An issue with "Gaudete et Exsultate"

[adgloriam]

1. True justice comes about in people’s lives when they themselves are just in their decisions; it is expressed in their pursuit of justice for the poor and the weak. While it is true that the word “justice” can be a synonym for faithfulness to God’s will in every aspect of our life, if we give the word too general a meaning, we forget that it is shown especially in justice towards those who are most vulnerable: “Seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” ( Is 1:17).

I have an issue with nº79.

What about when you’re the one who’s “poor and weak and vulnerable and suffering injustice”?? Is there any point in remitting to further soul-searching and self-blaming when the person is brutally injusticed??

I think the first step towards justice is granting that person the reason he/she/cis/het is due.

I think “Gaudete et Exsultate” was a beautiful exhortation. But I think these extreme parabols don’t help someone who’s objectively in need of help.

[FWIW, I just finished my 3rd read through since the date of publication. The 1st and 2nd were extremely painful on a personal level and I had to constantly defend myself and my integrity. If I didn’t have some critical sense I’d have gone down the “self-blaming”, “gas-lighting” and “stonewalling” society (and some members of the church) was pushing on me.]

 

[po18guy]

Poor? Vulnerable? Those can be relative terms. There is always someone poorer and more vulnerable.

I dislike the word “justice” as it has been co-opted by the progressive left.

Charity, the greatest of the theological virtues, covers every traditional concern relating to justice.

 

[adgloriam]

Charity , the greatest of the theological virtues, covers every traditional concern relating to justice.

If it did, you wouldn’t have a “law degree” but a “charity degree”. And you wouldn’t have “canon law” but “charity law”.

I dislike the word “justice”

I appreciate it. That way you can speak of “injustice” (through derivational morphology).

as it has been co-opted by the progressive left.

any distortion promoted by politicians doesn’t especially concern me.

Poor? Vulnerable? Those can be relative terms

How about “bonna fide”? Or “veritas”. Or “fringes” (as this pope reminds us).

There is always someone poorer and more vulnerable.

Which does not change the objective conditions any given social agent is bound to find himself in. Instead of going relative you’re supposed to go objective. (Otherwise you incur in being dismissive and downplaying what should be taken into consideration.)

 

[po18guy]

To each their own. Charity still governs all.