Social justice can mean a thousand different things to a hundred different people. This type of language seems specifically designed to be subverted by radical ideologies, and sow confusion. The simple term “corporal works of mercy” seems much more precise and less likely to be twisted into something it’s not.
Most people who nowadays claim to fight for social justice would have criticised St. Peter Claver for being a Christian, as that in turn means he ascribes to oppression. They would attack him for evangelising slaves, because that's just eurocentric imperialism destroying beautiful native cultures. They would insult him for lowering himself to help the slaves, because that's just a patronising white man trying to understand the struggles of African peoples. The list goes on and on. Social justice in a modern context isn't related to doing good works anymore - it's just about 'decolonising European power structures.'
I'm not sure what type of "Centric" teaching slaves about the virtues of Christianity after they were just kidnapped and tortured by Christians is, but it is something.
Trevor Warren Slavery was the law of most if not all lands throughout premodern history, even in Native American and East Asian cultures. It took Christians like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolome de lad Casas to set the stage for Britain and the U.S. to abolish slavery. Meanwhile just this week news has broken of an open slave market in Libya.
I watched the video. He offers no clarity on social justice, as has been the way for decades. 100% theoretical and referencing saints that work without socialistic governments. Kant has 2 sentences.
Thank you very much Bishop Barron for this very enlightening lecture especially involving St. Peter Claver, one of our Jesuit saints. I myself was trained in a Jesuit-run seminary for almost 10 years. The other day, I joined an online recollection facilitated by Cardinal Luis Antonio "Chito" Tagle via Zoom for the alumni (ordained and lay) of our local seminary where Cardinal Tagle himself once studied. He focused on Ignatian spirituality and delved into simple lifestyle and serving the poorest of the poor. It's very timely that you mentioned St. Peter Claver's exemplary service to the poor. Thanks again and God bless.
The memory of my introduction to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant coincides with the reduction of my faith life to the grave of boxed and buried influence. This happened at West Point in 1979-80. Why did we study Kant along with the likes of the military theorists-Sun Tzu, Jomini and Clausewitz? Was it purposeful to form a ‘reduced’ yet still moral officer corps? or was it just a logical consequence of radical intellectual exposure without a Catholic counterbalance? Did you ever ponder what Immanuel Kant’s name suggests and his missed calling to be a song to the “God with us?” On Easter morning 1982 I arrived at Frankfurt AFB, West Germany. I knew I “needed” to get to Mass. At around 1 pm I found a church and it was Lutheran. I tepidly walked through the door, attended the service and said to myself…well you did it-you stepped out of the Catholic world. What followed was a light bulb moment…it wasn’t too different from the masses of the past four years…and the rationalized take away, so I guess it really doesn’t matter. Well from then on and for the next 15 years nothing really mattered (spiritually that is). It was the nail in the coffin of the box that was buried. In a way, I took on the spirit of Martin Luther with my own 95 theses. My blog entry today is pondering the term REST MASS in physics/metaphysics. Maybe you could try having a 7 minute repose at your next MASS and see what the Holy Spirit stirs in the hearts of the communicants. Silence is golden. Oh I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve in some small capacity in an unofficial and uncompensated way to assist your ministry. I am a place kicker on the sidelines, a pitcher in the bull pen, a soldier on perpetual reserve. Ready willing and able was our motto in Germany. I was a Cottonbaler by God, back then, in the 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd ID. Levee en masse! Mass matters!
Now is always a good time to help the Holy Spirit bring Christ to the soul. (Yours and mine). Now is when the Soul meets eternity. But the term 'social justice' was not coined until the 20th century. Correct me if im wrong, but the church initially came up with the term to help combat the errors of Communism and Socialism. In fact, Mother Teresa would always say "Im not a social worker." And would be offended to be called so. I think it fair to say that the term -'social justice' has taken on a whole different meaning, and we would do well to try and steer clear of it in the future.
I agree that modernism is part of the problem. But the root of the problem is secular humanism, which is also (believe it or not), the root of modern forms of political thought; like - Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Liberalism. As our Lady warned us at Fatima. "Pray the Rosary, or the errors of Communism will spread throughout the world". But what do you do when certain members of the church herself has help bring the term "Social Justice" to its present state. Answer: Catechesis. It has been the "social justice warriors" in the church that have said that "We don't need to teach the faith anymore, we just need to let the people know that they are loved." Or, "Why not have gay priests in the priesthood, they have to be celibate too." No, what we need are evangelists. People willing to hand the faith that Jesus has taught, unchanged, for two thousand years to the faithful. After all, the Pope can wright a new encyclical explaining why the term has been abandoned, and priests can preach (clearer) homilies on the Churches social teaching. Not Social Justice.
This is brilliant, like most of what you have to say. I have a fallen away Catholic friend who always pronounces his good works, and he does many, as his "going to church". Now I know how to address that comment. Yes, it's beautiful that you do good works. But it's not the end of the story. It's great that you included the worship part even though you didn't expound on it. It's all three phases that matter!
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”
Thank You, bishop Barron. I've often thought to ask you why you don't mention Pope Francis more on your show; he's such a light to the world, and a great shepard. Love your evangelization and podcasts btw, God bless. Hugs from an "Crypto-Catholic" in the moderns sense; on my way to Confirmation.
Bishop Barron, Thank you for the enlightening thoughts! It seems like St. Peter Claver and Blessed Mother Teresa operated out of the same conception of the good (not surprising!). One of Mother Teresa's most passionate critics, Christopher Hitchens, had issue with redemptive suffering. It seems like he associated the good as identical with the pleasant e.g. dying should be painless. Could you then also say that, while the Kantian reduction to ethics is at play, another level at play is the materialistic identification of the good with the pleasant? And, do you have any advice on how to approach a critic, like Hitchens, who is speaking out a materialistic conception of the good?
The Letter of James instructs us that “Faith without works is dead.” In light of Mathew 28: 19, 20, and CCC 1040-1041, you can reverse this as true; Works without Faith is dead.” I often reflect on CCC 677; “... The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.”
Thanks again Bishop! In reading the comments, I find the idea of Catholic libertarianism perplexing. Because secularizing progressives have abused the concept of social justice and community, does that mean a Catholic may say to hell with the poor and marginalized?
True. But catholics have a lot to learn from libertarians in terms of their understanding of capitalism. Today's welfare state is based on the rule of the collective(pagan sacrifice), it is not compatible with Catholicism either. Libertarian concept of man does not account for objectivity and thus they are lost in their own subjective view of the world without the hope of trascending it. But they are right in terms of taxation and state.
Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro points out that before the welfare state families and religious communities had cohesion strong enough to support the poor and marginalized so long as they adhered to basic social tenets. With the deliberate breakdown of family and non-State institutions we see aimless individuals hurting themselves through bad choices and then converging with others who identify as victims of society. They are, in a way, but we must not prop up abusers of kindness.
Steve Vornov Nothing at all wrong and everything right about serving the poor, the disadvantaged. But it goes off the rails quickly when one (or a group) divorces their efforts from God's will either intentionally or by presumption. All ministry must be rooted in Godliness in order to be truly fruitful. Otherwise it is a work of vanity.
Carthago Delenda Est. I've been arguing in this comment section on the importance of resisting the "creeping" of libertarianism and individualism in Catholic thought. In its radical historical forms, it is as you rightly said incompatible. However, I have immense respect for the notions and intelligence of men like Milton Friedman. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" for all countries with regard to the prudential applications of social and economic policies for obvious reasons having to due with the complexity of societies and their different cultures. As much as I put the warning flags up when I see libertarian errors (especially with regards to the nature and duties of the State) I think a libertarian Catholic set of policies can be acceptable. As long as certain anthropological truths are firmly established and others regarding social principles, I have no problem with nations trying to favour systems which are independent from the state and stress the benefits of self-reliance among its people. In fact, I'd like to see far more experimentation with that. Maybe one could call that a Catholic libertarian streak?
"Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labour law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity." Social justice as understood anthropologically today is contrary to sacrifice of Jesus who was defeated by collective.
Well, what happens in real life is that Catholics ignore the commandment about stealing, lobby their congress critter for welfare, put some money in a basket, and then go home to fabulous vacations.
I believe the time of evangelisation may well have come to an end. Didn’t Our Lord Himself say to sister Lucia from Fatima that He wanted us to sanctify ourselves by fulfilling our duties of state and that would be enough for our salvation?
+Greg Eades in Monsignor de Sègur’s own words, those who are in hell are there by their own choice. Nobody ends there accidentally. Meister Eckhart was once asked what burned the most in hell and he said it was the “No” to God, the absolute refusal to love Him in this life. Nobody ends in hell by accident.
I learned of St. Peter Claver from this video. Based on what Bishop Barron puts forth, St. Claver could well be the role model for the Body of Christ during the coming Tribulation.
St. Peter Claver well understood Jesus' response to the devil tempting him to turn stones into bread. Jesus responds that man doesn't live by bread alone. (Luke 4:4) There is a balance of the hunger for truth (evangelization) and a hunger for bread (social justice.)
Im not sure I would characterize his work as social justice work. He was ministering to the needs of enslaved peoples. Social justice would be advocating for their dignity, equality and liberation precisely because of the Catholic theology he was evangelizing. Cheers.
The concern I have is “woke” ism’s version of social justice versus the Catholic church’s version social justice. I would like to see the differences laid out more. Maybe there are similarities?
Ok, no indeed to driving a wedge between evangelization and good works, but you miss the point, or at least Claver's point. Claver's point is that the two are inseparable. Good works *are* the Gospel. Claver writes that he spoke to the slaves "no con lengua, sino con manos y obras". He writes that verbal communication with these mortified human beings was essentially useless. Perhaps a more sympathetic reading of Kant leads to the same place. Anyways, thanks for the talk on this somewhat obscure figure. I have seen his statue in Cartagena, which is quite beautiful, and have always been curious about him.
I don't know to what extent Kant has anything to do with the modern tendency to judge people and their religion by how they care for the poor. I think people, especially young people, are tired of religious hypocrites. As St. James the Lesser wrote, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." I think a lot of Christians are trying to show their faith with their words alone, while their works express contempt for the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the imprisoned, and the foreigner. They say "Lord, Lord," but they don't do the will of the Father. I think it's natural to look at such people and conclude that the name "Christian" is nothing more than a tribal label. I think it's natural to insist that, if "Christian" means more than that, then the works of Christians will show their faith, and not a fundamental alienation from God. Nobody needs Kant to tell them to judge a religion by the fruit it bears.
The problem is reductionism. Sure, faith shows itself through works, but it is not reducible to works. The Kantian move is to say that the content of doctrine is insignificant and that what matters exclusively is our moral behavior. But the Christian Church has always stood against this. We are a stubbornly creedal faith. What we believe matters enormously.
I don't think he's saying it's a false paradigm. He's arguing against a sola fide reductionism. I'm arguing against a Kantian "by works alone" reductionism.
I agree wholeheartedly with the message here, but we need a better rallying cry than “Down with Kantian reductionism!” If the bolsheviks had had a rallying cry like that, the Kerensky government would never have fallen!
At the last Catholic parish I attended, the popular, charismatic priest was transferred to a huge parish in a wealthy suburb, and the sister who handled social justice issues died of a stroke. The replacements for these people were quite old (the new priest was ill during his first month). I havent been to mass there since 2010; nobody ever contacted me to ask why. Who do you think is going to engage in evangelization in the Church? The laity? Good luck with that. It's interesting to prop up two men like Kant and Claver to symbolize rhetorical juxtapositions, but not very effective in solving huge problems.
"Who do you think is going to engage in evangelization in the Church? The laity? " Okay, I'm up to the challenge. :) You will have face Christ at your judgement day. Are you really going to say to the Risen Christ, "Well, the new Priest was stinky and noone called?" Stop waiting for someone to call - find the best parish you can, get to confession and go back. Drive if you have to. If it sucks, (my choices are hardly perfect) offer it up as part of your relationship with Christ. He suffered a hideous death for you, you can swing a less than perfect Mass. Priests in the state of mortal sin can offer valid sacraments - Christ can and will use a broken vessel. You don't have to prop up heretics with money or time - give your parish as much as much as they are actually worth and then give to orthodox organizations. But if nothing else go back. Give back to the Christ that died for your access to Heaven.
"You will have to face Chist at your judgment day" No, I don't believe in that anymore. End of argument. "You don't have to prop up heretics with money or time". Ironically, I actually work about 55 hours a week for a Jewish charity that helps autistic young adults transition into less restrictive housing.
"No, I don't believe in that anymore." Then why are you here? Why are you worried about somebody calling you and stinky Priests? It seems a bit silly to be worrying about Bishop Barron does if you don't believe in Catholicism. Those parishes were never community centers. They were to prepare people for their judgement day. "Ironically, I actually work about 55 hours a week for a Jewish charity that helps autistic young adults transition into less restrictive housing." Great! But why? You're worm chow in a few years and there's nothing after. Seems quite a waste of the only life you'll ever have.
You know what, it's okay. You're trapped right now in believing in only parts of Catholicism, but not the important parts - the parts that count. The issue is not my tone, but that you can't quite get yourself to believe in God, which actually is a quite rational belief. I believed that myself for quite a while. However, it's difficult to face the rather horrid consequences of a universe with no God, so it's so much easier to blame the other person's 'tone' and run away from the parts of Catholicism that deal with what must be the logical consequences of a loving, just Creator (an afterlife with punishments or not). In 100 years from now noone will be visiting my grave or yours, nor care about this conversation. Death is the only monster everyone will have to face. Catholicism offers hope in facing that monster, once you wrestle with the awfulness of what's saying about humans, particularly the person in the mirror. Pax and God Bless.
Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
I wonder if "Liturgy/Care of the Poor/Evangelization" can be thought of as a figure of the Holy Trinity, or as a figure of the King/Priest/Prophet offices of our Lord Jesus. In all cases, "reductionism" is something of a "no-no" (as it can yield modalism in the one figure, or some weird "eutychianism" in the later figure).
"In judging our salvation or definitive damnation, God will not be guided by cultic criteria - when and how we prayed - nor by doctrinal criteria - what truths we believe in. God will be guided by ethical criteria: what we did for others. The eternal destiny of human beings will be measured by how much or how little solidarity we have displayed with the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, and the oppressed. In the end, we will be judged in terms of love." Leonardo Boff.
"He [Jesus] said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:37-40). Love of God and love of neighbor, not knowledge, is the fulfillment of ALL the law and the prophets. God cares about love. Knowledge is grand, but to place your faith in knowledge as the path of salvation is to make the same mistake as the Gnostics.
Social Justice is nothing more Socialism, which is incompatible with Church teachings. We should care for those who are less fortunate through charity. The question is should the state or the "mob" force us to give? Jesus doesn't force anyone to follow him nor does he force his gift of grace on us.
Your Excellency, would you be willing to discuss the traditional social judgement movement of the Catholic faith and the farce of modern social justice in globalization and identity politics? I am a Roman Catholic and do all I can to the destitute and those in dire need. But because I am against full open immigration, anti-homosexual/trans blah blah blah, I am often called NAZI. At what point does traditional social justice conflict with modern identity social justice?
Stay brave. I'm respectful with everyone, but I have the right to express my opinions. Sometimes it helps when people knows you: then they know you don't shame those who claim to be homo/transexual, and you treat inmigrants the same way you do with everyone. Nevertheless, it doesn't always work. Some people are just close-minded. And of course, having to explain eeeeeeeevery time you don't hate anyone is terribly boring.
Your Excellency, we need to retire the term Social Justice from our vocabulary. It has come to refer to a ridiculously effusive concern for the imagined victimhood of others, salved by praying loudly and visibly in the public square to false gods, and appropriating public monies to causes to which the wailers would never contribute a nickel. They tie up heavy burdens for others to bear, but they themselves do not lift a finger. Let's use a different term and a different concept. Social Justice has become a poisonous phrase.
Come on, friend. You're making a fetish out of the phrase. As I think I make pretty clear in the video, I simply mean to indicate the church's social teaching. And I'm showing that that teaching is inherently related to the work of evangelization.
Bishop Robert Barron, I got the message you were sending, but please understand that the term does not belong to the Church, and its modern meaning derives from post-modernism and evolved Marxism. The Church can never make common cause with those nihilistic ideologies, and the use of the term establishes a sympathetic association. The Church knows plenty about justice and care of the poor from its own history and experience. It does itself no favours by adopting this fake plastic substitute.
Greg Eades, I think so too, which is why I'm not suggesting we should. But let's keep in mind that the Church doesn't operate in vacuum; it is just as susceptible to corrupting influence as any institution. My point is that there is another ideology out there, also called Social Justice, which is the polar opposite of what the Church means when it thinks of social justice. We do ourselves and our mission no service by conflating the two, and we are not so starved for monikers that we need to adopt that specific one. The two ideas must stand distinct, precisely because of the Church's distinct teaching. Jordan Peterson, in his excellent Biblical lectures has demonstrated that the popular concept of Social Justice is a hollow shell, and he is doing that with the very audience the Church is not reaching. If you scan the comment section of those lectures you don't find the usual cesspool; you find many many people waking up and rejecting the secular ideology that pulled them away from the Church. The key to that phenomenon, almost unheard of in modern times, has been to speak loudly and critically. This is not the time for the Church to continue to demure and avoid conflict, but rather to distinguish its teaching and to attract to Christ those who have woken up from their secular trance. I'm only suggesting to Bishop Barron that adopting the name Social Justice serves the opposite purpose: it doesn't mean 'social justice' in the way we understand it.
Greg Eades, your initial comment decried the use of the left-right divide, but now you've deleted that and come out with a pretty leftie comment yourself. Most of what you say now is pretty standard left wing rhetoric, but I hadn't seen before the requirement that people have to have money in order to know God. Look, I'm not a hard-line Capitalist and Pope Francis is hinting in the comments you quote at a kind of Distributism, which is the very opposite of Bezos' centralized behemoth. But you must never forget that Socialism is a god-less religion in both its ideals and it's every implementation. It is the very greatest threat the Church faces today. It does not place the person at the center, it places the State at the center. We can momentarily confuse wealth redistribution with charity and convince ourselves that Socialism is an ally, but in the end God has no role in Socialist ideology. It is, at base, godless. The Church has much more valuable teaching to offer. After 150 years of trying to cozy up to Socialism the only thing the Church has to show for it is empty pews.
handsome boss all day Means if you activate the 'notification' button on the right side of 'subscribe' button, you will get notified when a channel uploads a new video. So a notification squad is basically the people who did that and got notified and, you know, simply get excited, like a fan club. 😄
I haha the phrase social justice. It’s ambiguous, useless, and often times, masked to mean socialism (very common here in DC). I prefer simply justice (all justice is social).
With all due respect, I don’t understand what you mean by social justice. Social justice as I understand it is a political construct. It’s not about helping the poor it’s about destroying tradition and leveling and diminishing the well off. It surprises me that you use that term.
I imagine the slave owners would have the power to decide whether to let St Peter Claver near the slaves. And I assume it was so the slaves could be fed and made well to work and be made into Uncle Toms. Also on the subject of social justice. Ronald McDonald helps sick kids and does other social justice work but Ronald does not get much credit cause people just think he is trying to sell more burgers. But when holy people do social justice work they get told how wonderful they are and people donate money to them and they forget that the money the holy people use came out their pocket in the first place.
Greg Eades... The current view on slavery does not mean that is what the holy leaders of the time thought. They may have believed it was just as acceptable as to have a horse to pull a plough. And they may have told the slaves how to be good slaves and respect their masters. The Magdalene laundries are closer to our time and it can be seen that there were imprisoned slaves to work in the laundries. And I have no doubt that a lot of the nuns believed they were carrying out God's work and doing the right thing.
I weren't talking about the bible slavery. I was referring to the seventeenth century slavery as said by Bishop Barron and the Magdalene slavery that continued even after the 1960s
Just because the church leaders publicly state something is against God's will doesn't mean the priests and others are not doing it behind people's backs and covering it up. The church said that child abuse was against God's will, but it is established that it was going on and getting covered up. In relation to the Magdalene laundry slavery. There are a lot of documentaries on that subject on youtube. One of the main foundations the church is built on is the crucifixion story of how Jesus came to earth to take the rap for the wrongdoings of mankind. But there are Sisters of Mercy nuns who will not even take the rap for what they do. They'd rather sneak around the back and put in a false report about me and get me to take the rap. If people wish to read about that google white lies test blog and google innuendo test blog
In relation to your comment about a few bad apples in the church. I understand that the bad apples are individuals. But when the church leaders do a cover up, attack the victim and allow the bad apple to continue, then that makes it the church that is at fault. And I acknowledge that St Claver may have been sincere, seen that the whole issue was too big to fight and done the best he could in that situation.
IMHO SJ does not equate to charity. Charity is what he is describing, but social justice is a forced equality regardless of charity or merit- a coerced charity of sorts. I abhor social justice, but I love charity.
Kelley Cutler he was doing both. Not all social justice need be exercised by the state...actually, up until things got totally messed up, most social justice was done by local level groups, like Churches.
Since Social Justice was in the title I was hoping he would speak about it more... because people confuse it with charity. I’m sure he was doing social justice, but it wasn’t really identified in this video. Here is the Catholic social teaching of the difference between social justice and charity. Catholic disciples on mission are called to put Two Feet of Love in Action! This foundational tool describes two distinct, but complementary, ways we can put the Gospel in action in response to God's love: social justice (addressing systemic, root causes of problems that affect many people) and charitable works (short-term, emergency assistance for individuals). Social Justice "concerns the social, political, and economic aspects and, above all, the structural dimension of problems and their respective solutions" (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 201). We step with this foot when we work to address the root causes of problems facing our communities by advocating for just public policies and helping to change the social structures that contribute to suffering and injustice at home and around the world. Charitable Works are our "response to immediate needs and specific situations: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for and healing the sick, visiting those in prison, etc." (Deus Caritas Est, no. 31). We step with the Charitable Works foot when we work to aid or assist others both locally and globally to meet their immediate, short-term needs. Examples include engaging in direct service or providing food, clothing, shelter, or monetary assistance to help those in need.
Thank you Fr. Barron for reminding everybody, "Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4"
Social justice can mean a thousand different things to a hundred different people. This type of language seems specifically designed to be subverted by radical ideologies, and sow confusion. The simple term “corporal works of mercy” seems much more precise and less likely to be twisted into something it’s not.
Bishop Robert Barron talks. I listen.
Most people who nowadays claim to fight for social justice would have criticised St. Peter Claver for being a Christian, as that in turn means he ascribes to oppression. They would attack him for evangelising slaves, because that's just eurocentric imperialism destroying beautiful native cultures. They would insult him for lowering himself to help the slaves, because that's just a patronising white man trying to understand the struggles of African peoples. The list goes on and on. Social justice in a modern context isn't related to doing good works anymore - it's just about 'decolonising European power structures.'
So sad... People today just gone crazy. Social justice is not some kind of ideological paranoia! Or should not be.
Reading this opinion for me is refreshing. Like a breath of fresh air. Thank you Daniel. Muchas gracias
I'm not sure what type of "Centric" teaching slaves about the virtues of Christianity after they were just kidnapped and tortured by Christians is, but it is something.
Trevor Warren Slavery was the law of most if not all lands throughout premodern history, even in Native American and East Asian cultures. It took Christians like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolome de lad Casas to set the stage for Britain and the U.S. to abolish slavery. Meanwhile just this week news has broken of an open slave market in Libya.
The ones that "kidnapped and tortured" are not canonized saints.
I don't think people are actually watching the video and just commenting on the words social justice.
I watched the video. He offers no clarity on social justice, as has been the way for decades. 100% theoretical and referencing saints that work without socialistic governments. Kant has 2 sentences.
Praise the Lord
Well said! As Christians, we do good because of our love for Jesus.
Thank you very much Bishop Barron for this very enlightening lecture especially involving St. Peter Claver, one of our Jesuit saints. I myself was trained in a Jesuit-run seminary for almost 10 years. The other day, I joined an online recollection facilitated by Cardinal Luis Antonio "Chito" Tagle via Zoom for the alumni (ordained and lay) of our local seminary where Cardinal Tagle himself once studied. He focused on Ignatian spirituality and delved into simple lifestyle and serving the poorest of the poor. It's very timely that you mentioned St. Peter Claver's exemplary service to the poor. Thanks again and God bless.
As a Catholic, I am not pro social justice. I am pro justice.
xxFairestxx Right! If you add a qualifier to a noun you change its meaning fundamentally! Social justice results in mob mentality.
In this day and age, it means it's okay to fight for the biggest socialist package you can possibly make.
It is Marxist.
The memory of my introduction to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant coincides with the reduction of my faith life to the grave of boxed and buried influence. This happened at West Point in 1979-80. Why did we study Kant along with the likes of the military theorists-Sun Tzu, Jomini and Clausewitz? Was it purposeful to form a ‘reduced’ yet still moral officer corps? or was it just a logical consequence of radical intellectual exposure without a Catholic counterbalance?
Did you ever ponder what Immanuel Kant’s name suggests and his missed calling to be a song to the “God with us?”
On Easter morning 1982 I arrived at Frankfurt AFB, West Germany. I knew I “needed” to get to Mass. At around 1 pm I found a church and it was Lutheran. I tepidly walked through the door, attended the service and said to myself…well you did it-you stepped out of the Catholic world. What followed was a light bulb moment…it wasn’t too different from the masses of the past four years…and the rationalized take away, so I guess it really doesn’t matter.
Well from then on and for the next 15 years nothing really mattered (spiritually that is). It was the nail in the coffin of the box that was buried. In a way, I took on the spirit of Martin Luther with my own 95 theses.
My blog entry today is pondering the term REST MASS in physics/metaphysics.
Maybe you could try having a 7 minute repose at your next MASS and see what the Holy Spirit stirs in the hearts of the communicants. Silence is golden.
Oh I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve in some small capacity in an unofficial and uncompensated way to assist your ministry.
I am a place kicker on the sidelines, a pitcher in the bull pen, a soldier on perpetual reserve. Ready willing and able was our motto in Germany. I was a Cottonbaler by God, back then, in the 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd ID.
Levee en masse!
Mass matters!
This was very much needed! Thank you for linking these two vital aspects of our faith.
Now is always a good time to help the Holy Spirit bring Christ to the soul. (Yours and mine). Now is when the Soul meets eternity. But the term 'social justice' was not coined until the 20th century. Correct me if im wrong, but the church initially came up with the term to help combat the errors of Communism and Socialism. In fact, Mother Teresa would always say "Im not a social worker." And would be offended to be called so. I think it fair to say that the term -'social justice' has taken on a whole different meaning, and we would do well to try and steer clear of it in the future.
I agree that modernism is part of the problem. But the root of the problem is secular humanism, which is also (believe it or not), the root of modern forms of political thought; like - Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Liberalism. As our Lady warned us at Fatima. "Pray the Rosary, or the errors of Communism will spread throughout the world". But what do you do when certain members of the church herself has help bring the term "Social Justice" to its present state. Answer: Catechesis. It has been the "social justice warriors" in the church that have said that "We don't need to teach the faith anymore, we just need to let the people know that they are loved." Or, "Why not have gay priests in the priesthood, they have to be celibate too." No, what we need are evangelists. People willing to hand the faith that Jesus has taught, unchanged, for two thousand years to the faithful. After all, the Pope can wright a new encyclical explaining why the term has been abandoned, and priests can preach (clearer) homilies on the Churches social teaching. Not Social Justice.
This is brilliant, like most of what you have to say. I have a fallen away Catholic friend who always pronounces his good works, and he does many, as his "going to church". Now I know how to address that comment. Yes, it's beautiful that you do good works. But it's not the end of the story. It's great that you included the worship part even though you didn't expound on it. It's all three phases that matter!
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”
Thank You, bishop Barron. I've often thought to ask you why you don't mention Pope Francis more on your show; he's such a light to the world, and a great shepard. Love your evangelization and podcasts btw, God bless. Hugs from an "Crypto-Catholic" in the moderns sense; on my way to Confirmation.
Very good. Thank you.
Amen Your Excellency
I am not catholic but love his video's!
Hans Vriend The door is always open my friend, God bless
Danballs i know. I actually am a christian. Just not catholic.
Bishop Barron seems like their is some confusion between Social Justice and the basic Corporal Works of Mercy in the comments.
Bishop Barron,
Thank you for the enlightening thoughts! It seems like St. Peter Claver and Blessed Mother Teresa operated out of the same conception of the good (not surprising!). One of Mother Teresa's most passionate critics, Christopher Hitchens, had issue with redemptive suffering. It seems like he associated the good as identical with the pleasant e.g. dying should be painless. Could you then also say that, while the Kantian reduction to ethics is at play, another level at play is the materialistic identification of the good with the pleasant? And, do you have any advice on how to approach a critic, like Hitchens, who is speaking out a materialistic conception of the good?
The Letter of James instructs us that “Faith without works is dead.”
In light of Mathew 28: 19, 20, and CCC 1040-1041, you can reverse this as true; Works without Faith is dead.”
I often reflect on CCC 677; “... The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.”
Could you do a response to Christopher Hitchen's take on Mother Teresa?
would be fascinated to hear that, I've struggled with this
I think the best response would a straight jacket for Christopher Hitchen's.
Josh Ringsell So have I. Still do.
I'm sure everybody who disagrees with you deserves a straight jacket.
filthyswit ...... Here I will let you decide for yourself...... aleteia.org/share-the-light/?EN&EN-2017&NL171201
Why didn't St. Peter Claver try to Evangelize the European slave owners and ship Captains that were perpetuating such a cruel, horrible trade?
Thank you, this was very informative!
Beatitudes
Thanks again Bishop! In reading the comments, I find the idea of Catholic libertarianism perplexing. Because secularizing progressives have abused the concept of social justice and community, does that mean a Catholic may say to hell with the poor and marginalized?
True. But catholics have a lot to learn from libertarians in terms of their understanding of capitalism. Today's welfare state is based on the rule of the collective(pagan sacrifice), it is not compatible with Catholicism either. Libertarian concept of man does not account for objectivity and thus they are lost in their own subjective view of the world without the hope of trascending it. But they are right in terms of taxation and state.
Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro points out that before the welfare state families and religious communities had cohesion strong enough to support the poor and marginalized so long as they adhered to basic social tenets. With the deliberate breakdown of family and non-State institutions we see aimless individuals hurting themselves through bad choices and then converging with others who identify as victims of society. They are, in a way, but we must not prop up abusers of kindness.
Steve Vornov Nothing at all wrong and everything right about serving the poor, the disadvantaged. But it goes off the rails quickly when one (or a group) divorces their efforts from God's will either intentionally or by presumption. All ministry must be rooted in Godliness in order to be truly fruitful. Otherwise it is a work of vanity.
Well, you can't steal in order to help the poor. Any concept of social justice must start there.
Carthago Delenda Est. I've been arguing in this comment section on the importance of resisting the "creeping" of libertarianism and individualism in Catholic thought. In its radical historical forms, it is as you rightly said incompatible.
However, I have immense respect for the notions and intelligence of men like Milton Friedman. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" for all countries with regard to the prudential applications of social and economic policies for obvious reasons having to due with the complexity of societies and their different cultures. As much as I put the warning flags up when I see libertarian errors (especially with regards to the nature and duties of the State) I think a libertarian Catholic set of policies can be acceptable. As long as certain anthropological truths are firmly established and others regarding social principles, I have no problem with nations trying to favour systems which are independent from the state and stress the benefits of self-reliance among its people. In fact, I'd like to see far more experimentation with that.
Maybe one could call that a Catholic libertarian streak?
Social Justice has become Social Revenge.
Wow, you really nailed that. It's retribution and redistribution. And it's not even targeting the proper suspects. How can it even be called justice?
You should collaborate with Jordan Peterson
"Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labour law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity." Social justice as understood anthropologically today is contrary to sacrifice of Jesus who was defeated by collective.
Tajemnice Pieniądza than for explaining this so well. But what do should we do with the term?
It seems like we have to rely on the LOGOS. Spoken truth is probably the best remedy today.
Well, what happens in real life is that Catholics ignore the commandment about stealing, lobby their congress critter for welfare, put some money in a basket, and then go home to fabulous vacations.
Hey @BishopBarron ! What do you think of the new Mary Magdalene trailer? It has got some pretty big stars and a great director!
I believe the time of evangelisation may well have come to an end. Didn’t Our Lord Himself say to sister Lucia from Fatima that He wanted us to sanctify ourselves by fulfilling our duties of state and that would be enough for our salvation?
+Greg Eades in Monsignor de Sègur’s own words, those who are in hell are there by their own choice. Nobody ends there accidentally. Meister Eckhart was once asked what burned the most in hell and he said it was the “No” to God, the absolute refusal to love Him in this life. Nobody ends in hell by accident.
I learned of St. Peter Claver from this video. Based on what Bishop Barron puts forth, St. Claver could well be the role model for the Body of Christ during the coming Tribulation.
St. Peter Claver well understood Jesus' response to the devil tempting him to turn stones into bread. Jesus responds that man doesn't live by bread alone. (Luke 4:4) There is a balance of the hunger for truth (evangelization) and a hunger for bread (social justice.)
Im not sure I would characterize his work as social justice work. He was ministering to the needs of enslaved peoples. Social justice would be advocating for their dignity, equality and liberation precisely because of the Catholic theology he was evangelizing. Cheers.
The concern I have is “woke” ism’s version of social justice versus the Catholic church’s version social justice. I would like to see the differences laid out more. Maybe there are similarities?
Ok, no indeed to driving a wedge between evangelization and good works, but you miss the point, or at least Claver's point. Claver's point is that the two are inseparable. Good works *are* the Gospel. Claver writes that he spoke to the slaves "no con lengua, sino con manos y obras". He writes that verbal communication with these mortified human beings was essentially useless. Perhaps a more sympathetic reading of Kant leads to the same place. Anyways, thanks for the talk on this somewhat obscure figure. I have seen his statue in Cartagena, which is quite beautiful, and have always been curious about him.
Por favor, podría subir este video traducido al castellano? Muchas gracias!
It all comes down to the literature
I don't know to what extent Kant has anything to do with the modern tendency to judge people and their religion by how they care for the poor. I think people, especially young people, are tired of religious hypocrites.
As St. James the Lesser wrote, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." I think a lot of Christians are trying to show their faith with their words alone, while their works express contempt for the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the imprisoned, and the foreigner. They say "Lord, Lord," but they don't do the will of the Father.
I think it's natural to look at such people and conclude that the name "Christian" is nothing more than a tribal label. I think it's natural to insist that, if "Christian" means more than that, then the works of Christians will show their faith, and not a fundamental alienation from God. Nobody needs Kant to tell them to judge a religion by the fruit it bears.
The problem is reductionism. Sure, faith shows itself through works, but it is not reducible to works. The Kantian move is to say that the content of doctrine is insignificant and that what matters exclusively is our moral behavior. But the Christian Church has always stood against this. We are a stubbornly creedal faith. What we believe matters enormously.
I don't think he's saying it's a false paradigm. He's arguing against a sola fide reductionism. I'm arguing against a Kantian "by works alone" reductionism.
I agree wholeheartedly with the message here, but we need a better rallying cry than “Down with Kantian reductionism!” If the bolsheviks had had a rallying cry like that, the Kerensky government would never have fallen!
enjoyed it
At the last Catholic parish I attended, the popular, charismatic priest was transferred to a huge parish in a wealthy suburb, and the sister who handled social justice issues died of a stroke. The replacements for these people were quite old (the new priest was ill during his first month). I havent been to mass there since 2010; nobody ever contacted me to ask why. Who do you think is going to engage in evangelization in the Church? The laity? Good luck with that. It's interesting to prop up two men like Kant and Claver to symbolize rhetorical juxtapositions, but not very effective in solving huge problems.
"Who do you think is going to engage in evangelization in the Church? The laity? "
Okay, I'm up to the challenge. :)
You will have face Christ at your judgement day. Are you really going to say to the Risen Christ, "Well, the new Priest was stinky and noone called?" Stop waiting for someone to call - find the best parish you can, get to confession and go back. Drive if you have to. If it sucks, (my choices are hardly perfect) offer it up as part of your relationship with Christ. He suffered a hideous death for you, you can swing a less than perfect Mass. Priests in the state of mortal sin can offer valid sacraments - Christ can and will use a broken vessel.
You don't have to prop up heretics with money or time - give your parish as much as much as they are actually worth and then give to orthodox organizations. But if nothing else go back. Give back to the Christ that died for your access to Heaven.
"You will have to face Chist at your judgment day" No, I don't believe in that anymore. End of argument.
"You don't have to prop up heretics with money or time". Ironically, I actually work about 55 hours a week for a Jewish charity that helps autistic young adults transition into less restrictive housing.
"No, I don't believe in that anymore."
Then why are you here? Why are you worried about somebody calling you and stinky Priests? It seems a bit silly to be worrying about Bishop Barron does if you don't believe in Catholicism. Those parishes were never community centers. They were to prepare people for their judgement day.
"Ironically, I actually work about 55 hours a week for a Jewish charity that helps autistic young adults transition into less restrictive housing."
Great! But why? You're worm chow in a few years and there's nothing after. Seems quite a waste of the only life you'll ever have.
You have the same testy, condescending tone as almost all the devout Christians I've known. You're right, I'm going to unsubscribe this channel.
You know what, it's okay. You're trapped right now in believing in only parts of Catholicism, but not the important parts - the parts that count. The issue is not my tone, but that you can't quite get yourself to believe in God, which actually is a quite rational belief. I believed that myself for quite a while.
However, it's difficult to face the rather horrid consequences of a universe with no God, so it's so much easier to blame the other person's 'tone' and run away from the parts of Catholicism that deal with what must be the logical consequences of a loving, just Creator (an afterlife with punishments or not).
In 100 years from now noone will be visiting my grave or yours, nor care about this conversation. Death is the only monster everyone will have to face. Catholicism offers hope in facing that monster, once you wrestle with the awfulness of what's saying about humans, particularly the person in the mirror. Pax and God Bless.
Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
I wonder if "Liturgy/Care of the Poor/Evangelization" can be thought of as a figure of the Holy Trinity, or as a figure of the King/Priest/Prophet offices of our Lord Jesus. In all cases, "reductionism" is something of a "no-no" (as it can yield modalism in the one figure, or some weird "eutychianism" in the later figure).
wasnt there a major language barrier???
"In judging our salvation or definitive damnation, God will not be guided by cultic criteria - when and how we prayed - nor by doctrinal criteria - what truths we believe in. God will be guided by ethical criteria: what we did for others. The eternal destiny of human beings will be measured by how much or how little solidarity we have displayed with the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, and the oppressed. In the end, we will be judged in terms of love."
Leonardo Boff.
"He [Jesus] said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:37-40). Love of God and love of neighbor, not knowledge, is the fulfillment of ALL the law and the prophets. God cares about love. Knowledge is grand, but to place your faith in knowledge as the path of salvation is to make the same mistake as the Gnostics.
Social Justice is nothing more Socialism, which is incompatible with Church teachings. We should care for those who are less fortunate through charity. The question is should the state or the "mob" force us to give? Jesus doesn't force anyone to follow him nor does he force his gift of grace on us.
Your Excellency, would you be willing to discuss the traditional social judgement movement of the Catholic faith and the farce of modern social justice in globalization and identity politics? I am a Roman Catholic and do all I can to the destitute and those in dire need. But because I am against full open immigration, anti-homosexual/trans blah blah blah, I am often called NAZI. At what point does traditional social justice conflict with modern identity social justice?
Stay brave. I'm respectful with everyone, but I have the right to express my opinions. Sometimes it helps when people knows you: then they know you don't shame those who claim to be homo/transexual, and you treat inmigrants the same way you do with everyone. Nevertheless, it doesn't always work. Some people are just close-minded. And of course, having to explain eeeeeeeevery time you don't hate anyone is terribly boring.
The explanation often doesn't work, either.
I am a Jesuit
The difference is that in modern senses of social justice, the evangelist preaches the gospel of Marx.
Your Excellency, we need to retire the term Social Justice from our vocabulary. It has come to refer to a ridiculously effusive concern for the imagined victimhood of others, salved by praying loudly and visibly in the public square to false gods, and appropriating public monies to causes to which the wailers would never contribute a nickel. They tie up heavy burdens for others to bear, but they themselves do not lift a finger. Let's use a different term and a different concept. Social Justice has become a poisonous phrase.
Come on, friend. You're making a fetish out of the phrase. As I think I make pretty clear in the video, I simply mean to indicate the church's social teaching. And I'm showing that that teaching is inherently related to the work of evangelization.
Bishop Robert Barron, I got the message you were sending, but please understand that the term does not belong to the Church, and its modern meaning derives from post-modernism and evolved Marxism. The Church can never make common cause with those nihilistic ideologies, and the use of the term establishes a sympathetic association. The Church knows plenty about justice and care of the poor from its own history and experience. It does itself no favours by adopting this fake plastic substitute.
With apologies, I don't mean to be combative, but this is a very serious concern of mine.
Greg Eades, I think so too, which is why I'm not suggesting we should. But let's keep in mind that the Church doesn't operate in vacuum; it is just as susceptible to corrupting influence as any institution. My point is that there is another ideology out there, also called Social Justice, which is the polar opposite of what the Church means when it thinks of social justice. We do ourselves and our mission no service by conflating the two, and we are not so starved for monikers that we need to adopt that specific one. The two ideas must stand distinct, precisely because of the Church's distinct teaching. Jordan Peterson, in his excellent Biblical lectures has demonstrated that the popular concept of Social Justice is a hollow shell, and he is doing that with the very audience the Church is not reaching. If you scan the comment section of those lectures you don't find the usual cesspool; you find many many people waking up and rejecting the secular ideology that pulled them away from the Church. The key to that phenomenon, almost unheard of in modern times, has been to speak loudly and critically. This is not the time for the Church to continue to demure and avoid conflict, but rather to distinguish its teaching and to attract to Christ those who have woken up from their secular trance. I'm only suggesting to Bishop Barron that adopting the name Social Justice serves the opposite purpose: it doesn't mean 'social justice' in the way we understand it.
Greg Eades, your initial comment decried the use of the left-right divide, but now you've deleted that and come out with a pretty leftie comment yourself. Most of what you say now is pretty standard left wing rhetoric, but I hadn't seen before the requirement that people have to have money in order to know God. Look, I'm not a hard-line Capitalist and Pope Francis is hinting in the comments you quote at a kind of Distributism, which is the very opposite of Bezos' centralized behemoth. But you must never forget that Socialism is a god-less religion in both its ideals and it's every implementation. It is the very greatest threat the Church faces today. It does not place the person at the center, it places the State at the center. We can momentarily confuse wealth redistribution with charity and convince ourselves that Socialism is an ally, but in the end God has no role in Socialist ideology. It is, at base, godless. The Church has much more valuable teaching to offer. After 150 years of trying to cozy up to Socialism the only thing the Church has to show for it is empty pews.
NOTIFICATION SQUAAAAD!
ASSEMBLE!!!
Cook Daddy YAAAAASSSSSS
I never understood whats the meaning of ntification squad. Could someone please spell it out for me?
handsome boss all day Means if you activate the 'notification' button on the right side of 'subscribe' button, you will get notified when a channel uploads a new video. So a notification squad is basically the people who did that and got notified and, you know, simply get excited, like a fan club. 😄
y'all weird
I haha the phrase social justice. It’s ambiguous, useless, and often times, masked to mean socialism (very common here in DC). I prefer simply justice (all justice is social).
With all due respect, I don’t understand what you mean by social justice. Social justice as I understand it is a political construct. It’s not about helping the poor it’s about destroying tradition and leveling and diminishing the well off. It surprises me that you use that term.
I imagine the slave owners would have the power to decide whether to let St Peter Claver near the slaves. And I assume it was so the slaves could be fed and made well to work and be made into Uncle Toms.
Also on the subject of social justice. Ronald McDonald helps sick kids and does other social justice work but Ronald does not get much credit cause people just think he is trying to sell more burgers.
But when holy people do social justice work they get told how wonderful they are and people donate money to them and they forget that the money the holy people use came out their pocket in the first place.
Greg Eades... The current view on slavery does not mean that is what the holy leaders of the time thought. They may have believed it was just as acceptable as to have a horse to pull a plough. And they may have told the slaves how to be good slaves and respect their masters.
The Magdalene laundries are closer to our time and it can be seen that there were imprisoned slaves to work in the laundries. And I have no doubt that a lot of the nuns believed they were carrying out God's work and doing the right thing.
I weren't talking about the bible slavery. I was referring to the seventeenth century slavery as said by Bishop Barron and the Magdalene slavery that continued even after the 1960s
Just because the church leaders publicly state something is against God's will doesn't mean the priests and others are not doing it behind people's backs and covering it up. The church said that child abuse was against God's will, but it is established that it was going on and getting covered up.
In relation to the Magdalene laundry slavery. There are a lot of documentaries on that subject on youtube.
One of the main foundations the church is built on is the crucifixion story of how Jesus came to earth to take the rap for the wrongdoings of mankind. But there are Sisters of Mercy nuns who will not even take the rap for what they do. They'd rather sneak around the back and put in a false report about me and get me to take the rap. If people wish to read about that google white lies test blog and google innuendo test blog
In relation to your comment about a few bad apples in the church. I understand that the bad apples are individuals. But when the church leaders do a cover up, attack the victim and allow the bad apple to continue, then that makes it the church that is at fault.
And I acknowledge that St Claver may have been sincere, seen that the whole issue was too big to fight and done the best he could in that situation.
Slavery in the bible?
I really think it's time to retire the tainted "social justice" phrase
Agreed. Its so-called "Justice" is revenge by another name.
What are your thoughts on Catholic scholars and clergy claiming Pope Francis is spreading heresy?
IMHO SJ does not equate to charity. Charity is what he is describing, but social justice is a forced equality regardless of charity or merit- a coerced charity of sorts. I abhor social justice, but I love charity.
The examples you gave are charity, not social justice.
He didn't steal from others though, using the force of government.
Kelley Cutler he was doing both. Not all social justice need be exercised by the state...actually, up until things got totally messed up, most social justice was done by local level groups, like Churches.
Since Social Justice was in the title I was hoping he would speak about it more... because people confuse it with charity. I’m sure he was doing social justice, but it wasn’t really identified in this video. Here is the Catholic social teaching of the difference between social justice and charity.
Catholic disciples on mission are called to put Two Feet of Love in Action! This foundational tool describes two distinct, but complementary, ways we can put the Gospel in action in response to God's love: social justice (addressing systemic, root causes of problems that affect many people) and charitable works (short-term, emergency assistance for individuals).
Social Justice "concerns the social, political, and economic aspects and, above all, the structural dimension of problems and their respective solutions" (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 201). We step with this foot when we work to address the root causes of problems facing our communities by advocating for just public policies and helping to change the social structures that contribute to suffering and injustice at home and around the world.
Charitable Works are our "response to immediate needs and specific situations: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for and healing the sick, visiting those in prison, etc." (Deus Caritas Est, no. 31). We step with the Charitable Works foot when we work to aid or assist others both locally and globally to meet their immediate, short-term needs. Examples include engaging in direct service or providing food, clothing, shelter, or monetary assistance to help those in need.
"I wouldn't evangelize so quickly." Maybe that's why you're not an archbishop yet. jk
I suspect his delay in evangelizing is exactly why he is Bishop. :(
CALM DOWN its a joke. un chiste.
And I am perfectly serious, which makes me a Very Terrible No Good Person for noting the Catholic Church in the West is in a death spiral.