So, Father, you are saying that Catholic doctrin says supporting the party that advocates low taxes for everyone is as morally evil as supporting the party responsible for the continued murder of innocent human life?

@ Everybody,

I could go on and on with lengthy postings of Papal Encyclicals—right through the current Pope—affirming Catholic Social Teaching, which is an essential aspect to the Catholic faith properly understood, but it probably would be a waste of my time to type these.  If I provided Scripture references for many of these, I’d run out of time to do my other duties.  Even though I’m completely accurate in what I’m quoting and in my presentation of an essential part of the Catholic faith, it probably would not change any minds here and serve no pastoral purpose.

To be clear, I firmly oppose abortion.  The killing of the unborn is, as The Church teaches, murder even if it is legally sanctioned in this country and elsewhere.

Perhaps our Bishops and priests, myself included, have not always spoken as loudly and as forcefully as we should against this evil. 

In other discussions on this very site, such as the one following the blog about the Arizona hospital which had its “Catholic” status revoked, many rightly challenged Anne Rice and others who advocated for a “pick and choose” Catholicism and some asked me for clarification on some comments. 

Let me posit for just one moment a possible scenerio that some of you won’t like:  What if the U.S. Bishops and the Papal Encyclicals that I’ve quoted and those I’ve not yet quoted (and may not) are correct on Catholic Social Teaching and those of you who dislike them are wrong in the eyes of God?  What if the Church is right and you are wrong?  What if God Himself does not agree with the American mythology of “hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc., etc.”?  What if despite all your cries about the murder of the unborn, when it comes to End of Days,  Jesus says “I never knew you”?  How would you answer?  Not in a disagreement with me, but with God Himself? What if EVERYTHING I quoted not only from The Catholic Bishops but from Papal Encyclicals going back to Leo—who’s quite popular here in some comment threads—actually reflects Christianity and the will of God (which Catholic Teaching says it does) rather than the American conservative view?

I encourage all of you who dislike the Bishop’s statement and the Papal Encyclicals to check the Scriptures at the endnotes of the documents.  You can find them online. I also remind you that Catholic Sacred Tradition = Scripture in authority.  Many of The Church’s doctrines about Mary, for example, have little or no Scriptural basis, yet I’d bet many of you have a special devotion to The Blessed Mother as encouraged by The Church.  (I’m not discouraging that, just providing an example.)

I hate when liberals in the Church distort things to support their views.  I hate it and it’s both spiritually and intellectually dishonest.  That’s also true when “conservatives” do so as well.

In the discussion following Jimmy Akin’s posts about Catholic Healthcare West and Saint Joseph’s Hospitals performing an abortion, there was a lengthy discussion about The Magisterium (Official Teaching Authority of The Church).  For Catholics, this is seen as coming from God.  The Papal Statements I quoted and what the Bishops’ statement reflected is PART OF THAT MAGISTERIUM which comes from God, just as sure as we are commanded to protect the unborn.  So don’t confuse that with American capitalism even if a Notre Dame Georgetown educated lawyer candidate teaches otherwise.  Either the Pope is Christ’s vicar on earth or he isn’t.  Either the Catholic Church has sacred teaching authority or it doesn’t.  If you don’t respect it and believe it, please leave or stay and repent.
Because otherwise you are guilty of the same things as the liberals and you loose any credibility in your fight to protect the unborn.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Having provided resources, links and quotations from Official Sacred Teachings of The Church, I’m done here. I wish you God’s blessings on your journeys.  I have pastoral duties to which I must attend and my involvement here is both time consuming and not conducive to my spirit.

Father Robert George

- an attempt at correcting formatting

Didn’t work. I guess the bloggers will have to correct this formatting issue.

Gee, and all this time I thought priests and bishops were supposed to help the flock save their souls—by teaching them the catechism, Commandments, and Sacraments, But you are insisting on the social work theme—before the Faith has even been taught.  I didn’t know Christ was a Social worker—silly me. I know some of the nuns (sans habits) are…
oh well. Guess I’ll stick to my backward ways. I am not going to insist that the govermnet continue to hand out my hard earned money—heaven knows where it goes after they put it in their pockets. I have searched the Bill of Rights, and Constitutution and not found where it says we owe everyone a handout and medical coverage… and what about separation of church and state? This is a good place for it.

Fr. George, I do not have cable, no EWTN, I have no cell phone and my car is 12 years old.  Fr. Corapi’s tapes are available at our [parish—on loan. I do admit to reading a lot of Catholic web sites (like this one, and Life Site news, New Advent and so on).

Father, are the Papal Encyclicals you quoted spoken ex cathedra?  I.E. they must be believed?

As for Pope Leo’s popularity today, some 110 years later?  Maybe in some segments of society - mainly those who want a larger, more controlling government, not unlike what the Democrats have been wanting for decades and had the past two years.  But Pope Leo’s day is not in our day today in America, maybe else where in the world, but not here.  We’ve moved way beyond what was happening in the 19th Century.  But the people, today, saw what leftist thinking leads to these past two years - a dictatorship by self appointed elites, mostly from academia in the White House, and old, political hacks in the Congress.  Thank God enough Americans woke up this past election and started to correct the error they made in the ‘O8 elections, and will finish the job in 2012.  If not, it will, again, be only because a majority of church going Catholics think they are doing God’s will voting for the pro-abortion party candidates under the delusion, aided and support by the bishops, clergy and religious that they are helping the “weak and the poor.”

@Patt, you asked, “and what about separation of church and state?” 

There is no such thing in the Constitution.  The phrase you quoted above was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a minister and has been taken out of context by anti-Christian Americans who want to ban any reference to God in our governmental systems.  They have won their way inside the U.S. Supreme Courtroom with judges who have been appointed that ruled it unconstitutional to pray in public schools.  Oddly, their ruling came down in a court room with biblical quotations inscribed inside on the walls and also in the cement structure of the court house outside.  God has been a part of this country from its founding development and his teachings have been etched into the founding structures of our federal government buildings from their first construction.

Father, one more thing.  It takes money to do all the work necessary to help the “weak and the poor.”  When government is created to do this “caring,” the money comes from taxes. It has been proven over and over again that when taxes are lowered, government takes in more money.  When they are raised, they take in less.  It was Catholic, JFK, who said about lowering taxes which he wanted, “A rising tide raises all boats.”

Dear Father, I am simply saying the Catholics I meet today don’t even know their Faith. They are completely ignorant of the religion, let alone “social teachings” of the church. It seems starting with the basics is a step in the right direction, so if they are presented with something like “liberation theology” they know its evils, (something Pope John Paul II spoke out against in 1979). Secondly, I doubt anyone here is advocating those sins crying out to Heaven—like oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their wages. However, providing everyone with a unending handout, and an expensive medical package is not on the list. Now for social justice, we can assist with groups that are trying to help others—with clothes, jobs or perhaps a doctor or nurse giving free medical help one day of the week. But notice, I do not say government handouts and assistance.  Anyhow “social Justice is the VIRTUE that inclines one to co-operate with others in order to help make the institutions of society better serve the common good”—FatherJohn Hardon, S.J. Modern Catholic Dictionary. However it isn’t a virtue when the government is doing it.

I don’t think Jesus approves of the unions of today, I was a member of the U.A.W. 32 years while working for Ford and came to the conclusion many years ago that there absolutly was a need for the union back in the 30’s 40’s, even the 50’s, but than they began to get very greedy and I witnessed many times where they absolutly hurt the company because of greedieness and laziness and I have no doubt that unions have caused many jobs to leave this country…....... and I can’t help but contrast that to the fellow tea party people I’ve come to know, devout christian, caring, generous people, the opposite of the union leadership I’ve witnessed..

Good point Robert. My father had the same impressions of unions when he was required to join to keep his job.
They have outlived their purpose and usefulness.They cripple a business and cause jobs to be outsourced.

Bishop Tobin’s article:
“Why I wasn’t impressed by President Obama’s Tucson Speech” is the best sum up on this subject. Hopefully it will be read by those who have contributed here.

Fr. Robert George, still around?  I said back in my post to you on 1/17/11 @ 7:00PM in paragraph 4 that the poor are not being served by the programs the bishops support government doing like Johnson’s War on Poverty which robbed the Social Security funds to pay for it resulting in more poor people then ever and threatening the retirement SS monies of people in the future.  I also said it “destroyed the Black family.”  Read today’s Wall Street Journal 1/22/11 Opinion pg. A13 entitled “The State Against Blacks” with the interviewer statement highlighted saying:

“The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do…And that is to destroy the black family.”

Also look up a press release from the USCCB dated 9/22/04 http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-182.shtml concerning “Proposed Changes in Community Development Regulations Would Hurt Low Income, Rural Communities, Says USCCB Official. 

That is another program the bishops pushed for that resulted this time in the economic collapse our nation is suffering today.  This collapse has hurt more people than at any other time since the Great Depression and especially the poor. Here evidence of once again “the unexpected consequences of good intentions;” except this time the consequences were expected and the bishops didn’t want to hear about them, nor did their allies in Congress - the pro-abortion party. 

Here’s a couple paragraphs from that 2004 Press Release: “On behalf of the Unites States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I urge that you withdraw the proposed changes to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations.  The Bishop’s Conference has strongly supported the disclosure of lending patterns since legislation was first introduced in 1975,” the letter said.  “The Catholic Church - with parishes and agencies across the nation - believes that people must be permitted access to information about the lending practices and patterns of the financial institutions in their communities that seek their business.  CRA has been an effective financial vehicle for rural and urban communities for decades.  Low and moderate income families of all races and ethnicities have benefited from CRA with increased opportunities to purchase homes…. 
The success of local communities gaining access to private capital should not be jeopardized.  The proposed changes will dramatically reduce the ability of communities to monitor and promote community reinvestment.”

The Press Release ended saying, “I urge you to withdraw and reconsider how best to strengthen-not weaken-CRA’s affirmative obligation of banks to meet credit needs.  We seek to expand and enlarge community reinvestment.  The regulations, as proposed, are likely to result in a significant reduction in the level of community reinvestment.”

That mentality was used by ACORN, financially supported by Catholic dioceses, to continue to pressure, with community organizers, by herding poor people into bank lobbies and demonstrating outside homes of banking presidents, putting pressure on theme to relax lending requirements for moderate and low income people to obtain mortgages.  Further pressure enacted by the Clinton Administration threatening to sue banks that did not cooperate with lowering the requirements to obtain mortgages created the environment for subprime loans to become prevalent.  All attempts made my Republicans to strengthen lending requirements were opposed by the Democrats and by the USCCB.  Thus the housing collapse, the economic financial collapse, the unemployment sky rocking up to realistically 20% with no hope on the horizon of that changing - that’s WHAT YOUR CATHOLIC SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY PRODUCED IN JUST TWO CASES - DESTRUCTION OF THE BLACK FAMILY,FIRST, WITH THE WAR ON POVERTY, AND ALL THE REST OF US, SECOND, WITH THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT (CRA) EXPANSION COUPLED WITH BISHOPS’ FINACIAL SUPPORT OF ACCORN PRESURING FOR THE SUB PRIME LENDING WHICH COLLAPSED THE WHOLE ECONOMY IN THE U.S. AND WORLDWIDE.

So much for the verbiage in the passages you provided to defend social justice by the Church leaders.  The U.S. bishops are too connected to their Democrat Catholic congregations, and in turn, the pro-abortion party, to be relied upon to understand social economic patters in an objective, knowledgeable way, and present themselves to speak for the entire Catholic laity before Congress and state legislatures.

stillbelieve—methinks Fr. George took a powder. The heat got too hot and he left the kitchen. However, for what it is worth I think like you and I also am aware about the separation of church and state and how that is twisted for liberal purposes. But, if the bishops are going to push Social Justice on the government and side with DemocRATS then I think we should have a separation of the two—- in that respect. 
Social Justice (liberation theology) can slip too easily into communism where everyone loses.

I’ve been following this discussion with some interest. 
  There seems to be some disagreement here about what constitutes Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
    When Father George posted his lengthy links and quotations from the American Bishops’ statements and Papal Encyclicals, he showed that Catholic teaching on social justice is consistent and is part of the Magisterium. Conferences of Bishops have issued similar official statements around the world with very similar language
He’s correct.
As the late Father John Hardon, S.J. wrote in his “Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980)” :
“The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.”

  The New Code of Canon Law (747§2) states:

“It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it,” and it is in this spirit that the bishops’ around the world have issued official statements and popes have written encyclicals using similar language and expressing the same principles of commutative justice and distributive justice.
  One of our most conservative, Pro-Life Bishops Thomas J. Olmsted wrote some great articles about this in “The Catholic Sun”. He’s still taking heat from liberal Catholics for kicking out St. Joseph’s Hospital after doctors did an abortion there in violation of the Ethical Directives for Catholic Hospitals.  This publication did a great job covering the story and kudos to Jimmy Akin here for his blog.

As I showed in my last post, Father George is right about Catholic doctrine on social issues.  Even though the encyclicals and bishops’ statements are Magisterium, Father George failed to mention a document that he surely knows as a priest.
  In 2002 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life”.  It’s a guide to help Catholics make moral choices consistent with our faith as we participate in the political process. 
  It tells us:“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”
  I guess Father could argue that this paragraph says don’t focus so much on the pro-life cause that you forget about the other positions in the Democratic party which seem closer to the rest of Catholic teaching.
  He’d be wrong because the next paragraph says that there are certain principles which can’t be disregarded when Catholics vote.
  It says,“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. ”   
  I think that means that even though most of the Catholic teaching on social justice seems closer to the official platform and rhetoric of the Democratic Party, we can’t go along with it because of the Democratic Party’s support of abortion and I think gay marriage.
    I’m not sure what we’re to do here in America then? I do accept that the papal encyclicals and the Bishops’ Statements are magisterium for the reasons I wrote in my last post. It’s pretty clear to me that, except on anti-abortion and opposition to gay marriage, the Republican agenda doesn’t reflect those values we’re to hold about social justice, worker’s rights, and so on.
    I just got a note an email that the American Bishops are supporting three bills which would change the new Obamacare to include 3 pro-life provisions.  If these bills pass, some might feel better about supporting Obamacare and individual Democratic candidates who are Pro-life. 
    You also might want to check out “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” published by Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in 2004.  I found the entire Compedium online at CatholicCulture.org.

@Faithful Servant,

If one believes he or she is following the teaching authority of the Magisterium and that allows them to give their name identifcation and support to the pro-abortion party, what does that say about the Magisterium teaching?

“It’s pretty clear to me that, except on anti-abortion and opposition to gay marriage, the Republican agenda doesn’t reflect those values we’re to hold about social justice, worker’s rights, and so on.”

@Larry,

One, please expand on your comment quoted above and provide evidence of what is “clear” about it.

Two, if a political party has the character to defend and protect the unborn as the Republican Party has demonstrated, which is not for the sake of getting votes (because it’s not a vote getter), but because the of the character of most Republicans’ hearts (there are economic conservative Republicans that don’t like prolife because they believe it loses votes for the party and the things they support in the party) then what would make you believe that that concern for human life would not be carried over into economic and national security issues as well as?  Conversely, when a political party has demonstrated hard core support for abortion-on-demand, and has done everything possible, including character assassination, to prevent Presidential nominees from getting on the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, what makes you believe the character of that party leadership is really concerned about doing what is best for the those in need? 

Three, what makes one think a party that supports changing the definition of marriage which has always been only between the male and female genders since the beginning of recorded time, and is confirmed to be the right order being in the bible, have the correct thinking process on any other issue dealing with culture and the raising of children, and for that matter, common sense?

Of course if one is more interested in giving to Caesar what is God’s, then giving to God what is God’s, then anything goes as far as legislation is concerned.

I’m currently writing an article on Catholic Social Doctrine, so I’ve been following this discussion ever since I stumbled upon it through a search engine.  Several of you have quite a debate going and I’d like to make a few observations.

1.) Catholic Social Doctrine is official teaching of The Roman Catholic Church on social, economic and political issues.  It encompasses doctrine dealing with poverty, wealth, economics, societal organization and the proper role of government.

2.) In papal encyclicals and related Vatican documents, it is international and universal.  Because it’s universal, it applies to all, not just one people or nation.

3.) Catholic Social Doctrine doesn’t **favor** one particular party or candidate in any particular country over another.  To claim that is to misrepresent the Doctrine.

3.) Catholics are to accept Catholic Social Doctrine as articulated in the Encyclicals with a “religious submission of mind and will” even though the Pontiff is not speaking ex cathedra.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH (LUMEN GENTIUM), issued as a document of Vatican II, states:

  This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. - [url=“http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html”] - Lumen Gentium 25

4.) Catholic Social Doctrine embodies specific and consistent principles (themes) whether articulated in papal encyclicals or in the declarations during Vatican II, primarily Gaudium et Spes, the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church and the Modern World”.  The teachings in Gaudium et Spes are, for Roman Catholics, infallible as it was issued under the “Extraordinary (and universal teaching of the Church)” by The Bishops in union with the Pope in General Council. It requires full assent of faith.

5.) Catholic Social Doctrine is also articulated by local Conferences of Bishops around the world in official statements which apply the universal Catholic Social Doctrines to the situations within their jurisdictions. These numerous documents are consistent with Catholic Social Doctrine articulated in Gaudium et Spes during Vatican II and consistent Catholic Social doctrine pronounced in Papal Encyclicals from Pope Leo XIII through the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI.

Regarding these Bishops’ statements, Lumen Gentium states: Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent….

General themes within Catholic Social Doctrine do favor:

1.) Sanctity of human life and dignity of the person—from the moment of conception through the entire life cycle;

2.) the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining for better wages, working conditions and benefits and to strike if needed to obtain these goals;
  (“Catholic teaching opposes collectivist and statist economic approaches. But it also rejects the notion that a free market automatically produces justice. Distributive justice, for example, cannot be achieved by relying entirely on free market forces. Competition and free markets are useful elements of economic systems. However, markets must be kept within limits, because there are many needs and goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. It is the task of the state and of all society to intervene and ensure that these needs are met.” - Major Themes in Catholic Social Teaching

3.) the right to private property as essential for the development and freedom of the individual but it’s only moral when subordinated to the common good. Since all property actually is God’s, the right of private property is not absolute, if it harms society.

4.) family life and community. Catholic social doctrine teaches that family life in marriage between a man and a woman is central to community life and to affirming and promoting the full dignity of each human being.  While Catholic social doctrine rejects racism and discrimination, it does not support “alternative marriages” or cohabitation arrangements as reflecting God’s will;

5.) Political power and corporate ownership be diverse, rather than under the control of a few wealthy elite individuals or corporations [“All people have a right and a responsibility to participate in political institutions so that government can achieve its proper goals.” - Major Themes in Catholic Social Teaching ; ideally, workers should literally be stakeholders or major shareholders in their businesses;

6.)“Human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency – starting with food, shelter and clothing, employment, health care, and education. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities—to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.” - Major Themes in Catholic Social Teaching

7.) The “Preferential Option for The Poor”

“The moral test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor. The “option for the poor,” is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community.

The option for the poor is an essential part of society’s effort to achieve the common good. A healthy community can be achieved only if its members give special attention to those with special needs, to those who are poor and on the margins of society.” - - Major Themes in Catholic Social Teaching

8.)The Government’s responsibility is to promote “human dignity, protect human rights, and build the common good.” - Major Themes in Catholic Social Teaching Government, charities and faith groups have a special duty to provide services to those with special needs, those who are poor and those at the margins of society.

10.) The Principle of Subsidiarity :

“The principle of subsidiarity holds that the functions of government should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately. When the needs in question cannot adequately be met at the lower level, then it is not only necessary, but imperative that higher levels of government intervene.” - Major Themes in Catholic Social Teaching

11.) Work toward global peace;

12.) Think globally when making decisions.

In context, The Catholic Church’s Social Doctrine avoids extremes in its approach and it also rejects extremes in politics and economics and it’s based on a foundation of human rights and personal dignity.

I hope the above was helpful.  I was getting tired of reading all the arguments here.

In light of the emotional tone in some posts prior to mine, I’d like to share some wisdom from Vatican Council II:
“It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.

The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.

The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.” - Gaudium Et Spes  (Pastoral Constitution on The Church in The Modern World).

Thank you for the allowing me the opportunity to share.

Blessings to you.

In which Christian countries has Social Justice found success? Our bishops should set an example by first standing up to Pro-abortion “catholic” politicians. Sure, in a perfect world social justice could work, but what exactly is it supposed to do? That has not been defined. Lots of people read the Bible and make up their own conclusions of what they think it means, and I am sure that could be done with Social Justice. Don’t some of the Latin American countries turn social justice into “liberation theology”? I like the way Catholic Relief Services actually puts into practice—social justice—by helping the poor to help themselves.

Hsllo Patt,

You make a good point.  We live in an imperfect world and we are imperfect people.  “Social Justice” is a both an ideal and an ongoing process for which we and all Christians are to strive. 

The papal encyclicals and “Gaudium Et Spes” do define the concept, but sometimes in the flowery language of church documents and theology. Of course, various people have **reinterpreted** these documents or quoted from them selectively to present a slant on “social justice” that may not really reflect what the Catholic church is officially teaching.

Broadly speaking, seeking social justice is seeking a society where there’s less discrimination based on race, gender, physical disability, religion and socio-economic background.  It means creating a society where wages and benefits are fair and livable for “the working class” not just the wealthy and basic human rights—such as quality health care and educational opportunities are available for even the poorest individuals.  It calls, generally, for a leveling of the playing field so to speak, so that if you’re poor and I’m wealthy, you also have a voice and a way for self-improvement.

You’re correct that some in Latin America interpeted the Catholic Church’s doctrines on “Social Justice” to mean “Liberation Theology”—a sort of interpetation of Scriptures and Church teachings through a non-atheistic, but Marxist influenced lens.  The movement lost much popularity both here (in seminaries) and in Latin America after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemned certain elements of the movement.

I think there’s much to commend in the actual Catholic teachings which are doctrine. The “Catholic Social Doctrine” isn’t actually just one “teaching” but is a group of teachings or principles which together make up “The Catholic Social Teaching”. 

These should not be confused with press releases or other non-doctrinal documents that are released by U.S. Bishops or other Catholic organizations claiming to represent Catholic Social Doctrine or teaching.  Some documents issued by U.S. Bishops fall under the “magisterium” criteria and others do not so it’s more than a little confusing.  I personally think that the Conference should do more to help the laity know when a document or statement is “teaching” versus some lobbying letter

Patt,

Proper Catholic Social Justice Doctrine as articulated in papal encyclicals and of course in Vatican II is staunchly anti-abortion.  Because it rests on a foundation of the sanctity of human life and the dignity of each individual, that makes sense. 

It does challenge individuals and society (through government, churches and charities) to include opportunities for those at the “bottom” and the margins of society.  It does require morally that opportunities for education, personal advancement and health care exist (as a basic human right) to even those who have “nothing”.

Rev. Rob Weiter,

I welcome your contribution to this discussion.  My concern with Catholic so called “social justice” covers several areas, political, spiritual, and reality. 

One, the U.S. Bishops’ high-jacking the nine year old word “prolife” in 1983/84 to use in conjunction with their hundred and twenty year old “social justice” teaching that may be applicable in some third world countries, and Catholic South American nations of the day, but not in the U.S in the 1980s.  The “fruit” of this high-jacking is the 50,000,000+ babies murdered in the U.S. and counting;  the power it has given the pro-abortion party to continued to defend and protect “abortion-on-demand” remaining the “law-of-the-land;” and the unintended consequences of those lost lives on the economic health of the born, like availability of jobs and the security of Social Security.

Two, the hollow words Catholics stand in Sunday Masses to profess they believe, and hollowness of their words in prayer to God the Father standing before Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist in all Masses, everyday.  Along with this, the bishops closing their eyes to this hollow spirituality.

Third, the bishops adopted Cardinal Bernardin’s adding “social justice” issues to the definition of the word “prolife.”  “Prolife,” a word that was coined to counter the pro-abortion supporters calling themselves “pro-choice,” which is the name they began calling themselves after the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision struck down all state laws prohibiting abortion.  The Archdiocese of Chicago Cardinal’s reason for the addition of “social justice” to “prolife” was to “keep the prolife movement from falling completely under control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (quoting from pgs. 243,244 of the 1989 favorable biography “Cardinal Bernardin –Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism” by Eugene Kennedy, a 30+ year long friend).  Chicago, one of the most Democrat and Catholic cities in the country, had to deal with its Catholic beliefs and teachings on abortion, and the Democrat Party’s support for abortion.  The “good” Cardinal opted to soothe the consciences of his Catholic population rather than challenge the Democrat Party’s support for abortion.  The reality is, the Chicago Democrat political bosses got to him, as well as his clergy who had to hear the concerns of their congregations who feared having to give up their identity as Democrats.  Consequently, the “original” Catholic prolifers started hearing from the “new pro-lifers,” after the bishops adopted Bernardin’s plan, that they “support life after it is born, not just before,” - purely a Democrat slant to the issue of “prolife” which has enabled Catholic Democrats to remain the largest, single voting block the pro-abortion party has today.  And “Democrat” remains the voter identification preference, even today, of the majority of Catholic clergy and religious who are registered to vote.  So, the bishops saying they are “neither Democrat nor Republican; right or left” is fantasy.  They may think that they aren’t, but that is self-delusion, something that is discussed in psychology under the heading called “projection” and Webster’s New Collegiate defines projection, among other things, as “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects esp : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.”

Having my having said all this, and in light of what you wrote, would you like to suggest some answers to my three questions to Larry, in my comment posted above on Wed. Jan 26, 2011 11:37 AM?

opps, please ignore the “my having.”

Dear Stilbelieve,

Moving out of “lurker” mode to comment.

I do applaud your concern for the unborn who are wrongly aborted but you’re like a willful child on a soapbox. And like most fanatics you have a single issue you keep repeating in hopes of getting the answer you want. That’s idiotic!

Two priests, Fr. George and Fr. Weiter, have explained Church teaching.  Fr. George quoted from a text by a good, orthodox conservative priest, the saintly John Hardon, S.J. and Fr. Weiter from Vatican II.  Loyal orthodox Catholics are to accept the infallible teachings in the papal encyclicals and the documents of Vatican II.  Catholics are to give “full assent of faith” to these from Pope Leo thru our current Pope period.  If you can’t do that, you need to get your butt out of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and join a Protestant Church period.  Roman Catholics are not to interpret the Bible except in the light of Church Teaching.  If you are a cradle Catholic or convert you should damn well know that.  Biblical interpretation resides exclusively in The Holy Roman Catholic faith with the magisterium (Sacred Teaching Authority of The Church) which speaks with the authority of God Himself!

In reality no political party anywhere lives up to the precepts of social justice which The Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches.  Not even the officials of The Church herself.  That’s because of sin, but that does not negate the infallibility and Truth of the teachings.  It does not relieve members of The Holy Roman Catholic Church from the requirement to give “full assent of faith” to these teachings (even on social and economic issues) even when these may be unpopular.

Apparently you make your opposition to abortion is your main issue.  That’s damn easy because you can keep worrying about those poor unborn souls and support programs which decrease funding of the physically or mentally disabled, hurt the poor elderly folks, shut down public health programs and school lunch programs, general relief for the unemployed or those who face temporary crises, etc.  all because some political screams about the wrongness of abortion.

In our U.S. situation, both parties fail morally and so do the “Tea Party” people.  Lest you think I’m some raging liberal, I’m a registered Republican who has served on the County Commission where I used to live, served a position in the local and State party,  been a delegate to the State Republican convention and helped draft our state party platform.

After studying Catholic Social Doctrine, I’ve concluded that many things which I believe as a conservative American are contrary to teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the actual teachings of Christ in The Gospel. I mean this truly.  I do not mean the way Protestant evangelicals here reinterpret the Scriptures to fit our “American” lifestyle justifying “prosperity gospel”. I mean the authentic teachings.

I am also convinced without a doubt that Obama and most Democrats also support positions contrary to the teachings of The Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This doesn’t surprise me because as Fr. Weiter says above, ““Social Justice” is a both an ideal and an ongoing process for which we and all Christians are to strive. ”  It’s not a reality unless we MAKE it a reality.  It’s a work in progress.

When the U.S.  Catholic Bishops’ formal statements do faithfully echo some concepts of Catholic Social Teaching in papal encyclicals and Vatican II and thus members of The Holy Roman Catholic Church, including YOU, must:  “accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent….” That means you’ve got to stop complaining and accept that you’re WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!  In those times, you are not to argue but accept their authority even when you DON’T LIKE IT instead of whining like King Baby!

But when the U.S. Bishops and other Bishops go outside infallible teachings in papal encyclicals and Vatican II, like they often do in Press Releases and Action Statements, members of The Holy Roman Catholic Church are absolutely free to disagree and even challenge them to get back in line with Roman Catholic Social Doctrine written in Vatican II and papal encyclicals.  Vatican II says that “Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.”  The key there is “teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff”.  In Latin America, like here sometimes, Bishops went beyond that and the Vatican slammed down as it should.  When they cease to teach “in communion with the Roman Pontiff” as I think the U.S. Bishops have from time to time, then I think members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church don’t need to see those situations as “witnesses to divine and Catholic truth”. Maybe one of the priests here will correct me, but I think that’s what Vatican II is saying.

Vatican II declares, “The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.”

The Bishops here, like those in Latin America several years ago, often seem to forget this even though it’s from an infallible document issued by the last Vatican Council.  When they disregard this, they fail to teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff and outside their teaching authority, I think.

So R.J., I suppose you think most of the teaching on EWTN is idiotic too,  since what I hear there is very similiar to what stillbelieve has stated.  You sound like a very confused liberal to me…....

R.J., thank you for you opinions.  I didn’t intend for my questions to touch a nerve.  But now that you got that out of your system, would you like to take a shot at answering my three questions to Larry, which are 14 post back, counting this one, on Wed. Jan 26 at 11:37 AM?

My main question is what makes one think that the former White supremacy Democrat Party, the party that is responsible for abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land the past 38 years, (by the way that goes hand in glove with the goals of the former White supremacist party), and the party that now supports changing the historical definition of marriage…would have the “best” solutions for caring for the poor and those in need?  Keep in mind that party’s War on Poverty campaign created by President Johnson, starting in the mid 60s, has succeeded in increasing poverty, destroyed the Black community which went from 30% fatherless homes to 75%, and spent all the money in Social Security fund jeopardizing the government’s financial obligations to people retired and retiring which has resulted in people working having to pay ever more higher Social Security taxes.

...oh, by the way, I don’t have a television so I don’t watch EWTN.  My comments, here, are coming out of my little old head.  But it’s nice to hear Robert J mention that they are in line with “most of the teaching on EWTN.”  Thanks, Robet J, it’s nice to know there Catholics out there like that.

I always have thought that one who helps the poor (unless he is poor himself and giving the shirt off his back) feels superior to the individual he helps. Again, why should taxpayers who pay taxes—give to those who don’t through the government agencies that usually do a poor job on everything, except collecting taxes. If you are a vet—go sit there for days getting “free” government assistance—I did.  I think the bishops should help us save our souls by teaching the religion as it should be taught—young Catholics know nothing these days. If you want to help the poor try social work..

I wish at least ONE of the advocates for the Magisterium’s Social Justice would answer just ONE of the questions I have asked.  It is one thing to have flowery, good intentions advocated as your ideal, but if all of what you are advocating produces just the opposite of what your intentions are, shouldn’t the Magisterium, and their advocates, reassess what they are promoting?  Especially, if the fruit falling from their good intention trees continues to be only murdered babies to which God gave life?

I still can’t accept that the teaching of the Church is: Non-sinful social justice issues, individually or collectively, are equal in importance to the intrinsic evil of abortion.  In essence, social justice issues counter ballance abortion - morally.  And even more so, knowing that Catholics stand and profess in church every Sunday that they believe “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life;” and, they pray the only prayer Jesus ever taught us to pray so we would know how to talk to God, the Father, in which we pray “for His will be done on earth,” and “to be led not into temptation, but delivered from evil.” 

Is not abortion- evil?  Do a majority of Catholics think God creates life so that it can be aborted?  Is God in contradiction with Himself?  Or are those Catholics supporting the pro-abortion party in contradiction with what they say they believe and pray for in church every Sunday, and that includes the clergy, themselves?  Is not the temptation of pride at work on those Catholics who enjoy feeling morally superior because “their caring for the unborn doesn’t stop at birth?”  Isn’t there a smug feeling they have inside themselves based on a judgmentalness that anti-abortion prolifers’ don’t care what happens to babies after they are born?  I ask the question – what evidence do you have that anti-abortion prolifers, the original prolifers, don’t care what happens to babies after they are born?  Could one of you “Reverends” or RJ, or Larry, or anyone give me an answer to, at least, that one question?

This little blog is a lot of promotion on an email list with which I read. I see two guys here, and Father George and Weiter. I am truly and honestly shocked by writings I find on this site and on this blog.

I thought the American Catholic publication of the name is conservative and that those who read it are good, conservative Catholic. Yet, I find that the most prolific commentators seem to ignore the most fundamental truths of our faith in your often sarcastic answers to actual offers of past papal encyclicals and official statements of the bishops’ organization. To challenge papal encyclicals is simply immoral and against the infallible teaching of the Church was reaffirmed in Vatican II. This is not your moral right to do so before God. I see in many posts in this thread, people from committing the same mistake as liberal Catholics do with the same arrogance and self-righteousness. Of course, these are people so typical of the United States, so why should I be surprised?

Your comments here, especially in regard to papal encyclicals cited are so provincial. And you seem to feel that, because the papal encyclicals reject certain principles and programmmes of your American “right” that Pope, who as Catholics, we must give “religious submission of will” are wrong or not talking to Americans, you.

Please think about what follows.

I agree with your opposition to abortion. Killing unborn babies with the sanction of government and society is killing no less than murder in the eyes of God. You and your Republican Party is correct and that this position is consistent with Catholic doctrine.

Your Republican Party also opposes marriage for gays and lesbians, which is the law here to your north. Your Republican Party’s opposition to gay marriage and lesbian mirrors the Vatican’s defense of traditional families headed by a man and a woman.

It does not follow, however, that because the platform U.S. Republican Party is right on these two important issues that it is correct, morally or politically on every issue or confirm that it positions with Catholic doctrine infallible moral social issues in other areas.

It does not follow that the U.S. Democratic Party is morally or politically wrong on all issues or socio-economic policies simply because it adopted the wrong party platform on abortion and gay / lesbian marriage in light of our Roman Catholic doctrine.

Doctrine infallible Roman Catholic Chuch has always favored the unions and the organization of workers. He continues to do so, said by our current Pope. This is not a position, I am told, your American Republicans who relentlessly seek to reduce union power, to weaken or eliminate collective bargaining and to reduce benefits to the middle class and worker class. This is totally contrary to the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in the papal encyclicals and statements by the Council.

The U.S. Democratic Party, I understand, promotes collective bargaining, decent medical benefits and retirement pensions and decent working conditions for workers and collar middle class. This is consistent with the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

U.S. Republican policies have helped companies rich world, but also weakened the conditions of the middle class U.S. men and women and the working class. No less a publication than the venerable conservative magazine <<The Economist>> has repeatedly reported on the trend in recent years severl. It is also well known outside the United States that the policies pushed by former President Bush and Republican deregulation of various schemes supported largely caused the American Loan and disorder resulting speculation and crash with its economic impact in the world wide.

Infallible Catholic teaching rejects socialism, but also laissez-faire capitalism. Neither are moral, according to Roman Catholic doctrine infallible. But I think this has been explained above. Still some claim to be “conservative” Catholics while rejecting what is not yours to reject.
This is another area which American Republicans are wrong from Catholic infallible Doctrine.

Every democracy has its world premiere some form of universal healthcare except the United States.The United Nations Declaration and The Church infallibly teach that health care quality is a fundamental human right. The American health care is 33rd. in the wohttp://www.ncregister.com/blog/ick-factor-at-memorial-rally/rld, surpassed today by all those who have different systems of universal health care. Your Republicans fail here too.  From Catholic doctrine, so do Democrat because allowing abortion.

These are the facts not some story from American <<liberal>>.

I present as a faithful and religious member so that you may think.  I tell truth and I pray for you everyone for your wish to loyalty to our Church.

Also Please pray for Father Weiter. He is very sick now. I receive email asking for prayer list.

Forgive mistakes. I used translation software to read your comments and respond. English is not my mother tongue.

I’m not in the U.S., but I think you are under the misconception that other social justice issues do not deal with sin. All Sciales justice issues addressed in the past and current papal encyclicals deal with issues of sin in the communities social, economic, social and political. This is why Catholics are to provide Council documents <<full penalty of faith>> and papal encyclicals <<religious presentation of will>> or, as some conservative priests explain, as infallible in themselves.

During abortion is wrong, but it is a sin of the individual person does abortion and women who choose abortion, it is morally reprehensible, but not the same thing for a stupid person (irrespective well educated) to promote the legal right to abortion. It is the failure in moral reasoning on this issue, but even that is not thde <<doing l’deed>>. Those who support abortion are to be taught the error of their reasoning but are not guilty of the murder of unborn children. It is often, for many, a theoretical view. Many women who are in favor of abortion rights in your country are quick to say they have never themselves.

Since abortion is legal in the U.S., it is not morally wrong to support those who support the legality of other social issues on which they are morally right so that they become political, while s opponent in their support for abortion. For example, you can support the right of workers to collective bargaining and programs that help poor and children while opposing abortion.

You can support the universal health care as a fundamental human right that the Church teaches infallibly still oppose abortion. It is morally wrong to dismiss the other causes because you disagree with the position on abortion, as it is terrible. Sin is really when a doctor does an abortion or a woman has done, nor in the media, both, a procedure already legal.

If I were an American Catholic Democrat, I would use my power under this <block> you every mention of forcing a change of party politics. I will not support another Party which has more <<immoral>> positions as historic teachigs infallible Church, because the other party opposes abortion, sincerely or not.

Hope helps this.

The above comment (#2 of my) was answer to person stilbelieve.

In almost any free country, every political party is morally right on some and wrong on others.  Nobody is perfect align with Catholic doctrine.

Social Justice is a thing we all work to build following infallible teaching of The Church in Council documents and papal encyclicals.  We help it, with the Holy Spirit, become real.  It is not real until we make it real.

One more for stilbelieve

I do not know teachings of U.S. Bishops so I’ve only speak about Papal Encyclicals.  These address to everybody, not just U.S. and the abortion issue is mostly your country’s issue so the magisterium addresses the other issues as well which your Democrat party happens to be closer on, but that’s not by design of the Church.  That’s something of how things worked out n your country.

As I wrote, you should not support someone that opposes the other teachings in their policies just because they also oppose abortion.

I do not understand why U.S. Catholics allow the Democrats to support abortion and gay and lesbian when most other issues are right with the church before they came up with them?

Act as group and you could change it’s position, but to go agaist ther moral doctrine is a sin.  I suggest you read the links above and learn the Church doctrine and Bible base for it.

Pardon my mistakes. I’m using translator.

“I do not understand why U.S. Catholics allow the Democrats to support abortion and gay and lesbian when most other issues are right with the church before they came up with them?”

Frere Marc, the reason they do “allow the Democrats to support abortion and gay and lesbian” is because their self-identity is Democrat, FIRST, Catholic, second.  They see themselves that way because of what you explained above as Catholic teachings and the Church leaders’ insistence that we Catholics must believe and accept such Catholic teachings whether the teaching produces the intended results or not.  FACTS are facts.  I can’t argue against FACTS.  You, and others, here, defend the Magisterium writings without providing any EVEDENCE to their producing the “intended results.” The so called “social justice” teachings of the Church are 120+ years old.  When they were introduced in the U.S., they had real meaning for the way things were at THAT time. 

Americans were successful in adopting those teachings, and the intentions of those teachings were realized long ago.  But the “leaders” of the benefactors of those teachings have become greedy and their greed has grown to corruption.  Labor unions are now corrupt.  They have destroyed the greatness of the American people they once helped create.  The union leadership have lost their way and are the ones out of control, now, demanding ever more money for their workers which the consumer has to pay if they want their product(s), or in the case of public schools, parents are forced to send their children to if they could not afford paying for a private education, and in the case of government, we taxpayers have to fork over more and more of our earnings to pay the exorbitant salaries of the government union workers who now earn, just after some 30 years of unionization, salaries that are twice that of those in the private sector with a similar job title . 

The classic example of the benefits of unionization in its heyday is the famous “Motor City,” slogan about Detroit, which was the home of General Motors.  Look at Detroit at the beginning of the automobile mass production, when the social teachings had real merit and appropriateness for the American workers and employers.  Look what transpired as those teachings were incorporated in the culture.  Classic in what took place in some fifty and sixty years after social justice was introduced was a slogan that typified the transition: “As GM goes, so goes America.”  Well, that slogan is as applicable today as it was then.  Some fifty or sixty years forward to today, look what corruption of unionization has done to the famous “Motor City.”  Go to Detroit to see the results of unfettered social justice.  And the bishops want that result for us as a nation?  Not a word about union corruption.  Not a word about their buying politicians with the union dues they extract from their union workers.  Not a word about the union bosses funding one pro-abortion Democrat after another to get them elected so that those politicians can turn around and vote to increase those government workers salaries which enables the unions to extract even more money to buy more politicians.  Not a word from our “spiritually governed” bishops.  Today, the private sector workers are working for the government union employees.  Where is the social justice in that?

My sincere Catholic friend, the FACTS are what Catholics should be looking at, not the “INTENTIONS” of the teachings.  And the facts are the results of what those “intentions” produce.  The teachings are producing evil.  What you and others are saying about Catholic teachings are nothing but “good intentioned words”- with footnotes to scripture to support them.  Give me the scripture that says Jesus came to earth to teach us to get government to do what He directed his disciples and followers to do themselves.  Show me where Jesus said that in the Gospels and I will say, “opps, I’m wrong.”  Absent that, I can only go on the results of those teachings to form my beliefs.  And the results of those teachings, according you and et al, are not important.  It is the “intentions” of those who gave us these teachings that are of spiritual importance, and that is why we must obey those them - or sin.  Forgive me friend, God gave me a brain, and eyes to see, and ears to hear – and I ain’t going to blaspheme the Holy Spirit to make myself feel good and go along with the crowd.  You know, the Ku Klux Klan had some “good intentions” and did some good works for those in need, as did the German NAZIs raising the standard of living for the German people.  They were both very successful in their heyday.  But both of those organizations had this one little problem, didn’t they?  According to what you and several other Catholics are saying here - good intentions of the Magisterium, are sufficient to ignore the FACTS of intrinsic evil, and giving ones name identification and support to either of those organizations would be acceptable to the Magisterium.  I am having a difficult time getting my head around that.  Meanwhile, the wholesale murder of God’s greatest creation continues for the sack of misguided – good intentions. 

By the way, your language translation was very good, although your facts of events here in the U.S. are not accurate.  But that is probably only because of your information sources.

I KNEW that word didn’t look right!  But wanting to finish and get this on it’s way, I didn’t check the spelling.  The word should be “sake” not “sack.”  But if your from the Bronks or northeast, it probably sounds the same, either way.

For stilbelieve,
Thank you for your kindness of my thoughts translated.
I understand your points, but I think our Holy Father to disagree with your analysis. Maybe Father George’s mistake was quoted papal encyclicals.

Several recent papal encyclicals, which the Catholic faithful are to giving <<full penalty of will>> also confirm historic Roman Catholic social teaching and develop, building on recent and even current situation. Again, Vatican II, which as you know is infallible as a key belief of faith (salvation touching) states that even if the Pope does not speak <<ex cathedra>> you, me and all other Roman Catholic should give <<religious complete presentation of l’esprit will> and> with <<reverence>>, and judgments <<is by him are sincerely respectées, according to his manifest mind et>> when the Pope is the exercise of magisterium. - Gentitum Lumen 25 .

As Fathers George and Weiter have documented in earlier posts, papal encyclicals fall into this category. If you are a faithful Catholic, none of us should have to repeat this for you. The papal authority in these documents, past and present, are the responsibility as infallibly reaffirmed in Vatican II and, therefore, is not a matter open to debate.

Our Holiness recently addressed the Catholic social doctrine in the context of the current world situation, including yourself in the United States. His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI wrote his encyclical <<CARITAS IN VERITATE>>, <<Find Charity and Truth>> in 2009.
Here is a link to the website’s English version of the Vatican.

I encourages you to read the whole encyclical with <<the religious submission and l’esprit will>> according to the needs of faithful Catholics and to recognize <<reverence, with the judgments made by him>, you must, as that Catholics adhere sincerely, <<according to his clear mind and will>>.

In light of our conversation, I suggest especially chapters 3 and 4, but really a devout Catholic, as you, must study the entire document.  As this is a current, contemporary encyclical issued by the Pope current ( whom you know is Orthodox and Conservative), your arguments on outdated historical Encyclicals not apply.

In his encyclical, Pope Benedict XVI recommends <<Populorum Progressio>>, an encyclical of Pope Paul VI published in 1967. Benedict XVI confirms that the Magisterium of the social encyclical of Pope Paul VI did not break with the historic teaching of the Holy Church (<<Caritas in Veritate>>, # 12) in the apostolic tradition.

Benedict XVI reminds the faithful:
<<This is not the case of two different types of social doctrine, pre-Conciliar and post-Vatican II, which differ from each other: on the contrary, it is a unique academic and coherent at the same time ever new. It’s one thing to draw attention to the particular characteristics of an encyclical or another, teaching of a pope or another, but never lose sight of the coherence of the whole corpus doctrine. Coherence does not mean a closed system: on the contrary, it means loyalty to a dynamic light received. the social doctrine of the Church shines a light that does not change new problems are constantly emerging. This preserves the permanent character and history of the ““patrimony”  doctrine which, with its particular characteristics, is part of the tradition still alive in the Church. The social doctrine is built on the foundation provided by the Apostles to the Fathers of the Church, and received and considered further by the great Christian doctors. This doctrine refers ultimately to the New Man, “the last Adam [who] became a life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45), the principle of charity that “never ends” (1 Corinthians 13:8 ). It is attested by the saints and those who gave their lives for Christ the Savior in the field of justice and peace. It is an expression of the prophetic mission of the Pontiffs to provide guidance to the Apostolic Church Christ and discern the new demands of evangelization. For these reasons, Populorum Progressio, located in the mainstream of Tradition, we can still talk about today. >>

You can not separate a single issue - even laudable that oppose abortion - from the entire Catholic social doctrine, issued by councils infallible (Vatican II) or in the papal encyclicals.

Many policies of your Republican Party (and some policies of our politicians here) are contrary to The Sacred Teaching that helping those who are poor and oppressed is a primary moral responsibility (direct affecting salvation) of both Christians individual and governments.

The sacred teachings of the Church for the poor and oppressed, as opposed to the rich and privileged, has strong biblical roots as my bishops wrote in 1996:

“Our pastoral reflection on the elimination of poverty is based first of the Old Testament, where the liberation of the Hebrew people from slavery in Egypt (Exodus 3, 7-12) was a religious event and leading politician. This release starting point for the formation of the Chosen People, is the ultimate fact which proves the Lord God of the oppressed, the God of the poor. In exchange for his release, the people of Israel must respect the Covenant with God in caring for the poor and weak. “There will be no poor among you,” reads the book of Deuteronomy (15:4). Hence the concern among the Israelites to walk in justice, to give alms and to adopt laws that would effectively translate social solidarity. The fight to eradicate poverty has become, in their eyes, the sign of the presence of God and reason to hope for a better world.

Solidarity with the poor, the prophets reminded the requirements of the Word of God in terms of decisive (Jeremiah 22:3; Micah 3, 1-5). Anything that breaks or prevents the relationship between God and His chosen people (money, earthly power, oppressive relationships) is considered an idol, that is to say, as a false god who deserves denunciation final.

Our thinking peaked in the New Testament. Coming into this world, Jesus chooses the path of a simple life. Throughout his ministry, he identifies with the poor and the marginalized of his day. Even if prosperity was seen as a sign of God’s favor, Jesus was not afraid to put his disciples on guard against the danger posed by the possession of riches. Its main activity was to proclaim the Good News to the poor ( Luke 4, 18, Matthew 11, 5). With Jesus, the Kingdom of God comes, and specifically in the first place, as the expected groups of women and men held in the social marginalization. Indeed, it is evoking their lives and their hopes that the Nazarene is for those who do not suffer the same rejection or contribute to the life of Jesus maintenir.24 illustrated, this manner, “the preferential option for the poor.” He will go far as to say that everything has been done for the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger will be considered and counted as done to Himself. (Matthew 25:31 ff)

The first Christian communities much valued the division of property (Acts of the Apostles 2: 44-45, 4, 36-37). It was one of the concrete ways of putting into practice the new commandment of love of Jesus (1 John 3: 17; Jacques 2.5). On the occasion of gathering for the poor of Jerusalem, St. Paul writes to the Corinthians that their generosity is a measure of the authenticity of their love (2 Corinthians 8.8).

This brief review of the Word is sufficient to show that it is within God’s plan that our brothers and sisters are liberated from all that oppresses and hurts their dignity. It is He who takes the initiative for such a release and who invites us to continue. It must not only enroll in the daily actions of individuals and groups, but also in the legislation. The poor themselves are asked to stand, to stand and walk severally to better horizons.”

                    -  LETTRE PASTORALE DE LA COMMISSION ÉPISCOPALE DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES SUR L’ÉLIMINATION DE LA PAUVRETÉ  (HALIFAX, 17 Oct. 1996) (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops)

Au service de Dieu,
Frère Marc

Pardon mistake in opening line of last comment.  I mean to say. Pehaps For our Father George’s mistake was quoting older papal encyclicals.

You say I don’t have the right facts about your country in my statement.  That is incorrect.  I do.

And while it is not my intent here to argue YOUR COUNTRY’S politics, but rather to correct any misunderstanding about infallible Church teaching, you have said I have the wrong facts about the United States and therefore wrong the infallible teaching no longer applies to your country.

I’d be wrong to blame either your Democrat or Republican in the current economic crisis the United States that this article [url = “http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html”] FactCheck.org [/ url] notes.

[url = “http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/16/united-states-poverty-numbers.html”] In the United States, 1 in 7 are living in poverty, reports the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., citing the latest U.S. census and more than 50 million now lacking health insurance.

The famous “Economist” magazine reports that poverty looms for millions of unemployed in America.

. “Fifteen million Americans are now unemployed, according to the report the most recent jobs The unemployment rate rose slightly in November to 9.8% darkest figures, however, are for long-term unemployment:. 6.3m people, 42% of the unemployed have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. This does not include the 2.5 million people who want jobs but have not tried for a month or more, or the 9m who want to work full time but can not find part-time opportunities. ” - http://www.economist.com/node/17733387?story_id=17733387

You make a big deal about the alleged overpay your federal workers, then pass the lie often cited as your Republican federal employees are double that of private sector workers. [url = “http://factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/”] FactCheck.Org [/ url] an unbiased source, I think others have established a link here corrects the lie. What differences do exist have to do with given levels of education and training compared to those in the private sector and, for many, the wage level is lower for your Federal Employees to comparable position in the private sector .

When you make these false claims, you credit unions for federal employees, but only 36.2 percent of “public sector” employees (which include ALL levels of “public sector” employees in your country) are members of unions. [url = “http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm”] - U.S. Department of Labor, January 21, 2011 [/ url].

If you read all the reports of real, reliable sources rather than biased data misinterpretations commonly cited by those on socio-economic development of your country “right”, the current and historical positions of the Church are still supported by the facts.

But I digress. The fact is that as a Catholic, you are morally and practically submit your spirit and the doctrine promulgated by Popes Benedict XVI and the earlier and infallibly “full assent of faith” in the relevant documents of Vatican II.

You do not choose a hierarchy of what to accept and not accept others that the guidelines specifically defined in these doctrines Church, even if you are looking to avoid the horror of abortion.

I know from your previous comments you have problems with this because this is not what you hear or think, but my pastoral response is difficult.

Catholics who practice contraception, have sex before marriage or living together outside of marriage do not want to believe and follow church doctrine is. Tough. They violate Church teaching which equals, by the Magisterium, the teaching of Christ. Some sexually active gay men, lay and religious consider themselves “good Catholics”, but does not consider the doctrine of the Church (or justify why it does not apply). My answer to them is the same. Tough.

I wrote several times that your opposition to abortion is good. This does not allow you to ignore the other person the Social Doctrine of the Church or support those who oppose abortion, but take positions contrary to the teachings of others in the social doctrine Catholic, regardless of whether abortion is wrong. Even supporting those who oppose abortion but do not hold other positions, you’re wrong, according to the Church, even if you do not like it.

I’m sorry but this is the honest truth and that is why some of you have written so many things to you. All these questions, the Church teaches, not just opposition to abortion are linked hello. You seem to think not, but this is false.

I’m not writing more on this point. I hope and pray that your heart is softened and that you have read the recent encyclical, I linked by Pope Benedict XVI and “Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples)” which he praised the Pope Paul VI, time, I have included links to both.

I took the time to write these notes for you because it’s really important because Catholic social doctrine, which you seem to be dealing effectively hello. All these questions even if they have practical implications for humans. I mention finally that our moral argument in favor of the unborn and against abortion is just part of that social teaching of the Church and is most strongly articulated in another papal encyclical in which Catholics are required to submit the will and spirit together with those on other social Catholic doctrines.

Gosh. I check my emails after several days ill and I find a deluge of comments. Good to see you here, Frère Marc   Marc.  It’s always nice to see colleagues from Canada weigh in, especially from the very Catholic province of Quebec.

I think this topic’s been talked out.  I don’t believe minds will be changed, but, of course The Holy Spirit moves as she will.

Stilbelieve,  thank you for your reflections.  I hope that my explanations, quotations from Vatican II and other official documents helped in your understanding.

I am a journalist, scholar and minister.  Reading your posts and those of others will help me frame issues in the text I am writing.

This is a difficult topic for many Catholics, especially here in America, where the doctrines run into competing themes as these play out in our American political arena.

We are also in a society, here, where there’s a strong principle of separation of church and state due to the unique historical situations under which our nation was founded.  Also, Roman Catholics are a product of our culture which promotes individualism, self-reliance and a strong work ethic which often overtly or subtly blames those in the lower socio-economic classes for their life situation.  Even though The Roman Catholic Church does not teach the “prosperity doctrine” pushed by many in the American “Evangelical” Protestant circles, Roman Catholics and mainstream Protestants are subject to its influence. 

For Roman Catholics, the Bible is to be understood in terms of the sacred teaching authority of The Roman Catholic Church.  Readers aren’t to read and interpret for yourselves.  For Roman Catholics, unlike Protestants, moral codes and ethics are to be interpreted and processed according to the Objective Teaching (objective conscience) of The Church.

I’ve done my best to accurately present the actual official position of The Roman Catholic Church.  Social justice is a living work in progress.  It doesn’t exist except as a social, religious and spiritual ideal until we LIVE it into being whether we Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, or any of the other world faiths.

P.S. - Someone, I think it was you stilbelieve, thought that the Catholic Social Doctrines did not deal with issues involving salvation.  Catholic Sacred Teaching, in Vatican II, and in the papal encyclicals on these doctrines past and present would categorically state otherwise.

@Frere Marc and Rev. Rob Weiter.

Thank you for your perspectives and insights.  While we have not changed anyone’s minds, at least we have gotten clarity of each of our positions, and that is important.

My closing remarks to your final comments, have best been expressed in a very brief posting of mine on an article on another site.  One written by Bishop Thomas Tobin and published at www.catholicnewsagency.com Feb. 3, 2011, entitled “The President’s Speech; Why I Wasn’t Impressed.”  With that, I thank you for your sincere interest in educating me and wish you both health and success in your vocations.

who asked non-citizens to add their unwelcome opinions? We don’t go and tell you how to run things or what is wrong with your country (plenty I am sure). Yes, we should fire all politicians of both parties, let them find another way to steal. When I vote I vote for the PRO-LIFE candidate. End of story. I have never voted for a Democrat because I have found none that protect the unborn.

@Patt, Catholicism is our common grounds for dialogue, not our homeland.  I, for one, welcomed hearing what other Catholics think, regardless of where they are. Clarity of what their opinions are is important to understand; not necessarily persuading them of mine.  Actually, Patt, Canada doesn’t have the housing/mortgage/banking problems we have been dealing with the past two/three years in the U.S. because they did not go down the road that the Democrat Congress and Presidents took us down with U.S. Catholic bishops’ strong approval all along (while Republicans started warning against) which resulted in the sup-prime loans allowing the poor and lower income people to buy homes they couldn’t afford.

@Frere Marc and Rev Wieter

I could not find my comment to the Bishop Tobin article I mentioned above that was posted on CNS Feb 3.  I’ll post it here as my closing thought to your closing comments.

“And suddenly it became clear. The problem, at least for me, is that President Obama’s persistent and willful promotion of abortion renders his compassionate gestures and soaring rhetoric completely disingenuous.”

Bishop Tobin, those are my sentiments as well.  I take your words one step further, however, and apply them to the entire Democrat Party.  After all they are the only reason abortion-on-demand remains the law-of-the-land.  I think their actions in this area make their words about the poor and needy, and all the “social justice” issues - hollow and untrustworthy.  President Obama is not out of the mainstream of Democrat thinking in general.  How any Catholic can give their name and support to the pro-abortion party believing they really want to help the poor and needy is beyond me.  The USCCB’s support for so much of the pro-abortion party’s legislation is shameful; it exposes the bishops’ as naïve, at best, and partisans at worst.  And I think it is the latter regardless of how much they deny it.