When does social justice go too far in the context of the Roman Church?

[OraProNobis333]

I saw this article posted over on fisheaters forums.

Be forewarned, this video places a little too much blame on the Holy Father for the events in this video that Pope Francis is not directly responsible for. So please understand ahead of time, it is not my intention to post this video to disparage the Holy Father. The video makes this about Pope Francis but my question has to do with the push for social justice issues in the contemporary Church.

With all this outreach to those on the peripheries, where do we draw the line? Surely supporting those suffering from a disordered understanding of one’s biological sex/gender is important and in line with Catholic morals. But how does accompanying them equate to affirming them in their lifestyle choices? This is what I want to talk about in response about this video so please everyone, let’s leave comments about the Holy Father out of it. If anyone wants to discuss his contribution to this issue, let that be another post. I just wanted to ask, where do we draw the line?

Another more frequent example would be Father James Martin (that I know has been discussed ad nauseum on here already).

How culpable are we for being complacent in the face of these issues? For those that don’t want to watch the whole video, fast forward to 12:45 and watch the last minute to see these errors on full display. To see an “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” give the Eucharist to a trans man who even says before hand that he may be in a state of mortal sin is proof that many in the Roman Church have lost the faith (or simply never been taught it).

What can we do about this, besides fasting and prayer? I know I can’t be the only one discouraged by these flagrant acts of apostasy?

 

[StudentMI]

I would first separate the concept of social justice as found in Catholic social teaching from the secular idea of social justice.

 

[OraProNobis333]

It seems to me, lately, that there is no longer a distinction between the two. When we have groups like this Sister is running, or nuns on the bus (driving women to get abortions and contraception), etc, it’s hard to see a difference.

It seems as though mortal truths have taken a backseat, or are simply taken out of the picture altogether, in the sake of accompanying them. But can we truly call it accompanying if we are not leading these souls toward Jesus Christ? That’s why I don’t understand how the Church can support these types of extremist positions.

 

[OraProNobis333]

And to give the Church the benefit of the doubt, if it does not actively support these ideas, it’s ignoring them and never correcting them makes it complicit in these errors being spread.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You have to be more specific about what you mean when you say “the Church”. Also, I’m not sure who is included in the generic pronoun “we” in your posts.

As I understand the situation that you’re referring to…there are bishops who have written about these things, and priests as well. If bishops aren’t considered a significant part of the teaching authority of the Church then who is? Maybe you don’t think enough bishops are speaking about these things or maybe the right bishop(s) aren’t doing enough?? I’m not sure what your thinking.

 

[OraProNobis333]

I live in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and have seen or heard nothing being spoken out against these errors. Instead, religious conferences are pushing “inclusivity” (the type that means affirming people in error, not leading them out of it), training Catholic educators to be sensitive to gender pronouns, etc. I mean when your Archdiocesan religious conference has a female anglican pastor giving the sole Bible study, that ought to raise red flags no? This stuff is happening, and in my personal case, I have not seen or heard anything condemning this nonsense or actually seeing changes being made by any of the leadership from our pastor up to the pope. And while the blame doesn’t lie with any one individual, the lack of activity in correcting errors is mind boggling. I try to make these criticisms as respectfully as possible, so as to avoid getting my posts flagged.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I see. I don’t think those things occur in most US dioceses. But now I understand where you’re coming from.

 

[Bithynian]

What can we do about this, besides fasting and prayer?

Participate in social justice initiatives in your Archdiocese and find ways to enrich the lives of others with faithful and orthodox Catholic teaching. My post-graduate was in social work and I attempt to have as many fingers in pies as I can, and I try to present myself as a thoughtful, cogent and prayerful voice of orthodox Catholicism.

At the same time, supporting others in their discernment and application of orthodox Catholic teaching is a process of mutual enrichment and one must conceive of the possibility that others, even in the depths of sin, can assist one in achieving more nuanced understandings of Catholic teaching. Augustine himself called the teacher-student relationship the via caritatis (‘way of love’), a journey embarked upon by two travellers who must support one another, both in reproof and praise, and both must be open to the possibility that the other might know some paths of the journey better.

 

[godisgood77]

I can’t think of a case where the Church’s social justice efforts have gone too far. Nor can I imagine a case where if could

 

[OraProNobis333]

What if the Church promotes things that are wonky? Like in their attempt to pander to hispanics, the Archdiocese sent out this flyer teaching us all about racism (that to my knowledge was sent to every parish in the Archdiocese) and it hinted that white people are essentially guilty of white privilege. It was basically, “How can we as a Church community come together to support illegal immigration while at the same time help racist white people get over their racism”. Of course it didn’t lay this out explicitly but was heavily implied when read between the lines. It caused quite the uproar at our parish with many Catholics refusing to pay into any Archdiocesan collections in retaliation. Not that I agree with that as a sensible response to an idiotic policy, but it is what it is. The contemporary church has seemingly adopted the liberal/progressive/secular humanist (whatever you want to call it) idea of social justice at the expense of common sense and morality. I wish there were a way we, as laity, could hold our Bishops accountable. Back in the day Bishops could be removed simply by storming the office and physically throwing them to the street lol. It sounds extreme, but maybe it’s time in some circumstances to bring this back?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You want to throw out your bishop because he sent around a flyer on racism that some people didn’t like?
Bit of an overreaction, it seems.

 

[Bithynian]

What if the Church promotes things that are wonky?

From my perspective, a diocese’s projects have a tendency to veer off into iffy tangents when there aren’t sufficient faithful Catholics participating in an initiative’s planning, development and application. If you don’t have a modicum of personnel using orthodox teaching as a conceptual yardstick at all stages, then eventually a project will be dominated by whatever non-Catholic conceptual theory that prevails (whether it’s intersectionality, critical race theory, etc.).

I don’t see this often in the Archdiocese of Sydney as we have faithful Catholics working, voluntarily and as paid staff, at all rungs of the diocesan organisational ladder, from managerial to secretarial and everything in between. Faithful Catholics in my diocese support one another in self-mobilising to serve their diocese and their bishops in whatever capacity and whatever initiative, and this ensures that our views are well represented and formative in shaping social justice initiatives.

The biggest problem is when faithful Catholics ‘excommunicate’ (so-to-speak) themselves from participating in certain areas of social justice because they’re uncomfortable with the topic, or don’t like it or any multitude of reasons. If you don’t have faithful Catholics willing and able to work with, say, LGBT Catholics and Catholics who are illegal immigrants, it’s somewhat inevitable for orthodox perspectives to get crowded out by whatever post-modern, post-structural theorem that’s currently making the rounds.

(Note that I’m Australian and my perspective may be entirely unrepresentative of the US, and I apologise if I’ve misrepresented any views.)

 

[OraProNobis333]

Lol that would indeed be an overreaction. No, I would not advocate deposing a bishop over taking a nonsensical and flat out wrong approach to a civil policy. Though the Archbishop had no business in promoting his personal opinion as though it were Church law, making us all feel like we had to believe as he did and support it. I am only advocating for keeping our Bishops accountable. They spend countless money on sex abuse victim payouts and yet we can’t keep Catholic schools open and staffed with quality teachers? And the schools that are open cost a small fortune to attend, so much so that most Catholic families simply can’t afford it (even WITH scholarships applied). It’s a matter of priorities. We raise all this money to send overseas for this diocesan effort or that, yet our own parishes are struggling. There’s no reason we can’t do both. And clearly, this unfortunate sex abuse scandal has taught us just how deep the diocesan pockets run. So knowing this, why should we settle for a dying form of Catholicism here in the United States and keep paying big money to our Bishops who spend most of it on legal fees and the rest on overseas social justice campaigns?

 

[Genesis315]

As Pope Francis himself warned recently:

“But beware,” he said, “it is indispensable and praiseworthy that the pastoral care of our communities be open to many forms of poverty and crises, which are everywhere. Charity is always the high road of the journey of faith, of the perfection of faith. But it is necessary that works of solidarity, the works of charity that we carry out, not divert us from contact with the Lord Jesus.”

Here’s an article from a priest on this topic:

Beware the Strangest Idol of All - A Reflection on How Even Works of Charity Cannot Eclipse Obedience to Christ - Community in Mission

Sometimes charity is confused with social justice, and of course the world has its own definitions that corrupt true justice. The Catechism defines social justice as follows:

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.

Pius XI’s encyclical against Communism, Divini Redemptoris expounds:

In reality, besides commutative justice, there is also social justice with its own set obligations, from which neither employers nor workingmen can escape. Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand for each individual all that is necessary for the common good. But just as in the living organism it is impossible to provide for the good of the whole unless each single part and each individual member is given what it needs for the exercise of its proper functions, so it is impossible to care for the social organism and the good of society as a unit unless each single part and each individual member - that is to say, each individual man in the dignity of his human personality - is supplied with all that is necessary for the exercise of his social functions. If social justice be satisfied, the result will be an intense activity in economic life as a whole, pursued in tranquillity and order. This activity will be proof of the health of the social body, just as the health of the human body is recognized in the undisturbed regularity and perfect efficiency of the whole organism.

But social justice cannot be said to have been satisfied as long as workingmen are denied a salary that will enable them to secure proper sustenance for themselves and for their families; as long as they are denied the opportunity of acquiring a modest fortune and forestalling the plague of universal pauperism; as long as they cannot make suitable provision through public or private insurance for old age, for periods of illness and unemployment. In a word, to repeat what has been said in Our Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: “Then only will the economic and social order be soundly established and attain its ends, when it offers, to all and to each, all those goods which the wealth and resources of nature, technical science and the corporate organization of social affairs can give. These goods should be sufficient to supply all necessities and reasonable comforts, and to uplift men to that higher standard of life which, provided it be used with prudence, is not only not a hindrance but is of singular help to virtue.”