The sin of taking away someones livelyhood

[BH_Manners]

The Book of ben Sirach teaches it is wrong to take away a person’s livelyhood and says a person who does so is like one who sheds blood.

Does the Catholic Church excommunicate people for taking away anothers job or punish them in some way, or if the job is taken away will help the person who lost their job during the period they are looking for another?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Book of ben Sirach teaches it is wrong to take away a person’s livelyhood and says a person who does so is like one who sheds blood.

Does the Catholic Church excommunicate people for taking away anothers job or punish them in some way, or if the job is taken away will help the person who lost their job during the period they are looking for another?

Can you give exact references to where it says this so we can see exact context.

 

[batteddy]

Hmm…it depends what you mean.

I know of no particular excommunication. There isn’t one for murder in general either, however. Only abortion and harming a cleric.

But the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance are:

1. Murder
2. Sodomy
3. Opression of the poor, the widow, the orphan, or the alien
   4. Defrauding the worker of his wages

 

[vern_humphrey]

What do you mean by “taking away someone’s livelihood?”

Many Big Three autoworkers are being laid off because cars aren’t selling well. Do we have an obligation to buy cars? And if we do, aren’t we “taking away” the buggy-whip maker’s livelihood?

 

[m134e5]

What do you mean by “taking away someone’s livelihood?”

I can think of a couple examples

• cutting jobs to save money when the company is not in bad financial shape

*taking something that someone needs in order to do their job.

*being careless in construction and city planning, and affecting the landscape- this could take away a farmer’s livelihood.

Those are just a few ways.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I can think of a couple examples

• cutting jobs to save money when the company is not in bad financial shape

*taking something that someone needs in order to do their job.

*being careless in construction and city planning, and affecting the landscape- this could take away a farmer’s livelihood.

Those are just a few ways.

All of your examples are very subjective.

Cutting jobs to save money might be necessary for the future health of the company even though it does not appear to be so now to the lay man.

Taking something that someone needs, I do not really understand this one unless you are talking about theft, which is sinful in itself.

As for the third, while it might take away a farmer’s livelihood it might create more jobs for others.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I can think of a couple examples

• cutting jobs to save money when the company is not in bad financial shape

You are aware that many companies stay alive only by constantly striving for efficiency? That auto companies, for example, are able to survive by staying on the cutting edge of robotics and other technologies?

The problem is, if you don’t implement technology in a timely fashion, and instead wait until you are in financial trouble, the lead time is so long that that you go under before you can implement it.

*taking something that someone needs in order to do their job.

Like, what?

*being careless in construction and city planning, and affecting the landscape- this could take away a farmer’s livelihood.

The farmer loses his land – which is his livelihood – because his taxes go up and up. Taxes are often the chief reason small businesses go broke.

Those are just a few ways.

How about raising the minimum wage, so many jobs simply disappear? Isn’t that taking away someone’s livelihood?

 

[gvogt4]

Does the Catholic Church excommunicate people for taking away anothers job or punish them in some way, or if the job is taken away will help the person who lost their job during the period they are looking for another?

Technically, people incur excommunication upon themselves In extreme cases, the Church may deem it necessary to publicly state such.

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69

Regarding the specifics of the consequences, the circumstances and intent involved would be a major factor in determining that,

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Technically, people incur excommunication upon themselves In extreme cases, the Church may deem it necessary to publicly state such.

In what cases?

So far, no one has explained what “taking away someone’s livelihood” means.

For example, Catholic Charities supports raising the minimum wage. But any economist will tell you that steady raises of the minimum wage are correlated with a steady decrease of low-paid jobs. Has Catholic Charities committed a mortal sin?

What about people who are able to create jobs, but refuse? Do they sin?

 

[gvogt4]

In what cases?

So far, no one has explained what “taking away someone’s livelihood” means.

For example, Catholic Charities supports raising the minimum wage. But any economist will tell you that steady raises of the minimum wage are correlated with a steady decrease of low-paid jobs. Has Catholic Charities committed a mortal sin?

What about people who are able to create jobs, but refuse? Do they sin?

Dear Vern

I was not making a judgment on the matter. In fact, I would advise strongly against making judgments as a rule, but especially in matters of conscience where there is so much that plays into that.
I know it got lost in the post, but as to what I said about the specific instance at hand was
** "Regarding the specifics of the consequences, the circumstances and intent involved would be a major factor in determining that, "** and then I listed 1849, 1859 - 1861 of the CCC.

As to the matters you asked about (and I think they are great examples), I would also reserve judgment for the aforementioned reasons. Hope that clarifies my position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dear Vern

I was not making a judgment on the matter. In fact, I would advise strongly against making judgments as a rule, but especially in matters of conscience where there is so much that plays into that.
I know it got lost in the post, but as to what I said about the specific instance at hand was
** "Regarding the specifics of the consequences, the circumstances and intent involved would be a major factor in determining that, "** and then I listed 1849, 1859 - 1861 of the CCC.

As to the matters you asked about (and I think they are great examples), I would also reserve judgment for the aforementioned reasons. Hope that clarifies my position.

I gather you mean without intent, there can be no sin.

 

[gvogt4]

I gather you mean without intent, there can be no sin.

I have tried to be cautious in stating my personal belief about anything. I have attempted to let the Church’s teaching stand for itself. How the information is assimilated into one’s life and one’s belief is a matter of the ongoing process of the formation of his own conscience. (Please don’t think I’m mixing words with you. I’m just cautious about throwing out opinions as black and white fact.)

If there is one underlying theme that I had hoped to present it was to be cautious about rushing into judgment upon anyone else. Take care.

 

[a_cermak]

Hmm, interesting question. I would say it depends.

As far as increasing efficiency or mechanization, I would say no sin as the firm must be competitive with other firms.

Now if you steal a workman’s tools such that he cannot practise his trade I would say that is a double sin, both a sin for theft and a sin for depriving him of his livelihood.

If you assault a man so badly that he cannot labor then you are guilty also of a double sin, both for the assault and for the loss of livelihood.

When it comes to scabs, that’s trickier. It’s obviously a huge social sin, but I’m not sure if the Church has ever ruled on it officially.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When it comes to scabs, that’s trickier. It’s obviously a huge social sin, but I’m not sure if the Church has ever ruled on it officially.

How is it wrong to take a job someone else has walked away from?

If I need work, and am willing to do the work, why do I not have a right to take any job offered to me?

 

[a_cermak]

How is it wrong to take a job someone else has walked away from?

If I need work, and am willing to do the work, why do I not have a right to take any job offered to me?

Because you’re interfering in an act of solidarity and refusing to show solidarity with the workers. Like I said, I don’t see it as a religious sin necessarily, though it is obviously (depending on your neighborhood) a huge social gaffe that will likely socially isolate you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because you’re interfering in an act of solidarity and refusing to show solidarity with the workers.

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to “show solidarity with the workers?”

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to let my own children go hungry so someone else can get even more of my money when I buy the necessities of life?

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to pay money to crooked union bosses so I can keep my job?

I was in Detroit during the Detroit Newspaper Strike. Where in the Catechism are I obliged to strew star-nails in parking lots, put bombs in newspaper vending machines, and hijack newspaper trucks (thereby stealing thousands of dollars from the independent contractors who buy and re-sell the newspapers)?

Like I said, I don’t see it as a religious sin necessarily, though it is obviously (depending on your neighborhood) a huge social gaffe that will likely socially isolate you.

A “social gaffe,” is it?

Like stealing thousands of dollars from independent contractors, or flattening people’s tires because they patronize stores that advertise in the Detroit papers?

 

[a_cermak]

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to “show solidarity with the workers?”

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to let my own children go hungry so someone else can get even more of my money when I buy the necessities of life?

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to pay money to crooked union bosses so I can keep my job?

I was in Detroit during the Detroit Newspaper Strike. Where in the Catechism are I obliged to strew star-nails in parking lots, put bombs in newspaper vending machines, and hijack newspaper trucks (thereby stealing thousands of dollars from the independent contractors who buy and re-sell the newspapers)?

A “social gaffe,” is it?

Like stealing thousands of dollars from independent contractors, or flattening people’s tires because they patronize stores that advertise in the Detroit papers?

Well, it’s not like people don’t know that that kind of activity will cause potential harm to themselves. It’s a cost of doing business.

I personally won’t cross a picket line because I understand the idea of solidarity and I feel we (the workers) really are all in this together regardless of what sort of work we do.

Heck, I stopped reading the Chicago Trib way back when there was a strike (back in the 80’s) and to this day I’m a Sun Times subscriber because of it.

 

[a_cermak]

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to “show solidarity with the workers?”

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to let my own children go hungry so someone else can get even more of my money when I buy the necessities of life?

Where in the Catechism am I obliged to pay money to crooked union bosses so I can keep my job?

And remember, I never said it was a Church sin. So of course the catechism isn’t against it. But I would call it a civil sin or social gaffe or other type of bringing opprobrium upon yourself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, it’s not like people don’t know that that kind of activity will cause potential harm to themselves. It’s a cost of doing business.

Ah, so now we blame the victims?

When a person’s tires are flattened by star nails some union thug scattered in the parking lot, it’s their fault? When an independent contractor’s truck is hi-jacked, it’s his fault?

I personally won’t cross a picket line because I understand the idea of solidarity and I feel we (the workers) really are all in this together regardless of what sort of work we do.

While I feel it’s a thuggish plot to extort money from the rest of us – and what I’ve seen of it in action confirms that.

Heck, I stopped reading the Chicago Trib way back when there was a strike (back in the 80’s) and to this day I’m a Sun Times subscriber because of it.

I used to buy only the Sunday paper in Detroit. When the strikers sickened me with their thuggish tactics, I subscribed.

 

[gvogt4]

And remember, I never said it was a Church sin. So of course the catechism isn’t against it. But I would call it a civil sin or social gaffe or other type of bringing opprobrium upon yourself.

Well, to throw in another 2 cents: In the USA today, most unions are unnecessary(in my opinion) and (also in my opinion) are more detrimental to the average worker than helpful. It is also my opinion that many “strikes” that take place are not the actions of those that have been oppressed or are really struggling to put food on the table.

Regardless, if A is working, paying his bills, supporting his family, but decides to leave his job - and B is not working but wants to, needs to support his family, and sees an opportunity to do so AND (this is important as far as I am concerned) truly believes that A has left the job for reasons B does not think sufficient for doing so, B can (in good conscience) do what B believes is necessary to support his family.

As far as any “social gaffe” goes, If I believe that my actions do not offend God, I really do not care what this (mostly pagan) society has to say about it. :twocents: