skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One of the writers over at POWIP had an article today about Social Justice. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. The writer at POWIP had this to say:
"I loathe that term. It has a bad connotation that I just cannot shake. You see when I hear the term “social justice” I automatically think government intervention. I think of welfare. I think of redistribution of wealth. “Social justice” to me says that because I work hard to make a living for my family, and because there are poor out there who don’t, I should be forced by the government to give up my hard earned money so that others can have healthcare, a place to live, a cell phone, a government check, etc. I don’t think that’s fair even though it may come from a good place."
This is my reply to her article which I posted at POWIP. Since I really can't think of anything else to write today I thought that I'd put it up here, too.
I suppose that it all depends on how you define social justice. Unbridled Capitalism is nearly as unjust as Marxism. Both remove God from the equation and focus on the material world, each working to concentrate the means of production in the hands of a few. The Capitalist would have us become slaves to the banks and corporations while the Marxist would chain us to the state.
The Progressives have redefined social justice to suit their Marxist goals. They believe that it's a one way street, with benefits flowing to the individual from the state when in reality justice must go both ways. Of course this is all a canard. They use social justice just like the drug dealer uses free samples. It's all fun and games until you can't stop.
The Capitalist, on the other hand, denies the very existence of social justice because he fears the power of the state, at least until that power can be used to his benefit by working with government to pass laws that benefit his company or to be bailed out at the expense of the citizens when his business flounders. He wants the people kept away from the public treasury because he wants them dependent and subservient to him.
From The Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Individual justice is distinguished from social, for not only individuals have claims in justice against other individuals but a subject has claims against the society to which he belongs, as society has claims against him. Justice requires that all should have what belongs to them, and so the just man will render to the society, or State, of which he is a member, what is due to it. The justice which prescribes this is called legal justice. On the other hand, the individual subject has claims against the State. It is the function of the State to protect its subjects in their rights and to govern the whole body for the common good. Authority for this purpose is given to the State by nature and by God, the Author of man's social nature."
One thing that I think needs to be addressed in the paragraph above is the fact that the State derives its power from God and possesses this power as part of its nature. The Founding Fathers were wrong in their belief that government derives its power from the governed as is thus subordinate to them. The state exists apart from man and further, it was created for man and man was created for it. Neither can exist apart from the other.
Both man and the state have rights and responsibilities that are intertwined. We owe each other justice, just as individuals do. And this is the proper definition of social justice. Again, from The Catholic Dictionary, the definition of justice: "It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them."
Social justice, properly understood, is nothing more than making sure that the state exercises its lawful and moral (yes, you can legislate morality; if not, what are laws?) responsibility towards its citizens and that the citizens do the same in return.
Social justice, properly understood and exercised is a moral good. This Christian will proudly stand in support of it.
"Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan has criticized Arizona legislation targeting illegal immigrants as “mean-spirited” and “counterproductive and harmful.” Viewing the measure as a manifestation of historic American nativism, he said immigrants should be welcomed and their legalization and citizenship should be advanced.
Writing in an April 27 entry on his blog “The Gospel in the Digital Age,” Archbishop Dolan said at times of social turmoil the immigrant “unfailingly becomes the scapegoat.”
He then listed what he described as “periodic spasms” of anti-immigrant “fever”: the Nativists of the 1840s who led mobs to torch Irish homes and Catholic churches; the Know-Nothings of the 1850s; the American Protective Association of the late 19th century who feared the arrival of immigrants from Italy, Poland, and Germany; the Ku Klux Klan who fomented hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics and foreigners; and the eugenics movement."
Catholic News Agency
To Archbishop Dolan and all the other apologists for illegal activities; we do welcome immigrants to this country. Legal immigrants.
Somehow suddenly, in the minds of American Church leadership, asking someone from another country to follow our laws has become synonymous with Nazism and eugenics.
1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."
By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
Catechism of the catholic Church
The question, as far as the bishops should be concerned, is whether or not the elected government in America is legitimate? Because if it is then it has the authority to create laws protecting its citizens and the citizens have the responsibility to obey those laws. Not just the citizens but anyone on American soil.
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
Catechism of the Catholic Church
So now I see the reason for the name calling; the bishop is creating a straw man argument, trying to paint the law as unjust so he can argue for disobedience. But is it? All Arizona is asking is that if a person comes to Arizona from another country they come through legal channels and have their paperwork in order. Is this unjust? Is it unjust to arrest someone that has broken the law if the law itself isn't unjust?
Now if Arizona really was run by Nazis and all illegals were immediately rounded up and taken to death camps, truthfully, I'd have to side with Archbishop Dolan. But that's not the case, is it? So is this law based on race? No. The fact is that the problems along the border are being caused by Mexican nationals, who surprisingly tend to be overwhelmingly Mexican. My guess is that if a Norwegian is caught in Arizona living illegally he'll be treated the same way. Of course, I doubt that there are too many Norwegians living in Arizona illegally. And even fewer of them will be involved with gangs in the drug trade, killing ranchers and making Phoenix the city with the second greatest number of kidnappings in the world.
So what's in this for the Church? Increased membership? Certainly possible. Most Mexicans are Catholics. But does that justify disobedience and working against the common good of a free society?
Is it because of "social justice"? Do the Progressive members of the Church believe that moving this distortion of true Catholic teaching forward justifies demonizing a state and its citizens? Do the ends always justify the means?
I don't know the answers to these questions. What I do know is that something is wrong with this public stance of the Church in America. And it is causing scandal among the faithful. And confusion.
Do the ends justify the means?
Now, I'll admit I'm not often accused of being the sharpest pencil in the box but, to my simple mind anyway, it appears that the bishops are upset because Arizona has made it illegal to break the law.
Besides, wasn't it already a crime to be in the state illegally?
"In a statement released April 27, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) denounced a recently signed law in Arizona which criminalizes undocumented immigrants, calling the legislative move “draconian” and saying it “could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens.”
Writing on behalf of the USCCB, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. bishops' committee on Migration noted that he joins the Arizona bishops in “strongly opposing” the implementation of SB 1070, which was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last Friday.
According to ABC news, the new Arizona law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally and allows police to arrest and question suspected individuals about their status without a warrant. It also criminalizes transporting illegal immigrants anywhere in Arizona, even if by family members.
“This new law, although limited to the State of Arizona, could have impact throughout the nation, in terms of how members of our immigrant communities are both perceived and treated,” Bishop Wester said."
Catholic News Agency
I just don't get it. People from other countries come here, break the law, avoid taxes, use the public services they don't pay for, take jobs from legal citizens by working for slave wages and yet, we are supposed to turn our backs. Many of these same people are involved in the drug trade, complicit in murder, extortion, kidnapping and all sorts of felonious activities and we're supposed to turn our backs.
WHY??!!
Because of some misplaced religious concern for the welfare of criminals that completely overlooks the very real threat posed by these same criminals to the welfare of the law abiding citizen, regardless of ethnicity.
Families may be separated; true enough. Families are separated every time a criminal is sentenced to prison. Yet, I don't hear an outcry from these same religious leaders to abolish prisons and set the felons free to maintain the cohesion of the family structure. Why?
Witnesses may be afraid to come forward. Again, true enough. The real and complete truth is that they are already afraid to come forward because they know that the drug gangs have the power along the border. If anyone is found to have reported criminal activity they will be killed along with their family. So tell me bishops, how does refusing to allow law enforcement to do it's job protect anyone from drug gang coercion? And who are you more afraid of; the American law enforcement officer that is controlled by the force of law or the Mexican drug gangster that controls by the gun?
We must absolutely control our borders before any other discussion takes place. Murder is a greater sin than separation of families and until immigration is controlled and our borders are secured murder will be the way of life along our Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California border. The bishops have let a false sense of compassion blind them to evil. They've accepted this idea of a seamless garment; that all sins are equal, abortion and murder equivalent to a perceived denial of "social justice".
Common sense and our faith tell us this is a lie.
"Arizona’s three Catholic bishops and other religious leaders in the state have issued a statement calling on Gov. Jan Brewer to veto recent legislation targeting undocumented immigrants. They warned the bill would separate families and discourage crime victims and witnesses.
The Arizona Senate passed SB 1070 on Monday by a vote of 17 to 11. It requires state and local police to determine the immigration status of people if there is “reasonable suspicion” they are illegal immigrants. They must arrest those unable to provide documentation showing they are in the United States legally.
The religious leaders’ April 19 letter voiced “common serious concerns” about the bill. Bishop of Gallup James S. Wall, Bishop of Phoenix Thomas J. Olmsted and Bishop of Tucson Gerald Kicanas were signatories to the letter, as were leaders from Protestant denominations and a rabbi with the American Jewish Committee.
They warned it could classify as felons not only dangerous criminals, but also undocumented immigrants who came to the United States at “a very young age” and have “no familiarity” with any other country."
Catholic News Agency
At some point Rome needs to step into this if Cardinal George refuses to correct the situation. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but Pfleger has crossed the line in his disobedience. If Church authorities don't stop this then others will feel free to preach lies and hate in the name of Christ. Because with Pfleger, it's not just ordination of women, it's the whole social justice, America is evil, Progressive, Marxist package.
"In the latest episode in an ongoing controversy, Fr. Michael Pfleger has again publicly voiced his support for women's ordination, this time in a comment posted to his Facebook fan page. In that comment, he also notes that the archdiocese made him issue the apology he put out on Wednesday.
“Sunday, I mentioned in my Sermon that I believe in married Priests and Woman Priests,” the Facebook comment reads. “I was then told that I had to apologize for saying it durning [sic] a Sermon because that is not allowed, even though that is my opinion.
“I have received much hate from the right-winged who want my removal,” he added. “Amazing... Nobody Blogged me or youtubed me about helping Save our children or Stopping the Violence...”
His comment follows a Wednesday statement published on the Archdiocese of Chicago's website, which has since been removed. In the statement he admits that he advocated for women priests and bishops in his homily, but then says that, “While this is my personal opinion, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings and I am sorry I failed to do this.”
Life Site News
Ioannes atCommentarius de Prognosticis posted an article titled, "Stupak Was Never Going to Vote Against the Bill". I suggest you read it but more I suggest you read the comment section. An anonymous reader left a message criticizing Ioannes for his stand on "social justice" and the role of government. Ioannes' reply was, to say the least, passionate.
I thought that it might be interesting to review the criteria the Church uses in it's discussions about "Social Doctrine". In reading Church social teaching I am struck with the centrality of the individual. The real concern of the Church is protecting our humanity; not allowing it to be subsumed by the desire for political power or profit.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2423 The Church's social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:
Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.
2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.
A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity. Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."
2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
Take that into consideration when reading Paragraph 2236:
The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.
Distributive justice, in the proper context does not mean an equality of outcome; rather an equality of opportunity. In other words, it is the duty of government to create a level playing field by not creating laws or systems of government that unjustly benefit one group or individual at the expense of others.
Isn't the system above, as laid out by the Church really close to the system designed by the Founders here in America?
Why does it seem then that in our churches, on the radio and television and in our newspapers, clergy and politicians have deliberately and purposely confused legitimate distributive justice with socialist re-distributive justice? Why are we constantly told that justice demands that property should be taken from those that have and re-distributed to those that don't?
Anonymous, in his reply to Ioannes, stated:
"Nowhere in Catholic Social Teaching does the Church claim that the only job of government is to protect our rights. Rather, the Church has always taught that the role of government is to promote the common good. The government that fails to take care of the poor (as well as the unborn) has failed to promote the common good, and as Catholics, we should mourn that failure and seek to rectify it."
While the Church may not teach that the only job of government is to protect our rights it certainly infers it is it's primary duty, for without recourse to our rights justice is not possible.
Should the government take care of the poor? At some point, yes. When all other avenues have been exhausted and someone who, through no fault of their own, is in a situation that requires life saving assistance.
However, from Paragraph 2239:
It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.
This is where subsidiarity, that bedrock principle of Catholic social justice teaching comes into play. The modern day proponents of social justice, inside and outside the Church look to the federal government for relief; a top down solution. The problem is that this violates the law of subsidiarity. All problems need to be solved at the lowest possible level. If that isn't possible, you move up to the next level of authority.
"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."
Matthew 18:15-17
What if the poor person violates paragraph 2239 and refuses to contribute to society?
"For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:10
The big government social justice model would pay the person that doesn't contribute along with the one that does. Is this just? Is this fair? Is this what St. Paul teaches? Can the Church teach anything that contradicts the Bible?
Central control of charity through distant and detached government is ineffective and corrupting. It functions through giant, soulless bureaucracy, not individuals sacrificing for the common good and their fellow man. It has no idea whether the person it "helps" is truly needy or has just decided not to contribute and live off the labor of others.
A just system based on subsidiarity would feed those who through no fault of their own are truly poor while excluding those that choose this condition. A just system, based on subsidiarity, is one that allows charity to flow from individuals through free will offerings. A just system, based on subsidiarity, is manageable, effective and cannot be perverted to unjustly favor one over another for anything less than just reasons. It is everything the Satanic, big government solution is not.
Those of us that fight the "social justice" movement in the Church do so because it is evil. Its acolytes twist and pervert Church teaching to serve their master. They do it for power, control and wealth.
But they would do well to remember this:
"No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
Matthew 6:24
Society must revolve around the the good of the individual and the best way to do this is to have political systems based on subsidiarity. Large centrally controlled governments are destructive to man and violate true distributive justice. We need to return to the system of government envisioned by America's Founding Fathers; a system where most political activity took place in the local town hall and the biggest government most people ever dealt with was at the county level.
Governments must function at a human scale and serve to further the rights and freedoms that we have received as a gift from God. Anything more than that is evil and will destroy us.
Is there any Catholic, or anyone of faith for that matter, that can disagree with the following:
Archbishop Dolan: Six pillars of Catholic social teaching
By Mary DeTurris Poust
Tracing the roots and development of Catholic social teaching from the Old Testament to the present, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan laid out six "pillars" of Catholic social justice for Catholic New Yorkers attending the annual statewide Public Policy Day in Albany today:
1. God comes first. "His ways, His law have dominion."
2. The innate dignity of every individual human person. Every man and woman is made in the image and likeness of God and has an "eternal destiny" and a "divine character."
3. The common good is always normative. "We are never in it just for myself but for ourselves."
4. Solidarity. "We are members of a family, and we have a special duty to the poor among us."
5. Subsidiarity. "One of the geniuses of Catholic social teaching is the closer you are to the grassroots, the better you are."
6. Supreme duty to bring values, God's truth and our principles into the public square. There can be no "cleavage" between what we believe and how we act.
The archbishop made his comments during a workshop at the event sponsored by the New York State Catholic Conference. Some 1,200 Catholics converged on the state capital today to meet with legislators, participate in workshops on specific issues and attend a Mass with all the bishops of the state. A number of key legislative issues were on the agenda: abortion legislation that threatens to make abortion a "fundamental right" in New York; cuts to the Maternity and Early Childhood Development Foundation, a program that helps young mothers in crisis pregnancies; Catholic education and $243 million the state owes Catholic schools for mandated services; and cuts to service programs that could devastate the poor in particular, especially immigrants and those recently incarcerated.
"We are never going to give up on that prophetic role of speaking up for the poor and for those who don't have a voice," Archbishop Dolan said during a press conference. Later, during his homily at the Mass, he recalled the motto of Pope John Paul II, Totus Tuus, "All yours," and said that Catholics must "hold nothing back" in service to God and His people.
"When there are those who say that people of faith, people of religion, people of the Church, should mind their own business. We say, 'Politics is our business,'" he said to applause. "...When people say morality and religion and faith and ethics don't go with politics, we say, 'They go together as naturally as a hot dog and a bun.'"
OSV Daily Take
True social justice as taught by the Church and described by Bishop Dolan differs in one vitally important way from the Communist "social justice" championed by most of our federal politicians; subsidiarity. True social justice starts with the individual and works its way up. It is a charitable act of the will, one meant as an act of love for our fellow man. The "social justice" that our political leaders believe in is a form of slavery, a theft of our humanity and an imposition by force upon our freedom.
True social justice comes from God. Political "social justice" comes from Hell. True social justice involves humans through their good works with the plan of God, perfecting our souls and making us ready for heaven. Political "social justice" teaches that man is perfectible, too. But only through the state. The state becomes god and man it's servant.
That is the "social justice" most will choose today because it promises the false freedom of security through the shackles of government control. We have become a nation of slaves.
Finally, a news story that doesn't try to spin the words of the Pope into some sort of backhanded endorsement of socialism. I find it interesting that the Pope uses the phrase "social responsibility" instead of the more fashionable and politically loaded phrase "social justice". Think of the difference. "Social justice" is used to avoid responsibility for ones own actions, generally calling for one group to have access to the wealth of another, usually through coercive measures. "Social responsibility" on the other hand calls for the individual to choose charity towards his fellow man through an act of free will. "Justice" requires draconian force on the part of the government while "responsibility" requires deliberate action on the part of individuals. One focuses on the "rights" of the worker while the other focuses on the needs of all.
Which system would you rather live under?
"On Saturday at the Apostolic Palace, Pope Benedict met in audience with a group from a local Italian municipal agency. Speaking with them, but also to the international community, Holy Father stressed the importance of "social responsibility" in the business environment “to promote the good of all.”
Meeting with directors and personnel of the Roman branch of ACEA, a company that specializes in providing energy and water services to Italy, the Holy Father expressed his hope that the development model that has brought the world to its present economic crisis would be rethought so that man with his “capacity to produce, innovate, think and build the future” is placed at the center.
It’s important, he continued, to increase consciousness for “the necessity of a broader ‘social responsibility’ in business, that strives to hold in just consideration the expectations and needs of workers, clients, producers and the entire community, and to pay special attention to the environment.”
“In this way,” added Pope Benedict, “the production of goods and services will not be tied exclusively to the search for economic profits, but also to the promotion of the good for all.”
The Holy Father praised ACEA for measures it has taken to protect and reduce the negative impact of their business activities on the environment. “But it is equally important to promote a human ecology that is intended to bring about work environments and interpersonal relations deserving of man.”
Pope Benedict XVI summed up his message by saying that “the protection of creation… implies also the protection of those sentiments of kindness, generosity, correctness and honesty that God has put in the heart of every human being, created in his ‘image and likeness.’”
He concluded by saying that it is through the example of Christ that we should act “to be able to grow in humanity and so realize a City with an always human face, in which each is considered a person, a spiritual being in relation with others.”
Catholic News Agency
Posts
