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

[4elise]

Sadly so many still listen and are confused by the connections made.
Peace my friends

 

[Convert66]

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.

666? Nice, non-denigrating touch.

As for your viewing habits, I don’t see the relevance. Oh wait…I get it, the Sopranos are “Catholic” too. :newidea:

You folks are certainly funny, so I hope that’s what your efforts were aimed towards.

 

[4elise]

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!

I am not sure what Catholic Church you belong to… but no Catholic church I have ever attended supports pro abortion anything.

 

[juliamajor]

Julia,

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. (where in that sentence did i say anything about politics over religion? that was a last post- not this one.you are trying to make your point with past material?)
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**
“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.”**

.
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(some of my case is stated above), they’ve simply asserted it and then insisted that anyone who disagrees that it is in fact what the Church teaches is either,I (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. (Again you are being redundant with your accusations-dwell on the current text and stop going over something that clearly pissed you off and you can’t get past- your criticisms do not match the present text)
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-

 

[juliamajor]

I quoted your divisive-missive accurately, like it or not.(If you did not quote me wrongly then why didn’t insert one of my “telltale” quotes")you 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”(redundant) over and against those who have, I thought it a safe assumption.(well you know what they say about assumptions!) I haven’t created a tainted image at all. I simply overstated one particular amongst many concrete statements that you made. Mea culpa. ( a rather sarcastic ,back handed mea culpa)
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)
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(again the assumption is on your part-quote me correctly-or not at all.I didn’t say you were a beck fan .That is your inference-yes words do mean something if they are quoted correctly.)

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”,(Where did I say that?) “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. (yes you do love to read things into statements that are not there.-that’s irony)

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?(Read the red lines-do you see any mention of vacuous?You imply what is not there-do not commit the sin of eisegesis)
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 a tendency 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?
Words mean things, Julia. (yes they do when quoted correctly and honestly- but you have a habit of reading your view of what I have written instead of what i have reallly written- that just not right)

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(you keep dwelling on this again -the line drawn is in your mind , your view your world your agenda 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. (where again did I say that?)
I didn’t read that into your statements. I quoted you. Like it or not. (Not you didn’t -where are said quotes in this post- but apparently you like to take past posts and project them onto present posts.Stick to the present post)
All my best…

 

[Erin_Anne]

I haven’t read through all the posts here, so forgive me if I am repeating.

Damage control. I don’t know. I hate politics anyway.

In case you haven’t seen the latest:

youtube.com/watch?v=-u3VGOsZGDw

 

[4elise]

I haven’t read through all the posts here, so forgive me if I am repeating.

Damage control. I don’t know. I hate politics anyway.

In case you haven’t seen the latest:

youtube.com/watch?v=-u3VGOsZGDw

I watched this and I do understand that people who have come to the same conclusions as he does - I think it was something about ‘dope smoking hippies from the 60’s who want to destroy the country’ agree and make no notice of how he just makes huge leaps without bridges - I find it so offensive that he is saying that to care about health care, education, social justice, environmental justice therefore means one is interested in “RW” re-distrubution of wealth / socialism - and that it is a plot to destroy the country! It is so illogical - his conspiracy theories are absurd.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I watched this and I do understand that people who have come to the same conclusions as he does - I think it was something about ‘dope smoking hippies from the 60’s who want to destroy the country’ agree and make no notice of how he just makes huge leaps without bridges - I find it so offensive that he is saying that to care about health care, education, social justice, environmental justice therefore means one is interested in “RW” re-distribution of wealth / socialism - and that it is a plot to destroy the country! It is so illogical - his conspiracy theories are absurd.

Most of the modern commentators are truly only worried about ratings. If they thought that the ratings could be made to go up by denigrating an individual or an institution then most of them would do so.

Many of the, so called Catholics, on the air today don’t realize (Maybe they do) that their Opinions concerning Social Justice issues if different then the church puts them outside of the church and in line with other Cults. It is not a matter of choice.

This choice is the same on each social justice issue as it is for ALL life issues, as life is the fundamental ingredient in all social justice issues.

The fundamental difference between opinions usually manifests itself through some form of judgment by individuals on motives. This judgment is when men become, or try to become like God.

Without acting like good for this Judgment puts most issues into a different light. Looking at each case of need through the mandatory lens, mandatory by Christs mandate not to judge motives, brings likely outcomes for Christians, those following Christ’s mandates, onto the same road.

It is only when we decide to ignore Christ that we really have FREEDOM to judge the fate of individuals based on our own set of standards vice those of Christ.

“Love they neighbor as thyself”.

Yes this may be a very narrow world view, but the Lord did warn us that the way was Narrow…

 

[pnewton]

. 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.

I would hope that Glen Beck would not engage in slanderous accusations. The fact is that the USCCB withdraws funding when these unbrella organizations when they engage in funding contrary to Church teaching.

 

[4elise]

Most of the modern commentators are truly only worried about ratings. If they thought that the ratings could be made to go up by denigrating an individual or an institution then most of them would do so.

Many of the, so called Catholics, on the air today don’t realize (Maybe they do) that their Opinions concerning Social Justice issues if different then the church puts them outside of the church and in line with other Cults. It is not a matter of choice.

This choice is the same on each social justice issue as it is for ALL life issues, as life is the fundamental ingredient in all social justice issues.

The fundamental difference between opinions usually manifests itself through some form of judgment by individuals on motives. This judgment is when men become, or try to become like God.

Without acting like good for this Judgment puts most issues into a different light. Looking at each case of need through the mandatory lens, mandatory by Christs mandate not to judge motives, brings likely outcomes for Christians, those following Christ’s mandates, onto the same road.

It is only when we decide to ignore Christ that we really have FREEDOM to judge the fate of individuals based on our own set of standards vice those of Christ.

“Love they neighbor as thyself”.

Yes this may be a very narrow world view, but the Lord did warn us that the way was Narrow…

How true -
I know that the divisiveness of media is not new - but it seems especially troubling today - one doesn’t need to look far into history to see ways and places where media has stirred such hatred of the ‘other’ that violence ensues. (Rwanda in a large example - violence against Muslims following 9/11 - in a community near me a Hindu man was killed because people didn’t know the difference!)

The vitriolic speech - the undertone of hate of the other - that is fed by such media - this is where I would hope people of faith could rise up and demand that we are not part of this - we will not tolerate it - let alone defend it.

God bless us all during this most Holy Week. May we look beyond, and invite others to do the same - may we find ways as individuals to live the social teaching of our Church.

 

[Convert66]

Julia,

where in that sentence did i say anything about politics over religion? that was a last post- not this one.you are trying to make your point with past material?)

It was your very first sentence and you know it. Once you retract the unfounded charge you made that…"Ah, seems like some folks have chosen politics over their church (JuliaMajor post 485), then we can move on.

(Convert66)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(Julia–some of my case is stated above),

You haven’t attempted to make that case, let alone satisfied any burden on you to back your charges with evidence.

If you did not quote me wrongly then why didn’t insert one of my “telltale” quotes")

I assumed you already knew what you had written, since, you know, YOU wrote it. But, since you deny that you cast aspersions on anyone who agrees with or defends Beck let’s return to Post 485 where you wrote:

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 (Convert66–this is your presumption that, should we defend Beck against the more spurious charges made against him, we must be somehow ignorant of Biblical tradition).

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? (emphasis mine)

You wrote it. Instructing me to ignore it won’t make it go away. As I said, words mean things, Julia. I didn’t, as you claim, “assume anything about me because I am not a fan of Beck and do not buy into his line.” I simply ran with your own words. You assumed that I must be a Beck fan by making the distinction in the first place.

(Convert66)-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”, Julia-(Where did I say that?)

You said that “many have…” Call it an assumption to extrapolate given your dividing line between those who “…must be a Beck fan” and those who are not, but that does give context to who the “many” are you are referring to. Maybe I have misread you, but given that you haven’t addressed a single response to anyone who made nasty accusations against Beck or, as you have, labeled his defenders or supporters, your claims of neutrality ring hollow.

(yes they do when quoted correctly and honestly- but you have a habit of reading your view of what I have written instead of what i have reallly written- that just not right)

And the one instance where I did so I admitted to “grossly overreaching” and issued two mea culpa’s for doing so. I admit freely that JuliaMajor does not support any and all government-mandate simply because it sounds as if it may benfit the poor. Is that better? Third time’s the charm?

where again did I say that?)

See my direct quote above from your first post.

Not you didn’t -where are said quotes in this post- but apparently you like to take past posts and project them onto present posts.Stick to the present post)

So I must ignore anything you do not wish to answer for, or defend, and instead move along as you see fit? I quoted you. It’s not my problem if you have an issue with being honest with others or yourself. Given your unfounded and groundless assertions already, though, somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

 

[Convert66]

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.

If you can show me in the Holy Father’s original text that he used blue font on that particular section to highlight that particular passage then I will admit to “twisting” His words (since you aren’t their author it would be impossible for me to twist yours).

Also, please demonstrate where I---- “continues to twist my words”---- by providing actual instances of me doing so. Otherwise, owing to your well-formed Catholic conscience and desire for justice I will expect a retraction of your groundless accusation.

 

[catharina]

Julia,

It’s not my problem if you have an issue with being honest with others or yourself. Given your unfounded and groundless assertions already, though, somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

Groundless assumption and generalization.
Also way out-of-bounds on CA.

 

[Convert66]

I would hope that Glen Beck would not engage in slanderous accusations. The fact is that the USCCB withdraws funding when these unbrella organizations when they engage in funding contrary to Church teaching.

I’m certain that if anyone has “slandered” (a specific legal term, by the way) the USCCB or anyone else, that legal actions will be pending. If you are an attorney yourself maybe you should pick up the cause.

 

[Convert66]

Groundless assumption and generalization.
Also way out-of-bounds on CA.

Nice evasion. I suppose that your repeated ad-hominems against Beck are “in bounds” on CAF?

 

[catharina]

How true -
I know that the divisiveness of media is not new - but it seems especially troubling today - one doesn’t need to look far into history to see ways and places where media has stirred such hatred of the ‘other’ that violence ensues. (Rwanda in a large example - violence against Muslims following 9/11 - in a community near me a Hindu man was killed because people didn’t know the difference!)

The vitriolic speech - the undertone of hate of the other - that is fed by such media - this is where I would hope people of faith could rise up and demand that we are not part of this - we will not tolerate it - let alone defend it.

God bless us all during this most Holy Week. May we look beyond, and invite others to do the same - may we find ways as individuals to live the social teaching of our Church.

Indeed, Julia. Beautiful and thank you.

 

[pnewton]

I’m certain that if anyone has “slandered” (a specific legal term, by the way)

No, not exclusively. The legal meaning is only one. I can look it up if you need and give you an on-line dictionary reference.

thefreedictionary.com/slander

merriam-webster.com/netdict/slander

encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/slander.html

Each of these have a non-legal deifinition.

Besides, if you note, I said that I think Glen Beck would not engage in such slander, so there is hardly a need for a lawyer.

 

[juliamajor]

Julia,

It was your very first sentence and you know it. Once you retract the unfounded charge you made that…"Ah, seems like some folks have chosen politics over their church (JuliaMajor post 485), then we can move on.

You haven’t attempted to make that case, let alone satisfied any burden on you to back your charges with evidence.

I assumed you already knew what you had written, since, you know, YOU wrote it. But, since you deny that you cast aspersions on anyone who agrees with or defends Beck let’s return to Post 485 where you wrote:

You wrote it. Instructing me to ignore it won’t make it go away. As I said, words mean things, Julia. I didn’t, as you claim, “assume anything about me because I am not a fan of Beck and do not buy into his line.” I simply ran with your own words. You assumed that I must be a Beck fan by making the distinction in the first place.

You said that “many have…” Call it an assumption to extrapolate given your dividing line between those who “…must be a Beck fan” and those who are not, but that does give context to who the “many” are you are referring to. Maybe I have misread you, but given that you haven’t addressed a single response to anyone who made nasty accusations against Beck or, as you have, labeled his defenders or supporters, your claims of neutrality ring hollow.

And the one instance where I did so I admitted to “grossly overreaching” and issued two mea culpa’s for doing so. I admit freely that JuliaMajor does not support any and all government-mandate simply because it sounds as if it may benfit the poor. Is that better? Third time’s the charm?

See my direct quote above from your first post.

So I must ignore anything you do not wish to answer for, or defend, and instead move along as you see fit? I quoted you. It’s not my problem if you have an issue with being honest with others or yourself. Given your unfounded and groundless assertions already, though, somehow that doesn’t surprise me.Boy you can’t let it go can you.I goonto another post and your still steaming about the first one!Jeez let it go! you like having a vendetta that’s fine.But I won’t be like you.Apparently you like to wallow in imagined slights(why you see yourself in generic statements I’ll never know)amd attack as you will.The funny thing is every word out of your mouth proves my statements correct.your operatic retorts are so out of line &most people have seen that. I’m going away now.I’ve got way more important things to worry about .I will not get myself riled up o when I have Holy week to look forward to. It’s better for my soul that way.[Vindictiveness is not conducive to a good prayer life.Go with God and enjoy the solemnities of Holy Week./COLOR]

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

If you can show me in the Holy Father’s original text that he used blue font on that particular section to highlight that particular passage then I will admit to “twisting” His words (since you aren’t their author it would be impossible for me to twist yours).

Also, please demonstrate where I---- “continues to twist my words”---- by providing actual instances of me doing so. Otherwise, owing to your well-formed Catholic conscience and desire for justice I will expect a retraction of your groundless accusation.

It would be nice if your put your amazing analytical skills to use in taking Glenn Beck’s comments apart piece by piece. Do you only see nuance in people you agree with?

 

[RWMorris]

Question for everyone or anyone. Given what our Bishops said about social justice, and I quote:

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.
**- **http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizen…atement.html#6

Does this mean we should support increasing taxes and the size and scope of our governments until we meet the Bishops’ challenge?