Social justice a red herring?

[St_Francis]

Actually, in his last Encyclical (and in several others, now that I think about it), Pope Benedict XVI exhorts goverments to enact social policy to care for the poor, the workers, the environment, and many other “social” issues. I’ll provide citations if you like, but I really can’t believe that this is still at issue here.

In Centissimus Annus, Pope John Paul II said that

1. These general observations also apply to the *role of the State in the economic sector. *Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly…

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals…

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.** It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.** One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

 

[St_Francis]

Also, if all of our Christian bretheren had been doing their fair share, we wouldn’t need government. But they don’t. So we do.

It is true that if we had all been living good Catholic lives then everyone would have been cared for, but having the government step in is *not *the answer, as it both violates the principle of subsidiarity and removes any reason for us to wake up to our Christian duty.

Reading this thread, it sounds like a lot of people don’t believe the Church has any business effectuating “social justice” either. It’s in these instances where I find the arguments against government action least persuasive.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, there is a difference between Catholic social justice and what is generally known in the world as social justice, due to the usurpation of the term by those who propose man-based solutions and who are very often enemies of the Church.

There’s been a lot of talk about “justice” here. But aren’t we forgetting that the twin attributes of God the Father are justice and mercy? That’s the case for all three Abrahamic religions, this is nothing new.

I don’t see the “every-man-for-himself” social policy anywhere in the teachings of the Church; I really don’t. The “I’ve got mine, now go get yours” philosophy doesn’t jibe with the parable about the rich man who died with his massive storehouses of grain that we heard a few weeks back. He was, in our Lord’s words, I believe, a “fool”.

You are totally right, in that the Church does *not *teach this. However, the Church *does *teach that we must as individuals develop caritas-- the love of neighbor which comes from our love of God-- and so show mercy or care to others, and thus the care of people needs to be accomplished on the principles of subsidiarity, and not usurped by the government, as Pope John Paul II wrote in CA.

There is a balance, and it is very hard to achieve, that is true. But as Peter Kreeft said, the business of government is justice, and the business of the Church is mercy. It is not that we think that we should not care for the poor at all, just that we think that the care of those in need should be done in a different way than through the government.

 

[Tigg]

Actually, in his last Encyclical (and in several others, now that I think about it), Pope Benedict XVI exhorts goverments to enact social policy to care for the poor, the workers, the environment, and many other “social” issues. I’ll provide citations if you like, but I really can’t believe that this is still at issue here.

Also, if all of our Christian bretheren had been doing their fair share, we wouldn’t need government. But they don’t. So we do.

Reading this thread, it sounds like a lot of people don’t believe the Church has any business effectuating “social justice” either. It’s in these instances where I find the arguments against government action least persuasive.

There’s been a lot of talk about “justice” here. But aren’t we forgetting that the twin attributes of God the Father are justice and mercy? That’s the case for all three Abrahamic religions, this is nothing new.

I don’t see the “every-man-for-himself” social policy anywhere in the teachings of the Church; I really don’t. The “I’ve got mine, now go get yours” philosophy doesn’t jibe with the parable about the rich man who died with his massive storehouses of grain that we heard a few weeks back. He was, in our Lord’s words, I believe, a “fool”.

Well, let’s just not forget about the basic tenets of subsidiarity and solidarity with all this government intervention, nor the fact that the Church condemns stealing from anyone, even to give to the poor. The definition of justice is giving God and neighbor what they deserve; it is also about respecting the **rights **of others and upholding the common good. Do not consider yourself virtuous or charitable if you are forced, via a redistribution of wealth, toward the level of poverty of those less forturnate than yourself. If social justice to you means espousing the principles of marxism and equal distribution of goods and property, that too, has been condemned by the social encyclicals. My other big beef with modern-day social justice is that it gives no thought to the spiritual needs of God’s people, and that too, smacks of marxist ideology; extolling only what is materialistic while opening the door to liberation theology.

 

[Tigg]

To me, it comes back to the old argument about equal opportunity or equal outcome. The church, and Christianity in general, encourage people to perform acts of charity to help out people less fortunate than themselves. However, some people go too far by supposing the Church supports a social and political policy of equal outcomes, that policies and programs should be in place that ensure everybody has an identical standard of living (by taking from the rich and giving to the poor). Personally, I think this policy is wrong. Some people deserve what they get, whether it is good or bad. That is where justice is served. (Personally, I believe in equal opportunity)

Pope Leo XIII agrees with you:

There naturally exists among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such unequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.

~ Rerum Novarum ~

It’s also interesting to note that the 10th commandment **requires **us to be just and moderate in the desire to improve our lot in life and it exhorts us to bear patiently with all manner of sufferings and material hardships permitted by God. In stark contrast, we see the “class envy” of marxism, and coveteousness, and the political ploys engaged by many Catholic “social justice” groups touting a social revolution.

 

[manualman]

Social Justice is too big a tent term to define. Surely nobody here objects to parish and diocesan programs that help battered women find safe shelter, provides emergency food for families in crisis, provides mentoring assistance to aspiring small businesses, etc.

I think the REAL objection here is to the tenets of Liberation Theology (LT) that tend to creep into modern catholic “social justice” programs. The major flaw in LT is that it places almost the exclusive blame for suffering in this world on external impositions by the rich and powerful class. In such a worldview, personal sin and the need to repentance, forgiveness and sanctification is all but ignored. Repentance is instead redefined as the cessation of cooperation in the oppression of the poor and underprivilidged.

Once you have created an “other guys” class that is the source of evil and suffering in this world, you are neatly relieved of any pesky guilt of your own, as long as you vote for socialists, drink fair trade coffee and perhaps drive a Prius (OK, now I’m being snide!).

Social Justice is compatible with catholic theology ONLY when it adherents constantly recognize that each of us, as our FIRST duty is to become holy OURSELVES. Not just in how we vote and what we say “somebody oughtta do”, but in how we behave in our personal lives.

It IS an injustice to be promiscuous, it IS an injustice to neglect the sacraments, it IS an injustice to kill the unborn, it IS an injustice to denigrate the teaching authority of the Church.

But it also IS an injustice to ignore the suffering of the poor that we commute past between our comfortable homes and our comfortable offices, it IS an injustice to ignore the harmful effects of racism, it IS an injustice to pretend there are no exploitive economic structures in our society, and so on.

The key is to recognize and prioritize. Our first call and mission in this life is to change OURSELVES via the free gift of God’s grace. Agitating for societal changes is a distant second.