Social Justice Leads Away From God
Frankie boy (or rather, his ghost-tweeter) has made a tweet on social justice. Even some people who call themselves catholic think that he is right in that. They are wrong.
Social justice is a very dangerous construct in itself. In fact, nothing is as likely to lead someone away from God as infatuation with social justice. Unavoidably, these social justice apostles end up thinking that the world is fundamentally wrong. From there to atheism, the step is short.
It is God-given that there be vast differences in prosperity and even opportunities at birth. That one is born from a rich father in London and another from a poor father in a Colombian peasant village is not a bug, it’s a feature. To think otherwise means, once again, to think that God is not Provident, and His Creation fundamentally flawed. Then we need a Karl Marx to remedy it.
We thirst for justice, not for social justice. We don’t want to make everyone equally endowed with God’s graces, because it is God who decides which graces He endows you with. What we strive to achieve is that, in the use of the graces he has been given from God, a person is not hindered by injustice, that is: by the arbitrary and abusive stifling of the development of the graces God has given him.
Francis’ mention, in his tweet, of inequality as the first cause of poverty is another proto-communist stunt which, again, reveals the socialist mindset. Corruption and communism cause poverty, not inequality. Societies that give ample opportunity to everyone (think of Germany, Switzerland, certainly the United States) are all marked by vast inequality.
Jesus never said “blessed are those who thirst for social justice”. He never had the slightest problem with some people being very rich, whilst saying to his disciples that poverty is part and parcel of the human condition; still, he praised the woman fighting against the judge’s corruption and injustice.
Here’s the thing: this is a vale of tears, and it is exactly supposed to be it. God will give to everyone exactly those graces that are good for him, according to a Providential plan that we are unable to see fully. To some he will give intelligence, to some beauty, to some wealth, to some a strong will, to some a good heart, to some a strong faith, and so on. He will make the peasant in Peru be born, live and die in poverty, so that , after a life in prayer, he may spend eternity near His Creator, and he will make the socialite be born, live and die in prosperity, so that, after a life of corruption and godlessness, she may, after meriting hell, give witness forever of God’s justice. Or the exact contrary, as the case may be. Poverty is not a sign of sanctity, either.
Still: in the comparison above, who had the better deal? The Peruvian peasant. Infinitely so.
Justice is about giving to one what is due to him. Not about giving to one the same that has been given to another. W
What God has given to another, is not due to you.
And it’s not for Francis to say how much you should have.
Share this:
Posted on March 3, 2023, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Dissent, Traditional Catholicism and tagged Heresy within the Church, Social justice. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
Actually the poor person has a better chance of making it to heaven.” It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”. Everyone should aspire to spiritual poverty. Communists and Leftists have it the reverse.
Spiritual poverty is different from actual poverty. The meanest people I met in my life were poor, and very rich people some of the most pious.
In addition, in the Jewish society of the time, being rich was considered a sign that one was favoured by God and, therefore, better. This made your typical rich person insufferably arrogant. But again, it was not the money that made him bad, but his prejudices.
Ed Condon’s tweet is so demeaning. He packed lots of insults against the ‘atheist pop-psychologist’ into a brief message, without once addressing the actual comment made by that ‘pop-psychologist’. Quite the rude and self-important fellow.
It’s time for the Swiss Guard to act like the Praetorian Guard behaved under Caligula.
That would be a grave sin.
“That would be a grave sin.”
True. But when Church leadership is so isolated from its stated beliefs that it oppresses the truth and those who adhere to it, and refuses to be held accountable, few peaceful options remain. It should be obvious that withholding contributions to Peter’s Pence isn’t working.
Put it this way: Do you remember the clerical sex-abuse crisis that broke in the United States at the turn of this century? Do you know how many bishops (whether “conservative’ or Modernist) enabled the predators under their authority? Well, if irate parents barged into the archdiocesan chanceries with shotguns and emptied them into the stomachs of Law, Mahony, Weakland, McCarrick, et al, Rome would listen.
Rome only cares about power, wealth, prestige and self-preservation. It long ago ceased caring about Christ, His Gospel or the Triune God. That’s why a holy, righteous God is judging this faithless Church by allowing Francis to be Pope.
If it’s a grave sin, it’s a grave sin. There is no situation in which a grave sin is justified. It’s not even a matter of what is practical. It is obvious that God is asking us to endure something, if the only way to get rid of it is mortal sin.
I guess Bergoglio takes issue with Christ’s Truth that “the poor will always be with you”, and will work to make Christ a liar with “government” enforced wealth transfers, human trafficking, etc., etc. Yep. This is what the Conciliar “pope” does, Conciliar communism. Bergoglio knows best, not God.