Social justice or socialism?

[traillius]

Social Justice is an important part of catholic teaching, starting with the right to live, including for the unborn, and proceeding from that to other issues such as poverty and civil rights. There is a difference, however, between social justice and socialism. When a government acts in the name of social justice, its mainly a lead-in to socialism, that is, big brother will take care of you, all it will cost is that you acquiesce your will to the state. Some liberals will say that if you don’t support socialist programs, that you don’t care about the poor and weaker people in society. Liberal Catholics ( almost an oxymoron ) even think that its the will of God that the government do the work of charity. I submit to you that its not the role of government to help ourselves and our fellow humans, its our job. Jesus, in the gospels, never indicated that we should do works of charity through the government. He did indicate we should do it directly ( " go, sell all you have, give to the poor, and then come follow me ") and through the church. There is a fine line, when you allow Caesar to do God’s mission of mercy, between social justice and socialism.

 

[Contarini]

Social Justice is an important part of catholic teaching, starting with the right to live, including for the unborn, and proceeding from that to other issues such as poverty and civil rights. There is a difference, however, between social justice and socialism. When a government acts in the name of social justice, its mainly a lead-in to socialism

That is an opinion common among certain Americans, but it is not found in any Catholic teaching that I know of, and indeed it contradicts many statements found in papal encyclicals and other documents of Catholic social teaching, which encourage governments to act to ensure social justice.

Some liberals will say that if you don’t support socialist programs, that you don’t care about the poor and weaker people in society. Liberal Catholics ( almost an oxymoron ) even think that its the will of God that the government do the work of charity.

The word “charity” is often misused by libertarian-leaning American “conservatives.” Better to speak of providing for the common good, which is certainly the government’s job according to Catholic teaching. However, the principle of subsidiarity must be respected, and there’s room for lots of disagreement about just how that’s to be done.

Edwin

 

[Crowbar]

What about free will?

 

[meltzerboy]

Social Justice is an important part of catholic teaching, starting with the right to live, including for the unborn, and proceeding from that to other issues such as poverty and civil rights. There is a difference, however, between social justice and socialism. When a government acts in the name of social justice, its mainly a lead-in to socialism, that is, big brother will take care of you, all it will cost is that you acquiesce your will to the state. Some liberals will say that if you don’t support socialist programs, that you don’t care about the poor and weaker people in society. Liberal Catholics ( almost an oxymoron ) even think that its the will of God that the government do the work of charity. I submit to you that its not the role of government to help ourselves and our fellow humans, its our job. Jesus, in the gospels, never indicated that we should do works of charity through the government. He did indicate we should do it directly ( " go, sell all you have, give to the poor, and then come follow me ") and through the church. There is a fine line, when you allow Caesar to do God’s mission of mercy, between social justice and socialism.

Why must social justice be viewed as an “either-or” situation, meaning either private caregivers or government assistance? Why can’t both individuals and private organizations, such as religious institutions, as well as the government help people in need get back on their feet, or provide more long-term care and assistance in cases of illness and disability? The costs are generally too great for any one sector of society to shoulder alone.

 

[PJH_74]

When a government acts in the name of social justice, its mainly a lead-in to socialism, that is, big brother will take care of you, all it will cost is that you acquiesce your will to the state.

…

I submit to you that its not the role of government to help ourselves and our fellow humans, its our job. Jesus, in the gospels, never indicated that we should do works of charity through the government.

I’m not one to argue Government welfare is the only solution, I guess its main purpose is some sort of minimal baseline in my opinion. But there is fallacy in believing the problems of Government welfare do not extend to private charity.

Charity is always a balance between helping and hurting. This is true of Government, Private, and Religious Charity. Any charity runs the risk subordinating the self-motivation of an individual or allowing the (perceived) giver power over that individual.

What makes GOOD charity is when the receiver is grateful for the assistance but still has the will to overcome what challenges they are capable of overcoming. The giver needs to love and respect the dignity of that person. Love might mean withholding support (a genuine complaint about government welfare) but it also means having some trust in the receiver to make good choices for themselves based on their situation (a problem some critics of welfare suffer from).

 

[Bill_7154]

Social Justice is an important part of catholic teaching, starting with the right to live, including for the unborn, and proceeding from that to other issues such as poverty and civil rights. There is a difference, however, between social justice and socialism. When a government acts in the name of social justice, its mainly a lead-in to socialism, that is, big brother will take care of you, all it will cost is that you acquiesce your will to the state. Some liberals will say that if you don’t support socialist programs, that you don’t care about the poor and weaker people in society. Liberal Catholics ( almost an oxymoron ) even think that its the will of God that the government do the work of charity. I submit to you that its not the role of government to help ourselves and our fellow humans, its our job. Jesus, in the gospels, never indicated that we should do works of charity through the government. He did indicate we should do it directly ( " go, sell all you have, give to the poor, and then come follow me ") and through the church. There is a fine line, when you allow Caesar to do God’s mission of mercy, between social justice and socialism.

I suggest you consider dismissing viewing the government as a good and rightful group of rulers and leaders and investigate Anarcho-Capitalism as a better way to help all of society, including the poor, albeit there would be no taxes, only charity. I realize that this can not happen in our lifetimes, but the government is so overgrown it is ridiculous. And the insider info they are privy to and financially benefit off of while sticking the bill to the taxpayers is just rubbing salt into open wounds.

 

[PJH_74]

I suggest you consider dismissing viewing the government as a good and rightful group of rulers and leaders and investigate Anarcho-Capitalism as a better way to help all of society, including the poor, albeit there would be no taxes, only charity.

Here’s the one problem I have with charity only. When things get tough and the need is the highest, people on average stop or slow down their giving. How do we serve the poor in real times of want?

 

[GEddie]

Most social justicers that I know of do not give priority to life, but to poverty. The argument that I have heard endlessly since 1992 is: “X may be for abortion and euthanasia, but they want to help the poor, so I will support them.”

 

[Bill_7154]

Here’s the one problem I have with charity only. When things get tough and the need is the highest, people on average stop or slow down their giving. How do we serve the poor in real times of want?

You have 1 problem with charity.

How many ‘problems’ do you have with government?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[PJH_74]

You have 1 problem with charity.

Yes, but that one problem is a pretty big one.

My question is an honest one though. It seems to me the system our faith calls us to has some sort of type of basic (e.g. you should not die because you are poor) charity that does not dry up in bad times coupled with more innovative / additional / personal charity that may dry up in hard times. This is no political question, but I’d be interested in what you’d like to see provide the baseline in place of the Government.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Social Justice is an important part of catholic teaching, starting with the right to live, including for the unborn, and proceeding from that to other issues such as poverty and civil rights. There is a difference, however, between social justice and socialism. When a government acts in the name of social justice, its mainly a lead-in to socialism, that is, big brother will take care of you, all it will cost is that you acquiesce your will to the state. Some liberals will say that if you don’t support socialist programs, that you don’t care about the poor and weaker people in society. Liberal Catholics ( almost an oxymoron ) even think that its the will of God that the government do the work of charity. I submit to you that its not the role of government to help ourselves and our fellow humans, its our job. Jesus, in the gospels, never indicated that we should do works of charity through the government. He did indicate we should do it directly ( " go, sell all you have, give to the poor, and then come follow me ") and through the church. There is a fine line, when you allow Caesar to do God’s mission of mercy, between social justice and socialism.

I disagree. A quick look at the Encyclicals should show otherwise.

Now what do you do when all else fails? Charity in Truth written by Pope Benedict XVI calls for public welfare systems in poorer countries. Encyclicals written by the Blessed Pope John Paul II call for social insurance and criticize liberal capitalism. The state has a role in social justice which many people seem to forget on this site; it just has to act in a subsidiary way to respect the principle of subsidiarity.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Why must social justice be viewed as an “either-or” situation, meaning either private caregivers or government assistance? Why can’t both individuals and private organizations, such as religious institutions, as well as the government help people in need get back on their feet, or provide more long-term care and assistance in cases of illness and disability? The costs are generally too great for any one sector of society to shoulder alone.

 

[Bill_7154]

I submit to you that its not the role of government to help ourselves and our fellow humans, its our job.

I couldn’t agree more. However, I’d like for one or more of those that post in this forum to explain why I have been attacked for threads I’ve started, posts I’ve made, with the assumption behind the attack that I somehow support socialism or government being the instrument to ‘solve’ social problems.

Moreover, I’d like to express my disappointment. I’ve engaged in discussions and debates on this topic on the internent for many years. I’ve been attacked by liberals for my beliefs, never by conservatives. I’m quite disappointed that so many stap to judgement toward me, particularly in a Catholic Website. And am even more disappointed that those who have attacked me, under false assumptions, have not come back to the threads/posts to retract their false statements about me, as well as apologize.

I’ve become accustomed to engaging in discussions and debates with liberals, and become accustomed to them ‘disappearing’ from the discussion rather than continue when their assertions about me are demonstrated to be wrong.

I expect more from the Catholic community. Maybe I shouldn’t, but I do.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

Why must social justice be viewed as an “either-or” situation, meaning either private caregivers or government assistance?

I don’t think it ‘has’ to be viewed as either or. However, as someone who used to be homeless and has since worked with several different groups of disadvantaged my observations are that government does a TERRIBLE job with the task of ‘helping’, and charity does a much better job.

Inherent in government, since there is no competition, is it’s own growth. There is a ton too much beaurocracy involved compared to the top charities. Moreover, governments approach is much more centered around ‘hand OUTS’ rather than hand UP’s.

While a tiny segment of the disadvantaged are extremely limited in thier ability to make even the most basic and simple of steps towards helping themselves (with help), the vast majority, even those disabled with major mental illness…are capable of changing to be more independent.

However, the government system of entitlements works directly AGAINST them doing so. Their ‘job’ is to be disfunctional and unable to work and their bread and butter comes from this. They are paid to be sick and to stay sick.

I think we can all agree than things such as cash, housing, etc are motivators to human beings. When you take a sick person and motivate them with cash and housing to stay sick, and put obsticles in their way of taking steps to becoming more functional and less impaired… IMO your HURTING THEM. This is essentially how government intervenes with those who have major mental illness and do not work full time.

And I think it’s shameful.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

I’m not one to argue Government welfare is the only solution, I guess its main purpose is some sort of minimal baseline in my opinion. But there is fallacy in believing the problems of Government welfare do not extend to private charity.

Charity is always a balance between helping and hurting. This is true of Government, Private, and Religious Charity. Any charity runs the risk subordinating the self-motivation of an individual or allowing the (perceived) giver power over that individual.

While that may be true (not challenging it but have a point to make regardless) government is a territorial monopoly that does not have to, and does not, compete with any other organization for it’s funds.

Charities must not only compete with one another, they don’t even get a chance at competing for any funds until government takes a massive slice of money that it does not compete for.

They can do a bad job and that’s it. There is no option for people to switch giving to government to give to another organization that does a good job, or less bad job. IMO this is morally wrong and people die and suffer every day because of this.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

Yes, but that one problem is a pretty big one.

My question is an honest one though. It seems to me the system our faith calls us to has some sort of type of basic (e.g. you should not die because you are poor) charity that does not dry up in bad times coupled with more innovative / additional / personal charity that may dry up in hard times. This is no political question, but I’d be interested in what you’d like to see provide the baseline in place of the Government.

This question is too complicated to answer on a practical level in today’s day and age. Tons of people have been conditioned to rely on gov’t for all sorts of things. This includes conservatives relying on gov’t to do thier bidding, enact policies they depend on to make things right in the world in their eyes.

As a first step I would like to see government waste (in the form of do nothing buearocrats) fired. People who oversee ‘checkers’ and inspectors of paperwork. gov’t is like a virus that infects us all. I would like to see govn’t be efficient as a first step. Non essential jobs (you can look to private charities and see how many actual administrtors you NEED) vs how many gov’t has in it’s various ‘hleping’ programs.

And I have no doubt that buearocrats in all other sections of gov’t exist en mass when they need not.

That would be a good start.

God Bless,
Bill