What is and should constitute Social Justice
#11
Quote: So in a nutshell what should constitute Social Justice
If you really mean "Justice" and not mercy or acts of Charity, then here are some guidelines for "Justice".

1.  Respect for private property.
2.  The State shall protect property.
3.  The State will not steal from one to give to another. 
4.  Contracts shall be binding, and the State shall act to enforce them.
5.  All quotas, set asides, and other acts of "Affirmative Action" shall cease immediately.
6.  Those who do not work, don't eat.
7.  Usury is illegal since it demands payment when there is no production.
8.  The States can regulate the use of property in cases where such use harms another man's property, e.g. pollution.
9.  The right to form unions among workers will be protected so that a Living Wage can be negotiated, though unions  are limited per the guidelines of S.Q. by Pope St. Pius X.
10.  The State shall be small and government shall be at the local level (related to "3").
Reply
#12
I shorthanded the Church's Social Teachings (not mine). Not to invite 'misunderstanding', I elaborate a little more:-

(1) All human activities (be it economic, science and technology, social, etc) should have man's wellbeing as the center, God's glory at the heart.
(2) The Principle of Association is the rights of man to form any association (be it unions, cooperatives, charities, social groups, etc) beneficial to man as a social being.
(3) The Principle of Subsidiary involves man helping fellow man, aided by societal structures at various levels(be it governmental institutions or self-help groups, etc), state helping lesser state, nation helping poorer nation, with the end of enabling man to develop himself as a useful member of society.
(4) All able members of society should contribute to the common good, in a personal capacity.
(5) The Common Good is a well established Church's teaching and means that the good of society overrides any selfish benefits.
(6) No one person or a nation should 'exploit' the world resources for his personal or national benefits alone, to the detriment of that of another person or nation(s). There is one God-given world for man.
(7) We should have compassion for all fellow human beings.
(Viii) All human beings should have the rights to work
(9) Man should be eco-friendly and respect the environment.
(10) All men should work towards peace in the family, the society, the world, irregardless of race and creed.

When men learn from the Church's Social Teachings( see the Compendium of the Social Teachings of the Church)  and adhere to the aspirations, there will be social justice for all, and then the Kingdom of God will be hastened.
Reply
#13
(09-01-2009, 12:53 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: So in a nutshell what should constitute Social Justice
If you really mean "Justice" and not mercy or acts of Charity, then here are some guidelines for "Justice".

1.  Respect for private property.
2.  The State shall protect property.
3.  The State will not steal from one to give to another. 
4.  Contracts shall be binding, and the State shall act to enforce them.
5.  All quotas, set asides, and other acts of "Affirmative Action" shall cease immediately.
6.  Those who do not work, don't eat.
7.  Usury is illegal since it demands payment when there is no production.
8.  The States can regulate the use of property in cases where such use harms another man's property, e.g. pollution.
9.  The right to form unions among workers will be protected so that a Living Wage can be negotiated, though unions  are limited per the guidelines of S.Q. by Pope St. Pius X.
10.  The State shall be small and government shall be at the local level (related to "3").


ok I understand making loans is ok when there is production involved (i.e. investment capital), however what about buying a house or college education and things along those lines
Reply
#14
Ig,
It is amazing that most of what you wrote is in OPPOSITION to Catholic social teaching.  But let us concentrate on just two elements to keep this organized.  First, your definition of subsidiarity:
Liberation Theology Heresy Wrote:(3) The Principle of Subsidiary involves man helping fellow man, aided by societal structures at various levels(be it governmental institutions or self-help groups, etc), state helping lesser state, nation helping poorer nation, with the end of enabling man to develop himself as a useful member of society.

Now what the Catholic Church teaches:
Pope Puis XI Q.A. Wrote:“Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and endeavor can accomplish, so it is likewise unjust and a gravely harmful disturbance of right order to turn over to a greater society of higher rank functions and services which can be performed by lesser bodies on a lower plane.”

Per the OP request, in my own words, this means it is wrong for the State to take on rights that private enterprise can accomplish, and it is wrong for the central government to take on what the local governments can accomplish.

And here is a typical definition used by many Catholic sources:
Quote:A term (the Latin subsidium for aid, help) from Roman Catholic social philosophy which expresses the view that, whenever practicable, decisions ought to be made by those most affected by the decisions. Put another way: the national government ought only to do what the states cannot; the states only what communities cannot; communities only what families cannot; families only what individuals cannot.
Ig, what you wrote is just plain wrong.

Next, the second thing I would like you to explain is this little gem:
Liberation Theology Heresy Wrote:(5) The Common Good is a well established Church's teaching and means that the good of society overrides any selfish benefits.
First from a practical standpoint, who decides what is a "Common Good"?  Who decides when my interest is a "selfish benefit"?  Suppose society decides that Jews are a plague and are a hindrance to Christendom, and therefore elects to throw them out of a country and take their property without compensation, or to kill them.  Is a Jew's right to private property a selfish benefit that the "good of society" can override?  Obviously if Christendom enriches itself on Jewish wealth, that will certainly benefit it.  Or is the Jewish "desire to live" a selfish benefit that society can snuff out since it deems a dead Jew a good thing?  Remember, you gave the unqualified "ANY".  What you are proposing is Communism or Fascism.  And this is complete heresy.  First the quote from QA above certainly negates this.  And here are some great ones from the Capitalist Manifesto, also known as Rerum Novarum:

RN Wrote:they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life.
Per the OP's request, in my own words Pope Leo is establishing the right to private property and call this idea of "seizing" or "holding in common" a "scheme of horrible wickedness".

RN Wrote:Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.

14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.

But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop.
Per the OP's request, in my own words, Pope Leo is saying that individual liberty, Citizens and Families, overrides the interest of the State.  And therefore "selfish benefits" of the family and citizens  outweigh concerns of the Common Good, within limits.  Therefore the claim"any" is shown to be a "great and pernicious error".

You can not square what you wrote with what the Church has always taught.  By the way, Rerum Novarum goes on and on, it is endless, in defending liberty and private property.  Please read it.
Reply
#15
Quote: ok I understand making loans is ok when there is production involved (i.e. investment capital), however what about buying a house or college education and things along those lines

This is a very interesting question that the Church needs to start teaching on again.  First the short answer:  In a system where the money supply is increasing, it is my opinion (a semi-anonymous internet poster) that mortgages, since they generally are very low in interest rate,  are usually NOT usury since you have to pay back the bank in "like value" which means you also have to make up for inflation.  Same with college loans, though not as sure about that,  if the interest rate is low.  What is a "low rate"?  Don't know.  It depends on the growth in the money supply.

Long answer: Usury is immoral.  It is immoral mostly because it introduces Moral Hazard by claiming payment for a non-productive loan.  The best example is government debt, which history shows over and over to be a destroyer of society, as we now get to learn yet again.  Let us take the example of the college loan.  Now imagine if there were zero college loans.  Now universities couldn't gouge students anymore BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T.  They know now that the parents will become debt slaves in order to send their kids to college, so they have extravagant campuses, and huge pay and benefits to professors.  Just think about Harvard, with $100 BILLION in their endowment.  Why in the heck isn't this being used to help students afford college?  I assure you probably 80% of donors wanted the money to be used to help the kids.  Why is it just sitting there accumulating?  Why?  Because Harvard knows that you will take out a usurious loan to pay for tuition.  In short, because of usury, THEY DON'T HAVE TO !!  MORAL HAZARD.  Take away all this usury, and parents will say to Universities, you have to lower your rates.  You have to cut costs.  You have to get rid of waste and cut back on some of these extravagances.  The purpose is not to create a museum, it is to educate leaders.  And Universities would lower the rates, because they would be forced to do it in order to get students.

I went through college with a little help from my family, and a whole lot of work, including working during the school year.  This was around 20 years ago, and you could still afford college by working.  It is no coincidence that the introduction of government subsidized usurious college loans that college tuition has skyrocketed.  It will rise, because IT CAN.  You would be stupid as a professor, when you would settle for $70K a year, and you know you could get $100K, not to go for the $100K.  And so they get the $100K and you become a debt slave.

And look what usury has done to housing.  If there was no usury, there would be no housing bubble.  There would have been no flippers.  Houses would have actually slowly dropped in price with the invention of the nail gun and plastics.  In fact, there would have been no Federal Reserve to drop interest rates, since the Federal Reserve operates on usury.  A non-usurious alternative would be the Sharia method of banking (which is just a time capsule for CHRISTIAN banking), where you form a partnership with the builder and pay "rent".  It actually turns out to be a lot like a mortgage, though the purchaser has more rights.

That's enough for now.  later.
Reply
#16
(09-02-2009, 01:31 AM)iggyting Wrote: When men learn from the Church's Social Teachings( see the Compendium of the Social Teachings of the Church)  and adhere to the aspirations, there will be social justice for all, and then the Kingdom of God will be hastened.

The Kingdom of God is not on this earth and it is not obtained via social justice but by Sanctifying Grace.
Reply
#17
James, I think it was my poor use of English that brings about some misunderstandings in explaining the complexity of the Social Teachings.

The Principle of Subsidiary encompasses what you have said but also includes (among other things) helping natural groupings to flourish without taking on their functions. An example is a Church group running a soup kitchen for the poor without having a governmental body stepping in. But if the situation is so drastic, as in during the Great Depression, it is a responsible government to feed the hungry.

The Common Good is in the sense that God places the well-being of others in our hands. So we have to think of societal good before our own, if that happens to do harm to others. For example, if the way I live ruins the hygiene or environment of my neighbors, then it is better I change my lifestyle for the common good. Another is if I am a billionaire, for my salvation, it is imperative I use the money to help the poor.

Quis, I agree that sanctifying grace brings about social justice on earth and the Kingdom of God in heaven. Without God, we can't do anything!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)