Is there justice in social justice?

[PetraG]

The other unfortunate stereotype that is not entirely without foundation (although usually grossly exaggerated) is the one that pits reverent liturgy against social justice. There is no inherent conflict between those two. Reality is quite the opposite.

The Mass is the source and summit of the Christian life, including the source of the grace, wisdom and depth of charity necessary for a truly Christian society. The effect of the Eucharist will always be to increase graces available for mutual respect, economic integrity and works of mercy in the faithful. If that doesn’t happen in individual cases, however, the problem is never that the Mass is too reverent. It is that the individual isn’t expressing the abundant graces inherent in the Eucharist.

 

[ontheway1]

I don’t recall the New Testament talking about justice. In fact, justice was something that was reserved for the final judgement.
There is lots about love, charity, protecting the poor and the widows, but it is not within the context of justice.
How did the Catholic sense of love and charity get mixed up with social justice? And to my original qustion, who is the arbiter of this social justice?

 

[PetraG]

I don’t recall the New Testament talking about justice. In fact, justice was something that was reserved for the final judgement.

By the Final Judgment? No Christian with a position of governmental power can afford to put off justice when the Final Judgment has been predicted to come like a thief in the night.
Read the encyclicals. The Popes say clearly that pursuing social justice right now is a responsibility of any society informed by Christian morals, and that the state even has some role in establishing it. The state alone doesn’t unilaterally provide it, but the state does have a role. Where Christians influence government policies then there is a duty to exert that influence in the interest of justice.
Individually, we obviously have a duty to pursue both justice and mercy. (As far as I know, we don’t have a duty to split hairs about which is which.)

 

[TheLittleLady]

See the Catechism links above, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, and then follow the footnotes to learn more.

 

[Beryllos]

I don’t recall the New Testament talking about justice. In fact, justice was something that was reserved for the final judgement.
There is lots about love, charity, protecting the poor and the widows, but it is not within the context of justice.

You are thinking of justice in the sense of a system to enforce justice: judgment, penalties, remedies, and so on.

There is another sense of the word justice: the quality of being just, correct, fair, and so on.

A New Testament example is in the parable of the workers in the vineyard. The landowner tells the laborers “You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.” The landowner promotes justice by paying the workers what they need.

All those things you mentioned – love, charity, protecting the poor and the widows – are part of justice in this sense. It is not a system of enforcing justice, but the quality of a just society.

 

[Beryllos]

How did the Catholic sense of love and charity get mixed up with social justice?

The real question, in my opinion, is:

How did the words “social justice” become twisted to mean something other than the Catholic sense of social justice (which is all about love and charity)?

The answer, I think, is politics and media. The phrase has been politicized and misused and abused, and its meaning in the popular lexicon has wandered.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A simple way to look at it is; Charity is the Corporal Works of Mercy. Social Justice is arraigning matters so fewer people need the Corporal Works of Mercy.

In that light, the prime Social Justice program is education. If we give everyone a top-notch education, more people will be able to support themselves and their families. People who are now consumers of charity will be come contributors.

How well is our Public Education system working? How many new Catholic schools were opened last year?

 

[PetraG]

The real question, in my opinion, is:

How did the words “social justice” become twisted to mean something other than the Catholic sense of social justice (which is all about love and charity)?

The answer, I think, is politics and media. The phrase has been politicized and misused and abused, and its meaning in the popular lexicon has wandered.

I would say there is another force in human nature which is that when some of the rich oppress or use a position of power to steal from those who are poor and don’t have any way to stop them, the response is not a just response but a reaction borne out of jealousy. Somebody proposes that nobody ought to have private property, everything ought to be owned by everybody regardless of merit or industriousness, and movements such as communism are born.

As for using “socialism” as a perjorative term, there is also a temptation to use that in a self-serving way. When there is an unfair system set up, those who profit from it sometimes try to defend it by fear-mongering that making society more fair in terms of offering similar opportunities to succeed will actually mean making all wealth collective.

There are a good many secular philosophies that call themselves socialist that are based on an idea of collective ownership of property and eliminating or largely eliminating personal ownership of the means of producing items of value. That obviously puts social justice in danger of being equated with socialism.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Such as Pope Francis, I believe, who is both a serious advocate of social justice and an orthodox Catholic.

 

[Beryllos]

I would like to see a definitive definition of SJ.

Great questions, by the way. I looked here and there for a concise definition. I didn’t read the four Papal Encyclicals, books, etc., that were recommended upthread.

I did, however, find something that makes sense to me in DoCat – Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. Justice is there defined as giving that which is due. Consider these three aspects of giving what is due:

• The community gives what is due to the individual.
• The individual gives what is due to the community.
• The individual gives what is due to another individual.

Together these three make up social justice.

Sorry if this is a bit vague. I’m trying to keep it brief, and I am not really an expert in this stuff. Anyway, I hope it helps!

 

[Crocus]

The answer, I think, is politics and media. The phrase has been politicized and misused and abused, and its meaning in the popular lexicon has wandered.

This change in meaning is a recurring problem. I am noticing the use of the word “taxpayers” replacing “citizens,” as if that is a value above personhood or their humanity.

The poor and vulnerable pay little or no taxes and are often restricted in power to obtain their needs.

 

[ontheway1]

Perhaps it is time to actually identify specific social justice issues that are at the top of everyone’s list. Let’s make a list and see what concerns most of us here.

I will start with something that may surprise a few here. Having just finished raising a fine young man, and dealing with the eductational system elementary through university, I would say that the damage that is currently being done to boys will have long term repercussions. The so called 'war on boys" would be one of the items on my list. (BTW. My wife agrees with me on this one)

 

[Beryllos]

Please explain. What is the damage done to boys? War on boys? I am not aware of it.

 

[Dovekin]

I don’t belong to church groups and don’t know how they think. SJ on university campus is pretty radical leftist socialist. So I am having a hard time seeing that crowd in a church group, or quoting the Bible. But I could be wrong.

Social justice can be a radical idea in a society committed to individual liberties. It calls for coordination and cooperation for the common good. Because of this, its language tends to be more political than religious. If we want all of society to recognize a principle like social justice, we have to express it in ways people can listen and agree. Religious language, quoting scrpture, is helpful in some settings, but social justice requires us to convince non Christians. Nonreligious language can be a part of creating a just society out of diverse groups.

 

[PetraG]

Please explain. What is the damage done to boys? War on boys? I am not aware of it.

It refers to social engineering efforts in education, the workplace and society that seek to make behaviors associated with persons, especially children, who have a higher level of testosterone or a higher baseline level of physical activity or any other attribute associated more with males than with females things to be seen as inherently immature, defective, dangerous, antisocial, uncharitable, lacking in virtue or the like.

An example would be encourging being verbal and indirect rather being more physical or more direct, instead of valuing each communication style as having its place. An example would be valuing the capacity to sit still and listen over the capacity for physical exertion or the capacity to give and take verbal jousting. Another example would be discouraging being blunt and direct in communication in favor of teaching people to resort to euphemism or speech that is filtered by the boundaries of what is deemed “correct” or “incorrect.” Another would be elevating sympathy as supportive of the personal growth of persons while denouncing open competitiveness as not having a similar value in the mutual growth of the competitors.

When the style of females is considered “the ideal” and boys (or so-called “tomboys”) are denigrated when they do not act more in a manner considered typical for girls, it is just as damaging as when the style of males is considered the sole “ideal.” We were not made so that either the masculine or the feminine is the ideal, but so that the male and the female and the masculine and the feminine compliment each other.

I think the “war on boys” has as much to do with the problems inherent with managing overcrowded classrooms as it has to do with social engineering. There is a lot about modern life that exacerbates what ought to be the normal and manageable trials of being a human being in this vale of tears, whether male or female.

 

[Beryllos]

I don’t see it. Or maybe I don’t recognize it. Actually I think I recognize it, but as a more general problem affecting both boys and girls. (I have both male and female children.) Our world is messed up in many ways, and I suspect “war on boys” is just one symptom of a much deeper disorder.

 

[ontheway1]

Thank you. I could not have said it better.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t see it. Or maybe I don’t recognize it. Actually I think I recognize it, but as a more general problem affecting both boys and girls. (I have both male and female children.) Our world is messed up in many ways, and I suspect “war on boys” is just one symptom of a much deeper disorder.

Yes, if you look at books like “Raising Cain” and “Reviving Ophelia,” you can see that modern life has increased the emotional hurdles for both boys and girls. We obviously have a lot of sexual confusion, social anxiety and emotional insecurity in young people at the high school and college level and not a nearly enough capacity for coping with it. There are lots of reasons for that. I taught at a college prep high school, and I think part of the problem is an unrealistic and narrow view of the goal of life–or perhaps a view that is not as unrealistic as it would be in a more just society! Even at Catholic schools, “failure” is not lacking the virtue to be counted among the saints. It is lacking a diploma from a prestigious university that leads to the security of a lucrative career. We’re not even talking about people who are pursuing material wealth out of greed! I mean young people who think that they’re going to be a failure in life if they don’t get into the “right” college, because they see that as necessary to “survive.” Well, looking at how difficult life is for people who just go to work every day and do honest labor that needs to be done to keep society going, who can blame them for having that fear?

There is a measurable class divide in both marriage rates and marriage success rates. Our marriage rate is continuing to fall in part because so much of the population doesn’t have the financial security to feel they can raise a family. They certainly don’t think they have a way to survive a divorce financially, let alone emotionally. Well, look at what the wages of those who do manual labor have done, compared to those who are in white collar work! Economic justice does have a bearing on whether the populace is encouraged or deterred from a life of virtue.

We know from the previous century and a half what happens when there is unbridled capitalism or unbridled socialism. The encyclicals from the Popes on the social justice topics show the way to avoid the excesses of either of those extremes. We need to follow those and reject those who would steer us into one of the ditches on either side of the road.

 

[Beryllos]

Perhaps it is time to actually identify specific social justice issues that are at the top of everyone’s list. Let’s make a list and see what concerns most of us here.

Top of my list, or at least in the Top Ten:

Too many people these days want the community or their fellow man to give them all that is due to them, but they are not willing to give back what is due to the community or to others. People owe it to the community to educate themselves, work productively, vote wisely, pay taxes, and so on. Workers should put in an honest day’s work, as employers should give them a day’s appropriate pay. When too many people chase after pleasure, material goods, power, and prestige, without care for others, that is a social injustice and it leads to human suffering.

 

[ontheway1]

Our marriage rate is continuing to fall in part because so much of the population doesn’t have the financial security to feel they can raise a family.

Petra,
I agree with so much of what you write that I hesitate to point to something you say for fear that you could interpret it as criticism. But I believe you put your finger on something very important and it is this: you write that people do not have the financial security to feel that they can raise a family. I emphasize the word “feel” because there is a difference between feeling that you can’t afford a family and actually not being able to do so. I would venture a guess that perhaps 90% of the world’s population objectively has no means to start or support a family, but they all do it without fail. Only people in the richest country in the world feel that they can’t afford to raise a family.

As to your comments about emotional security, I also agree with what you say. It seems that for some people only a lucrative career can provide a sense of security.