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
Quadragesimo Anno speaks of “greater and higher” and “lesser and subordinate”, as well as communities of a “higher order” and a “lower order” (and this last, at least, is quoted in the Catechism).
I freely admit that I’m an amateur in trying to parse these documents, but the point I really want to make is that the principle of subsidiarity allows for a higher/larger collective to intervene in the operation of a lower/smaller. Yes, it puts limits upon that, but within those limits all manner of things can be justified as consistent with the principle.
And from them I quickly run away.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. -Cardinal Newman ·12 hours ago
Huh?
What Michael said is simply the mirror image of what you said. You said are a Protestant because you know church history. The clear implication of that is those of us who are Catholic must be blissfully ignorant of that history. Trust me, I know about the “bad popes” and such, you and I see the same data and draw different conclusions.
It seems to me the old “don’t dish it out if you can’t take it” rule should apply here.
Let’s approach the question from a different angle.
First, for the average conservative, what do they think on the whole is the reason people are in poverty? From what I have observed over the past few years, the default understanding is that it’s just “bad choices.” There seems to be an inability to think beyond that assumption, however, not everyone is there because they did something stupid.
Sometimes it is because of another person who made bad decisions that happens to affect them, sometimes it is the culmination of a number of bad decisions other people/organizations around them make. And there is sometimes the factor of other people actively holding you back so you won’t make them look bad – this last is not necessarily just communism.
Stating this fact is not reverting to some kind of excuse, and it makes a real difference when someone is tarring everyone with the irresponsibility brush. As for the statement that “there are winners and losers in life,” I’m sure if the shoe were on the other foot, you wouldn’t be so cavalier.
But I do think it’s true and worth remembering whenever someone suggests we need to “declare a truce on the social issues” or drop them altogether to win elections.
Yes, there are socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters this strategy would attract, but there are also people who only vote Republican because of their strong feelings on the social issues who tend to agree with the Democrats on most everything else.
Secondly, from the conservative perspective on justice, doesn’t that usually mean “law and order” sort of thinking? However, this reductionist view of the white and black hats doesn’t always fit so neatly into real life. Only very recently have I noticed any discussion on this side of the aisle on the problem of overzealous prosecutors and overcriminalization, mainly because of the libertarians pointing it out. This, too, is an aspect of justice with theological implications. It is not enough in either the cases of poverty nor of legal injustice to just say we should cut our losses, suck it up because life sucks sometimes and look forward to the great by and by.
I think this is probably all that Pope Francis is referring to when he talks about social justice.
How many conservatives wax poetic about visiting those in prison, or even talk about those wrongfully imprisoned?
So do you think that every single rich person in the world acquired their wealth through honest hard work, and every poor person is poor because they are lazy and unproductive? I’m not talking about the United States, I’m talking about the entire world. 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’?
I am dismayed by the animosity in this thread. It is one thing to expect heated rhetoric when atheists and paleoconservatives debate evolution, but the invective here is flying among Christians whose first principles are 95% in agreement.
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.
Even highly observant Catholics are hardly the monolithic voting block you suggest, and these things are important even beyond those who listen to everything the Pope says. Those who only hear the Pope’s words from leftist activists/ media are moved, too. The electoral importance of this stuff is that it lets those whose preferences are Democratic but who feel a duty to vote “Catholic” persuade themselves that the parties are equal on that issue.
Of course, the impact is far worse in other countries.
If he follows Leo’s “Just Wage” advocacy in encyclicals, would that be a problem?
Denise,
Thank you very much for posting this very excellent article!
I see no substantive disagreement on the notions that a) state-coerced redistribution on the scale progressives desire is neither Christian nor effective…….
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.
Katievs has a twin track defense, if I understand her correctly from this and a previous defense of BXVI’s knuckle dragging economic illiteracy (which I may not): a: he didn’t want to move Argentina to the left economically (albeit to the right socially, earning Kirchner’s hostility, and not as far left as some communists want) and b: if he did, that’s OK, since his primary focus is on other stuff. She’s focused mostly on a:, and empirical matter, but b: is a substantial theoretical departure from conservatism.
Others suggest that third way Social Democracy is conservative!
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 hours ago
Can we define what me mean by “state-enforced redistribution?” Public education and Medicare are both examples of state-enforced redistribution, are they not?
Yet one hardly needs to be “staunchly fiscally liberal” to support them. Paul Ryan, for instance, always takes pains to emphasize that his goal is to save Medicare, not to eliminate it. I’m all for school vouchers, but I do think we should spend tax dollars to subsidize education for those who can’t afford it.
Let’s not forget that free markets not only protect the job creators from the redistributionist whims of the proletariat, but also protect the masses from the anti-competitive tendencies of the powerful.
And in all countries with overbearing state control – be they socialist states or penny-ante dictatorships – the major industrialists tend to wield influence over the political leaders in ways which are both anti-market and impoverishing for the working classes.
So when Pope Francis called for
we can also see that as a call for less cronyism and less high-level corruption.
Perhaps. Although I wouldn’t call it insensibility. A person can be sensible of harm caused and still convinced that he has to speak the truth, regardless, because the harm caused by failure to speak would be worse.
Do you not agree with that? ·
I don’t believe that Prof. Rahe identified such a harm. In the case of the Papacy, I find it implausible that successive Popes would come from social democratic backgrounds and advocate social democracy without actually being social democrats. Your comment in #232 seems like a great example of how principles can blind people (the Dutch church rather than you) to the impact of their words. Protecting the sabbath (or Sunday) from work is important, spiritual, and Christian. Protecting the nighttime from work is Social Democratic doctrine, not scripture, the Fathers, or the Councils.
It is by persuading themselves that the discussion of practical secular policy with little non-consequentialist spiritual dimension is a matter within their peculiar expertize and not primarily within other fields that they bring themselves into error. It almost necessarily leads to sic volo, sic iubeo pronouncements, as the lack of properly grounded authority gives instinct full reign.
What was condemned there was “the laws of the marketplace”, on an equal footing with central planning. If the writing was on the promotion of apatheia, I’d have absolutely no problem with it. That would be sound and Christian, with scripture and Tradition uniting behind it.
When the writing is on the “just wage”, though, it has not got scripture behind it, nor Tradition, and could not; limitation on the free market to increase wages is a doctrine based on falsity, as even liberal economists agree (minimum wages are like free trade, a rare subject of near universal agreement on left and right). The Holy Spirit does not speak falsely, and falsehood cannot, therefore, have authority.
Indeed, if we look at scripture we see Christ, in the parable of the vineyard, responding to claims of income inequality by pointing out that the wages were freely bargained for. Just wage advocacy relies on either circular theological justification or erroneous consequentialist justification.
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 capitalismas 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.·
Solely is an important word in 207. Central planning is placed on an equal footing with the law of the marketplace. As a corporate lawyer, I am ranked with flunkies of politburos.
The Church is sinless; her members sin.
What was condemned there was “the laws of the marketplace”, on an equal footing with central planning.
Here we agree, at least to a certain extent. That is, I agree that these are not on an equal footing.
The thinking that underlies the formulation, though, is (IMO) valid and true and within the parameters of the teaching tradition of the Church. It is concerned with “the good for man.” “The laws of the marketplace” have to be deliberately constrained and ordered to the good of man, or they will undermine that good. This is true in all spheres of human endeavor.
There we don’t agree. I’m not well-versed enough in Scripture or in CST to make the case myself, but there is one to be made for the concept of “just wage”.
That it can be and has been interpreted and practically applied in bad ways, I agree.
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.
Whether slavery is more compatible with the free market than bans on slavery is a famous libertarian debate, much like the abortion question. The Constitution before amendment had the acceptance of slavery in mind, and states were free to pick their (Republican) form of government, although they were not free to impair the obligation of contracts.
After the Civil War, however, slavery was Constitutionally abolished and states prevented from taking property (or liberty) without due process. The Constitution today manifestly supports the existence of freedom, private property, and contracts, the underpinnings of capitalism.
In the case of the Papacy, I find it implausible that successive Popes would come from social democratic backgrounds and advocate social democracy without actually being social democrats.
None of the Popes have been economists or politicians. What they advocate is the good of man and the good for man. When they sound as if they are too much influenced by social democratic thinking, it may be because they are too much influenced by social democratic thinking. If so, it’s the right and the duty of faithful Catholic laymen to critique and sift through to try to discern what is magisterial and authoritative and what is not. When we do that, though, we have certain principles in mind:
1) No political ideology or economic system or body of law is perfect. All stand in need of correction and challenge in the light of our faith, including capitalism.
2) Sometimes what is right “economically” is wrong ethically, e.g. “wealth creation” is not an absolute good.
3) Sometimes (often) the popes are misunderstood because we impute our sense of terms where it doesn’t belong. We assume they are prescribing policy where they are laying out principles.
So, for example, “just wage” is read as calling for, say, minimum wage laws.
But minimum wage laws are only one practical proposal for addressing the problem of unjust wages. And there is nothing “uncatholic” in a layman believing, say, that Obama’s policies and principles of wealth re-distribution ultimately are much worse for those they are intended to help. They don’t lead to just wages and the do lead to other problems.
It would be “uncatholic”, though, not to be concerned about, say, the problem that large swathes of society are laboring like slaves and still unable to support themselves and their families, while the elites in power are becoming superrich.
Remember the song, “Sixteen tons a day and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.”
So, a call for social justice has to do first and foremost with “spiritual concerns”, not economic policy concerns. Unless we get that, we will misunderstand. ·…..
You were saying earlier that you weren’t sure if we were on the same page. This is a near perfect example of what I was referring to. I’m fully aware that the condemnations of capitalism are not primarily intended to be matters of economic theory.
The secondary concerns, though, the collateral damage, is not insignificant. No one doubts the Pope’s firm commitment to the spiritual welfare of the Church and the world. This conversation is about the things that don’t or shouldn’t matter to him, but that he nonetheless takes positions on, if only as a means to some unrelated end.
I’m not sure if you recall Prof. Rahe saying that he felt that it was his duty to speak his mind, not to concern himself with the political consequences of what he said, as he was not a political operative? This strikes me as a similar principled insensibility to harm caused.
The Church is sinless; her members sin.
Pseudo, since we can speak of the Church under her aspect as “the people of God,” it seems to me there is a meaningful and true way of speaking of “her sins”. There is a way of thinking of our sins as a Church, that is, as a body of believers, that is distinct from the individual sins of her members.
If this were not the case, then JP II’s public repentance for the sins of the Church would have been out of bounds.
Pope Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
James, I admit I hadn’t noticed the “solely” you point out above, which does weaken my earlier point. Still, I stand by the general idea that whereas communism is condemned outright as inconsistent with human dignity by the Church, capitalism is not condemned, but “chastened”, so to speak.
I don’t see capitalism condemned, but critiqued. What is condemned is certain tendencies within capitalism, such as the tendency toward consumerism, and the tendency for persons to be reduced to economic units.
This is where I think we’re not connecting. When he says “social injustice” he’s talking about moral evil. Of course the ends aren’t unrelated. He clearly sees the kind of wealth disparities that are typical in South America as unjust. He is calling for remedies.
But it’s a leap to assume he’s calling for government enforced redistribution.
I’m not sure if you recall Prof. Rahe saying that he felt that it was his duty to speak his mind, not to concern himself with the political consequences of what he said, as he was not a political operative? This strikes me as a similar principled insensibility to harm caused.
Perhaps. Although I wouldn’t call it insensibility. A person can be sensible of harm caused and still convinced that he has to speak the truth, regardless, because the harm caused by failure to speak would be worse.
Do you not agree with that?
While I was living in The Netherlands (in the late ’90s), the Church there mounted a campaign of resistance against “the 24 hour economy.” Why? Because the bishops thought that having stores closed on Sundays and so forth was better economic policy? Were they not concerned about the lost revenues to Dutch businessmen?
No. They weren’t really speaking on the level of economics. Rather, their concern, as always (I mean when they are being proper bishops), was for the good of man—man as an individual and man-in-society. They saw that there were dimension of human life that needed to be protected from the demands of the free market.
I agree with them entirely on that point. It has definite ramifications in the economic realm, but it’s a point that transcends that realm.
Well, right. In her aspect as Mystical Body of Christ, the Church is spotless. But in her aspect as “a unique historical subject” (the people of God in history), and because of the spiritual solidarity we hold with one another, there is a sense in which we can speak truly of “the sins of the Church”—though of course that sense has to be understood in a qualified way—qualified by the deeper mystery of her mystical spotlessness.
You don’t mean to be trying to refute Pope John Paul and Pope Francis by an appeal to Pope Pius XII, do you?
If you stick to the text of what people have said, I think you’ll find there is no opposition.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/jsaward/lightofnations2.htm
After the Civil War, however, slavery was Constitutionally abolished and states prevented from taking property (or liberty) without due process. The Constitution today manifestly supports the existence of freedom, private property, and contracts, the underpinnings of capitalism. ·20 hours ago
Undoubtedly the Framers inherited certain presuppositions of British law and culture, which they had in mind when writing the Constitution. This does not mean that any particular economic system is mandated by the constitution. The Republican party that passed the Fourteenth Amendment was very protectionist with regards to tarriffs. The building of railroads was heavily subsidized by government. In fact about one seventh of the State of Nebraska was once owned by railroads who received title to the land as an incentive to build railroads. Free economy? Yes. Complete laissez-faire? Definitely not.