Re:Define Social Justice In plain english

[mapleoak]

Now under that definition, can someone name for me a real Social Justice program?

I’ll see what I can think of, but it may be a long wait. Don’t hold your breath.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The difference is fairly simple; Charity is carrying out the Corporal Works of Mercy – feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and so on.

Social Justice is arrainging society so far** fewer** people need to be fed, clothed and housed by others.

Dropping food, water, sun block and chapstick is charity. Bringing the survivors ashore is Social Justice.

Now under that definition, can someone name for me a real Social Justice program?

A real social justice program: Employer-sponsored educational programs. Or is it impermissible for the giver to also benefit?

I agree with your position that social justice is arranging society so far fewer people need to be fed, clothed and housed by others (including by the government). I think that would be consistent with Rerum Novarum and other social encyclicals.

But I still think there is something fundamentally wrong with the USCCB calling on the state to do anything coercive beyond providing decently for those who absolutely cannot help themselves, no matter what, and enhancing the ability of the able to be gainfully productive and independant.

The USCCB does not seem to be aware that the truly helpless are very little helped by the government, and that much of what they call on the government to force people to do, benefits people who are able to help themselves.

Never will I get over the USCCB opposing the Bush “partial privatization” of social security. If ever, in recent years, there was a proposal consistent with the social encyclicals, that was it. Yet the USCCB pols opposed it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A real social justice program: Employer-sponsored educational programs. Or is it impermissible for the giver to also benefit?

Both charity and social justice benefit the giver, who gains grace and merit by his action. It is not wrong for an employer to also benefit from the employee’s increased skills and abitlities.

One excellent social justice program is “upward mobility” which includes employee education and training.

I agree with your position that social justice is arranging society so far fewer people need to be fed, clothed and housed by others (including by the government). I think that would be consistent with Rerum Novarum and other social encyclicals.

But I still think there is something fundamentally wrong with the USCCB calling on the state to do anything coercive beyond providing decently for those who absolutely cannot help themselves, no matter what, and enhancing the ability of the able to be gainfully productive and independant.

This is what I call couch potato Catholicism – we sit on the couch, drink beer, eat chips and cheer for our team or social program – but someone else moves the ball, or pays for the program.

Couch potato Catholics are charitable in the same sense that couch potato sports fans are athletes.

The USCCB does not seem to be aware that the truly helpless are very little helped by the government, and that much of what they call on the government to force people to do, benefits people who are able to help themselves.

Indeed, many social programs actually hurt the people they are intended to help. Poverty in the United States was dropping like a stone, until the Great Society programs kicked in. With the greatest of intentions, we created a permanent underclass of people who are locked in poverty and cannot get out.

Never will I get over the USCCB opposing the Bush “partial privatization” of social security. If ever, in recent years, there was a proposal consistent with the social encyclicals, that was it. Yet the USCCB pols opposed it.

Some say – with some justice – that the USCCB is an arm of the Democratic Party.

I have a computer model on privatizing Social Security – by merely returning the Social Security surplus to the worker, putting in into a Personal Retirement Account, wonderful things happen.

1. Each worker is guarenteed his Social Security entitlement – but the first dollars come from his PRA. When you retire, an actuarial calculation is done on your PRA (as it already is on your IRA when you reach 70 1/2). Let’s say your PRA would bring you $1 a month for life and your Social Security entitlement is $1,000 a month. The government sends you a monthly check for $999, and you take the other dollar from your PRA. This is perfectly fair – you paid exactly what you’re paying now, and getting exactly what you are entitled to.
2. A younger worker notices he’s getting a little more put into his PRA – that’s his share of the dollar the government is not paying you. He benefits from the Double Whammy – more dollars going in, over a longer period of time.
3. By the 32nd year, people who worked steadily would have 100% of their Social Security entitlement covered by their PRAs.
4. By the 40th year, people who worked steadily would have 100% of their working salary covered by their PRAs.
5. The model is adjusted for inflation (over-adjusted, actually.)
6. The “Employer’s Contribution” is not included in the calculations, so there is plenty of money for the orphans, disabled, and so on.

Ultimately, privatizing Social Security would give every American a comfortable retirement far beyond what the current system provides.

 

[AndyF]

PatrickJT

It has become a runaway train.

The irony is that society as an entity differs no more from the entity characters described in Sirach who we are to avoid. It is capable of doing wrong with impunity, knows it does it with much forethought(making it mortal), and with a million heads analyzing it’s wrongness, then finally it ignores it’s collective conscience reassured with Church backing in the form of silence. With strict conformity to the Word, man is to avoid it.

Social rules have no bounds due in some part to the Church’s hands off approach to societal activities. What I mean is the Church recognizes the term common good to be an intrinsic attribute of societal action, and by alliance to it is determined to bend the wills of man in conformance to it. Society in the collective asks no absolution, and receives it from the Church without so much as a penitental effort on it’s part.

I see no problem with this conformance to common good, but only if a balance exists that reflects reality. I conform because I believe the Church will expend just as much effort in it’s corrective powers on society as it does on individuals. It should be remembered that man also gets his incentive from what he believes is just and what is seen being applied, and that there is no conflict of interest and favored entities, and by the reassurance justice applies to all fallible entities including society. This implies the formal recognition of the existence of common evil, and rarely does the Church voice an objection on this platform.

A man who murders someone would hardly
receive a lesson from society who ignores Church rule that individuals are not to executed if they are no longer a threat to society, and after being captured and on trial for murder would rightfully see the hypocracy in it. Here is the duty of the Church to set the standard by action.

Force of rule never works on it’s own evidence man’s willingness to give up ones life for an ideal or, non submission to injustice. This is what is being observed in the theme of this thread. It is a dissatisfaction; a something missing that the individual recognizes. The Church would prefer that citizens action from a sense of justice rather than threat. It can bravely do more to ensure this. It could chuck caution to the wind and thrust political correctness aside and show how it really values individuals. It could come down just as hard on society has it does on individuals, but not more so.

AndyF