Stu Burguiere schools Jim Wallis on good and bad social justice.
Read the whole thing. An excerpt:
Like everyone else in America, Glenn Beck thinks “social justice” —if its defined as charitable outreach to the poor—-is a good idea. He supports it, he believes in it, he does it.
So, what’s the problem? I mean, “social justice” seems like such an innocuous phrase, right? It paints a picture of fairness. I guess that’s why Father Charles Coughlin used it when naming his National Union for Social Justice and his publication Social Justice Weekly. Coughlin was an anti-Semitic religious broadcaster in the 1930s, and he used the banner of social justice to attack capitalism, warn of Jewish plots against “Christian civilization”, and to promote his adoration for Italian Fascist Benito Mussolini.
This is part of the information Glenn revealed in a special TV show about American extremism of the 20th century. In the context of promoting that special, he began talking about how the far left was once again using this terminology to politicize churches. The specific example he named was Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
He told his listeners that if they were in a church that preaches Jeremiah Wright-style social justice, they should leave–or at least get educated on what exactly that means. It took him all of eight seconds to clarify the type of church he was speaking of, but that was long enough for most in the media to end the transcript.
Suddenly, Glenn was accused of attacking the central tenants of the bible, because he supposedly believed that any church that wants to help the poor should be immediately evacuated. This absurd narrative is mainly the product of Rev. Jim Wallis.
To restate the obvious, some simply use the term “social justice” as a substitute for “outreach to the poor.” This is not the kind of “social justice” Glenn was talking about. The fact that this term has been utilized for purposes other than good Christian charity is well documented. One scholar explained it quite clearly: “it is true that term [has] been used by the right and the left for all kinds of ideological purposes that aren’t necessarily the purposes of Christ.” That scholar was Jim Wallis…
Commenter Socky sums up Walls/Wright-style “social justice:” “A code phrase for ‘leveraging white guilt to redistribute wealth.'” Erick Erickson weighs in here.
Speaking of radical reverends, you must watch Fr. Pfleger’s latest sermons from Easter Week. Thomas Peters has them all and writes:
From these videos, his abuses to the Mass, his heretical preaching, his public actions, his clear egomania, it’s clear he deserves to be disciplined (and removed from priestly ministry) by Cardinal George.
So why hasn’t this happened? Why is anyone scared of Fr. Pfleger or his supporters?
I can’t help but think the only reasons not to remove Fr. Pfleger are reasons dictated by convenience and political correctness, not fidelity to the teachings of Christ and His Church.
Last week: The Pfleger-ization of the Catholic Church
And the “media justice” corollary: