Is the "Social Justice" gospel an idol?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t believe he was saying ‘only’ contribute to those charities, but rather, that those two particular charities exemplify some of the people of the world who are in greatest need. There are plenty of people here in the U.S. who need food, clothing, shelter, and yes water–I sure as heck know about that myself!-- but so far most of us aren’t facing rocket attacks. And of course there are people in Afghanistan (Asia) and people in Venezuela (South America) and in Europe too, as well as the US (and Australia) where there can be attacks. But the two charities he mentioned again serve those whose need right now, this moment, affect I believe the greatest numbers of those in direct danger.
 
This was developed as a Catholic concept first (along with other categories of justice, like commutative justice and distributive justice). It was mostly developed in the 1840s. While the concept is certainly a key component of Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII, the term first appeared in a papal encyclical in Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno. It is also applied in his encyclical against Communism (Divini Redemptoris). It has been used by the Church in the appropriate way every since.

It is actually more recently that is has been redefined or un-defined as the case may be. Here is the Church’s definition from the Catechism:
1928 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.
Click to expand...
Pius XI elaborates on this in the encyclical Divini Redemptoris:
Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand for each individual all that is necessary for the common good. But just as in the living organism it is impossible to provide for the good of the whole unless each single part and each individual member is given what it needs for the exercise of its proper functions, so it is impossible to care for the social organism and the good of society as a unit unless each single part and each individual member - that is to say, each individual man in the dignity of his human personality - is supplied with all that is necessary for the exercise of his social functions. If social justice be satisfied, the result will be an intense activity in economic life as a whole, pursued in tranquillity and order. This activity will be proof of the health of the social body, just as the health of the human body is recognized in the undisturbed regularity and perfect efficiency of the whole organism.
  1. But social justice cannot be said to have been satisfied as long as workingmen are denied a salary that will enable them to secure proper sustenance for themselves and for their families; as long as they are denied the opportunity of acquiring a modest fortune and forestalling the plague of universal pauperism; as long as they cannot make suitable provision through public or private insurance for old age, for periods of illness and unemployment. In a word, to repeat what has been said in Our Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: “Then only will the economic and social order be soundly established and attain its ends, when it offers, to all and to each, all those goods which the wealth and resources of nature, technical science and the corporate organization of social affairs can give. These goods should be sufficient to supply all necessities and reasonable comforts, and to uplift men to that higher standard of life which, provided it be used with prudence, is not only not a hindrance but is of singular help to virtue.”[37]
Click to expand...
The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Justice contains a discussion on the three forms of justice I mentioned above:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm
 
Last edited:
I think CS Lewis addresses something similar to what the OP is saying in his “Screwtape Letters”, where he points to the danger of “gospel and”. He warns of the danger of the gospel becoming a means to an end, so that the gospel becomes secondary to “the cause”. It is especially tempting when the “other” cause is just, necessary and good. On a personal level I appreciate his warning and actively strive for Christ’s preeminence over all the other lesser causes I strive for.
 
I must have missed the verses in Matthew 25 that said feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the lonely only applied to those who agreed with you theologically. In my opinion, this thread reaffirms the sentiment expressed by Archbishop Câmara when he said “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.”
 
In addition to saving souls,the Catholic Churches “mission” is to:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

I think the Cardinal is talking about two things:
1.The simple life which is good
2.Destitute poverty which is bad and low socioeconomic conditions lead to high stress levels,earlier deaths,higher crimes etc

The simple life > wealthy life can be often better because as he mentioned riches can lead to excessive individualism,self absorbed,too self sufficient etc.

Destitute poverty on the other hand leads to nothing good.

Regardless of whether destitute poverty can ever realistically be eridicated or not,I definitely think it’s 100 times better to try to help people than to not.
What’s the other alternative-just to tell them “you are blessed because you are poor-see ya”?

Even if social justice enterprises are too fanatical/delusional and go about it the wrong way-should we stop them from giving?
Whether someone gives to help another regardless of whether they are Catholic,Muslim,Buddhist,Hipster or feminist-I am not about to stop them!

If the Cardinal thinks that anti poverty measures haven’t made much progress then perhaps that’s an issue of the type of programmes themselves.
Maybe the focus should shift to micro loans and to improving infrastructure and trades in third world countries.
 
Last edited:
With regard to the article in the OP, Pope Francis made the same point in his own unique manner in his first homily:
Third, professing: we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ—I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy—“Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.
Click to expand...
 
Yes I have bible verse too…
‘Truly, truly, I say to you you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you; for on Him has God the Father set His seal.” The crowd said to Him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” And Jesus answered them: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent.” (John 6: 25-29).
Click to expand...
Matthew 4 But he answered, “It is written,

‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
Click to expand...
“Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 In pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” Matthew 26:10-13
Click to expand...
We preach the whole Gospel not just the parts that seem to support whatever agenda, cause or activism we support.

What the thread is about is making an idol social justice. Nobody is suggesting that we don’t help the poor. What the warning is that we don’t forget God in the process.
 
Last edited:
Thanks.
I agree with you that the Gospel is taken as a whole and each part forms the whole story/whole of Christian life.
yankeesouth said:
Nobody is suggesting that we don’t help the poor.
Click to expand...
Sorry,I must have misunderstood because I got a different impression when you said in an earlier post:
yankeesouth said:
The Catholic Church mission is not to solve poverty…
Click to expand...
I understand better where you are coming from now😀.

The term social justice can mean many things to different people that’s why the term doesn’t bother me.
Eg:social justice could mean to some people the insistence on changing laws to allow gay marriage,but it can also mean to other people supporting the notion of everyone receiving a fair wage and not being exploited by big corporations while the CEO’s keep the profits.
 
Last edited:
Regarding why not just call it doing the Gospel instead of social justice-maybe because we are in the internet marketing era and that term might be what younger people understand?

I’m not suggesting that Catholic charity should be “packaged” like businesses or watered down or marketed ,but at the same,even the Pope is on Twitter and tolerates these things because he understands that this is the world that we live in today.
So,does it really matter if the term “social justice” is used as long as when it is used it is down from a Catholic perspective?
 
But the fact that it ‘can mean many things to many people’ should bother you. it should bother you a lot.

When what ‘you mean’ by Social justice is X, and what I mean by Social justice is Y but X is OK as a side, not vital, and what somebody else means by Social justice is Y but X is NOT OK, and what somebody else means by Social justice is neither X nor Y, but Z, and X and Y are NOT OK, etc., you have a situation where everybody is ‘claiming’ to be working for Social Justice but nobody agrees on what it is, how to address it, and people are actually trying to stop some from working for it. . .

IOW, you have modern society.

And everybody is running to claim the moral high ground, to demand everybody accept ‘their beliefs’, and eliminate any and all beliefs otherwise, refusing to accept anything but ‘full acceptance’, and castigating and flat-out damning those who give anything but.

It’s a zoo.

A good example is the misreading, when Yankee said that the Catholic Church mission is not to ‘solve poverty’ (and that statement is quite correct; the Church’s mission is to preach the gospel and to follow Christ. HELPING others is not ‘solving poverty’; material poverty may be alleviated and indeed at some point ‘solved’, but not because that is our gospel, but because our preaching of the gospel leads to others doing good works to the point where theoretically some day there will be no poverty of MATERIAL goods, though spiritual poverty may always exist). . .but which was taken to mean that Yankee was saying, “Our Church’s mission isn’t to help the poor FULL STOP”.
 
The term social justice came about because justice looks at relations between individuals and people in the Industrial revolution, when the commons were lost, saw the necessity of justice on a wider scale. This was done by the Jesuits who ran Civitas magazine in the 1800s.

The term has been hijacked and applied to any issues leftists want. We even started having reproductive social justice which is being changed to plain reproductive justice.

This is why I always differentiate between Catholic social justice and social justice… (But now that I think about it, I think I will talk about Catholic social justice and secular social justice.)
 
The problem is that it is more often used in the secular, anything-goes way than in the Catholic way.

CSJ is a well-thought-out set of moral principles. Secular Secular SJ is a mish-mash of what people want to have freedom in. They are two different things altogether.
 
Last edited:
Concern for the poor has God and Christ at its centrality in the first place. Why does the concern arise? Because human life has inherent dignity. And Who created us this way? God.
 
Ok,thanks,I understand your points.

At the same time though,when non Catholic “social justice” enterprises or NGO’s take measures to try to help people in poverty,even if they do so in a overly zealous way or delusional (by thinking material poverty can be eradicated quickly),aren’t they still doing a good and working for God?
Even though they may not know their loving heart is from God or they may not believe in God-it’s still Gods inspiration anyway netherless isn’t is?
(Maybe not always so much ngo’s if they get caught up in red tape and political expectations etc,but I mean more referring to individuals who give to charities or feed the homeless but they aren’t believers).

Also,in my humble opinion,it seems to me that the Cardinal Sarah seems to talk about the “simple life” interchangeable with destitute poverty,but I can’t think of any charities that try to help “improve” people’s lives who are living the simple life and try to make them rich as according to the “American way”.
Of course,if they did this it would be arrogance (as he said) but all the charities and social justice programs that I am aware are directed towards people in destitute poverty and lifting them out of that state.
 
Mother Teresa helped the poor because she sawChrist in them, and therefore, her work for the poor was for Christ. And because it was for Christ, it had a certain “shape,” for example, personal involvement with those who were helped. And she would never have considered going against God’s will to “help” the poor, because for her, God was first.

Unfortunately, simply “helping the poor” does not necessarily mean “working for God.”

First, working for God means putting Him above all else.

Second, many of these people have no thought of God and even go against the Will of God in their efforts to “help the poor.” (The Gates Foundation’s pushing of ABC is one example.)

Third, many “help the poor” for reasons other than seeing Christ in them, or even compassion. Instead, they do what they do because they get a tax break, or they impose their own power, or because they feel uncomfortable with having what they have.
 
Cardinal Sarah is differentiating between destitution and mere poverty. For example, a family which is destitute has nothing not even enough food. Their waking hours are consumed with figuring out how to live another day.

The poor do not have extras, but they are not consumed by the issue of their survival. They have the time to be able to lift their hearts and minds to God and to appreciate His Creation.

Look at us Americans. Aren’t some of us consumed by survival? Are we not tied to our work by cell phones, by needing to have so much to “make it” in this society?

I know people who have come here from other countries, “poor” countries, and they say they have more stuff now, but their lives are very tense because everything is so expensive.

Not being on the way to a US standard of living is not poverty, and yet many Westerners act as if it is…
 
I’ d like to answer if you do not mind,Po1guy.
There is the Gospel.
There is the Social Doctrine of the Church.
The " salad" starts when one reads answers as if there were two Gospels.: the " Social " one and " the other"
That was my request to keep it simple. And not to Monsignor,obviously but here.
I like " salad" but not of adjectives…😃
Thank you!!
 
Last edited:
This.

I did read the article. Much of it is misinformed, such as his misunderstanding of harm reduction programs for heroine users.

I think that overall he aimed for a a good target but missed the mark. The precautionary tale is not to let one’s faith get out of balance - dominated by scrupulosity and confession, social justice activism, liturgy-related OCD, etc. It’s like coloring in one of those life-balance pie charts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top