109 Views no discussions Tweet Share Share Eastern Caribbean Currency. Photo credit: neogaf.comThe parable in this weekend’s gospel has always seemed to endorse unfair dealing. The landowner goes out at different times of the day and finds workers idle. He offers them employment and promises to pay them “what is just.” “What is just” turns out to mean the same pay, whether you took up work early or late. To the early worker who complains about unfair treatment, the landowner replies that he got what he agreed to, so what’s to complain about? Are you against me because I am generous, he adds? It’s my money, and I can do with it whatever I please.Well, not so fast. The mere fact that parties agree to make a deal is not enough to make it fair. Consent may make it legal, but consent alone may not be sufficient to make it moral. And that for several reasons: a woeful imbalance between the parties; one party with practically no choice – either consent to terrible wages or starvation; one party with knowledge of the real value of the matter, trading on the other’s ignorance, and so on. We also remember Don Corleone’s famous words in The Godfather: “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” This constitutes perhaps an extreme suggestion of the sort of pressure that hovers over many agreements.Actual contracts are thus not morally self-justifying. They must also satisfy some independent standard. The landowner adds that the standard is his right to dispose of his property in whatever way he sees fit. Once again, people’s right to possess their own property is unassailable, but other considerations come into play when they decide to treat with others on the basis of possession. Tenants, for instance, will have rights; so will visitors, as the law recognizes, though not trespassers. In other words, what the owner alone thinks is insufficient to determine the morality governing the use of possessions.What are we to conclude from the foregoing regarding our understanding of the parable? Something obvious, I think. It is that to interpret it in terms of labor relations or the moral use of possessions is clearly not the place to go. The parable must be getting at something else.Our attention is drawn instead, I think, to a principle that has become prominent in recent years in the way the Church understands its social teaching. It’s the principle of God’s preferential option or preferential love for the poor. The principle has not always been well understood. It seems to suggest, and many have erroneously taken it to suggest, that God loves the poor more than he loves other people. They insist that God loves us all equally, as the preeminently good father that he is. No one get more love than anybody else; no one gets less.What the principle draws attention to, however, is something we know and find completely acceptable. Many families have children with special needs, a child, for instance, with Down Syndrome. The love the parents bestow on that child is quite unlike the love given to the other children. It’s special, because the child is special. Moreover, the other siblings often join their parents in lavishing love and care on the child, and do not for a moment think that their parents fail them in terms of equality. They recognize in their own love for such a brother or sister that equality is not identity.God has a preferential love for the poor in a sense analogous to this. Well-to-do though not necessarily rich people can usually look after themselves. They are not without resources or avenues where resources are available. The poor usually have no one but themselves. That’s why God takes their side. Among those needing help, their need is special.We don’t have to interpret need or poverty only in material terms. Those who are poor in any area of life can similarly see themselves as objects of God’s special care. Biblical wisdom completely endorses this. We have a saying, which aims to provide encouragement with bracing moralism, that ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ The Bible in fact says quite the opposite. It says that God helps those who are incapable of helping themselves.To think then that a preferential love on God’s part means a deprivation of equality is a mistake, disproved in experience we ourselves can recognize. When we help the poor, therefore, we do not simply perform an act of charity – or indeed of justice. We act in accordance with the mind and heart of God. God’s special love creates in us a desire to love in a similar way.By: Father Henry Charles Ph.d Sharing is caring! FaithLifestyleLocalNews Start early, start late, no difference in pay by: – September 17, 2011 Share
Randall Clayton Newton, age 53, of Brookville, Indiana died early Saturday morning, August 12, 2017 at his home in Brookville, Indiana.Born June 3, 1964 in Hamilton, Ohio he was the son of Robert Granville Newton & Wanda (McFadden) Holbert. On January 9, 1988 he was united in marriage to Terry J. Fairfield, and she survives. Randy worked as a truck driver for many years. In his leisure time he enjoyed hunting & fishing and the outdoors.Besides Terry, his wife of nearly 30 years, survivors include his mother, Wanda Holbert; four children, Tamara Scott of Brookville, Indiana, Johnny Newton of Brookville, Indiana, Margaret Newton of Indianapolis, Indiana, and Randi Newton of Brookville, Indiana; 7 grandchildren; one brother, Robert Matthew Newton of Brookville, Indiana.He was preceded in death by his father, Robert Granville Newton; his grandparents; as well as several aunts & uncles.Private services will be held at the convenience of the family with burial in Somerville Cemetery in Butler County, Ohio.Phillips & Meyers Funeral Home is honored to serve the Newton family, to sign the online guest book or send personal condolences please visit www.phillipsandmeyers.com .
He canceled virtual team activities on June 9 and instead encouraged players to attend the funeral service for Floyd. O’Brien attended the service along with star defensive end J.J. Watt, owner Cal McNair, offensive coordinator Tim Kelly, defensive coordinator Anthony Weaver and former defensive tackle D.J. Reader. “It wasn’t a conscious effort,” O’Brien said on the team’s response to Floyd’s death. “It wasn’t like we had a conversation together and decided to do it.”I think we just said enough is enough, and we’ve got to do what’s right. As an organization, we’re part of the conversation and we want to do our part.” Texans head coach Bill O’Brien said he will take a knee with players during the national anthem this NFL season to protest racial inequality and police brutality. There have been nationwide protests in the United States after George Floyd — an African-American man — died in police custody in Minneapolis on May 25. A police officer was filmed kneeling on Floyd’s neck during an arrest after he was crying out for help as he was handcuffed and pinned to the ground.Former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was the first player to kneel during the anthem in protest against racial injustice in 2016, before he was released the following year.MORE: How Kaepernick’s protest started a movement in NFLSaints star Drew Brees said players who knelt during the anthem were “disrespecting the flag,” comments which sparked fierce backlash and led to an apology, while President Donald Trump insisted kneeling is “disrespecting” the country.But O’Brien told the Houston Chronicle: “Yeah, I’ll take a knee. I’m all for it. The players have a right to protest, a right to be heard and a right to be who they are. They’re not taking a knee because they’re against the flag. They’re taking a knee because they haven’t been treated equally in this country for over 400 years.” The city of Houston mourns today.Rest in peace, George. pic.twitter.com/kpMwRBVjVs— Houston Texans (@HoustonTexans) June 9, 2020O’Brien has been a supportive presence during the recent social justice fight.