Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.”
Published in General
Words mean things.
Indeed they do.
“Distributive justice” goes back to Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
Conservatives may not like the teachings of social justice because many conservatives are, let’s say, financially “comfortable.” The Gospel calls me to share my blessings, and I, especially I, find this difficult because I have many blessings like a stable family, citizenship in a free, prosperous country, decent mental capacity, and health. When one does not have these blessings, one is prone to poverty. The Gospel, and therefore the Church, asks me to share my blessings with those who have not been blessed in this way. This is true social justice. True redistribution according to God’s will.
If a Catholic thinks he is doing his duty for social justice by casting a vote for a Obama (or Romney), they are sorely misguided.
Like! Nice post.
I just want to say that I do respect my Catholic friends and their values and beliefs and their love for their Papa. But I do see him as a world leader and I’m worried. I apologize if this has offended anyone. I don’t mean it to. But I know church history. Would every Catholic say they have agreed with or even been proud of every pope? I think not. My heart is with my family, my country, with my children and the hope of a free future that is not manipulated by talk of the poor–talk that has more to do with political and social agendas than love. I don’t question this pope’s heart. That is not for me to do. I only question his words and how they will impact how people vote in this country, votes that affect the future of my children.
Joseph–I can assure you that when the modern man speaks of justice he is not thinking within the categories of Aristotle. As for quoting Aristotle, I don’t think you want to hold, for example, his views of women up as authoritative.
Denise, I know you aren’t Catholic, so you are in no danger of being a cafeteria Catholic, but let me just add that a Catholic who is only, as you would say, “socially conservative”, but whose heart is hardened when asked to be in solidarity with those who are suffering, is a cafeteria Catholic.
Thankfully, I haven’t encountered any Catholics, who agree with the Church on life (abortion, ssm, euthanasia, etc.) but dissent on social justice.
Distributive justice was then incorporated into Catholic though by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3061.htm
This article describes several modern theories of distributive justice, including John Rawls and Robert Nozick:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/
Charity is a noble concept. Social Justice? Not so much. So those who believe they can “help” people with redistribution schemes, I say this is uncharitable and debilitating.
There are things which need fixing like crony capitalism (rampant in South America and growing here) but I’m not sure the Catholic Church is in any position to deal with such things and would do better tending to the flock.
Given the make-up of most Catholics demographically, any talk of Social Justice will not be taken in the sophistcated light expressed here. I would also expect that a Pope from Argentina will not be very sophisticated in American founding principles and politics, so this is a lot of projection on the part of Catholics reading significance into this new development. Everyone gets to project their thoughts, like CNN gets to question why there aren’t women priests, etc.
I also wonder what religious thinkers and saints would think of our system of government, completely unknown to them at the time, as well as the benefits of capitalism in a free-market society and how it may have informed their thoughts and writings about justice and the poor.
Part of their duty would be to vote for the president more likely to bring about genuine social justice. It disturbs me when I hear the new Pope using terminology that can be used against conservatives when defined in a commonly used fashion. I felt the same when Pope Benedict XVI spoke against ‘unregulated financial capitalism’. In both cases the statements can be defended when parsed carefully enough, but it is providing the left with talking points.
The same points that those of you defending his words claim he is making could be expressed without resorting to Leftist by-words. When you refer to your fellow Ricocheteers, do you call them friends or comrades?
Ernest L. Fortin.(Stupid link bug again!)
Joseph—So? I love Aquinas but I will look to Adam Smith and Locke before I look to Aquinas on economics and property rights. Also, we live in the 21st century. Who do you think has impacted church leaders and other political leaders more today? Aquinas or Keynes? I hope Aquinas, but I’m not so sure.
Denise, you said “the fact that you have phrased your last question in distribution terms shows that you have been corrupted by progressive thinking.” If that is true then apparently Aristotle, Aquinas, and arch-libertarian Nozick have all been “corrupted by progressive thinking” as well.
As you said, words have meaning. And I refuse to concede the meaning of well-established words in philosophy, theology, or economics to progressive attempts to hijack and re-define them. Words like “marriage,” for instance…
Do you think that redistribution schemes are unjust?
Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum condemned both socialism and unfettered capitalism. He defined a just wage as a wage that enabled workingmen to raise their families in “frugal comfort”, while having enough extra to provide for retirement and their own advancement. He denied that the free market automatically guaranteed a just wage. His teaching has been constant in the Church. For example, Pope John Paul II said in Laborem Exercens that the test of justice of an economic system was whether it produced a just wage. He suggested a family allowance as a means to supplement income so as to reach the just wage. This encyclical helped inspire Solidarity. Another noted statist, Milton Friedman, suggested replacing the welfare state with a negative income tax. A socialist named Friedrich Von Hayek claimed there was nothing wrong with using the power of the state to help lower income people. He even said it could be done without destroying liberty. I think that was in The Constitution of Liberty. More recently Guy Sorman argued for a negative income tax. All these ideas look perfectly compatible with John Paul’s suggestion. Too bad the last three guys are all RINO squishes.
Joseph—Philosophical paradigms from the past are not always relevant to the application of these principles today. I’m sure the pope, if he is as smart as everyone says, understands these distinctions. He will know that he is speaking in these times, within modern constructs, and in the context of progressive philosophy. So his words certainly do mean things. He’s a man of the people right? Unless you think he is ignorant of how his words are interpreted in the modern context? ….
Michael– when it comes down to it, I don’t care what a pope has written about economics. the only thing I care about is how Catholic views impact the American electorate and how the pope promotes the message of the Gospel. I stand by the Constitution and free market principles, which I thought everyone at Ricochet stood by. Is this not the case?
Yes, well-said. Thank you for expressing it better.
Something like 75% of Latino Catholics voted for Obama. Romney got the majority of the white Catholic vote.
And now the Curia has elected a Latino pope.
LA Timesupdate: LA Latinos praise Spanish-speaking, Latin American pope ·
And so? Poles were thrilled when Karol Wojtyla was elected. And as Pope John Paul II, he was one of the primary players who helped “tear down this wall” of communism, and his courageous witness breathed new life into the Polish Church.
Isn’t there a chance that Spanish-speaking Catholics will be more receptive to the message of the Gospel with Pope Francis preaching it? A man dedicated to the poor and suffering?
I understand non-Catholics may not believe the Holy Spirit works through the Church. I wish you’d try to understand that we do believe it, and not be so quick to judge.
Can we give the the guy some time to dip his toes in the Tiber? Hunh?
Interpreted by whom? I don’t think it’s any more reasonable to assume “social justice” means communism than it is for someone to assume conservative exhortations about “responsibility” equal contempt for the poor. If we get to the point of forbidding simple phrases like “social justice” or “distribution of wealth,” then aren’t we just practicing our own version of political correctness?
Adrastus, society often defines terms for us. We have to accept and understand that reality. I left the Catholic Church for a reason. One reason is its hypocrisy when it comes to caring for the poor. They pay lip service to it and leave the rest to the to government. Plus I don’t think Denise ever equated social justice to communism, but it does lead there. The fact is, today, in the world in which we live, social justice means socialism. Period. The new pope knows this. He’s not stupid. He knows exactly what he means when he says redistribution of wealth. He thinks this is charity as so many Catholics do. He is wrong as are so many Catholics.
In fact he specifically says what we should do about it: “through dialogue reach agreements that allow us to transform this painful reality.”
There are people in Latin America who live in miserable poverty. Does anyone here deny this?
It seems to me what he’s trying to do is prick the conscience of his audience to goad them to do something. What to do is properly a matter for politicians and voters to decide. This is where conservatives need to step in and explain how our solutions work best in the real world.
Interpreted by whom? I don’t think it’s any more reasonable to assume “social justice” means communism than it is for someone to assume conservative exhortations about “responsibility” equal contempt for the poor. If we get to the point of forbidding simple phrases like “social justice” or “distribution of wealth,” then aren’t we just practicing our own version of political correctness?
No. No one is forbidding here. But when influential people employ ideological catch-words it can, and will, as it was with PBXVI’s badly chosen words on equality and capitalism, be used by the Left. This is an important point.
Adrastus—-I’m not forbidding any terms. I’m interpreting them in the current, social, political climate according the the actual words used. If all the new pope means is getting off your butts and feeding the hungry, then great. But I, IMO, do not think he means this. That might be where his heart is, but it is not what his words are illuminating.
In my view free markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. If free markets promote justice and prosperity, as I believe in most cases they do, then I support them.
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.
Normally, I avoid responding to posts on religious topics because I am hardly equipped to hold my own against the likes of learned theologians such as Pseudo, but you are speaking my language now! And apparently that of the late JPII as well:
Pope John Paul II … definitely recognized many virtues that a capitalist economic system brings, especially when combined with general social, political, and religious freedom. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, he explicitly accepted and justified the practices of capitalist economic institutions as normative and only asked that Catholic social teaching be used as a moderating influence to avoid some excesses.
Centesimus Annus has, in fact, been heavily criticized because it appears to rely more on the authority of John Locke than Aquinas or Augustine.
Interesting post and I appreciate your concerns as well.
It’s an interesting question, I suppose it would depend on what he said and how he said it. An offhand remark in an interview or speech would be very different than an encyclical invoking the full weight of his teaching authority.
Regardless, the Church has never claimed to be an authority on politics or economics and has said repeatedly such matters should be left up to the lay faithful. However, the Church does teach with authority on doctrine and morals, and that includes the moral principles that I use as a guideline to evaluate whether or not specific political and economic systems are just or unjust.
No, but I do deny that what is commonly called social justice would do anything but exacerbate the problem. Joseph, you keep ignoring the current and widespread way in which this term is used. Did Hayek or Friedman, Buckley or Reagan ever use the term in a positive or un-ironic sense? I very much doubt it.
Oh, of course I see what you’re worried about; your run-of-the-mill village liberal would naturally assume that “unjust economic structures” means “capitalism” and “unjust distribution” means “something less than complete equality”. Remember, I’m university people, so I’ve been living in this stuff for years!
But when we’re dealing with the (now) Holy Father (who is not only a spiritual leader for Catholics like me, but also beholden to a much longer and more venerable tradition than Marxism), we can’t read these phrases and assume they mean the same thing coming from his lips as what they would from Barack Obama’s. We have to be subtler than that. The fact is that he didn’t (at least in anything you’ve said here) actually call for massive wealth redistribution, and that’s important.
Let’s not make problems worse than they need be by always assuming that the grimmest interpretation is the right one!
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/899/only_part_of_the_story.aspx#.UUJxjhzCZ8E
My principles are generally free market, but I am willing to modify them for certain purposes, such as promoting the just wage as defined by Leo XIII. As for the Constitution it doesn’t prescribe any particular economic system. I am not a fan of constitutional law. In fact I would be willing to junk a lot of the constitution as long as it is replaced by a democratic government. Definitely I want to abolish the Supreme Court (reverse Marbury vs Madison and amend Article III), and sometimes I wonder whether we ought to have a parliamentary system. So no, I don’t stand by the Constitution as such nor am I a doctrinaire free marketer.