Social Justice, but no politics?

[Peepers]

Oh, good

Now, where were we … ?

hehe… not sure really. messaging in a thread like this is not the most efficient means of communication.

 

[St_Francis]

hehe… not sure really. messaging in a thread like this is not the most efficient means of communication.

:lol:

 

[Mimi]

This has been an interesting thread. I am involved in a group which is countering the “Alinsky-style Community Organizing” in my state (midwest). They have been infiltrating our Catholic (and non-Catholic) churches for some time. I have been reading about Catholic social justice and trying to distill some of the tenets/teachings. These Community Org’s do do many works which Christians would find worthy. However, when one researches their affiliations, it is found they are in league with groups of the Political Left ideology. They will not explicitly make a statement against abortion & euthanasia, for example.

Today, I did an internet search and found this:

catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0003.html

In his De Romani Pontificis Ecclesiastica Monarchia, Bk. I, c. 1, the Cardinal writes, “Monarchy theoretically and in the abstract, monarchy in the hands of God who combines in Himself all the qualifications of an ideal ruler, is indeed a perfect system of government; in the hands of imperfect man, however, it is exposed to many defects and abuses. A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than simple monarchy.” Bellarmine in his De Officio Principis, c. 22, points out the dangers and defects of absolute monarchy, and after describing how God refused to grant the Israelites a king (I Kings, viii, 7-19), concludes, “All these incidents clearly indicate that God did not desire his people to have absolute kings as the Gentiles had them, because He foresaw that they would abuse such power.” That Bellarmine was not on the side of monarchy should need no proof. John Neville Figgis (Divine Right of Kings, p. 92) incidentally states, “Monarchy will be defended for its own sake when Bellarmine and Suarez have elaborated their theory of popular sovereignty.”

"Summary "

"In final summary, then, the American Declaration, which was so admirable and dignified an expression of the American mind is at the same time an accurate expression of the Catholic mind, medieval and modern. This statement does not wish to infer that the American Declaration is not an expression as well of the non-Catholic American mind. "

"In the second place the formulator of the American Declaration of Independence, did actually possess such books on theories of government as were universally known and read, especially by political students, which book prominently mentioned the name of a Catholic, Cardinal Bellarmine, and discussed and quoted his and the Catholic Schoolmen’s political theories. “Patriarcha” concerns itself principally with the refutation of Cardinal’s political doctrines. If Jefferson never read a line of the Cardinal’s original writings, there is every reason to believe that ample opportunity forced itself upon him to read quotations at least, from this very noted Cardinal’s political utterances, quotations that were direct, succinct, summarizing, and comprising,” as Filmer wrote, “the strength of all that was ever produced for the natural liberty of the subject.” "

"With this identity of American and Catholic political principle established, and with plausible evidence of most probable contact of the formulator of our American Declaration with prominent Catholic sources of democratic theory, why should it be taken from the Catholic American citizen proudly to claim identity and uniformity of political thought with that of his fellow-citizen, and why should he not rejoice in the belief that his co-religionist forebears have taken actual part in the laying of that political foundation upon which rests, today, the greatest, happiest and most prosperous nation in the world? "

These are just excerpts. The whole article is not that long, and very worthwhile reading, IMO.
Mimi

 

[Mimi]

Another snippet from
catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0003.html

Democracy not a “child of the Reformation”

Modern democracy is often asserted to be the child of the Reformation. Nothing is farther from the truth. Robert Filmer, private theologian of James I of England, in his theory of Divine right, proclaimed, “The king can do no wrong. The most sacred order of kings is of Divine right.” John Neville Figgis, who seems little inclined to give Catholicism undue credit, makes the following assertions. “Luther based royal authority upon Divine right with practically no reservation” (“Gerson to Grotius,” p. 61). “That to the Reformation was in some sort due the prevalence of the notion of the Divine Right of Kings is generally admitted.” (“Divine Right of Kings,” p. 15). “The Reformation had left upon the statute book an emphatic assertion of unfettered sovereignty vested in the king” (ibid. p. 91). “Luther denied any limitation of political power either by Pope or people, nor can it be said that he showed any sympathy for representative institutions; he upheld the inalienable and Divine authority of kings in order to hew down the Upas tree of Rome.” “There had been elaborated at this time a theory of unlimited jurisdiction of the crown and of non-resistance upon any pretense” (Cambridge Modern History, Vol III, p. 739). “Wycliffe would not allow that the king be subject to positive law” (Divine Right of Kings, p. 69). Lord Acton wrote: “Lutheran writers constantly condemn the democratic literature that arose in the second age of the Reformation.”…”Calvin judged that the people were unfit to govern themselves, and declared the popular assembly an abuse” (History of Freedom, p. 42).

 

[YankeeRC]

Where’s the good in that?

How do you expect to achieve social justice without a just government?

If the the ‘‘big’’ countries of the world came to the church for advice on the best system to run a country, what would be its answer?

Apart from legitimizing the status-quo, what does the church do to ensure social justice is enforced?

Psalm 146:3
*Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. *

No form of government can be trusted to be entirely just. It is in doing the will of God that there is justice.

 

[ANNE_2]

If you might live in a Monastary, that is call “COMMUNAL LIVING” not “COMMUNISM”.
Please use the correct verbiage.

Everyone there CHOOSES to live there and with that lifestyle of their own Free Will.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccscrlife/documents/rc_con_ccscrlife_doc_31051983_magisterium-on-religious-life_en.html

As you will see, the Vatican correctly calls it Communal living.
Communism is a political ideology.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If a person displays clear signs of schizophrenia … disordered thinking … what should be done, in terms of social justice, to help them find work? Something where they can’t be a danger to themselves or others … would working for the government … a career as a politician be appropriate? How would that work? How could you tell? Meds and hospitalization might be uncharitable … so what would society do?

 

[ANNE_2]

Reasonable medication is appropriate.
Hospitalization may be required to protect them from themselves, and to protect others from them.
This all has to be determined on a case by case basis.

Someone who is unable to make appropriate decisions for his/her own life and family, should not be in a decision making job that affects the lives of others.