I always recoil when I read these words of Jesus: Did he really approve of corporal punishment of servants? Why did he not reject this cruel and degrading treatment of fellow human beings? Instead, he seems to be legitimising the practice by mentioning it uncritically in his parable. If he is the prophetic Son of God, surely he should have denounced slavery, bondage, and lifelong servitude as
contrary to the human rights and dignity of the servants.
Further, such language is frighteningly close to what was happening until a few years ago in South Africa. Our system of racist “influx control’ and pass books meant that gardeners and housekeepers working in the suburbs were virtually trapped in the homes where they were employed. It was almost as bad as contemporary cases of human trafficking, where people arrive in a
foreign country. Their passports are confiscated by their employers, and they are frequently subject to physical and emotional abuse. True, they might be able to send some wages back to their families of origin, who depend on these remittances, but this comes at an enormous cost to their dignity.
Isn’t it a cop-out to say that the incarnation means that Jesus was a man of his day, and only had the ideas and language of his time
at his disposal? For example, he didn’t have the insights of Catholic Social Teaching (CST) or the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? These are products of the 18th and 19th centuries, and didn’t exist in Jesus’ day. CST has developed from centuries of Christian reflection on Jesus’ teaching. While Jesus pointed the way, Christians taking his lessons
seriously have formulated the idea that it is contrary to God’s will for anyone in authority to humiliate or abuse their employees. For example, in 1981, Pope John Paul II wrote Laborem Exercens on human work and the dignity of workers.
How do I treat employees? How completely do I give myself to my job and responsibilities?
Reflections by Peter Knox SJ
