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
My Protestant brothers and sisters who protest the wealth of the Vatican seem to forget that the Roman church made a rather large “donation” of cathedrals, land, and art 500 years ago.
As few European Lutherans, Reformed, or Anglicans use them any longer, perhaps we should demand their sale for alms as well.
I am a fish who swam the Tiber in the other direction, but I still care that the Roman church is led by a Pope who respects the Word and Sacraments. Our LCMS church’s Wednesday vespers included such prayers for Pope Francis.
Has anyone read his first homily (http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-1st-homily-full-text)? I was struck by his call to the cross and how he constrasted confession of Christ with more worldly institutions:
As they say, read the whole thing. It is brief, but sparkling, and he did it without notes.
On the front page of the Washington Post today, the friends of the Peronistas, the Chavistas, and the Castroites began their counterattack against this man. Please be very wary of anything that you read about him in the MSM.
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.
Only one pope who was anti-communist? Every pope has been anti-communist since communism was invented.
As few European Lutherans, Reformed, or Anglicans use them any longer, perhaps we should demand their sale for alms as well. ·3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
I guess you’re talking about things like the suppression of the monasteries under Henry VIII. Good point. While talking about abuses like the sale of indulgences it is just as well to point out that Henry and some of those German princes could not possibly be mistaken for Robin Hood.
@Michael Collins: One of the more sad aspects of becoming a confessing Lutheran is the persistence of aspects of the Black Legend among the faithful.
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 werethrilledwhen 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?
Late response, but took me some time to find your comment!
Speaking as a part-time resident of CA, I wouldn’t begin to compare the Polish people and their traumatic struggle against Communism with the 37% of this state’s population- Hispanic- that is accountable for 45% of all criminal activity, illegitimate births, and welfare dependency.
My gut reaction: a Spanish pope that even begins to insinuate that there exists an “unjust economic structure” encourages nothing but more accusations of “victimization.”
I
I’m not sure I’m with you on that. Michael Collins doesn’t believe in the Constitution, judiciary, or free markets as a strong principle and believes that the Constitution does not mandate any economic system.
It is hard to see how Christian principles mandate a belief in the American Constitution. Yes, we need a judiciary, but I am not in favor of judicial review. I am in favor of abolishing the Supreme Court. Nor do I see any part of the constitution that mandates a particular economic system. Many of the liberals where I work would be surprised to hear that I am not a believer in free markets as a strong principle. That principle can be overridden at times when it conflicts with other principles that I also believe in.
This is my worry also. Convincing the American electorate to abandon Liberalism is looking all but impossible at this point and if we can’t continue to gain on the Catholic vote, it will indeed be impossible. There were gains in the White Catholic vote last election, but there is no reason the percentages should lag behind Protestants. I also have hopes concerning the Catholic influence in the Hispanic world.
For all these reasons and more, this was an important post. Well done.
What other economic system can you see accommodating the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution?
I’m a little bit confused here. I don’t see how Cardinal Newman’s quote could be considered nasty or disrespectful to you. Even the term “nasty” doesn’t seem to go well with “Cardinal Newman.”
What other economic system can you see accommodating the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution? ·41 minutes ago
A free society requires a free market. That does not mean that the constitution as such “mandates” it.
Actually that was my comment.
I wasn’t angered or offended by anything you wrote, my point was simply that I read Michael’s quote of Cardinal Newman as a rather straightforward response to your comment about history and was rather surprised that you took at as “nasty” and a personal attack.
This is essentially how I interpreted the situation.
What other economic system can you see accommodating the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution? ·41 minutes ago
A free society requires a free market. That does not mean that the constitution as such “mandates” it. ·1 minute ago
No, I agree, it doesn’t explicitly. But it was pretty clearly created with a free market system in mind. And the spirit of it is important to me. I hope that doesn’t come off as approving emanations from the penumbras.
A free society requires a free market. That does not mean that the constitution as such “mandates” it. ·1 minute ago
No, I agree, it doesn’t explicitly. But it was pretty clearly created with a free market system in mind. And the spirit of it is important to me. I hope that doesn’t come off as approving emanations from the penumbras. ·0 minutes ago
The Constitution did not specifically mandate slavery, but was clearly created with slavery in mind as well. That is very much the reverse of a free market.
A free society requires a free market. That does not mean that the constitution as such “mandates” it. ·1 minute ago
No, I agree, it doesn’t explicitly. But it was pretty clearly created with a free market system in mind.
It’s an interesting question. I think the Constitution gives the national government very limited, enumerated powers, and as such I suspect the Founding Fathers would consider Obamacare, Medicare, and Social Security unconstitutional.
But I don’t think the Founders intended to constrain what the states could do so long as they kept a “republican form of government.” I think Romneycare is bad policy but perfectly constitutional. So I tend to think a state could go pretty far down the social welfare path, with 90% state income taxes and crade-to-grave benefits w/o violating the Constitution.
The one practical check against that is that states can’t prevent U.S. citizens from entering or leaving, so such a state would see high income earners leaving and lots of other people moving in to claim the “free” goodies.
To get back to the “social justice” question:
John Paul II Centisimus Annus
This is my worry also. Convincing the American electorate to abandon Liberalism is looking all but impossible at this point and if we can’t continue to gain on the Catholic vote, it will indeed be impossible.
I understand your concern. Believe me, as a conservative Catholic, I’m familiar with the ways liberals will point to elements of Catholic social doctrine as support for all their favorite Democrat policy initiatives (which is ironic considering they completely ignore clear Catholic teaching on the social issues).
As Rachel said, words like “social justice” and “distributive justice” have specific, technical meanings in Catholic philosophy that do not automatically imply support for specific economic systems or policy initiatives. My fear is that if conservatives sneer at such phrases and declare proudly that they are against social justice, we’re only going to drive more Catholics away from our side and into the arms of the progressives.
Instead we need to do a better of job of explaining how conservative policies promote social justice and help the poor. That’s how we win the Catholic vote.
And again:
And:
John Paul II Centisimus Annus
And:
Following (World Ware II) we see in some countries and under certain aspects a positive effort to rebuild a democratic society inspired by social justice, so as to deprive Communism of the revolutionary potential represented by masses of people subjected to exploitation and oppression. In general, such attempts endeavour to preserve free market mechanisms, ensuring, by means of a stable currency and the harmony of social relations, the conditions for steady and healthy economic growth in which people through their own work can build a better future for themselves and their families.At the same time, these attempts try to avoid making market mechanisms the only point of reference for social life, and they tend to subject them to public control which upholds the principle of the common destination of material goods.
And yet again:
The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand.Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.
There is a danger in these scattered quotes from Centisimus Annus. You will get a distorted idea of Catholic Social doctrine if you take them in isolation. I have given them to show that the doctrine is complex and balanced. Not unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, liberation theology, or socialism. Nor is it simply blah-blah about being nice to the poor. It is certainly not the kind of knee-jerk liberal social justice that says, “Here is a situation I don’t like. Here is a program that contains plenty of action (regardless of whether it is the right action or not). You are an evil person if you disagree with me”. Either make some attempt to understand what Catholic teaching actually is, or refrain from criticizing what you don’t understand.
Iattempted to make this point in a “conversation” with a progressive colleague; and found out that only through completely neutral and benign government redistribution programs can we ensure that the downtrodden and oppressed minorities in America get their fair share of cosmic justice. And the cherry on top according to my colleague, thinking that forced income redistribution is not at the exact center of the Zen circle of enlightenment, probably means that you’re a racist.
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.
Only one pope who was anti-communist? Every pope has been anti-communist since communism was invented. ·
You leave out the context. Is that a Catholic thing? Every time I have interactions with Catholic Church defenders they do this. And it’s not because of the word-count issue. There was defiance toward communist countries because they were anti-religion. Communism philosophically? Not so much.
Hey, the first positive words I heard about communism came from a nun. Don’t try to deny there isn’t a strong thread of belief in communism and socialism as a philosophy in the Catholic Church. And let’s look at results. Who are Catholics voting for across the globe? Essntially socialists. Why? So you are in a minority in your own professed Church. Deal with them, not us.
It’s an interesting question. I think the Constitution gives thenationalgovernment very limited, enumerated powers, and as such I suspect the Founding Fathers would consider Obamacare, Medicare, and Social Security unconstitutional.
One of the enumerated powers is the power to regulate “commerce between the states”. It was a limited power at the time the Constitution was adopted. Most goods were manufactured and consumed locally. Modern commerce has expanded the reach of this clause. With inventions such as the railroad and refrigerator cars a cow can be raised in one state, butchered in another state, and sold in a third state. Among other things the regulation of interstate commerce is used to justify laws against racial discrimination. Many believe these laws infringe on property rights. It is no longer a question of a private agreement between ‘a willing buyer and a willing seller”. Many are compelled to sell goods and hire people against their will under penalty of law. But the law is in harmony with Catholic teaching that private property is subordinate to the common destination of goods. This is an example of the state intervening in the market to produce “social justice”.
There was defiance toward communist countries because they were anti-religion. Communism philosophically? Not so much.
Where do you get this idea, Franco? Having studied graduate philosophy under Catholic professors (including Rocco Buttiglioni, who is rumored to have drafted Centesimus Annus, I call it risibly false.
Have you any familiarity with Karol Wojtyla’s personalist anthropology? He was Pope through much of the cold war. One of his prime philosophical interests (he was a professor of philosophy for decades) was the de-personalizing evil of totalitarian ideologies. He identified their core evil as a spiritual pulverization of the individual.
Have you read the social encyclicals of the last 100 years?
Communism has always been rejected by the Church as inconsistent with the dignity of the human person and basic human rights.
Needless to say individual Catholics have been seduced by it. But as a matter of formal teaching, it is condemned as absolutely evil, while capitalism is not.
This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.Note that socialism and communism are condemned outright, while the critique of capitalism is qualified. It’s not capitalism as such, but certain of its tendencies that are rejected.
Note that not just the atheism of communism and socialism is rejected, but the very idea of central planning.
katievs
The first positive words I heard about communism came from a nun. I was in sixth grade. In Catholic school I heard very little anti-communism, and a lot of, we need to help the poor (we remaining undefined). So the combination, at least in the rank and file Catholic teaching , doesn’t exactly advance free-market capialist principles.
And let’s look at results. Who are Catholics voting for across the globe? Essentially socialists. Why?
YThere was defiance toward communist countries because they were anti-religion. Communism philosophically? Not so much.
Hey, the first positive words I heard about communism came from a nun.
You can find nuns who are communist, just like you can find nuns who are pro-abortion. That is unfortunate, but it is the state of the Church just now.
With reference to Communism, Our Venerable Predecessor, Pius IX, as early as 1846 pronounced a solemn condemnation against…. “that infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself.”[1] Later on…. Leo XIII (defined communism as)… “the fatal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin.” Pope Pius XI in Divini Redemptoris.
You can find much more on the Catholic view of Communism in that encyclical. And no, it is not just the anti-religion part of Communism.
I’m going to unfollow here because I see no progress and I have other posts, which people here are free to comment upon and free not to. The Pope will do and say whatever he does and says. I have no control and Catholics have no control. It’s not a democracy – the Church.
I can’t control what people think or believe.
I do find it worthy to note that the people so interested in defending the Catholic Church and conservative principles seem uninterested in defending liberty when it is being taken from them wholesale (unless it’s religious freedom)
Comment #220 on this subject….
The first positive words I heard about communism came from a nun…So the combination, at least in the rank and file Catholic teaching , doesn’t exactly advance free-market capialist principles.
“We need to help the poor” is a first principle of the Christian moral life, given by Jesus.
It’s fitting and proper that you got that from Catholic nuns. It would not be fitting and proper for Catholic nuns to be teaching either communism or free-market capitalism (unless you were in college and the nun happened to be also an economics professor.)
As I said, many Catholics were seduced by the lies and illusions of communism, just like many were seduced by the lies and illusions of the sexual revolution.
Many Catholics can be found who see nothing wrong with birth control. Yet, it has always been condemned by the Church itself. Likewise, even though you can find Catholics who say positive things about communism, it remains the case that it has been condemned as evil by the Church for as long as its been in existence.