Minimum Wage, Prudential Judgment, and Proper Role of Bishops

Steve raises an interesting point in his post on CST, Economics, and the Minimum Wage. Assuming that the bishops are engaged in an exercise of prudential judgment (as opposed to magisterial teaching) in their call for raising the minimum wage (or any other piece of legislation), their statement raises some troubling issues.

First, isn’t there a danger that taking this position, at least without an explicit disclaimer that this is a matter of prudential judgment on which Catholics can in good conscience disagree, will tend to confuse the faithful who will have trouble distinguishing between magisterial teaching and exercises in prudential judgment?

Second, by making such prudential judgment, do the bishops usurp (or at least marginalize) the proper role of the laity? Paragraph 43 of Gaudium et Spes says that “[s]ecular duties and activities belong properly although not exclusively to laymen. Therefore acting as citizens in the world, whether individually or socially, they will keep the laws proper to each discipline, and labor to equip themselves with a genuine expertise in their various fields. …[E]nlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role.”

Third, by making such prudential judgment, do the bishops stifle or chill debate among the faithful, too closely associating their prudential judgment with the Gospel? Paragraph 43 continues: “Often enough the Christian view of things will itself suggest some specific solution in certain circumstances. Yet it happens rather frequently, and legitimately so, that with equal sincerity some of the faithful will disagree with others on a given matter. Even against the intentions of their proponents, however, solutions proposed on one side or another may be easily confused by many people with the Gospel message. Hence it is necessary for people to remember that no one is allowed in the aforementioned situations to appropriate the Church's authority for his opinion. They should always try to enlighten one another through honest discussion, preserving mutual charity and caring above all for the common good.”

And, Fourth, is their a danger that the bishops, by becoming too entangled in politics at a micro-level on an issue of prudential judgment, will undermine (squander) their own God-given authority to authentically teach on questions of faith and morals? We urgently need our bishops to teach that “the dignity and entire vocation of the human person as well as the welfare of society as a whole have to be respected and fostered; for man is the source, the focus and the end of all economic and social life.” (Paragraph 63) Does this message get drowned out when the bishops take one side in a debate that is open to multiple Catholic Christian perspectives?

Finally, if the call for raising the minimum wage is not an exercise of prudential judgment but a matter of magisterial teaching, the bishops ought to make that abundantly clear.

As an aside, I want to plead ignorance and make clear that I am not informed enough to intelligently take a side in the minimum wage debate.

Michael