"Social Justice" vs. the Sanctity of Life

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The 2 party system is one of my least favorite things about America…
 
SuperLuigi said:
They do it in many cases to keep voting for liberals
Click to expand...
This dichotomy–“liberals” for social justice and “conservatives” for life issues–and, I believe, our two-party system as it now stands need to end. These political parties are cyncially playing Christian voters like violins.

What is happening for the poor? What is happening for the unborn? I think we are being bought off so the candidates can appease voting blocs who aren’t so split. I also think we are trying to do things politically without changing the attitudes of the electorate proportionately. We are in an uphill battle in justice issues that are not going to be remedied by the courts. Let us be real: these issues will only be remedied by the will of the people. We need to change attitudes in society, rather than try to elect individuals in the hopes that they can accomplish what there is no societal will to accomplish.
 
I’m not saying they don’t matter, but do they have official Church teaching as being non-negotiable and magisterial? The subjects of abortion and euthanasia do. These do not.
 
This is all a good discussion, but the hierarchy of evils/human rights is inescapable.

The right for a human being to exist is the right that gives form to all other rights.
Before anything else, every human being can say with our creator, “I am”.

If you ignore that reality, nothing else will fall into place. Your cry for rights becomes nothing but an appeal to power. It becomes “might makes right”. Those who can speak and be seen are eligible for rights but not those who cannot speak. That’s a sham.

And that will to power cannot build a more just world, because it denies the foundation of justice.
“I fight against racism but abortion will have to be tolerable for now”.

That can’t work.
Hypocrisy never works.
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
40.png
gcshapero:
gun control, health care, immigration
Click to expand...
These are all “Pro-life” issues… the priest is right to support pro-life issues.
Click to expand...
I disagree: none of these are life issues unless you believe that any issue that impacts a person’s life is a life issue…in which case pretty much everything is a life issue which eliminates the term as a meaningful designation.

In none of these issues is the choice being made between life and death, in rather clear distinction with abortion and euthanasia. That you think someone’s proposal will be harmful only makes it immoral for you to support it. If someone else believes it will be helpful then it would be immoral for him to oppose it.

Solving social problems does not involve making moral choices; it is all about figuring out what approach will work, and that allows for a legitimate diversity of opinion. There is no moral distinction between a priest supporting a specific plan and someone else opposing it. So long as both are choosing the approach they think best, opposite plans are equally valid morally.
 
  1. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.[84] We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.
  2. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ”,[85] with a gesture of veneration;[86] the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude”.[87]
 
I agree that we cannot win culture wars at the ballot box alone and that we’re in real trouble if people think it’s the job of the federal government to be our moral shepherds.
 
Indeed. Culture is more important than politics. Our culture has a heart problem.
 
If indeed the souls of the unborn go to God, which is a theological opinion but not a theological certainty, is that a reason for killing them?

The primary rule is, first, do no harm. First, do not kill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top