Applying Pope Leo XIII's RERUM NOVARUM to Matthew 20:1-16-Any ‘Just’ Rationalization?
In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus tells the story of a house master who hired two sets of laborers for his vineyard. The first set started work in the morning and the second set started much later in the day. When it became time to pay the laborers their wages, the second set was paid the exact same amount as the first set. The first set then wondered how it is that the second set, who worked much less hours was paid the same as the first set who worked and sweated all day. The house master, in Verses 13-15 responds, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?”
In Pope Leo XIII’s RERUM NOVARUM, he agrees that a person is the rightful owner of property to the extent the property is rightfully is; he’s not entitled to any more or any less than what’s rightfully his. And particularly in regard to what a worker has earned for his labor, the worker is entitled to the wages, transferred to him as property in return for his labor, has rightful ownership now of that property. As Pope Leo XIII puts it in No. 5, “It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own.” This infers a transfer of property to the laborer from the owner of the property that the laborer is working for. The laborer is in the same position as the house master in terms of how much of the property he is entitled to: he’s entitled to no more nor no less than what he is owed.
What is the rationalization behind the master’s paying the two separate pay scales to the two sets of workers? Well, one might say that the vineyard is his property and he can pay whatever he wants to pay for the labor to work it. On the other hand, if there is an agreement in place, it is implied that both the first and second set of workers have agreed, without under duress, to the value to be given them in exchange for their labor.
At first glance, this may go against the ‘equal weights and measures’ issue of Proverbs 20:10 and it flies in the face of Verses 13-15 of Matthew 20 above. Is the housemaster allowed to pay one set of workers differently from the other set for the work done? Pope Leo XIII implies that a person’s property is not to be tampered with. Seems that in paying the second of workers more for the work done, is not the house master short-changing the first set of workers with respect to the money, ergo the property that was given to them in exchange?
In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus tells the story of a house master who hired two sets of laborers for his vineyard. The first set started work in the morning and the second set started much later in the day. When it became time to pay the laborers their wages, the second set was paid the exact same amount as the first set. The first set then wondered how it is that the second set, who worked much less hours was paid the same as the first set who worked and sweated all day. The house master, in Verses 13-15 responds, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?”
In Pope Leo XIII’s RERUM NOVARUM, he agrees that a person is the rightful owner of property to the extent the property is rightfully is; he’s not entitled to any more or any less than what’s rightfully his. And particularly in regard to what a worker has earned for his labor, the worker is entitled to the wages, transferred to him as property in return for his labor, has rightful ownership now of that property. As Pope Leo XIII puts it in No. 5, “It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own.” This infers a transfer of property to the laborer from the owner of the property that the laborer is working for. The laborer is in the same position as the house master in terms of how much of the property he is entitled to: he’s entitled to no more nor no less than what he is owed.
What is the rationalization behind the master’s paying the two separate pay scales to the two sets of workers? Well, one might say that the vineyard is his property and he can pay whatever he wants to pay for the labor to work it. On the other hand, if there is an agreement in place, it is implied that both the first and second set of workers have agreed, without under duress, to the value to be given them in exchange for their labor.
At first glance, this may go against the ‘equal weights and measures’ issue of Proverbs 20:10 and it flies in the face of Verses 13-15 of Matthew 20 above. Is the housemaster allowed to pay one set of workers differently from the other set for the work done? Pope Leo XIII implies that a person’s property is not to be tampered with. Seems that in paying the second of workers more for the work done, is not the house master short-changing the first set of workers with respect to the money, ergo the property that was given to them in exchange?
