Social Justice to the exlcusion of doctrine

[James_2_24]

I have noticed in a lot of “liberal” circles… the Church is viewed primarily as a vehicle of social justice to the exclusion of doctrine.

For example, I know of people who are attracted to particular parishes because the people at the parish are: 1) kind and inclusive 2) do a lot to help the poor 3) reach out to the down trodden

However, if this same parish totally screws up the liturgy, attacks the Pope for a particular statement he’s made, and doesn’t believe a particular Catholic doctrines – its okay because the point to them after all is that they are “good people” helping others. Doctrine is secondary and not so important.

I’ve noticed this attitude to be quite rampant in America. My question is there a name for this kind of thing? Are there articles written about it? Can someone point me in the right direction?

 

[estesbob]

I have noticed in a lot of “liberal” circles… the Church is viewed primarily as a vehicle of social justice to the exclusion of doctrine.

For example, I know of people who are attracted to particular parishes because the people at the parish are: 1) kind and inclusive 2) do a lot to help the poor 3) reach out to the down trodden

However, if this same parish totally screws up the liturgy, attacks the Pope for a particular statement he’s made, and doesn’t believe a particular Catholic doctrines – its okay because the point to them after all is that they are “good people” helping others. Doctrine is secondary and not so important.

I’ve noticed this attitude to be quite rampant in America.** My question is there a name for this kind of thing?** Are there articles written about it? Can someone point me in the right direction?

Yes -Democrat

 

[Bennie_P]

Relativism

 

[Genesis315]

You can’t separate love from truth. Anyway Catholic teaching on social justice IS part of the doctrine of the Church.

The problem is, their potential to love is imperfect due to ignorance (whether gross of innocent). As you pointed out, they do some good, loving things, but they also do not know how to love properly in other areas. That is why truth is so important–we need to love according it if we are ever going to truly love.

The phenomenon my might fall under naturalism–whereby concern for the temporal world is the only concern, without thought of the supernatural. Supernatural faith, by which we believe the truth revealed by God, is discarded and only temporal good works are given any value. Because faith is put aside, the natural morality itself becomes corrupted and things like abortion become moral goods because of our fallen natures and concupiscence.

 

[scylla]

This is very common in America because it is easy and feels good. No one can argue against it either as they can always claim you are denying the necessity of loving others.

The problem is this, yes it is necessary to see Christ in others, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the infirmed, but to do that without the Gospel is the same as any atheist would do.

It is a good thing to do these things unto others, but to skip over truth, or a witness to truth is easier than dealing with it. If you skip over truth it doesn’t matter if the liturgy is in shambles, you dissent or want to change things because truth doesn’t matter all that matters is if you are nice to others.
It becomes the gospel of making people feel better and salvation becomes almost unimportant.

This is why social justice is so popular as it can be twisted to whatever personal desires dictate. And no-one can say that you are doing bad as you are helping others so it is perfect to use as a focus.

There is nothing wrong with authentic Social Justice teaching, the problem is the stripped down version that is so popular that leaves out truth\salvation and submission to truth.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[estesbob]

This is why social justice is so popular as it can be twisted to whatever personal desires dictate. And no-one can say that you are doing bad as you are helping others so it is perfect to use as a focus.

There is nothing wrong with authentic Social Justice teaching, the problem is the stripped down version that is so popular that leaves out truth\salvation and submission to truth.

God Bless
Scylla

And the stripped down version unfortunately teaches that the right to have an abortion is a fullfillment of social justice.

 

[Riley259]

I have noticed in a lot of “liberal” circles… the Church is viewed primarily as a vehicle of social justice to the exclusion of doctrine.

For example, I know of people who are attracted to particular parishes because the people at the parish are: 1) kind and inclusive 2) do a lot to help the poor 3) reach out to the down trodden

However, if this same parish totally screws up the liturgy, attacks the Pope for a particular statement he’s made, and doesn’t believe a particular Catholic doctrines – its okay because the point to them after all is that they are “good people” helping others. Doctrine is secondary and not so important.

I’ve noticed this attitude to be quite rampant in America. My question is there a name for this kind of thing? Are there articles written about it? Can someone point me in the right direction?

Doctrine and the mission of the Church are not mutually exclusive. If you want to just go because of social issues alone then you might as well become a Unitarian Universalist. This “religion” is based solely on their own idea of a liberal social justice.

 

[Peregrino]

My question is there a name for this kind of thing?

Sanity.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I have noticed in a lot of “liberal” circles… the Church is viewed primarily as a vehicle of social justice to the exclusion of doctrine.

For example, I know of people who are attracted to particular parishes because the people at the parish are: 1) kind and inclusive 2) do a lot to help the poor 3) reach out to the down trodden

However, if this same parish totally screws up the liturgy, attacks the Pope for a particular statement he’s made, and doesn’t believe a particular Catholic doctrines – its okay because the point to them after all is that they are “good people” helping others. Doctrine is secondary and not so important.

I’ve noticed this attitude to be quite rampant in America. My question is there a name for this kind of thing? Are there articles written about it? Can someone point me in the right direction?

Left-door cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Left-door cafeteria Catholicism.

osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx

osjspm.org/social_teaching_documents.aspx

 

[LCMS_No_More]

osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx

osjspm.org/social_teaching_documents.aspx

All fine. I agree…except these things are ignored by people who enter the cafeteria through the right-hand door.

I was referring to this part:

However, if this same parish totally screws up the liturgy, attacks the Pope for a particular statement he’s made, and doesn’t believe a particular Catholic doctrines – its okay because the point to them after all is that they are “good people” helping others

 

[SoCalRC]

This is very common in America because it is easy and feels good. No one can argue against it either as they can always claim you are denying the necessity of loving others.

The problem is this, yes it is necessary to see Christ in others, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the infirmed, but to do that without the Gospel is the same as any atheist would do.

What I find odd about this is that Catholics from other parts of the world seem to find our US concept of “conservatism” confusing.

For example, I spent a number of years working with a Swiss engineer who found it unfathomable that I could vote Republican. I explained to her that I was being ‘pragmatic’, lest my vote be wasted, but she spent years asking me about all kinds of obscure candidates and parties I had never heard of.

To her, it was the seeming pragmatism about a specific Church teaching at the expense of the teachings that are expressly in the Gospel that was baffling. In the last few years, I’ve come to see her point and now try to wholly vote my faith regardless of the likely outcome. But I can remember initially thinking that it was her, not me, that just did not ‘get it’.

Similiarly, I met a fellow engineer at a conference who introduced me to Latin American biblical studies. It can be troubling, particularly when you first read a rhetorical question like “How can US Catholics accept communion?” But once you put aside the knee jerk reaction of nationalist pride, it can be quite eye opening. Once you examine the activities of, say, the United Fruit Company and the origins of the term Banana Republic from their point of view, it is not so hard to wonder why the question is at least posed.

On a different note, notice the contexts that Jesus mentions our absolute obligation to the poor as a necessity for salvation in the Gospels. In Matt 25 the Son of Man judges nations. In Luke 10 it is a hated Samaritan, not the holy men, who is the good neighbor.

One thing that surprised me when I started studying the historical context of Jesus’ earthly ministry was just how loaded the word Samaritan would have been. It would have been akin to saying the ‘good communist’ or the ‘good racist’ to us.

 

[blessedtoo]

My question is there a name for this kind of thing?

Yes. Social Work.

M. Theresa said it was vital that her mission be distinguished from social work by it’s emphasis on Christ. She did not want her work to be used and manipulated by the world as nothing more than glorified humanitarian aid.

The social justice arm of our Church has been misused to a great degree to push a strictly social agenda, minus the spiritual and religious component. Anyone who has dealt with a local Catholic Community Services Agency can tell you there is virtually no difference between CCS and DSHS. In my city, many Parishes place an inordinate amount of emphasis on the social justice mission to the exclusion of the other important Church missions such as family, life, liturgy, etc. I was a Parishioner at the Cathedral for 2 years and nearly every homily I heard reflected this social justice emphasis. A revert like me, coming back after a 26 year absence, might go years without ever hearing a homily on abortion, contraception, Sunday obligations, etc.

 

[po18guy]

Yes. Social Work.

M. Theresa said it was vital that her mission be distinguished from social work by it’s emphasis on Christ. She did not want her work to be used and manipulated by the world as nothing more than glorified humanitarian aid.

The social justice arm of our Church has been misused to a great degree to push a strictly social agenda, minus the spiritual and religious component. Anyone who has dealt with a local Catholic Community Services Agency can tell you there is virtually no difference between CCS and DSHS. In my city, many Parishes place an inordinate amount of emphasis on the social justice mission to the exclusion of the other important Church missions such as family, life, liturgy, etc. I was a Parishioner at the Cathedral for 2 years and nearly every homily I heard reflected this social justice emphasis. A revert like me, coming back after a 26 year absence, might go years without ever hearing a homily on abortion, contraception, Sunday obligations, etc.

Not to mention hell and damnation. One poster asked when the last time I heard a homily on hell was. Hmmmmmmm…Probably don’t want to scare the kids. How about scaring the hell out of them? The Seattle Archdiocese was in a sling back in the 80s for Archbishop Hunthausen holding gay masses and such. Maybe the band played AC/DC’s Highway to hell. Real inclusive, huh?

For being obsessed with sin and guilt, we sure don’t hear much about hell. You’d think we would hear constantly about it. The gate is wide and the path easy. A lot of us must be headed there. Let’s hear all about where we’re going after we feed the hungry for the wrong reasons and disobey Christ’s other commands.

Liberals follow their heart. Conservatives use their brain. Didn’t God give us both that we should use both?

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Not to mention hell and damnation. One poster asked when the last time I heard a homily on hell was. Hmmmmmmm…Probably don’t want to scare the kids. How about scaring the hell out of them? The Seattle Archdiocese was in a sling back in the 80s for Archbishop Hunthausen holding gay masses and such. Maybe the band played AC/DC’s Highway to hell. Real inclusive, huh?

For being obsessed with sin and guilt, we sure don’t hear much about hell. You’d think we would hear constantly about it. The gate is wide and the path easy. A lot of us must be headed there. Let’s hear all about where we’re going after we feed the hungry for the wrong reasons and disobey Christ’s other commands.

Liberals follow their heart. Conservatives use their brain. Didn’t God give us both that we should use both?

Christ’s peace be always with you.

Actually, both “liberals” and “conservatives” use both, it is not that cut and dry.

Also, in relation to the abortion, Sunday Obligations, contraception, and hell and damnation not getting their “fair share”, it comes down (IMO) to an fear vs self determination approach.

The examples you mentioned come from a theological approach to “scare people straight” for motivation. While it can motivate for a while, it can also be self-defeating as time goes on as it is has strong de-motivating undertones as the fear sets into people’s psyche.

The Social Justice theology is popular with a self-determination approach. It adds a second dimension to people’s faith by having them live it in a positive way to turn what is seen as a negative in life into a positive. Both the helper and the helpee both receive an uplift from these actions. Instead of looking at the world as a fearful place, it makes the world a better place in small ways, which accumulate quickly.

 

[blessedtoo]

Actually, both “liberals” and “conservatives” use both, it is not that cut and dry.

Also, in relation to the abortion, Sunday Obligations, contraception, and hell and damnation not getting their “fair share”, it comes down (IMO) to an fear vs self determination approach.

The examples you mentioned come from a theological approach to “scare people straight” for motivation. While it can motivate for a while, it can also be self-defeating as time goes on as it is has strong de-motivating undertones as the fear sets into people’s psyche.

The Social Justice theology is popular with a self-determination approach. It adds a second dimension to people’s faith by having them live it in a positive way to turn what is seen as a negative in life into a positive. Both the helper and the helpee both receive an uplift from these actions. Instead of looking at the world as a fearful place, it makes the world a better place in small ways, which accumulate quickly.

Your post perfectly illustrates my point. Your emphasis on “self-determination” is the cornerstone of the social justice misunderstanding. WE do not turn positive into negative: God does. We are merely the instruments he uses. If we seek “uplift”, if our efforts are seen purely as self driven and self motivated, we are excluding God from the equation and framing our mission in secular terms.

Modern Catholic culture has all but omitted the “fear” element from it’s teachings. However, we are told repeatedly in Scripture to:

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
Philippians 2:12
And his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling.
2 Corinthians 7:15
Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Psalm 2:11

If my final meeting with God is not accompanied by some level of fear, than it must be accompanied by something else: pride.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Your post perfectly illustrates my point. Your emphasis on “self-determination” is the cornerstone of the social justice misunderstanding. WE do not turn positive into negative: God does. We are merely the instruments he uses. If we seek “uplift”, if our efforts are seen purely as self driven and self motivated, we are excluding God from the equation and framing our mission in secular terms.

Modern Catholic culture has all but omitted the “fear” element from it’s teachings. However, we are told repeatedly in Scripture to:

If my final meeting with God is not accompanied by some level of fear, than it must be accompanied by something else: pride.

Who says God is excluded in helping others? Who says that helping others is always self-driven and self-motivated? While it can happen, it does not happen all the time. Helping others in this way is not framing the mission in “secular” terms". Helping others does not require an “conversion” on either side. Fear is still a factor in helping others, as many times it puts is into situations we are not used to and out of our safety zone. It can be either more debilitating or life changing (varies by person and situation) than just scary sermons quoting scripture. Often it is by bringing a version of hell into the real world in front of our own eyes. Pride goes out the window pretty quickly if it is there to begin with (varies by person and situation).

 

[SoCalRC]

Your post perfectly illustrates my point. Your emphasis on “self-determination” is the cornerstone of the social justice misunderstanding. WE do not turn positive into negative: God does. We are merely the instruments he uses. If we seek “uplift”, if our efforts are seen purely as self driven and self motivated, we are excluding God from the equation and framing our mission in secular terms.

Modern Catholic culture has all but omitted the “fear” element from it’s teachings. However, we are told repeatedly in Scripture to:

If my final meeting with God is not accompanied by some level of fear, than it must be accompanied by something else: pride.

You appear to be missunderstanding the original post. You make a choice rather you act or not and you are, most assuredly, held accountable for that choice.

Think of one of the readings from a few weeks ago. The rich man at the table, the poor man in the door. It required no direct evil act for the rich man to achieve damnation, just indifference (or even oblivion) to the plight of the man in his door.

He failed to see his fellow man as a person, an equal child of God. This is an attitude that he carried into damnation - send him to bring water to MY lips, send him to warn MY family…

If you want fear, find every reference in the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus speaks on salvation and damnation. Now, count how many are put, expressly, in the context of social justice. Are we truly the good neighbor? Are we a nation of sheep or goats?

We are expressly called to a life of service to others. Why should we be surprised or disdainful that following the path expressly given to us for salvation is rewarding and fullfilling?

 

[TMC]

As others have commented, “Social Justice to the exclusion of doctrine” is an oxymoron. Its like saying Love of God to the exclusion of doctrine or Faith to the exclusion of doctrine. Social Justice is doctrine.

For example, I know of people who are attracted to particular parishes because the people at the parish are: 1) kind and inclusive 2) do a lot to help the poor 3) reach out to the down trodden

However, if this same parish totally screws up the liturgy, attacks the Pope for a particular statement he’s made, and doesn’t believe a particular Catholic doctrines – its okay because the point to them after all is that they are “good people” helping others. Doctrine is secondary and not so important.

I, too, am attracted to those parishes. Certainly I don’t care if a parish screws up the liturgy, and I don’t think that comes even close to Social Justice in importance. The Scribes and Pharisees were very good at enforcing their form of worship, but they did not care for the poor. Should we do the same?

 

[Genesis315]

I, too, am attracted to those parishes. Certainly I don’t care if a parish screws up the liturgy, and I don’t think that comes even close to Social Justice in importance. The Scribes and Pharisees were very good at enforcing their form of worship, but they did not care for the poor. Should we do the same?

No, but we should also not do the opposite and neglect the worship of God. There’s absolutely no reason why we cannot do both. It takes absolutely no additional resources to follow the rubrics and pray the words of the liturgy as they are written. Nor does it take additional resources to treat the liturgy with reverence and solemnity due to the Holiest Sacrifice.

People should serve God and neighbor, and neglect neither.