Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fallibility — Peter Robinson
As a friend, who is, like me, a convert to Catholicism, put it in an email: What is a Catholic to do when the Supreme Pontiff makes statements that are, on the very face of them, preposterous?
(If you disagree with the premise–that is, if you can see some way of constructing the statement such that it isn’t, actually, preposterous–please do say so. I’d be hugely relieved.)
Published in General
I agree that the purpose of the Parable of the Vineyard is to use economic concepts to explain divine concepts; this is true of all of my gospel examples. Nonetheless, this would only work if the economic concepts were true. When Jesus says “Just as x, y”, His purpose is to tell us about y, but He asserts the truth of both x and y.
I agree that it is less direct than much of the OT, where inequality is regularly supported, but the two do not conflict. Christ is able to teach through this parable because his audience is immersed in the norms that you outline, so he can appeal to neutral justice as a familiar ideal. Because the concept of private property was clear, he can ask the rhetorical question “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” and feel confident that the hearer will supply the correct answer.
But he also paid “the usual daily wage,” which presumes he paid what was considered in that time and culture a fair amount for that sort of work. Note that when he hires the next batch he says “I will pay you whatever is right.”
So I don’t think this parable rules out a just wage or minimum wage laws. Yes the landowner here can be generous and pay more than the “usual daily wage” if he so wishes, but it doesn’t follow that he can in justice pay less, even if the laborers agree.
It’s also not clear that it rules out socialism where the state owns all the means of production, so long as the state pays everyone “the usual daily wage” and the workers (having no other alternatives) agree to take it.
I agree it’s an important distinction, and I think it goes beyond the specific topic at hand. Our side is too quick to label everything the Democrats propose as “socialist” or “Marxist.”
Firstly I think this is factually incorrect, and we should be more precise. But secondly, it’s not helping us win arguments or convert moderates, who might be open to a reasoned point-by-point attack on the many flaws in Obamacare (for instance) but will roll their eyes and dismiss you as a fanatic the minute you call it a Marxist plot.
Sure. I think that the “It’s my money, I can do what I want” stuff is anti-price control, but I agree that Christianity is compatible with a very large state indeed. Wanting good for the poor is well supported, comment #148 notwithstanding. Price floors, including wages, are terrible economics, but seem theologically fine assuming they do not cause unemployment; as with school choice, God often leaves even easy policy questions open. If Francis were merely saying that the poor should be less poor, he’d be tougher to complain about. His calls for government spending are irksome, but an orthodox position.
It’s making inequality the focus, though, that he runs into some very stiff divine headwinds. As comment #148 reminds us, the “preferential option for the poor” was always dodgy, but the class warfare is worse when put on steroids.
And how will the poor become less poor? He says it quite clearly in #58:
Western Chauvinist: #146 “the leftist Catholics I know are big fans of Jim Wallis and the Sojourner publication. They’re involved in an organization called “JustFaith,” which is non-denominational Protestant in its outlook, as far as I know. But where the general public is concerned, I doubt that many could tell the difference between the Protestant Social Gospel and Liberation Theology.”
*BTW, that “social justice” Catholics won’t go that far theologically allows them to deny their otherwise extensive overlap with LT in their socialism cloaked as Catholicism. I find their movement insidious, and disturbing.”
Amazing! I am a Catholic and practice my faith all the time. I am relatively active in my parish, know a lot of people, talk about things with them, and haven’t run into much of anything regarding the Sojourners.
I do know about Social Justice and have taken odds with it. It did seem to be a leftist (or democrat) function and I called them on it. I haven’t seen it in my current parish (about nine years) and don’t know how much, if any, it still exists.
Its a good thing we have you looking over our shoulders.
Does he endorse the state enforcing this, do you think?
I doubt he objects to social welfare programs, if that’s what you mean. Though he does warn in 202:
And in #192 he writes:
Exactly; there’s less to complain about in those passages (Francis’ doctrine is frequently compatible with Christianity). It’s still worth remembering that he’s generally not talking about the scriptural demands here. In his opposition to European governmental austerity, he advocates for more state handouts to those who are already not starving or homeless, who are not chaste widows above the age of 60, nor orphans.
Nonetheless, that’s merely stretching doctrine; other than in opposition to workfare, the church is doing its own thing there, but not clearly actively opposing scripture. As he says, he doesn’t hate the rich. There are lots of heresies he doesn’t embrace. Here it’s only and narrowly his invention and illustration of the sin of permitting inequality that condemns Christ.
Thank you!