Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

  • Thread starter Thread starter anrmenchaca47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anrmenchaca47

Guest
Like the title says.

What is the difference between those being social justice warriors and what the Cathecism teaches in social justice? Thanks
 
SJW can mean a lot of things.

However, in the current vernacular, it is usually used in a derogatory fashion by right-leaning persons to describe those of a more liberal bent, who work for the Left’s version of social justice- IE, abortion on demand, sex changes for prepubescent children, the allowance of open homosexual relations into the public square.

Catholic social justice is nothing like this.

CCC 1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

The Catechism elaborates on this further in the passages that follow this one.
 
SJW is a derogatory term used by the right to denigrate those of differing views. It is often used with the term “virtue signaling.” Neither of them mean diddly squat to me.
 
It is not just used by the right. The terms is used by anyone who is annoyed about particular groups who shut down rational discussion with buzzwords; and who push for the latest social “fad,” regardless of the impact that fad will have on society and the people who will be subject to its ideology.

I’ve heard it used by people across the political spectrum who are fed up with the irrational way people act in an effort to force their opinion onto the populous.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I do think it’s safe to say at the very least it is intellectually lazy.
 
EricF said:
Fair enough. I do think it’s safe to say at the very least it is intellectually lazy.
Click to expand...
I see it as more of a reaction against intellectual laziness. Typically, I see the phrase used in regards to people who are utterly unwilling to even discuss any viewpoint that differs from their own, or to consider any opinion that they don’t think they thought up themselves. It has become a blanket term to address a particular unwillingness to engage in dialog or to be challenged. (Both hallmarks of intellectual laziness and dishonesty)
 
Last edited:
Oooh, not all of those square with everyone’s pre-conceived political boxes. It really isn’t as black and white as many would want you to believe.
 
Here’s a good explanation of the Catholic conception of social justice, from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical against communism:

Divini Redemptoris
  1. In reality, besides commutative justice, there is also social justice with its own set obligations, from which neither employers nor workingmen can escape. Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand for each individual all that is necessary for the common good. But just as in the living organism it is impossible to provide for the good of the whole unless each single part and each individual member is given what it needs for the exercise of its proper functions, so it is impossible to care for the social organism and the good of society as a unit unless each single part and each individual member - that is to say, each individual man in the dignity of his human personality - is supplied with all that is necessary for the exercise of his social functions. If social justice be satisfied, the result will be an intense activity in economic life as a whole, pursued in tranquillity and order. This activity will be proof of the health of the social body, just as the health of the human body is recognized in the undisturbed regularity and perfect efficiency of the whole organism.
  2. But social justice cannot be said to have been satisfied as long as workingmen are denied a salary that will enable them to secure proper sustenance for themselves and for their families; as long as they are denied the opportunity of acquiring a modest fortune and forestalling the plague of universal pauperism; as long as they cannot make suitable provision through public or private insurance for old age, for periods of illness and unemployment. In a word, to repeat what has been said in Our Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: “Then only will the economic and social order be soundly established and attain its ends, when it offers, to all and to each, all those goods which the wealth and resources of nature, technical science and the corporate organization of social affairs can give. These goods should be sufficient to supply all necessities and reasonable comforts, and to uplift men to that higher standard of life which, provided it be used with prudence, is not only not a hindrance but is of singular help to virtue.”[37]
Click to expand...
https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-.../hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html
 
Why do you think the right doesn’t want to help people, or doesn’t believe in social justice?

We just don’t believe that handouts are how you help most people, and that people need to follow the law. We also believe that the wage earned should be commiserate with the work performed.

We also don’t believe the government should be handling this sort of thing, at least, not the federal government, as is currently the case. This is in line with the Catholic teaching on Subsidiarity.
 
Hey, not all right-leaning people are what you think we are.

not wanting the government to help the poor ≠ hating the poor
 
I just believe that if we can rightly call upon the government to intervene in abortion we can also rightly call on the government to help us with our other social justice imperatives.

Of course, individual contributions to charities, etc is desirable just as support of charities that protect life remains essential even with government intervention on abortion.
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
Hey, not all right-leaning people are what you think we are.

not wanting the government to help the poor ≠ hating the poor
Click to expand...
I didn’t say right-leaning. I said far right. 😉

Also, I’m a centrist. Center-right on economic issues and center-left on social issues.
 
Last edited:
“Social Justice Warrior” has become a pejorative term, tossed about by a small but vocal segment who hold a certain political belief and who consider politics the same as religion. It is time that we Catholics proudly stand up and embrace this term.

Each of us is called, in our own way, according to our station in life to be Social Justice Warriors because we are called to evangelize.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p... doctrine, evangelization and human promotion

The Church’s social doctrine “is itself a valid instrument of evangelization” and is born of the always new meeting of the Gospel message and social life. Understood in this way, this social doctrine is a distinctive way for the Church to carry out her ministry of the Word and her prophetic role. “In effect, to teach and to spread her social doctrine pertains to the Church’s evangelizing mission and is an essential part of the Christian message, since this doctrine points out the direct consequences of that message in the life of society and situates daily work and struggles for justice in the context of bearing witness to Christ the Saviour”. This is not a marginal interest or activity, or one that is tacked on to the Church’s mission, rather it is at the very heart of the Church’s ministry of service: with her social doctrine the Church “proclaims God and his mystery of salvation in Christ to every human being, and for that very reason reveals man to himself”. This is a ministry that stems not only from proclamation but also from witness.
 
Ehhh… If the term hadnt been corrputed by both a leftist ideology and right-wing insults, I would stand with you.

As it stands now, SJW, IMO, is unfit to use by anyone in the Church, due to the reasons I list in post No. 1.
 
Characteristics of a typical SJW:
  1. Being far left
  2. Unable to take a joke
  3. Have totalitarian tendencies
  4. Unable to tolerate different points of view and actively try to shut people down
  5. Tendency to manufacture problems to
    advocate against #firstworldproblems
  6. Tendency to cannibalize other SJWs and political allies
Catholic social teaching is none of that.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
I just believe that if we can rightly call upon the government to intervene in abortion we can also rightly call on the government to help us with our other social justice imperatives.
Click to expand...
A good case can be made that this post displays the difference between social justice and SJWs. Ignore if you can the fact that SJW is a somewhat derogatory term and just accept that it means someone who cares about social justice and believes their social solutions are, if not mandated by the church, at least the embodiment of church teaching.

The problem comes from that latter belief. It is appropriate for the church to oppose abortion and call for the government to ban it because it is an intrinsically evil act. There are not two valid positions on the issue. When it comes to social programs, however, church involvement is not appropriate because solutions involve judgments, and opposing positions can be equally valid morally.

There is no church position on the overwhelming number of political issues, and I include immigration, health care, the minimum wage, the budget, gun control, and virtually all other social issues. These are not moral issues because there are no moral choices involved in solving them. Is it overall a good idea to raise the minimum wage? Maybe, maybe not, but the determination of the correct answer is more likely to be found by reading Adam Smith than Thomas Aquinas.

The problem with Social Justice Warriors is their belief that their political solutions are supported by the church, but while the church may tell us to aid the poor, she does not tell us to raise the minimum wage. Social justice teaching is about ends, about the objectives toward which we should work. SJWs confuse those ends with the means they have chosen to attain them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top