Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

[abucs]

No. It’s a largely economic philosophy where the means of production is owned by the community as a whole.

It is not a philosophy, it is a system of governance embraced by dozens of countries (usually by force) in the last century with disastrous affects.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

ProdglArchitect:

I’m not sure where you’re getting that definition from:

The Pauline Privilege is covered under Canon 1143:
It is not possible to dissolve a marriage between baptized persons.

Ok, so then your counter argument is, essentially that the Petrine Privilege doesn’t actually exist and then you further attempt to explain how marriages dissolved via Pauline Privilege don’t conflict with the notion of marital indissolubility.

I am unfamiliar with the Petrine Privlidge, so I can’t really speak to it. If that is its definition I apologize.

As to the question of martial indissolubility, as noted by another poster, the natural marriages between two unbaptized people are not “joined by God” like a sacramental marriage between two baptized people.

But what’s occurred in this subject is that you started off by saying that marriage is indissoluble per Christ. But by Paul (and Peter’s) additions, it actually is in some instances.

Sacramental, God joined marriage is indissoluble.

And by other, later additions, it’s “clarified” be being dependent on certain statuses that pertain to baptism and sacramentality.

Not familiar with this, so I can’t answer to it, sorry.

And by other additions, it’s also “clarified” as being dependent on whether the marriage was actually technically valid in the first place, regardless of issues like marital duration or whether the couple mutually felt they were married at some point.

How people feel is inconsequential to the reality of their situation. If the marriage was never valid to begin with (lacking proper form or intention) then nothing short of being married with the proper form and intention can make that marriage valid.

Whether those developments “jive” with “marriage is indissoluble per Christ” is something I’ll leave you to work out. But it makes me think of a kitten playing with yarn, to be frank.

I’m just saying the Orthodox solution to the problem might be better and more true. It certainly requires less canonical gymnastics.

Thanks for the chat, it was fun! Enjoy your day.

The question of if they jive is one we can debate, but the Orthodox approach is far too lax and allows for essentially uncontested divorce and remarriage. Regardless of the position of the RCC, the Orthodox position stands in stark contrast to Christ’s words.

I just wanted to make this one reply, I have a busy day ahead of me so I won’t be able to maintain the conversation like yesterday.

 

[Vonsalza]

Socialism is a comprehensive system. What are the property rights and the small business rights of Somalia?

Somalia was your example. You do know of Somalia’s history?

Yes, and at the present they largely lack a functioning government. That’s been the case since the early 90s.

Most African countries saw socialism as the way forward. That is why they are such a mess.

Also read the individual histories of the African post colonial countries.

Those are meaningless generalizations. Most African countries wanted to rid themselves of European suzerainty in both the private and public sectors. They wanted to divorce themselves from colonialism as much as they could. This ethno-nationalism did result in centralized states, but I wouldn’t argue them as being any more federalized than our own government at the time.

Then you should be able to give a short list on the advantages of the other side. You flatly refuse to do so. Yes, that is ignorance.

No, it’s refusal to participate in your hoop-jumping pedantics. Ignorance, on the other hand, is a lack of information.

But I’m sure you know what they say about leading horses to water…

Silly comment. Obviously. Again you did not make a point here just a running commentary.

Saith the pot to the kettle?

Socialism is a comprehensive system.

I agree. And it seems to have virtually never existed. The Khmer Rouge is probably the closest anyone’s ever actually come to the academic definition of it and no one - repeat - no one is advocating for it.

But there are activities that are best socialized. These are generally “natural monopolies” that you would have covered in your econ classes if you’ve had any.
The classic classroom example is public utilities. There are others still.

 

[abucs]

Yes, and at the present they largely lack a functioning government. That’s been the case since the early 90s.

Yes Somalia lacks a functioning government because their socialist government collapsed because socialism doesn’t work. Join the dots. Somalia was your example and it is in anarchy now because it had a socialist government which failed. People fight against socialism because they see what happens when socialism plays out in places like Somalia.

 

[abucs]

Those are meaningless generalizations. Most African countries wanted to rid themselves of European suzerainty in both the private and public sectors. They wanted to divorce themselves from colonialism as much as they could. This ethno-nationalism did result in centralized states, but I wouldn’t argue them as being any more federalized than our own government at the time.

Most anti colonial movements in Africa (if not all) happened in the 20th century when socialism was touted as the way to build a successful nation. The building of these newly independent nations embraced socialist ideology. That is a major factor in their inability to develop commercially. Somali is but one victim of socialist ideology.

 

[abucs]

No, it’s refusal to participate in your hoop-jumping pedantics. Ignorance, on the other hand, is a lack of information.

But I’m sure you know what they say about leading horses to water…

It is obviously a failing of many of the Left minded people to engage intellectually. You lack the knowledge of understanding the importance of taking on board the viewpoints of the people which disagree with you.

 

[abucs]

Saith the pot to the kettle?

and how about dealing with the substance of the point?

 

[abucs]

I agree. And it seems to have virtually never existed. The Khmer Rouge is probably the closest anyone’s ever actually come to the academic definition of it and no one - repeat - no one is advocating for it.

But there are activities that are best socialized. These are generally “natural monopolies” that you would have covered in your econ classes if you’ve had any.
The classic classroom example is public utilities. There are others still

The closest people come to implementing a socialist regime the greater the horror that is produced. You have to separate the fantasy from the reality with socialism. You never get to the fantasy exactly because it is fantasy. We only have the horrible reality of socialist regimes. Agreeing government control on certain aspects of society is not socialism.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am unfamiliar with the Petrine Privlidge, so I can’t really speak to it. If that is its definition I apologize.

No big deal This is just a public form. It’s not Vatican III.

As to the question of martial indissolubility, as noted by another poster, the natural marriages between two unbaptized people are not “joined by God” like a sacramental marriage between two baptized people.

Fair enough. But to the original point - we’d agree that Christ didn’t cover those particular conditionals in his discussions about marriage. They came later, as I hoped you’d agree.

Sacramental, God joined marriage is indissoluble.

Such is the Catholic presentation of it, yes.

Not familiar with this, so I can’t answer to it, sorry.

How people feel is inconsequential to the reality of their situation. If the marriage was never valid to begin with (lacking proper form or intention) then nothing short of being married with the proper form and intention can make that marriage valid.

Sure. My only objection there was that it seems to be easy enough to raise that doubt. We all have anecdotes and mine is a Catholic couple I know married in the Church who managed to get an annulment after 20 years of marital bliss (well… the “bliss” part probably went on for only 10 of those years, but you get my point).

How many annulments has Newt Gingrich received? 2? I think?

The question of if they jive is one we can debate, but the Orthodox approach is far too lax and allows for essentially uncontested divorce and remarriage. Regardless of the position of the RCC, the Orthodox position stands in stark contrast to Christ’s words.

I don’t think so. I think it espouses the forgiveness Christ showed when he willingly went to the cross. It shows the willingness of Peter and Paul to allow Christians to stop living in sin and move on with their lives.

I just wanted to make this one reply, I have a busy day ahead of me so I won’t be able to maintain the conversation like yesterday.

I think you’ve 14 days if no one else replies, so no biggie. Enjoy your day!

 

[Ender]

It is the rare thread that doesn’t get off on a tangent somewhere along its discussion, but it is equally rare to find one that spends so little time on the topic that was actually raised.

This thread isn’t about socialism, capitalism, or even the best solution to any of our social problems; it is about the difference between the church’s teaching on social justice and those labeled Social Justice Warriors.

To start with, before we can discuss differences we actually have to know what makes a person an SJW. So - how about some definitions? I gave one about a hundred posts ago, how about someone else coming up with one? If we can’t define what the term means we really have no intelligible way of addressing the question.

 

[abucs]

Vonsalza responded to my posts. I am responding to her replies. If you wish for socialism not to be discussed, I suggest you reply to her. She is the one who went off the deep end when it was pointed out how socialist governments have misused the government control of the health system.

 

[Ender]

I meant my post to be just a general comment, not a specific reply to you. I went back in and tried to remove the reference but was unable to figure out how to do it.

 

[abucs]

A social justice warrior will mean different things to different people. I doubt you will get agreement on what is means.

I use it as a label for those promoting the insanity of political correct thought largely being created by Marxist academics to force their views on sex, history and social organisation on the populace.

 

[MikeInVA]

I’m merely accepting the fact that the federal government has a role to play.

Why? The federal government exists to facilitate interaction between the states, and to conduct foreign affairs (including defense of the nation). The fact that the federal government has grown to have such control over the states and people is a different topic. Subsidiarity calls us to solve problems at the lowest level - which is not with federal, state or even the local government.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Yes, and at the present they largely lack a functioning government. That’s been the case since the early 90s.

Yes Somalia lacks a functioning government because their socialist government collapsed because socialism doesn’t work. Join the dots.

The first problem here is that they weren’t completely socialist. The central government still produced the Somali shilling during those years which is a problem for your position because strict socialist economies don’t use traditional currency (a la the Khmer Rouge).

The second is that if all socialist countries collapse into 30 years of anarchy, why is Somalia such a unique and enduring example of the phenomenon? Cuban “socialism” (if that’s what you want to call it despite the fact that they, too, have markets) is older and more enduring. Where’s their 30 years of lawlessness?

You standards seem to be rather “fluid” here, to use a more polite word.

Most anti colonial movements in Africa (if not all) happened in the 20th century when socialism was touted as the way to build a successful nation. The building of these newly independent nations embraced socialist ideology. That is a major factor in their inability to develop commercially.

A bigger factor would arguably be the nearly ceaseless wars and civil wars of the 20th century in Africa. Local commercialism doesn’t like war very much. Merchants don’t set up shop if there’s a good chance their stall will get blown up.

But don’t let that stand in the way of your preconceptions on Africa.

You lack the knowledge of understanding the importance of taking on board the viewpoints of the people which disagree with you.

No, I just know zealotry when I see it.

The truth you refuse to internalize is that all of the most successful governments on this planet blend both laissez faire and collectivized policies in the implementation of their government. But that view isn’t nearly black-and-white enough to satisfy sophomoric understandings of conservatism - thus your balking a few entries back.

and how about dealing with the substance of the point?

You haven’t really made one beyond “Socialism bad and all the socialized activities in countries like Japan don’t count as socialism!”. It’s nonsensical, frankly.

The closest people come to implementing a socialist regime the greater the horror that is produced. You have to separate the fantasy from the reality with socialism.

No I don’t. I’m just willing to see its interweaving in the society all around me.

You seem to lack that sight - ergo your rhetoric on the matter.

 

[Vonsalza]

The closest people come to implementing a socialist regime the greater the horror that is produced.

This might actually be a huge moment for us.

With this comment, it seems you realize that socialism a continuum? Some places are more “socialist”, some less?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza responded to my posts. …I am responding to her replies…

1st, I’m a guy.

Vonsalza responded to my posts… …If you wish for socialism not to be discussed, I suggest you reply to her.

So then you should be ignored?

She is the one who went off the deep end when it was pointed out how socialist governments have misused the government control of the health system.

Now that’s not very honest.

I’m just willing to admit that socialized functions of government are useful and important parts of our lives. I’m unwilling to drink the “all socialism is bad” kool-aide when I drove in to my office today on a public road…

 

[Vonsalza]

Agreeing government control on certain aspects of society is not socialism.

Yessir. Yessir it is. You have socialized whatever the government controls.

 

[abucs]

The first problem here is that they weren’t completely socialist. The central government still produced the Somali shilling during those years which is a problem for your position because strict socialist economies don’t use traditional currency (a la the Khmer Rouge).

The second is that if all socialist countries collapse into 30 years of anarchy, why is Somalia such a unique and enduring example of the phenomenon? Cuban “socialism” (if that’s what you want to call it despite the fact that they, too, have markets) is older and more enduring. Where’s their 30 years of lawlessness?

You standards seem to be rather “fluid” here, to use a more polite word.

No, north Korea collapsed, Yemen collapsed, Cambodia collapsed, Venezuela is collapsing and eventually Russia collapsed taking the whole of Eastern Europe with it which they had been subsidising. Places like Cuba were also being subsidised by Russia and when they had to stand on their own they ask for US help. There is not a socialist country today that is still standing as a successful socialist country. China has embraced facets of capitalism as did Vietnam as are India and Sri Lanka. Socialism was a disaster and just about all countries have understood this and taken a different path. China now is not subsidising North Korea and it has to stand on its own feet why it is wishing to do a Cuba and look to reform. Socialist countries failing is the norm.

 

[abucs]

A bigger factor would arguably be the nearly ceaseless wars and civil wars of the 20th century in Africa. Local commercialism doesn’t like war very much. Merchants don’t set up shop if there’s a good chance their stall will get blown up.

But don’t let that stand in the way of your preconceptions on Africa.

Socialism leads to failing states. Failing states lead to war. Join the dots.