Why is Social Justice Less Important Than...

[Brad]

katherine2:

You may disagree with me, but I take some time and care to choose my words. YOUR statement was that sodomy is not a matter under current congressional review.

Now its, well, Congress, Judiciay, what’s the difference.

Well, then let’s laboriously take this back to the point of discussion your drew us away from. The Judicial branch is part of the government and we have justices on the Supreme Court (not a majority, thnak God, atr the present momemnt) who would restore state laws that allow the jailing of people for homosexual acts.

Are you going to move the marker again?

Rather than face reality, you wish to win an argument of word selection. If you want me to critique every sentence your write to win arguments, believe me, I could do it - but that’s not why I’m here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

Yes but this is more an effect of proper marriage, not its purpose. It’s purpose is pro-creation and sanctification of both spouses. Men benefit as much as women.

Yes, both spouses benefit – but the women and children need protection and support they would not have without marriage. Procreation is more than sex – it includes raising, supporting, and educating children. And that takes two people.

Now, a man can live alone – even in primitive environments – much more easily than a woman with a child.

Brad:

Maybe the fact that he was boasting turned you off. However, I disagree. Why should an unmarried man be able to assign government benefits to anyone? The reason that spouses should be allowed medical care on the other spouse’s health plan is the assumption that they are caring for the family and therefore, they may not have sufficient means to provide such care for themselves or their children.

I was doing the same job as a married man. And MY family needed care – my mother was dying, and my father was also quite ill. My family was much more in need than his!

 

[4_marks]

Lisa N:

Really? Do you really think there are Catholics who routinely discriminate on the basis of color (race is really an oxymoron), or gender? Do you think opposing gay marriage is discriminitory?

Sure there are individuals who have biases, but I don’t think you can claim that a significant proportion of Catholics are color/gender/preference war mongering bigots. Just curious why you have that impression.

Lisa N

Lisa, You are reading far too much into this post. The contrast was made for the purpose of hyperbole…to get the point across that Catholic social doctrine incorporates much. I believe that the person who started the thread was expressing the concern that, in practice, sometimes very important issues of social justice get overlooked or overshadowed.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Let me repeat. Supporting the status quo in civil marriage is NOT to support the Catholic understanding of marriage.

That’s great - and not opposing same-sex “marriage” in the civil arena is to ignore a duty of your faith.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

See:

“To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.”

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

Yes, both spouses benefit – but the women and children need protection and support they would not have without marriage. Procreation is more than sex – it includes raising, supporting, and educating children. And that takes two people.

Now, a man can live alone – even in primitive environments – much more easily than a woman with a child.

Yes - but a man needs marriage for his eternal salvation every bit as much as a woman (many would say moreso). I agree that from a civil perspective it is better for women and children that men are married.
vern humphrey:

I was doing the same job as a married man. And MY family needed care – my mother was dying, and my father was also quite ill. My family was much more in need than his!

I understand that. You had a very personal and emotional need. But what you are asking is the government to make subjective determinations of need which I don’t think is feasible. Should they provide for your mother or your father or both? What if your sister and brother were also gravely ill? What if your sister had health care through her spouse but it was not as good as yours? There is no line here and great abuses would occur. Your argument is the same as those that make the case for homosexual unions. Well, what if that union is promiscuous and there are no children. Should someone else (through health care payments) pay presumably more for someone’s promiscuous lifestyle than would be paid out for a committed married woman with a husband and 4 kids?

There is too much subectivity here. Because it is a job in the military - I personally would not be opposed to the military ONLY granting benefits to all immediate family members when in need - but I would never support extending this concept to all health care plans where you can pick anyone you want.

 

[fix]

vern humphrey:

No one is free from error or sin – but there is a trend in some circles to justify things that are seriously wrong by interposing a vague doctine of “social justice” and advaming the proposittion that it somehow outweighs serious evils like widespread abortion.

I am not saying anyone is free some sin. My assertion is that some Catholics intentionally try to teach, assert, model, nuance, whatever, that truth and error can be combined, reconciled, but they never state openly that they deny the teachings of the Church. They skirt the issue. They nuance it. This is everywhere today in the Church.

 

[fix]

4 marks:

Lisa, You are reading far too much into this post. The contrast was made for the purpose of hyperbole…to get the point across that Catholic social doctrine incorporates much. I believe that the person who started the thread was expressing the concern that, in practice, sometimes very important issues of social justice get overlooked or overshadowed.

You have it backwards. The moral teachings are left out or denied. Happy, clappy folks talk about social justice as if that vague term means we are Christian.

Either we are Catholics who accept all the truths of salvation, or we are simply secular do gooders singing songs once a week in Church and making nice.

 

[Brad]

vern humphrey:

I was doing the same job as a married man. And MY family needed care – my mother was dying, and my father was also quite ill. My family was much more in need than his!

You know on further thought, I am upset that nobody in the Christian community helped you out - that is what should happen - that is how this is supposed to work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

Yes - but a man needs marriage for his eternal salvation every bit as much as a woman (many would say moreso). I agree that from a civil perspective it is better for women and children that men are married.

And that’s what I’m talking about – a religion-neutral approach. My point is, Gods commandments are as logical as His rules for chemistry and physics.

Brad:

I understand that. You had a very personal and emotional need. But what you are asking is the government to make subjective determinations of need which I don’t think is feasible…

No. There is no subjectivity about who my parents were, nor that I was at the time unmarried. My mother and father were my immediate family at that time.

Now, as for need – the married man’s need was as subjective as mine – based on a physician’s diagnosis. And my mother’s cancer was as real as the child his wife was carrying.

Brad:

Should they provide for your mother or your father or both? What if your sister and brother were also gravely ill? .

What if my wife and all 12 children were gravely ill? Would you have a military hospital turn away, say children 5 through 12?

Brad:

What if your sister had health care through her spouse but it was not as good as yours?.

If my sister had a spouse, he would be her immediate family. The law has no problem in finding that her husband has rights and responsibilities to her that I do not have.

Brad:

There is no line here and great abuses would occur.

Abuse? Such as denying benefits to my dying parents? Even while I’m doing the same job as someone else who gets benefits for HIS immediate family members?

Brad:

Your argument is the same as those that make the case for homosexual unions…

Yes, a person who is homosexual and not married could assign his benefits to his “partner.” So what?

Brad:

Well, what if that union is promiscuous and there are no children. Should someone else (through health care payments) pay presumably more for someone’s promiscuous lifestyle than would be paid out for a committed married woman with a husband and 4 kids?

I had a soldier under my command who contracted an STD from a prostitute and passed it on to his wife. Both the soldier and his wife were still entitled to military medical care.

Brad:

There is too much subectivity here.

Where? Who a man’s parents are can be objectively determined. Whether his sister is married or not can be objectively determined.

And, in fact, you CAN assign many benefits right now – when I was younger, there was a lady who was very kind to me. I later took out a life insurance policy where she was the beneficiary, listed as “a very dear friend.” I kept that policy up until she passed away. What’s wrong with that?

Brad:

Because it is a job in the military - I personally would not be opposed to the military ONLY granting benefits to all immediate family members when in need - but I would never support extending this concept to all health care plans where you can pick anyone you want.

Why not? What’s wrong with listing one person on your benefits form if you’re not married and have no immediate family that needs the benefits?

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

they openly support homosexual marriage and belief the Church should recognize it as such. Not in the general ballpark - standing at home plate. .

You provided a link to specifically prove this exact point. I can’t find this statement. Can you help an old lady maybe with bad eyes to find it.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

they openly support homosexual marriage and belief the Church should recognize it as such. Not in the general ballpark - standing at home plate. .

You provided a link to specifically prove this exact point. I can’t find this statement. Can you help an old lady maybe with bad eyes to find it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

fix:

I am not saying anyone is free some sin. My assertion is that some Catholics intentionally try to teach, assert, model, nuance, whatever, that truth and error can be combined, reconciled, but they never state openly that they deny the teachings of the Church. They skirt the issue. They nuance it. This is everywhere today in the Church.

Yes, people on the left consistently overlook horrible crimes. They tend to claim that other “social justice” issues somehow outweight those crimes – without ever effectively addressing those “social justice” issues, either.

Yet the rest of us have our sins, too.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

Rather than face reality, you wish to win an argument of word selection. If you want me to critique every sentence your write to win arguments, believe me, I could do it - but that’s not why I’m here.

On the one hand your friend fix posts “Happy, clappy folks talk about social justice as if that vague term means we are Christian”

Yet when I suggest we should be precise, you get all huffy that you are held to the real meaning of yoru words.

Yes, I will tell you, I am very disturbed about a vague, simplistic “gay rights bad/anti-gay rights good” mentality. This whole topic requires a lot more discernment and care than some are willing to give it.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement (which is not an infallible teaching and certainly of less authority than the social encylicals that some conservative Catholics quickly dismiss) still makes the bulk of its arguement based on human reasoning.

I agree that human reasoning leads to that conclusion. I’m also not going to write someone out of the Catholic Church because I think they have weaknesses in reasoning.

 

[Brendan]

katherine2:

Yes, I will tell you, I am very disturbed about a vague, simplistic “gay rights bad/anti-gay rights good” mentality. This whole topic requires a lot more discernment and care than some are willing to give it.

Ok, how about this for lack of vagueness.

There is no such thing as 'Gay Rights". Persons with Same Sex Attaction have no more or fewer rights that any other person in God’s creation.

Humans have the right to enter into Holy Matrimony,as defined by God (with an single, willing, unmarried adult human of the opposite sex), or they may choose to live a celibate life.

Those are the only rights any human has vis a via sexuality.

Anything else is not a ‘right’, it is contrary to Natural Law and a debasement of both Matrimony and the Celibate Life.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement (which is not an infallible teaching and certainly of less authority than the social encylicals that some conservative Catholics quickly dismiss) still makes the bulk of its arguement based on human reasoning.

I agree that human reasoning leads to that conclusion. I’m also not going to write someone out of the Catholic Church because I think they have weaknesses in reasoning.

If someone is writing themselves out of the Catholic Church due to a weakness in reasoning, just tell them plainly what God expects of them. No one expects everyone to understand the reaons for obedience to the Church, just the obedience itself is required.

 

[Lisa_N]

4 marks:

Lisa, You are reading far too much into this post. The contrast was made for the purpose of hyperbole…to get the point across that Catholic social doctrine incorporates much. I believe that the person who started the thread was expressing the concern that, in practice, sometimes very important issues of social justice get overlooked or overshadowed.

Yes but that’s my point. Too often apples and oranges are compared in an attempt to make them equivalent. “Social Justice” means different things to different people. Various issues within this realm are more or are less critical. For example, there is no question about some issues like abortion or stem cell research. These are intrinsically evil. But often people try to devalue such issues by saying well what about blah blah blah (hunger, AIDS, dropout rates) as if every real or perceived inequality within society has to be addressed at the same speed and with the same amount of energy.

IOW sometimes certain issues SHOULD be overshadowed because there are more important challenges to be overcome first. So say that within the abortion issue we have a scale with something like PBA on one end and use of birth control pills on the other. The reality is that both methods may end the life of a preborn human being. But at least IMO, we should fight harder and more immediately to end PBA than to end use of BCP because in the case of PBA, not only is the human being likely to be viable outside the womb, in EVERY case a baby is killed in the process. With BCP, a pregnancy may be prevented rather than terminated. IOW I don’t see these two methods as equivalent and I am much more concerned about pushing the PBA ban.

IOW don’t be scattered trying to address every single possible issue at the same time with the same energy level. It’s the old idea of pick the hill you want to die on and keep your eyes on the prize. Does that make my comment more understandable?

Lisa N

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lisa N:

Yes but that’s my point. Too often apples and oranges are compared in an attempt to make them equivalent. “Social Justice” means different things to different people. Various issues within this realm are more or are less critical.

That is correct – and it is the pretense that there are vaguely-defined “Social Justice” issues that override the basic moral teaching of the Church that is so wrong.
Lisa N:

For example, there is no question about some issues like abortion or stem cell research. These are intrinsically evil.

A point should be made here – it isn’t stem cell research, per se, that’s intrinsically evil – it’s the creation and murder of human embryos to get embryonic stem cells that’s evil.
Lisa N:

But often people try to devalue such issues by saying well what about blah blah blah (hunger, AIDS, dropout rates) as if every real or perceived inequality within society has to be addressed at the same speed and with the same amount of energy.

That is, of course the whole point of the “Social Justice” tribe – if you must put the same energy into everything (which in passing implies the key point that no single issue is more important than any other) then you can’t be held responsible for actually ACCOMPLISHING anything – because obviously, you can’t do everything at once.

So they get two benefits – they devalue the serious matters (like abortion) and escape responsibility for everything.

It’s a neat trick!

 

[Bob_Baran]

??? No one is changing Christ’s teachings. As Catholics we pursue a holistic understanding of the Gospel message by upholding social justice for all.

I beg to differ on your statement “As Catholics we pursue a holistic understanding of the Gospel message”. Holistic understanding implies a New Age assumption that leads to pantheism.

 

[JCPhoenix]

I can answer this very simply.

Social justice is NOT less important than moral issues…at least most of the time.

However, since the Catholic Church as a steller record on social justice issues, caring for the poor, charity work…etc., then we can now focus on those issues which have been neglected…namely, the MORAL ISSUES.

Please look around you, read your own post and understand that unless we all correct our own immoral perceptions and acceptance of situational ethics, then the entire world will actually drip through the toilet drain we’re circling.

After we correct our extreme moral problems, then likely our efforts towards social justice will go further, faster, and reach far more people.

I just can’t believe how many people just can’t seem to understand that morality is the first step and everything follows from that.

Oh, yeah…DUH! We live in a world of moral relativism…you’re ok, I’m ok…killing a baby is ok becasue it’s inconvenient, but let’s be sure to save the spotted owl because they’re pretty and eat bugs!

 

[vern_humphrey]

JCPhoenix:

I can answer this very simply.

Social justice is NOT less important than moral issues…at least most of the time.

Actually, it is. It’s difficult to imagine anything more important than the killing of a million and a half innocent children a year.

JCPhoenix:

However, since the Catholic Church as a steller record on social justice issues, caring for the poor, charity work…etc., then we can now focus on those issues which have been neglected…namely, the MORAL ISSUES.

I wish that were true – but here in the First Congressional District of Arkansas, we have counties with more than 40% illitracy, and Catholic schools are few and far between. Giving the children of the poorest people is the greatest social justice issue the Church can address, since with education, all other issues are much alleviated.

JCPhoenix:

Please look around you, read your own post and understand that unless we all correct our own immoral perceptions and acceptance of situational ethics, then the entire world will actually drip through the toilet drain we’re circling.

After we correct our extreme moral problems, then likely our efforts towards social justice will go further, faster, and reach far more people.

I just can’t believe how many people just can’t seem to understand that morality is the first step and everything follows from that.

Oh, yeah…DUH! We live in a world of moral relativism…you’re ok, I’m ok…killing a baby is ok becasue it’s inconvenient, but let’s be sure to save the spotted owl because they’re pretty and eat bugs!

In all this, you are right on.

 

[katherine2]

Brendan:

Ok, how about this for lack of vagueness.

There is no such thing as 'Gay Rights". Persons with Same Sex Attaction have no more or fewer rights that any other person in God’s creation.

Nor do Blacks, Hispanics, Jews or Catholics, by justice. Of course, in practice, gays do have fewer legal rights. In most states can can be fired from their job. The law does not allow this for Blacks or Catholics, etc.

Humans have the right to enter into Holy Matrimony,as defined by God (with an single, willing, unmarried adult human of the opposite sex), or they may choose to live a celibate life.

Those are the only rights any human has vis a via sexuality.

These may be the only moral rights. Currently a man and a woman can enter into civil marriage for as long as it suits both parties. Civil marriage may be Holy Matrimony, but it not by its essense.

Anything else is not a ‘right’, it is contrary to Natural Law and a debasement of both Matrimony and the Celibate Life.

Then civil marriage (in the USA) is contrary to Natural Law and a debasement of both Matrimony and the celibate life. I think you and I are close to agreement. Both of us stand up for true traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is not American civil marriage, so we are “protecting marriage” when we protect the civil status quo.

If someone is writing themselves out of the Catholic Church due to a weakness in reasoning, just tell them plainly what God expects of them. No one expects everyone to understand the reaons for obedience to the Church, just the obedience itself is required.

I’m not talking about people writing themselves out; I’m talking about them being written out.