Catholics: Church should focus more on social justice

[dbackjon]

Most U.S. Catholics believe the church should focus more on social justice and the obligation to support the poor, even if it means focusing less on issues like abortion, according to a new poll released Monday by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute.

The 2012 American Values Survey finding on Catholics goes against the focus of many U.S. Catholic bishops, who have been stressing the church's ban on abortion and artificial contraception in public policy statements. The poll found that 60 percent of Catholics believe in a greater focus on social justice issues rather than abortion, while 31 percent say the opposite.

http://news.yahoo.com/catholics-want-mo ... 26695.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

But Catholics are monsters.

[D1B]

But Catholics are monsters.

Pay attention: your leaders are monsters, you are sheep/enablers/victims of a cult

[Chizzang]

But Catholics are monsters.

Pay attention: your leaders are monsters, you are sheep/enablers/victims of a cult

[89Hen]

But Catholics are monsters.

Pay attention: your leaders are monsters, you are sheep/enablers/victims of a cult

Can I get some sort of government subsidy then?

[Cap'n Cat]

But Catholics are monsters.

Pay attention: your leaders are monsters, you are sheep/enablers/victims of a cult

Bolded is funniest part!

[GannonFan]

Pay attention: your leaders are monsters, you are sheep/enablers/victims of a cult

Bolded is funniest part!

Nope, I have to call a violation. Come on Cappy, D's had a lot of funny posts before, but nothing in that one, especially the bolded part, was particularly humorous. I think you're just handing him a bone now cause he's family. You're lowering the bar too low now because you're getting sentimental. For shame.

[89Hen]

Bolded is funniest part!

Nope, I have to call a violation. Come on Cappy, D's had a lot of funny posts before, but nothing in that one, especially the bolded part, was particularly humorous. I think you're just handing him a bone now cause he's family. You're lowering the bar too low now because you're getting sentimental. For shame.

Now THAT's the funniest part.

[CAA Flagship]

Nope, I have to call a violation. Come on Cappy, D's had a lot of funny posts before, but nothing in that one, especially the bolded part, was particularly humorous. I think you're just handing him a bone now cause he's family. You're lowering the bar too low now because you're getting sentimental. For shame.

Now THAT's the funniest part.

No. THAT's the funniest part.

[JohnStOnge]

Another indication of the tendency by many to distort what the Jesus of the Bible said. He never said anything at all about forceing OTHER PEOPLE to help others. He said YOU help others. You. You personally. Not you voting for a government that will make SOMEBODY ELSE do it. And that's what most of these "social justice" people do. Yeah. Vote to make somebody else do it then you can REALLY feel good about yourself. Like you really did something.

The whole "social justice" terminology is somewhat of lie anyway. There's nothing inherently unjust about one person being rich because he was successful and another being poor because he was unsuccessful. Nor is there anything inherently unjust about a succesful person passing on what they gained to their descendants. Sure, there are plenty of scenarios in which one can envision injustice associated with such things. But the mere fact that some have and some have not is not inherently unjust.

[Chizzang]

Another indication of the tendency by many to distort what the Jesus of the Bible said. He never said anything at all about forceing OTHER PEOPLE to help others. He said YOU help others. You. You personally. Not you voting for a government that will make SOMEBODY ELSE do it. And that's what most of these "social justice" people do. Yeah. Vote to make somebody else do it then you can REALLY feel good about yourself. Like you really did something.

The whole "social justice" terminology is somewhat of lie anyway. There's nothing inherently unjust about one person being rich because he was successful and another being poor because he was unsuccessful. Nor is there anything inherently unjust about a succesful person passing on what they gained to their descendants. Sure, there are plenty of scenarios in which one can envision injustice associated with such things. But the mere fact that some have and some have not is not inherently unjust.

Thank you captain obvious...
I believe the concern is not that "some have been successful and some have not" so that somehow means injustice has occurred - what most people fight for - is a level playing field regardless of wealth or power

The most common injustice would be something like this:
We have a country run by lawyers - who have created a system that requires lawyers...
To defend or protect yourself or get anything done professionally you're forced to use lawyers
The National playing field has been slanted away from common sense and away from self evident obvious problem solving to an overly elaborate system of legalese and jargon so convoluted and nonsensical that it REQUIRES a lawyer to perform what should be common sense activities

To be poor in this environment is your biggest disadvantage
However, were common sense still being used at all
Were common sense and self evident / most obvious truth still applicable being poor would not be a disadvantage...

Lawyers piled on top of Lawyers deciphering mountains of legalese nonsense is where we are
The playing field favors the wealthy - ten lawyers can always bury one state appointed guy (every time)

This is just an example
There are lots of similar examples where it's about "the playing field" not who's been successful

[D1B]

Another indication of the tendency by many to distort what the Jesus of the Bible said. He never said anything at all about forceing OTHER PEOPLE to help others. He said YOU help others. You. You personally. Not you voting for a government that will make SOMEBODY ELSE do it. And that's what most of these "social justice" people do. Yeah. Vote to make somebody else do it then you can REALLY feel good about yourself. Like you really did something.

The whole "social justice" terminology is somewhat of lie anyway. There's nothing inherently unjust about one person being rich because he was successful and another being poor because he was unsuccessful. Nor is there anything inherently unjust about a succesful person passing on what they gained to their descendants. Sure, there are plenty of scenarios in which one can envision injustice associated with such things. But the mere fact that some have and some have not is not inherently unjust.

Thank you captain obvious...
I believe the concern is not that "some have been successful and some have not" so that somehow means injustice has occurred - what most people fight for - is a level playing field regardless of wealth or power

The most common injustice would be something like this:
We have a country run by lawyers - who have created a system that requires lawyers...
To defend or protect yourself or get anything done professionally you're forced to use lawyers
The National playing field has been slanted away from common sense and away from self evident obvious problem solving to an overly elaborate system of legalese and jargon so convoluted and nonsensical that it REQUIRES a lawyer to perform what should be common sense activities

To be poor in this environment is your biggest disadvantage
However, were common sense still being used at all
Were common sense and self evident / most obvious truth still applicable being poor would not be a disadvantage...

Lawyers piled on top of Lawyers deciphering mountains of legalese nonsense is where we are
The playing field favors the wealthy - ten lawyers can always bury one state appointed guy (every time)

This is just an example
There are lots of similar examples where it's about "the playing field" not who's been successful

[JohnStOnge]

We have a country run by lawyers - who have created a system that requires lawyers...

I actually agree with that statement to a large extent. But go beyond "lawyers" to "The Judiciary."

It's not the whole story though. One person from a middle class family is smart enough and has enough drive to become an MD, for example. He becomes well off.

Another person from a middle class family either isn't very smart or isn't very driven. Or both. He ends up panhandling for quarters outside of convenience stores.

There is no inherent injustice involved. Nothing to do with lawyers either.

Again: There is nothing inherently unjust about some people having and other people having not. And that's where I think the Social Justice people are off. They think that justice and/or fairness means that everyone would have. And it wouldn't.

[psychoCAT]

Even as a practicing Catholic, I have never gotten the church's hard-on against birth control. Abortion, yes! Birth control......how can this be "intrinsically evil" when the church itself endorses and encourages natural family planning i.e. don't f##k when you're ovulating which is itself a form of BIRTH CONTROL. WOW!!!

Too many stuffy Jesuit collars. More and more parishes in South Carolina are being pastored by priests from Nigeria, where they have SEEN what lack of birth control results in, and Franciscan Monks, especially in towns with large college age Catholics and it's a breath of fresh air listening to these perspectives compared to the one 1 priest who told his congregation 4 years that if they did indeed vote for Obama, they've "mortally sinned" and should "stay away from communion."