished in Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.[2]
[2] Alan Greenspan, “Gold and Economic Freedom” in Ayn Rand’s *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal *(New York: Penguin, 1987), pp. 20ff.

As Federal Reserve chairman between 1987 and 2006, Greenspan acted even more irresponsibly than the Fed officials he was criticizing. Rather than, “sopping up the excess reserves,” Greenspan added even more, transforming a stock market bubble into a housing and consumer spending bubble of historic and unprecedented proportions.[3]
[3] Peter Schiff, *Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse *(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007), pp. xiii-xiv.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Still did not answer the question, who was starving to death in the United States? And how come all this money given to the poor has not solved the problem yet? Who runs most of the large cities within our country? Is it not the Democrats, who say they are on the side of the poor. What has their War Against Poverty accomplished over the past 40 years?

You can look at New Orleans for the best example of a Democrat-run city. Everyone found out how corrupt Louisiana politics is after Katrina hit, but that is par for the course in LA and other traditionally Democrat areas.

Every single program that targets black Americans has done NOTHING but destroy their families and their values. Every one, without exception. When you single out one group of people and “help” them, you are saying to them that they cannot make it without that help. That, in and of itself, is condescending and usually racist.

Welfare of any kind, except true charity offered by churches and individuals, kills the soul.

 

[edwest2]

Greed does play a major role, but envy is also one of the seven deadly sins. As stated in an earlier post, there are too many Americans trying to live above what they can afford. What bank forced anyone to buy a house they could not afford. Who changed the rules in the 90’s, which led banks to lower the standards on home loans along with no down payments. There was a good reason for the down payment, to keep buyers within their price range. Oh yeah, it was the government, through Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, who bought up these loans from the banks. And who is stuck with the bill, estimated at almost $250 billion, to bailout Fannie & Freddie, the American taxpayer again.

Americans were allowed to have a dozen credit cards or more. As the Christian way of life endured a further attack in the 1990s, the rotten fruit of social conditioning led to a selfish and individualistic society that wanted to “live like a king.” I watched it unfold. I watched my spending.

Lack of self-restraint and lack of self-control, aided and abetted by special offers to go further and further into debt, just like Wall Street.

I hope we, all of us, have learned something.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Abu]

Free enterprise economics, developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics, allows the right of economic initiative therefore allowing full scope for prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.

So at blog.acton.org/archives/19257-meaningful-work-and-the-economics-nobel.html we find:
Searching for Meaningful Work: Reflections on the 2010 Economics Nobel
This year’s Nobel economics prize were honored with the $1.5 million prize for their illumination of the obstacles that may keep buyers and sellers from finding each other in some markets as efficiently as economic theory traditionally predicts.

Diamond, Mortensen, and Pissarides have studied extensively markets with such search costs. When both buyers and sellers are unique, it requires considerable searching for each to find just the right fit. Even in a well-functioning housing market with plenty of available homes, buyers may struggle to find homes they like. So the buyers keep looking.

All three recipients of this year’s prize have carefully extended Diamond’s work to better understand why we may observe persistent unemployment in the labor market even when there are plenty of job openings available, and with interesting policy implications — especially for unemployment insurance programs. Their work shows that more generous unemployment insurance programs will unambiguously lead to longer average unemployment spells: a result with very strong empirical support.

Meaningful work is a gift. God desires that men and women — the only creatures that He made in his image — imitate him through their creative work. Work is our collaboration with God’s creative purposes. And John Paul II, in his letter on human labor, observed that work is “one of the fundamental dimensions of [a person’s] earthly existence and of his vocation.” Thus while low unemployment is an important goal, we should not be too quick to put policies in place that force unemployed persons to settle too quickly for jobs that are not a good match. Doing so would deny people the opportunity to pursue their unique callings — ones in which each person can exercise stewardship to the glory of the Creator.

The enduring contribution of this year’s economics Nobel winners will be their suggestion that unemployment insurance alone cannot guarantee meaningful work, and that future policy efforts to reduce unemployment would do better to focus on improving information and reducing search costs, leading to enhanced opportunities for meaning and human flourishing in labor markets. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Pissarides pointed to the UK’s New Deal for Young People, which directly attaches government assistance to job seeking and training (rather than unemployment per se), as one example “very much based on our work,” he said.

Thus does the right of economic initiative encourage real development in the way assistance is provided to unemployed.

 

[Julian0404]

The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights for the working class in all countries, rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

They are:

*** The right to a just wage.**
* The right to rest.
* The right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes that are not harmful to the workers' physical health or moral integrity.
* The right that one's personality in the workplace should be safeguarded without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity.
* **The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.**
* The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
* The right to social security connected with maternity.
* The right to assemble and form associations.

Pope Leo XIII when he wrote on the rights of the workers was dealing with horrific abuses during the Industrial Age, when the left/right punch of both the success of factories and the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” was driving many factory owners. His Holiness was correct to call to attention these abuses, which in turn led to the creation of Unions to protect the workers.
However, I think you have extrapolated your comments beyond the Pope’s intention by stating that “…property is for the common good and should be taken if it serves the public interest…”- paraphrase. That is a paramount directive and action of the Chinese Communist Government, and Communism is still not accepted by the Catholic Church.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Pope Leo XIII when he wrote on the rights of the workers was dealing with horrific abuses during the Industrial Age, when the left/right punch of both the success of factories and the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” was driving many factory owners. His Holiness was correct to call to attention these abuses, which in turn led to the creation of Unions to protect the workers.

Anybody with eyes to see can still see that many abuses still happen all over the world and in the richest countries. And while we have progressed ethically, at least in London, with public health care and unemployment benefit, even these are under fret, and the theory of “the dignified fulfillment of the fittest”, is still in effect in terms of huge unemployment and low pay, and ironically most Catholics who have something to say on the mater on this forum appear to support it, placing profit above the dignity of human beings.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Pope Leo XIII when he wrote on the rights of the workers was dealing with horrific abuses during the Industrial Age, when the left/right punch of both the success of factories and the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” was driving many factory owners. His Holiness was correct to call to attention these abuses, which in turn led to the creation of Unions to protect the workers.

At least you are willing to admit that these great evil were in fact happening, unlike other Catholics posting on this forum. It really is ridiculous.

 

[Captain_America]

It is valuable to remember these things, too:

(1) there are people who are born with minimal intelligence or competence; they simply do not have the intellectual or physical ability to compete in the capitalist marketplace. They are, however, our brothers and sisters.

(2) there are also people who are unable to earn a living wage but who ardently wish to do so.

(3) there are very many people who qualify for various federal benefits, but who refuse, out of pride or moral belief, to go into the office and sign up for them.

(4) At the end of the day, the person is always more valuable than the dollar. We should keep this in mind.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is valuable to remember these things, too:

(1) there are people who are born with minimal intelligence or competence; they simply do not have the intellectual or physical ability to compete in the capitalist marketplace. They are, however, our brothers and sisters.

(2) there are also people who are unable to earn a living wage but who ardently wish to do so.

(3) there are very many people who qualify for various federal benefits, but who refuse, out of pride or moral belief, to go into the office and sign up for them.

(4) At the end of the day, the person is always more valuable than the dollar. We should keep this in mind.

Thank you Captain America:thumbsup:. I am glad to see a Catholic American that isn’t completely brainwashed by the system.

 

[portarica]

Anybody with eyes to see can still see that many abuses still happen all over the world and in the richest countries. And while we have progressed ethically, at least in London, with public health care and unemployment benefit, even these are under fret, and the theory of “the dignified fulfillment of the fittest”, is still in effect in terms of huge unemployment and low pay, and ironically most Catholics who have something to say on the mater on this forum appear to support it, placing profit above the dignity of human beings.

I think your conclusion is a little off base, I think the problem is that some believe that profit confers dignity and so think that some people have more dignity because they have been profitable.

In an ironic result , some of the people think that the dignity conferred upon other is deserved, even if the profit was extracted in some measure from them. An example is in the 2008 elections , the states most likely to vote on increasing the taxes on the rich were mostly those that had higher educations and income, the states supporting the reduction of taxes on the rich were more likely to be the poorer states . The same with healthcare, those states with better healthcare numbers and higher insurance coverage , apparently wanted to share that benefit with the population of the opposing states that suffered in general from poorer healthcare delivery systems.

This is also known as the mushroom farm syndrome.

Peace