"Social Justice" vs. the Sanctity of Life

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gcshapero

Guest
This may be convoluted, so I’ll do my best to keep it simple.
Half of the time, I attend the cathedral in DC. One of the priests there, who is very driven by “social justice” talks a lot about gun control, health care, immigration, etc. A month or so ago in DC was the March for Our Lives event which was a gun control effort. The social justice committee at the cathedral promoted it and went there with some parishioners.

As a Catholic, I respect that Catholics can support gun ownership or reject it – it is a prudential issue. My concern is that with so much effort in favor of prudential matters like these (and they’re important subjects, I’m not saying they aren’t), do you think the over-emphasis of these could result in more things that are magisterial rather than prudential?

For example: if a priest continues to push for gun control and open boarder policies for immigration (two subjects often supported by Liberal parties), could Catholics misinterpret these as being magisterial and therefore on the same level of importance as abortion or the sanctity of marriage? And if they do, could it lead to more Catholics voting in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage – even if it is indirect?

I have had conversations with Catholics who voted for politicians who were very much working for abortion. When I asked how do they justify doing that as Catholics, they’d say “well it’s OK as long as that’s not why I am doing it.”

Is there a line to be drawn? Could clerics blurring the lines lead to more deaths of the unborn and more souls being lost to Satan?

I’d love your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Well, the souls of the unborn go to God, IMO.

Additionally, all of these issues play into the same issue- The inherent dignity of the human person from conception to natural death.

This is not a problem with the Church, but rather with the American 2 party political system forcing Catholics to choose between the lesser of two evils.
 
It’s true that the unborn go to God, but those who act in favor of abortion/euthanasia, run a risk of not.

I guess my question is, for example, is it justified for clerics or any Catholic for that matter to blur the lines between prudential and magisterial? For instance, Catholics can oppose open boarders but do it because they respect life, just as Catholics and support open boarders for the same reason (they both respect life but think it should be achieved differently). With things like abortion, there is no way around it and the Church condemns that as a direct violation.

Is it blurring a line?
 
Yes I think so…which is sad. Advocating for gun control while simultaneously advocating for open borders(which aids in the trafficking of humans, drugs, and weapons) makes absolutely no sense. In my opinion it’s a violation of human rights and is unjust. A criminal who breaks Federal immigration law (and whose history we don’t know) should not have access to our country and to higher caliber weapons than the average U.S. Citizen.

Focus should always be on the protection of human beings who are voiceless and were forced into their circumstances through other people’s actions(the unborn). Just because one is poor and wants a better life in another country does NOT justify breaking the law. It is still wrong.
 
I wouldn’t say so.

The gravity may be resuced by good intention… but still
 
gcshapero said:
For example: if a priest continues to push for gun control and open boarder policies for immigration (two subjects often supported by Liberal parties), could Catholics misinterpret these as being magisterial and therefore on the same level of importance as abortion or the sanctity of marriage? And if they do, could it lead to more Catholics voting in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage – even if it is indirect?
Click to expand...
I think there is a lot of truth here. To me, it simply strengthens the supporters of the “single garment” theory
 
Last edited:
gcshapero said:
who is very driven by “social justice”
Click to expand...
Social Justice is an important part of Catholic doctrine. I’d suggest beginning with the Catechism here, reading the entire article. After that move on to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (available on the Vatican website).
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a3.htm#1928

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY

ARTICLE 3
SOCIAL JUSTICE

1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.
 
phil19034 said:
I think there is a lot of truth here. To me, it simply strengthens the supporters of the “single garment” theory
Click to expand...
The garment has been rent six ways from Sunday; and every fragment has its own foxhole; this makes voting a challenge. You do the best you can on a case-by-case basis, I figure.
 
gcshapero said:
For example: if a priest continues to push for gun control and open boarder policies for immigration (two subjects often supported by Liberal parties), could Catholics misinterpret these as being magisterial and therefore on the same level of importance as abortion or the sanctity of marriage? And if they do, could it lead to more Catholics voting in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage – even if it is indirect?
Click to expand...
Same-sex marriage I don’t even lump into this. It goes against Church teaching but is not a human rights violation. I’d love to vote out the adulterers, but that may leave me with no one for whom to vote, lol!

Specifically how do you define “open borders?” Immigration is indeed a Magisterial issue. Catechism of the Catholic Church | Catholic Culture
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
Yes I think so…which is sad. Advocating for gun control while simultaneously advocating for open borders(which aids in the trafficking of humans, drugs, and weapons) makes absolutely no sense. In my opinion it’s a violation of human rights and is unjust. A criminal who breaks Federal immigration law (and whose history we don’t know) should not have access to our country and to higher caliber weapons than the average U.S. Citizen.

Focus should always be on the protection of human beings who are voiceless and were forced into their circumstances through other people’s actions(the unborn). Just because one is poor and wants a better life in another country does NOT justify breaking the law. It is still wrong.
Click to expand...
The truth is that this is a very complex issue, with criminals exploiting those who try to go where they can make enough money to help their families survive. Yes, it is on us and our neighbors to come up with ways to protect and monitor our sovereign borders on behalf of the greater good of our citizenry. That is a joint effort, IMHO. You have to think that (a) most people streaming across the border would rather have a free country full of opportunity at home in their mother country and (b) even if we could use some of their people willing to do certain kinds of labor, having them come over with the help of criminals is not the way to organize it. It is not safe for them and it undermines our justice system, as well.
 
Last edited:
Abortion IS a social justice issue. HOW to fight and end abortion is a prudential judgment. Likewise, school shootings are a social justice issue. HOW to fight and end school shootings is a prudential judgment. The fact that refugees are dying is a social justice issue. HOW to attend to their needs is a prudential judgment.

Each one of these social justice issues IS a life or death pro life issue. Mothers are killing their unborn babies. School shooters are killing kids at school. Refugees are fleeing for their lives and striving to find safety.

There are plenty of things that are technically illegal but that lack policies to uphold the law in the States. Sometimes these are old laws that we don’t feel are important to change. Afterall, they’re illegal only in that there are words written down in law books that declare them illegal. Being illegal doesn’t end something. It enables for certain types of laws to be put on the books to reduce its occurrence. It allows us to deter actions by creating consequences people want to avoid, by putting people in jail or prison, by fining them for such activities, etc.

Illegality doesn’t always work though. Sometimes it makes a situation worse. Prohibition on alcohol, for instance, made things worse. Now, do I believe that’s the case with abortion? No. I do believe that legal abortion creates a culture that is anti-life, that creates policies aimed at ending stigma which encourages abortion. But I also believe that the GOP is two-faced, that it has both policies to discourage abortion AND encourage it. And this two-faceness actually creates grave injustices that puts the lives of women and children and jeopardy. NEITHER party is truly pro life.

But all of this policy opinion of mine is a prudential judgment. There is no one right way to fight abortion. Yes, it’s important to recognize that abortion is immoral, that we shouldn’t as Catholics start taking up a rally for “abortion rights” like Catholics for Choice does. But the HOW is prudential. It isn’t more or less pro life. It does not make you a better or worse Catholic.
 
gcshapero said:
This may be convoluted, so I’ll do my best to keep it simple.
Half of the time, I attend the cathedral in DC. One of the priests there, who is very driven by “social justice” talks a lot about gun control, health care, immigration, etc. A month or so ago in DC was the March for Our Lives event which was a gun control effort. The social justice committee at the cathedral promoted it and went there with some parishioners.

As a Catholic, I respect that Catholics can support gun ownership or reject it – it is a prudential issue. My concern is that with so much effort in favor of prudential matters like these (and they’re important subjects, I’m not saying they aren’t), do you think the over-emphasis of these could result in more things that are magisterial rather than prudential?

For example: if a priest continues to push for gun control and open boarder policies for immigration (two subjects often supported by Liberal parties), could Catholics misinterpret these as being magisterial and therefore on the same level of importance as abortion or the sanctity of marriage? And if they do, could it lead to more Catholics voting in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage – even if it is indirect?

I have had conversations with Catholics who voted for politicians who were very much working for abortion. When I asked how do they justify doing that as Catholics, they’d say “well it’s OK as long as that’s not why I am doing it.”

Is there a line to be drawn? Could clerics blurring the lines lead to more deaths of the unborn and more souls being lost to Satan?

I’d love your thoughts.
Click to expand...
The dignity of the human person encompasses all of these issues.
However, there is a hierarchy of evils and prudential judgment points us to intervening in the most heinous and most direct attacks on innocent life. This is uncomfortable for many people who are attached to one initiative or another in social justice. But the primary ground of social justice is the right for a human being to exist. Without that right nothing else really matters.

I’m not walking to the soup kitchen if a woman is under assault on the sidewalk in front of my face.
That’s an abdication of Christian responsibility to falsely oppose social justice issues with direct attacks on innocent life. They are part of the same continuum, and there exists a hierarchy of responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
And the lesser of two evils isn’t even a Catholic moral principle. We are never to do evil so that good may come of it. This fight goes much deeper than voting. Whether we vote Republican or are active in Democrats for Life to change the party, whether we’re involved in the American Solidarity Party, or simply volunteering to help local pregnant women in crisis, we are being pro life.
 
blackforest said:
Same-sex marriage I don’t even lump into this. It goes against Church teaching but is not a human rights violation.
Click to expand...
I think it is not only a violation of divine law (since marriage is a sacrament), but it could still even be classified as a human rights violation if it interferes with the child’s right to both a mother and a father, which they certainly do have. Or even just the mere right for the child to exist. Marriage’s unique position is the openness to life.
 
Last edited:
I can certainly understand your thoughts on this. Each of our decisions have an effect on someone else, and some of those are life and death.

When I use the term social justice, I’m using it in the way that I think it has been manipulated over time. There is justice, and then there is “social justice” which the social justice warrior culture seemed to have co-opted. Also I can see how the title of this thread seems to be a false dichotomy – I used it in a hyperbolic way, but also to draw the difference

When I say prudential, I mean for example that things like the Just War Principle is a prudential matter. The Church backs it, but it is something that Catholics aren’t obligated to abide by provided their other position doesn’t violate the theological virtues.

Abortion is a subject, you’re right, which can be addressed differently, but not at the risk of supporting it. For instance, “I say we keep abortion illegal because I am pro-life and value the life of the mother – so let’s make sure she has access to it,” is not in line magisterially with the Church and becomes a direct violation.
 
Last edited:
I suspect this priest’s focus on open boarders, for which I don’t believe he is advocating literally no boarder control, might be about the matter of our sense of material wealth and even safety. Why do maybe 20% of the world’s population control maybe 80-90% of the world’s wealth and power? We’ve done nothing to deserve where we were born and we love to talk about everyone being equal before God, but are we willing to let go of some of or privilege for this? This is even true for the stratum of our own society. Personally I know it would be hard to give everything up, but I’m a better human to more I can do so.
 
Yeah, he has definitely been vague, though my girlfriend does know him pretty well (they both volunteer at the same homeless shelter) and her sister runs their social justice ministry – it sounds like he’s promoting more of an open boarder policy based on his beliefs.

If this is his personal beliefs, while I disagree with them, I’ll grant they are his and that’s fine. Though then saying that anyone that opposes those are now violating Church teaching, this is erroneous.
 
Was this priest upset about Trump sending troops to patrol the border? If so, he strikes me as being in favor of open borders.
 
I have never heard him say anything about that subject – I can only say what I have heard him talk about. When he talks of open boarders, it’s usually used in a general term “immigration,” at least when he’s speaking about it in his homilies. Immigration could mean multiple things, but being in DC, he’s speaking in favor of a more lenient immigration policy since so many of his parishioners are from El Salvador and Guatemala. This is common in the area.

But this thread was also not so much about this specific priest or even just clerics nor about immigration itself. More about prudential subjects vs. magisterial subjects, the overlap and the blurring of the two.
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
Was this priest upset about Trump sending troops to patrol the border? If so, he strikes me as being in favor of open borders.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he sees pass the recent propaganda stunt (or even worse if poorly informed) to stop a “caravan” of Illegal Emigrants headed for the boarder when their stated goal was to reach Mexico City? Mexico City is about 700 miles to the nearest land boarder. Mexico itself deals with larger waves of Illegal Immigrates from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras; all most certainly the point of the “caravan”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top