From The Washington Post - On Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter joelacour
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The call for justice is inspired by Jesus’ admonition to provide material charity without expecting it to be rewarded by a religious response: “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” (Matthew 25:40).
Click to expand...
First of all he is giving opinion without giving any support for that opinion. He is using codified language to rouse his fanboys. It’s a groupie thing.

In Matthew 25, Jesus is speaking to his disciplies about his disciples. There is no justification at all that he is speaking about those who are not his disciples. John 6 refutes this journalists premise. There are many who (wrongly) claim that we can pursue the Beatitudes and the bread and fishes without the Real Presence.
 
joelacour said:
This got my dander up. The orginal post and the comments demand refuting, but I’m afraid I’ll botch it. Any ideas???

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/anthony_m_stevensarroyo/2007/08/magnificat.html?hpid=opinionsbox2
Click to expand...
His interpretation is patently wrong, as you could point out on the blog.

He quotes:
“He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble.” (Luke 1:52).

Who’s He, but God?

So how does this support his presumption that he, for his part, can behave as Mary rightly believe God had and does and would?

To say he writes like a presumptuous fool would be just, but you could find kinder wording.

God bless.
 
This is why I love this forum. I read this and find myself agreeing. If not for the OP’s question, I would never have questioned it. Now, why exactly is there anything wrong with it?
 
Yeah, I see a call for social justice from a believer (“The call for justice is inspired by Jesus’ admonition to provide material charity without expecting it to be rewarded by a religious response: “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” (Matthew 25:40).”) and even an argument for why the secular systems mentioned have not worked. (“I consider the creative moral revolution called for by religion superior to rationalist destructive revolutions, such as the Reign of Terror launched by the atheistic Robespierre. Likewise, the Marxist utopia failed in part because its corrosive atheism lacked a connection to the yearning of the human spirit for transcendence.”)

The papal encyclical he mentions can be found here and here’s RERUM NOVARUM as well.

Some of the comments were Catholic bashing, but basically, Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo says that he has a devotion to the Blessed Virgin that motivates him to call for social justice.

What is the problem?

BTW, this belongs over in the SJ (Social Justice) forum, not here in apologetics.🤷 .
 
Michael_Francis said:
Moved to SJ because CM’s right.
MF
Click to expand...
Uummm, how do you know that this post belongs in the social justice forum? The original poster never revelaed what the concern is.

I hope you don’t think me contentious, since I am just asking a question.
 
Chipper said:
Uummm, how do you know that this post belongs in the social justice forum? The original poster never revelaed what the concern is.

I hope you don’t think me contentious, since I am just asking a question.
Click to expand...
The mandate to work for revolutionary change comes from Mary’s Magnificat: “He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble.” (Luke 1:52). It was articulated in a call for political change by Pedro Albizu Campos, the Puerto Rican leader who based his political agenda on a moral restoration of Puerto Rican culture against the imposition of colonial rule by the imperialist forces of the United States’ Empire.
Click to expand...
(My emphasis)
 
vern_humphrey said:
(My emphasis)
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with what the newsclip is about.

I am only asking, how you know what the original posters concern is about. Suppose the poster where to come back and say something about praying to Mary in the news is offensive.

Wouldn’t that be better placed in the apologetics section than this section?

Again, How do you guys know what the original posters concern is about?
 
Chipper said:
I don’t disagree with what the newsclip is about.

I am only asking, how you know what the original posters concern is about. Suppose the poster where to come back and say something about praying to Mary in the news is offensive.

Wouldn’t that be better placed in the apologetics section than this section?

Again, How do you guys know what the original posters concern is about?
Click to expand...
The choice of forum was made on the content of the article, not on the poster’s intention.
 
Church_Militant said:
Yeah, I see a call for social justice from a believer (“The call for justice is inspired by Jesus’ admonition to provide material charity without expecting it to be rewarded by a religious response: “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” (Matthew 25:40).”) and even an argument for why the secular systems mentioned have not worked. (“I consider the creative moral revolution called for by religion superior to rationalist destructive revolutions, such as the Reign of Terror launched by the atheistic Robespierre. Likewise, the Marxist utopia failed in part because its corrosive atheism lacked a connection to the yearning of the human spirit for transcendence.”)

The papal encyclical he mentions can be found here and here’s RERUM NOVARUM as well.

Some of the comments were Catholic bashing, but basically, Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo says that he has a devotion to the Blessed Virgin that motivates him to call for social justice.

What is the problem?

BTW, this belongs over in the SJ (Social Justice) forum, not here in apologetics.🤷 .
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of Social justice. In most cases people who talk about that beleive it means higher taxes, more welfare and socialized medicine. it is also a convenient phrase for pro-abortion politicians to hide behind when explaining why catholics should vote for them.
 
estesbob said:
The problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of Social justice. In most cases people who talk about that believe it means higher taxes, more welfare and socialized medicine. it is also a convenient phrase for pro-abortion politicians to hide behind when explaining why catholics should vote for them.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, however, the church offers us nearly constant guidance as to social justice issues that, though they may impact some or all of the things that you mention here, are actually more tied to our life as followers of Christ.

Here I am thinking of the 2004 release of,
COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

We can probably open a metric ton of threads on various parts of that document!👍
 
joelacour said:
This got my dander up. The orginal post and the comments demand refuting, but I’m afraid I’ll botch it. Any ideas???

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/anthony_m_stevensarroyo/2007/08/magnificat.html?hpid=opinionsbox2
Click to expand...
What bothers you about this article? The guy is simply sharing a personal source of inspiration.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Sounds eerily similiar to:

** Acts 2:44-45**
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-37
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Ex. 16:16-18
*This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat.

*Thank God McCarthy didn’t live in the first century…lol
 
Peregrino said:
What bothers you about this article? The guy is simply sharing a personal source of inspiration.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Thank God McCarthy didn’t live in the first century…lol
Click to expand...
Do you realize how much terror and bloodshed has been commited in the name of this seemingly innocuos phrase? It is NOT catholic social teaching and only those who are incredibly naive and/or have a complete ignorance of history put any stock in it.

BTW-speaking of ignorance of History are you aware that with the Collaspe of the Soviet Union and the releasing of the Verona Papers it is now known that McCarthy was right?
 
estesbob said:
Do you realize how much terror and bloodshed has been commited in the name of this seemingly innocuos phrase?
Click to expand...
Deus Vult (God wills it). “Do you realize how much terror and bloodshed has been commited in the name of this seemingly innocuos phrase?”
estesbob said:
It is NOT catholic social teaching and only those who are incredibly naive and/or have a complete ignorance of history put any stock in it.
Click to expand...
Wow. Are you saying that the Bible is incredibly naive? " This is what the Lord has commanded" . Let me get this straight, you are saying that this is naive???

I could care less if it is a Catholic social teaching or not. I merely pointed out that it is directly paralled by sayings within the Bible. If you don’t like this fact I am sorry.
 
Peregrino said:
Deus Vult (God wills it). “Do you realize how much terror and bloodshed has been commited in the name of this seemingly innocuos phrase?”

Wow. Are you saying that the Bible is incredibly naive? " This is what the Lord has commanded" . Let me get this straight, you are saying that this is naive???

I could care less if it is a Catholic social teaching or not. I merely pointed out that it is directly paralled by sayings within the Bible. If you don’t like this fact I am sorry.
Click to expand...
No-I am saying your **personal **interpeation of it is terrbly naive.
 
estesbob said:
No-I am saying your **personal **interpeation of it is terrbly naive.
Click to expand...
Lets hear you “correctly” interpret these passages which I have cited (explaining how they are different than Marx’s statement)…:juggle:
vern_humphrey said:
Funny how those pushing a socialist agenda always cite the early Apostolic attempt, and ignore how it failed
Click to expand...
Alright Vern, please illustrate how they “failed”…:whistle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top