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

[The_Walrus_1]

In my undergraduate polisci classes “social justice” always had a Marxist overtone. ‘Social justice’ is distinct from ‘justice’ in the international human rights literature because it implies that there are rights that groups have that can trump the rights that individuals have. So, for example, a person’s right to property rights or equality before the law may be abrogated if there is a social justice claim that intends to correct a historical injustice done to an ethnic minority. Shouldn’t we resist prefixing the term justice with ‘social’ if it has less to do with being witnesses to Christ’s mercy and more to do with promoting the causes celebres of leftist politics?

 

[christofirst]

The phrase has come a long way since St. Basil the Great gave us “On Social Justice” back in the 4th century. The way it is used today does not bother me. Pope John Paul II gave us the encyclical “On Social Concern”. Does the phrase “social concern” suit you better? Or will that phrase too only come to threaten individual rights once the leftists get ahold of it?

 

[andyklein]

You’ve mentioned one facet of that phrase. Lets look at the word “freedom.” “Freedom” has some negative connotations about it. Think of the “freedom” to have an abortion in this country. Should we stop using the word “freedom?” What about “man,” “sword,” “is?”

 

[MikkiD]

I have to agree with you, Walrus. Social justice and socialism are not the same, but it seems to me the distinction is lost on many. If I am to be.honest, it does bug me.

 

[powerofk]

The reason why “social justice” seems to have Marxist overtones is because, on the surface, Jesus’s teachings about helping the poor and helpless seem to be the same as many Marxist teachings. They truly are not. The Christian reason for helping the poor and defenseless comes from the idea that all people are created in the image of God and, as such, we must treat all of our neighbors, especially the least of them, as if they are Jesus (remember, Jesus Himself will judge us, saying “Whatsoever you did to the least of my children, you did unto me”). The Christian position does not say that money, in and of itself, is evil - instead, it is how one USES the gifts one has been given that is important (Jesus did not say “Money is the root of all evil” - he said “the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil”). The money (and all possessions) that we are given are gifts from God, and we must treat them as such, using whatever we have to help grow and build the Kingdom of God.

Marxism, on the other hand, denies God exists. Marxism treats money itself as evil, and that people are simply servants of the State. The idea of “Social Justice” in Marxist circles is pretty much the Robin Hood sense of social justice - you take from the rich and give to the poor, as no one is to be any different than any one else. All property belongs to the State.

However, in a country where (1) the top 1% of earners earn 70% of the capital and (2) secularism is on the rise with no true knowledge of what the Christian philosophy is toward money (even many so-called Christians see nothing wrong with accumulating money and possessions with no thought of using it to help their neighbors), many on the Left confuse Christian teaching on wealth with Marxist teaching (because, on the surface, they seem similar, even though they are very different at the heart - in the Left’s case in the US, it’s because they really don’t understand Christian teaching - or Marxist teaching, for that matter). This is how “Liberation Theology” took hold - the purveyors really didn’t understand the real and truly incompatible differences at the cores of Christian teaching and Marxism.

Honestly, though, do not despair over the use of “social justice” in Catholic teaching. In the Catholic Church, “Social Justice” simply means giving ALL people the dignity that they deserve from being created in the image of God. In the Catholic Church, in fact, social justice and pro-life programs are considered one and the same. We cannot separate the two: social justice programs in the Catholic Church are inherently pro-life, and pro-life programs are inherently socially just.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

The phrase “social justice” was coined by a Jesuit in the nineteenth century. Leftists stole it from us, we’re not co-opting their language.

 

[retire_early]

Very thoughtful observation, Walrus. Your comment helped me understand how the word “social”, has grown to be sort of a mandatory adjective when we are discussing justice. It reminds me of holding hands during the “'Our Father” – something that just sort of catches on and lingers, without a real thinking through.

 

[KS_Housewife]

Walrus, it does bother me, as well. What MarcusAndreas and powerofk said are true. The left co-opted the term from our church. Unfortunately the American church establishment which came of age in the 60s, into influence in the 70s and which have led the church from the 70s and 80s on, brought a leftist political activism into their outlook, which, in turn, infused the term “social justice” with the Left’s interpretation, when that term was employed by our American Church leadership. And yes, Retired, that Our Father handholding gesture (along with the upward raised hand gesture) is so automatic to many, that I have sometimes shocked people next to be because I don’t do it.

 

[St_Francis]

I share your concern about the *misuse *of the term, so when I write about *true *social justice, I always qualify it as Catholic.

 

[JB_Dugan]

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.

 

[jaimeleglise]

I never liked the terms “social justice”, “option for the poor”, or disenfranchised" Those terms always struck me as awkward, impersonal and stilted to me. I prefer the word “charity” because the word means love of God and neighbor.

 

[christofirst]

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.

I have to say I’m a little troubled by the restrictions you would place on your charity. “When it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues”? That sounds like I would have to earn your charity? God forbid I find myself down and out in your company. I might not measure up! What about the virtue of being a fellow human being in need, all of us as brothers and sisters in Christ, created in God’s image and likeness?

If the phrase “social justice” challenges us to move beyond a kind of selective clannishness, then it is the perfect phrase.

 

[christofirst]

From the 1987 encyclical, “On Social Concern”:

“The Church’s social doctrine is not a ‘third way’ between *liberal capitalism *and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a *category of its own. *”

Sounds like a challenge for the right and the left. The same letter from Pope John Paul II goes on to say:

"Today, more than in the past, the Church’s social doctrine must be open to an international outlook, in line with the Second Vatican Council, the most recent Encyclicals, and particularly in line with the Encyclical which we are commemorating (Populorum Progressio). It will not be superfluous, therefore, to reexamine and further clarify the characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium in recent years.

Here I would like indicate one of them: the option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, or a *special form *of primacy, in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our *social responsibilities *and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods.

Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care, and above all, those without hope of a better future. It is impossible not to take into account the existence of these realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the “rich man” who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate."

Finally:

“It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is necessary and valid, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a “social mortgage”, which means it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.”

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?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Catholic Social Teaching: It’s Time to End the Misrepresentations

I’m sick of it. I’m sick of hearing that Catholic teaching regarding sex and marriage is one thing, in that old-fashioned trinket box over there, while Catholic teaching regarding stewardship and our duties to the poor is another thing, on that marble pedestal over here. I’m sick of hearing that Catholic teaching regarding the Church and her authority is one thing, the embarrassing Latinate red-edged tome tucked away in that closet, while Catholic teaching regarding the laity is another, and pass that bread this way! No, it is all of a piece. What the Church says about divorce is inextricable from what she says about the poor. What she says about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is inextricable from what she says about the respects in which all men are created equal—and the many respects in which she insists upon a salutary inequality. When we fail to see the integrity of the faith, not only do certain truths escape our notice; the rest, the truths we think we see, grow monstrous, like cancers, and work to destroy the flesh they once seemed to replace.

 

[JB_Dugan]

I have to say I’m a little troubled by the restrictions you would place on your charity. “When it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues”? That sounds like I would have to earn your charity? God forbid I find myself down and out in your company. I might not measure up! What about the virtue of being a fellow human being in need, all of us as brothers and sisters in Christ, created in God’s image and likeness?

Ahhh, Christofirst, you have posed a ponderous question.

Firstly, the only restriction I place on MY charity is what I can afford to give.

Secondly, I judge people. Just as you are judging me right now. I want to know why a person, organization or group wants my help. If you were down and out in my company you would measure up just fine. However my brothers and sisters, created in God’s image and likeness, who operate something like Planned Parenthood…would not get a dime.
You can also imply that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” That blessing may come as an eternal reward but my earthly experience shows that the givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them; complaints, reproaches and insults are more prevalent than a genuine “thank you”.

Finally, I resent the Altruistic “guilt trip” that social justice, and your comments, promote.

The issue is NOT whether I should or should not give a dime to a beggar. The issue is whether I do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. Must I keep buying my life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach me…or is the need of others the moral purpose of my existence?

 

[triumphguy]

The term social Justice is used MANY times in Vatican documents:
All the recent Popes have used the term.

eg:

CCC

1. How does society ensure social justice?

1928-1933
1943-1944

Society ensures social justice when it respects the dignity and the rights of the person as the proper end of society itself. Furthermore, society pursues social justice, which is linked to the common good and to the exercise of authority, when it provides the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain what is their due.

FIRMISSIMAM CONSTANTIAM Pius XI

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370328_firmissimam-constantiam_en.html

Thus, while saving the essence of the primary and fundamental rights, such as the right of ownership, remember that at times the common good imposes restrictions on such rights as a recourse more frequent than in the past to the applications of social justice. As a protection for the dignity of the human being, it may be necessary at times to denounce and to blame boldly unjust and unworthy living conditions

MATER ET MAGISTRA Pope Jon XXIII

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html

all forms of economic enterprise must be governed by the principles of social justice and charity.

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER PAUL VI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES ON THEIR AD LIMINA VISIT

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1978/may/document/hf_p-vi_spe_19780526_vescovi-americani_en.html

And all the work done in your local Churches in the area of the Catholic school, in training for social justice, and in confronting various social issues touching the local, national or international community are a service to life.

CENTESIMUS ANNUS John Paul II
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

The Encyclical Laborem exercens moreover clearly recognized the positive role of conflict when it takes the form of a “struggle for social justice”;41 Quadragesimo anno had already stated that “if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice”.42

CARITAS IN VERITATE Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy,

Maybe we should just reclaim the term as Catholic not socialist.

 

[The_Walrus_1]

From the 1987 encyclical, “On Social Concern”:

“The Church’s social doctrine is not a ‘third way’ between *liberal capitalism *and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a *category of its own. *”

Sounds like a challenge for the right and the left. The same letter from Pope John Paul II goes on to say:

"Today, more than in the past, the Church’s social doctrine must be open to an international outlook, in line with the Second Vatican Council, the most recent Encyclicals, and particularly in line with the Encyclical which we are commemorating (Populorum Progressio). It will not be superfluous, therefore, to reexamine and further clarify the characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium in recent years.

Here I would like indicate one of them: the option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, or a *special form *of primacy, in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our *social responsibilities *and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods.

Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care, and above all, those without hope of a better future. It is impossible not to take into account the existence of these realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the “rich man” who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate."

Finally:

“It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is necessary and valid, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a “social mortgage”, which means it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.”

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?

Is it right though to think that ‘social justice’ and ‘social concern’ can be substituted with each other? When we talk about concern we are talking about attention invested in others (i.e., “we ought to care more about poor people”). When we talk about ‘justice’ we posit the need for an act of justice to redeem an equilibrium lost by an act of evil. A much stronger term.

 

[christofirst]

Ahhh, Christofirst, you have posed a ponderous question.

Firstly, the only restriction I place on MY charity is what I can afford to give.

Secondly, I judge people. Just as you are judging me right now. I want to know why a person, organization or group wants my help. If you were down and out in my company you would measure up just fine. However my brothers and sisters, created in God’s image and likeness, who operate something like Planned Parenthood…would not get a dime.
You can also imply that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” That blessing may come as an eternal reward but my earthly experience shows that the givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them; complaints, reproaches and insults are more prevalent than a genuine “thank you”.

Finally, I resent the Altruistic “guilt trip” that social justice, and your comments, promote.

The issue is NOT whether I should or should not give a dime to a beggar. The issue is whether I do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. Must I keep buying my life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach me…or is the need of others the moral purpose of my existence?

Fair enough, JB Dugan.
I certainly understand you not wanting your charity going to Planned Parenthood, and I also understand the feeling that whatever I give, however much, it is not enough. We are taught to give, not from our surplus, but from our need - and the Church has gotten a lot of mileage out of that guilt trip! It is a challenge I grapple with myself. I’m in no position to judge you! I must however disagree with you that here in this life, givers are never blessed, but that is based on my own experience. As for that guilt trip, I don’t enjoy it either, but I believe our consciences often prick us for a good reason.

 

[christofirst]

Is it right though to think that ‘social justice’ and ‘social concern’ can be substituted with each other? When we talk about concern we are talking about attention invested in others (i.e., “we ought to care more about poor people”). When we talk about ‘justice’ we posit the need for an act of justice to redeem an equilibrium lost by an act of evil. A much stronger term.

Yes, “social justice” is a stronger term, implying impartiality and integrity, but as I said, I do not find the phrase irksome. I only suggested “social concern” to you because that is the term the Holy Father used. I believe the enormous chasm between the rich and the poor is an injustice, an evil that should be redeemed.

 

[The_Walrus_1]

I don’t think Christians have a moral obligation to reduce income inequality. That is confusing the word “neighbour” in the Decalogue with the word “humanity”. Reducing income inequality at a society wide level is love in dreams, not love in action. And it leaves everyone with less. Read about the Pareto-optimality of growth in the economics lit.