What I was shocked to learn about "Social Justice" today from the pulpit

[mikekle]

but abortion, like any other evil, arises out of a specific social context. It isn’t a bunch of godless women deciding they will take an unborn life for the fun of it.

Right, instead its the secular powers that be, (in cooperation with the enemy of course) to ‘systematically’ and methodically draw as people away from God and his laws as possible, normally done today by justifying the evil or immorality.

The enemy is not stupid, naturally his methods are not going to be easy to spot, choices will not be black and white simple, I really believe social justice is being used by him to further his agenda and the mindsets of many people today along with popular sentiment, its far to easy for him than it should be.

 

[Ender]

I find it not only defensible, but pretty much dead-on. I might quibble that he is being a little speculative on the passage in Luke. No. 4 is a little questionable. No. 5 is dead-on. The reason why terrorist organizations exist is ultimately because of social injustice. The epistle of James says almost exactly that. That does not mean that ISIS and other like organizations are not evil. Evil breeds evil. He should have mentioned abortion as a social injustice, but abortion, like any other evil, arises out of a specific social context. It isn’t a bunch of godless women deciding they will take an unborn life for the fun of it.

Here is a different perspective:
1 is simply false.
2 is breathtakingly false.
3 is preposterous.
4 is a really bad idea.
5 is falsest of all. ISIS has nothing whatever to do with social justice. It is an outgrowth of radical Islamism, and there is nothing whatever our society can do to alter its goals other than resist it. Fortunately they are not the Borg, and resistance is not futile.

Ender

 

[Corki]

Here is a different perspective:
1 is simply false.
2 is breathtakingly false.
3 is preposterous.
4 is a really bad idea.
5 is falsest of all. ISIS has nothing whatever to do with social justice. It is an outgrowth of radical Islamism, and there is nothing whatever our society can do to alter its goals other than resist it. Fortunately they are not the Borg, and resistance is not futile.

Ender

And there are actual, authentic Church documents to support your “opinion” that these are false. The statements made in the OP are pure opinion with no basis in actual Church teaching.

This isn’t a discussion of differing opinions, either of which could be valid. It is a discussion of one person’s opinion that is in opposition to Church teaching. An opinion in opposition to Church teaching is NOT valid.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Yes, those points you listed sound like leftist propaganda to me. Number 3 is a real problem, but calling it intentional is out of line. For #4, in this situation, I would offer to give food, drink, clothing, etc. Though sometimes I have known homeless people to not accept anything but money. If they won’t take it, you’ve tried your best, and move on. Number 5 is just making excuses for terrorism and sin.

Just start hoping that your usual priest will be back next week!

If a homeless person asks me for money to buy an alcoholic beverage, I’ll give it to him. But if he says it’s for his starving wife and child, I won’t, because I know he’s lying.

 

[nqes7t9]

Scottgun, could you elaborate on the stable of leftist priests who cannot be trusted with a parish? I mean, what evidence do you have of this?

I’m not criticizing your point; I would like to know more.

I sometimes hear strange things from priests; it would be nice if I could separate the chaff from the wheat with a bit more certainty.

n

 

[CaptFun]

That’s really all I needed to hear to predict the rest. In most dioceses, there is a stable of Leftist dinosaurs that can’t be trusted with a parish, so they occasionally sub and it’s like someone spiked the holy water with topical LSD and it’s 1973 again. One benefit of the visit from one of the moldy oldies however is that you really appreciate your pastor when he returns.

I remember 1973! (Some of it was cool … the perhaps too happy, joyful encounter experiences e.g.). But the morally outraged, seldom smiling, accusative church folk that got their talk point agendas from some outside political force … could be tiresome (even when they weren’t ENTIRELY wrong.

I wasn’t around during Jesus’ time and don’t know what the rules (or realities) were for women owning property at that time. But back in the BEGINNING of Judaism, Moses heard the inheritance case(s) of five sisters whose father had died … and decided in their favor.

**Numbers Chapter 27
**
1 Zelophehad, son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, son of Joseph, had daughters named Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They came forward,

2 and standing in the presence of Moses, the priest Eleazar, the princes, and the whole community at the entrance of the meeting tent, said:

3 "Our father died in the desert. Although he did not join those who banded together against the LORD (in Korah’s band), he died for his own sin without leaving any sons.

4 But why should our father’s name be withdrawn from his clan merely because he had no son? Let us, therefore, have property among our father’s kinsmen."

5 When Moses laid their case before the LORD,

6 the LORD said to him,

7 "The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just; you shall give them hereditary property among their father’s kinsmen, letting their father’s heritage pass on to them.

8 Therefore, tell the Israelites: If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter;

9 if he has no daughter, you shall give his heritage to his brothers;

10 if he has no brothers, you shall give his heritage to his father’s brothers;

11 if his father had no brothers, you shall give his heritage to his nearest relative in his clan, who shall then take possession of it."

This is the legal norm for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.

I’ve heard this " … they were sexist back then " comment inserted into homilies at least twice, once in the past two months, and it’s always a jarring distraction from the points the Gospel author was expressing … IMO. Not that there isn’t such a THING as sexism, or that THAT shouldn’t be counselled against in a homily (ever).

Thanks for your post.

 

[Gemma6039]

It is in the Marian Catechism that every country has a right to its borders.

My diocese is teaming with these liberal priests. I want to kiss the feet of the orthodox ones.

Social justice is basically a term for socialism. Socialism is the next step to communism, which, by the way, is Godless.

The Catholic church does not stand for anything your visiting priest preached. Don’t be disheartened, just ignore…

 

[Peccavi]

Jesus of Nazareth preached the coming of the Kingdom of God in which all will be equal. A faith without a sense of social justice may be orthodox but cannot claim to seek Jesus vision of God’s Kingdom.

 

[Ender]

A faith without a sense of social justice may be orthodox but cannot claim to seek Jesus vision of God’s Kingdom.

No one argues against social justice; all of the disputes are either about what precisely it means, or about how to achieve it. There is nothing in church doctrine that addresses this question with a level of specificity that allows us to say “the church supports this action but not that one.” Regardless of how strongly we believe our own solutions are necessary and justified, no claim that they are morally superior to other solutions is valid.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No one argues against social justice; all of the disputes are either about what precisely it means, or about how to achieve it. There is nothing in church doctrine that addresses this question with a level of specificity that allows us to say “the church supports this action but not that one.” Regardless of how strongly we believe our own solutions are necessary and justified, no claim that they are morally superior to other solutions is valid.

Ender

It is not exactly right to say “no one argues against social justice”. Right here in this thread we see post #71 claiming:

Social justice is basically a term for socialism. Socialism is the next step to communism, which, by the way, is Godless.

So clearly some people do argue against social justice.

Beyond that, it is possible that some people’s idea of social justice is a thinly-veiled excuse for their own self-justification. These people say they are for social justice, but are in fact just satisfying themselves that enough is being done already. It is not a question of whether this method or that method is more effective at helping the poor. That would be the most generous way of looking at such people, and it may not be deserved. Even Dickens’ Scrooge says “Are there not workhouses and orphanages?” He is not arguing openly against social justice. He just thinks social justice is already served well enough by workhouses and orphanages. We cannot pretend that such views do not exist in today’s world.

All that said, the quotes from the OP on what that priest actually said, if true, are in my opinion, inappropriate for a homily. They are his own personal opinion, and an extreme one at that. It is wrong for a priest to elevate his own personal opinion on what should be done in the name of social justice to the level of having the moral weight of Church authority behind it, for the reasons you just gave in your post.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Social justice is basically a term for socialism. Socialism is the next step to communism, which, by the way, is Godless…

Somehow, when I read this, I thought of the lyrics to “Ya Got Trouble” from The Music Man. Am I right?

 

[Peccavi]

Read the Gospels and ignore St.Paul and the Revelations (which got into your Christian Bible by the skin of its teeth and which is the fount of all heresy). In the Gospels Jesus talks more about the Kingdom of God than personal salvation (that’s Paul theology). In describing the Kingdom of God Jesus explains his ideas on “social Justice” as does Mary in the “Magnificat”. Therefore there is a model for believers to follow, but they choose not to. Why ? Because it does not fit with their politics. Which helps explain why you Christians have been killing each other for centuries against the will of Jesus…

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Read the Gospels and ignore St.Paul and the Revelations (which got into your Christian Bible by the skin of its teeth and which is the fount of all heresy). In the Gospels Jesus talks more about the Kingdom of God than personal salvation (that’s Paul theology).

Propaganda.

John 20:30-31

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.** But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that through this belief you may have life in his name.**

 

[Jake_Parker]

Read the Gospels and ignore St.Paul and the Revelations (which got into your Christian Bible by the skin of its teeth and which is the fount of all heresy). In the Gospels Jesus talks more about the Kingdom of God than personal salvation (that’s Paul theology). In describing the Kingdom of God Jesus explains his ideas on “social Justice” as does Mary in the “Magnificat”. Therefore there is a model for believers to follow, but they choose not to. Why ? Because it does not fit with their politics. Which helps explain why you Christians have been killing each other for centuries against the will of Jesus…

I’m curious as to where this claim comes from. I am not disagreeing with Jesus talking about the Kingdom of God and social justice. I am very hesitant to even consider the idea that we should ignore certain parts of the Bible, however. Which books specifically besides Revelation? Or are you just talking about places where Paul is speaking?

 

[Peccavi]

Jesus was and is still the Messiah who preached God’s Kingdom. He attended the synagogue, read the Torah, carried out his obligations as a Jew and died a Jew. He was never himself a Christian. His views on social justice were radical for his time - he after all included non-Jews and women among his followers - He told his followers the Kingdom of God was for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed. The rich he told to give all they had to the poor if they wanted to enter the Kingdom. These days twist and turn theology seeks to cast a veil over Yeshua (Jesus) intentions and Jewishness. You only have to look at the representations of him as blue eyed Anglo-Saxon or warm skinned Latin. The social gospel is there for all to follow - it is not to be seen through a glass darkly but in stark terms of the real society Yeshua moved in and spoke of and resonates to our world today. This is still God’s World and his Kingdom is among us.

 

[Jake_Parker]

Jesus was and is still the Messiah who preached God’s Kingdom. He attended the synagogue, read the Torah, carried out his obligations as a Jew and died a Jew. He was never himself a Christian. His views on social justice were radical for his time - he after all included non-Jews and women among his followers - He told his followers the Kingdom of God was for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed. The rich he told to give all they had to the poor if they wanted to enter the Kingdom. These days twist and turn theology seeks to cast a veil over Yeshua (Jesus) intentions and Jewishness. You only have to look at the representations of him as blue eyed Anglo-Saxon or warm skinned Latin. The social gospel is there for all to follow - it is not to be seen through a glass darkly but in stark terms of the real society Yeshua moved in and spoke of and resonates to our world today. This is still God’s World and his Kingdom is among us.

I do not think this is a one way or the other situation. I fully embrace the social justice aspects of the Bible. But I also realize there is more to it than just social justice.
The Bible, and the words of Christ are very radical in that they can be a challenge to more traditional/conservative types when it makes calls to help the poor/widow/orphan/needy, etc. It can also be a challenge more liberal types when it tells us to be obedient to God, to follow rules, and that things such as abortion are immoral even when others try to say it is not. [Just using a couple examples, I’m sure there are many more, and probably better ones].

 

[Ender]

It is not exactly right to say “no one argues against social justice”. Right here in this thread we see post #71 claiming:*Social justice is basically a term for socialism. Socialism is the next step to communism, which, by the way, is Godless.*So clearly some people do argue against social justice.

I suspect what is being objected to is the connotation of a particular term. It’s quite unlikely that people oppose actual justice.

Beyond that, it is possible that some people’s idea of social justice is a thinly-veiled excuse for their own self-justification.

However true this may be, we cannot know why people take the positions they do, and assuming the worst is an example of rash judgment.

These people say they are for social justice, but are in fact just satisfying themselves that enough is being done already. It is not a question of whether this method or that method is more effective at helping the poor. That would be the most generous way of looking at such people, and it may not be deserved.

It may not always be the accurate way of looking at things, but it is the way a Catholic is to interpret the actions of others. It is the obligation of charity.*unless we have evident indications of a person’s wickedness, we ought to deem him good, by interpreting for the best whatever is doubtful about him…He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former." *(Aquinas ST II-II 60 4)

We cannot pretend that such views do not exist in today’s world.

We can be sure that such views do exist. What we cannot do is pretend to be able to distinguish the person who feels that way from the person who genuinely disagrees with us about whether a particular action ought to be taken.

All that said, the quotes from the OP on what that priest actually said, if true, are in my opinion, inappropriate for a homily. They are his own personal opinion, and an extreme one at that. It is wrong for a priest to elevate his own personal opinion on what should be done in the name of social justice to the level of having the moral weight of Church authority behind it, for the reasons you just gave in your post.

Whatever else we may disagree on we are certainly agreed on this point.

Ender

 

[Usige]

I’m curious as to where this claim comes from. I am not disagreeing with Jesus talking about the Kingdom of God and social justice. I am very hesitant to even consider the idea that we should ignore certain parts of the Bible, however. Which books specifically besides Revelation? Or are you just talking about places where Paul is speaking?

I assume they are talking about all the Pauline Epistles and Revelation (Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon). Roughly half of the books of the new testament. Some sects of Christianity utterly reject anything written by St Paul as heretical.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Jesus was and is still the Messiah who preached God’s Kingdom. He attended the synagogue, read the Torah, carried out his obligations as a Jew and died a Jew. He was never himself a Christian. His views on social justice were radical for his time - he, after all, included non-Jews and women among his followers - He told his followers the Kingdom of God was for the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed. The rich he told to give all they had to the poor if they wanted to enter the Kingdom. These days twist and turn theology seeks to cast a veil over Yeshua (Jesus) intentions and Jewishness. You only have to look at the representations of him as blue-eyed Anglo-Saxon or warm skinned Latin. The social gospel is there for all to follow - it is not to be seen through a glass darkly but in stark terms of the real society Yeshua moved in and spoke of and resonates to our world today. This is still God’s World and his Kingdom is among us.

There were many blonde and blue-eyed Jews at the time. That is beside the point. And Yeshua already fulfilled all the tenets of the law and destroyed all ts legal claims.

 

[Peccavi]

There were many blonde and blue-eyed Jews at the time. That is beside the point. And Yeshua already fulfilled all the tenets of the law and destroyed all ts legal claims.

Where does Yeshua say that he has destroyed the legal framework of the Law ? Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
There were also dark haired rather sun-burnt Jews too. Point I’m making is representations of Yeshua tend to be cultural icons and add to a subtle form of racism and anti-semitism. Hence in the past attacks by Christians on Jews and Christians keeping slaves.