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
Do you think that redistribution schemes are unjust? ·56 minutes ago
I think they are horribly unjust and one who makes the case as well as I have read is Father Robert Sirico.
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!
Same here, I live in the Bay Area, I know plenty of liberal Catholics (including some of my priests).
It sounds like what Denise and others are saying is that the archbishop of Buenos Aires, when addressing his fellow Latin American bishops (presumably in Spanish), should carefully tailor his remarks to make sure that, just in case he’s ever elected pope, the English translation of his remarks could not possibly be twisted to the advantage of the Democratic party in elections in the United States.
[W]hen 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.
It’s an important point, but it’s also important to remember that *any* concept or phrase can be used (or misused) by the Left. The devil can cite scripture to his purpose, as they say. But why does the Left always get to win the battle for definition of terms? Why do Catholics have to surrender “social justice” just because the Left has appropriated it? If we abandon concepts as soon as they acquire a specifically leftish taint, we’re left with an increasingly cramped and brittle ideology, and increasingly impoverished rhetoric. The Left has been brilliant at winning political battles by fighting for, and appropriating, other people’s language and ideas.
It may be that Denise is right and that the pope’s use of “social justice” signals a commitment to a leftist agenda. But it seems just as plausible to me that the Christian context of his words makes all the difference in the world.
Rachel–I assume they mean what they mean, no different than if they came from any other world leader, any other man. I know enough of church history to be discerning.
I’m not getting much of a logical thread in this. Why, due to Church history, should Catholics be given “the benefit of the doubt”?
Because there was one Pope who was anti-communist recently, this should mean something about this new Pope.
It seems if anyone is making assumptions, you are. Denise is citing writings of this man, it looks like you believe that Pope Francis as a world leader as of yesterday, will change his tune.
Do you think that redistribution schemes are unjust? ·56 minutes ago
I think they are horribly unjust and one who makes the case as well as I have read is Father Robert Sirico. ·1 minute ago
Then that is precisely the case we need to make.
I think it’s a grave mistake for conservatives to brand ourselves the party that opposes social justice. We need to instead acknowledge that millions of people around the world live in grinding poverty, many through no fault of their own, and acknowledge the fundamental injustice of this situation.
Then we promote free markets and the rule of law as the only known cure that has been proven effective in the real world.
It is not so much that Catholics have been led to progressivism by the Church, but rather they lack an understanding of why the Church teaches what it does. People like to see the social justice element in a vacuum and ignore that it derives its moral authority from moral teachings of Christ. Works of social justice guided by that moral compass are not of the redistributionist sort, however since those morals cut into people’s modern social lives, they are jettisoned.
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. ·18 hours ago
Joseph–tell me, in situations around the world where totalitarian governments are not in play, how poverty is due to an injustice? It could be that it is very just. Did you ever think of that? This point won’t win public sentiment but it is more in line with Biblical teaching than progressive social justice. Christians are called to care for the poor not usher in utopia in the name of 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. ·18 hours ago
Cannot_Like_this_enough!
Let me ask all,of you who support social justice is the modern sense: What are the causes of poverty? The war on poverty has failed. Why do you think tht is?
But this is the point, Denise. “Unjust economic structure” doesn’t simply mean capitalism. You assume that’s what’s implied, because you’re used to a certain kind of rhetoric, but coming from someone who is obviously in the Catholic tradition, it’s best to consider what else might be meant. Of course, it’s possible that Pope Francis does have some misguided economic ideas, and Catholics needn’t take every word he’s ever said as infallible, but it’s best not to jump to conclusions in these cases.
In any case, my view is that we can’t possibly just do away with social or distributive justice. Regardless of how progressives have corrupted the terms (in their most common usage, or at least in the liberal usage), the fact remains that they are one of the major components of justice. If we ignored them, we’d be unjust. Distributive justice does not equate to “governmental redistribution of wealth”; it’s much more complex than that, and won’t necessarily involve any centralized redistribution at all. But we can’t forget about a major category of justice merely because liberals are confused about what it is.
Good post Denise, and this is a discussion well worth having. Re your #21 comments above, the first sentence is indeed partly true, but the second overstates the case. You have to distinguish between nominal and observant Catholics. James of England nicely breaks that down supra. The issue of Church teaching on social justice is indeed a muddy one. Clerical treatment has ranged from outright Marxism (Liberation Theology) to free market apologetics (Fr. Sirico’s Defending the Free Market). Latin American poverty is a function of corrupt political economies. None of them have ever really had a true free market or representative political system. Pope Francis’ concern is rightly for the plight of the poor given his experience. I don’t think he’s a socialist at all, he is deeply at odds with leftist members of his own order. He won’t be “Krugman in a white cassock” (see, Weigel http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342964/first-american-pope-george-weigel).
Joseph, I’m bowing out because I don’t want to be Catholic-bashing here, but honestly, when you’re this disingenuous it’s difficult to keep from saying something nasty. I know you’re being snide, but if he was speaking to Latin American bishops, more prone to Liberation Theology than most I reckon, wouldn’t that be the most unwise of all.
We all know what Social Justice means in a modern context, but it’s like pulling teeth to get you to acknowledge it.
Do you really want that hoary old rhetoric? Downtrodden Proletariat? Lumpenbourgeoisie? Welcome to it, comrade.
My principles are generally free market, but I am willing to modify them for certain purposes… As for the Constitution it doesn’t prescribe any particular economic system. I am not a fan of constitutional law.
With all due respect, I think you might be happier writing editorials for The Nation.
Denise – You do a nice job of stating the Church’s mission, but to be so concerned about Pope Francis I as a “defender of social justice” after only a few days in office seems a bit hysterical.
Of the 12 instances of “social justice” in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, the one that most people seem to miss is this:
552. The first form in which this task (service to the human person) is undertaken consists in the commitment and efforts to renew oneself interiorly, because human history is not governed by an impersonal determinism but by a plurality of subjects whose free acts shape the social order. Social institutions do not of themselves guarantee, as if automatically, the common good; the internal “renewal of the Christian spirit” must precede the commitment to improve society “according to the mind of the Church on the firmly established basis of social justice and social charity”.
By taking the name Francis it seems to me that the Pope clearly understands the primary mission of proclaiming Christ and hears the call of Christ to rebuild the Church with a renewal of the Christian spirit.
Rachel— we will have to agree to disagree on what to assume about the views of world leaders. I am a Protestant for a reason.I bow to no man. (No disrespect, that’s just what I believe. So when I look at this issue, I’m just analyzing and interpreting what his positions appear to be. Nothing more. It’s obvious he is a kind man. I’m not questioning that, just his social justice position.)
It’s kind of hard to see how widespread, bitter poverty could be “very just”. I might grant “not necessarily unjust, at least in a sense for which any living person is morally responsible”. After all, a great many things in the world are outside our control, and sometimes hard circumstances just unavoidably make for hard times.
But if human civilization means anything, it means taking the thriving of each citizen as a positive goal, and achieving some sort of general consensus about what the heritage of every citizen is to be. When a large portion of a population is born into the most dire poverty, with basic goods unmet, and no realistic opportunities for advancement, it’s hard to see how that could represent a just social order. Of course, we needn’t conclude that wealth redistribution is the right corrective to such a problem, but I think justice does require us to seek a corrective of some kind.
Of course. I said “many through no fault of their own,” implying that for some it is their own fault.
And I would say the majority of the countries around the world either are now, or have been in the recent past, plagued by authoritarian governments, corruption, nepotism, racism, tribalism, crime, and violence. Under such conditions, a lot of people will end up poor through no fault of their own.
The Catholic Church has a long history with a world full of poverty. I’ve been to the Vatican and I’ve seen the gold and jewels there. The art alone is worth billions. It’s fine with me if people want to donate to the Church, I believe it is better than giving that money to governments. But like the Democratic party, I don’t hold out much hope that their economic ideas will help solve the poverty problems in the world. I always saw religion as being a reliever of suffering, not as a fixer of worldy problems
“Render to Caesar the things which are Cearsar’s , render to God the things which are God’s” cuts both ways.
As individuals and as a collective Church, you can help poor people, just don’t use my resources to do it, okay?
Rachel–I think it might help to think in terms of God’s justice. We are all, after all, under his condemnation. We live in. fallen world. We still help and love each other in this City of Man, but it is not the City of God.
…
I think you’ve taken an extremely America-centric view in your critique of the Holy Father’s words. And I’m one who naturally bristles whenever the words “social justice” are used in my church, admittingfullyto the corruption of the term by the Left.
I’m not as concerned as you that Pope Francis will get actual social justice wrong. But, I can assure you, the Left will use his words anytime it can to advance its socialist cause.
The question is, what are you gonna do about it? ·
I should have asked “What are we gonna do about it?”
This is where the lay apostolate becomes so important. The bishops have no claim to authority on economic policies. That so many Catholics are confused on what is really in the interest of the “common good” is a problem with the efforts of free-market conservative laymen topersuade the clergy and fellow laymen. Sound familiar?
It seems Joseph is the only one who’s offering a solution to the problem.
I haven’t read all the comments carefully, but put me down with those who say that we should take care to interpret the words “social justice” on the lips of an Argentine bishop according to the true Catholic understanding of that term, not according to its caricature in the contemporary American context.
A few quick points:
1) Many, many Catholics have been infected with the progressivist caricature of social justice, including its extreme form of liberation theology, which Bergoglio has explicitly rejected and opposed (for which he was resented persecuted by his fellow Jesuits.) But this progressivist idea is not the Catholic idea.
2) When a bishop says “unjust distribution of wealth” and/or goods, we should not leap to the conclusion that he endorses governmental redistribution.
3) In some of his last public remarks as pope, Benedict XVI distinguished between “the real Vatican II” and the media caricature of Vatican II, which for decades has seemed to prevail and confused many. The real strength of Vatican II, he said, is only now beginning to emerge and distinguish itself from the caricature. Similarly, the Catholic notion of social justice has been perverted by the media and other loud voices.
A couple more points:
To a Bishop, the unjust distribution of wealth, e.g., an economic system that creates a situation wherein a segment of society is living in luxury while another segment is living in hand-to-mouth poverty, is first and foremost a moral and spiritual problem.
Its primary solution, as Bergoglio himself makes clear, is not government action, but personal conversion.
The source, he says, of social injustice is sin. It’s remedy is love, and those other things he called for in his first words as Pope, faith, and a spirit of brotherhood, an openness to and concern for and solidarity with the suffering of others.
What does Bergoglio identify as the prime social solution to the problem of social injustice? The strengthening of the family and the Church.
He rails against the evil of the attempt to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions. Why? Because this is a grave social injustice. Nothing is more essential to preserving justice in the social order than the integrity of the family.
You know what else he stresses? “Bottom up solutions” as opposed to top down solutions that are imposed by elites.
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004/5)
Are these “social policies for the redistribution of income” government policies or matters of personal conversion?
This is from an article about the new Pope by a friend of mine. (It was written in haste on the first day of his pontificate, and the punctuation is hard to follow. I think this is a quotation from Bergoglio. If not, it gathers Bergoglio’s meaning of social justice.
continued below
If we hear the new Pope say “social injustice”, we should realize he is speaking on this level, not on the level of public policy.
Genferei, I do not mean to suggest that the Church has nothing to say to the question of public policy. She does. But,
1) Her approach there is secondary to and embedded in a much deeper concern for the spiritual and moral good of the person—person as individual and person-in-community,
2) Her approach there will be very different in different contexts. What is the right policy in Argentina is not necessarily the policy in America or Nigeria. The Pope has the whole world in his care.
Sure, and I’m not recommending any kind of utopianism. The most just social order we humans can realistically create will still involve a lot of suffering and, indeed, a lot of injustice. But still, insofar as we do continue to form societies, we should endeavor for them to be just societies. The distribution of goods, honors and privileges is one of the major components of that, to which we need to give some attention.
It really isn’t natural for me to mentally divide my thinking on these subjects into “political” and “non-political” brackets. In a well-functioning society, political, social and economic structures will work together harmoniously in a way targeted to facilitate every citizen’s thriving. As Christians and as Americans we should be interested in all three; none is superfluous.