Posted on 09/03/2012 7:41:32 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
On that I agree.
On that I agree but note that the origin of the term is clerical from the early 1800s and THAT predates communism. However, it has been usurped by communism and twisted around, just like the word "gay" in other circumstances
If you want a better term, fair enough. It can be termed as imitating Christ in looking after one's brethren. It most definitely should NOT be in govt's purview.
My quote from John Paul II plainly shows what Catholic “social doctrine” involves....using the power of the state to force upon the citizenry what they might reject on their own.
It's all fine and well for him to tout the socialist line about the right of association (labor unions) but what of others right of non association, those who do not wish to be forced to join a union or lose their job? Where is the justice in Catholic social doctrine for them?
Immigrants (illegal aliens) rights are held up as part of Catholic social doctrine on justice but again their supposed right to come across the border at will produces great injustice.
I go to the hospital emergency room and it costs me $2000 even with my insurance and the hospital frankly admits I'm subsidizing those who cannot and will not pay anything.
“We don't send bills to Mexico”.
“If you want a better term, fair enough. It can be termed as imitating Christ in looking after one’s brethren”....and that I do voluntarily not with the State's gun to my head as Catholic “social doctrine” calls for.
“Social justice” works very well for a few by producing injustice for others.
Secondly, this talks about society and your post has conveniently missed out what the rest of the post says namely . Rerum novarum is opposed to State control of the means of production, which would reduce every citizen to being a "cog" in the State machine.
“Rerum novarum is opposed to State control of the means of production, which would reduce every citizen to being a “cog” in the State machine.”
But behind that statement are calls for that very thing.
By what right does the State decide that the labor of a kid flipping burgers is worth over $10 an hour? Or that I should be forced to join and pay an organization against my will to have a job?
Read the Centesimus Annus and see that is the sort of State control being called for whether it be labeled “social or distributivity justice”.
You say my quote was “selective” and indeed it must be unless I'm going to display several pages of small type. Being selective it is no less accurate and is in no case a “random” statement.
What could be more “official” than John Paul II’s letter?
The simple fact of the matter is as shown by numerous examples is the “social justice” is just the vision of justice by the socialists and ends up as the injustice of the State setting wages, who can work where and demands that I join organizations with persons I don't wish to.
Quite frankly, I think the Catholic “social doctrine” betrays a profound ignorance of the Gospel message about private property, wages, employee/employer relationships, and indeed, justice itself.
“May 27, 2009
The Minimum Wage and Catholic Social Teaching
by Fr. Rob Johansen
The Family Wage
Since Rerum Novarum, the Church has fervently held that the basis of determining a just wage should be the concept of the “family wage.” The family wage is one sufficient for a working man to support himself, his wife, and his children. While the Church acknowledges that all members of the family have a contribution to make to the well-being of the family, she nonetheless insists that the norm of stable family life is founded upon there being one principal breadwinner for the family, the father; as Pius XI wrote: “Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately” (QA 71). John Paul II also advocated the family wage, seeing it as a protection against treating human beings themselves as a commodity, to be evaluated solely on the basis of their productive potential.”
But as is clear in the article no one can or is even willing to try to define exactly what constitutes “a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately” or what these ordinary family needs are or at what level they should be provided.
My ordinary family need of a computer for business and entertainment and record keeping may not be the need of my neighbors family so shall we be paid differing amounts for the same work? Just who is going to make this decision? Our employer? Me? Some government entity? A theologian?
Catholic social teaching ephasizes the right to form labor unions but labor unions have fought two tier wage scales of all kinds and I can imagine how a union contract paying a family head much more than a single person would be regarded.
The article is interesting for it's discussion of practical questions but really supplies no really useful answers, as expected, and we're left with either voluntary agreements between individuals wherein both parties come out ahead or government mandate favoring one class of persons over another and everyone losing.
Catholic “social doctrine” is at its heart political clap-trap, a trait it shares with the so-called “social gospel” of some Protestants.
And so is your Jehovah’s Witnesses, cyc — tied in to communism. And for that matter, Calvin’s preaching was for social justice as indicated above.
Saying “So’s yer mama!” doesn’t quite cut it. I really expected better.
Cheers!
What about the Jehovah's Witnesses links to communism?
If you are making an accusation it's up to make your point.
Even if such were so how would it negate anything stated so far?
Since your comment is far off the subject of the thread I can only assume you're going on offence as a good defence.
“If one talks about Jehovahs Witnesses blood transfusion ban killing people, then your posts have been “your momma” etc. look in the mirror”
Again not the subject of the thread but please inform me of how many people have died due to refusing a blood transfusion and compare that figure to the thousands who died a slow and painful death from AIDS after taking a transfusion.
I dare say the odds of long term survival have been better for those refusing, a subject the Canadians know a thing or two about.
If you are knowledgeable on the subject a separate thread would certainly be interesting and I'd be happy to respond to it.
“..... your posts have been “your momma” etc...”
Really? Please show me exactly which ones you're talking about. Once more, even if so, how would that negate anything said so far? Quite simply it wouldn't. No more than your previous posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.