Glenn Beck said last week on his eponymous show that Christians should leave churches that preach "social justice." Mr. Beck equated the desire for a just society with--wait for it--Nazism and Communism.
I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.
This means that you would have to leave the Catholic Church, which has long championed that aspect of the Gospel. The term "social justice" originated way back in the 1800s (and probably predates even that), and has been underlined by the Magisterium and popes since Leo XIII, who began the modern tradition of Catholic social teaching with his encyclical on capital and labor, Rerum Novarum in 1891. Subsequent popes have built on Leo's work, continuing the church's meditation on a variety of issues of social justice in such landmark documents as Pope Pius XI's encyclical on "the reconstruction of the social order," Quadregismo Anno (1931), Paul VI's encyclical "on the development of peoples," Populorum Progressio (1967) and John Paul II's encyclical "on the social concerns of the church" Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987).
The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church, published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, says this:
The Church's social Magisterium constantly calls for the most classical forms of justice to be respected: commutative, distributive and legal justice. Ever greater importance has been given to social justice., which represents a real development in general justice, the justice that regulates social relationships according to the criterion of observance of the law. Social justice, a requirement related to the social question which today is worldwide in scope, concerns the social, political and economic aspects and, above all, the structural dimension of problems and their respective solutions....
Social justice is not just some silly foreign idea. American Catholics know that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have an Office of Justice, Peace and Human Development. On that website the U.S. bishops say: "At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict."
Get it? Social justice is an essential part of Catholic teaching. It's part of being a Catholic. So Glenn Beck is, in essence, saying "Leave the Catholic church."
But Glenn Beck is saying something else: "Leave Christianity." Again and again in the Gospels, Jesus mentions our responsibility to care for the poor, to work on their behalf, to stand with them. In fact, when asked how his followers would be judged he doesn't say that it will be based on where you worship, or how you pray, or how often you go to church, or even what political party you believe in. He says something quite different: It depends on how you treat the poor.
In the Gospel of Matthew (25) he tells his surprised disciples, that when you are meeting the poor, you are meeting him. They protest. "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."
But our responsibility to care for "the least of these" does not end with simple charity. Giving someone a handout is an important part of the Christian message. But so is advocating for them. It is not enough simply to help the poor, one must address the structures that keep them that way. Standing up for the rights of the poor is not being a Nazi, it's being Christian. And Communist, as Mr. Beck suggests? It's hard not to think of the retort of the great apostle of social justice, Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
The attack on social justice is the tack of those who wish to ignore the concerns the poor and ignore the social structures that foster poverty. It's not hard to see why people are tempted to do so. How much easier it would be if we didn't have to worry about the poor!
But ignoring the poor, and ignoring what keeps them poor, is, quite simply, unchristian. For the poor are the church in many ways. When St. Lawrence, in the fourth century, was ordered by the prefect of Rome to turn over the wealth of the church, he presented to him the poor.
Glenn Beck's desire to detach social justice from the Gospel is a move to detach care for the poor from the Gospel. But a church without the poor, and a church without a desire for a just social world for all, is not the church.
At least not the church of Jesus Christ. Who was, by the way, poor.
The Rev. James Martin, SJ is the author of The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything. A longer version of this post can be found at America Magazine's blog "In All Things." http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?entry_id=1071
Glenn Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America? - TIME
Catholic social teaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Coincidently, my mother's mother supported a young African student through that program for many years until her death in 1976. And Gaston made the trip over from Tunisia to speak at Grandma's memorial service in Montreal.)
He wants you to be part of a caste system where you enjoy your station in life one notch above the poor, reveling in your perceived greatness, fantasizing you are just a step away from being one of this country's ultra-rich. Which you are not, by any stretch of the imagination. But that's been the goal of the righties for years now, to convince those of us in middle America that we, despite all evidence to the contrary, have something in common with the uberwealthy, and therefore should support the interests of that class because after all, it's going to benefit ME some day. Faaat chance. Of course the hilarious part is that not only is this not true, but actually the inverse, that support for the politics of the uberwealthy is 99% of the time NOT in our best interests!*
And this lefty, providing a quick example of the facile nature of your patently unsupportable assertions, likes sports cars, and hopes everyone in America who wants one HAS THE OPPORTUNITY to make such things possible in their lives. If that's what they want! Social justice isn't communism or socialism. It's a CONCEPT and PHILOSOPHY.
In short, everything social justice stands for is the foundation of the American Dream, it's core tenet that this is THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY regardless of your background.
*read "What's the Matter With Kansas?" for a good look at this phenomenon.
I would like to know how exactly you "know" they are "paying with food stamps"?
Because they are black? Or Hispanic? Or just "look" poor? And how do you "know" what they are buying? Do you actually stand there in line, hovering over other peoples weekly grocery karts, and, IF, they look "poor" enough you bitterly complain how your taxes are going to pay for better food items then the ones you are getting?
I suppose then that "they" dont deserve any better food items then YOU. "They" should have not nicer things then you. People on "foodstamps" should hovel their heads in shame and make sure to only purchase the LOWEST quality grovel available because to attempt to enjoy a respectful quality of life while on the dole is, well, "offensive".
What a bitter, jealous world you live in.
Oh brother.. what a typical liberal comment. Please spare me of your liberalistic self-righteous judgements.
You did an awful lot of twisting... you are wrong. My point was that the poor ARE being taken care of. And those people that I see ARE ethnic minorities... farm workers who are probably not even legal citizens. Now please don't twist that to mean that I am against those people getting help also. Again, my point is that the poor are being helped and adequately it seems.
And to answer your first question, "no". The "problem" is still being addressed because it is the left USING yet another social issue to try and gain more government control.
When the government extorts resources from Peter to pay Paul so Paul will vote for "progressive" candidates, true charity is not being displayed. Both Peter and Paul believe they're being used, and Paul considers the payment a "right".
When will the liberal, progressive clergy learn that when Jesus Christ said "render unto Caesar", He didn't mean "render unto Caesar, so that Caesar can keep folks under subjection via "social justice or income re-distribution, so they'll vote for Caesar".
http://nomadicjoe.blogspot.com/2010/03/nomadic-view-vs-glenn-beck.html
Here, the issue is Social Justice. To defenders of Glen Beck and Senator Bunning it apparently means "Those who would not work, neither should they eat." Can't fault that.....or can we? Seems simple and ever so Biblical but it avoids the caveats that Jesus seemed aware of. The operative word is "would". But there are more operatives at work in that maybe not quite so truism. One is that there are those who would but cannot for whatever reason. For those with physical disabilities that reason is obvious. For those with mental disabilities, often more difficult to access. Then there are those who would but cannot because they can't FIND work and therein lies a serious conundrum for men like Senator Bunning and Glen Beck and yes, even the more conservative of my two sons: that of knowing who is genuinely trying and unable to find, and those who are playing the system disingenuously (not to mention the innocent children in the equation). Bunning, Beck & Co would apparently throw the baby out with the bathwater. "Let them eat.....well, what? Cake?! There are those who can barely afford mac and cheese, a food pantry staple (and then we wonder at obesity!!). For many of us evil "Progressives" , therefore, it's a bit more complicated.
cont
Totally wrong. You are not even trying to understand the libertarian position. The free market stance is that people should not be forced to help the poor. It says nothing about what people SHOULD do, just what they should not be FORCED to do.
Charity is noble, but it can't come from the barrel of a gun.
Just pray that you never need anyone else to help you out. Or will you just choose to die?
"people should not be forced to help the poor"
We can only suppose that they should also not be "forced" to enjoy the fruits of the poors labor, enjoy the security provided by the poor, or exploit the poor's disadvantage social position for private gain?
Hmm?
A commenter at another HP blog mentioned the biblical gleaners as an example from of the poor helping themselves. I'd hesitate to suggest they try that in today's modern farm fields or orchards. They'd be in police cuffs in minutes or possibly run off by the farmers dogs...and there's not a lot to glean in winters. Then there's the stunning volume of food waste of retailers like Wal Mart and too many others to mention, who use the relevant laws against giving away the left overs to protect themselves from lawsuits; laws THEY lobbied for and now hide behind. Need I go on?
The entire system stinks to Heaven.
America does not need.
At least learn the correct name of the thing you are trying to talk about.