The just wage is not, in the social doctrine of the Church, a mere market price that supply and demand would freely set. It is a requirement of justice: wages are the way by which the immense majority of men gain access to the goods necessary for life, and paying them fairly is the first duty of whoever employs. The Catechism states it bluntly: "A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice"[1].
This requirement is one of the oldest in revelation. Long before the social encyclicals, the Law of Moses already commanded paying the worker on the very day, before sunset; the prophets threatened those who withhold wages; and the Gospel takes it as obvious that "the labourer deserves his wages"[2]. In 1891, the Church merely drew from this tradition a consequence that the industrial nineteenth century had forgotten: a work contract can be perfectly legal and yet unjust, because there is a "higher and older law of natural justice" than the free agreement of the parties[3].
The just wage is therefore not an isolated principle: it is the application to work of broader principles — the dignity of the person, the universal destination of goods, the common good and solidarity. The worker is not a commodity; his wage must enable him and his family to live decently, to save, and even one day to gain access to property.
This article treats the just wage as a requirement of social doctrine: its biblical foundation, its root in the just price of Saint Thomas, the breakthrough of Rerum novarum, the doctrine of the family wage of Pius XI, its development up to the Catechism, its criteria of measurement, its counterfeits and its contemporary questions. Related subjects — work in general, trade unions, private property, capitalism and economic liberalism — are referred to their own articles.
What is a "just" wage?
Wages, the "price" of work — but a price like no other
In its primary sense, wages are the price of work: what one who hires out his activity to another receives, in exchange for the service rendered. As such, wages fall first under commutative justice, which governs exchanges between two parties and demands an equality between what is given and what is received[4]. If the price paid is far below the real value of what is provided, equality is broken, and the exchange becomes unjust.
But work is not a commodity like any other. When a man sells his work, he does not alienate an external object: he commits his strength, his time, his life — that is, a part of himself. Wages do not merely buy a service; they condition the very subsistence of a person and of those who depend on him. That is why the Church refuses to treat wages as a mere fluctuating rate: behind the "price" stands a person whose life is at stake.
Why speak of a "just" wage?
To say that a wage is just — and not merely legal, agreed or in line with the market — is to affirm that there is a standard of justice prior to the contract. A wage may have been freely accepted, written into a valid contract, in keeping with the customs of the sector, and yet remain unjust if it does not allow the worker to live. This is the central thesis of social doctrine, formulated by Leo XIII and taken up word for word by the Compendium:
"The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a 'just wage', because a just wage 'must not be below the level of subsistence': natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract." — Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 302[5]
The place of the just wage in social doctrine
The just wage stands at the meeting point of several principles. It flows from the dignity of the person, which forbids treating the worker as a mere instrument of profit. It is the concrete means by which the universal destination of goods is realised: John Paul II recalls that it is "the way by which the vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use"[6]. It is ordered to the common good, for a society that systematically underpays its workers undermines its own cohesion. And it calls for solidarity and the collective defence of workers.
The cry of the Bible: do not withhold the worker's wages
The requirement of the just wage was not born with industrialisation: it runs through all of Scripture, from the Law to the Apostles. The Catechism itself draws directly on these texts to ground its teaching[7].
The Law: pay on the very day
The first biblical commandment on wages is a requirement of promptness that is already a requirement of justice. The poor hired hand lives from day to day; to hold back his pay is to starve him.
"You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun sets (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be sin in you." — Deuteronomy 24:14-15[8]
Leviticus states the same law concisely: "The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning"[9]. Already present here is the idea that James will take up: wages unjustly withheld cry out to God.
The sages and the prophets: "to deprive an employee of his wages is to shed blood"
The wisdom tradition hardens the tone further. The book of Tobit makes it a rule of filial piety: "Give to every one who labours for you his wages, and pay him at once"[10]. Sirach goes so far as to liken the withholding of wages to murder:
"To take away a neighbour's living is to murder him; to deprive an employee of his wages is to shed blood." — Sirach 34:26-27[11]
The prophets place wage injustice among the faults that God judges in person. Jeremiah curses the builder-king who exploits: "Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness ... who makes his neighbour serve him for nothing, and does not give him his wages"[12]. And Malachi announces judgment: "I will be a swift witness against ... those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the orphan"[13] — the despoiled worker appears there alongside the weakest whom God protects.
"The labourer deserves his wages": the Gospel and the Apostles
Christ takes up this obvious truth and makes it a principle: as they proclaim the Gospel, the disciples may receive their subsistence, "for the labourer deserves his wages"[14]. Saint Paul quotes the same maxim, linking it to Scripture[15]. Far from despising wages, the Gospel presumes them just and due: work calls for its remuneration.
Wages kept back by fraud that "cry to heaven"
The culmination of this tradition is Saint James's denunciation, one of the most violent texts of the New Testament against unjust riches:
"Your riches have rotted ... Behold, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts." — Epistle of Saint James 5:2-4[16]
It is on the basis of this text, joined to Deuteronomy, that the Catechism places injustice to the wage earner among the four "sins that cry to heaven", alongside the blood of Abel, the sin of Sodom and the oppression of the stranger, the widow and the orphan[17]. Defrauding wages is therefore not a mere economic fault: it is a sin of particular gravity, whose "cry" rises all the way to God.
The parable of the workers of the eleventh hour: justice and gratuity
The parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-16) is sometimes raised as an objection: the master gives the same denarius to those who worked only one hour and to those who bore "the burden of the day and the scorching heat". Yet the master answers in terms of justice: "Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?"[18]. The parable does not relativise the just wage: those who had agreed on a denarius — which was precisely the living wage of a day — receive it in full. What it adds belongs to the order of God's overabundant gratuity toward the latecomers: "Do you begrudge my generosity?". Justice is respected; grace surpasses it. The just wage remains the floor; generosity may be added to it, never substituted for it.
Saint Thomas Aquinas: the just price and commutative justice
Selling above value is "in itself unjust"
Before the social encyclicals, it was scholastic theology that forged the concepts. For Saint Thomas Aquinas, every exchange falls under commutative justice, which requires an equality between the performances. To sell a thing for more than it is worth — or to buy it for less than its value — breaks this equality:
"If the price exceeds the value of the goods, or conversely the goods exceed the price in value, the equality of justice is destroyed. And therefore to sell a thing for more than it is worth, or to buy it for less than it is worth, is in itself unjust and unlawful." — Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 77, a. 1[19]
Applied to work, this principle means that underpaying another's labour — taking advantage of his need to obtain his strength at a vile price — is an injustice of the same order as commercial fraud. The Catechism confirms this by placing "paying unjust wages" among the violations of the seventh commandment, on the same level as theft[20].
Consent does not create justice
The cutting edge of Thomist doctrine is that the agreement of the parties is not enough to make an exchange just. Thomas notes that a contract may harm someone "although he consents to it"[21]. The justice of the exchange depends not only on the yes of the contracting parties, but on an objective measure: the real value of things and, in the case of work, the vital needs of the person. This is exactly what Leo XIII will take up in distinguishing the legal contract from natural justice.
Leo XIII and the breakthrough of Rerum novarum (1891)
The biblical and Thomist teaching on wages finds its decisive formulation in the first great social encyclical, Rerum novarum of Leo XIII (15 May 1891). Faced with the working misery of the industrial revolution, the Pope breaks the liberal axiom that a freely accepted wage is always just. (For the encyclical itself and its context, see Rerum novarum and social doctrine.)
Work: personal AND necessary
Leo XIII starts from a distinction that governs all the rest. Work has a twofold character: it is personal, for the strength deployed in it belongs to the worker himself; it is necessary, for man must work in order to live — "self-preservation is a duty imposed on all". If only the personal character were considered, one might think the worker can consent to any wage, however derisory. But the necessary character introduces a limit: wages must at least make it possible to live.
"A higher and older law of natural justice"
Hence the formula that grounds the whole doctrine of the just wage:
"Above the free will of employer and employed, there is a higher and older law of natural justice, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner." — Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891[22]
This sentence has immense scope: it means that a contract can be legal and yet unjust. The market may impose starvation wages; they do not become just for that reason. The justice of wages is not measured by the balance of power, but by the capacity of wages to let the worker live decently.
When the worker "is made the victim of force"
Leo XIII anticipates the objection: "but the worker agreed!". He answers that this consent, extorted by necessity, has nothing free about it:
"If, driven by necessity or fear of a greater evil, the workman accepts harder conditions because the employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice." — Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891[23]
An agreement obtained by economic constraint does not erase injustice: it masks it. That is why the Church will demand, alongside the just wage, the workers' right of association, which rebalances the power relationship and makes consent more truly free.
From wages to property: workers' saving and patrimony
Leo XIII finally draws a positive consequence: sufficient wages must enable the worker not only to survive, but to save and to gain a modest patrimony. The worker paid enough to provide for his needs and those of his family will, if thrifty, "put aside some little surplus" enabling him "one day to attain the acquisition of a modest patrimony"[24]. The just wage is thus the gateway to private property, which Leo XIII wants spread as widely as possible — not concentrated in a few hands.
Pius XI and the family wage (Quadragesimo anno, 1931)
Forty years later, Pius XI deepened the doctrine in Quadragesimo anno (15 May 1931). His major contribution is the notion of the family wage and the enumeration of the criteria by which the just wage can be concretely fixed.
The wage contract is not unjust in itself
Pius XI begins by setting aside an error — no longer that of the liberals, but that of the socialists who wanted to abolish wage-earning as intrinsically unjust:
"First of all, We note the grave error of those who declare the wage contract essentially unjust and maintain that it must be replaced by a contract of partnership ... in so saying, they grievously wrong Our Predecessor, for the encyclical Rerum novarum not only admits the lawfulness of wage-earning, but dwells at length on regulating it according to the norms of justice." — Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931[25]
Wage-earning is lawful; what is needed is not to abolish it but to temper it. Pius XI suggests associating with it, as far as possible, elements of the "contract of partnership" — sharing in profits, in ownership or in management — so that the worker is not a mere executor but a partner[26]. This intuition would later nourish debates on employee shareholding and participation.
The family wage
The decisive novelty is that wages must sustain not only the isolated worker, but his family. This is the concept of the family wage:
"The wage paid to the workingman must be sufficient for the support of himself and of his family." — Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931[27]
This requirement has a strong anthropological scope: it assumes that the work of one person can, as far as possible, support a household, and that the mother is not constrained by economic necessity to abandon the care of children. John Paul II will take up and develop this point fifty years later.
The three measures of the just wage
Pius XI above all provides the concrete grid that was missing: to fix a just wage, three factors must be considered together, without absolutising any of them.
| Measure | What it requires | Risk if forgotten |
|---|---|---|
| The needs of the worker and his family | Wages must suffice for a dignified life of the household, not of the individual alone | Starvation wages; families unable to live from work |
| The situation of the firm | Wages cannot be demanded that would ruin the firm and destroy employment | Bankruptcies, dismissals; injustice toward other workers |
| The requirements of the common good | The wage level must favour the employment of the greatest number | Mass unemployment; imbalance of the whole economy |
On this last point, Pius XI warns that imbalance works both ways:
"No one is ignorant of the fact that a level of wages either too low or excessively high likewise produces unemployment." — Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931[28]
The doctrine of the just wage is therefore not a mere demand for the highest possible wage: it is a search for balance between the subsistence of families, the survival of firms and employment for all. This is what distinguishes it from a pure union slogan as much as from a pure employers' calculation.
The development of the principle: from Pius XI to today
The principle formulated by Leo XIII and specified by Pius XI was taken up and enriched by all the twentieth-century popes.
Gaudium et Spes: a dignified life on every level
The Second Vatican Council, in the constitution Gaudium et Spes (1965), gives the fullest measure of the just wage. Remuneration must not only make survival possible, but a fully human life:
"Remuneration for work should guarantee [...] the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for themselves and their families on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." — Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, no. 67[29]
Pius XI's three measures reappear (role/productivity, the firm, the common good), but the end is widened: wages must open access to culture, to social life and to spiritual life, not only to bread. The Catechism and the Compendium will take up this formula word for word.
John Paul II: wages, the "key verification" of the whole system
With Laborem exercens (1981), John Paul II gives the just wage a function of universal criterion. Because wages are, for most men, the only way of access to goods, the way a society remunerates work reveals whether it is just or not:
"Hence in every case a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and, in a sense, the key means." — Saint John Paul II, Laborem exercens, no. 19[30]
The Pope also develops the family wage, opening it to two modalities: either a single wage paid to the head of the family, sufficient to support his own and "without the wife being compelled to take up work outside the home"; or "family allowances" or "grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families" proportionate to the number of dependents[31]. Far from confining women, he calls for the social re-evaluation of maternal work and freedom for the mother to devote herself to her children without being "penalised"[32].
The synthesis: Catechism and Compendium
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) condenses this whole tradition in paragraph 2434, integrating the formula of Gaudium et Spes and the thesis of Leo XIII:
"A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. [...] Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages." — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2434[33]
The Compendium of Social Doctrine (2004) adds an essential distinction: the just wage falls not only under commutative justice (the equivalence of price and work), but also under social justice, which takes into account "the human dignity of the subjects" and calls for "social policies for the redistribution of income" bearing in mind each person's merits and needs[34]. The just wage thus belongs to a broader vision of economic equity.
| Document | Year | Own contribution to the just wage |
|---|---|---|
| Rerum novarum (Leo XIII) | 1891 | Natural justice prior to the contract; wages must not be insufficient |
| Quadragesimo anno (Pius XI) | 1931 | Family wage; the three measures (family, firm, common good) |
| Mater et Magistra (John XXIII) | 1961 | Wages proportionate to needs AND to contribution, within the common good[35] |
| Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II) | 1965 | Dignified life "on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level" |
| Laborem exercens (John Paul II) | 1981 | Wages, the "key verification" of the system's justice; family wage developed |
| Centesimus annus (John Paul II) | 1991 | The labour market framed by the right to sufficient wages[36] |
| Catechism | 1992 | Synthesis: legitimate fruit of work; agreement is not enough |
| Compendium | 2004 | Commutative AND social justice; redistribution of income |
How to measure a just wage concretely?
The Church's doctrine fixes no figure: it does not say how much a worker must earn, for that depends on times, places and economies. It gives criteria to hold together. A just wage results from the balance of several requirements, none of which may crush the others.
| Criterion | Concrete question | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Needs of the person and the family | Does the wage allow the worker and his own to live decently? | RN; QA; GS 67 |
| Contribution, role, productivity | Does the wage reflect the worker's real contribution? | GS 67; CCC 2434 |
| Situation of the firm | Is the wage sustainable without destroying the firm and employment? | QA; GS 67 |
| Common good and employment | Does the wage level favour employment for the greatest number? | QA; GS 67 |
| Social justice and redistribution | Does the overall distribution of income respect everyone's dignity? | Compendium 303 |
Commutative justice watches over the equivalence between work done and remuneration; social and distributive justice watches that the system as a whole enables everyone to live. Both are necessary: one may neither pay for work below its value, nor be content with a "market price" indifferent to the dignity of persons.
The counterfeits of the just wage
"The just price is the market price" (liberalism)
The first counterfeit is that of pure economic liberalism: the just wage would simply be the price at which the supply and demand for work balance. This is precisely the thesis Leo XIII shattered. The market can impose starvation wages; the fact that they are "accepted" does not make them just, for consent extorted by necessity means the worker "is made the victim of force and injustice"[37]. The Church does not deny the usefulness of the market, but refuses to make it the ultimate measure of justice.
"The State must fix everything" (collectivism)
The reverse counterfeit is that of socialism and communism: entrusting the State with authoritatively fixing all wages, or even abolishing wage-earning. Pius XI recalled that the wage contract is not unjust in itself[38], and subsidiarity opposes the State absorbing what can be settled closest to the ground — by negotiation, intermediary bodies, trade unions. The State has a role (minimum wage, protection), but it is not the only actor.
"Wages are a matter of charity"
A third error, more subtle, consists in presenting good wages as an act of generosity by the employer, rather than a debt in justice. The whole biblical and magisterial tradition opposes this: wages are "the legitimate fruit of work"[39]; withheld, they become theft (CCC 2409) and a sin that cries to heaven (CCC 1867). Charity may add to wages; it can never take their place. One does not give as alms what one owes in justice.
Contemporary questions
The principle of the just wage, formulated for the industrial era, keeps all its force in today's economy.
Legal minimum wage and the "living wage"
Most States fix a legal minimum wage, which translates Leo XIII's intuition into positive law: there is a floor below which a wage is no longer just. The debate on the "living wage" — distinct from the legal minimum when the latter no longer suffices to live on — directly prolongs the doctrine of the family wage: a wage that does not assure a dignified life, however legal, remains insufficient in the eyes of natural justice.
Precariousness and the "working poor"
The phenomenon of the "working poor" — people who work yet cannot live from their wages — is the exact return of the labour question of 1891. Forced part-time work, repeated short contracts, unstable jobs: these situations contradict the requirement of wages that make it possible to found and support a family[40] and to "ensure its future".
Platforms, "uberisation" and piecework
The digital platform economy brings back forms of piece-rate remuneration that often circumvent wage protection. Leo XIII's question arises identically: the legal qualification ("self-employed" rather than "employee") changes nothing of the moral requirement. If a person draws most of his subsistence from a principal, the justice of wages concerns him, whatever the contract is called.
Global value chains
Globalisation has shifted part of production to countries where wages are very low. The doctrine of the just wage holds beyond borders: deliberately profiting from distant misery to produce cheaply does not become just because it is legal there. Solidarity and the universal destination of goods forbid reserving the just wage for nearby workers alone.
Pay gaps
The growing gap between the lowest wages and executives' remuneration raises a question of social justice, not only commutative justice. The Compendium recalls that an "equitable distribution of income" is required, "on the basis of criteria relating not only to commutative justice but also to social justice"[41]. The measure of the just wage does not stop at the bottom of the scale: it questions the whole distribution.
Wages, strikes and trade unions
The just wage calls for means to obtain and defend it. The Church recognises the workers' right of association and, within certain limits, the right to strike. The Catechism states that "a strike is morally legitimate when it presents itself as an unavoidable, indeed necessary, recourse with a view to a proportionate benefit", but that it becomes unacceptable if accompanied by violence or assigned objectives contrary to the common good[42]. These collective means are treated in the article Trade unions and social doctrine.
Beyond justice: work, wages and sanctification
The just wage is first a matter of justice — a debt, not a favour. But the Christian perspective does not stop at justice: it fulfils it in charity. Paying one's workers justly is the first of works; but the Christian is invited to go further, to see in the worker not a cost but a brother, an image of God.
For the one who receives wages, the Gospel also reverses the gaze. Christ recalls that "the labourer deserves his wages"[43], but he teaches at the same time not to make money a master (Mt 6:24) and to work as for the Lord. The just wage is due, and one has the right to claim it; but the Christian's heart is not locked within it. He knows that all human justice is borne by a greater gratuity — that of the master of the vineyard who gives the last as much as the first, and that of God who "gives to all men generously" (Jas 1:5).
Thus the just wage, a rigorous requirement of justice, opens upward onto solidarity and charity: not to dispense from justice — "one does not give as alms what one owes" — but to crown it. It is in this light that social doctrine holds together the firmness of the requirement and the gentleness of fraternity.
For further reading
- What does the Church say about work? — the general framework in which the just wage takes its place, with the worker's other rights.
- Rerum novarum and social doctrine — the founding encyclical of 1891 and its context.
- Trade unions and social doctrine — the collective means of defending the just wage.
- The universal destination of goods — the principle of which wages are the application: it is through wages that one gains access to the goods destined for all.
- Private property according to the Church — the patrimony to which the just wage must open access.
- The common good and solidarity — the principles that frame and fulfil the wage requirement.
- The dignity of the human person — the foundation of everything: the worker is never a mere instrument of profit.
- Economic liberalism, capitalism and socialism — the systems that the doctrine of the just wage judges and surpasses.
Notes and references
Notes and References
Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2434: "A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice (cf. Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14-15; Jas 5:4). In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. [...] Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages."
1 7 33 39Gospel according to Saint Luke 10:7, English rendering (RSV-CE): "Remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide; for the labourer deserves his wages."
2 14 43Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, 15 May 1891 (official text on vatican.va), on wages: "Above the free will of employer and employed, there is a higher and older law of natural justice, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner." The same formula is quoted by the Compendium of Social Doctrine, no. 302 (note 662).
3 22Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae, q. 77, a. 1 (on fraud in buying and selling): "if the price exceeds the value of the goods, or conversely the goods exceed the price in value, the equality of justice is destroyed. And therefore to sell a thing for more than it is worth, or to buy it for less than it is worth, is in itself unjust and unlawful". On the right of property and common use, cf. also IIa-IIae, q. 66, a. 2 and a. 7.
4 19Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 302: "Remuneration is the most important means for achieving justice in work relationships. [...] The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a 'just wage', because a just wage 'must not be below the level of subsistence': natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract."
5Saint John Paul II, Laborem exercens, 14 September 1981, no. 19: wages "remain the way by which the vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use, whether they are the goods of nature or those manufactured." The Pope thus links wages to the "first principle of the whole ethical and social order", the common use of goods.
6Deuteronomy 24:14-15, English rendering (RSV-CE).
8Leviticus 19:13, English rendering (RSV-CE): "You shall not oppress your neighbour or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning."
9Tobit 4:14, English rendering (RSV-CE): "Give to every one who labours for you his wages, and pay him at once; do not keep any one's wages overnight."
10Sirach (Ben Sira the Sage) 34:26-27, English rendering (RSV-CE): "To take away a neighbour's living is to murder him; to deprive an employee of his wages is to shed blood."
11Jeremiah 22:13, English rendering (RSV-CE): "Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, who makes his neighbour serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages."
12Malachi 3:5, English rendering (RSV-CE): God will bear witness "against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me".
13First Letter to Timothy 5:18, English rendering (RSV-CE): "For the scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,' and, 'The labourer deserves his wages'" (quoting Dt 25:4 and Lk 10:7).
15Epistle of Saint James 5:2-4, English rendering (RSV-CE): "Behold, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts."
16Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1867: the catechetical tradition places among the "sins that cry to heaven" the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, and "injustice to the wage earner (cf. Deut 24:14-15; Jas 5:4)".
17Gospel according to Saint Matthew 20:1-16, English rendering (RSV-CE), parable of the workers of the eleventh hour; v. 13: "Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?"; v. 15: "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?" The denarius was the ordinary wage of a day's work.
18Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2409: "paying unjust wages (cf. Deut 24:14-15; Jas 5:4)" figures among the ways of "unjustly taking and keeping the property of others", contrary to the seventh commandment.
20Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae, q. 77, a. 1, reply: an exchange may harm a party "although he consents to it" — consent is therefore not enough to establish the justice of the exchange; the objective equality of the performances is required.
21Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891: "If, driven by necessity or fear of a greater evil, the workman accepts harder conditions because the employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice."
23 37Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891: the worker who receives wages sufficient "to meet his needs and those of his family with ease" will be inclined, if thrifty, to "put aside some little surplus" enabling him "one day to attain the acquisition of a modest patrimony". The encyclical thus seeks to spread property widely, not to concentrate it.
24Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931, no. 64: "First of all, We note the grave error of those who declare the wage contract essentially unjust and maintain that it must be replaced by a contract of partnership; in so saying, they grievously wrong Our Predecessor, for the encyclical Rerum novarum not only admits the lawfulness of wage-earning, but dwells at length on regulating it according to the norms of justice."
25 38Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931, no. 65: "We deem it more advisable, however, that the wage contract should, when possible, be modified somewhat by a contract of partnership, as is done in various ways to the no small gain of both wage-earners and employers."
26Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931, no. 71, on the family wage: "the wage paid to the workingman must be sufficient for the support of himself and of his family". The same paragraph deems it intolerable that the father's meagre wage should compel the mother to work outside the home to the detriment of the children's upbringing.
27Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931: "No one is ignorant of the fact that a level of wages either too low or excessively high likewise produces unemployment." The just wage must take into account the worker's needs, the state of the firm and the requirements of the common good (employment).
28Second Vatican Council, pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes, 7 December 1965, no. 67, § 2 (quoted in CCC § 2434): "Remuneration for work should guarantee [...] the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for themselves and their families on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."
29Saint John Paul II, Laborem exercens, 14 September 1981, no. 19: "Hence in every case a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and, in a sense, the key means."
30Saint John Paul II, Laborem exercens, 1981, no. 19: just remuneration of the adult worker with family responsibilities "will be enough for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future". It can be achieved "either through what is called a family wage — that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home — or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families".
31 40Saint John Paul II, Laborem exercens, 1981, no. 19: there must be "a social re-evaluation of the mother's role"; "it will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother — without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as compared with other women — to devote herself to taking care of her children".
32Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2004, no. 303: "An equitable distribution of income is to be sought on the basis of criteria relating not only to commutative justice but also to social justice, that is, considering — beyond the objective value of the work rendered — the human dignity of the subjects who perform it."
34 41Saint John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, 15 May 1961, nos. 68-72 (section "Remuneration for work — Standards of justice and equity"): "remuneration for work cannot be left entirely to the laws of the market nor fixed arbitrarily: it is determined in justice and equity", taking into account the worker's effective contribution, the economic situation of firms, the requirements of the common good and the available wealth, which vary with countries and times.
35Saint John Paul II, Centesimus annus, 1 May 1991: in no. 8, the Pope states the "right to a just wage", which "cannot be left to the 'free consent of the parties'"; in no. 15, he asks society and the State to "ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance of the worker and his family", with a decisive role for trade unions; in no. 34, he takes up the warning of Rerum novarum against "reducing the work of men and men themselves to the level of a mere commodity".
36Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2435: "Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good."
42