Moral Teaching vs. Social Justice

[TimothyIgnatius]

It seems to me that in recent years the Church has placed more emphasis on moral issues than on social justice. I’ve heard the argument that moral issues are more important because the Church is dedicated to the salvation of the immortal self, i.e. the soul of a person. An example of this would be the notion that abortion is more intrinsically evil than an unjust war (I’m not sure if this is accurate within Church teachings, but I have heard that said on this board. If someone could clear that up, it would be great).

So why is it that opposing abortion, gay marriage, and birth control takes precedence over promoting peace, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, etc?

If it really is a battle for souls, then I’d contend that if we focused on solving social issues, that there would be a decline in moral ills, and thusly an increase in the amount of souls “won” by Christ. I’d also contend that the Church may be misguided in their approach to these issues (note the distinction here; I’m not challenging the teachings of the Church, but rather the actions they take. Many times I feel they do not accurately reflect the teachings).

Take, for example, the Church’s stance on drugs. In cases where states were considering measures to decriminalize cannabis, the bishops in those states opposed such reform, citing the danger that drugs pose to the dignity of a person. I don’t disagree that drugs can be harmful, but there is evidence enough to prove that prohibitive laws in fact cause far greater problems than the drugs themselves. Let’s look at Portugal as an example; Portugal became the first country to completely decriminalize drugs. Many people expected disaster, but in fact the opposite has proven true. Drug related deaths dropped by 50% and Portugal now has a fraction of the amount of drug users (adjusted per capita) that the United States does. Has anyone ever heard the phrase “the forbidden fruit tastes much sweeter”? I think it is a natural human reaction to do the things we’re told we’re not supposed to do.

source: thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

I guess in a nutshell my point would be that if the Church put more of an emphasis on social justice that in turn moral evils would see a decline. If poverty and hunger were abolished, I’d bet my life that rates of abortion would decrease dramatically. Moreover I think the efforts against laws that support gay marriage and birth control have made the Church an easy target for those who would accuse it of homophobia or misogyny. I don’t think prohibitive laws are the answer to getting people stop having abortions and getting divorces, I think the answer is both facilitating a change in people’s attitudes and focusing instead on helping the disenfranchised.

 

[bzkoss236]

I’d say the Church continually does both, but you only hear about the aspects which goes against the grain of society and the liberal media want.

 

[devoutchristian]

You’re creating a dicthotomy that doesn’t exist since abortion is contrary to social justice and unjust wars are contrary to moral teaching. In any case abortion is worse than unjust wars because of the fact that more people are killed in abortion everyday in this country than we’re killed in the entirety of the Iraq war.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

You’re creating a dicthotomy that doesn’t exist since abortion is contrary to social justice and unjust wars are contrary to moral teaching. In any case abortion is worse than unjust wars because of the fact that more people are killed in abortion everyday in this country than we’re killed in the entirety of the Iraq war.

I think you’re confused as to what I meant. I wasn’t contesting that abortion is worse than unjust war in my post. My contention was that if more emphasis was put on improving life on earth, that the rates of abortion would plummet. I.E. if less people lived below the poverty line, there would be less abortion. If we focused on healing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc, that would in turn have a positive effect on things like abortion, divorce, etc.

 

[godisgood77]

The two should be viewed as inseparable…Mother Theresa had it right.

 

[Dranu]

It seems to me that in recent years the Church has placed more emphasis on moral issues than on social justice. I’ve heard the argument that moral issues are more important because the Church is dedicated to the salvation of the immortal self, i.e. the soul of a person. An example of this would be the notion that abortion is more intrinsically evil than an unjust war (I’m not sure if this is accurate within Church teachings, but I have heard that said on this board. If someone could clear that up, it would be great).

Brother, I would say this isn’t exactly true, but rather should be true. Far too often do I think you see too much said on social justice, confusing lay folk into thinking some bishops’ opinion is the same as when they are pronouncing and upholding doctrine. The reason morals should be focused on more is because that is where the Church’s true jurisdiction lies. How to apply morals to the social arena (social justice) is more a matter of prudence, and an economic conservative and economic liberal could both in good conscience be Catholic because they disagree on how to best bring about the common good in the area of economics, etc. Now there are times in history, and even now, where its not a matter of prudence that is at issue, but clear avarice or lack of charity (e.g. the situation with the American natives in the 1500s). At those times (since the root problem is clearly moral) the Church should act.

So why is it that opposing abortion, gay marriage, and birth control takes precedence over promoting peace, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, etc?

What matters most is loving thy neighbor as thyself. Also, since most people would agree in most situations about feeding the poor, etc, the Church ought to instead focus on those areas where people are widely beginning to dissent from the natural law and bringing a whole host of social evils with them (i.e. slaying of children and gluttonizing sex, while having the insanity to also call it good). It makes no sense to argue with a culture on matters they already agree with you on…

On a side note, peace can be evil, feeding the hungry can be harmful to them, etc. Context is everything. Wars can not just be justifiable, but even a moral obligation. Likewise, aiding those who are lacking materially may hurt the community and even those you intend to help. Even the New Testament even calls for not permitting some to eat in some contexts. Rare though these situations may be, they can and have existed.

If it really is a battle for souls, then I’d contend that if we focused on solving social issues, that there would be a decline in moral ills

Unfortunately, the opposite has proven true. We are one of the wealthiest nations the world has ever seen. In the U.S., with the advent of modern technology, our poorest grow fat and live materially better than some of the most powerful could have in days of old. All of this social progress and our morals seem to be returning to their pagan lows with an admixture of confused virtue.

Nonetheless, I agree that morals can be promoted by acts of charity and good social structures. Certainly part of the fall of our culture has been the destruction of the family.

If poverty and hunger were abolished, I’d bet my life that rates of abortion would decrease dramatically.

Agreed, but the malignant heart that leads to abortion would surely remain. This world passes away, and it is best not to get too caught up in materialistic utopian ideals. A rich culture is not necessarily a noble one, and the latter is infinitely better than the former

I don’t think prohibitive laws are the answer to getting people stop having abortions and getting divorces, I think the answer is both facilitating a change in people’s attitudes and focusing instead on helping the disenfranchised.

Surely we would not think decriminalizing murder, theft, and other evils will actually reduce their occurrence, would we? Many many people are not virtuous in our society, and the stigma of the law keeps them from being a problem and brings retribution to those who do. Yes we should change their attitudes, but we should prevent the behavior too while symbolically teaching the populous that these things are wrong by the stigma that illegality attaches to something.

History has a long list of criminalization effecting popular opinion (e.g. heresy, apostasy, slavery, and more recently, segregation, drinking and driving, and violence against children). Criminalizing something, while people respect the law, tends to make people loath the thing criminalized and fear even being associated with it. A cooperation of social propaganda also helps this effect from being undermined and is often required to get the said evil to be condemned legally. Of course (as we have seen in recent decades), propaganda in the opposite direction undermines this…

 

[SonSearcher]

I think you’re confused as to what I meant. I wasn’t contesting that abortion is worse than unjust war in my post. My contention was that if more emphasis was put on improving life on earth, that the rates of abortion would plummet. I.E. if less people lived below the poverty line, there would be less abortion. If we focused on healing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc, that would in turn have a positive effect on things like abortion, divorce, etc.

No I have to agree with devoutchristian.

Abortion begets all of those things stated in your above passage. You fix the fundamental problem of devaluing the human at the most vulnerable state we will begin the work of healing, feeding, clothing.

Abortion is the more important of the two to discourage.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Brother, I would say this isn’t exactly true, but rather should be true. Far too often do I think you see too much said on social justice, confusing lay folk into thinking some bishops’ opinion is the same as when they are pronouncing and upholding doctrine. The reason morals should be focused on more is because that is where the Church’s true jurisdiction lies. How to apply morals to the social arena (social justice) is more a matter of prudence, and an economic conservative and economic liberal could both in good conscience be Catholic because they disagree on how to best bring about the common good in the area of economics, etc. Now there are times in history, and even now, where its not a matter of prudence that is at issue, but clear avarice or lack of charity (e.g. the situation with the American natives in the 1500s). At those times (since the root problem is clearly moral) the Church should act.

What matters most is loving thy neighbor as thyself. Also, since most people would agree in most situations about feeding the poor, etc, the Church ought to instead focus on those areas where people are widely beginning to dissent from the natural law and bringing a whole host of social evils with them (i.e. slaying of children and gluttonizing sex, while having the insanity to also call it good). It makes no sense to argue with a culture on matters they already agree with you on…

On a side note, peace can be evil, feeding the hungry can be harmful to them, etc. Context is everything. Wars can not just be justifiable, but even a moral obligation. Likewise, aiding those who are lacking materially may hurt the community and even those you intend to help. Even the New Testament even calls for not permitting some to eat in some contexts. Rare though these situations may be, they can and have existed.

Unfortunately, the opposite has proven true. We are one of the wealthiest nations the world has ever seen. In the U.S., with the advent of modern technology, our poorest grow fat and live materially better than some of the most powerful could have in days of old. All of this social progress and our morals seem to be returning to their pagan lows with an admixture of confused virtue.

Nonetheless, I agree that morals can be promoted by acts of charity and good social structures. Certainly part of the fall of our culture has been the destruction of the family.

Agreed, but the malignant heart that leads to abortion would surely remain. This world passes away, and it is best not to get too caught up in materialistic utopian ideals. A rich culture is not necessarily a noble one, and the latter is infinitely better than the former

Surely we would not think decriminalizing murder, theft, and other evils will actually reduce their occurrence, would we? Many many people are not virtuous in our society, and the stigma of the law keeps them from being a problem and brings retribution to those who do. Yes we should change their attitudes, but we should prevent the behavior too while symbolically teaching the populous that these things are wrong by the stigma that illegality attaches to something.

History has a long list of criminalization effecting popular opinion (e.g. heresy, apostasy, slavery, and more recently, segregation, drinking and driving, and violence against children). Criminalizing something, while people respect the law, tends to make people loath the thing criminalized and fear even being associated with it. A cooperation of social propaganda also helps this effect from being undermined and is often required to get the said evil to be condemned legally. Of course (as we have seen in recent decades), propaganda in the opposite direction undermines this…

You have some valuable points and I truly appreciate your wise (name removed by moderator)ut, but there are some points I disagree with. With regard to prohibitive laws and criminalization, I noticed you did not address the change in law in Portugal and how successful it was. I also find it unfair to compare murder to theft, gay marriage, birth control, drugs, etc. You can say abortion is tantamount to murder, but none of the other issues are relatable.

I don’t want the conversation to be about whether or not abortion is worse than unjust wars, I was just trying to provide some structure for my points. It isn’t about that, it’s about whether or not an increased focus on social justice would lead to an increase in morality. I think the Church can promote its moral teachings without endorsing prohibitive laws. A ban on gay marriage does nothing to stem homosexual activity. Banning birth control would not make un-procreative sex impossible. Often times these laws create more ills than they are intended to prevent, a prime example being the ‘war on drugs.’ Like you said, context is everything, so let us consider theft. If a starving man stole an apple, is it as bad as a kleptomaniac stealing something for the simple thrill it brings? If the man wasn’t starving in the first place, he probably wouldn’t have stolen.

 

[Dranu]

Like you said, context is everything, so let us consider theft. If a starving man stole an apple, is it as bad as a kleptomaniac stealing something for the simple thrill it brings? If the man wasn’t starving in the first place, he probably wouldn’t have stolen.

Surely, and I am not saying you are wrong about crime being reduced if economic situations are better (you are surely right). I am just saying two things here really: (1) How to best improve society economically/materially is more the jurisdiction of social science than the Holy faith (2) Reduction in bad external acts does not make the populace better. It is the state of the heart and soul that matters infinitely more. The Church ought be more concerned with the soul than making society materially happy.

I also find it unfair to compare murder to theft, gay marriage, birth control, drugs, etc. You can say abortion is tantamount to murder, but none of the other issues are relatable.

What is unfair? I am simply putting forward something that is rather common sense. A disincentive to do something, regardless of what that thing is, tends to make people not do those things, and, if the right stigma is attached, even loathe them. Thats why I asked: “Surely we would not think decriminalizing murder, theft, and other evils will actually reduce their occurrence, would we?”

The Portugal drug thing is not likely correlated to the decriminalization of the drugs, though honestly it would seem detecting whether drug use is lower is much harder to tell when you are not spending millions trying to detect it any more (so I am not sure I trust the studies anyhow). At any rate, abortion and sodomy are surely at all time highs with their recent legalization in the US. Not to mention, their decriminalization allows many to change their minds and think these things are okay, as an unfortunate many take public censure as the sole measure of what is wrong.

As a side note I’ll add that gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the US since Lawrence v. Texas implicitly defined sodomy as a substantive due process right of the Constitution . What the bishops are fighting is the forcing of us to pay taxes to subsidize gay marriage and the government actively promoting it. As such its somewhat outside of the criminal debate already. As much as it may or may not be wise, the bishops aren’t pushing for the re-institution of the old sodomy laws.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Surely, and I am not saying you are wrong about crime being reduced if economic situations are better (you are surely right). I am just saying two things here really: (1) How to best improve society economically/materially is more the jurisdiction of social science than the Holy faith (2) Reduction in bad external acts does not make the populace better. It is the state of the heart and soul that matters infinitely more. The Church ought be more concerned with the soul than making society materially happy.

What is unfair? I am simply putting forward something that is rather common sense. A disincentive to do something, regardless of what that thing is, tends to make people not do those things, and, if the right stigma is attached, even loathe them. Thats why I asked: “Surely we would not think decriminalizing murder, theft, and other evils will actually reduce their occurrence, would we?”

The Portugal drug thing is not likely correlated to the decriminalization of the drugs, though honestly it would seem detecting whether drug use is lower is much harder to tell when you are not spending millions trying to detect it any more (so I am not sure I trust the studies anyhow). At any rate, abortion and sodomy are surely at all time highs with their recent legalization in the US. Not to mention, their decriminalization allows many to change their minds and think these things are okay, as an unfortunate many take public censure as the sole measure of what is wrong.

As a side note I’ll add that gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the US since Lawrence v. Texas implicitly defined sodomy as a substantive due process right of the Constitution . What the bishops are fighting is the forcing of us to pay taxes to subsidize gay marriage and the government actively promoting it. As such its somewhat outside of the criminal debate already. As much as it may or may not be wise, the bishops aren’t pushing for the re-institution of the old sodomy laws.

I sincerely disagree with the notion that a disincentive makes people less likely to do something. The forbidden fruit tastes much sweeter. When you tell a child “don’t eat that cookie until after dinner,” are you surprised when they do? With drugs in the United States, the opposite has proven true. The rates of drug use have increased dramatically since the implementation of the ‘war on drugs’. I fail to see how there is a lack in correlation between Portugal’s reform of drug laws and the country’s subsequent plummet in drug use. The Netherlands is famous for its lax drug laws and also has a fraction of the amount of drug users per capita compared to the U.S. I think there is a common misconception that allowing something to happen is the same as condoning or promoting it. They are not synonymous; part of Portugal’s reform included taking the money that was used for police investigation of drugs and using it to build programs of recovery for addicts.

You say the Church ought to be more concerned with the soul, and I don’t necessarily disagree, but what I’m wondering is if societies were more stable and sustainable that we’d see an improvement with the collective state of our souls. I.E. the starving man who steals food will no longer have too, the woman who has an abortion because she is financially unable to support a child wouldn’t need to consider such an act. The works of mercy are an essential part of the Church’s teachings, and therefore I believe social science is within the jurisdiction of the Church. Basically what I’m suggesting is not a change in teachings but a change in approach.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It seems to me that in recent years the Church has placed more emphasis on moral issues than on social justice.

Primarily for one reason: There’s no concerted or even significant effort to oppose the Church’s social justice teaching and initiatives, whereas there are massive and organized efforts to oppose her on fundamental moral issues (sexuality, family, abortion, other Life issues). That’s the reason for the “more emphasis.” The Church is daily in defense mode on those issues, not on social justice.

 

[zro_x]

I sincerely disagree with the notion that a disincentive makes people less likely to do something. The forbidden fruit tastes much sweeter. When you tell a child “don’t eat that cookie until after dinner,” are you surprised when they do?

Frankly, yes, especially if the child knows that he will be duly punished for his actions. I know in my case, fear of punishment was far more of a motivational factor than “bucking authority.”

that isn’t to say that there aren’t certain cases where the rebellious urge is more compelling. And that isn’t to say that there aren’t certain people who are regularly motivated by this urge. it happens to different people for different reasons in different degrees.