What is true social justice?

[swnunley]

I would like to get others opinions on a couple of issues.

My parish is a moderatelly lliberal, predominately Democrat, inner city parish. I am a conservative, suburban Republican. Naturally, you can expect that there are differences in opinion.

I sometimes clash with my pastor and other parishoners on Social Justice. He is a pro-immigration activist - we have a large Hispanic community. He also is active in lobbying our state government to provide universal health care. He is so strident in his beliefs and actions that others in our parish say that it’s un-Catholic/un-Christian to do otherwise.

I disagree. The Catechism says that we as Cathollics should obey the laws of a just country. Some say the US is not a just country, but tell me what country is more just? Also, Jesus commanded us to care for our neighbor - not lobby the government to tax us more, so they can give away our tax dollars. IMHO, I would much rather give my money and time directly to where I think it is most needed, rather than allow the gov’t to waste it.

The Scriptures and the Church both say that we should welcome the immigrant. I agree, as long as they obey our laws, as I stated above. I don’t think that just because the gov’t can’t/won’t enforce our laws should mean that I should look the other way, as well. I have no issue with providing food and other necessities to those who come here penniless, perhaps even seeking asylum (does our gov’t even allow that anymore?). Again, putting my money/time where I want it to go. I just object to the members of my Church telling me I’m some kind of unfeeling selfish monster because I do.

Does anyone agree, or am I just as they say?

 

[SFTor]

I would like to get others opinions on a couple of issues.

My parish is a moderatelly lliberal, predominately Democrat, inner city parish. I am a conservative, suburban Republican. Naturally, you can expect that there are differences in opinion.

I sometimes clash with my pastor and other parishoners on Social Justice. He is a pro-immigration activist - we have a large Hispanic community. He also is active in lobbying our state government to provide universal health care. He is so strident in his beliefs and actions that others in our parish say that it’s un-Catholic/un-Christian to do otherwise.

I disagree. The Catechism says that we as Cathollics should obey the laws of a just country. Some say the US is not a just country, but tell me what country is more just? Also, Jesus commanded us to care for our neighbor - not lobby the government to tax us more, so they can give away our tax dollars. IMHO, I would much rather give my money and time directly to where I think it is most needed, rather than allow the gov’t to waste it.

The Scriptures and the Church both say that we should welcome the immigrant. I agree, as long as they obey our laws, as I stated above. I don’t think that just because the gov’t can’t/won’t enforce our laws should mean that I should look the other way, as well. I have no issue with providing food and other necessities to those who come here penniless, perhaps even seeking asylum (does our gov’t even allow that anymore?). Again, putting my money/time where I want it to go. I just object to the members of my Church telling me I’m some kind of unfeeling selfish monster because I do.

Does anyone agree, or am I just as they say?

Let us consider the following fact: there are about 9 million children in the United States without access to health care. We can be quite certain that this causes at least a few thousand premature deaths in this group every year. If you are pro-life, which I am sure you are, you are taking an active interest in the survival of the unborn, no matter where the pregnant woman lives in the country. Now we are dealing with living human children. Do they enjoy the same support from you, no matter where they live in the country? If you do care for them as much as you care for the unborn, you could show your concern by supporting universal health care. If you don’t, you must face the question: if you universally support life for the unborn, why are you not supporting the provision of basic services to these the weakest among us?

Lastly, you say that you are against getting the Government involved in these social justice issues. Why do you then look to them to enforce a ban on abortions?

 

[Dale_M]

Swnunley, if you live in the suburbs, why do you attend an inner-city parish? Isn’t it out of your way?

I think the issue of universal health care is one of prudential judgment. And so is the best policy to pursue with regard to illegal immigration. So why put yourself in a situation where you will clash with those you attend mass with?

 

[Corki]

Let us consider the following fact: there are about 9 million children in the United States without access to health care. We can be quite certain that this causes at least a few thousand premature deaths in this group every year. If you are pro-life, which I am sure you are, you are taking an active interest in the survival of the unborn, no matter where the pregnant woman lives in the country.

So far, no disagreement.

Now we are dealing with living human children. Do they enjoy the same support from you, no matter where they live in the country?

There are many ways to support those living children. It sounds like the OP is in a parish where the living have many voices and supporters but no one is speaking for the unborn. Everyone can “support” the causes in different ways but no one can be an activist in deed and money for everything. If one person spearheads the pro-life committee and another the peace initiative or immigrant aid committee, it does not mean that they don’t care about each others’ issues.

If you do care for them as much as you care for the unborn, you could show your concern by supporting universal health care. If you don’t, you must face the question: if you universally support life for the unborn, why are you not supporting the provision of basic services to these the weakest among us?

You have fallen for a false dichotomy. Government funded universal healthcare is but one way to care for “living human children.” Disagreeing with the pastor’s idea of the best way is not the same as ignoring the rights of those people or being anti-life in advocacy for them.

Lastly, you say that you are against getting the Government involved in these social justice issues. Why do you then look to them to enforce a ban on abortions

There is nothing in the OP that supports what you claim here. Not wanting government to continue wasteful programs or generally incompetant handling of tax money is not the same thing as not wanting the government involved in social justice issues.

 

[Brendan]

Let us consider the following fact: there are about 9 million children in the United States without access to health care.

One of the items of Catholic Social Teaching is the principle of subsidiary. Namely that an action should not be taken at one level when it can be accomplished at a lower level.

What this means for health care, is that yes, those that cannot afford health care should have it provided for them.

What is does NOT mean is that those who CAN afford health care should have it provided for them instead.

That is why it is actually against Catholic social teaching to advocate a single payer type system. Rather it should be treated like food or shelter is.

Food and shelter should be provided by the Church (idealy) or by the State ( secondarily) for those who cannot legitimately afford it.

But no one claims that the State should make the mortage payments or pay the grocery bills for those who CAN afford food and housing.

Likewise with health care.

 

[swnunley]

Dale_M: It’s a small city, and when I 1st moved into the area, I was closer to this particular parish. I moved, but not that far from it. Thus, I’m in the suburbs, but the “inner city” parish is not that much farther. I made friends there, and I didn’t care for the other parishes in the area. So I stayed. I don’t verbally clash with anyone, I am on very amicable terms with my pastor and others, but, on occasion, thoughtless things are said to which I disagree.

STFor: It is a fallacy that those who do not have health insurance do not have access to health care. Those who are not covered can walk into any public hospital in the country and be cared for. If they walk into a Catholic hospital, especially so.

Recall what I said in my post: I am saying that I object to my fellow parishoners trying to coerce me into doing something I don’t agree with. I don’t think I should lobby the gov’t to take more of my money to have it wasted. Again, Jesus told us to go and care for our neighbor, not slough off this responsibility to the gov’t. Does anyone disagree?

The same gov’t that screws up Social Security, Medicare, and Education can not be expected to properly administer a health care system. I agree that there are flaws in our health care system, but a universal health care system will ration it out - and then life would in all truthfullness be devalued. That’s what most people don’t seem to understand about socialized medicine. Health care is given to those deemed most worthy of surviving - “quality of life”. Many folks in countries with socialized die while on waiting lists for basic tests and procedures. I saw this 1st hand while on business in Australia, where I had the “opportunity” to visit a public hospital ER for a sinus infection. Most of my colleagues there said they would rather die than go to a public hospital. An exageration, of course, but it tells you their opnion nonetheless.

IMHO, socialized medicine is a trap, and moreover, not what Jesus commanded us to do. If more of us took an active part, whether it be time/talent/or treasure, people who can’t afford it would be better taken care of.

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The Ten Commandments. Know them and live them. In these simple truths lie the answers to the complex questions that are before us.

 

[Melvin]

I believe we are at the point where such discussions have become largely academic. In trying to create the “social justice” nirvana envisioned by many and imposed on all over the last 40 years (and having now lost any semblance of a free society), we have bankrupt our nation, squandered our childrens’ futures, succeeded in creating a house divided against itself, and probably signed the death warrant of Western Civilization.

Those who sought to impose their vision of social justice by taking from those who have (our neighbor the evil American) and giving to those who have not (our neighbor the poor - whoever, fill in the blank), have succeeded not in raising the standard for even the majority of the have nots, but lowering it for almost all the haves. We are all going to be living in a third world cesspool soon enough.

The good thing is that we will all have a chance to live the Gospel at that point. Soon, when we have not enough food for ourselves and our children, we can demonstrate our love for our neighbor by sharing it with him. We will all have the opportunity to *be, instead of talk about, the “blessed poor” *spoken of by Christ.

 

[Tigg]

I believe we are at the point where such discussions have become largely academic. In trying to create the “social justice” nirvana envisioned by many and imposed on all over the last 40 years (and having now lost any semblance of a free society), we have bankrupt our nation, squandered our childrens’ futures, succeeded in creating a house divided against itself, and probably signed the death warrant of Western Civilization.

**Those who sought to impose their vision of social justice by taking from those who have (our neighbor the evil American) and giving to those who have not (our neighbor the poor - whoever, fill in the blank), have succeeded not in raising the standard for even the majority of the have nots, but lowering it for almost all the haves. We are all going to be living in a third world cesspool soon enough. **

The good thing is that we will all have a chance to live the Gospel at that point. Soon, when we have not enough food for ourselves and our children, we can demonstrate our love for our neighbor by sharing it with him. We will all have the opportunity to *be, instead of talk about, the “blessed poor” *spoken of by Christ.

Thank you for your sane answer and comments. I completely agree. And why is it, in every discussion of social justice, Catholics, in their eagerness to help the poor, forget about the church teaching on solidarity and the COMMON GOOD!

 

[losh14]

swnunley, you asked specifically about immigration and working together despite differences and I wanted to speak to that a bit.

We attend a college church with an understandably liberal congregation. It’s also a fairly wealthy congregation because it’s a great school and its alumni are very generous. Included are some students who went on an 8-day hunger strike and sit-in in the Provost’s office to demand living wages and benefits be paid to campus workers. The alumni and the adults in the community are much more conservative, and so we tend to have a respectable tension between the two groups at times, and discussions often end when we get to matters of feasibility. I think that there’s also a difference between personal responsibility and societal responsibility.

If a person comes to you with a need, you should try to meet that need if you are able to. That’s charity and selflessness. Should our society, whether church or municipality, provide all needs? That’s another story. Giving a hungry person a meal and companionship can not make them dependent upon you in the same way that a social welfare program may make a group of people dependent upon that program.

The goal of the person is not the goal of the program - I can only meet an immediate need because I am capable of limited altruism. I can only give so much and then my duty is to provide for my family. While a society is capable of more extensive altruism, there is a danger to falling into a notion of limitless altruism. If we can continually receive funding, can we not continually provide? Yes, but we can also work toward resolution of problems that are resolvable.

And while a congregation might feel warm about letting a refugee family stay in the church basement for a few days until they can move on to the next stop, it’s a far different story for multiple families - even hundreds of people - to come knocking. Not to mention the legal issues with supporting persons who are breaking U.S. law. When there are hungry, sick and uneducated persons in the U.S., I am right to wonder as a parishoner why my donations aren’t staying in the parish. This looks like selfishness but it’s really stewardship - what we spend on one person cannot be spent on another.

Some problems are intractable and will always exist - there will always be people who lose their jobs. The point of unemployment insurance is to help them until they find their next job, not enable a class of permanently unemployed persons to arise. There will always be domestic abuse, and the point of shelters, counselors and law enforcement is to protect the victims, repair the families where possible and punish the guilty where necessary.

Others have a resolution, or at least a more desireable state than they are currently. Immigration is one of these, and let’s take the difficult part of it, which is specifically migration of economic refugees who do not have the financial or legal means to go through the established immigration system. When we talk of illegal immigration, this is who we mean, but that’s a charged term (as we saw at UNC two weeks ago when Tom Tancredo’s speech almost caused a riot) and it tends to end legitimate debate. So let’s discuss economic refugees because this describes the reason for persons to circumvent US laws, though it does not justify it.

Let’s talk polar opposites for a moment: the Impenetrable Wall versus the Open Door. Neither is an ethically sound policy because neither addresses the root cause of migration, and that is local economic collapse. People who migrate under these conditions have no means of supporting themselves in their home countries. Blame it on years of drought and debt to Jaliscante farmers, or land reform in Venezuela, or ousting of squatters in Guatemala, or socialist policies in Cuba. Keeping all these people out only foments discord, sends more to the overcrowded cities and burdens the social systems in their home nations. Letting all of them in allows foreign leaders to avoid confronting the problems within their own nations, or even allows to continue unjust policies that perpetuate the migration, using the U.S. as a “safety valve”.

Note I’m not talking about seasonal workers who come to the U.S. to earn as much money as possible for six months and then go home and live very well for the next six months. I used to work with guys like this in Chicago. I understand that business seeks the lowest cost solution, and while the guys themselves were pleasant to work with I resented their skirting the laws and avoiding paying income taxes, avoiding selective service, avoiding jury duty and all the other duties that come with citizenship. I especially resented it knowing that the restaurant’s owner paid them $3/hour while I had friends who were out of work cooks who otherwise earned $9/hour doing the same kind of work. I’m talking about people who are driven to desperate measures.

A true immigration solution is one that is tenable and sustainable. It ends illegal immigration by ending the causes that turn hard-working people into economic refugees. Forcing nations to be held to account for providing for their citizenry would do that far better than just letting 'em all in. So yes, while we as Church look out for the immigrant, we must look out for the future immigrant as well, and try to end such desperate migration.