Priest says Social Justice is More important than abortion

[Galnextdoor]

Okay, I thought I was missing something. I wondered if there was some new definition of Social Justice.

 

[Galnextdoor]

“The promotion of the culture of life should be the highest priority in our societies…If the right to life is not defended decisively as a condition for all other rights of the person, all other references to human rights remain deceitful and illusory.” (JPII)

It would be interesting to know how that priest would respond to this statement.

Ender

This priest said that JPII was conservative and restrictive. He says that JPII didn’t understand the subtle nuances and spiritual meanings of Vatican II. I thought JPII was one of the major writers of Vatican II, but according to this priest I’m mistaken.

 

[xNoOnex]

Have you considered the possibility that he’s frustrated by what he perceives as a lack of empathy and compassion?

I’m a lapsed Catholic. The major reasons why I’m lapsed have nothing to do with the actual teachings of the Catholic church as much as my experience with other Catholics. Most that I’ve encountered in my own life have focused on two issues (abortion and gay marriage) at the expense of others.

Abortion is wrong, certainly. But I don’t think Catholics should ignore other issues of injustice at its expense. Would Christ be pleased with us if we voted in politicians that would ban abortion, but also fell programs that help the poor?

 

[Ender]

Abortion is wrong, certainly. But I don’t think Catholics should ignore other issues of injustice at its expense. Would Christ be pleased with us if we voted in politicians that would ban abortion, but also fell programs that help the poor?

I would guess that this priest, and perhaps you as well, don’t adequately distinguish between prudential choices and moral ones. Regarding “programs that help the poor”, for example, there is no Catholic position on whether any particular program should be expanded or eliminated. We are not only free to make up our own minds on the value and effectiveness of particular government programs, but we are required to. That is a responsibility that belongs to the laity, not to the clergy. If I oppose a program you support that doesn’t mean either of us is acting immorally, it simply means one of us is probably mistaken.

On most political issues I am free to adopt any position I believe is best, and there is no moral distinction between those choices. It is only when the choice involves an intrinsic evil, such as abortion, that certain positions are denied me. Only on those issues has the church has taken a particular position, one that I am bound to accept. It is a mistake to assume that people make the political choices they do out of greed, indifference, or bigotry. And it is a mistake to assume that your political positions are moral and your opponents are therefore immoral. The positions themselves are neither; only our reasons for choosing them may be judged in a moral context.

Ender

 

[Sheeniac]

Have you considered the possibility that he’s frustrated by what he perceives as a lack of empathy and compassion?

I’m a lapsed Catholic. The major reasons why I’m lapsed have nothing to do with the actual teachings of the Catholic church as much as my experience with other Catholics. Most that I’ve encountered in my own life have focused on two issues (abortion and gay marriage) at the expense of others.

Abortion is wrong, certainly. But I don’t think Catholics should ignore other issues of injustice at its expense. Would Christ be pleased with us if we voted in politicians that would ban abortion, but also fell programs that help the poor?

Part of the issue is that I believe (for many different reasons and types of reasons even) is that charity is better off in “private” hands. So while I vote, I donate money, goods and time to help the poor.

I don’t think this is the place to debate, but just wanted to point out that just because I don’t vote (D), it should not be construed as me not caring about the other issues.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay, I thought I was missing something. I wondered if there was some new definition of Social Justice.

To me, “social justice” is a vague term meaning “whatever I think the government should do”. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays think themselves virtuous by voting for a candidate they think will give somebody else’s money away.

 

[Sheeniac]

To me, “social justice” is a vague term meaning “whatever I think the government should do”. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays think themselves virtuous by voting for a candidate they think will give somebody else’s money away.

Why can’t we just stick with the term justice and teach the idea as a more comprehensive approach?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why can’t we just stick with the term justice and teach the idea as a more comprehensive approach?

“Justice” has one connotation, while “social justice” has quite another. “Justice” in an economic sense, generally means enforcing one’s right to keep what one has. “Social justice” as commonly used, generally means taking from one and giving to another, assuming a “right” on the second person’s part to have what the first one has.

“Charity” is one person voluntarily giving of what he has to another.

I think most of the time when people are talking about “social justice” they’re talking about coercive measures to take income, assets or perceived priviliges away from one person and giving them to another based on the subjective judgments of whoever is talking about it.

 

[Sheeniac]

“Justice” has one connotation, while “social justice” has quite another. “Justice” in an economic sense, generally means enforcing one’s right to keep what one has. “Social justice” as commonly used, generally means taking from one and giving to another, assuming a “right” on the second person’s part to have what the first one has.

“Charity” is one person voluntarily giving of what he has to another.

I think most of the time when people are talking about “social justice” they’re talking about coercive measures to take income, assets or perceived priviliges away from one person and giving them to another based on the subjective judgments of whoever is talking about it.

I agree - but my point is that “we” should claim justice as the proper word to use, and ‘expand’ it beyond economics. It would remove the ownership of the concept from liberals, and perhaps weaken their hold over the Church, just a little.

Leftists know that words mean things, so doing this (which is defensible) could loosen their hold. After all - the Church does nothing with justice, does it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree - but my point is that “we” should claim justice as the proper word to use, and ‘expand’ it beyond economics. It would remove the ownership of the concept from liberals, and perhaps weaken their hold over the Church, just a little.

Leftists know that words mean things, so doing this (which is defensible) could loosen their hold. After all - the Church does nothing with justice, does it?

I understand what you’re saying, but I think the term “social justice” is tainted beyond recovery.

 

[Galnextdoor]

To me, “social justice” is a vague term meaning “whatever I think the government should do”. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays think themselves virtuous by voting for a candidate they think will give somebody else’s money away.

So social justice has become a code word for government welfare? So the priest may have been saying that government welfare is more important than abortion, gay marriage, a persons’ right to defend themselves with a gun, free speech from a church pulpit, and the right to not have to pay for other people’s birth control?

I guess I should ask him what he thinks about 2 Thessalonians 3:8-10.

I volunteer at a food pantry, and I believe in helping people. I believe that some people be they able bodied or not, are not employable because they cannot grasp basic social etiquette and mores. They have no clue that they are rude, offensive, and smell. Our pantry is filled through community donations to a food bank that we buy food from. We have little control over what food we have available to give out. Some people throw a fit because they want what somebody else has in their bag. These people can read and write, but they have no understanding of boundaries, gratitude, or empathy for others.

One time, I gave a friend who also volunteered at the pantry a pair of long insulated underwear. She came up to me and thanked me for them in front the people who were waiting in line for food. She didn’t have this gift with her when she thanked me. Two people in line grew so angry that I thought I was going to have to call the police because they wanted me to give them long johns too and they weren’t going to leave. The scary thing is that the one person who was yelling at me could read, write, and drove a car. People like these are not employable. I understand that they have to be taken care of by the rest of society, because they are too clueless to take care of themselves. However, I don’t think that their needs are more important than others.

 

[Darryl1958]

If the priest is starting from the premise that the unborn are less than human, then his logic is sound.

Otherwise, he demonstrates a lack of moral clarity on the subject. At least for Planned Parenthood, they do not follow the clear teachings of the Church on this, and therefore do not need to believe that the unborn are fully human.

 

[Jeanne_S]

If the priest is starting from the premise that the unborn are less than human, then his logic is sound.

Otherwise, he demonstrates a lack of moral clarity on the subject. At least for Planned Parenthood, they do not follow the clear teachings of the Church on this, and therefore do not need to believe that the unborn are fully human.

The unborn are not less than human.They ARE human,I can’t imagine any Catholic priest believing otherwise.Having said that,I assume you agree with this premise,based on your comment.

 

[Darryl1958]

The unborn are not less than human.They ARE human,I can’t imagine any Catholic priest believing otherwise.Having said that,I assume you agree with this premise,based on your comment.

I believe that the unborn are human, and therefore disagree with the priest on this issue.
I can’t imagine why he would think that there are other things more important than an issue that is killing more humans than any genocide in history actually.

It is just not logical for him to take that position, unless he accepts the same premise that Planned Parenthood takes, that the unborn are not human.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I believe that the unborn are human, and therefore disagree with the priest on this issue.
I can’t imagine why he would think that there are other things more important than an issue that is killing more humans than any genocide in history actually.

It is just not logical for him to take that position, unless he accepts the same premise that Planned Parenthood and the Democratic party of the USA takes, that the unborn are not human.

Your initial response as it was stated ,led me to believe you are in agreement with this priest.I guess I misunderstood,happy to know you actually believe in the humanity of the unborn.

 

[adawgj]

Well if abortion falls under the social justice umbrella then perhaps he is right since that would include many other injustices.

 

[Genesis315]

This priest said that JPII was conservative and restrictive. He says that JPII didn’t understand the subtle nuances and spiritual meanings of Vatican II. I thought JPII was one of the major writers of Vatican II, but according to this priest I’m mistaken.

Here’s a subtle nuance from Vatican II:
Gaudium et Spes:

Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.

Anyway, as has been mentioned, abortion is a violation of social justice. But that doesn’t mean its the only violation. We shouldn’t have to choose between opposing and rectifying the injustices of abortion and other injustices. Unfortunately, our two party system often divides these issues and makes them mutually exclusive for all practical purposes. This then divides people of good will who sincerely want to work for justice.

I once heard a priest wryly note how there are four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance: one party supports the first two, the other party supports the second two, and through bipartisan compromise they enact all four into law…

 

[lynnvinc]

The priest at my church said in his sermon on Sunday that the bishops were wrong at election time when they said that abortion was the issue of most concern when voting for a candidate, because Social Justice is more important…

I though abortion was a social justice issue…

 

[estesbob]

I agree abortion is a grave issue of social justice. But I also think that some concern themselves with abortion and not, say the lives of many children lost worldwide to hunger, dehydration, unsanitary water, Social justice should start in the womb, but it should not end there.

I don’t know of anybody who believes social justice ends at birth. In fact the largest pro-life organization in the world is also the largest giver of Charity in the world-I am speaking, of course, of Holy Mother Church,

The real problem on THE social justice front is those who believe they can fulfill their personal obligation to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for them

 

[Galnextdoor]

I don’t know of anybody who believes social justice ends at birth. In fact the largest pro-life organization in the world is also the largest giver of Charity in the world-I am speaking, of course, of Holy Mother Church,

The real problem on THE social justice front is those who believe they can fulfill their personal obligation to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for them