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
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.
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.
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.”
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?
Jumped in at the end so please forgive me if you’ve already covered Dr. Sowell’s concept of cosmic justice. I love to use the term because it drives progressives batty.
in three propositions which may seem to be axiomatic, but whose implications are in fact politically controversial:
http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html
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. ·2 hours ago
Well said!
Do you think the current distribution of wealth, globally, is perfectly just? ·21 hours ago
The word “distribution”, in the context that you use it (above), implies an action.
Who is it that you think is the subject (or ‘doer’) of that action, and
who is it that you think should be doing the ‘distributing’? ·18 minutes ago
I’m using “distribution” in sense 2a:
I think this is an absolutely critical point. In practice, I believe “crony capitalism” (or whatever one wants to call it when the well-connected profit from their political influence) and demands for a massive welfare state are often two sides of the same coin. How do you convince people to forgo socialism when they see others getting rich (or richer) in ways that have little to do with economic productivity? Bailouts, boondoggles, legal protections for monopolies…all these bother me at least as much as poor people who want handouts.
Do you think the current distribution of wealth, globally, is perfectly just? ·21 hours ago
The word “distribution”, in the context that you use it (above), implies an action.
Who is it that you think is the subject (or ‘doer’) of that action, and
who is it that you think should be doing the ‘distributing’? ·18 minutes ago
I’m using “distribution” in sense 2a:
The fact that there are more wildcats in one region than another need not imply some subject put them there. ·15 minutes ago
I remember in Jonah Goldberg’s book a few years ago, he remarked how it was almost a constant of history that the social/political/religious groups that mirrored each other the closest were also the ones most likely to fight each other to the death. Sunni vs. Shia. Catholic vs. Protestant. Stalinist vs. Trotskyist. Fascist vs. Communist. Because the most savage and longest wars are usually over purity or righteousness.
I think this thread is a microcosm of what he was talking about, granted without the actual fighting part. Just an observation.
I have sat this one out, because I don’t really have a dog in the fight. But one of the reasons I left my faith of my upbringing was over “social justice.” In the Catholic school I attended growing up, this was a huge part of the curriculum. And I thought it was pretty shoddy economics back then. I was reading Hayek and Adam Smith around the same time, and the Scotsman won me over.
As it was taught there, “social justice” was basically Obama boilerplate type stuff. Redistributive “justice,” a just wage, and punishing corporations for excessive profits. Economically illiterate textbook and teacher.
By the way Denise, outstanding post. You’re one of my favorite member posters here, so I always look forward to your articles.
Do you think the current distribution of wealth, globally, is perfectly just?
Why does pointing out that injustice exists require administering justice to fix it?
For me, one of the basic tenets of the Christian worldview is that injustice will always exist, and thus there is no point in trying to eradicate it. Instead, we are called to alleviate the suffering of those treated unjustly – for whatever reason – as best we can. This applies to war and natural catastrophes as much as economics.
If we can’t be honest that some people are economically disadvantaged without being obligated to “fix” that injustice, then we have fallen into the utopian game of the left. I personally wish more people (including politicians) had the courage to say: yes, there is injustice in the world, and some will always remain no matter what economic system we have.
Do you think the current distribution of wealth, globally, is perfectly just?
Why does pointing out that injustice exists require administering justice to fix it?
For me, one of the basic tenets of the Christian worldview is that injustice will always exist, and thus there is no point in trying to eradicate it. Instead, we are called to alleviate the suffering of those treated unjustly – for whatever reason – as best we can. This applies to war and natural catastrophes as much as economics.
If we can’t be honest that there is economic injustice in the world without being obligated to “fix” that injustice, then we have fallen into the utopian game of the left. I personally wish more people (including politicians) had the courage to say: yes, there is economic injustice in the world, and some will always remain no matter what system of economics we have. ·1 minute ago
Precisely!
Do you think the current distribution of wealth, globally, is perfectly just?
Why does pointing out that injustice exists require administering justice to fix it?
Precisely! ·11 minutes ago
So you agree that injustice exists, that “the current distribution of wealth, globally” is not perfectly just, correct?
That’s really all I was asking. I fully agree there will always be injustice in the world, and that the “quest for cosmic justice” is futile.
But I also think we can take small, incremental steps toward a more just world without falling prey to utopianism. Why would any of us follow politics or vote if we didn’t believe some outcomes are more just than others?
I see no substantive disagreement on the notions that a) state-coerced redistribution on the scale progressives desire is neither Christian nor effective, b) that progressives bend scripture to fit their political desires, nor c) that some limited degree of government support for the truly disadvantaged is acceptable. ·1 hour ago
Sadly, there was a similar stridency on display a few weeks ago when a member of Ricochet posted about his beliefs regarding YEC.
Why this hostility? We conservatives agree on so many fundamental principles and charity and a spirit of ‘goodwill to all men’ is a sentiment that most of us would claim to embrace, and the hour is very late if we are going to turn things around in America.
To restore your faith in ‘comradery’, please take time to study the amazing cross-section of names and Christian denominations that came together to sign the Manhattan Declaration, in a concerted effort to fight the tyranny of the state!
Eugh. My comment was half posted due to lousy train internet. I’ve not seen that happen before. Full comment at #164.
Of course, we all like Denise; that’s not in question. But when she makes a point of repeating that she “bows to no man” (though no one was urging her to do so), implies that knowledge of history would turn one against the Church, and darkly references people who loudly trumpeted their view that the pope was the anti-Christ, it seems reasonable to suggest that she harbors some ill feelings towards the papacy. Which is worth pointing out, since it might color the way she interprets the words of the pope.
Rachel—Clearly you and others have misunderstood my references to church history, my statement that I am indeed a Protestant, and my comment that I “bow to no man.” Let me explain because these are all personal statements and deviate from my post which was an commentary on the statements of social justice made by the new pope and my concerns about it both in the context of the electorate (which I got into more in the thread) and in the context of the church, that while we should certainly care for the poor, we cannot neglect the preaching of the gospel (which I don’t think the pope would do, but that was more a commentary on the broader focus of the church as a whole on “social justice” to the neglect of God’s justice reconciled on the Cross, which is central to the kergymatic mission. Now, 1) I did not make repeated points that I bow to no man. I said it once. I said it because I want to make it clear that because I don’t recognize the religious authority of the pope as you do, I’m not going to give him contd
Well, as a convert who used to hold such views, I have some sympathy for those who hold them depending upon their formation, particularly if I like the cut of their jib.
the benefit of the doubt. I’m going to treat him as I would Obama or Putin or Chavez or BeBe. That’s it. I don’t hold his words as sacred, so I’m a bit more free to criticize and I think I might even be more objective about his viewpoints than most Catholics who want to think the best of their pope, which to a degree is understandable. 2) I NEVER said knowledge of history would turn someone against the church. The fact that you interpreted my words that way is perplexing to me and somewhat troubling, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt since you’re not a world leader. I said I am not willing just to assume the best about a pope or any religious leader because I know the history of the church, the turmoils, the mistakes, the brutality, the wrongdoing, the authoritarianism, the power. Given that context, I feel free to not give him the benefit of the doubt about what he has said on his economic views. This knowledge should not turn anyone against the church. There is plenty of beautiful history. My favorite writers, philosophers, church fathers ….
I have sat this one out, because I don’t really have a dog in the fight. But one of the reasons I left my faith of my upbringing was over “social justice.” In the Catholic school I attended growing up, this was a huge part of the curriculum. And I thought it was pretty shoddy economics back then. I was reading Hayek and Adam Smith around the same time, and the Scotsman won me over.
As it was taught there, “social justice” was basically Obama boilerplate type stuff. Redistributive “justice,” a just wage, and punishing corporations for excessive profits. Economically illiterate textbook and teacher.
I have no doubt this is true. Was the headmaster of your school named Bergoglio, by any chance?
I’m terribly disappointed Fr. Sirico wasn’t elected pontiff. Maybe I should pack up my rosary and leave home.
C’mon Byron! We need you in this fight (not the fight on this thread — the one in the Church)!
double post. deleted.
are all of the Catholic tradition. During seminary when others were reading Wesley and Whitefield and Edwards (which I was too, I admit), I was reading Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas, Sheen, and others. The beauty of the Catholic church is there and I’ve seen it, and unfortunately, I think too many Catholics themselves fail to see it. They get caught up in worldly notions and fail to live and love and breathe their rich heritage. The glorious gifts of their church fathers. But when it comes to authority on the world stage, that is something that deserves scrutiny, at least from my perspective. This is why I emphasized that I am a protestant. I’m not a protestant because I know church history or because I hate Catholics. One reason I’m a protestant has to do with my views on ecclesiastical authority. I was making that point simply because I wanted to be understood as to why I was freely criticizing this pope on his economic writings. And to be honest, I didn’t criticize that indepth. I simply said he appears to be fiscally liberal….
Finally, my comment that I should reference Calvin and Luther about the papacy came not as one trumpeting their views written at the time of the Reformation in the horrible, deadly battles that occurred with the Catholic church and the papacy, but simply in reaction to Michael quoting a cardinal in a way to show disrespect to my faith. Up to that point, I had not been disrespectful to any individual about their faith or said in any way that if they knew history they’d be a protestant. If you thought I said that, then you were misunderstanding me. I never said that, and I hope my words here will clarify that point. I wanted to make the point that if we wanted to start quoting nasty things from our church forebears, there’s plenty to go around and it won’t be pretty. I wanted to show Michael that I was trying to take the higher ground by not doing that. I don’t think I trumpeted their views, quite the contrary. I was making a point to Michael specifically about dissing someone through the words of others from days gone by. Never a nice things to do.
My observation here is that a lot of reactionary assumptions come when people are defensive. My post put many on the defensive. While I’m sorry for that in one way, I do hope it challenged at least some to be objective and listen and look at what our world leaders say and do. These are difficult days in which we live. Our freedom is threatened from every side. Some might think that is an exaggeration. I don’t. Ironically, it is from the teachings of the church, the same teachings you cherish, that I find hope. I do not find it in men or in promises or in structures or even in services. I find it in the heartfelt commitment of individuals to truth, love, freedom, and the power of God working in the lives of every human being on this planet. When I hear something that threatens that, I feel compelled almost like a sickness to confront it. I don’t have the platform others do. I probably don’t deserve it. But I say and do what I can. I will stumble along the way. I will surely anger some, maybe many, ….
but you can’t please everyone all of the time. I don’t try to. I think that is evident from my writings and interactions here. Michael made the comment that if you can’t take it don’t dish it out. I can take it. I have been at the mercy of those in power in ways that would make your head spin and your hair curl. I know what power can do. I honestly admit I am guarded against it. In any form. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect it where deserved, and it doesn’t mean that I don’t long for authority that is good, noble, and pure. But I know the heart of men as much as another human can. So I watch and I think and I consider and I comment when I can. Sometimes that causes me more pain than any others might feel with my words. If I have truly wronged anyone, I will apologize, whether purposely or un-purposely. But as of now, I hope you know something of my heart. (I apologize for the long string of comments but I felt it necessary.)
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. ·4 hours ago
Thank you genferei. You are very gracious.
Thank you, Byron. I feel a bit embarrassed by the gracious support done in such a public way. Please don’t worry. I’m not cowering in a corner. :) I knew my post would be somewhat controversial. I just expected others to understand what I was saying about “social justice” and look at it a bit more objectively. Oh well, but that’s life isn’t it? We learn. It only makes us all better (I think). :)
If the state is responsible for the redistribution, yes. It’s been a long downhill descent into this sort of disguised governmental theft since “Life, Liberty, and Property” was changed to “the Pursuit of Happiness” instead. Ideally, the only source for redistribution should be private charity. You’ll notice that we evil capitalist Anglo-Saxon influenced free market Americans give more to charity than other countries where the state takes care of everyone.
Do you think that redistribution schemes are unjust? ·22 hours ago
On a lighter note, I’d been gone all day burning up $3.54 a gallon gas traveling in SC, and when I got home to check Ricochet, I was really hoping DocJay had hijacked this thread with stories of barbecue. Alas, no such luck. :)