Comments on: The Primacy of (All) People in Catholic Social Doctrine

By: Cindy

Cindy — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:33:36 +0000

Antonio, I can’t imagine you writing something that I would give a “dislike” to. I sometimes disagree with you on prudential matters, but you are grounded in Catholic orthodoxy and you always write in a reasonable tone. (Catholic orthodoxy is what matters most to me). I, on the other hand, got angry in a couple of posts late last week after I learned about the abortion exceptions on the Romney ticket and wondered if the negative reaction to those posts was following me to other threads. At any rate, I’m sorry to hear that you got such a negative reaction to one of your posts.

By: JQ Tomanek

JQ Tomanek — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:28:09 +0000

I think many problems regarding this issue stem from using today’s notions of capitalism with the late 1800′s. The same with justice. Today, the going definition of justice is rather egalitarian. However, the traditional virtue of justice is “giving each person their due.” These are very different and would have tremendous effects in developing economics.

Capitalism to a free markets or business markets mindset means more or less “stored labor.” In the encyclicals and H. Pesch (economist that influenced Quad. Anno), capitalism has a close defintion to what a what a business markets person would call cronyism or the act of the rich using their money to influence law to their benefit over other’s. Of course, this is not justice.

By: Everett

Everett — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:13:00 +0000

I also suspect there’s some way of “gaming” the system, for the purpose of hiding posts that someone may not agree with (from either side of the spectrum). I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten lots of downvotes for some posts that were “more liberal” and lots of downvotes for some that were “more conservative”. Frankly, I think the like/dislike system isn’t working particularly well, and they should consider alternatives.

By: Tim Shaughnessy

Tim Shaughnessy — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:35:59 +0000

Yes, those are large salaries but I don’t see the relevance. Did you read the GMU link I provided?
“Extraordinary” means “above ordinary;” workers who get paid higher than what is financially justifiable (like me in the mud pie example above) are getting paid extraordinarily high.
A CEO through foresight, planning, and managerial expertise can increase the value of a company by tens of billions of dollars (which get distributed to workers, investors, and shareholders); is it unjust to pay them a tiny fraction of that as compensation for the huge risk of running a major company and for using their incredible God-given talents to help customers and shareholders around the world, not to mention keeping their employees employed?
You don’t have to go far down the list to find salaries comparable to Hollywood stars and pro athletes, but people don’t get in a huff over entertainer salaries.
As I said before: “I would caution against succumbing to envy before understanding what exactly is required in being a successful CEO.”

By: God is My CEO

God is My CEO — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:44:06 +0000

Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Seriously, though, don’t lump in salaries of CEO’s of non-profits and small businesses. Go ahead, try to justify these CEO salaries as moral and workers’ salaries as “extraordinarily high”: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/12/ceo-compensation-11_land.html

By: Antonio A. Badilla

Antonio A. Badilla — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 06:15:25 +0000

I don’t agree with everything you stated, but I don’t understand why 54 people disliked what you wrote. The same happened to me weeks ago and I was completely bewildered at the negative reaction because what I wrote appeared to me to be reasonable.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:31:14 +0000

Thanks, Tim, for the encouragement. It has been extremely odd (almost comical, actually) to find so many of my comments hidden all of a sudden. I am thankful that you, at least, appreciate having some dialogue with me.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:14:03 +0000

Thanks, Tim, for your respectful reply and thanks also for clarifying your view of RERUM NOVARUM. As I mentioned, I’m not an expert in economics, just a lay Catholic who has read the encyclical. I can understand what you mean by its being bound to its era. Pope Leo is writing only about 40 years into the industrial age and is, to some extent, responding to the early attempts to radicalize labor along Marxist lines. If I recall correctly (sorry, I haven’t read the encyclical in about 4 years), Pope Leo looks at a middle ground between capital and labor and tries to bring labor back from the brink that Marxism would plunge it into. I do think that the encyclical is quite impressive given that it’s really the first attempt of the Church to wrestle with these issues in the industrial age. It may, as you say, lack economic sophistication. But it does lay the groundwork for much later Catholic social teaching – both in terms of subsidiarity and economic justice. Please feel free, btw, to correct me wherever my statements are inaccurate. I do not pretend to have the depth of understanding on this topic that you do. Thanks again for the dialogue.

By: Tim Shaughnessy

Tim Shaughnessy — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:20:34 +0000

The CV blog is perused by lots of people all over the spectrum of opinion. It’s not unusual to see two comments that take opposite opinions that have a similar number of “likes” or “unlikes.”
Don’t take it personally; as I said above, I appreciated your thoughts.

By: Tim Shaughnessy

Tim Shaughnessy — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:17:59 +0000

Thank you as well; a combox response that doesn’t include the phrase “Shaughnessy is an idiot;” imagine that!
As I said at the beginning, we all want to pursue an economic system that treats people fairly and justly; there is just disagreement about the means toward that end.