#1 is easy, Abraham Lincoln.

#2, I’m less sure—TR maybe?

Well… That’s easy for me too, but I will wait a little, otherwise it would be cheating since I already know where the quotes came from. Thank you, Mark, for bringing those up.

I’m pretty sure I can identify #2 simply from the writing style.

[C]an you discuss what you make of these statements and how they might or might not be reconcilable with Catholic teaching?
 
Apparently not.

I agree with both statements. People are more important than profit and must be privileged over profit. That being said, it is possible to lay too much emphasis on labor and I think unions have gone too far in that direction in the recent past. They demand too much compensation and as a result prices go up and fewer people can afford the fruits of their labor. Thus, less money is made and layoffs come.

The first quote is probably from Pope John Paul II, and it points up the principle of human dignity as foremost in social relationships.  The second is from the president and places the dignity of human labor in the context of American history. Certainly, both are compatible.

Both quotes to me point out the Catholic tradition of human dignity.  I think that we see an over-emphaiss on the need to increase capital at whatever cost, which to my understanding flies in the face of what the church teaches. The second quote seems to emphasize in a unique, to me, the need for solidarity - that the human right of food, shelter, clothing, health care are unalienable and that people should band together to insure those rights, also well within the realm of Catholic teaching.  I do not see them as a condemnation of capitalism per se,  rather they seem to say that we have become enamored with making money and not with supporting one another - I think this might fall in subsidarity?

Both quotations could have had an auspicious Catholic origin. Both are fully compatible with Catholic faith and morals. But just wait until the REAL Catholics wake up and give you what-for, you pinko commie SOLT-loving ignorant luck-spittle pro-abort most likely homosexual liberal free love Satan-loving free-love hippie wimpo feminazi limp-wrist baby snatching novos-ordo ninny! Of course I jest. Well, sort of. Sometime in the next twelve hours someone will call you at least five of those things ;-)

In the first place, I cheated and looked up the two quotes.

The first seems like it could be reconciled with the Church’s teaching on work being necessary to the dignity of the human person. I think this can be badly misinterpereted to conceive of capital as an end in itself.

The second gives prominence to human dignity by means of solidarity. It ought to be remarked, however, that the modern union is an imperfect response to an already imperfect state of affairs and that both unions and entrepreneurs too often end up reinforcing and magnifying the other’s evils.

Both quotes bring us back to a time when “big” was not necessarily “beautiful” and people could see the fruits of their work. An article on another Catholic post argued that capitalism was the way to go and that “self-sufficiency” meant poverty. However I have a friend who was describing her grand parents’ farm, which in fact was self-sufficient, and they of course were “poor” if we think that they did not have a lot of cash and all the modern gadgets, but they were very rich otherwise. Now with big organizations, whether corporations or unions, people’s identities tend to get lost and they become “factors of production” instead of human beings with dignity. We need to be reminded of this very often. Conclusion: both quotes go in the same direction, and we badly need to follow that direction.

If Quote 2 is part of Catholic teaching, it would go a long
way to explaining why some Catholic Bishops
I hear lately are not completely comfortable with considering
the rights of public employees to bargain collectively
on par with the rights of private sector unions.

I got nothing much to say on quote #2. Too much is already said about what labor unions are supposed to be and how they’re supposed to work *in theory*, and there’s few major disagreements about that anyway. It’s the things they do in practice that’s the source of contention.

On quote #1, I understand and agree with the principle that nothing as essentially human (Personalist?) as labor should ever be undervalued in favor of capital which is impersonal.
However, that quote out of context would also support or presume the Labor Theory of Value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value ...an assumption that Adam Smith and Karl Marx both agreed on, and is therefore wrong.  ;-)

Contrast that with a more Distributivist insight, that in many cases the achievement of beneficial labor depends on various forms of capital (i.e. “means of production” like usable land, tools & equipment, etc). So quote #1 is true but only half the truth: capital is the fruit of labor but labor is also dependent on the possession and use of capital.

The first is the old Lincoln saw that gets trotted out whenever someone wants to compare BHO to Honest Abe (no great conservative, he). Should be worth noting that “labor” does not equal “(an individual) worker” (or even a collection of workers) in this sense, but rather the commodity “labor”.

The second quote is a historical observation and as such is an observation that is more applicable to the sorts of unions which influenced the solidarity movement in Poland (hint, hint) than it is applicable to the current public sector unions in this country whose main game lately seems to be class warfare more than it is the enrichment of one’s social life.

I think the second has one element that I would quibble on—I think very few elements are “indispensable” elements of social life—societies can always find new and creative solutions to problems, and we shouldn’t support unions for the sake of supporting unions—the union is not an end in itself. That said, the principle which unions should defend, is a valid Catholic principle (That workers have rights, and aren’t just cogs), and we should aim to defend it not just with unions, but with all means available to them, including not being in a union if the union is serving counter their principles. (That said, I would say this is the philosopher’s quotation, most likely JPII. It has the language. )

I think the first is fine. I think I read something similar in one of the mid-century encyclicals on labor, but not exactly this. Labor is not just interchangeable with commodities, people have rights other than just being the cheapest element in the commodities chain. Labor is the point of it all—we are working for the good of the people. That is pretty commonsense and Catholic, and should be a principle of well-ordered societies revolving around free markets, to put the laborer above the capital.

The first quote is very close to what a pope has already stated. It’s when the author states that labor “deserves much the higher consideration” that I would caution. Capital is the result of labor, but labor must have capital to transform in the first place. Capital is provided by God in natural resources, but it is also provided through the ingenuity and labor of others who seek to protect their capital investments.

The second quote is spot on. I would only note that the author says “organizations of this type” are indespensable. This leaves room to argue that a particular union might actually be causing harm to the common good, thus requiring that a different union come up in its stead.

Reading these for the first time, and with no context, I see both quotes as dovetailing nicely with Catholic humanism.
-
If in 1, I see “labor” as “work” or “effort”, then the writer extols the drive and production of a person over the thing produced.  That a plowman will till the field is worth more than the tilled field that results.  If “labor” is taken to mean the laborer, then the person is, of course worth more than what he produces.
-
In 2, the writer sees value in institutions that protect the rights of workers.  Where people are denied their essential dignity, there need to be organizations like unions to provide a check on the oppressive use of economic power.  That’s the ideal, of course, one which we don’t see much of in modern organized labor.  Modern unions seem to have undergone “scope creep”, and have gone beyond this defensive function to one where the union exists to perpetuate the union rather than uphold the individual worker.  As such, they sometimes treat their members as chattel, like the corporate masters of times past.

I have no idea who who wrote the quotes, but this is rather fun to read. 

Authentic dialogue gets railroaded by certain affiliations.

I really like His Holiness’ take on labor unions.  I’d just like y’all to bear in mind that in Europe, nowhere do you find anything like a union-only shop, or the NLRA, which puts government FIRMLY on the side of favoring unions (they can be voted in, but they cannot effectively be voted out).  In Europe, one most often finds free markets in union representation.  An employer might find himself negotiating with a coalition of unions, with representation of each at the bargaining table proportional to their membership among his employees.

Giving unions considerations that are not given to employers (something we do here in America) can have some serious unintended consequences.  For example, one Teamster anti-scab activist decided the way to deal with scabs driving Greyhound buses during a strike was to get his rifle and open fire.

Greyhound was required to hire him back when the strike was settled.

“The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life especially in modern industrialized societies.”  Because no one can be counted on to do the right thing?  Because most people live as if Jesus Christ never existed? Because a devout group of Christians can find no other way to attain their rights?  “They will know you are Christians by your love.”  “Ask and it shall be given to you. Seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be open to you.”  “Do not worry what you are to eat or drink or what you shall wear ... Look at the lillies of the field ... the sparrows.  Not one of them falls to the ground without your Father knowing it.  You are worth more than many sparrows….”  I loved John Paul II, but I worry when man is the answer to our problems, because man is not.  Is this a lack of faith?

Dear Pam: It is not really a lack of faith; but relying on faith is up to each individual believer…  Claiming that we should be “relying on faith” instead of working for justice is a whole different ball park. But of course,in your country anyway, talking of justice always seems to raise the hackles of a particular type of conservatives who are still hanging on to the “scarecrow” of socialism. I have met too many people who, pretending to “help” me when I was going through hard times, had nothing better to tell me that I should work harder or making more sacrifices!

Marthe: “Relying on faith is up to each individual believer”?  You aren’t a believer without it.  Not sure what you mean.  It’s certainly not something that is locked away and private. If you had met a follower of Christ they should give you concrete help if you tell them your need.  I think it is St. Paul who warns about seeing someone hurting and saying “Be well” and then going on without offering help. Mother Theresa epitomized that concrete helping with the love of Christ.  But even she only did what she could.  Those she helped still had struggles but they saw God’s love in her actions and it made the struggles more bearable and it brought God to the struggle.  Unions don’t talk God, don’t think God.  They are human endeavors.  Christians have something much greater.  I believe unions have been a blessing for many people, but they are nothing compared to God. Mother Theresa also always said, “God will provide.” And He did. Truckloads of bread, money, postulants and on and on. He meant what He said. The multiplication of the loaves and fishes is real even today. Do you favor socialism which has already failed in so many places or turned to dictatorship?

Pam: I wonder if you are living in the same planet as myself… The daily headlines that I receive from the New York Times recently had a link to an article on jobs (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/the-challenge-of-creating-good-jobs/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2) that quoted a disturbing statistic: The poverty line for a family of four is presently $10.60 an hour, and nearly 20 percent of American adults work in such poverty-level jobs. I find this particularly concerning, since I also have read somewhere a little while ago that unemployment in the US is in the area of about 16 % (I may be mistaken, though). These two figures mean that nearly half of the American workforce is living in poverty… This seems to be a little much for private charity to handle! Do you really mean to say that working to try to improve that situation, which is really a matter of justice, would lead to some kind of totalitarian socialism? That private charity and prayer are all that is needed to improve this situation? It does not seem to me that the various Popes’ encyclical letters about the Church social teaching actually say this…

Marthe, I live on the same planet but as a Catholic Christian.  That changes everything.  “The poor you will always have with you.”  Christ began his life in a cave. He became poor so that through His poverty we might become rich.  “You cannot serve God and manna.”  If your social concerns are so everyone has more money you have missed the point.  We are here to spread God’s love and when it is spread there will be plenty to go around.  Your statistics are off.  Unemployment is high now (9.1%). Alot of it seems targeted at conservative states and causes and people. Are you aware of that? It could be more political than anything else. Unemployment is high and so is the intolerance of religion.  Poverty is high and the number of Catholics who attend Mass is low. Do you see any connection?  So many are not afraid to offend God anymore.  They don’t believe their sin matters or their lack of Church attendance because it is forgiven they presume or they can worship however THEY decide.  At several apparitions the Blessed Mother has spoken about how God is offended and the Cup is full and overflowing.  It is enough.  Yes I vote and write letters to senators and government representatives and I make choices based on peoples’ and animals’ welfare and I know as a Catholic that if the person I vote for or write to does not love God and us being a “nation under God” they will not have a full understanding of creation and our role and will not make the same decisions. Christ lived among terrible injustice and He taught people the Truth and that changed EVERYTHING for them even amid the injustice of the world.  They saw with new eyes and so should we.  The other kind of justice is about intimidation and bullying and power and control and it isn’t what Christ meant at all.  You bring no one to Christ making them accept abortion or homosexuality or taking their wealth.  And our Church doesn’t advocate that.  You bring people to Christ when you witness to His love and Truth like Mother Theresa’s great example to our generation.  She did what she did as long as she did and as well as she did only because she let Christ work through her and whatever she did, “She did it to Him.” Which is what she distinguished about her work as different from social work. She did it totally on Faith because for many years she received no spiritual consolation. Doing what SHE thought was right would have been thinking like men think.  She was always aware that God has a plan and SHE was just an instrument and His creature so she talked to God and had holy hours every day. Catholics have so much more to offer the world than politics.  No, I am not saying that living our faith (which is always about trying to discern God’s will and do the right thing) will lead to totalitarianism, but the other kind of “justice” can and has.  Communism, fascism, dictatorships and some forms of socialism are all examples. From a world view, Milton Freedman did a program in the 1980’s comparing poverty under socialism and poverty under governments that allowed free enterprise with minimal restrictions.  Socialism had more poverty. People wanted free benefits and their work ethic suffered.  He found that people had to make a choice: You can all start out equal and some will succeed   and some will fail(what he called freedom)  or you can start out unequal and make   things economically equal (what he called equality). So you can let life take its course and some will risk and fail and will need charitable people and organizations around them or you can force equality and lose freedom.  I think Christ would choose the first because what may seem like failure in human eyes might be a stepping stone to God and because He set us free.

So you are not sure that I am really a Catholic, and a Christian, because I happen to have read some of the Pope’s teaching and took it seriously? I would suggest that you read JPII’s Centesimo Anno, or even go back to Leo XIII and his Encyclical letter Rerum Novarum. As soon as I am back from Mass, I will write more…

You accuse yourself Marthe. I made no accusations. Leo XIII was the Pope who had the vision where God gave Satan one hundred years.  Satan said we would have no faith if he was given one hundred years.  God gave him the twentieth century.  Now doesn’t that explain alot?