Skip to main content

Bp. Barron says "Catholic social teaching is what is traditionally called ‘distributive justice’" vs. "On the contrary! This understanding of distributive justice comes out of the socialist movements of the 1830s..40s, congealed into pseudo dogma by Msgr. John A. Ryan"

“A cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is what is traditionally called ‘distributive justice’—which is to say, the equitable allocation of goods within a society.”

On the contrary! This understanding of distributive justice comes out of the socialist movements of the 1830s and 1840s, congealed into pseudo dogma by Msgr. John A. Ryan of the Catholic University of America, and has been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic Church. See this short article:

https://www.catholic365.com/article/12015/the-democratic-religion-or-the-great-reset.html

True distributive justice relates to proportionality of input and outtake in a common endeavor, at least according to Aristotle, Aquinas, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine. As was made clear in § 22 of Rerum Novarum, distribution on the basis of need is grouped under “distributive justice” by default; it is an expedient that applies only in “extreme cases.”

A succinct explanation of the difference between charity, justice, distributive justice, and social justice can be found in our new book, “Economic Personalism: Property, Power and Justice for Every Person.” If His Excellency would like a complimentary copy, I would be more than happy to send him one on request, or he can download the free e-book from the website of the Center for Economic and Social Justice, https://www.cesj.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/C-EconPersonalism_Web-NOblanks.pdf

It’s a fairly short book and has a study guide in the back. If he has any questions, we here at CESJ are more than ready to discuss any issue he wants to raise with respect to economic or social justice.

It should be noted that CESJ’s “Just Third Way” received the personal encouragement of Pope Saint John Paul II during a private audience with CESJ representatives and members of Polish Solidarity.


Bishop Barron says all the right things regarding separation of powers. Except, spreading out wealth within a society to make an economy both more just and more efficient is inherently at odds with a democratic distribution of power. To distribute equally requires a dominant central authority rather than a separation of powers, with its competing views and checks and balances as we find in the present US Constitutional republic. Barron nevertheless rightly perceives a balance between government intervention and the natural flow of the economy. Now in danger of morphing into a Marxist autocracy. Egalitarian distribution of goods is a Marxist concept that was never fully realized in the USSR. It looked wonderful on paper ignored in reality. When the State becomes the ultimate arbiter human rights are inevitably compromised in favor of power. The present American model is the best for approaching Bishop Barron’s ideal, that is when Govt doesn’t enforce distribution based on perceived inequalities. As has been the process since the Obama regime. A regime rather than an administration due to forced policies on the populace. Furthermore, forced distribution of wealth and goods suffocates religious, humanitarian charity removing from people realization of their humanness. Distributive justice morally speaking requires exercise of free will. Our goal mustn’t be to create drones. A degree of imperfection needs to be acknowledged within a more perfect ordering of government. [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/01/05/why-we-need-a-distribution-of-power/]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...