Is anyone else irked by the phrase "social justice"?

[JB_Dugan]

Fair enough, JB Dugan.
I certainly understand you not wanting your charity going to Planned Parenthood,

Good! (taking baby steps here)

Then you understand that charity, generosity, benevolence and (yuk) social justice should not be granted carte blanche.

We could say that there are those more deserving than others…(?)

If so…who makes that determination?

Since I believe that benevolent charity is a personal INDIVIDUAL thing…it is my responsibility to determine the worthiness of the beneficiary of my generosity. Not a parish or diocesan council, (oh, OK Peter’s Pence is cool) or especially a government.

That brings up your last question:

Does the phrase “social justice” become problematic, then, when a government elected by a majority of the people, who are not all Catholic or Christian, seeks to implement imperfect, but actual (as opposed to theoretical) programs which promote social justice?"

You bet it does become problematic because there is a vast difference between POLITICAL social justice and Religious social justice. This could start a new thread…but based on the track record of our current government…I don’t think you want to go down that road.

 

[RPRPsych]

I also am irked by the term “social justice”. It seems to have replaced the term “charity”.

Charity is an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it, and **when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures.
**
“Social Justice” seems to imply a duty or obligation to give to others. I prefer the virtue of Charity.

Here is a great definition of “social justice”:

I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn.

If you disagree, please tell me how much of what I earn should go to you and why.

The first part of your statement on charity is all right (though Bl. Mother Teresa did say “Give till it hurts”, not “give what you can afford”). But the second is more in line with political conservatism (of a degenerate sort) than with what Christ or the Church taught.

Consider:

*Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. *
(St. Matthew, ch. 5, v. 42)

*And he said to him also that had invited him: When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren nor thy kinsmen nor thy neighbours who are rich; lest perhaps they also invite thee again, and a recompense be made to thee.
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind.
And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.
*
(St. Luke, ch. 14, v. 12-14)

While abuses must be avoided (e.g. giving money to an alcoholic when you know he’s going to drink it all away; donating to a “gay rights” organisation), I am uncomfortable with the idea that we need to judge a person’s “merits” (by what standard?) before being charitable. Christ chose to save us regardless of our merits, and He calls us to be like Him. Admittedly, that’s difficult, but not impossible.

 

[JB_Dugan]

The first part of your statement on charity is all right (though Bl. Mother Teresa did say “Give till it hurts”, not “give what you can afford”).

I am not sure I understand Bl. Mother Teresa. It sounds like she is telling me to sacrifice my well being and that of my family. Is that what she means? Help me out here…
I know that Mother Teresa was a good woman, so by “giving to others till it hurts” is good and anything that benefits me must be evil. If that is the case, then the beneficiary of my giving is the only criterion of moral value…and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than me, anything goes…right?

Consider:

*Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. *
(St. Matthew, ch. 5, v. 42)

*And he said to him also that had invited him: When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren nor thy kinsmen nor thy neighbours who are rich; lest perhaps they also invite thee again, and a recompense be made to thee.
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind.
And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.
*
(St. Luke, ch. 14, v. 12-14)

Interesting…but consider these:

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Luke 10:7
And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

2 Thessalonians 3:12-14
Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

While abuses must be avoided (e.g. giving money to an alcoholic when you know he’s going to drink it all away; donating to a “gay rights” organisation), I am uncomfortable with the idea that we need to judge a person’s “merits” (by what standard?) before being charitable. Christ chose to save us regardless of our merits, and He calls us to be like Him. Admittedly, that’s difficult, but not impossible.

You may be uncomfortable judging people on their merits but that is exactly what you do when you chose not to donate to a gay rights organization. That’s a judgment. That’s a good thing. Christ calls us to be like Him…and He will judge us on the last day.

 

[The_Walrus_1]

To clarify my last post:

reducing income inequality is not in and of itself an act of charity because

1. this action can happen without increasing anyone’s welfare. The purpose of an action undertaken with the intention of promoting income equality is to arbitrarily reduce the distance between two economic groups. I could do this by taking money from the rich and throwing it into a volcano. No one is better off. Some people just became poorer. But, woohoo!, there’s more social equality… Economic growth that increases people’s welfare will always create some residue of income inequality because rarely will every living person in society see the benefits of growth. But that does not necessarily mean that it’s bad. Some people’s lives were improved.
2. it means putting on the Marxist vision, not the beatific vision. We are invited by Christ to love our neighbour not the proletariat, humanity or the East Timorese. This seems pretty obvious to me. Where there is talk of “the poor”, “the rich” in the gospels it is couched in terms of their justification before God at the eschaton. As such the spiritual works of mercy precede the corporal works of mercy.

 

[RPRPsych]

I am not sure I understand Bl. Mother Teresa. It sounds like she is telling me to sacrifice my well being and that of my family. Is that what she means? Help me out here…
I know that Mother Teresa was a good woman, so by “giving to others till it hurts” is good and anything that benefits me must be evil. If that is the case, then the beneficiary of my giving is the only criterion of moral value…and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than me, anything goes…right?

I don’t think her statement is that black or white. No one is asked to sell their wife or children to prevent a stranger from starving. But we must not restrict our giving to being “out of our abundance”; we have to make sacrifices, otherwise charity is not fully charity.

For a simple example, suppose my income is 50,000 rupees, and I need 30,000 of them to take care of my family (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical expenses, etc.) I have every right to keep that 30,000 (plus a little more for emergencies! ). However, if I’m planning to spend, say, 15,000 of the balance on something I don’t really need, like a new cell phone, I ought to give that to a more deserving cause. Like I said, it’s not something we all do - it’s an ideal that we should aim towards rather than an absolute decree.

Interesting…but consider these:

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

Luke 10:7
And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

2 Thessalonians 3:12-14
Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

Very true, and well quoted. But there’s also the example of the early Christian community in the Acts of the Apostles, who sold what they had and distributed the surplus to those in need.

You may be uncomfortable judging people on their merits but that is exactly what you do when you chose not to donate to a gay rights organization. That’s a judgment. That’s a good thing. Christ calls us to be like Him…and He will judge us on the last day.

While we are called to follow Christ in charity, we are not called to arrogate his prerogative to judge to ourselves. We can admonish, counsel, or even lawfully punish, of course.

The trouble with “merit” is that it’s a slippery slope. I know, for example, of Charitable Hospital X who refused to help a patient, Y, simply because Y was Catholic and X decided that only Protestants were meritorious (i.e., held to the true faith without adulteration). We should never be an occasion of sin for others, true. But where sin is not involved (say, Y is poor because of circumstances beyond his control, or physical or mental illness - not because he is wilfully refusing to work), then we certainly are called to be charitable to him. And I believe that it is lawful for Catholic charities to do the same. Secular governments are a thorny issue, but then I work for one of them, and while I disagree with them on many counts, I find it easier to do a little good while working for them than by staying outside and keeping my skills to myself.

Of course, this is an opinion. I’m not Pope Francis. Just sayin’.

 

[christofirst]

To clarify my last post:

reducing income inequality is not in and of itself an act of charity because

1. this action can happen without increasing anyone’s welfare. The purpose of an action undertaken with the intention of promoting income equality is to arbitrarily reduce the distance between two economic groups. I could do this by taking money from the rich and throwing it into a volcano. No one is better off. Some people just became poorer. But, woohoo!, there’s more social equality… Economic growth that increases people’s welfare will always create some residue of income inequality because rarely will every living person in society see the benefits of growth. But that does not necessarily mean that it’s bad. Some people’s lives were improved.
2. it means putting on the Marxist vision, not the beatific vision. We are invited by Christ to love our neighbour not the proletariat, humanity or the East Timorese. This seems pretty obvious to me. Where there is talk of “the poor”, “the rich” in the gospels it is couched in terms of their justification before God at the eschaton. As such the spiritual works of mercy precede the corporal works of mercy.

A group of people band together for mutual support; a society, like America. They agree on majority rule, so that at least some things will get done. The majority decides, through the leaders they elect, that a portion of their tax dollars will go to support the needy. Some even see this as a means of satisfying, to some extent, the mandate of the Church concerning the preferential option for the poor. Others, however, feel that this system of welfare is akin to throwing the money in a volcano. They then accuse the majority of being Marxist, perhaps hoping that the same Christian guilt which compels those who support the social safety net will now make them reconsider. I’m not buying it.

 

[triumphguy]

For those “irked” by the term social justice, here’s how many times the term is used in Vatican documents.

 

[TEPO]

It should have been called “Justice of the Humanities”. Or “Human Justice”.

The term “social” seems to have too many monetary connotations. The focus should always remain primary to the human person.

 

[triumphguy]

It should have been called “Justice of the Humanities”. Or “Human Justice”

It’s called social because it’s about society, and humans are only fully complete in society/community/with others, not because it’s “socialist.”

We should make the word “social” a proud catholic word once more.

 

[TEPO]

It’s called social because it’s about society, and humans are only fully complete in society/community/with others, not because it’s “socialist”

The term ‘Social Justice’ signifies the idea of a crafted commonly accepted law of interaction among peoples within a society. By adding ‘Justice’ we add the idea of societies having the ability to become Just -by adopting the ideology of Social Justice.

…but societies cannot be just. There is no True justice in worldly societies with their monetary systems and taxes and fines and interests. These monetary and social ideologies are all man made just like the ‘right’ to have an abortion.

 

[TEPO]

The only Justice in my opinion is to become a Humanitarian. To be a Humanitarian on a personal level -and to love all of creation. Like St. Francis.

 

[TEPO]

humans are only fully complete in society/community/with others

I understand that some modern Catholics write about this in their books but how does that explain Jesus wandering in the desert for 40 days or the actions of Saints and Monks who choose lives of solitude and prayer?

We only become fully complete when we have God.

 

[Robert_Sock]

When I think about ‘social justice’ I immediately think about humanitarian values which are neither liberal nor conservative. Humanitarianism is sorely missing in today’s politics. If we were to ever achieve a humanitarian political party, it would triumph.

 

[TEPO]

When I think about ‘social justice’ I immediately think about humanitarian values which are neither liberal nor conservative. Humanitarianism is sorely missing in today’s politics. If we were to ever achieve a humanitarian political party, it would triumph.

I believe in humanitarianism on a personal level. Politics don’t exist in my world anymore.

 

[triumphguy]

I understand that some modern Catholics write about this in their books but how does that explain Jesus wandering in the desert for 40 days or the actions of Saints and Monks who choose lives of solitude and prayer?

We only become fully complete when we have God.

I have lived in a religious community for 6 years, and have met hermits, monks etc. They are very connected to their community even when alone.

Anyhoo - it’s the Vatican that keeps using the term, not me

Perhaps this irksomeness will give people a bit of an impetus to explore church teaching in this area by reading the documents.

Just go to Vatican.va and find search then type in social+justice. It’s all there.

 

[TEPO]

I have lived in a religious community for 6 years, and have met hermits, monks etc. They are very connected to their community even when alone.

Anyhoo - it’s the Vatican that keeps using the term, not me

Perhaps this irksomeness will give people a bit of an impetus to explore church teaching in this area by reading the documents.

Just go to Vatican.va and find search then type in social+justice. It’s all there.

Good suggestion, except that after reading the documents, I’m always left a little stumped -leading to a final conclusion that Social Justice was written solely to politicians especially Catholic politicians meant to help them form a solid Catholic-informed conscience.

…but when Jesus came, He bypassed the Pharisees for the most part and went straight to the everyday people. So I’m still a little stumped. In any case, politics don’t exist in my world so social Justice means nothing to me.

 

[triumphguy]

Good suggestion, except that after reading the documents, I’m always left a little stumped -leading to a final conclusion that Social Justice was written solely to politicians especially Catholic politicians meant to help them form a solid Catholic-informed conscience.

…but when Jesus came, He bypassed the Pharisees for the most part and went straight to the everyday people. So I’m still stumped.

You are right, a lot of the language seems aimed at economic “systems” rather than individuals.

For me the ultimate document on social justice, or charity, or living like a christian (whichever words you prefer) is Matthew 25.

 

[Kal2012]

Yes!!! I’m irked and annoyed by this phrase.

There’s an almost cult-like love of this phrase at my Alma Mater.

It’s kind of ironic because there’s apparently a lot of controversy around what the new "social justice’ center will actually study and be devoted to.

My general impression tends to be that they were so happy to get a huge donation that the specifics didn’t really matter - until they did…

There’s not a solid definition for what this entails and what’s given usually comes back as what’s considered social policy remedies supported by the Left.

As much as I believe that social justice isn’t something “liberal or conservative”, in my experience, it’s something that the Left says to make themselves feel good and shame the rest of us into supporting their ideas. My Alma Mater is very liberal, so I know if they are really into promoting something, then it probably is for the benefit of the Left.

I’d like to be wrong, but I’ve been a witness to this behavior for years.

I think that everyone supports social justice until they find out that it’s about wealth redistribution and telling people what they should be doing with their time and resources.

I don’t have time for that kind of stuff. I don’t have a problem helping where I can, but I don’t like it when people get on their high horse and try to tell me that I must do something in this specific way or I’m evil. That’s the impression I get from the social justice crowd.

 

[triumphguy]

But knowing that the Church takes the phrase very seriously what are you going to do to win it back for orthodox Catholicism?

 

[The_Walrus_1]

A group of people band together for mutual support; a society, like America. They agree on majority rule, so that at least some things will get done. The majority decides, through the leaders they elect, that a portion of their tax dollars will go to support the needy. Some even see this as a means of satisfying, to some extent, the mandate of the Church concerning the preferential option for the poor. Others, however, feel that this system of welfare is akin to throwing the money in a volcano. They then accuse the majority of being Marxist, perhaps hoping that the same Christian guilt which compels those who support the social safety net will now make them reconsider. I’m not buying it.

I just don’t see how you can say that social welfare by national government is mandated in scripture. The evangelists were writing at a time when our whole conception of politics and the nation-state was non-existent. The policies that governments use to fight poverty should be guided by prudence not moral injunctions. For example I support a social safety net for poors in the form of welfare programs providing wealth transfers and various forms of insurance against unemployment and sickness as well as government involvement in training specialist and various other types of education but I would be opposed to most government attempts to regulate the economy on the grounds that they do not achieve the ends they were created for. And afterall, your contribution to the state’s revenues that is used to pay for these programs is not voluntary and therefore not a moral act which would fall within the scope of the Decalogue.