Glenn Beck says to run away from churches who preach social justice?

[RWMorris]

I said there is no confusion among the Bishops.
Are you a confused Bishop? I doubt it.

I do not decide for you although I would if you were my 6 yr-old grandson.
What you decide is a decision made in prayer, between you and Our Lord.

But, I am a confused layman, and I don’t think government will accept God’s answer to any prayer I might pray. The Bishops, although you claim they are not confused, probably won’t accept God’s answer to my prayer, either. They seem to believe it is government’s responsibility to make that decision for me, which basically means I don’t have to pray because God’s (name removed by moderator)ut is not needed; it certainly won’t be heeded. Therefore your conjecture that it is my decision to make, after I pray and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course, doesn’t seem to be true.

So, what would you tell your 6 yr-old grandson?

 

[catharina]

But, I am a confused layman, and I don’t think government will accept God’s answer to any prayer I might pray. The Bishops, although you claim they are not confused, probably won’t accept God’s answer to my prayer, either. They seem to believe it is government’s responsibility to make that decision for me, which basically means I don’t have to pray because God’s (name removed by moderator)ut is not needed; it certainly won’t be heeded. Therefore your conjecture that it is my decision to make, after I pray and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course, doesn’t seem to be true.

So, what would you tell your 6 yr-old grandson?

The Bishops pray.
I pray.
You pray.

My words are no conjecture. Yes, it’s your decision.
We are to be obedient Catholics and we are always to pray for guidance.
We are also called to pray for our religious leaders.

 

[RWMorris]

The Bishops pray.
I pray.
You pray.

My words are no conjecture. Yes, it’s your decision.
We are to be obedient Catholics and we are always to pray for guidance.
We are also called to pray for our religious leaders.

Obedient to whom? Guidance from whom? The Bishops don’t seem to agree that it’s our decision.

Each person also has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. We also have a duty to secure and respect these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society.

• usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html#6

There you have it, straight from the Bishops. It is our responsibility to secure food, shelter, education, jobs, housing, and healthcare for our fellow citizens (legal and illegal, I guess). Could this be the social justice Glen Beck was speaking of?

In all honesty, finding this on the USCCB website leaves me distraught, but not surprised.

 

[catharina]

Obedient to whom? Guidance from whom? The Bishops don’t seem to agree that it’s our decision.
There you have it, straight from the Bishops. It is our responsibility to secure food, shelter, education, jobs, housing, and healthcare for our fellow citizens (legal and illegal, I guess). Could this be the social justice Glen Beck was speaking of?

In all honesty, finding this on the USCCB website leaves me distraught, but not surprised.

Congrats on going to the Bishops site for yourself. Very good start.
No surprises for me in their words.

Our “decision” is to accept our “duty” as the Bishops defined it.
In my life, Glenn Beck’s notions are of no consequence compared to the Bishops’ words.

 

[Monica02]

The term “social justice” is used by the Church to promote Alinsky-type groups. I hope Beck spends a few shows detailing the Churches relationship with the IAF and similar groups. The Church deceives parishioners by collecting their money using it to support pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda leftists groups.

One of our priests has spent two homilies dissing Beck. I think these lefty guys are shaking in their collars knowing that Beck very well might expose this CCHD nonsenseto his huge audience.

Go Beck!

 

[juliamajor]

Ah, seems like some folks have chosen politics over their church .Or chosen a personage of the cult of personality over Church teachings. Trying to wrap it in “socialist” or “communist” garments to scare good ole’ americans away from from it are just wrong. Social justice, concern for the poor and downtrodden is a big part of biblical tradition. The Charity and social concerns for the poor and marginal have been part of Scripture from the beginning .What has become part of governmental outreaches was once part of the and parcel of churches and synagogues for a very long time-and they did it better.I’m I going to deny biblical aand church principles because Glenn Beck doesn’t like it or sees it as unamerican(very telling).That’s just tough for ol’ Glenn. The Lord hears the cry of the poor-or don’t you believe that. Were the prophets wrong to harangue the “cows of Bashan” for their indolent lifestyle while the poor suffered?Is equality of souls rich, poor, native or alien to be guided by the moral black hole that people like beck on right or left would like to see happen? I gave up on politics and "lleft " or “right” a long time ago. Be guided by the church and biblical precepts as regards the poor.Governments only want votes, popularity and power.If standing up for the lowest of the low makes some people unhappy-so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time.Standing up for those who have no voice whether in the womb or out of it is our primary mission toward our fellow human beings upon on this earth even if our popularity wanes.Jesus was not a proponent of the gospel of prosperity.Good thing don’t always come to good people.Biblical laws demand gleanings for the poor and indigent-even animals got a piece of a fallow field.Why shouldn’t we be kind to those in need.even if it is under the dubious moniker of “social justice”?

 

[RWMorris]

Ah, seems like some folks have chosen politics over their church .Or chosen a personage of the cult of personality over Church teachings. Trying to wrap it in “socialist” or “communist” garments to scare good ole’ americans away from from it are just wrong. Social justice, concern for the poor and downtrodden is a big part of biblical tradition. The Charity and social concerns for the poor and marginal have been part of Scripture from the beginning .What has become part of governmental outreaches was once part of the and parcel of churches and synagogues for a very long time-and they did it better.I’m I going to deny biblical aand church principles because Glenn Beck doesn’t like it or sees it as unamerican(very telling).That’s just tough for ol’ Glenn. The Lord hears the cry of the poor-or don’t you believe that. Were the prophets wrong to harangue the “cows of Bashan” for their indolent lifestyle while the poor suffered?Is equality of souls rich, poor, native or alien to be guided by the moral black hole that people like beck on right or left would like to see happen? I gave up on politics and "lleft " or “right” a long time ago. Be guided by the church and biblical precepts as regards the poor.Governments only want votes, popularity and power.If standing up for the lowest of the low makes some people unhappy-so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time.Standing up for those who have no voice whether in the womb or out of it is our primary mission toward our fellow human beings upon on this earth even if our popularity wanes.Jesus was not a proponent of the gospel of prosperity.Good thing don’t always come to good people.Biblical laws demand gleanings for the poor and indigent-even animals got a piece of a fallow field.Why shouldn’t we be kind to those in need.even if it is under the dubious moniker of “social justice”?

So you believe that “each person … has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing?” And it is your "duty to secure … these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society?"

 

[juliamajor]

So you believe that “each person … has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing?” And it is your "duty to secure … these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society?"

I believe that the Lord favors the poor,that he demands we obey biblical principles of of justice without prejudices,that God demands that we care for the less fortunate- that since we are God’s hand, feet we must act as He would if God had a physical body.Running away from a church that has concerns for the poor the downtrodden, for the victims of injustice is to run away from the Gospel Of Christ, the precepts of justice demanded in the Mosaic Laws and denies the Divine attribute"hesed" that is supposed to be mimiced by His people.

 

[Convert66]

RWMorris,

You’ve raised an interesting dilemma, or rather, you’ve quoted one that the Bishops have raised (and one that you and I and several others have repeatedly pointed towards in this thread). The USCCB quote runs:

“Each person also has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. **We also have a duty to secure and respect these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society. **”

First, can someone meaningfully explain the difference between a right to “shelter” and a right to “housing”? Doesn’t either one necessarily entail the other, or do the Bishops distinguish between an efficiency apartment and a pup-tent out in the backyard?

Second, how could one possibly guarantee all human persons’ “right to family life”, let alone define anyone’s duty to secure and respect that right (whatever it looks like)?

Which leads to my third— are these rights, as listed by the Bishops, positive or negative rights?

What I mean is this…if the Bishops liken the right to “faith and family” with “healthcare and housing” (as they clearly do); and by this the bishops mean we have “a duty to secure and respect…healthcare and housing” in the positive sense (as any supporter of government-backed universal healthcare-as-social justice insists) then we likewise have a positive duty, according to logic and the teaching of the Bishops, to secure everyone a family; and a faith; and a “…decent… education” in physics and logic and medicine, I suppose, while we’re at it.

But this is preposterous. If the Bishops expect me to secure a family for every person they are being naive in the strangest way, and rendering their position incoherent. It is impossible to fulfill this duty in any “positive” interpretation of “duty to secure.”

Could this possibly be done? A tax to support government-funded dating services? A universal-mandate to cover all wedding expenses? A universal-mandate for adoption of orphans? Do I flip the keys to my car and a hundred bucks to prospective brides and grooms so they can court in order to “secure” their “right to family life”? Is there some “adopt-a-widow” mandate in the works? What will be the penalty for failing to find my distant neighbors a wife and some children, consistent with the penalties I face should I fail to fulfill the government mandate to procure health insurance, if this is what the Bishops mean (as the healthcare reform supporters now insist in the name of “social justice”)?

It sounds ridiculous, but to follow the argument of the government-mandate for health insurance as (USCCB-defined) “social justice” logically, that is precisely what it means.

And to return to my first complaint: will I fulfill my duty to “secure and respect the right to shelter” in providing an umbrella to folks when it rains; firewood and a match when it is cold; a sheet of plywood against the wind, or do these efforts fall short? Does a right to housing mean I must provide a vacant tenament or my own bedroom or a government-mandated cottage by the lake, within walking distance of a government-mandated “just-wage” job that fulfills their “whole-person” potential?

And again, while we’re divining the Bishops’ (undoubtedly) nuanced delineation between “shelter” and “housing” (shall we answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while we’re at it?), to take the Bishops’ instructions in the “positive-law” sense, we would have to extend our support to universal government mandates to everything else the Bishops listed, in order to meet our “duty to secure and respect…the rights of the individual to a decent life” consistently.

I conclude that there is no way to make meaningful sense of anything the Bishops prescribe above if one takes it in the “positive-law” way. Therefore, the Bishops could not possibly mean this in the way that “positive law as social justice” proponents insist.

But what do I know. I’m not a Bishop.

All my best…

 

[Convert66]

Juliamajor,

Since your post was addressed generally (by not being specifically addressed to anyone at all) I’d like to respond.

Ah, seems like some folks have chosen politics over their church.

Not at all. I think we are also instructed to weigh politics and religion as inextricably-linked, just as the individual and society are linked and can’t be separated with regards to the premises of “social justice” prescribed by the Church.

Social justice, concern for the poor and downtrodden is a big part of biblical tradition.The Charity and social concerns for the poor and marginal have been part of Scripture from the beginning .

Which biblical tradition are you speaking of? There are many. Or, do you mean to suggest that we are unaware of the contents of the Scriptures with regards to the poor or the many admonishments to care for them or to seek a just society? You are being presumptuous.

What has become part of governmental outreaches was once part of the and parcel of churches and synagogues for a very long time-and they did it better.I’m I going to deny biblical aand church principles because Glenn Beck doesn’t like it or sees it as unamerican(very telling).

It’s not as easy as tagging the words “social justice” onto every government-proposed solution to poverty or injustice. One must weigh the evidence and decide on an individual proposals’ ability to serve the cause of justice or detract from that cause seriously, and not with a sound-byte as a substitute for careful consideration. Even you said that “… churches and synagogues…did it better.” There is a reason why Jesus’ kingdom is “not of this world” and a reason why Jesus divided our duties to Caesar and our duties to God.

That’s just tough for ol’ Glenn. The Lord hears the cry of the poor-or don’t you believe that.

Being a poor man myself (as “poor” is defined in the US), I not only believe it, but I rely upon it for my daily bread.

Were the prophets wrong to harangue the “cows of Bashan” for their indolent lifestyle while the poor suffered? Is equality of souls rich, poor, native or alien to be guided by the moral black hole that people like beck on right or left would like to see happen?

This is called “poisoning the well”. You’ve excluded everyone who disagrees with you from equal moral standing (you’ve assumed it) by suggesting they have a “moral black hole” for disagreement with your interpretation of “justice for the poor.”

I gave up on politics and "lleft " or “right” a long time ago. Be guided by the church and biblical precepts as regards the poor.Governments only want votes, popularity and power.If standing up for the lowest of the low makes some people unhappy-so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time.Standing up for those who have no voice whether in the womb or out of it is our primary mission toward our fellow human beings upon on this earth even if our popularity wanes.Jesus was not a proponent of the gospel of prosperity.Good thing don’t always come to good people.Biblical laws demand gleanings for the poor and indigent-even animals got a piece of a fallow field.Why shouldn’t we be kind to those in need.even if it is under the dubious moniker of “social justice”?

I find it strange that you gave up on politics when this would violate your duties to work towards a just social order: not to mention, your equating a failure to support the governments proposed remedies for securing social justice (as defined by the Magisterium, not by Glenn Beck or Barack Obama) with an attitude of indifference to those in need. Additionally, you’ve portrayed anyone who disagrees with yours, or the governments prescription of how to best fulfill our duties to the poor as, by default, unkind. Once again, this is called “poisoning the well.”

All my best…

 

[juliamajor]

Juliamajor,

Since your post was addressed generally (by not being specifically addressed to anyone at all) I’d like to respond.

Not at all. I think we are also instructed to weigh politics and religion as inextricably-linked, just as the individual and society are linked and can’t be separated with regards to the premises of “social justice” prescribed by the Church…Charity and concern for the poor are not merely state concerns but are concerns for each person.Charity in its purest form should begin with us as believers. The state may help fill in the gaps but charity is not a government priority.Giving the poor “panem et circensis” is in the interest of the state- to keep the poor quiet-not out of love.

---

Which biblical tradition are you speaking of? There are many. Or, do you mean to suggest that we are unaware of the contents of the Scriptures with regards to the poor or the many admonishments to care for them or to seek a just society? You are being presumptuous.
"]Biblical tradtions such as the Mosaic Laws concern for the poor,the prophets bewailing the fact that sacrifices are not as good as mercy.Jesus’ compassion-If that is presumption-so be it.It’s not as easy as tagging the words “social justice” onto every government-proposed solution to poverty or injustice. One must weigh the evidence and decide on an individual proposals’ ability to serve the cause of justice or detract from that cause seriously, and not with a sound-byte as a substitute for careful consideration. Even you said that “… churches and synagogues…did it better.” There is a reason why Jesus’ kingdom is “not of this world” and a reason why Jesus divided our duties to Caesar and our duties to God. -very true-I very much agree that all the government proposes is not out of a compassionate concern-I believed I answered that above.Governments are very much into pretense and the illusion of compassion.I didn’t say to go into this fight blindly or with naiveate. but with eyes wide open.-and as I stated in my other missive, to only join in with the government when our ethics allow.

Being a poor man myself (as “poor” is defined in the US), I not only believe it, but I rely upon it for my daily bread.

This is called “poisoning the well”. You’ve excluded everyone who disagrees with you from equal moral standing (you’ve assumed it) by suggesting they have a “moral black hole” for disagreement with your interpretation of "justice for the poor."Actually when I state right or left I a using a merism .Who did I exclude?who did I name?My interpretation? not really-I see many who disagree with the churches position on social justice- an annoying term.But it is the churches opinion-like it or not.

I find it strange that you gave up on politics when this would violate your duties to work towards a just social order: not to mention, your equating a failure to support the governments (never mentioned government policy except in a negative sense)proposed remedies for securing social justice (as defined by the Magisterium, not by Glenn Beck or Barack Obama) with an attitude of indifference to those in need. Additionally, you’ve portrayed anyone who disagrees with yours,) or the governments prescriptionf how tobest

fulfill our duties to the poor as, by default, unkind. Once again, this is called “poisoning the well” the well was tainted by adding thoughts and ideas that were not mine but in reality - your image of me that doesn’t jibe with my written statements (where did I say anything positive about the governments agenda? Please show me!)
(you really read and assumed way more than
i stated and have put words and thoughts into it that are not mine but yours.You’ve created your own tainted image of me because I’m not a fan of Beck and do not buy into his line-

All my best…All I meant was I am apolitical -I trust and believe in no political party-and my you are reading heavily into what I have written and presume that people who are not like Beck or other talking heads follow lock step some kind of agenda or mindset.That’s just not snce upon a time-I was a good democrat-then a good conservative then a good republican.none took what I would say was a biblical stance-none could claim ethical or moral superiority. Personally I don’t care what other see as their agenda-I don’t have one.I have atendency to march to my own drumbeat.Don’t lump me with anybody else-I am myself.What I do rises and falls on myself.-.Where did I equate a failure to support government proposals to anything?My only mention of government was negative-so why are you reading something into my statement that isn’t there?

 

[RWMorris]

I believe that the Lord favors the poor,that he demands we obey biblical principles of of justice without prejudices,that God demands that we care for the less fortunate- that since we are God’s hand, feet we must act as He would if God had a physical body.Running away from a church that has concerns for the poor the downtrodden, for the victims of injustice is to run away from the Gospel Of Christ, the precepts of justice demanded in the Mosaic Laws and denies the Divine attribute"hesed" that is supposed to be mimiced by His people.

Let me rephrase the question. Do you agree with what the Bishops are saying? I repeat their exact words:

Each person also has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. We also have a duty to secure and respect these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society.

• usccb.org/faithfulcitizen…atement.html#6

 

[RWMorris]

RWMorris,

You’ve raised an interesting dilemma, or rather, you’ve quoted one that the Bishops have raised (and one that you and I and several others have repeatedly pointed towards in this thread). The USCCB quote runs:

“Each person also has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. **We also have a duty to secure and respect these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society. **”

… I conclude that there is no way to make meaningful sense of anything the Bishops prescribe above if one takes it in the “positive-law” way. Therefore, the Bishops could not possibly mean this in the way that “positive law as social justice” proponents insist.

But what do I know. I’m not a Bishop.

All my best…

I have started and stopped (and erased) typing this reply many times. There is nothing I can say that isn’t inflammatory, especially to fellow Catholics who demand absolute obedience to the Bishops as the price for being a faithful Catholic and Christian.

They would take away my firm belief that the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are the finest governing documents mankind has ever produced. Heck, they are even willing to sacrifice our free will at the altar of “ecclesiastical correctness.” I am free to feel the way I do, I just can’t act upon that freedom. At least, not and be a Christian.

I am truly distraught. Please pray for me.

 

[catharina]

Ah, seems like some folks have chosen politics over their church .Or chosen a personage of the cult of personality over Church teachings. Trying to wrap it in “socialist” or “communist” garments to scare good ole’ americans away from from it are just wrong. Social justice, concern for the poor and downtrodden is a big part of biblical tradition. The Charity and social concerns for the poor and marginal have been part of Scripture from the beginning .What has become part of governmental outreaches was once part of the and parcel of churches and synagogues for a very long time-and they did it better.I’m I going to deny biblical aand church principles because Glenn Beck doesn’t like it or sees it as unamerican(very telling).That’s just tough for ol’ Glenn. The Lord hears the cry of the poor-or don’t you believe that. Were the prophets wrong to harangue the “cows of Bashan” for their indolent lifestyle while the poor suffered?Is equality of souls rich, poor, native or alien to be guided by the moral black hole that people like beck on right or left would like to see happen? I gave up on politics and "lleft " or “right” a long time ago. Be guided by the church and biblical precepts as regards the poor.Governments only want votes, popularity and power.If standing up for the lowest of the low makes some people unhappy-so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time.Standing up for those who have no voice whether in the womb or out of it is our primary mission toward our fellow human beings upon on this earth even if our popularity wanes.Jesus was not a proponent of the gospel of prosperity.Good thing don’t always come to good people.Biblical laws demand gleanings for the poor and indigent-even animals got a piece of a fallow field.Why shouldn’t we be kind to those in need.even if it is under the dubious moniker of “social justice”?

Thank you, Julia. (In the future, PLEASE make use of paragraphs! tee-hee.)

Taken from “Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II” on CatholicIreland.net.
Clearly some scholars are still hard at work in the Church in Ireland.
As psoted on that site: Friday, 19 March, 2010

“Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991)
In his third social encyclical, the pope commemorates the hundredth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. The Church’s social teaching, he says, is built on faith; and from this follows the Church’s commitment to fundamental principles concerning the dignity and rights of everyone, the preferential option for the poor, and the solidarity of all peoples and nationalities. The Pope endorses the principles of the free economy, but only if such an economy is circumscribed by a tight juridical framework which ensures that it is placed at the service of human freedom in its totality.”

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EHZqjH1nhN0J:www.catholicireland.net/church-a-bible/church/history/113-the-encyclicals-of-pope-john-paul-ii+new+advent,+preferential+option+for+the+poor+pope+john+paul+ii&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

**The summarized teaching as quoted was presented in 1991.**We are almost 20 years past that time and still some Catholics argue against it? What is that? Preference for Glenn Beck over the words of the Church? Huh?

 

[Convert66]

Julia,

Charity and concern for the poor are not merely state concerns but are concerns for each person.Charity in its purest form should begin with us as believers. The state may help fill in the gaps but charity is not a government priority.Giving the poor “panem et circensis” is in the interest of the state- to keep the poor quiet-not out of love.

Agreed.

Biblical tradtions such as the Mosaic Laws concern for the poor,the prophets bewailing the fact that sacrifices are not as good as mercy.Jesus’ compassion-If that is presumption-so be it.

The presumption comes in your implication that those who have (in your words) “chosen politics over religion” were somehow unaware of the Scriptures. That is presumptuous.

Actually when I state right or left I a using a merism .Who did I exclude?who did I name?My interpretation? not really-I see many who disagree with the churches position on social justice- an annoying term.But it is the churches opinion-like it or not.

I’ve seen people disagree with opinions on what the Church actually means and others who insist that if something merely sounds like it may help the poor then it must be identical to what the Church means by “social justice”. They haven’t made the case, they’ve simply asserted it and then insisted that anyone who disagrees that it is in fact what the Church teaches is either, (A) choosing politics over religion; (B) ignorant of Scripture and the Church’s teaching, and/or, (C) suffering from a “moral black hole.” This is nothing more than dishonesty. If I asserted that you were choosing politics over religion; ignorant of Scripture and the Church’s teachings, and that you have a “moral black hole” then I am not making a rational appeal but poisoning the well and dividing you away from biblical tradition, moral standing and rationality.

the well was tainted by adding thoughts and ideas that were not mine but in reality - your image of me that doesn’t jibe with my written statements (where did I say anything positive about the governments agenda? Please show me!)
(you really read and assumed way more than
i stated and have put words and thoughts into it that are not mine but yours.You’ve created your own tainted image of me because I’m not a fan of Beck and do not buy into his line-

I quoted your divisive-missive accurately, like it or not. I overreached on your support for government programs, but given the way that you yourself distinguished between those who haven’t “chosen politics over religion”, ignorant of Scripture and Church teachings or have a “moral black hole” over and against those who have, I thought it a safe assumption. I haven’t created a tainted image at all. I simply overstated one particular amongst many concrete statements that you made. Mea culpa.

Also, it’s a little ironic that you do so yourself again by assigning a motive to me (“because I’m not a fan of Beck and do not buy into his line”) when in fact I was just going by what you’d written above. Why assume I am a fan of Beck instead of simply reading what I’ve written above or throughout this thread as you claimed you’d done in your first post? I distinguished between Magisterial teaching on the one hand, and Beck’s OR Obama’s on the other.

All I meant was I am apolitical -I trust and believe in no political party-and my you are reading heavily into what I have written and presume that people who are not like Beck or other talking heads follow lock step some kind of agenda or mindset

Your sermon supplied my response, not some assumption that you are in lockstep with anyone. But it is rich that you single out Beck’s supporters as ALL having “chosen politics over religion”, “ignorant of biblical tradition” and suffering from a “moral black hole” and then protesting that you are being put into a lock-step category. The irony-o-meter is pegging the red line here.

That’s just not snce upon a time-I was a good democrat-then a good conservative then a good republican.none took what I would say was a biblical stance-none could claim ethical or moral superiority. Personally I don’t care what other see as their agenda-I don’t have one.I have atendency to march to my own drumbeat.Don’t lump me with anybody else-I am myself.What I do rises and falls on myself.-.

Interesting that you have no agenda in one breath (other than distinguishing yourself from any political party) and in the other you clearly do (march[ing] to my own drumbeat). You bemoan a lack of ethical or moral superiority on the parts of political parties in one breath (and I absolutely agree with you), and then you expect me to see ethical or moral sobriety in your own drumbeat whilst you call others partisans, ignorant and morally vacuous?

Words mean things, Julia.

Where did I equate a failure to support government proposals to anything?My only mention of government was negative-so why are you reading something into my statement that isn’t there?

You didn’t, and again, mea culpa for grossly overstating. What you did was draw a line and place on one side those who YOU think are not choosing politics over religion, ignorant of biblical tradition, or suffering a “moral black hole,” and on the other, those who have defended or tried to better understand (you know, giving the benefit of the doubt to) what Mr. Beck said whom you have divined to be suffering from all three maladies.

I didn’t read that into your statements. I quoted you. Like it or not.

All my best…

 

[Convert66]

I have started and stopped (and erased) typing this reply many times. There is nothing I can say that isn’t inflammatory, especially to fellow Catholics who demand absolute obedience to the Bishops as the price for being a faithful Catholic and Christian.

They would take away my firm belief that the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are the finest governing documents mankind has ever produced. Heck, they are even willing to sacrifice our free will at the altar of “ecclesiastical correctness.” I am free to feel the way I do, I just can’t act upon that freedom. At least, not and be a Christian.

I am truly distraught. Please pray for me.

I know exactly how you feel, Rw. I do not know how to bridge the gap between those who read into cherry-picked sound-bytes and call that Magisterial intent, and those who look at it wholly and wrestle with the actual meaning and application. Catharina emphasized the “preferential option for the poor” fom John Paul II’s encyclical and seems to have overlooked entirely his advocacy of the “free economy” that followed on it’s heels. Still others would likely emphasize his words about the free economy at the expense of the juridical checks he advocates. I’ve stated over and again that the Magisterium views collectivism and raw captialism as both inherently flawed, because both systems reduce the person to lesser-than the “common good” on the one hand, or to just another “means of producing capital” on the other. I seem to be whistling into the wind.

The question remains: what does social justice actually look like? Is it carte blanche support for any and every government program that promises or claims to help the poor (Johnson’s Great Society programs and model-cities program leaps to mind, actual devestatingly unjust results to the contrary), or is it wrestling with thorny issues and weighing all sides, plus and minus, in the balances before rushing off to the campfire to sing kumbaya thinking we are on God’s side?

Just to choose one pet peeve of my own, education. The USCCB site says we have a “duty to secure and respect” the “right to…decent education” and I would agree. The devil is in the details, however. Is it “social justice” that all kids have access to education alone, or does the quality and net effect of that education figure in as well? I would insist that it matters pre-eminently. When nearly 70% of incoming college freshman have to take remedial English and Math in order to qualify for college-level course, there is something broken in our definition of “decent education.”

When people can’t discern any fundamental differences between Magisterial “social justice” on the one hand, and “critical theory” qua “social justice” on the other, there is something not only indecent at work, but, by my lights, downright insidious.

My prayers are yours, my friend.

All my best…

 

[catharina]

RW -
lest you be cofused by convert66’s misdirection,
indeed I did quote the entire “byte” re the Holy Father’s words.

Again:

B]
“Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991)
In his third social encyclical, the pope commemorates the hundredth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. The Church’s social teaching, he says, is built on faith; and from this follows the Church’s commitment to fundamental principles concerning the dignity and rights of everyone, the preferential option for the poor, and the solidarity of all peoples and nationalities. The Pope endorses the principles of the free economy, but only if such an economy is circumscribed by a tight juridical framework which ensures that it is placed at the service of human freedom in its totality.”

That my emphasis by choice of font is not to the liking of convert66 is no surprise.
Yet since convert66 continues to twist my words, I call your attentioon to my real quote.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

I’ve been away for the last few days and I see that the conversation hasn’t changed that much in the interim. I have noticed that many people want to make this a political discussion. That was not my orginal intent. Frankly, I thought that we could all agree that someone, namely Glenn Beck, who told us to run away from a church who preached social justice would ranckle us Catholics. That does not appear to be the case and I am deeply saddened by that fact.

Convert 666,
One can expess one’s feelings or opinions without denigrating the person one is responding to. One should think before one posts or run the risk of speaking like Little Carmine in the Sopranos who likes to talk and be in chrage but usually doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

[johns58w]

Mr. Beck is an entertainer. Having read parts of Arguing With Idiots, and still wondering why Glenn posed in a fake military uniform, I can’t take him seriously.

God bless,
Ed

Glenn Beck was probably at Prince Harry’s party back in Jan. 2005

 

[4elise]

Mr Beck can explain, rephrase, re-explain, etc. till the cows come home. If what it appears he meant changes with each version, which is presumably why he returned to the subject, what he now wants us to understand him to have meant. But what he meant when he said Social Justice is code is very clear. If he wants to retract that, that is fine, but what comes across to me is not that he is sorry that he said it, so much as that people called him out on it, and he had to run away from his position.

What some here seem to be advocating is that we should just ignore what he actually said originally in favor of what he is saying now, after people reacted to what he originally said. I don’t mind forgiving him, but forgetting is rubbish. This is Standanrd Operating Procedure for people in Mr Beck’s field. Everyone is supposed to forget what they said so they can go on to contradict themselves, or ignore what what they said implies about them personally.

The fact is that there are actual movements to seperate Christ from Christianity and attach him to Radical Free Marketism. Supporters of this movement tend to denigrate “Social Justice” and the poor, and those who seek to help them. One group in this realm is called The Family, and Mr Stupak has been living in one of their houses for years. For more information on The Family, their history and world-wide reach, see Jeff Sharlett’s book of the same name.

In this context it is worth remembering that Mr Beck would seem to demonize the churches which advocate for Social Justice by suggesting that they are being deceptive by speaking in code. As to the importance of Social Justice to The Church, the above mentioned interview with Fr. James Martin does a pretty good job of making an oxymoron out of “Catholic Libertarianism,” or the Family for Catholics.

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/267673/march-18-2010/glenn-beck-attacks-social-justice—james-martin

So very, very well said… thank you for this.