Can you think of a phrase that combines "Pro-Life" with "Social Teaching"?

[Bartolome_Casas]

The Church uses the terms “Social Doctrine” and “Social Teaching” to refer to its official doctrines in favor of the Minimum Wage, Labor Unions, etc., and uses “Pro-Life” to refer to its doctrines concerning abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Both of these bodies of doctrine are related to laws, government, public p0licy, voting, and politics.

So, is there any term or phrase to combine them?

Maybe something like “Pro-Life Social”? “Social Pro-Life”?

 

[Orangebookbag]

I’m happy with either phrase, and would like to add that it drives me up a wall how few Catholics seem to recognize that neither of these Church teachings are take-it-or-leave-it issues

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The Social Doctrine is already Pro-life. All that is related to beginning of life issues is within the Social Doctrine. No need for a new phrase.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The Social Doctrine is already Pro-life. All that is related to beginning of life issues is within the Social Doctrine. No need for a new phrase.

Thank you for your response.

I respect your view that no need phrase or slogan is needed.

Here’s why I think a new one is needed.

Our fellow forum member Orangebookbag said it when he/she wrote in this thread:

** “…it drives me up a wall how few Catholics seem to recognize that neither of these Church teachings are take-it-or-leave-it issues.”**

In other woulds, many Pro-Life Catholics seem to ignore, reject, or know little or nothing about the Church’s Social Teachings.

And, similarly, many Pro-Social Justice Catholics seem to ignore, reject, or know little or nothing about the Church’s Pro-Life Teachings.

Yet, both of these teachings are taught repeatedly and with great urgency and seriousness by the Pope and the Catholic bishops.

And both have in common that they are deal with the moral realm, the political realm, the material realm, the social realm. Neither of them are purely spiritual or supernatural the way other things sure, such as the doctrine on Purgatory or the doctrines pertaining to the Holy Mass, apostolic succession, sacraments, the Holy Trinity, etc.

The Catholic Church does NOT want to the government to FORCE religious doctrinal belief on anyone.

Yet, the Catholic Church (or its lay members anyway) DOES want to use use government FORCE to protect the rights of the preborn, the rights of property, the rights of workers to form unions and bargain collectively, the rights of workers to a living wage, the rights of critically injured people to life sustaining health care, compliance with the Just War doctrine etc.

Basically, as I see it, the Right Wing people ignore the Church’s Social Teachings but promote the Pro-Life Teachings, and the** Left Wing people ignore the Church’s Pro-Life Teachings**, but promote the Social Teaching. Each side is proud of what is does promote, and each side condemns the other side for what it ignores. Both sides claim to be devout Catholics and both sides do not hesitate to receive Holy Communion in public.

And so, life goes in a kind of culture war stalemate. Both sides ARE in error. Righteous cannot win, since neither side is righteous.

So, I think a phrase that signals that Catholics (faithful ones anyway) are not Right Wingers or Left Wingers, but are simply Catholics, and are BOTH Pro-Life and Pro-Social.

Maybe that should be the new slogan and bumper sticker:

Proudly Pro-Life & Pro-Social

What do you think?

 

[cjmclark]

Or, you could just opt for

I’m Catholic. Ask me how!

 

[Abu]

Bartolome Casas #4
Yet, the Catholic Church (or its lay members anyway) DOES want to use use government FORCE to protect the rights of the preborn, the rights of property, the rights of workers to form unions and bargain collectively, the rights of workers to a living wage, the rights of critically injured people to life sustaining health care, compliance with the Just War doctrine etc.
Basically, as I see it, the Right Wing people ignore the Church’s Social Teachings but promote the Pro-Life Teachings, and the Left Wing people ignore the Church’s Pro-Life Teachings, but promote the Social Teaching. Each side is proud of what is does promote, and each side condemns the other side for what it ignores. Both sides claim to be devout Catholics and both sides do not hesitate to receive Holy Communion in public.

It is false to equate the Church’s social teaching with the gravity and infallibility of the doctrines against the murder of abortion and against contraception, euthanasia, sodomy, IVF, cloning etc.

Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ ” [Woods, p 5].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3. Italics added].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

The huge difference is that rather than the “Word of God”, “The Church’s social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:…” [CCC 2423]. Never will anyone find that the social teaching is equated with the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, or with infallible doctrine.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

It is false to equate the Church’s social teaching with the gravity and infallibility of the doctrines against the murder of abortion and against contraception, euthanasia, sodomy, IVF, cloning etc.

Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market

, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Dr. Thomas E. Woods has written in clear terms that he believes that the Catholic Church has NO COMPETENCY to teach in the arena of economics, and he says that he personally dissents from virtually all of Catholic Social Teachings. Yet, per he reasoning, he is not a “dissenter,” since he considers all Catholic Social Teaching to be INVALID.

Is there a bishop in the world who would approve of Dr. Thomas E. Wood’s position on this matter? I don’t think so.

Yet, Dr. Thomas E. Woods remains quite influential among conservative Catholics. His view appears to be shared by the conservative magazine “The National Review” (founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., a Catholic who also rejected Catholic Social Teaching), and appears to be shared by George Weigel, a Catholic think tank author who condemned Pope Benedict XVI’s third encyclical (it was mostly about Catholic Social Teaching).

I’ve seen many Catholics on these Forums quoting and citing Dr. Thomas E. Woods to the effect that one can set aside any part of Catholic Social Teaching that one doesn’t agree with.

Yet, again, is there a Catholic bishop in the world who endorses that approach? Did Blessed John Paul II? Would Benedict XVI?

So, why do so many conservative Catholics make themselves followers of self proclaimed follower of “Austrian economics,” a form of radical laissez faire economics that has been consistently condemned by the Catholic popes and bishops?

Well, as noted, they use the logic that all those papal and episcopal condemnations are invalid since all of Catholic Social Teaching has no authority whatsoever.

But, at some point, does not one have to decide: Am I Catholic or am I follower of something or someone else?

Dr. Thomas E. Woods is a great conservative/libertarian thinker and author. But a Catholic? In my view, is Catholic in the same way that the late Senator Edward Kennedy was Catholic. Technically, Catholic. But, their passion is really elsewhere.

To me, it is noteworthy that Dr. Thomas E. Woods, though holding a doctorate in history from Columbia University, is not a professor at any university or college and apparently never has held a professorship.

Instead, he is a “fellow” at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. That, in my view, is like being a lawyer or lobbyist for consortium of billionaires.

Furthermore, a little Googling showed me some quote saying that in real academia, where books and articles are peer reviewed and held to certain standards, the scholars do not have any regard for the books or views of Dr. Thomas E. Woods.

He is especially dismissed by some due to his fervent pro-Confederacy views, i.e., that the “good guy” in the Civil War was the South, not the North, and that things would have been better if the Confederacy had won instead of the Union forces led by President Lincoln.

We all know about the Left Wing Dissenters in the Catholic Church. They promote Women’s Ordination, promote Divorce and Remarriage, promote the Pro-Choice view on abortion, and some promote a form of Liberation Theology that is essentially the old Marxism that almost destroyed the word.

Yet, was seems less well known is that there are Right Wing Catholic Dissenters in the Catholic Church, who are just as adamant in opposing the Magisterium of the Popes and the Bishops.

Both sets of dissenters have their reasoning for why they really aren’t dissenters, however.

Personally, I don’t want to harass or persecute anyone. If someone want to dissent, go ahead. I wish them well. I’m sure they are fine people, better human beings than little old me. Dr. Woods has written 12 books. I haven’t written a one! Good for you Dr. Woods!

I only want to help unite those Catholics who don’t want to dissent.

That’s why I am seeking ideas for a slogan that combines Catholic “Pro-Life” Doctrine and Catholic “Social” Doctrine.

Ideas anyone?

 

[Abu]

How strange that the papal statements from Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Bl John Paul II on the relevance of social teaching to economics in post #6 have been dismissed by silence, for a an attack on a person.

We don’t need prejudice against individuals classified on a political bias – the tarring and feathering into which some descend, rather than a considered appraisal of a relevant statement.

We don’t need the fetish of simplistic slogans that would confuse definitive moral doctrine with social “principles for reflection”, “criteria for judgment” and “guidelines for action” [See CCC 2423].