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

[catharina]

Many posters have quoted many things, including even mini book-reports.

Quoting Pope Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum) and his defense of the working man gives a clear glimpse of our faith’s historical stand on behalf of those who have financial struggles. His stand is a prt of Church history. Quotes from the Catechism show that Church teaching is quite consistent; we are called to be holy and to allow Truth to transform society. We are to do this despite the ideas of one such as Beck.

 

[sedonaman]

you can feel what you like… it is just a fact that the Catholic Church teaches Social Justice.
…

Look. I never said it didn’t.

You said,

**
The Catholic Church not only espouses, but defines quite clearly exactly what Social Justice - in light of Catholic faith is. **

And you immediately followed that statement with,

I have also numerous times said that I believe that it is possible that good people of faith may find that it is appropriate to draw the line in different places as to WHERE the government should be involved in the delivery of such things as health care.

Both of these statements cannot be true. Either the church defines it “exactly” or people have flexibility; it can’t be both.

It’s not possible to define it “exactly” because there are too many possible situations that might arise. That is why God said, “Thou shalt not steal” instead of “Thou shalt not redefine what AAA rating means and bundle ‘AAA’ bonds and sell them to unsuspecting investors you have misled.”

And that’s why I challenged your statement.

 

[catharina]

As to how they are applied - I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT I KNOW GOOD PEOPLE OF FAITH MAY DRAW THE LINE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE AS TO HOW MUCH THE GOVERNMENT CAN / SHOULD BE INVOLVED ----

However we CAN NOT DENY that the Catholic Church teaches Social Justice
Glen Beck told people to leave Churches that professed Social Justice
Therefore (no straw man here) Glen Beck is telling people to leave the Catholic Church.

All true. No contradiction.
Feelings do not enter into this.

 

[kbkam]

Thanks, Ella for the You tube link-
I had seen it before and really appreciate seeing it again-and may I point out that the man himself reaches out to the boy-he doesn’t call his ‘congresscritter’ to do it for him…

I haven’t read of any of the posters who agree with GB’s assessment (of liberal socialism disguising itself as ‘social justice’ ) disagree with the You tube message- in fact, it goes to the point of individual Charity-not Big Brother’s version.

I still maintain that GB (who provides source material for most, if not all, of his points) was and continues to be, misquoted by the people on here who won’t go to the source-he said ‘Run away from churches that preach social justice **if it is the social justice preached by Rev Jeremiah Wright **’(non-Catholic-BTW). Purposely ignoring the entire quote is bearing false witness, is it not? I don’t remember if anyone has addressed this, even though many of us had posted the transcript and interviews early on. If the entire quote had been the title of this forum, would his detractors still accuse him of telling his listeners to run from the Catholic Church? No, because he didn’t say it.

Even though the entire disagreement has, IMO, been based on an incomplete quote which changes the entire message, the ensuing discussion has been fascinating to me. Beck was and is talking about socialist/progressive/liberal takeover of the cause/words social justice, leading to bigger government, and that is the starting point of all of my assertions here. Listening to him doesn’t cause me to hate or fear anyone. I have not read of anyone here using GB as a source for Catholic doctrine, although it’s been accused. I enjoy listening to him as he is the ‘canary in the coal mine’ warning of what our society is turning into.

IMO, on one end of the scale there is individual responsibility to be charitable and the other is to give big government the job of doing what we as Catholics should be doing ourselves. We are very fortunate that along the scale are many options to get involved and to participate with a wide variety of Catholic/Christian charities before government, with its amoral approach, gets involved. I believe that the government that governs least, governs best, so of course, it follows that the government’s job is not to put crazy mandates and restrictions on us, but to get out of the way of law abiding citizens-excessive taxation restricts our ability to be charitable with our own money.

As an aside, I was pondering whether one gets plenary indulgence for acts of charity-and my research found that it’s only a partial indulgence…
catholic.org/clife/prayers/indulgc.php

The second general grant is this: “A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, in a spirit of faith and mercy, give of themselves or of their goods to serve their brothers in need.” This grant “is intended to serve as an incentive to the faithful to perform more frequent acts of charity and mercy,” as Christ commanded (John 13:15, Acts 10:38).

SO, if we give the government the responsibility of preforming our acts of charity, does government get the indulgences and then get to redistribute them, too?

 

[sedonaman]

…
I still maintain that GB (who provides source material for most, if not all, of his points) was and continues to be, misquoted by the people on here who won’t go to the source - he said ‘Run away from churches that preach social justice **if it is the social justice preached by Rev Jeremiah Wright **’(non-Catholic-BTW)…

Thank you!

 

[jewells17]

Thank you!

We love him at my church and our social justice group is dinky. Most people know it has been hyjacked by socialists.

 

[Tigg]

This central point you’e making is the very heart of this thread. Glenn Beck chose to use words that pit him against the Catholic church, her parishes, her priests and the VIRTUE of Social Justice.

**Nonetheless, we, in the Catholic Church are called to give preferential option to the poor. **

Wow, I’m amazed that this thread has gone on for so long (I gave up on it many pages ago) and that the level of vitriol has been allowed to continue by the moderator. But my attention was drawn to your post and is a very good example of the confusion Catholics hold over the term social justice. There are many snippets of info posted on this thread, picking out of context those statements made by popes and/or the Catechism which seem to support one’s own personal theory of what social justice means. The deception and the way documents have been misconstrued and interpreted only serves to emphasize the very poor job of catechisis our shepherds have done since many of the original social encyclicals were written. I see the very clear division on this thread, and I really don’t know why I’m bothering with this, but perhaps someone, anyone, will research further into the harm that is being propagated. I’m not quite sure where to start, so will only address the above statement with this:

In 1967, a priest by the name of Gustavo Gutierrez was the one who coined the term, the “preferential option for the poor.” The concept initially appeared at the Latin American Bishops’ Conference at Medellin. (Please google Latin American Church to read for yourself how the Catholic Church and the Liturgy were torn apart during the time of the Sandinistas and the humiliation our Holy Father suffered at the hands of the Jesuits, one of the main players in this drama.) Gutierrez is one of the most influential Catholic priests in the world; he founded the **Theology of Liberation **a **human **interpretation of Christianity regarding social justice.

It promotes secular humanism and de-emphasizes sin and the need for the sacraments. **Aspects of Marxist terminology and methodology used by its proponents caused it to be viewed as reprobate **by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by Pope John Paul II.

An analysis of the phenomenon of liberation theology reveals that it constitutes a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church. At the same time it must be borne in mind that no error could persist unless it contained a grain of truth. Indeed, an error is all the more dangerous, the greater that grain of truth is, for then the temptation it exerts is all the greater.

Furthermore, the error concerned would not have been able to wrench that piece of the truth to its own use if that truth had been adequately lived and witnessed to in its proper place (in the faith of the Church). So, in denouncing error and pointing to dangers in liberation theology, we must always be ready to ask what truth is latent in the error and how it can be given its rightful place, how it can be released from error’s monopoly.

christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm

urbanministry.org/wiki/liberation-theology

Here is a statement by a dissident theologian (a buddy of Gutierrez) who criticizes the Pope in his statements on Lib Theology:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/dissident_theologian_criticizes_liberation_theology_and_the_pope/

And you and certain other posters keep insisting you are following the authentic teachings of the Church on social justice??? I simply do not understand.

 

[jewells17]

Wow, I’m amazed that this thread has gone on for so long (I gave up on it many pages ago) and that the level of vitriol has been allowed to continue by the moderator. But my attention was drawn to your post and is a very good example of the confusion Catholics hold over the term social justice. There are many snippets of info posted on this thread, picking out of context those statements made by popes and/or the Catechism which seem to support one’s own personal theory of what social justice means. The deception and the way documents have been misconstrued and interpreted only serves to emphasize the very poor job of catechisis our shepherds have done since many of the original social encyclicals were written. I see the very clear division on this thread, and I really don’t know why I’m bothering with this, but perhaps someone, anyone, will research further into the harm that is being propagated. I’m not quite sure where to start, so will only address the above statement with this:

In 1967, a priest by the name of Gustavo Gutierrez was the one who coined the term, the “preferential option for the poor.” The concept initially appeared at the Latin American Bishops’ Conference at Medellin. (Please google Latin American Church to read for yourself how the Catholic Church and the Liturgy were torn apart during the time of the Sandinistas and the humiliation our Holy Father suffered at the hands of the Jesuits, one of the main players in this drama.) Gutierrez is one of the most influential Catholic priests in the world; he founded the **Theology of Liberation **a **human **interpretation of Christianity regarding social justice.

It promotes secular humanism and de-emphasizes sin and the need for the sacraments. **Aspects of Marxist terminology and methodology used by its proponents caused it to be viewed as reprobate **by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by Pope John Paul II.

And you and certain other posters keep insisting you are following the authentic teachings of the Church on social justice??? I simply do not understand.

Tigg…thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and you are right on the money!

 

[catharina]

Wow, I’m amazed that this thread has gone on for so long (I gave up on it many pages ago) and that the level of vitriol has been allowed to continue by the moderator. But my attention was drawn to your post and is a very good example of the confusion Catholics hold over the term social justice. There are many snippets of info posted on this thread, picking out of context those statements made by popes and/or the Catechism which seem to support one’s own personal theory of what social justice means. The deception and the way documents have been misconstrued and interpreted only serves to emphasize the very poor job of catechisis our shepherds have done since many of the original social encyclicals were written. I see the very clear division on this thread, and I really don’t know why I’m bothering with this, but perhaps someone, anyone, will research further into the harm that is being propagated. I’m not quite sure where to start, so will only address the above statement with this:

In 1967, a priest by the name of Gustavo Gutierrez was the one who coined the term, the “preferential option for the poor.” The concept initially appeared at the Latin American Bishops’ Conference at Medellin. (Please google Latin American Church to read for yourself how the Catholic Church and the Liturgy were torn apart during the time of the Sandinistas and the humiliation our Holy Father suffered at the hands of the Jesuits, one of the main players in this drama.) Gutierrez is one of the most influential Catholic priests in the world; he founded the **Theology of Liberation **a **human **interpretation of Christianity regarding social justice.

It promotes secular humanism and de-emphasizes sin and the need for the sacraments. **Aspects of Marxist terminology and methodology used by its proponents caused it to be viewed as reprobate **by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by Pope John Paul II.

And you and certain other posters keep insisting you are following the authentic teachings of the Church on social justice??? I simply do not understand.

I am quite fully aware of the history of the term’s usage. Much more to the point, I know that the term Social Justice was re-introduced and newly “consecrated” by Pope John Paull II very nearly at the same time he formally and forever condemned the liberation theology of such as Guiterez. I need google nothing about this. Whatever Guiterez meant to say he didn’t say and as a result, the liberation theology of Guiterez was condemned with warnings by the Vatican.

To tie the virtue of Social Justice to the bunkum proposed and embraced by Guiterez is false. For your reading pleasure I suggest using this link, then follow up with links straight from then-Cardinal Ratzinger at the Vatican.

Just for you, I googled this:

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_4y7Fd4NTwcJ:www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Liberation_theology+gutierrez,+liberation+theology,+condemned+by+vatican&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

So yes, you are correct in that you do not understand.

 

[catharina]

Tigg…thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and you are right on the money!

Social Justice is virtue, embraced and taught by the Church.
To imagine and suggest less is to abandon the teaching of the Church.

The End.

 

[sedonaman]

The article, “The Economic Organization of a POW Camp” by R.A. Radford, illustrates the point that many have tried to make and others refuse to acknowledge. Some here do not like references that do not agree with the truth that their feelings have revealed to them. Others do not like “mini book reports,” while there are some who disdain both. The latter I invite to stop reading this post and go on to something else.

Radford was an Allied airman, captured by the Germans in WW-II, who also happen to have been an economist. He describes his observations in the camp over a period of time and under varying conditions.

Basically, at the beginning of each month, Allied POWs were given “CARE” packages of roughly equal contents. Through the development of free trade among themselves, the community of prisoners was able to raise its overall well-being, as well as that of the individual POW. For example, one prisoner might prefer chocolate bars over cigarettes; another, cigarettes over chocolate bars; a third, coffee over cigarettes.

Through this free trading arrangement, individual prisoners would generally end up with more of what they preferred and less of what they didn’t. Thus, one would have more than his package’s allotment of chocolate bars; another, more cigarettes; and a third, more coffee.

If a liberal/progressive/collectivist were to be injected into this scenario, he would immediately [if not sooner] begin to “solve” the “problem” of the “social injustice” of “inequality”, resulting from “theft”, whereby one prisoner had two chocolate bars instead of one [and was “poor” of cigarettes], while another had two packs of cigarettes [and was “poor” of chocolate]. He would thus work unceasingly to redistribute the goods equally, thus returning the camp to its initial, more primitive existence.

“To remedy these wrongs, the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich,* would strive to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each [POW, in this case] will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the [POW] himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.” – Pope Leo XIII

*And the rich man’s guilt.

 

[catharina]

“To remedy these wrongs, the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich,* would strive to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each [POW, in this case] will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the [POW] himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.” – Pope Leo XIII

Quoted above is paragraph 4 of the encyclical.
Quoted below is paragraph 14 of the encyclical.

1. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father” it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, “before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.”(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.

Please read on for more conclusions in the 64 paragraphs of Pope Leo XIII’s letter.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

 

[sedonaman]

I reject the brand of social “justice” preached by Pope Catharina I.

The end.

 

[sedonaman]

At the beginning of this thread, someone observed that the issue had been politicized. Well, do you see anything wrong with this picture?“CAN YOU TELL US, from your heart, why you think people are poor?” The question was asked during the recent [1996] television debate between Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld.

This was Kerry’s reply:

“As I have gone around this state and been privileged to sit in somebody’s kitchen and listen to them talk about their problems, what I learn is that people are poor because the deck is really stacked against them. Because people like the governor fight even raising the minimum wage. . . . Because they don’t get the breaks that a lot of wealthy people in this country get. [Because] of the Washington of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans that I am fighting – a Washington that will cut $270 billion of Medicare so they can give a $245 billion tax break, most of which goes to people who are wealthy. And that’s what stacks the odds against people, and that’s what’s wrong.”

John Kerry’s tax returns (0 dependents)

Year…Income…Charity

1990…$98,131…$1,835

1991…113,857…0

1992…127,646…820

1993…130,345…175

1994…127,884…2,039

1995…126,179…0

Total income, '90-95: $724,042
Total charity, '90-95: 4,869
Charity as % of income: 0.7%
“Kerry’s charity gap” jeffjacoby.com/4640/kerrys-charity-gap

It should be noted that Øbama had a similar record until he decided to run for the U.S. senate, then his charitable contributions took a jump up.

 

[Tigg]

I am quite fully aware of the history of the term’s usage. Much more to the point, I know that the term Social Justice was re-introduced and newly “consecrated” by Pope John Paull II very nearly at the same time he formally and forever condemned the liberation theology of such as Guiterez. I need google nothing about this. Whatever Guiterez meant to say he didn’t say and as a result, the liberation theology of Guiterez was condemned with warnings by the Vatican.

To tie the virtue of Social Justice to the bunkum proposed and embraced by Guiterez is false. For your reading pleasure I suggest using this link, then follow up with links straight from then-Cardinal Ratzinger at the Vatican.

Just for you, I googled this:

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_4y7Fd4NTwcJ:www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Liberation_theology+gutierrez,+liberation+theology,+condemned+by+vatican&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

So yes, you are correct in that you do not understand.

You see, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Your source for official church teaching is the New World Encyclopedia? I’m speechless…one site referenced this encyclopedia with Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church. (In fairness to you, I don’t know if this is true or not.)

The New World Encyclopedia organizes human knowledge in a way that allow a reader to learn information, not just for its own sake, but for its value to the world as a whole. The underlying goal of the encyclopedia is to promote knowledge that leads to happiness, well-being, and world peace.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/New_World_Encyclopedia:About

To have an honest debate, you should address the specific things the Magisterium has said in opposition to Liberation Theology and its founder. You said in one post, "Nonetheless, we, in the Catholic Church are called to give preferential option to the poor.” These are your words, not mine.

When I point out (with Church references) that this false teaching came from the renegade priest, Gutierrez , you back pedal and then say, “To tie the virtue of Social Justice to the bunkum proposed and embraced by Guiterez is false.” So you can see my confusion in these two conflicting statements. Do you believe the “bunkum” that Gutierrez taught (and you quoted as true) or not?

No need to answer for I am unsubscribing from this thread, but I urge all of you who have eyes to see and ears to hear that you cautiously research further into some of the statements made with absolute disregard for orthodox teaching.

 

[catharina]

To have an honest debate, you should address the specific things the Magisterium has said in opposition to Liberation Theology and its founder. You said in one post, "Nonetheless, we, in the Catholic Church are called to give preferential option to the poor.” These are your words, not mine.

I have done so. Perhaps you were “away” then?

Tigg, if you are actually (and finally) leaving this thread now, God bless you.

 

[4elise]

Look. I never said it didn’t.

You said,

And you immediately followed that statement with,

**I have also numerous times said that I believe that it is possible that good people of faith may find that it is appropriate to draw the line in different places as to WHERE the government should be involved in the delivery of such things as health care. **

And that’s why I challenged your statement.

Both of these statements cannot be true. Either the church defines it “exactly” or people have flexibility; it can’t be both.

It’s not possible to define it “exactly” because there are too many possible situations that might arise. That is why God said, “Thou shalt not steal” instead of "Thou shalt not redefine what AAA rating means and bundle ‘AAA’ bonds and sell them to unsuspecting investors you have misled.

Really? Is this what you take from my post?
Ok, let me try again.

The Catholic Church in her wisdom has given us clarification on how we are to live in society with a clear teaching on Social Justice.

The exact place where one draws the line on issues such as the government role in health care may be different than that another good well intentioned and well informed Catholic - BUT to deny that Social Justice is a tenet of the Catholic Church is false.

AND to chose to follow the ‘teaching’ of an ‘entertainer’ over that of the Church IMHO is dangerous. It can be debated where our Social Justice Teaching should put us on any number of social issues - and that would be a very different debate - open a thread and I’ll join you there - but this thread is regarding BECK and his admonishment to leave Churches that preach Social Justice - now he may have back peddled, others who like his message may feel called to defend him - but he did not say minister - he said priest and bishops - as far as I know Wright is a minster, not a priest - so to go try to re-frame his comments to make him look better - well that is just spin -

[/QUOTE]

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Boys and girls…
If you continue to not play nice you will force me bring out the ruler with the spikes on it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Play nice.

 

[sedonaman]

…
The Catholic Church in her wisdom has given us clarification on how we are to live in society with a clear teaching on Social Justice.

The exact place where one draws the line on issues such as the government role in health care may be different than that another good well intentioned and well informed Catholic …

All you’ve done is just repeat what you said before, and I still maintain these are conflicting statements. Besides, if the Church’s teaching on it was as exact and clear as you claim, why is there so much disagreement on what it entails?

to deny that Social Justice is a tenet of the Catholic Church is false.

I’m not denying it; you are putting words in my mouth.

AND to chose to follow the ‘teaching’ of an ‘entertainer’ over that of the Church IMHO is dangerous. …

I began my posts with a statement that I was not a particular fan of Beck and had seen only a few of his shows. I did happen to see this particular show and can understand where he is coming from. Too many people, Catholics included, think the Catholic teaching on social justice is yet unfulfilled until we are under socialism. Now that’s dangerous. As a result, the term has gotten a bad reputation. One poster in this thread put the word “liberal” in quotes, claiming it lacked a clear definition. For the same reason, I think the Church should come up with a different one for “social justice”.

 

[sedonaman]

At the beginning of this thread, someone observed that the issue had been politicized. Well, do you see anything wrong with this picture?“CAN YOU TELL US, from your heart, why you think people are poor?” The question was asked during the recent [1996] television debate between Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld.

This was Kerry’s reply:

“As I have gone around this state and been privileged to sit in somebody’s kitchen and listen to them talk about their problems, what I learn is that people are poor because the deck is really stacked against them. Because people like the governor fight even raising the minimum wage. . . . Because they don’t get the breaks that a lot of wealthy people in this country get. [Because] of the Washington of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans that I am fighting – a Washington that will cut $270 billion of Medicare so they can give a $245 billion tax break, most of which goes to people who are wealthy. And that’s what stacks the odds against people, and that’s what’s wrong.”

John Kerry’s tax returns (0 dependents)

Year…Income…Charity

1990…$98,131…$1,835

1991…113,857…0

1992…127,646…820

1993…130,345…175

1994…127,884…2,039

1995…126,179…0

Total income, '90-95: $724,042
Total charity, '90-95: 4,869
Charity as % of income: 0.7%
“Kerry’s charity gap” jeffjacoby.com/4640/kerrys-charity-gap

It should be noted that Øbama had a similar record until he decided to run for the U.S. senate, then his charitable contributions took a jump up.

Contrast the above with William Weld, Kerry’s evil Republican opponent and tell me who was closer to practicing “social justice”:

William Weld’s tax returns (5 dependents)

Year…Income…Charity

1990…$278,375…$15,255

1991…166,564…55,534

1992…258,547…16,200

1993…162,315…28,194

1994…106,656…25,735

1995…110,418…24,010

Total income, '90-95: $1,082,875
Total charity, '90-95: 164,928
Charity as % of income: 15.2%

SOURCE: IRS Forms 1040, 1990-1995 (supplied by Kerry and Weld campaigns). Boston Globe Staff Chart from May 16, 1996