The Church and Social Justice
Reports about the new pope have been flooding the news like a tidal wave. I’ve found it interesting that while Jorge Mario Bergoglio appears to be staunchly socially conservative, he seems to be staunchly fiscally liberal. The phrase defender of “social justice” has been common among all the news reports. This seems to be backed up by real evidence.
At a meeting of Latin American bishops in 2007, he said that “the unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.” At an Argentina City Postgraduate School conference, Bergoglio spoke on “The Social Debts of Our Time.” He said that extreme poverty and the “unjust economic structures that give rise to great inequalities” are violations of human rights. He said that “social debt” is immoral especially when it occurs “in a nation that has the objective conditions for avoiding or correcting such harm.” Unfortunately, he said, it seems that those countries “opt for exacerbating inequalities even more.”
Argentineans have the duty “to work to change the structural causes and personal or corporate attitudes that give rise to this situation (of poverty),” he said, “and through dialogue reach agreements that allow us to transform this painful reality we refer to when we speak about social debt.” He added that the poor shouldn’t be dependents on the state but that the state should promote and protect the rights of the poor and help them build their own futures. He said that the problem of social justice must be a concern of every sector of society, including the church.
During a public servant strike in Argentina, he commented on the differences between “poor people who are persecuted for demanding work, and rich people who are applauded for fleeing from justice.” During a speech in 2010, he said to the wealthy, “You avoid taking into account the poor. We have no right to duck down, to lower the arms carried by those in despair.”
When I first read these quotes by Bergoglio, I wanted to believe that he was just advocating service to the poor, which is the call of Christians everywhere. However, the tenor of redistribution cannot be denied. Neither can the apparent emphasis, at least by the religious media, on the church’s primary mission these days being the eradication of social injustice throughout the world, which, it appears, will be promoted by this pope.
The term social justice is very significant because it actually runs contrary to Christ’s admonition to care for the poor. Social justice assumes that material wealth can be gained only by exploiting the poor. Therefore, for society to be just or for the church to stand for justice, wealth must be redistributed—primarily through government authority. In reality, the result of “social justice” is actually “social injustice” in which penalties are levied on those who are productive, and those who are not productive are rewarded—a worldview that is contrary to a wide range of biblical teachings including personal responsibility, wise distribution of resources to the poor, and accountability.
The controversy over theessential missionof the church is not a new one, and it has set up an unholy dichotomy between proclamation of the gospel of Christ on one hand and service to the poor on the other. Often these are advanced aseither/orissues, when they are reallyboth/and. While the mission of the institutional church iskerygmatic, proclaiming the message of Christ’s redemption to a fallen world and making disciples, the duty of every Christian is to love their neighbor, care for the weak and persecuted, stand for justice, and feed the hungry.
When it comes to social justice, however, the church has lost track of its true, primary mission—going forth into all the world and proclaiming the good news of Christ. When it comes to justice, human beings do not have “social justice” or “personal justice”; these are liberal categories that actually undermine the teaching of the church about God, man, and redemption. The only essential category of justice is God’s justice, and it is integral to salvation because faith in Christ fulfills the demands of God’s justice.
So when we talk of justice, we can’t properly do it outside the context of sin and the Cross. To go forth and try to right every wrong and even disenfranchise others in order to bring about “equality” and “justice” or to say that unequal distribution of goods is a social sin that must be fixed by the church or the government is to go against the very message of justice (and hope) proclaimed in Scripture.
While Christians are to be agents of justice, and love, in this City of Man, as Augustine described it, themissionof the church is primarily to offer the hope of eternal life in the City of God. While on earth, there will always be suffering. The poor will always be with us. There are many sufferings we can never alleviate.
While Christians are certainly called to feed the hungry in the City of Man, they must also offer them the Bread of life—Jesus said, “Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” This is what it is like to live in the City of God.
The church must do what only the church can do—tell the world of the promise of salvation to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ, the one and only savior who died on the cross, whose blood washes away the stain of sin, and who rose again to sit at the right hand of God where one day all who believe in him will also live in glory.
Those who cry for “social justice” and a moralistic therapeutic form of a “social gospel” undermine the real gospel and real justice and rob people of real hope. Those who stand for social justice don’t want to hear about repentance. They care little for the cross. They don’t want to hear of sin in a world of suffering. They want to be noble, compassionate servants in the City of Man as they neglect the City of God.
While it is certainly the responsibility and duty of all to go and feed the hungry (through service, personal sacrifice, and charity, and not through stealing from the rich in redistribution schemes), the church must never forget the words of Paul who said to the Corinthians, “Woe to me if I preach not the gospel."
- Comment (255)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (39)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
I detest the term "social justice". It is essentially a non sequitur. There is legal justice, and there is social opportunity, but there is no such thing as "social justice". It is used as a synonym for "redistribution of wealth", "socialism", and "communism", but those terms are perfectly serviceable.
The only reason to use "social justice" is that it masks the true intent of the speaker, as when our president uses the term "balanced approach" when he really means "higher taxes". It is profoundly cowardly to use such euphemisms. If one thinks a policy is a good idea, one should have the courage to call it what it is.
Jun '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Do you have a source, or evidence for that assertion?
Jun '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Denise McAllister:
He added that the poor shouldn’t be dependents on the state but that the state should promote and protect the rights of the poor and help them build their own futures.
Sounds about right to me, that's pretty much why I'm a conservative.
Jun '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Are you saying then that government redistribution of wealth violates the principles of justice as taught in the Bible?
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Joseph Stanko
Are you saying then that government redistribution of wealth violates the principles of justice as taught in the Bible? · 1 minute ago
Yes. Social Justice (as it is practiced today in this Progressive environment, which is more Marxist than Thomistic) is redistributive justice. It is based on a zero sum game. It is punitive not charitable. God commanded Christians to care for the poor. Not the government.
Edited on March 15, 2013 at 10:10pmRe: The Church and Social Justice
Joseph Stanko
Do you have a source, or evidence for that assertion? · 13 minutes ago
From the Heritage Foundation (I suggest you read the whole article):
For its proponents, "social justice" is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular "progressive" thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society's advantages and disadvantages.
Edited on March 14, 2013 at 8:13pmRe: The Church and Social Justice
Joseph Stanko
Denise McAllister:
He added that the poor shouldn’t be dependents on the state but that the state should promote and protect the rights of the poor and help them build their own futures.
Sounds about right to me, that's pretty much why I'm a conservative. · 14 minutes ago
Social justice originally meant something quite different in the Catholic Church: "The first known usage of the term is by an Italian priest, Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio, who wrote a book about the need for recovering the ancient virtue of what had been called "general justice" in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but in a new contemporary form. He gave it the term "social justice." The term was given prominence by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati in La Costitutione Secondo la Giustizia Sociale in 1848." However, social justice has been hijacked by the Progressives. It is significant that Obama says he learned his ideals of social justice from the Catholic Church. Not the old definition but the new one, the one prevalent now. If the new pope is of the old tradition, fine. But his words speak, IMO, of the newer, progressive definition.
Aug '11
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Don't forget that he comes from Argentina, yet another country that is woefully corrupt. Argentina ranks near Mexico on the corruption scale. Keep in mind that indices of corruption often correlate with levels of indemic socialism. In these countries the state plays the paternal overseer, placating the impoverished populace, while cronies use government authority to pillage the treasury and protect their oligopolies. This is the injustice that Pope Francis has experienced. This where Obama leads us, whether he knows it or not. This creates entrenched poverty and a ruling class.
Re: The Church and Social Justice
I agree. I'm looking at this "in context" of the his life in Argentina, his influences beyond historic Catholic teaching on the matter. If he's Conservative in his economics and he just means service to the poor, then fine. But that is not the message coming across and it doesn't seem to correlate with his redistribution comments. I've heard plenty of people complain on this site of the drift of Catholics toward progressivism (which is why a majority of them voted for Obama). Given that reality, I would think they would be concerned about this pope's views. That's all.
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Joseph Stanko
Do you have a source, or evidence for that assertion? · 24 minutes ago
Also from Heritage: "The last point I'll make is that Friedrich Hayek wrote a really powerful little book called The Mirage of Social Justice, in which he picked up on the way the term "social justice" was being used in the first half of the 20th century. He said "social justice" had become a synonym for "progressive," and "progressive" in practice means socialist or heading toward socialism. Hayek well understood the Catholic lineage of social justice, how the term had first appeared in Catholic thought, until almost 100 years later it became dominant on the secular Left."
May '12
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Joseph Stanko
Denise McAllister:
He added that the poor shouldn’t be dependents on the state but that the state should promote and protect the rights of the poor and help them build their own futures.
Sounds about right to me, that's pretty much why I'm a conservative. · 27 minutes ago
I can not think of a reference in the Bible, Declaration, or Constitution that mandatesit is any government's responsibility to help anyone build a fortune. Any attempt by government to help someone build a fortune sounds like suspect intervention. How is that conservative?
Jun '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Denise McAllister
Social justice originally meant something quite different in the Catholic Church: "The first known usage of the term is by an Italian priest, Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio, who wrote a book about the need for recovering the ancient virtue of what had been called "general justice" in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but in a new contemporary form. He gave it the term "social justice." The term was given prominence by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati in La Costitutione Secondo la Giustizia Sociale in 1848." However, social justice has been hijacked by the Progressives.
So if it was originally a Catholic term with a very different meaning, and it is being used by a Catholic archbishop, an elderly man who was formed in that tradition before it was co-opted by progressives, then why would you assume he's speaking in the code words of American liberals?
It seems more reasonable to assume he's speaking in continuity with 150 years of Catholic social doctrine.
Nov '11
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Denise, Catholic social doctrine, despite its ambiguities/complexities - is not designed to favor one economic system over another (which is not to say that the secular media wouldn't jump at the chance to create a simplistic, false dichotomy)...."Liberation theology" - which now-Pope Francis/Benedict/Bl. JPII *strongly*condemn(s), is expressly Marxist...Mt. 25 is chiefly the Church's motivation for efforts at alleviating human suffering. It's disconcerting, to say the least, that the imperative to reach out in compassion and Christian charity should be hijacked by those with a statist political agenda.
Nov '11
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Post-script to #13: See also the Gospel accounts of Jesus' miraculous feeding of those who'd come to hear Him...
Jun '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Denise McAllister
Joseph Stanko
Are you saying then that government redistribution of wealth violates the principles of justice as taught in the Bible? · 1 minute ago
Yes. Social Justice (as it is practiced today in this Progressive environment, which is more Marxist and Thomistic) is redistributive justice. It is based on a zero sum game. It is punitive not charitable. God commanded Christians to care for the poor. Not the government. · 1 hour ago
But did God forbid the government from caring for the poor?
It seems to me these are two very different statements:
Jesus says "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." If Caesar Obama demands that we render 90% of our income to him, should a Christian object? Or should we shrug and say "that's an affair of the City of Man and we are focused solely on the City of God?"
Dec '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Right, he did take the fish and loaves from the boy...
The problem is that government thinks it is Jesus, but it cannot acutally turn a few fish and biscuits into a bounty for thousands.
Jun '10
Re: The Church and Social Justice
The King Prawn
Right, he did take the fish and loaves from the boy...
The problem is that government thinks it is Jesus, but it cannot acutally turn a few fish and biscuits into a bounty for thousands. · 0 minutes ago
The Fed can perform an even greater miracle: it can create new money ex nihilo. ;-)
Re: The Church and Social Justice
Joseph Stanko
Denise McAllister
Social justice originally meant something quite different in the Catholic Church: "The first known usage of the term is by an Italian priest, Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio, who wrote a book about the need for recovering the ancient virtue of what had been called "general justice" in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but in a new contemporary form. He gave it the term "social justice." The term was given prominence by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati in La Costitutione Secondo la Giustizia Sociale in 1848." However, social justice has been hijacked by the Progressives.
So if it was originally a Catholic term with a very different meaning, and it is being usedby a Catholic archbishop, an elderly man who was formed in that traditionbeforeit was co-opted by progressives, then why would you assume he's speaking in the code words of American liberals?
I'm going by what the man has said. You're the one making assumptions. He might not believe in liberation theology, but he does appear to support progressive social justice. But most Catholics do think this way, which is evident by how they vote, so this is no surprise.
Apr '12
Re: The Church and Social Justice
If we're going to be hearing a lot more about social justice, maybe it's time to renew our efforts to reclaim the term. I think conservatives do often need to be told that they do have an obligation to be concerned about the distribution of goods and resources within society, and that market forces alone can't be trusted to ensure justice. It doesn't follow that solutions to injustice need always be found in governmental action, and even when the government is involved, indirect action may often be best. (For example, sponsoring education and career training for the poor instead of just throwing everyone's earnings into a pot and divvying it up more equally.) But, like Joseph, I fail to see how governmental concern with the distribution of resources is straightforwardly unChristian or contrary to what the Bible says. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church generally, and Bergoglio personally, has already rejected some of the more obviously Marxist notions of social justice in condemning liberation theology. I'm not saying that a revitalization of "social justice" is no cause for concern, but these questions are complex and we should be cautious about dismissing them entirely as liberal claptrap.
Re: The Church and Social Justice
His social justice doctrine appears to be progressive to me. He sounds a lot like Obama when it comes to the rich and the poor. Who do you think Catholics are going to vote for in the next election? The candidate who sounds like their pope (the Democratic candidate) or the candidate who doesn't, who calls for personal responsibility and opposes redistribution? They will vote as they have been—for the Democratic party and for redistribution. Redistribution does favor one economic system over another. I'm sorry, but when you talk of redistribution of wealth, it's a problem.
Edited on March 14, 2013 at 9:54pm