The Loud Talker

I’m a huge Glenn Beck fan. I’ve met him several times and have made it on the air as a caller a few times. I agree with most of what he says. But his comments about leaving any church that preaches “social justice” are misguided. While I agree with his concern, I think he is suggesting the wrong approach.

His request hits home for me because last Sunday my priest brought up social justice and indirectly mocked Glenn for suggesting that priests be reported to their bishops for teaching social justice.  He said “I guess we need to report the bishops to the pope and then the pope to God. How can you not believe in social justice” I’ll tell you how.

Social Justice comes in two forms. One is based on religious values, the other is based on economic or political status. The Catholic Church has been teaching social justice since the late 1800s and this is certainly the version that father was referring too. But, father is most likely not aware of the hijacking and distorting of this noble concept by the political left. And, if I may quote our president, “let me be clear.” The main difference between the two versions is not the end result, it is the method used to achieve it.

According to a popular Catholic web site:

“Social service is giving direct aid to someone in need. It usually involves performing one or more of the corporal works of mercy. That is, giving alms to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned, taking care of orphans and widows, visiting the shut-ins etc. Another name for it is charity. The concept of correcting the structures that perpetuate this need is called social justice.”

I’ve paraphrased the following example from the same site: A person visits a food bank and explains that he has no food because he has been unemployed for a long time. A food bank worker knows of an employer with an entry-level/unskilled position available and (a) gives the person some food and (b) places that person in touch with the employer. This solves both problems for that person. (a) the immediate need of food through an act of charity/social service, and (b) it eliminates the unemployment problem that created and perpetuated the need, therefore creating social justice.

What needs to be pointed out in the example above is that the person providing assistance is doing so by his/her own choice. It is not mandated or forced. It is not provided by the government or even the church. The actions taken to solve a problem were performed via the free will of an individual. This is how religious social justice differs from political social justice.

There are many different principles within the religious practice of “social justice.” Among them:

• Human Dignity: each member of the human family is equal in dignity and has equal rights because we are all children of the one God.
• Solidarity: working for change so that everyone will be able to reach their potential
• The Common Good: social conditions that make it possible for each social group and all of their individual members to achieve their potential.
• Participation: Because of intelligence and free will, people have both a right and a duty to participate in those decisions that most directly affect them. They are actively to shape their own destiny rather than simply accept the decisions of others.
• Distributism: social and economic structures should promote wide ownership of corporations and is the basis for anti-trust laws and economic cooperatives.

In my opinion, the principles above are sound, just and worthy of promoting. They clearly state that individuals are freely responsible for shaping their own futures. Now let’s rephrase the list for clarity:

• Human Dignity: each member of the human family is equal in dignity and has equal rights… Not equal results. Equal rights. Does “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” ring a bell?
• Solidarity: …everyone will be able to reach their potential. Not given. Not handed out. Enabling people to reach, as in work for.
• The Common Good: social conditions that make it possible for each social group and all of their individual members to achieve their potential. Enabling people to achieve, as in work for.
• Participation: people are actively to shape their own destiny rather than simply accept the decisions of others. Accountability for ones own actions. Using your brain instead of listening to others that tell you its not your fault.
• Distributism: social and economic structures should promote wide ownership of corporations… Promote, not mandate. There is a a huge difference.

Barack Obama and his team of radical liberals wants to mandate the redistribution of wealth through excessive taxation on the wealthy and on corporations. He openly supports the Copenhagen Treaty and various amendments that are nothing more than the direct political and financial attack on wealthy nations by less developed ones. He has surrounded himself with powerful appointees willing to express and act upon the most liberal of policies on behalf of the president. And they have commandeered the term “social justice” and are spreading it around with the same vigor as “hope and change” were during the election. Sadly they have been very successful, so much so that churches and many Americans are confused about the concept. So let me help bring clarity to the subject.

Pope Pius XI wrote in 1891 “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.” (Quadragesimo Anno, p79)

THIS is the difference between religious social justice and political social justice. Conservatives think people should work for their supper while Liberals think they have a right to supper. Conservatives think that government programs to help those in need are useful but should be temporary. Liberals think that these programs are a right and should be extended indefinitely because aftert all, it’s not the victim’s fault they are unemployed or unskilled or living in a bad neighborhood.

Now back to Glenn Beck. He said:

“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!”

I disagree with Beck’s statement 100%. It is my firm belief that we need to educate our religious leaders to the differences between the two forms of social justice and request that they clarify their positions during church.

I plan on emailing our priest a link to this article as well as a sincere request for public clarification. In fact, I emailed father the first time the term appeared in a sermon and he responded with the explanation that “I don’t have the time to research and understand the many issues our political leaders deal with.” Given the schedule and day-to-day activities of a priest, this is certainly understandable. Therefore I consider it my civic and religious duty to serve my community by offering clarity.

I love Glenn Beck. He is a rare voice of dissension and counterpoint in a country full of kool-aid drinking talking heads, liberal media entities and willfully ignorant voters. But allow me to offer a current analogy. Are we asking people to leave the Republican Party because they have done or said stupid things? No. Do we recommend the formation of a third party that actually practices and legislates conservative behavior? No. Smart conservatives are trying to reclaim the party. Smart believers should try to reclaim their churches. I’m just sayin’.