Pope Weakens Just Wage Doctrine

[James02]

“because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family�For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for “a global coalition in favour of ‘decent work”'[144], supporting the strategy of the International Labour Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral impetus to this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every country of the world. What is meant by the word “decency” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.

Now I have specifically chosen the term "weaken", instead of "overturns" since the kool aid drinking neo-Catholics will say "well, in order to make it possible for a family to meet its needs, the husband has to be paid enough for the mother to stay home and raise the children".  So I chose "weaken", even though anyone with a drop of common sense can see from the context that two parents working is now allowable.  Therefore, if you cut wages in half, and both the husband and wife work, and this "cut in half" wage is enough for them to provide food, decent shelter, and savings for a thrifty person, by what Pope Benedict writes above, that is acceptable.

I am running out of time to post for a while.  I enjoyed the debate.  Anthem and Belloc, I think this is a topic you all would love to address, because you all, like me, believe strongly in the just wage doctrine of the Church, and only paying enough so that the wife has to work also, is a travesty.

[cgraye]

This passage says nothing about married people.  Not all women are married, you know, and so they obviously need to work.  I think you are reading far too much into this.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Not all women are married, you know, and so they obviously need to work. 

 

They're not?!!  They do?!!

Why can't they just join a convent?!!

[ggreg]

“because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family�For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for “a global coalition in favour of ‘decent work”'[144], supporting the strategy of the International Labour Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral impetus to this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every country of the world. What is meant by the word “decency” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.

Now I have specifically chosen the term "weaken", instead of "overturns" since the kool aid drinking neo-Catholics will say "well, in order to make it possible for a family to meet its needs, the husband has to be paid enough for the mother to stay home and raise the children".  So I chose "weaken", even though anyone with a drop of common sense can see from the context that two parents working is now allowable.  Therefore, if you cut wages in half, and both the husband and wife work, and this "cut in half" wage is enough for them to provide food, decent shelter, and savings for a thrifty person, by what Pope Benedict writes above, that is acceptable.

I am running out of time to post for a while.  I enjoyed the debate.  Anthem and Belloc, I think this is a topic you all would love to address, because you all, like me, believe strongly in the just wage doctrine of the Church, and only paying enough so that the wife has to work also, is a travesty.

An interesting topic.  I spent last weekend with my wife, along with a couple of other Traditional Catholic Families (i.e. ones not using contraception) in the garden of the local organiser of Latin Masses.  A woman who worked for a major bank as an in-house lawyer turned up with her two children and the topic of young families being able to afford a house came up,  I argued that it was very difficult for a young Catholic couple to marry nowdays as saving up the deposit on a house is very challenging.  Here you need $100k just for a 25% deposit on a normal family home.  Without parental support you are going to struggle to save that kind of deposit so get stuck in the rent trap.  Renting a similar house is about $24k a year.  This is a modest semi.

The woman protested and said that she and her husband had managed.  I didn't want to point out that the reason that they "managed" is they both had jobs paying WAY above the average and she had a full time career and a nanny to look after her children so she could work from 7am to 7pm five days a week.  And she had been doing that for the last 14 years.

[James02]

This passage says nothing about married people.  Not all women are married, you know, and so they obviously need to work.  I think you are reading far too much into this.

  Read again:

work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour;

I think I see the problem.  You see, during the dark times before the glorious Second Vatican Council, Catholics used the term "family" to refer to a husband, a wife, and usually children born in wedlock or adopted.  I apologize for assuming a family was a man, wife, and kids, and if I have stigmitized anyone who made alternative lifestyle choices I want to affirm that your family arrangement is right for you.

Now, using the Catholic definition of family, the above quote is a clear departure from the Church's teaching on a Living (Just) Wage.  This wage must be sufficient to allow a HUSBAND to provide for his family, including allowing his WIFE to stay home and raise children.  Now, since I know neo-Catholics well, I intentionally chose the term "weakens" instead of "overturns".  For those Trads out there, also note the Pope goes on to particularly oppose child labor, but does not condemn a mother having to work because her husband does not receive a just wage.  You decide whether the proper verb is "weaken" or "overturn".

That being said, my original statement is unassailable:  The Pope has weakened the Just Wage Doctrine.

[glgas]

I think I see the problem.  You see, during the dark times before the glorious Second Vatican Council, Catholics used the term "family" to refer to a husband, a wife, and usually children born in wedlock or adopted.  I apologize for assuming a family was a man, wife, and kids, and if I have stigmitized anyone who made alternative lifestyle choices I want to affirm that your family arrangement is right for you.

The man-wife-kids was the Jewish model. The Christian model was and is father-mother-children.

Traditionally the father was responsible to provide for the necessities of living, the mother was responsible to provide for the procreation, to rise children. Things changed when the necessary work around and in the house were significantly eased by the industry. It is unlikely that anyone seriously want to go back to the times, when the women worked fron sunrise to sunset at home to prepare food, make clothes, clean etc.

[James02]

Traditionally the father was responsible to provide for the necessities of living, the mother was responsible to provide for the procreation, to rise children. Things changed when the necessary work around and in the house were significantly eased by the industry. It is unlikely that anyone seriously want to go back to the times, when the women worked fron sunrise to sunset at home to prepare food, make clothes, clean etc.

No, we don't want wives to abandon tools that have made their life easier.  But I would argue that the critical job of raising children has not "significantly eased", it has become one heck of a lot harder.  But anyway, what the heck does that have to do with anything?

Most Catholics oppose warehousing your children in stranger care.  Now for some, it is the sad result of the husband not receiving a Living Wage, and the husband and wife must do what they have to.  However, in most cases, the husband DOES make a Living Wage, but the wife works to "pursue her career" or because the husband and wife are materialists and need the extra money to pay for a materialist lifestyle.

But all of this is an aside.  The Living Wage doctrine of the Church is clearly established according to the definition I gave, and Pope Benedict has weakened (overturned) it.  That statement is unassailable, and I notice you don't deny it.  You just say it is ok for him to do it.  It is not ok.

[CollegeCatholic]

Would you mind citing for us the exact definition of the "Just wage doctrine"??

Then, perhaps, we can discuss the Pope and his "weakening" of it.

[James02]

I am too lazy to get all of the various quotes from encyclicals, but this should suffice for now:

nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well behaved wage-earner.  ..... 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.

This gets developed further in other encyclicals, but even this one quote is clear.  Pope Benedict has weakened this.

[CollegeCatholic]

The Pope:

What is meant by the word “decency” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour;

As cgraye said, I think you're reading too much into this as well.

Much to the chagrin of traditionalists, not every woman, upon reaching 18, is married and ready to start having children.  As such... they need to work. 

No where does it say "a wife needs to work to make ends meet, and no now I'm weakening the just wage idea," rather, it says men and women need to be paid a just wage, and the work (for which the wage is paid) needs to make it possible for the families to meet ends meet.  I don't think the Pope is speaking specifically about husband and wife in this case.

I mean, if you read a lot into it, as I think you are, you could come up with this.  So, I think at best it may have been imprudent for the Pope to use the words and phrases he used. 

But I do not think he is weakening just wage. 

[James02]

What is meant by the word “decency” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour;

Note the subtle shift from "worker" to "family".  But anyhow, focus on the statement "work that makes it possible for FAMILIES to meet their needs".  It should be "work that makes it possible for the workingman to meet his family's needs.", but it is not.  It weakens the Living Wage doctrine.  Suppose I cut a workingman's wage in half, but hire his wife and pay her the other half, plus a little extra for strangercare.  I can now claim I am providing a decent job, according to Pope Benedict.  However this is against the Tradition of the Church.  And why the need to decry child labor?  If Pope Benedict is keeping the original Living Wage doctrine, it is odd that he decries child labor, but doesn't decry the woman being forced to work because her husband is denied a Living Wage.

Now it is typical Vat. II ambiguity.  A neo-Catholic can say "well, one of the needs of a family is for the wife to stay home to raise the children", so I chose the term "weaken" on purpose.  This is typical evasion from the post Vat. II Church. 

As cgraye said, I think you're reading too much into this as well.

Much to the chagrin of traditionalists, not every woman, upon reaching 18, is married and ready to start having children.  As such... they need to work.

No where does it say "a wife needs to work to make ends meet, and no now I'm weakening the just wage idea," rather, it says men and women need to be paid a just wage,

What does a woman without kids working have to do with this?  The word in debate is "families", which implies children.

and the work (for which the wage is paid) needs to make it possible for the families to meet ends meet.  I don't think the Pope is speaking specifically about husband and wife in this case.

It doesn't say this.  It says decent work makes it possible for FAMILIES to meet their needs.  A clear departure.

I mean, if you read a lot into it, as I think you are, you could come up with this.  So, I think at best it may have been imprudent for the Pope to use the words and phrases he used.

But I do not think he is weakening just wage. 

I can't read "anything" into the Traditional doctrine.  I can with this.  It has been weakened.  And why do you say the Pope may have been imprudent?  Is it because this possible imprudence weakens the Living Wage doctrine?

[MagisterMusicae]

There are two ways to read the word "families":

1. The Pope is saying that together a man and a woman must be able to meet the financial needs of themselves and the children.

2. The Pope is saying that those that bring in income must be compensated to the extent that they not only can provide for their own personal needs, but also that of a family.

It seems that the OP here is suggesting that number one is the only possible interpretation, thus he is condoning, or encouraging women to leave the home and work. I think this is a false conclusion. It seems that the Pope recognizes that women are a major part of the workforce now. He is not going to be able to correct that (and get women off the pill and back to raising children) with an encyclical. Indeed, he would more likely do harm by suggesting that is an important point. Instead, he says that anyone who works must be compensated so that the family is provided for. An employer must take into consideration the family's situation when he hires someone, because it is not just about the bottom line, and because a man with no children and no wife is not the same as a man with five children and a wife and can't be paid as if he were single.

So, indeed, there is some ambiguity here, but I think you're making this "subtle change" into something far more than it really is.

It is not, with certainty, a justification of having two parents working in order to meet the needs of the average family. It takes into consideration that, at present, in the world, you have a significantly higher number of women working than in ages past (when usually dad was the main bread-winner) and you have a significantly higher number of single-parent families. Neither are to be encouraged, but an encyclical is not going to fix those problems. It can suggest that an employer must pay a just wage, and consider the circumstances of the employee and his family.

The other reason it is not an encouragement of two parents working is that, provided one actually is disciplined with money and frugal, most families could do it one one income or with mom making some extra money at home.

The problem of two parents working is not usually a problem of making ends meet for a strapped family who is living frugally, and often far more about living above one's means.

[CollegeCatholic]

Suppose I cut a workingman's wage in half, but hire his wife and pay her the other half, plus a little extra for strangercare.  I can now claim I am providing a decent job, according to Pope Benedict.

No, you can't.  The *job* you are providing does not meet a family's needs - it meets only half the need.  We're dealing with jobs on a case-by-case basis. 

I am also unaware of the "just wage" being Tradition of the Church.  Citation??

He's decrying child labor because to the modern world, child labor is something that is wrong, and carries negative connotations. 

And, a woman without children still has a family.  She has parents, and possibly siblings, and she can be a caretaker for them/live with them. 

And, in the end, nothing has changed, because he's saying the exact same thing that has been said before, especially if you read it in the LIGHT OF TRADITION.  He's merely replaced "husband" with "families" to make it sound a little more appealing, or something.  In any case, reading this in the light of tradition, it still works, and still makes sense, and isn't touching on altering the just wage business.

And, it's imprudent because Internet commentators with too much time on their hands can find, twist, and alter the meaning of what he is saying here.

[James02]

It seems that the OP here is suggesting that number one is the only possible interpretation, thus he is condoning, or encouraging women to leave the home and work. I think this is a false conclusion.

I don't know what his motives are.  Furthermore, the Living Wage doctrine is directed to the Catholic employer, not the worker.  It is the Catholic employer that must make a wage offer.

It seems that the Pope recognizes that women are a major part of the workforce now. He is not going to be able to correct that (and get women off the pill and back to raising children) with an encyclical. Indeed, he would more likely do harm by suggesting that is an important point. 

So he "recognizes" as problem, but doesn't do anything about it.  Which problem is bigger, at least in the West, women abandoning their children to stranger care, or child labor.  In the US, child labor is non-existent, except in criminal enterprises, i.e. statistically insignificant.  Not confronting a problem is typical post-Vatican II.

Instead, he says that anyone who works must be compensated so that the family is provided for. An employer must take into consideration the family's situation when he hires someone, because it is not just about the bottom line, and because a man with no children and no wife is not the same as a man with five children and a wife and can't be paid as if he were single.

This is a departure.  So if you know that in a particular family a wife is working, and a man asks you for the job, can your wage offer take this into account?  Previously the answer was NO. 

So, indeed, there is some ambiguity here,

And thus my original statement.

but I think you're making this "subtle change" into something far more than it really is.

  Definitely possible, but I don't like the wording.

It is not, with certainty, a justification of having two parents working in order to meet the needs of the average family. It takes into consideration that, at present, in the world, you have a significantly higher number of women working than in ages past (when usually dad was the main bread-winner) and you have a significantly higher number of single-parent families. Neither are to be encouraged, but an encyclical is not going to fix those problems. It can suggest that an employer must pay a just wage, and consider the circumstances of the employee and his family.

  Pity, he can start trying to fix these things at least.  And again, if "considering the circumstances" means taking note that the family also has the wife's income, that is a problem.

The other reason it is not an encouragement of two parents working is that, provided one actually is disciplined with money and frugal, most families could do it one one income or with mom making some extra money at home.

  We agree on the last part.

The problem of two parents working is not usually a problem of making ends meet for a strapped family who is living frugally, and often far more about living above one's means.

We agree, unfortunately the Encyclical doesn't address this.

[James02]

No, you can't.  The *job* you are providing does not meet a family's needs - it meets only half the need.  We're dealing with jobs on a case-by-case basis.

Another example then.  Sue has a job.  Bob, her husband comes to you and asks for a job.  Now, since you know that Sue has a job, and you can make a conservative guess at her salary, can you as a Catholic make a lower wage offer since you take into consideration that this family will have two sources of income?  In the past, the answer was definitely NO.  In fact, if you were well immersed in the savor of just wage, not only would your wage offer be a Living Wage, you might pay a little extra if it would entice Sue to stay home and raise the children.  It would be a red flag to you.  You would discuss it.

I am also unaware of the "just wage" being Tradition of the Church.  Citation??

I don't know, it's been addressed in plenty of encyclicals.  That's not Tradition?  Or do you want me to make that a small "t"?

He's decrying child labor because to the modern world, child labor is something that is wrong, and carries negative connotations.

In the West women abandoning the family is a much graver problem.  But it gets no mention.  But he goes out of his way to condemn child labor right after the ambiguous sentence.  So he is aware that you could misinterpret what he is saying, and an employer could take into consideration that a family also has income from children working.  So he puts in a further clarification.  But where is the bigger confusion in this day and age, over child labor or the mother abandoning her family for a career or a second materialist income?  The silence is deafening, as they say.

And, a woman without children still has a family.  She has parents, and possibly siblings, and she can be a caretaker for them/live with them.

And this allows using ambiguous language when it comes the presenting the Living Wage doctrine?  At best you can claim the Holy Father didn't want to add two more sentences to clarify things because it was getting too long already.  Remember, I didn't claim a motive.  However, my position still stands.  It has weakened the Just Wage doctrine.

And, in the end, nothing has changed, because he's saying the exact same thing that has been said before, especially if you read it in the LIGHT OF TRADITION.  He's merely replaced "husband" with "families" to make it sound a little more appealing, or something.  In any case, reading this in the light of tradition, it still works, and still makes sense, and isn't touching on altering the just wage business.

Whether things have changed is debatable, but you are right, you can read this "in the Light of Tradition".  Just like Vatican II.  And we saw the consequences of Church teaching that has to be carefully interpreted because it is ambiguous.  It is very probable that a Catholic employer who is only familiar with Rerum Novarum will make a totally different wage offer compared to a Catholic who only consults Caritas in Veritate, since he wants to consult the latest teachings.  That is a problem.  And be definition, it weakens a doctrine which in the past was quite precise.

And, it's imprudent because Internet commentators with too much time on their hands can find, twist, and alter the meaning of what he is saying here.

So now it is easier to twist Church doctrine?  Isn't this weakening it?