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
Here are some general principles of Catholic Social Teaching:
1) The goods of the world are a gift of God to human beings. Every person has a right to be sustained by them. Anyone who hoards up wealth for himself while his brothers around him are suffering from want imperils his soul.
2) Every human person is in deep and important ways dependent on others and responsible to others and for others.
3) Those who wield worldly power are especially responsible to make sure that that power is deployed to protect the rights and dignity especially of the poor and vulnerable in society, and not to further enrich the elite.
4) Poverty is a problem that calls for solutions on both the individual and communal levels.
5) Every human person has a worth and dignity that transcend the demands of the collective. Collectivism that subsumes the individual is a grave evil, radically incompatible with the truth of the human person and the gospel of Christ.
Also: if indeed you’re familiar with Church history, shouldn’t you give Catholics a bit more of the benefit of the doubt? Even if you don’t want to go all the way back to Aristotle, what of more recent history? Pope John Paul II had lots to say about social justice and just economic structures, but he also wrote some scathing things about the evils of socialism, and was one of the major personalities (together with Thatcher and Reagan) who stood up against communism. It isn’t reasonable to assume, just because Pope Francis is now (as of yesterday!) a “world leader” that he speaks the same language as our own dear president.
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.
You keep saying this so authoritatively. A majority of Catholics voted for Obama, it’s true. But, are you aware of the ethnic breakdown? Something like 75% of Latino Catholics voted for Obama. Romney got the majority of the white Catholic vote.
This is where the Catholic vote gets complicated. I have found Latinos to be very, very poorly catechized (really, no Catholic should be voting for someone so stridently advocative of the intrinsic evil that is abortion). Many of them aren’t Mass attending, and are sympathetic to the long-condemned liberation_theology.
katievs,
I understand that
But to say (as some seem to be) that when a bishop speaks of “social justice” and distribution of income he just cannot be talking of state-enforced redistribution seems to be straining credulity.
I understand that
But to say (as some seem to be) that when a bishop speaks of “social justice” and distribution of income he just cannot be talking of state-enforced redistribution seems to be straining credulity. ·4 minutes ago
Well put.
We should consider society at large but I’d like the folks in charge to be mindful how much they take from me. Letting me pick my charities too is a very good way to embolden the spirit of what Katievs is getting at in post #110.
Really? You’re better than that Denise. How about vast swaths of the world where property rights are almost non-existent. Most people have probably never heard of a property deed, let alone held one in their hands that had any meaning the “authorities” would recognize.
How about where the rule of law is some exotic political theory rather than a practiced social norm? Like right across our southern border where the police are notoriously corrupt.
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, admitting fully to 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?
Wow, the personal attacks here are astonishing. The author of the post has had her personal beliefs questioned (with several Likes) and she’s been called hysterical for asking some questions and pointing out some views by the pope. Unbelievable.
Oh, do! Luther’s comments in particular are so hilariously over the top that a Catholic club to which I once belonged would read them out for fun at late-night parties.
But seriously, I’m not trying to make fun; it just seems like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about the papacy, which seems a little unfair. Because the Borgia popes were rotten, we’re now going to jump to conclusions about this one, even though recent popes (a more reasonable comparison class, since the circumstances of their election were more comparable) have been both deeply learned and admirably stalwart in addressing the moral crises of our times?
Thoughtful Catholics are more discerning about these things than you seem to suppose. It’s unfitting to dismiss the Holy Father as an out-of-touch old coot, but he can be wrong about things. Papal infallibility has very limited application. Personally, the popes’ recent fascination with world government is the thing I have most trouble taking seriously, but so it goes.
But here’s the thing: even if Francis I does favor redistribution, it hardly matters, except when he actually makes a point of actively recommending that to all the faithful. Catholic social teachings don’t per se require massive, widespread centralized redistribution of wealth. Insofar as the pope’s words focus on principles that are compatible with conservatism, we should focus on articulating how they are compatible, rather than trying to discern deeper, unarticulated views with which we might have more difficulty.
But also, even if there have been some more direct and objectionable recommendations of redistribution, that doesn’t put conservative Catholics in a state of crisis. He wasn’t even the pope when he said these things, and even if he says them again, economics is not something about which the Church claims to have definitive knowledge. But for now let’s just calm down and realize that he’s a person, and can have erroneous views about some things without throwing the whole world into chaos. We should give him a chance to show what he’s going to do as supreme pontiff before we start getting all upset.
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 Times update: LA Latinos praise Spanish-speaking, Latin American pope
I understand that
But to say (as some seem to be) that when a bishop speaks of “social justice” and distribution of income he just cannot be talking of state-enforced redistribution seems to be straining credulity. ·31 minutes ago
I would put it this way: When Bergoglio speaks of “social justice” and distribution of wealth, we should not take him to be calling for state-enforced income redistribution.
Rather, he is calling attention to a moral problem, whose solution is moral. No mere change in policy will resolve it. Confiscation and re-distribution of is no substitute for solidarity and generosity.
Further, according to CST, there are grave dangers to the person and the family inherent in government power. See the principle of subsidiarity.
Great post and discussion. Social justice as used by contemporary liberals is neither social nor just. It fails to recognize the integrity and complexity of civil society and makes no attempt to differentiate between institutional failure and personal responsibility. That said, I also agree with Rachel, especially in her comment #80. This discussion brings out a tension within modern conservatism as identified by the late Irving Kristol. Kristol discussed different defenders of what we have come to call “capitalism” or “the free society.” Hayek, he points out, self-consciously opposed a “just” society to a free one, arguing that to equate the two immediately cedes the ground to leftists planners. Kristol argues the early defenders of capitalism did not take this path and did in fact claim that the free society was more just than any previous order. I would add, in the spirit of Rachel’s comment, that to speak in the language of distributive justice, or social justice, or the common good, is not necessarily to fall victim to leftist utopian fantasies, but is to remain rooted in the natural order of politics.
My link won’t work, but the Kristol essay is called “When Virtue Loses All Her Loveliness: Some Reflections on Capitalism and the Free Society.” You can find it in the archive of The Public Interest at the National Affairs website. First published in the early 1970s.
The principle of subsidiarity is wonderfully double-edged. It contains within itself the idea of a hierarchy of institutions, with the state being the highest of them all. While it prescribes limits upon what the higher institutions ought to do with respect to lesser institutions (such as the family), it also imposes obligations upon those higher institutions to support and develop such “lower order societies”.
This is not the same thing as federalism, where a central government is granted limited powers by regional governments. Subsidiarity assumes the state is all-powerful, and should choose when and how to intervene to maintain the health of the institutions in its care.
That is not to say there is a problem with the principle of subsidiarity – it is not intended to be a constitution. But it does mean that almost any state policy short of the outright banning of the family (for example) can be justified as consistent with the principle.
(Not sure what this post has to do with Francis, sorry.)
Rachel– yes I do know Christian history, and I think it wise to take a broader view of all 266 popes than just back to the last two. Given that history, I do not give anyone in religious authority the benefit of the doubt.
These things can be parsed to pharisaical fineness, but for many of us what the Pope really believes or has said in the past is of little concern. What is worrisome is the effect it will have on Catholic support for conservatism.
I hope this Pope is mindful of the political effect of his words going forward, if for no other reason than it will have a huge effect on the poor. If Catholics had voted like Evangelicals in the last election, I imagine Romney would be sitting in the White House.
“Stewardship of wealth” perhaps should be the phrase employed. Wealth exists. Great wealth is directed by a relatively few people. The best use of this wealth is a concern for the church. When a corporation funds a decadent and debauched weekend at a private island for its executives and associates, condemnation is in order. Granting wealth to people does not guarantee good stewardship, reference most lotto winners five years out. I imagine there are “obscenely” wealthy people in, say, Salt Lake City. I humbly suggest that a more important focus of the Church would be on helping as many of God’s children manage our cardinal and venial sins (and to be able to distinguish between the two), then the service to the poor will follow. The wealth redistribution will follow from character developement of the people and not imposed. This is the Church’s role and not governments. Influence, not theft.
…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.
You keep saying this so authoritatively. A majority of Catholics voted for Obama, it’s true. But, are you aware of the ethnic breakdown? Something like 75% of Latino Catholics voted for Obama. Romney got the majority of the white Catholic vote.
This is where the Catholic vote gets complicated. I have found Latinos to be very, very poorly catechized (really,noCatholic should be voting for someone so stridently advocative of the intrinsic evil that is abortion). Many of them aren’t Mass attending, and are sympathetic to the long-condemned liberation_theology. ·
To put this a little more strongly; there been, in the history of America, one non-incumbent Republican who landed as strong a Catholic vote as Mitt did in the last election (Bush 41, who beat Mitt 49-48). The drift is emphatically not towards Democrats. White and observant Catholics (separate groups), in particular, are moving right in record numbers.
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”…… 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. … he didn’t …. actually call for massive wealth redistribution, and that’s important….
I agree that his perspective and foreseeable interpretation is different from Obama’s. Calling for a move to the left in America means becoming more like Europe. Calling for government intervention in Argentina means becoming more like Bolivia. You’ll forgive me if I don’t find the distinction comforting.
I agree that his Leo XIII style “third way” rhetoric does not explicitly call for redistribution, but any listener familiar with the tradition and context would understand.
As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, FI inhabited an Argentine political world. He favored the rape of the Falklands and went along with a political debate that ranges from fascist to communist with moderates getting <18% of the vote. If he was preserving his political capital for the fights relevant to Catholicism, supporting patriotism, and promoting respect for the Church by not being too far out of the mainstream on economics, that sounds like a sensible move to me. He’s been willing to fight on SSM, abortion, et al., and he’s got to pick his battles.
If as Pope, he continues to hold unfortunate positions on economics and aggressive wars for oil, it’ll be a shame, both for America and for the rest of the world. Still, Benedict could say some pretty ugly things about capitalism, too, and still be a great Pope. There’s a long tradition of Papal economic third way left-wingery (JPII being impressive for his move to the right), and it hasn’t stopped the Papacy from being a tremendous force for good.
Of course, I may be biased, as the rest of the Patriarchs are often worse on these issues.
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.
Do we have any Ricochetti who care to expand and support this view, explaining how a just government might promote the just wage without violating Christian principles?
I already said this, but the electoral concern is minor. Few Catholics hang on the pope’s every word. Of those who do care what the pope thinks, most vote conservative for the social issues. Looking at the relatively few who are willing to disregard the social issues to vote for the Democrats, I think we’d find that almost all are voting Democrat already. At worst, the new pontiff might slightly slow the migration of serious, Mass-going Catholics towards the Republicans. It’s just not a big factor in American politics.
Denise,
Thank you for this post and the spirit of good will with which you have obviously approached your responses to various commenters. I for one have no doubts as to the sincerity of your motives and the chip-free nature of your (obviously broad) shoulders. Although it seems unlikely, please do not be put off contributing further to Ricochet – you have been a fabulous addition to our famously incoherent – but high-minded – community.
Maybe at point if ideas are so spread it doesn’t matter if you are left-winger or right-winger, you are contaminated and condemned to speak in your enemies tongue for all eternity.
Cardinal Bergoglio is is not a favorite of the Kirchner government, so he is not left-wing, but Argentina is so far lost that even the good sound bad.
Thank you for this post and the spirit of good will with which you have obviously approached your responses to various commenters. I for one have no doubts as to the sincerity of your motives and the chip-free nature of your (obviously broad) shoulders. Although it seems unlikely, please do not be put off contributing further to Ricochet – you have been a fabulous addition to our famously incoherent – but high-minded – community. ·16 minutes ago
As a thick skinned Catholic always open to good banter, I second genferei’s comment. Though I still dissent from being labeled high-minded. #fauxindignation
When social is used in any term, the term itself is the antonym of the word that follows social.
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.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. -Cardinal Newman
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.
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.