Definitions of "Social" "Justice"

[Captain_America]

The term’s too vague and amorphous. It’s a blob.

I was thinking about this yesterday while I was walking. ALL social matters have a moral dimension, a justice dimension.

One chief concern a person might have with Catholics pursuing “social justice” is that the contents of this term are being defined for them by secular people or non-Christian people. You then get a salad cart agenda; one thing pops up, and then another, and, heck, don’t you recall how 10 years ago the environment was a big social justice concern.

It just gets to be a big, rollicking sea.

“Social justice” needs to not only be a matter of Catholics following Gospel precepts, but of Catholics drawing people closer to Jesus.

 

[Vouthon]

Social Justice is a fundamentally Catholic concept.

The first modern usage of the specific term “social justice” is typically attributed to Catholic thinkers from the 1840s, including to the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in Civiltà Cattolica, based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued that rival capitalist and socialist theories, based on subjective Cartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics as neither were sufficiently concerned with moral philosophy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

It became popular outside Catholic circles only at the start of the 20th century and is now a crucial tenant of international discourse.

 

[Genesis315]

From the CCC:

[1928](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1928.htm’) Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia explains the various kinds of justice here (individual, social, legal, and distributive):

Justice between man and man is called individual, particular, or commutative justice, because it is chiefly concerned with contracts and exchange. Individual justice is distinguished from social, for not only individuals have claims in justice against other individuals but a subject has claims against the society to which he belongs, as society has claims against him. Justice requires that all should have what belongs to them, and so the just man will render to the society, or State, of which he is a member, what is due to it. The justice which prescribes this is called legal justice. On the other hand, the individual subject has claims against the State. It is the function of the State to protect its subjects in their rights and to govern the whole body for the common good. Authority for this purpose is given to the State by nature and by God, the Author of man’s social nature.

The power of the State is limited by the end for which it was instituted, and it has no authority to violate the natural rights of its subjects. If it does this it commits injustice as individuals would do if they acted in like manner. It may indeed levy taxes, and impose other burdens on its subjects, as far as is required by the common necessity and advantage, but no further. For the common good it has authority to compel individual citizens to risk life for the defence of their country when it is in peril, and to part with a portion of their property when this is required for a public road, but as far as possible it must make suitable compensation. When it imposes taxes, military service, or other burdens; when it distributes rewards, offices, and honours; when it metes out condign punishment for offenses, it is bound to do so according to the various merits and resources of the persons concerned; otherwise the State will sin against that special kind of justice which is called distributive.

newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm

 

[Cojuanco]

The term’s too vague and amorphous. It’s a blob.

I was thinking about this yesterday while I was walking. ALL social matters have a moral dimension, a justice dimension.

One chief concern a person might have with Catholics pursuing “social justice” is that the contents of this term are being defined for them by secular people or non-Christian people. You then get a salad cart agenda; one thing pops up, and then another, and, heck, don’t you recall how 10 years ago the environment was a big social justice concern.

It just gets to be a big, rollicking sea.

“Social justice” needs to not only be a matter of Catholics following Gospel precepts, but of Catholics drawing people closer to Jesus.

It is true that all social matters have a justice dimension. Preventing the laborer from being cheated of his wages, or the widow from starvation is a concern of social justice. So is the entire pro-life movement an sich. So is the enviornment, by the way. Doesn’t make it any less useful.

But social justice is an originally Catholic concept, which others have adopted because it describes a real necessity.

 

[RPRPsych]

Social Justice is a fundamentally Catholic concept.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

It became popular outside Catholic circles only at the start of the 20th century and is now a crucial tenant of international discourse.

Absolutely.

A lot of the objection to Social Justice comes from writers addressing an implicitly or explicitly American context.

However, though America is a large and fine country, there is a world beyond it.

Living for even a short time in an Asian, African or even Latin American country, where the basic issues are food, clothing and shelter (not welfare stamps, health insurance, contraception or tax cuts) is a good way to get a feel for the broader landscape of Social Justice.

 

[Contarini]

The term’s too vague and amorphous. It’s a blob.

I was thinking about this yesterday while I was walking. ALL social matters have a moral dimension, a justice dimension.

One chief concern a person might have with Catholics pursuing “social justice” is that the contents of this term are being defined for them by secular people or non-Christian people. You then get a salad cart agenda; one thing pops up, and then another, and, heck, don’t you recall how 10 years ago the environment was a big social justice concern.

It just gets to be a big, rollicking sea.

“Social justice” needs to not only be a matter of Catholics following Gospel precepts, but of Catholics drawing people closer to Jesus.

I don’t know what you mean. Catholics do a perfectly good job of defining social justice–try the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

And the environment is still a big social justice issue.

I’m not sure what planet you are living on.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Following article is very informative on Catholic social teaching

thesocialagenda.org

 

[Abu]

As Pope Leo XIII pointed out as long ago as 1891 in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum, socialism does not help the poor. Rather, it reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the very sources of capital.

The social engineering which is attempted regularly, arose with Rousseau as Fr Torraco explains.

Do We Need Social Justice Or Social Engineering?
This question is answered by Fr Torraco of EWTN on Nov-24-2003 to a Question:
What is “Social Justice”? When was this concept introduced in Catholic moral doctrine?
Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003:
The term “social justice” was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls “general justice” (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term “social justice” aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by “social engineering.”

Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term “social justice” is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase “social justice” is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.

 

[vz71]

“Social Justice” is one of those terms that got away from its original meaning.

It means nothing now as it is used in reference to too much that is really not a social justice issue.

It used to be a uniquely Catholic concept, but once it grew in popularity, everyone started using it in reference to many things. Most had little to do with the original intent.
A few actually are evils.

 

[JB_Dugan]

“Social Justice” is one of those terms that got away from its original meaning.

It means nothing now as it is used in reference to too much that is really not a social justice issue.

It used to be a uniquely Catholic concept, but once it grew in popularity, everyone started using it in reference to many things. Most had little to do with the original intent.
A few actually are evils.

You are right, Vz.

Today social justice covers everything from charity to capitol punishment to abortion, from peace to war, and seems to be the battle cry of anyone or group with a wacko agenda within or without the Church.

 

[Cojuanco]

Absolutely.

A lot of the objection to Social Justice comes from writers addressing an implicitly or explicitly American context.

However, though America is a large and fine country, there is a world beyond it.

Living for even a short time in an Asian, African or even Latin American country, where the basic issues are food, clothing and shelter (not welfare stamps, health insurance, contraception or tax cuts) is a good way to get a feel for the broader landscape of Social Justice.

Right. And because of the depredations of persons in government in this country, of both parties and in business, these problems are beginning to be present even in America - I’ve visited South Los Angeles, and some people there live in conditions I’ve only seen back in the Philippines before. Or go to a colonia in the rural Southwest. America isn’t what it was even ten years ago.