<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Justice</title>
		<description>Comments for Justice at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:56:44 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/justice.html#comment-9755</link>
			<description>I didn't see Schall discussing social justice per se as much as many of us wish to comment on it. I think he's trying to tell us that there is always a transcendent truth that is not really in our natural or political universe. It is the touchstone against which we must make a distinction between what is good and what is not. I don't know of any contemporary political leader who even approaches and yet it seems (to me anyway) the central issue of our time: Can man discern truth? - Leonard</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:13:16 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/justice.html#comment-9621</link>
			<description>I have been under the impression that the  term ‘social justice’ was  first coined by an Italian priest in the mid-19th century as a short hand term  for the application of the virtue of justice to evaluate the  deplorable working  conditions that  factory workers were  experiencing  in the Industrial Revolution: The  wages  were inadequate, the working  conditions unsafe and the hours long.  Read Rerum Novarum. Over the last century and a half  social justice  has  been reinvented to  mean little more than the emotion of ‘compassion’ , as  Michael Novak pointed  out. Today it has little or nothing to do with justice.  It has become a cliché of the liberal progressives.  Today social justice means ‘socialist injustice’. - senex</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:31:11 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/justice.html#comment-9620</link>
			<description>Quoting Schall...

The most significant entities in creation are not stars, planets, comets, black holes, or other sidereal phenomena. They exist from the ages in order that within the universe a creature might exist who is directly intended by God for Himself. . . . The human being is the one being in the physical cosmos who belongs both to the world and to what transcends the world.&quot;

Another example of Man's persistent belief that he alone stands above every other creature of the universe. Man's pride and arrogance is ever on display.

Allow me to quote from &quot;The Sacred Theory of the Earth&quot; by 17th century chaplain/theologian Thomas Burnet:

&quot;How is it possible that it should enter into the thoughts of vain Man to believe himself the principal Part of God's Creation, or that all the rest was ordain'd for him, for his Service or Pleasure? Man, whose follies we laugh at every day, or else complain of them; whose pleasures are vanity, and his passions stronger than his reasons; who sees himself every way weak and impotent, hat no power over external Nature, little over himself; cannot execute so much as his own good resolutions, mutable, irregular, prone to Evil. Surely, if we made the least reflection upon ourselves with impartiality, we should be ashamed of such an arrogant thought. ...
   &quot;We have no reason to believe that there are, at least, as many Orders of Beings above us, as there are Ranks of Creatures below us; that there is a greater distance sure betwixt us and the meanest Worm; and yet we should take it very ill, if the Worms of the Earth should pretend that we were made for them.&quot;

   We are but a speck in the cosmos, a mere afterthought six days later when God, weary from all the splendorous things and creatures He had made, had but one last joke up His sleeve: Man...
   And on the 7th Day, he not only rested but had Himself one big horselaugh. - Grump</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:39:48 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/justice.html#comment-9618</link>
			<description>A world of perfect justice would lack free will. Villains must have the illusion that they can and will &quot;get away with it&quot;. If punishment was certain, the cost of being bad would be prohibitive.  Similarly, a program of &quot;social justice&quot; must lack liberty, the political version of free will. Social justice is a largely meaningless construct and should be a subset of justice as implied by the term itself. In practice, social justice as a policy is based on injustice and is therefore a lie. Excellent article. It is a pleasure to see real thought in a public forum. Splashy opinion is more the norm. - Other Joe</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:33:46 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/justice.html#comment-9617</link>
			<description>Superb indeed. Fr. Schall's explanation of the origins of &quot;social justice&quot; is one to be remembered and used.

I pray for you and your pedagogical mission Father. - Ray Hunkins</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:20:23 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/justice.html#comment-9615</link>
			<description>Fr. Schall,

Superb pedagogical piece. I'll be sharing this.

Best,
K - K O'Higgins</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:02:13 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
