Skip to comments.Christianity and Social Justice, a False Comparison
Posted on 03/25/2010 8:49:48 AM PDT by ConservativeHideout
Ive been reading a lot lately that Jesus would support social justice. Ive also seen that many evangelical groups and the Catholic Church support it as well. Just take a moment to let that thought percolate. Would Jesus support Marxism? Would he support a system that is openly resistant to any God but the state? Mind you that social justice is nothing more than Marxism renamed, so I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus will support it.
What I do know is that the Bible encourages charity in both Old and New Testaments. Heres a random selection of verses.
Deuteronomy 15:7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.
Leviticus 25:35 If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.
Psalm 37:25-26 I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed.
Psalm 41:1-2 Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.
Matthew 6:1-4 Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Colossians 3:12 Therefore, as Gods chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
1 Timothy 6:17-18 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
I will openly admit that I am by no means a theologian. But what I gather is that charity is to be something personal. God clearly wants us to be kind to the less fortunate. I also think that he wants is to do that ourselves. Note the verses from Matthew and 2 Corinthians; they seem to suggest that not only should giving be an individual decision-without coercion, but is should also be done in an anonymous manner. Additionally, charity not only improves the status of the poor, but improves the condition of the givers soul. Basically, it is good for all, and pleasing to God.
Lets contrast that with the concept of social justice. Essentially, the government, an agent of force, will confiscate from some, and give it to others (after wasting the majority of it in DC). How does being legally robbed by the government improve your soul, or you as a person? How does a confiscatory policy help you please your God? Can giving be defined as charity if you have no choice?
To me, the answer is simple. Government taxation is NOT charity. It does nothing for the giver, and, as history shows, we spent a trillion dollars in the War on Poverty, and ended up with more poor people! I guess our government purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty.
Here’s one of my posts a week ago (3/16/10) on Jim Wallis’ “God’s Politics” blog:
Wallis embraces the Marxist perspective regarding social justice.
Such people “confuse the poor of Scripture with the proletariat of Karl Marx. ... In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle.
...Faith in the Incarnate Word, dead and risen for all men, and whom “God made Lord and Christ” is denied. In its place is substituted a figure of Jesus who is a kind of symbol who sums up in Himself the requirements of the struggle of the oppressed. An exclusively political interpretation is thus given to the death of Christ. In this way, its value for salvation and the whole economy of redemption is denied. ...
...the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man.
...For it will only be in the measure that they collaborate freely in these necessary changes through their own initiative and in solidarity, that people, awakened to a sense of their responsibility, will grow in humanity.
The inversion of morality and structures is steeped in a materialist anthropology which is incompatible with the dignity of mankind. ....” ~ Pope Benedict XVI
They actually pervert justice by _favoring_ the poor. ~Leviticus 19:15
Mans personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of mans progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.
Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings.
Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since it is right to obey God rather than men.
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
That is an EXCELLENT peace. Nice job.
Of course, I meant piece.
*Stumbles off to find caffeine....*
It sure is a false comparison, one is by force, the other is by the heart. One thinks they can force build a Utopia, the other knows you can't, because we are all flawed. Everything God stands for is freedom of choice. We have the choice to reject God and His ways or choose God and His ways. Social justice is anti-christian, or anti-christ like. Social justice says, you will support whatever we say you will support you have no choice. And if you don't, they will take it by force, give you jail time, fine you, or off with your head.
It is ironic because I have seen books by Jim Wallis as training material in Catholic churches for those who are interested in Catholic social teaching.
Scripture plainly teaches that the individual Christians responsibilities toward God fall in this order:
 God and the life of the spirit first,
 direct charitable care of others second,
 and only then draws consequences for a just social order.
8th Commandment: You shall not steal. This is a guarantee of private property.
10th Commandment: You shall not covet. Again, a guarantee of private property.
Acts 5: Barnabas sellls a piece of property and brought the money to the Apostles.
Ananias and Saphira decided to do the same - except they sold a property - kept some of the money back - and lied about how much they had been paid.
Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power? “
There you go! An apostolic confirmation of the right of private property. Not only the means of production, but also the results of that production were in Ananias and Saphiras power, not in the power or hands of the state or the church.
Proudhon , the French socialist said, “Property is theft.”
But the commandment forbidding theft teaches the right of private property and is in complete contradiction to socialist concepts.
Jesus said, “Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s...”.
He didn’t say, “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and he will take care of the poor, the sick and uneducated, and you can forget about them”.
2 Thessalonians 3:10
Even when we were with you, we told you this, `
If any man will not work, do not let him eat.’
“It is ironic because I have seen books by Jim Wallis as training material in Catholic churches for those who are interested in Catholic social teaching.” ~ DarthVader
This is helpful:
Marxists have infiltrated all of our once-creat institutions, including our churches.
What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism (Ecumenical)
American TFP ^ | 02/24/2010 | Gustavo Solimeo
Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:33:29 AM by Pyro7480
After examining the ideology of socialism, the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church becomes clear and consistent.
All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples.
PIUS IX (1846-1878):
Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs
You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)
LEO XIII (1878-1903):
...communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin. (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)
Ruin of all institutions
... For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).
A sect that threatens civil society with destruction
We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty. (Jud. 8). (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)
Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property
They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life. (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)
...socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations. (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)
Enemy of society and of Religion
...there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due. (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)
SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):
The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism
But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, the reign of love and justice ... What are they going to produce? ... A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [”Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)
BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):
The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten
It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press. (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)
PIUS XI (1922-1939):
Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth
... For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism. (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)
Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine
But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. (Ibid. n. 117)
Catholic Socialism, a contradiction
[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (Ibid. n. 120)
PIUS XII (1939-1958):
The state can not be regarded as being above all
“To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations.” (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)
JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):
No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism
Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority. (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)
PAUL VI (1963-1978):
Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism
Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated. (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)
JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):
Socialism: Danger of a simple and radical solution
It may seem surprising that socialism appeared at the beginning of the Pope’s critique of solutions to the question of the working class at a time when socialism was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the question of the working class.” (Encyclical Centesimus Annus On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)
Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person
Continuing our reflections, ... we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. (Ibid, n. 13)
BENEDICT XVI (2005 - present):
We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything
The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person every person needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live by bread alone (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)
OBAMA: CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN LEADERS HAVE HIJACKED FAITH
www.kxmb.com ^ | Jun 25 2007 | Associated Press
Posted on 03/21/2008 6:41:07 PM EDT by Para-Ord.45
. (AP) Senator Barack Obama has told members of his denomination that some conservative Christian leaders have exploited and politicized religion to sow division.
In a 30-minute speech before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ, which supports gay marriage, the Democratic presidential candidate said, “Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us.” Obama said, “They’ve told Evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design.” Obama said a growing number of evangelicals are concerned about poverty and the environment.
I don’t think he’ll have much luck accusing Pope Benedict of hikacking the Christian religion. It’s the other way around. Here are some excerpts. Read the whole thing and post it every where you see the Marxists attempting to claim that Christianity was “hijacked”. Let them argue with the pope: Theologies of Liberation
“..Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons. Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity. ...
“..We are facing, therefore, a real system, even if some hesitate to follow the logic to its conclusion. As such, this system is a perversion of the Christian message as God entrusted it to His Church. This message in its entirety finds itself then called into question by the “theologies of liberation.”
“...As a result, participation in the class struggle is presented as a requirement of charity itself. The desire to love everyone here and now, despite his class, and to go out to meet him with the non-violent means of dialogue and persuasion, is denounced as counterproductive and opposed to love.
If one holds that a person should not be the object of hate, it is claimed nevertheless that, if he belongs to the objective class of the rich, he is primarily a class enemy to be fought. Thus the universality of love of neighbor and brotherhood become an eschatological principle, which will only have meaning for the “new man”, who arises out of the victorious revolution. ...
“..But the “theologies of liberation”, which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx.
In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the Church of the poor signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy. ...
“..The new hermeneutic inherent in the “theologies of liberation” leads to an essentially political re-reading of the Scriptures. Thus, a major importance is given to the Exodus event inasmuch as it is a liberation from political servitude. Likewise, a political reading of the “Magnificat” is proposed. The mistake here is not in bringing attention to a political dimension of the readings of Scripture, but in making of this one dimension the principal or exclusive component. This leads to a reductionist reading of the Bible.
Likewise, one places oneself within the perspective of a temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the expressions of secularization of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the immanence of human history.
In giving such priority to the political dimension, one is led to deny the radical newness of the New Testament and above all to misunderstand the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, and thus the specific character of the salvation he gave us, that is above all liberation from sin, which is the source of all evils. ..
“...Faith in the Incarnate Word, dead and risen for all men, and whom “God made Lord and Christ” is denied. In its place is substituted a figure of Jesus who is a kind of symbol who sums up in Himself the requirements of the struggle of the oppressed.
An exclusively political interpretation is thus given to the death of Christ. In this way, its value for salvation and the whole economy of redemption is denied. ...
“..For them, the struggle of the classes is the way to unity.
The Eucharist thus becomes the Eucharist of the class. At the same time, they deny the triumphant force of the love of God which has been given to us.
“...the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man.
For it will only be in the measure that they collaborate freely in these necessary changes through their own initiative and in solidarity, that people, awakened to a sense of their responsibility, will grow in humanity.
The inversion of morality and structures is steeped in a materialist anthropology which is incompatible with the dignity of mankind.
“.. the overthrow by means of revolutionary violence of structures which generate violence is not ipso facto the beginning of a just regime. A major fact of our time ought to evoke the reflection of all those who would sincerely work for the true liberation of their brothers: millions of our own contemporaries legitimately yearn to recover those basic freedoms of which they were deprived by totalitarian and atheistic regimes which came to power by violent and revolutionary means, precisely in the name of the liberation of the people.
This shame of our time cannot be ignored: while claiming to bring them freedom, these regimes keep whole nations in conditions of servitude which are unworthy of mankind. Those who, perhaps inadvertently, make themselves accomplices of similar enslavements betray the very poor they mean to help.
The class struggle as a road toward a classless society is a myth which slows reform and aggravates poverty and injustice.
Those who allow themselves to be caught up in fascination with this myth should reflect on the bitter examples history has to offer about where it leads.
They would then understand that we are not talking here about abandoning an effective means of struggle on behalf of the poor for an ideal which has no practical effects. On the contrary, we are talking about freeing oneself from a delusion in order to base oneself squarely on the Gospel and its power of realization. ...
~ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (nka Pope Benedict XVI) August 6, 1984
“..But the “theologies of liberation”.. go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx.” ~ Pope Benedict XVI
Liberation Theology. Instruction on Certain Aspects of “Theology of Liberation” Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith August 6, 1984 , written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic. ~ Pope Benedict XVI
...After all, every normal person wants to help the poor and needy, but helping them at the end of a gun, as the left always want us to do, renders any spiritual benefit inoperative for both parties. .... What we hear from Obama is the eternal mantra of the socialists; America is broken, millions have no health care, families cannot afford necessities, the rich are evil, we are selfish, we are unhappy, unfulfilled, without hope, desperate, poverty stricken, morally desolate, corrupt and racist. This nihilism is the lifeblood of all the democrat candidates, even hope you can believe in performers like Obama. When Michelle Obama claims she is only newly proud of her country, she does not exaggerate. In her world as in Obamas, they believe we are a mess, a land filled with the ignorant and unenlightened, filled with despair ...” (Fairchok).
We sure have had (i.e. Berrigans) and do have Marxists in the Catholic Church. But Rome has been too tolerant of letting them stay in. Why has not Father Phleger of Chicago been disciplined or excommunicated? His cardinal has been totally weak on the issue.
BTW, Thank you for this wonderfully informative post that I will certainly make use of.
Thanks for all the comments. They were informative. I knew this was going on, but I wasn’t clear as to the extent.
Along these lines - one thing I keep having to remind my fellow Christians is that Socialism is the ultimate oppression, and we are called on to fight oppression.
Socialist/Communist government is idolatry. Government becomes the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent - why would anyone look to God for sustainence if government meets all your needs? I cannot seem to get fellow believers to see this! I don’t know what scares me more - the audacity of the bad guys or the apathy of the good guys.
Even though Christ counseled charity, I don’t recall Him or the disciples kicking down doors and confiscating the household goods in the name of the poor.
Liberals confuse Jesus Christ with Robin Hood.
Read later. Bookmark.
Since collectivism in all it’s forms seeks to devalue the individual and remove his ability to be responsible for his own acts I doubt that Jesus would recommend it. People can write millions of words about it. But simply put salvation comes about from individual, not group, actions.
Jesus taught that sinners would be damned, not given excuses and govt programs. That’s hardly a progressive or socialist opinion since socialism is all about avoiding consequences for bad behavior. And I seriously doubt if God will buy into the twinkie defense either.
If anything socialism is soul destroying. Individuals become lazy and criminal when they are showered free goodies. Socialsm seeks to punish the hard working and reward the lazy. Socialism will inevitable destroy any civilization and its widespread acceptance signals the end of any society.
Socialists are simply criminals with an especially complex set of justifications for their policies of theft and intimidation. They think that by inventing complex excuses that a system of corruption can be presented as noble.
No. Jesus would never be a socialist. Socialists are misanthropes.
Social justice is the making a ‘system’ and/or ‘state’ god. And the willingness to ‘deem’ the ‘system’ and/or ‘state’ the creator of rights, they the ‘system’ and/or ‘state’ called government can give or take. We are about there with the majority support from the religious community.
Social justice is likely mystery babalyon.
Yes, in that the word 'babylon' means confusion. It is the state of mind held by the majority of peoples on this earth at an appointed time. And most especially in majority religious circles that are as much behind BamBamKennedy 'death' care as anyone.
BamBamKennedy 'death' care was a product of the life work of that old 'lion' of the Senate Ted Kennedy. I intend to make sure he gets the 'credit'.
And Robin Hood was reclaiming for the people what the government had taken from them. Neither the King nor the Sheriff were rich- they just had the peasant’s money taken as “taxes”.
Thank you so much for this. It couldn’t come at a better time. I teach RE on Sunday and have to cover “Social Justice”. This entire thread works beautifully to form my lesson.
“Thank you so much for this. It couldnt come at a better time. I teach RE on Sunday and have to cover Social Justice. This entire thread works beautifully to form my lesson.” ~ Aggie Mama
You’re welcome! Here’s another thread you may want to check out, too:
Pope’s New Encyclical Speaks Against New World Order
Lifesitenews.com ^ | July 8, 2009 | John-Henry Westen
Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:54:25 PM by Pope Pius XII
Editorial by John-Henry Westen
July 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Newspapers, blogs, talk-shows on radio and television are full of discussion over Pope Benedict XVI’s supposed call for a “new world order” or a “one-world government.” These ideas are, however, neither based in reality nor a clear reading of the Pope’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the release of which yesterday spawned the heated discussion.
The Pope actually speaks directly against a one-world government, and, as would be expected from those who have read his previous writings, calls for massive reform of the United Nations.
Confusion seems to have come from paragraph 67 of the encyclical, which has some choice pull-quotes which have spiced the pages of the world’s news, from the New York Times to those of conspiracy theorist bloggers seeing the Pope as the Anti-Christ.
The key quote which has led to the charge reads: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”
However, in paragraph 41, the Holy Father specifically differentiates his concept of a world political authority from that of a one-world government. “We must,” he says “promote a dispersed political authority.” He explains that “The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State’s role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. In some nations, moreover, the construction or reconstruction of the State remains a key factor in their development.”
Later in the encyclical (57) he speaks of the opposite concept to one- world government -subsidiarity (the principle of Catholic social teaching which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority) - as being essential. “In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity,” says the Pope.
Another of the key quotes which is being extracted for shock value from the encyclical is this: “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”
Since long before his papacy, Joseph Ratzinger has vigorously fought the United Nations’ vision of a ‘New World Order’. As early as 1997, and repeated subsequently, Ratzinger took public aim at such a vision, noting that the philosophy coming from UN conferences and the Millennium Summit “proposes strategies to reduce the number of guests at the table of humanity, so that the presumed happiness [we] have attained will not be affected.”
“At the base of this New World Order”, he said is the ideology of “women’s empowerment,” which erroneously sees “the principal obstacles to [a woman’s] fulfillment [as] the family and maternity.” The then-cardinal advised that “at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians - and not just them but in any case they even more than others - have the duty to protest.”
Benedict XVI in fact repeats those criticisms in the new encyclical. In Caritas in Veritate, the Pope slams “practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.” He also denounces international economic bodies such as the IMF and World Bank (without specifically naming them) for their lending practices which tie aid to so-called ‘family planning.’ “There is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures,” says the encyclical.
Any vision of a proper ordering of the world, of international economics or political cooperation, suggests the Pope, must be based on a “moral order.” That includes first and foremost “the fundamental right to life” from conception to natural death, the recognition of the family based on marriage between one man and one woman as the basis of society and freedom for faith and cooperation among all peoples based on principles of natural law.
Thank you for your post on this subject-— and if you have a ping list, please add me! I will be using this short list of quotes frequently, I think, as a resource.
You’re welcome. I don’t have a ping list, but I’ll try and remember to ping you when I post on this subject.