Skip to main content

Social Justice: Take Back the Term from the Thieves and Build a New Catholic Action Comments

Some have begun to use the phrase "Social Justice" in a disparaging manner. They want to expose the error committed by some who have stolen the term "Social Justice" to hide a "leftist" political agenda. There are others who use it but reject the existence of objective moral truths meant to govern our life together. However, some words and phrases must be rescued when they are stolen. Social Justice is such a ... Continue Reading

31 - 40 of 198 Comments

  1. Tony
    4 years ago

    Last of all, anyone advocating the death penalty should not have the nerve to claim that they are ‘pro-life.’ That is just a joke, a mockery, of life. Being pro-life does not only entail opposing abortion, but opposing the use of the death penalty in modern day civilized nations. The Pope has consistently referred to the death penalty as contributing to the culture of death; the SAME culture of death that abortion contributes to. One of the primary purposes of Catholics is to convert the souls of those around them. Rather than killing criminals out of hatred and revenge, we are called to forgive them and help them change their lives so that they may be saved. Even Christ, who was crucified, asked His Father to forgive His murderers. “"Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." Luke 23:34. Christ does not ask His Father to slay them. He asks forgiveness of His murderers. If Christ is asking His Father to forgive His murderers, how can we ask society to slay its criminals, especially when we have all the means of keeping society safe through secure prison systems? It’s pure hypocrisy to support the death penalty as a Catholic. It’s outrageous. I’m not even going to bother wasting any more time trying to justify the Church’s positions. Simply look at the Bishops website, found here: http://www.usccb.org/deathpenalty/ Pete, anyone who even attempts to justify either the use of the death penalty in modern-day society or the Iraq War is pathetically putting a right-wing bias above the true teachings of the Catholic Church. Anyone who is not blind can see that.

  2. Tony
    4 years ago

    Pete, any attempt to deny the Church’s outright condemnation of the Iraq War is failing to listen to a single word the Holy Father has said, and any attempt to justify the Iraq War through the Just War Doctrine is an absolute failure and a disgrace. It’s nothing but an example of putting right-wing politics before the Church’s teachings. The same is true with the death penalty. Yes, in the past the, the Church has condoned use of the death penalty when society did not have the means to otherwise protect its citizens. But in recent times, denial of the Church’s near-total opposition to the death penalty essentially means that one is absolutely deaf to the Church’s teachings or cannot read the Church’s teachings. Pete, even in the case of Saddam Hussein, the Vatican condemned the death penalty. The Vatican referred to the fact that Hussein was given the death penalty as being ‘TRAGIC.’ Read it straight from right-wing Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240158,00.html Now if the Church condemned the use of the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, I don’t know who you could possibly justify its use for. And Pete, once again, I’ve displayed and explained the Catechism quotes numerous times above; the Church is just as opposed to pure, liberal capitalism that views profit as the sole rule of thumb as it is to pure socialism and communism. The Church does not advocate a purely capitalistic society, but condemns it. Please see the above quotes which I’ve listed about 10 times. Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism is accepted by the Catholic Church, but rather something in between is advocated.

  3. Tony
    4 years ago

    Second criteria of the Just War Doctrine: "all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective." I’m not even going to bother addressing this. The U.S. and the U.K. essentially stormed into Iraq, making war one of its first attempts to solve the conflict. Endless additional opportunities to resolve the conflict existed but were never tried. And once again, let’s look at that quote from Pope John Paul II: “The reality of these days demonstrates this in a dramatic way. My thoughts turn, in particular, to Iraq and to all who are involved in the war that rages there. I think especially of the unarmed civilian population that is subjected to a harsh test in various cities….Eventual controversies among peoples must not be resolved with recourse to arms but, instead, through negotiation….[It] is indispensable to educate the new generations to peace, which must be ever more the lifestyle.” The Pope is coming right out and saying that ‘all other means’ of putting an end to the ‘conflict’ were not given enough of a chance.

  4. Tony
    4 years ago

    Pete, you mention September 11, 2001 and the attacks of Bin Laden as fulfilling the first requirement of the Just War doctrine. I am hoping that this is a joke on your behalf, considering we are referring to the war in Iraq, not the war in Afghanistan. Although 9-11 would have perhaps satisfied the first criteria for the Just War doctrine for war with Afghanistan, it has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Afghanistan and Iraq are two entirely different nations. Saying that the attacks on 9-11 justifies the Iraq War is about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, since 9-11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. When it comes down to it, the US had absolutely no grave, certain and lasting danger coming from Iraq whatsoever. The Iraq War absolutely fails the Just War Doctrine in its first criteria.

  5. Tony
    4 years ago

    The Iraq War cannot remotely be justified via the Just War Doctrine, and any attempt to do so is just pathetic. The War received absolutely no official support from the Vatican, and was simply condemned. First criteria of the Just War Doctrine: “"the damage inflicted... must be lasting, grave, and certain." There was absolutely no danger inflicted to our nation by Iraq, and there was absolutely no certain danger. We went to war with Iraq on account of the belief that they had weapons of mass destruction. Before the war ended, it turned out that there were no weapons of mass destruction. So not only was the danger uncertain, it was nonexistent.

  6. Tony
    4 years ago

    The condemnation of the Iraq War by the Pope, by the Vatican, by the Catholic Church in general, is absolutely undeniable and I’m not even going to bother to waste my time to look up sources to prove it. Anyone who was alive during the time of the Iraq War and was even briefly aware of what was going on knows that the Catholic Church was vehemently against it from the start. Briefly put, take a look at the words of the Holy Father in an address to the diplomatic core. “And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.” ~ Pope John Paul II. And this quote: “The reality of these days demonstrates this in a dramatic way. My thoughts turn, in particular, to Iraq and to all who are involved in the war that rages there. I think especially of the unarmed civilian population that is subjected to a harsh test in various cities….Eventual controversies among peoples must not be resolved with recourse to arms but, instead, through negotiation….[It] is indispensable to educate the new generations to peace, which must be ever more the lifestyle.” The Pope is outright saying that the Iraq War began with near-immediate recourse to arms and that negotiation and other forms of attempting to end the ‘conflict’ were neglected. The Pope’s opposition to the war cannot be denied.

  7. Tony
    4 years ago

    Pete: Your knowledge of the Catechism and even of the Just War doctrine is impressive and respectable. However, your attempt to justify the Iraq War via the Just War doctrine absolutely does not work, and it’s a shame that your sufficient knowledge of the faith has been completely blinded and brainwashed by what I can now see is simply an overwhelming choice of yours to worship the gods of the right-wing above the God of the Catholic Church. It is an absolute tragedy. You mentioned: “First, no nation needs a "Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur" or the "blessings of Rome" before going to war. This is where you fundamentally error in virtually everything you've stated in your responses thus far because you seem to think that it must "literally" be stated in a church teaching before an individual or a nation acts. Wrong. The "natural law" is imprinted on the hearts of all men; we instinctively know what is wrong and right.” Pete, this train of thought is absolute Protestantism. Yes, the natural law is imprinted into the hearts of man and we are required to follow reason, but you are outright saying that countries are perfectly permitted to go to war if they simply ‘feel’ in their hearts that it is the right thing to do EVEN the Pope opposes it. This is absolutely insane. No, a country does not need a Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur to go war, but when the Pope comes out and states that he is entirely against the war, no self-respecting Catholic can possibly support such a war.

  8. Tony
    4 years ago

    Pete: Unfortunately, I think you and I disagree on more elements of this conversation than I had originally thought. But I’ll start with what we agree on. You mentioned “The Imperial Cruise” by James Bradley. While I have not read this book, I have a vague idea of what it’s about and so yes, I believe that is precisely to what I’m referring. Teddy Roosevelt would be a prime example of the attitude that I’m referring to (particularly his treatment of South America). Referring to the Catechism quote you mentioned, there is a difference between having a love for one’s country - wishing to serve one’s country – and putting one’s country above one’s Church. There’s also a difference between loving one’s country and viewing the citizens of one’s country as deserving superior treatment to the citizens of another country. And when I criticized the idea that America is ‘favored by God,’ I was specifically criticizing the idea that America is favored by God over other countries. Naturally, God would ‘favor’ the people of all countries equally, loving us all the same. There is a bizarre notion held by some Americans, namely Fundamentalists, that God favors Americans over citizens of other countries. This is what I was criticizing. I am glad we are in agreement on these issues.

  9. Tony
    4 years ago

    Anne: Thank you kindly for your post outlining your beliefs on health care. Ironically enough, after reading your most recent post, I believe that you and I appear to be in absolute agreement on health care. In previous posts, you simply mentioned the principle of subsidarity, but you did not elaborate. I mistook your posts to simply mean that you would not support basic universal health care for those who could not afford it, but apparently you did not mean that. Again, the Church has opposed Obama’s health care reform plan (as have I) due to some of the errors you mentioned (making health care decisions for the poor). At the same time, the Church has been very vocal in advocating for providing health care for the poor in our society (those who cannot attain it), and you seem to agree with this. I think you may have mistakenly thought that I was advocating the current plan of health care reform. I was not. I was simply advocating universal health care coverage for the poor (those who cannot afford it), as the Church advocates, and apparently as you advocate. This gives me much peace. I apologize for the miscommunication, and I’m glad to see that we agree on this.

  10. Tony
    4 years ago

    I kindly thank all of you for your recent posts, I am thankful for having had the opportunity to discuss these issues with all of you. However, I must conclude posting here after the following series of posts, as I don’t think that further conversation would prove to be beneficial, as the bias of certain posters here seems to be overwhelming to a degree in which Church teachings are absolutely drowned out, wasted upon deaf ears. It is undeniable. I am simply going to respond to a few posts before ‘leaving’ (if one can leave a digital discussion board) for good, as I do not think that anything can break some of the ignorant biases found here.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment


Newsletter Sign Up

Saint of the Day

December 18 Saint of the Day

St. Rufus
December 18: Rufus and Zosimus were citizens of Antioch (or perhaps Philippi) ... Read More