Genesis of social justice

[portarica]

Well, a couple of thoughts come to mind. First of all, I never said anything about restricting our individual help to the poor to instances when we are involved on a man-to-man basis. There are lots of private charities that solve that problem for us. But make no mistake about it, we can lobby and participate in politics towards social programs that are just, as we should, but it does nothing to fulfill our moral obligation of charity towards the poor. That is an individual respobsibility. Collectivizing the responsibility through the state may make us feel better, but it does not address Jesus’s commands.

Secondly, I don’t think think charity towards the poor, in the form of “feeding me when I was hungry” is really related to the distribution of wealth, which is the issue this thread was originally directed towards. You can say what you want about government safety-net programs, eg foodstamps, but you cannot say they have done anything with regards to more equitable distribution of wealth.
See my original post on this topic. Governement does have a role to play in equitable distribution of wealth. Government has a role to play with a social safety net. But don’t confuse the two or you will be forever disappointed with the results.

I think we are dancing to the same tune, me quite a bit clumsily so. As to the point of the OP I wanted to point out that the redistribution of wealth by the government through social programs is a way of feeding the least.And while we shouldn’t rely upon the govt to do the work of Christ, when it is doing so I don’t think we should stop their efforts.

Thanks for your good posts.

Peace

 

[portarica]

First , thank you for all of your replies. This concept is a huge struggle for me.

Secondly, the reason it is a huge struggle is that the social justice I read about in the catechism is about ending abuse and hatred. Where as the social justice that political and now my faith formation group is talking about is redistribution of wealth by the government. That kind of social justice only leads to a totalitarian state. That’s not acceptable.

I think the best distribution of wealth happens when people work for it, risk their fortunes, and otherwise make an effort for it. Then when they are successful a voluntary charitable donation to help others. There should be no reward for laziness, or bad choices as some continue to make. There should be help for those who want to change or begin a new life. The gov’t never makes that distinction.

If there were no least, that would be OK, but there are a lot of the least out there and couching the concept of giving to the least as a “reward” is contrary to treating the least like they may be Jesus.

The only way I can relate to it is that when we used to collect food for the poor in Scouting for Food drives, the less well off neighborhoods would not only donate a larger quantity of food, but better, more nutritious food, the wealthier neighborhoods would reward our efforts with out of date gourmet stuff and stuff that was obviously surplus to their needs. The participation overall was better in the less well off neighborhoods as well.

I think the concept of waiting to share success doesn’t really ring true.

Peace

 

[cdeterma]

The “least” that are the "least because of circumstances beyond their control will have my help. I will not help the “least” that think it my duty to work in order to pay for their chosen non-productive lifestyle. There ought to be negative reinforcements to partying, doing drugs and dropping out of school instead of working hard, getting your school work done, and saving money. I will help those that wish to change and become productive people, forgiveness and reconciliation is always available.

I have in-laws that told me they are proud to have never worked a day in their lives. These are the kind of people I am talking about not helping.

 

[Tigg]

First , thank you for all of your replies. This concept is a huge struggle for me.

Secondly, the reason it is a huge struggle is that the social justice I read about in the catechism is about ending abuse and hatred. Where as the social justice that political and now my faith formation group is talking about is redistribution of wealth by the government. That kind of social justice only leads to a totalitarian state. That’s not acceptable.

The social justice issue within the Church has become a huge struggle for all of us. Much discernment is needed as you will find out that many of the so-called “Catholic” groups that fall under the umbrella of SJ consist of nothing more than an ecumenical and secular response under a thin layer of “love of neighbor.” Oh, and watch out, because most of these groups are highly partisan and if you oppose their political agenda, you will be accused of omitting the corporal works of mercy!

 

[catharina]

The social justice issue within the Church has become a huge struggle for all of us. Much discernment is needed as you will find out that many of the so-called “Catholic” groups that fall under the umbrella of SJ consist of nothing more than an ecumenical and secular response under a thin layer of “love of neighbor.” Oh, and watch out, because most of these groups are highly partisan and if you oppose their political agenda, you will be accused of omitting the corporal works of mercy!

Please, if you are accusing SJ (the Jesuits?), you should post your sources.
Spreading casual gossip is counter-productive and unacceptable.

 

[humblelurker]

The “least” that are the "least because of circumstances beyond their control will have my help. I will not help the “least” that think it my duty to work in order to pay for their chosen non-productive lifestyle. There ought to be negative reinforcements to partying, doing drugs and dropping out of school instead of working hard, getting your school work done, and saving money. I will help those that wish to change and become productive people, forgiveness and reconciliation is always available.

I have in-laws that told me they are proud to have never worked a day in their lives. These are the kind of people I am talking about not helping.

I keep trying to pull away from this thread, but I keep finding reasons to return:

Something that might help:
CCC # 1883: Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
Caritas In Veritate, 53, Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI on Integral Human Development In Charity And Truth, June 29, 2009): “A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans.”
Subsidiarity: is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Matters should effectively belong more to the smallest, lowest or least centralized authority than to a dominant central organization. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the individual human person and not in the service of a group.
Emancipation: to free from restraint, control, or the power of another; especially to free from bondage; to release from paternal care and responsibility; to free from any controlling influence.

Subsidiarity antidotes sloth. Local involvement to cure local problems. If help is needed by a larger organization so be it, but that help should have the goal of achieving people’s emancipation. My simple understanding. I hope it helps.

 

[humblelurker]

I have in-laws that told me they are proud to have never worked a day in their lives. These are the kind of people I am talking about not helping.

We should always help. You might try meditating on the problem before the Blessed Sacrament, and let Jesus tell you what is needed. Perhaps prayer and evangelization is the help that is needed?

 

[tafan]

First , thank you for all of your replies. This concept is a huge struggle for me.

Secondly, the reason it is a huge struggle is that the social justice I read about in the catechism is about ending abuse and hatred. Where as the social justice that political and now my faith formation group is talking about is redistribution of wealth by the government. That kind of social justice only leads to a totalitarian state. That’s not acceptable.

I think the best distribution of wealth happens when people work for it, risk their fortunes, and otherwise make an effort for it. Then when they are successful a voluntary charitable donation to help others. There should be no reward for laziness, or bad choices as some continue to make. There should be help for those who want to change or begin a new life. The gov’t never makes that distinction.

I, as a political conservative, sympathize with your point of view and certainly have no respect for government’s ability to solve many/most social problems. OTH you are selectively reading the catechism and you really need to larn emore about the social justice teachings of the church.

In particular, please not the parts I bolded.

1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

I strongle suggest reading Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum and purchasing a copy of the the following book:

amazon.com/Compendium-Doctrine-Pontifical-Council-Justice/dp/1574556924#noop

Think CCC does not go into a lot of detail on social justist issues. It is one area teaching where the vatican has actually published an entire book to cover the topics in more detail. That should tell you how important this area of teaching is to the church at this point in history.

 

[catharina]

I, as a political conservative, sympathize with your point of view and certainly have no respect for government’s ability to solve many/most social problems. OTH you are selectively reading the catechism and you really need to larn emore about the social justice teachings of the church.

In particular, please not the parts I bolded.

I strongle suggest reading Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum and purchasing a copy of the the following book:

amazon.com/Compendium-Doctrine-Pontifical-Council-Justice/dp/1574556924#noop

Think CCC does not go into a lot of detail on social justist issues. It is one area teaching where the vatican has actually published an entire book to cover the topics in more detail. That should tell you how important this area of teaching is to the church at this point in history.

Lovely and helpful to OP and others, I would guess.
Very well done and most kind of you!

 

[humblelurker]

I, as a political conservative, sympathize with your point of view and certainly have no respect for government’s ability to solve many/most social problems. OTH you are selectively reading the catechism and you really need to larn emore about the social justice teachings of the church.

In particular, please not the parts I bolded.

I strongle suggest reading Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum and purchasing a copy of the the following book:

amazon.com/Compendium-Doctrine-Pontifical-Council-Justice/dp/1574556924#noop

Think CCC does not go into a lot of detail on social justist issues. It is one area teaching where the vatican has actually published an entire book to cover the topics in more detail. That should tell you how important this area of teaching is to the church at this point in history.

 

[Tigg]

Please, if you are accusing SJ (the Jesuits?), you should post your sources.
Spreading casual gossip is counter-productive and unacceptable.

For edification, SJ is an abbreviation for social justice. I said nothing about the Jesuits and you are out of line by stating I am spreading casual gossip!

 

[catharina]

For edification, SJ is an abbreviation for social justice. I said nothing about the Jesuits and you are out of line by stating I am spreading casual gossip!

Note the question mark in my post?
I questioned if you were talking about the Jesuits.
I accused you of nothing.

I’d never have guessed your abbreviation SJ is for Social Justice.
Thanks for your clarifying the matter.

Out of line? I think not.
A misunderstanding? Yes.
YOUR choice of abbreviation? News to me …

 

[royal_archer]

Actually some wealth does accumulate, that’s why on your taxes there are unearned portions and gains made from investments with no risk.

Sort of like when Goldman takes money from the Fed at 0% and buys treasuries that pay 3% and Goldman pockets the difference and pays the best and brightest bonuses for figuring out how to take our money and make money at no risk. That is corporate welfare, but that is the republican , conservative and way so it is generally considered by many to be OK.

I’m also sure you have that quote on some sort of document that you can cite.

Peace

Both of the two big parties had a hand in giving away billions in corporate welfare. (In exchange for contributions to their respective campaign funds.)

 

[royal_archer]

When I was hungry did you feed me? And then they asked Jesus when was it that He came to them hungry?

Peace

“did you feed me” not “did you use the force of government to make others provide for me”

Also this speeks to the needy, not the greedy. We should be facilitating opportunities instead of facilitating sloth.

 

[royal_archer]

Actually it is right on point, Jesus didn’t say to restrict our reliance on his teachings to only those instances in which we are involved on a man to man basis. It is a big “when” as to the timing of “when” we didn’t feed Him “when” He was hungry.

It is easy to search for reasons that make it OK to accumulate lots of wealth while many of the least are dying because of the absence of few dollars.

That’s the awesomeness of Jesus’ teachings about treating the least like they may be Him. It is as simple as holding a door open for someone or as complicated as figuring out how our spending affects people in places on the other side of the world.

It also so encompassing that it makes us question things like our sense of property rights and patriotism. Is it better to save the job of a guy that works down the street in our town or put many people to work in China?

Should we give healthcare to the guy that looses his job in town? Or do we provide funding for clean water so people can just live in a drought stricken place?

This whole believing in Jesus thing can get really scary if we think Jesus really wanted us to live like He taught.

Peace

Think of the story of the dream predicting seven years of good harvest followed by seven years of no rain. God provided that dream to tell the king to be thrifty in the good years to survive the lean years. Would you have advocated taking resources during the good years and giving them all away? Can’t you trust that God was wise when he allowed some to accumuate wealth? Could it be that those who were entrusted with the wealth were given it because they would make the right choices?

Also, it is easy to live the life Jesus taught. Just do what you can with what you are given and let God do the rest.

 

[royal_archer]

What that says is that we can’t shuffle off our responsibility to help the least on to the government.

We still must act in a personally responsible manner. And that may require that we see that our tax dollars are spent responsibly and toward the ends of Jesus and not just to please the special interests that care about nothing except money.

Keep in mind that some use social justice as an excuse to please special interests that care about nothing except money.

 

[cynic]

Wealth doesn’t accumulate, it is earned and created through effort and work. .

Wealth can accumulate for investors who basically do nothing beyond the initial share purchase. Board members determine their own pay and bonuses. Some people have a disproportionate control over the wealth created, while other workers don’t have adequate bargaining power, even for the “easy” work they’re doing and struggle to pay rent.

 

[Lypher]

I nearly left the church last week at confirmation class. I’m older and am taking classes to get confirmed since I have returned to the church. The issue was social justice. The class leader said that their Faith Formation Minister class put on by the diocese said that social and distributive justice is necessary to live the christian life. That class she was tought in said, “as wealth accumulates in a community it is the government’s job to equitably distribute that wealth.” This is communism! Wealth doesn’t accumulate, it is earned and created through effort and work. If the catholic church is about that then either I’ll find a new church or some changes need to be made.

I think that depends on how old the children are that you want to deprive of medical care, schooling, and other social services while we work thier parents fingers to the bone picking fruit.

 

[Justin1982]

I agree, simply relying on the government is ineffective, we must advocate that the government do the work of Jesus in the best and most effective ways.

Jesus went out and saved others personally, why is it that we must do it as a whole with government regulation on top. It is far more fulfilling to be the one putting a face to the aid rather than somebody getting their check in the may addressed by the U.S. Treasury. Government entitlement will only perpetuate the problem as it has. I correlate it to the Church’s tax exemption, it’s turned into sort of an entitlement to which the government can threaten to take away if the Church gets too “out of hand” with ideology and the voting populace.

 

[royal_archer]

I think we are dancing to the same tune, me quite a bit clumsily so. As to the point of the OP I wanted to point out that the redistribution of wealth by the government through social programs is a way of feeding the least.And while we shouldn’t rely upon the govt to do the work of Christ, when it is doing so I don’t think we should stop their efforts.

Thanks for your good posts.

Peace

The point is that people should not expect something for nothing and use poverty which is the direct result of their own sloth as an excuse to take from others.