Is anyone else irked by the phrase "social justice"?

[Reep]

Social justice as an aspect of charity and solidarity is great. Unfortunately, some believe it means putting a gun to your neighbor’s head and shaking him down for a contribution.

Here is some food for thought: Don’t tread on me" or "Do unto others?"

http://freeisbeautiful.net/wp-content/uploads/dont-tread-on-neighbor300.jpg

 

[christofirst]

I just don’t see how you can say that social welfare by national government is mandated in scripture. The evangelists were writing at a time when our whole conception of politics and the nation-state was non-existent. The policies that governments use to fight poverty should be guided by prudence not moral injunctions. For example I support a social safety net for poors in the form of welfare programs providing wealth transfers and various forms of insurance against unemployment and sickness as well as government involvement in training specialist and various other types of education but I would be opposed to most government attempts to regulate the economy on the grounds that they do not achieve the ends they were created for. And afterall, your contribution to the state’s revenues that is used to pay for these programs is not voluntary and therefore not a moral act which would fall within the scope of the Decalogue.

Of course I’m not saying that our present program of social welfare by national government is mandated in scripture. The Catholic Church does clearly teach that this is one way of helping the poor, and helping the poor is mandated both in scripture and by the Church. I will even grant you that, according to the teachings of the Church, national welfare programs are not the best way of dealing with poverty, but that in no way makes them necessarily bad or Marxist. On the contrary, if the burden of human suffering is lightened through community effort and sacrifice, even on a national level, I do not see how anyone can say that is wrong or evil. Individual members of society can begrudge the communal sacrifice, and consider the effort wasted, but this does not negate our social responsibility.

It sounds like we are in agreement that government does indeed have some roll to play in protecting and assisting the most vulnerable citizens. Social welfare programs, once in place, can and do become bloated and mismanaged, but even then they are still far better than nothing. Do you have a better way of helping the poor? Who would run these insurance programs, if not the government? The private (profit driven) sector? If such a system can truly meet the needs of the poor, I say put it in place before the present system of social welfare is dismantled. People need help now, and are being helped now by our present imperfect programs.

The beauty of our democracy is that we all plan a course of action by means of our collective vote. I therefore do not consider the taxes I pay to be involuntary, because as a member of this society, I agree to the terms of citizenship, one of which is, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” By our vote, through the leaders we elect, we can change how much we are taxed, and how that money is used. But I believe the Church firmly teaches us that this should not be done at the expense of the poor.

Another paragraph from “On Social Concern”:

“Our daily life, as well as our decisions in the political and economic fields must be marked by these realities (the previous chapter was the one which reference Lazarus and the rich man which I posted above). Likewise, the leaders of nations and heads of international bodies, while they are obliged to always keep in mind the true human dimension as a priority in their development plans, should not forget to give precedence to the phenomenon of growing poverty. Unfortunately, instead of becoming fewer the poor are becoming more numerous, not only in less developed countries but - and this is no less scandalous - in the more developed ones too.”

 

[Country_Gal]

I think of the term as meaning fairness. People treating others with Christian principles. Employers paying the best wage they can, and taking into consideration social needs. Those with power and wealth understanding their social responsibilities.

It means having the rule of law that is as fair as possible. A police force and judiciary that doesn’t take bribes. An attempt to make justice available even to the penniless.

Sometimes, I think, today’s idea of social justice fails to also remind the poor of their responsibilities to society, but instead encourages them to feel like victims.

 

[christofirst]

Good! (taking baby steps here)

Then you understand that charity, generosity, benevolence and (yuk) social justice should not be granted carte blanche.

We could say that there are those more deserving than others…(?)

If so…who makes that determination?

Since I believe that benevolent charity is a personal INDIVIDUAL thing…it is my responsibility to determine the worthiness of the beneficiary of my generosity. Not a parish or diocesan council, (oh, OK Peter’s Pence is cool) or especially a government.

That brings up your last question:

Does the phrase “social justice” become problematic, then, when a government elected by a majority of the people, who are not all Catholic or Christian, seeks to implement imperfect, but actual (as opposed to theoretical) programs which promote social justice?"

You bet it does become problematic because there is a vast difference between POLITICAL social justice and Religious social justice. This could start a new thread…but based on the track record of our current government…I don’t think you want to go down that road.

The general impression I get from your post is a “go it alone” attitude, or perhaps a “go it only with those I am in agreement and comfortable with” approach to charity. Pardon me if I’m misreading your post. Unfortunately, the Church’s teaching on social justice is not necessarily the way of the rugged individual. I believe the Church documents which I and others have posted clearly show a communal responsibility as well a personal obligation to provide for charity. This does indeed go so far as seeking means, both as individuals and as a society, to lessen the extreme disproportion of resources between the rich and the poor. Yes, there is and should be a place for prudence in our decisions regarding our obligation of charity. The very phrase “love of preference for the poor” shows that if we err, it should be on the side of love, not reticence.

How we Catholics put this communal obligation into practice in the larger world of politics and government will be difficult, but that is not a valid reason to excuse ourselves from the process, or to say that one will only participate if each and every decision is completely agreeable to each and every individual. I’m not talking about compromising on the five non-negotiables: abortion, “homosexual marriage”, etc., and where these are included in laws which seek to promote social justice, we must always oppose and continually seek to remedy the situation. It does occur to me however, that not a few on the right are simply more concerned with keeping the money in their wallet than they are with keeping babies alive. Forgive me for saying such a thing, and I certainly am not implying that any one of us here on the forums is so motivated. I’m thinking more of those with great power and influence, who stand to gain even more through fiscal and general conservatism.

 

[TEPO]

If anyone here thinks that they can take part in “social Justice” by casting their vote -then I think that’s fantastic.

…as for me, I know that all the ideas that come out of our elected politicians come straight from the Think Tanks that run our nation. There are only so many solutions the think tanks will allow, and the “elected” officials (politicians) are merely those with the authority to apply them to law.

Generally speaking, democrats and republicans are more alike than they are different. Often times, they both subscribe to the exact same think tanks such as the Brookings Institution. It’s a monopoly. They make the choices, they write the laws.

Social justice is in their hands. Not ours.

 

[globaljim]

Being just new to this thread I read thru and was some what surprised it took so long
for someone to give all those very clear quotes from the Pope’s. Afterall Christ did set up
a Rock to give us a way to test our truths.` The Popes themselves looked at all the various
ideologies out there and steered the Barque of Christ through the terrible storms of Right and
Left extremes -of Fascism and Naziism and Communism and Socialism, The truths they
present are foundational and in discussions like these it is always wise to be like the wise
man who built his house on rock. I have to admit I learned this the hard way and I would urge you not to make the same mistake.
For one thing you will learn that there is not a dichotomy between justice and charity.
You cannot have charity without a foundation of justice. It is also helpful to understand
basic terms/ For a good understanding of “Social” I recommend a good conservative
David Brooks’ “The Social Animal” I promise you won’t be irked.

 

[Contarini]

In my undergraduate polisci classes “social justice” always had a Marxist overtone. ‘Social justice’ is distinct from ‘justice’ in the international human rights literature because it implies that there are rights that groups have that can trump the rights that individuals have. So, for example, a person’s right to property rights or equality before the law may be abrogated if there is a social justice claim that intends to correct a historical injustice done to an ethnic minority. Shouldn’t we resist prefixing the term justice with ‘social’ if it has less to do with being witnesses to Christ’s mercy and more to do with promoting the causes celebres of leftist politics?

Social justice means essentially what Thomas Aquinas called “distributive” as opposed to “commutative” justice. It seems fashionable for some so-called “conservatives” in contemporary American politics to deny that distributive justice exists and to try to restrict the word “justice” to commutative.

Obviously the modern Catholic understanding of social justice is not the same as Aquinas’ distributive justice. Aquinas, for instance, did not see slavery as unjust. But the root concepts come from Aquinas and other classical sources, not from Marx.

The work of Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day is an excellent example of this.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Social justice as an aspect of charity and solidarity is great. Unfortunately, some believe it means putting a gun to your neighbor’s head and shaking him down for a contribution.

If you think that the government exercising its power of taxation in order to benefit the disadvantaged is “putting a gun to your neighbor’s head,” then you ought to be an anarchist. If you aren’t–if, for instance, you aren’t a pacifist–then you are completely outside any kind of historic Christian tradition when it comes to politics and social justice. Anarchist pacifism is dubious enough from a traditional point of view, but Maurin and Day made a good case for it on Catholic grounds, I think.

In other words, if the government is ever justified in using force at all, it is certainly justified in using the veiled and indirect form of force which you caricature above.

Edwin

 

[m134e5]

I have seen the term “social justice” used mostly by Catholics who seem to think that’s all Catholics ought to be doing in order to strengthen their own faith and to evangelize others. They want to reduce the Church to nothing more than an organization of social workers. The early Christians certainly weren’t sent to the Colosseum because they liked feeding the poor!

 

[Reep]

If you think that the government exercising its power of taxation in order to benefit the disadvantaged is “putting a gun to your neighbor’s head,” then you ought to be an anarchist. If you aren’t–if, for instance, you aren’t a pacifist–then you are completely outside any kind of historic Christian tradition when it comes to politics and social justice. Anarchist pacifism is dubious enough from a traditional point of view, but Maurin and Day made a good case for it on Catholic grounds, I think.

In other words, if the government is ever justified in using force at all, it is certainly justified in using the veiled and indirect form of force which you caricature above.

Edwin

Sometimes it is difficult to define exactly what a pacifist is. If by pacifism, you mean the rejection of using all force–even in self defense–then I am NOT a pacifist. If by “pacifism” you mean the rejection of the initiation of violence, then I certainly am a pacifist. Such a pacifist would oppose all warfare that was not defensive. I cannot recall a US war in my lifetime that would qualify.

I very much admire Dorothy Day. She was not a pure pacifist, in the sense that if a person were attacked in her presence she would try to help them, even if physical force were required to restrain an attacker. I believe that she has written that she would not be willing to kill an attacker under such circumstances.

I would find it completely bizarre if someone claimed to be a pacifist, rejecting all violence, and then supported governmental violence against its own citizens to compel the payment of taxes or the conscription of soldiers.

 

[JB_Dugan]

The general impression I get from your post is a “go it alone” attitude, or perhaps a “go it only with those I am in agreement and comfortable with” approach to charity. Pardon me if I’m misreading your post.

If you are misreading my post it is more likely that I was not clear…not your fault.

I am not really a “go-it-alone” type guy. Although I would like to think of myself as a “rugged individualist”…but that’s not entirely true either.

The point I am trying to make…and I want to be very clear about this…is that from my perspective, social justice’s concept of charity boarders on altruism. That is the idea that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Is the Church trying to “sugar coat” an altruistic philosophy in the form of social justice?

Unfortunately, the Church’s teaching on social justice is not necessarily the way of the rugged individual. I believe the Church documents which I and others have posted clearly show a communal responsibility as well a personal obligation to provide for charity. This does indeed go so far as seeking means, both as individuals and as a society, to lessen the extreme disproportion of resources between the rich and the poor.

Yes, I agree about the documents. They are very clear. Our responsibilities and personal obligations are spelled out.

What I find missing is a list of responsibilities and personal obligations pertaining to the beneficiaries.

Would it not be fair and just to expect something from them?

Yes, there is and should be a place for prudence in our decisions regarding our obligation of charity. The very phrase “love of preference for the poor” shows that if we err, it should be on the side of love, not reticence.

I am glad we agree about “prudence”. Unfortunately. we lose that ability when required to
exercise our communal responsibility.

How we Catholics put this communal obligation into practice in the larger world of politics and government will be difficult, but that is not a valid reason to excuse ourselves from the process, or to say that one will only participate if each and every decision is completely agreeable to each and every individual. I’m not talking about compromising on the five non-negotiables: abortion, “homosexual marriage”, etc., and where these are included in laws which seek to promote social justice, we must always oppose and continually seek to remedy the situation. ** It does occur to me however, that not a few on the right are simply more concerned with keeping the money in their wallet than they are with keeping babies alive.** Forgive me for saying such a thing, and I certainly am not implying that any one of us here on the forums is so motivated. I’m thinking more of those with great power and influence, who stand to gain even more through fiscal and general conservatism.

I really didn’t want to get into “the larger world of politics and government”. I wanted to stick with the issue of charity as it related to social justice…but since you brought it up…

I will start working on the forgiveness you beg for stating: "It does occur to me however, that not a few on the right are simply more concerned with keeping the money in their wallet than they are with keeping babies alive"

A comment like that says a lot about a contributor to this forum.

You may earn my forgiveness by agreeing that those liberal politicians who profess to be Catholic and hold “great power and influence” and support abortion in any way should be:

1. Publicly excommunicated by their local bishop, ASAP
2. Removed from office by an obligatory vote of ALL Catholics. (Social Justice)

The ball is in your court, Christofirst

 

[Contarini]

Sometimes it is difficult to define exactly what a pacifist is. If by pacifism, you mean the rejection of using all force–even in self defense–then I am NOT a pacifist. If by “pacifism” you mean the rejection of the initiation of violence, then I certainly am a pacifist. Such a pacifist would oppose all warfare that was not defensive. I cannot recall a US war in my lifetime that would qualify.

I very much admire Dorothy Day. She was not a pure pacifist, in the sense that if a person were attacked in her presence she would try to help them, even if physical force were required to restrain an attacker. I believe that she has written that she would not be willing to kill an attacker under such circumstances.

I would find it completely bizarre if someone claimed to be a pacifist, rejecting all violence, and then supported governmental violence against its own citizens to compel the payment of taxes or the conscription of soldiers.

I guess I find this kind of language pretty hollow, because I have not heard of anyone in the modern U.S. being killed for not paying taxes. Sure, taxation is backed by violence in the sense that if someone refused to pay taxes, they would be fined or arrested, and if they tried to resist with armed force, the government would use force to compel them. But that’s an extremely remote, theoretical kind of “force.”

Meanwhile the government is actually killing quite a lot of people. When it stops doing that, maybe we can talk about these much more refined forms of “force.” Anyone who isn’t worried about drones, for instance, but is worried about taxation as a form of “force,” just has their priorities seriously mixed up.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

The* Catechism of the Catholic Church* describes social justice concerns in #1928 to 1948.
Generally, social justice may be said to promote and protect the interests of the poor and marginalised, but it also requires the creation and maintenance of a well-ordered social mainstream. Normal functioning of the economic order and the political system are needed for society even to be capable of helping its weaker members. Social justice ideally aims at enabling all sectors to participate in society: “Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority” (CCC 1928).

And a doyen of Catholic apologists, the late Fr Stephen Torraco, who was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network, puts “social justice” in perspective.

**Do We Need Social Justice Or Social Engineering?
This question is answered by Fr Torraco of EWTN on Nov-24-2003 to a Question:
What is “Social Justice”? When was this concept introduced in Catholic moral doctrine?

Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003**:
‘The term “social justice” was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls “general justice” (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term “social justice” aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by “social engineering.”

‘Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term “social justice” is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase “social justice” is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.’

 

[TEPO]

social Justice isn’t something that the majority of Catholics should concern themselves with. It’s for politicians only.

To think that by supporting or advocating it to other Catholic non-politicians is doing some type of ‘good’ is a mistake. It takes away from real opportunities for achieving agape.

 

[Reep]

I guess I find this kind of language pretty hollow, because I have not heard of anyone in the modern U.S. being killed for not paying taxes. Sure, taxation is backed by violence in the sense that if someone refused to pay taxes, they would be fined or arrested, and if they tried to resist with armed force, the government would use force to compel them. But that’s an extremely remote, theoretical kind of “force.”

If you think the threat of government force is remote, try not paying the tax collector. It is not remote. People are in federal prison today for not paying. People are dead who have tried to resist the government trying to arrest them or take their property for payment. It is only “remote” if you intend to do what ever you are told. I suppose the chance of being martyred in the Roman persecutions was “remote” unless you did not obey. The state is force. That is its essence (see here). Let us not quibble on that point.

Meanwhile the government is actually killing quite a lot of people. When it stops doing that, maybe we can talk about these much more refined forms of “force.” Anyone who isn’t worried about drones, for instance, but is worried about taxation as a form of “force,” just has their priorities seriously mixed up.

Edwin

I am with you 100% in condemning this violence. Our wars must stop. It’s veterans day, so let’s support the troops. Bring them home. I say take the time to condemn all government aggression, not just the violence that matches some left or right-wing political agenda.

 

[christofirst]

If you are misreading my post it is more likely that I was not clear…not your fault.

I am not really a “go-it-alone” type guy. Although I would like to think of myself as a “rugged individualist”…but that’s not entirely true either.

The point I am trying to make…and I want to be very clear about this…is that from my perspective, social justice’s concept of charity boarders on altruism. That is the idea that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Is the Church trying to “sugar coat” an altruistic philosophy in the form of social justice?

Yes, I agree about the documents. They are very clear. Our responsibilities and personal obligations are spelled out.

What I find missing is a list of responsibilities and personal obligations pertaining to the beneficiaries.

Would it not be fair and just to expect something from them?

I am glad we agree about “prudence”. Unfortunately. we lose that ability when required to
exercise our communal responsibility.

I really didn’t want to get into “the larger world of politics and government”. I wanted to stick with the issue of charity as it related to social justice…but since you brought it up…

I will start working on the forgiveness you beg for stating: "It does occur to me however, that not a few on the right are simply more concerned with keeping the money in their wallet than they are with keeping babies alive"

A comment like that says a lot about a contributor to this forum.

You may earn my forgiveness by agreeing that those liberal politicians who profess to be Catholic and hold “great power and influence” and support abortion in any way should be:

1. Publicly excommunicated by their local bishop, ASAP
2. Removed from office by an obligatory vote of ALL Catholics. (Social Justice)

The ball is in your court, Christofirst

Well aware of the sticky requesting us not to bring up politics in the social justice forum, let me first apologize for my lack of control and discretion.

To address your two questions:

1. The Church does extoll the virtue of altruistic giving. The Lord loves a cheerful giver. Sorry, but I read nothing about conditions being put on the beneficiary. I did read the quotes from scripture you posted earlier, Let him who does not work neither eat. I always understood this as an admonition for personal responsibility, the standard I am to expect of myself, not as a test for determining who is worthy of my charity.
2. It is fair and just to expect something in return for a loan, not so much for charity, whether given personally or as a community. I understand the feeling that you are being taken advantage of, that some loafer is getting something for nothing while you work your tail off. There are requirements already in place for determining who qualifies for government welfare, so that it goes to those who are truly in need. The fact that the system gets abused does not negate the good that it does, in my opinion.

To address your two demands:

1. The local bishops are NOT handing down numerous public excommunications to anyone in public office. Maybe they know something you (and I) do not know. If they ever start, I will accept their decision. (there is a previous thread on this same topic of excommunications here already. The bishops apparently have not read it yet).
2. I have said previously that a Church mandated obligatory voting policy is a bad idea. To make the power of the Church a tool for crafty politicians to manipulate is a foolish idea (again, in my opinion). We already have the five non-negotiables, abortion being one of them, but the bishops give us considerable latitude in making our personal decision, based on all of the facts of each potential candidate. When the Church officially says that no Catholic is allowed to vote for a specific candidate, by name, in a specific election, I will obey.

This thread was originally about being bothered by the phrase “social justice”. I have tried to express why I am not bothered by it, and you have admirably expressed why it does bother you. I actually think I understand your point of view, but I still disagree. No hard feelings, and hopefully none taken.

 

[M1Garand]

Social Justice is a repulsive Marxist term now no matter its origin. It is used as a pretext by governments to redistribute justice as they see fit at the point of a bayonet or under threat of imprisonment. Yet the redistribution is simply a pretext for global imperialism, violence and oligarchical control. It is the hight of Christian ethos without context run amok, it is the fruit of error of Marxism that is the dark hand of social ruin and human oppression. Its wickedness has exterminated 100million people world wide and continues to murder to this day. Any religion, any order, any cleric that adopts its ways and its language is an emissary of satan. It is an infallible teaching of the Church that its precepts be rejected and are evil.

 

[The_Walrus_1]

Wooo!

 

[JB_Dugan]

christofirst;11392323:

Well aware of the sticky requesting us not to bring up politics in the social justice forum, let me first apologize for my lack of control and discretion.

If your apology includes your unthinking and un-Christian remark about: “not a few on the right are simply more concerned with keeping the money in their wallet than they are with keeping babies alive" ……then it is accepted.

To address your two questions:

1. The Church does

extoll the virtue of altruistic giving. The Lord loves a cheerful giver.
That flies in the face of reason. How can a giver be cheerful when altruism requires the giver to be a slave of the beneficiary?

Sorry, but I read nothing about conditions being put on the beneficiary. I did read the quotes from scripture you posted earlier, Let him who does not work neither eat. I always understood this as an admonition for personal responsibility, the standard I am to expect of myself, not as a test for determining who is worthy of my charity. .

No…it is actually an admonition against laziness and depending on others.

The value that Jesus ascribes to work is apparent in his parables and in his words. Useless servants are chastised for hiding talents. (Matt. 24:46) Hired laborers in the vineyard should accept their agreed wage. (Matt. 20:1-6) The laborer deserves his wages. (Luke 10:7) Servants that are faithful to their masters are held in high esteem. (Matt. 24:46) He views his entire mission as work: “My Father is working still, and I am working.” (John 5:17)

1. It is fair and just to expect something in return for a loan, not so much for charity, whether given personally or as a community. .

That is true, but a thank you would be nice……rather than…”what else you got?”

I understand the feeling that you are being taken advantage of, that some loafer is getting something for nothing while you work your tail off. There are requirements already in place for determining who qualifies for government welfare, so that it goes to those who are truly in need. The fact that the system gets abused does not negate the good that it does, in my opinion. .

Government welfare is the WORST example you could ever cite. Nothing is more corrupted with fraud waste and abuse than the forced re-distribution of wealth know as the “welfare system”.

A system designed to keep people in a perpetual state of dependence…does no good whatsoever.

To address your two demands:

1. The local bishops are NOT handing down numerous public excommunications to anyone in public office. Maybe they know something you (and I) do not know. If they ever start, I will accept their decision. (there is a previous thread on this same topic of excommunications here already. The bishops apparently have not read it yet).
2. I have said previously that a Church mandated obligatory voting policy is a bad idea. To make the power of the Church a tool for crafty politicians to manipulate is a foolish idea (again, in my opinion). We already have the five non-negotiables, abortion being one of them, but the bishops give us considerable latitude in making our personal decision, based on all of the facts of each potential candidate. When the Church officially says that no Catholic is allowed to vote for a specific candidate, by name, in a specific election, I will obey.

I made no demands.

I only asked you to agree with me.

Since you choose to defend “liberal politicians who profess to be Catholic and promote abortion” and would rather “wait” for voting direction rather than “doing something” in the spirit of social justice………it would seem that you “cherry-pick” social justice to promote a personal agenda.

This thread was originally about being bothered by the phrase “social justice”. I have tried to express why I am not bothered by it, and you have admirably expressed why it does bother you. I actually think I understand your point of view, but I still disagree. No hard feelings, and hopefully none taken.

Of course there are no hard feelings, my friend in Christ. You are entitled to disagree all you want…even when you are wrong.

 

[christofirst]

JB Dugan,

Thank you for courteously putting up with me. Your passion for protecting the unborn is truly commendable. Let me attempt to proceed without being too political or inflammatory.

Let’s say abortion is once again made illegal. You and I both feel better because we are no longer in any way contributing to this evil. But if that is all we do, then how are we contributing to the rest of the life of that mother and baby? Not our problem? What drives a mother to take the life of her own child? Poverty? Lack of support from family, friends, and/or the community? Just plain selfishness? Selfishness may be one reason, but it is not the only reason. We Catholics must do everything we can to fix those other reasons - poverty and lack of support - or we are not truly pro-life. Passing a law to make abortion illegal is relatively easy compared to addressing the situations which allow poverty and oppression to continue unchecked. Abortions did happen back when it was illegal, and I dare say many will continue to occur - legal or not - if we turn our backs on those already living who are in need.

If I am to be forced to accept the word of every candidate on the right who claims to be pro-life, then you must also accept the word of every candidate on the left who claims the desire to make abortions rare, by addressing those “social justice” issues which lead to abortion in the first place.

Now let’s look at Luke 16: 19-31, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Lazarus apparently did not work, therefore, he also did not deserve to eat. End of story, right? Who, according to Our Lord, bears the responsibility in His story? Is it not the rich man? That rich man was probably very prudent. I can see him thinking, “If I give so much to that tramp, he will become a leech and drain my hard earned resources. Why doesn’t he just get a job?” Now Our Lord does not tell us why Lazarus was there outside the rich man’s home. Could be he was an alcoholic, or had a mental illness. Or it could be he was just plain lazy. But the responsibility still falls to the rich man. To those who have much, much will be required. Of course, a prudent man might say, “Well I don’t have all that much.” Let’s hope Our Lord also sees it that way come judgment day.

You have given me much to think about, and for that I thank you,
Chris