Why is Social Justice Less Important Than...

[twocinc]

fix:

Huh? Niether site proves your position. The CCC says the head of state decides when to go to war. The Pope may have a prudential judgement about the war, but he has not bound anyone’s conscience and has not declared it unjust.

Well, the CCC actually says that governments have the right of self-defense and specifically defines conditions under which a state can use military force legitimately. I don’t think any of the conditions were met with respect to Iraq, although I suppose that could be debated. Here’s the quote:

CCC
-All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
-However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

-The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3) there must be serious prospects of success;
3. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

 

[Brendan]

twocinc:

Ah. Thanks, this actually helps me understand. This is what I was looking for. Now I’m wondering where Christ made these distinctions about worth.

-Matt

Who did Christ order to “Feed my Sheep”, Peter or Ceasar?

Who did Christ order to 'Tend my Flock?" Peter or Ceasar?

He told us to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to give to God what is God’s.

It’s clear that Christ ordered the Church to be the source of Charity and care for the poor, not the secular government.

Since Charity money is clearly God’s, why should we give it Ceasar, the very person Christ DIDN’T want to have it?

 

[Brendan]

twocinc:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
   That one’s a given
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
   Negotiation was fruitless, as was the embargo.
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
   Very little doubt of sucess actually.
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
   This one is generally beyond the keen of mortal men. I personally believe that the damage to the civilian population in the Iraq war are overall less that if Sadaam had remained in power

And in any case, the judgement as to the qualifications of just war belong to the secular power, which in the US is the Will and Conscience of the American People. The Pope may make comments, but the decision is not his.

 

[twocinc]

Brendan:

Since Charity money is clearly God’s, why should we give it Ceasar, the very person Christ DIDN’T want to have it?

You’re right. My stance is clearly optomistic; it does indeed assume that the State will do at least some good with your money. But, I would hope that since the government is using your money to try to legislate against gay marriage and other such moral issues, that we might also enlist the government’s help to use your money to feed hungry people. Let me get this straight: the State is responsible for ensuring that we maintain our personal morality, but is not responsible for the welfare of its citizens. Do I have it right?

One might also suppose that we could feed hungry people not by tugging at your pocketbook, but by cutting expensive and destructive programs like war and national missle defense.

 

[Brad]

Brendan:

It’s clear that Christ ordered the Church to be the source of Charity and care for the poor, not the secular government.

 

[Lisa_N]

twocinc:

Ah. Thanks, this actually helps me understand. This is what I was looking for. Now I’m wondering where Christ made these distinctions about worth.

-Matt

I think Christ made it clear “the least of these” was at the top of the list. That says to me we protect the weak, vulnerable, the old and the sick if we are able. Jesus also said “pick up your mat and walk.” IOW I don’t think he’d be too sympathetic to the capable person who simply doesn’t want to bother supporting himself/herself or who engages in self destructive behavior.

I also think Jesus was an advocate of justice over charity. The reality was there was SYSTEMATIC injustice at the time. Born a poor stonemason, die a poor stonemason. IOW no upward mobility for the non-Romans. I see Jesus’ mission as opening the door and then letting the people walk through it if they can. Remove systematic injustice don’t demand equality of results. So I am in total agreement about removing obstacles to people making the best of their lives such as systemic racism. OTOH freedom means you are also free to sleep under a bridge, drink yourself silly or have unprotected sex…and these may have consequences.

Lisa N

 

[twocinc]

Here’s my take

-All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Pretty clear

-The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
   Iraq does not equal Al Qaeda
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
   Actually it appears that sanctions and inspections worked pretty well. Where indeed are the WMD?
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
   We’ll see.
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
   Well, somewhere between 14,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and counting. 1400 US military casualties. A marked rise in terrorism in the region. Hmmmmmmm…

 

[Lisa_N]

twocinc:

One might also suppose that we could feed hungry people not by tugging at your pocketbook, but by cutting expensive and destructive programs like war and national missle defense.

How bout the MILLIONS spent by Democrats to elect Kerry? I bet we could feed a lot of hungry people if so much wasn’t spent on a bunch of annoying advertising. Maybe you ought to suggest that at the next DNC meeting?

And frankly the ONE thing I want the government to do is protect the citizens. So I believe that national defense IS the first priority of the government.

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

Social justice in NOT less important than (in this case) teachings on sexuality and marriage. However, many issues regarding social justice are matters of prudence, whereas homosexual acts are inherently evil.

Prudence, come here right now!

This is a common canard of the far right wing.

How we address most of these matter is a question of prudence.

People starving, homeless, etc. is inherently evil.

I can disagree with the right wing that people should be put in jail or have their mean of livilihood taken away from them cause of the evil of homosexuality and still be a faithful Catholic.

 

[Brad]

twocinc:

You’re right. My stance is clearly optomistic; it does indeed assume that the State will do at least some good with your money. But, I would hope that since the government is using your money to try to legislate against gay marriage and other such moral issues, that we might also enlist the government’s help to use your money to feed hungry people. Let me get this straight: the State is responsible for ensuring that we maintain our personal morality, but is not responsible for the welfare of its citizens. Do I have it right?

Personal morality, when it becomes harmful to society, is an issue of the State (i.e. rape, incest etc.). The State is not spending our money legislating against homosexual “marriage”. The State, in fact, is using our money to promote homosexual unions (see the judicial branch). We are asking that the State do nothing to change the marriage law - that would cost no money.
Finally, the does care about the welfare of its citizens - in fact, we have a welfare and food stamp program. So, no - you do not have it right.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

I can disagree with the right wing that people should be put in jail or have their mean of livilihood taken away from them cause of the evil of homosexuality and still be a faithful Catholic.

Perhaps. But is lying ok for Catholics? Who is suggesting that people that engage in homosexual acts should have their livelihood taken away or be put in jail? Not any Catholics I know.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Prudence, come here right now!

This is a common canard of the far right wing.

How we address most of these matter is a question of prudence.

People starving, homeless, etc. is inherently evil.

I can disagree with the right wing that people should be put in jail or have their mean of livilihood taken away from them cause of the evil of homosexuality and still be a faithful Catholic.

This is so much nonsense. Being out of a house is not inherently evil. Bad conduct can lead to homelessness and can lead to poverty. The point of all this is we all want to help poor people. The question is what are the best ways to do it. Can you quote anyone here saying poor people should not be helped, or we should let folks starve?

 

[twocinc]

Lisa N:

How bout the MILLIONS spent by Democrats to elect Kerry? I bet we could feed a lot of hungry people if so much wasn’t spent on a bunch of annoying advertising. Maybe you ought to suggest that at the next DNC meeting?

And frankly the ONE thing I want the government to do is protect the citizens. So I believe that national defense IS the first priority of the government.

Lisa N

Not a Democrat. Bush outspent Kerry 2 to 1. Notice I said National *Missle *Defense.

 

[twocinc]

Brad:

Personal morality, when it becomes harmful to society, is an issue of the State (i.e. rape, incest etc.). The State is not spending our money legislating against homosexual “marriage”. The State, in fact, is using our money to promote homosexual unions (see the judicial branch). We are asking that the State do nothing to change the marriage law - that would cost no money.
Finally, the does care about the welfare of its citizens - in fact, we have a welfare and food stamp program. So, no - you do not have it right.

Do I have the number right? 11 states now have amendments that prohibit same sex marriages.

Regardless, I am done. Thank you all for your stimulating conversation. I have learned much. Adios.

 

[fix]

I am going to make a bold statement about the left and right. From reading these posts on this site it seems to me both left and right want to help “poor” people, but they both want to go about it in differing ways. However, when it comes to the moral law, it is usually only the right that wants to uphold it and teach it. The left seems to make the moral law just something that is discussed in abstract terms and is very relativistic. The left wants to focus almost exclusively on secular social work and ascribe those acts as being equal to the complete Gospel message.

 

[Brad]

twocinc:

Do I have the number right? 11 states now have amendments that prohibit same sex marriages.

Regardless, I am done. Thank you all for your stimulating conversation. I have learned much. Adios.

Yes - the number is right. It would never have been necessary if the Judicial Branch, funded by taxpayers, didn’t decide to start modify laws instead of interpreting them as stated in the constitution.

You are welcome. Come back when you need to learn more.

 

[Brendan]

fix:

I am going to make a bold statement about the left and right. From reading these posts on this site it seems to me both left and right want to help “poor” people, but they both want to go about it in differing ways. However, when it comes to the moral law, it is usually only the right that wants to uphold it and teach it. The left seems to make the moral law just something that is discussed in abstract terms and is very relativistic. The left wants to focus almost exclusively on secular social work and ascribe those acts as being equal to the complete Gospel message.

That about sums up my experiece as well.

I’d go a little farther… The right is more interested in personally helping others.

The left is more interested in having others do it for them.

 

[buffalo]

In a nutshell - Fundamental life issues always trump quality of life issues for without life itself there would be no quality of life to discuss.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

Perhaps. But is lying ok for Catholics? Who is suggesting that people that engage in homosexual acts should have their livelihood taken away or be put in jail? Not any Catholics I know.

No lies, dear.

Until a recent Court decision, many states had laws which gave out jail sentences for homosexuality and many conservatives howled when these laws were struct down.

As for people’s livelihood, it is still legal in most parts of this country to take away a person’s job simply because they are gay. And the right wing has been strident in opposing any suggestion that this should change.

I am going to make a bold statement about the left and right. From reading these posts on this site it seems to me both left and right want to help “poor” people, but they both want to go about it in differing ways. However, when it comes to the moral law, it is usually only the right that wants to uphold it and teach it.

No, there is not only one way to uphold moral law. As I stated before, Christian disagree as to if gay people should be put in jail or have their job taken away from them to show that homosexuality is wrong.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

No lies, dear.

Until a recent Court decision, many states had laws which gave out jail sentences for homosexuality and many conservatives howled when these laws were struct down.

As for people’s livelihood, it is still legal in most parts of this country to take away a person’s job simply because they are gay. And the right wing has been strident in opposing any suggestion that this should change.

No, there is not only one way to uphold moral law. As I stated before, Christian disagree as to if gay people should be put in jail or have their job taken away from them to show that homosexuality is wrong.

Sodomy should be illegal. It has been for centuries. It is against the divine law, the natural law and should be against the civil law.

We need sweeping changes in our culture if we want to over come the culture of death. Those changes will be brought about through prayer, fasting, observing the moral law, corporal works of mercy, education and laws that penalize perverted behavior. The death culture must be attacked on many fronts. Penalizing deviant, disgusting acts are only one part of the plan.