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
A passage in Pope Francis’ remarks to the media yesterday (I think it was yesterday, maybe today) is relevant to this discussion. He is explaining to the media that in order to understand the Church rightly, it’s essential to view from the point of view of its own teaching and its own true concerns. [My bold]
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.
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….
I’m an amateur too. Here’s how I understand it. Because the smaller units are closer to the individual and “prior” to the State (as JP II put it in the passages quoted above by Michael), the state’s power over them should be strictly limited and curtailed. Its valid jurisdiction is generally limited to things that are beyond the competence and capacity of the smaller (and metaphysically prior) units of society. So, a town can make zoning laws, but it can’t manage interstate commerce. It can have a police force, but it can’t deal with war.
The larger unit is justified in interfering with what is normally within the competence of the the small unit, only when the small unit fails to live up to its responsibilities.
So, for instance, the state can and should intervene in the family only in cases where the parents are, say, abusing or neglecting their children.
The “People of God” as I’ve relentlessly heard it from the pulpit for the last 10 years (I have never heard anyone preach on the Mystery of the Church, only read it)
I can’t recall ever hearing either term in a homily. Nor much about social justice, come to think of it. In my experience priests generally avoid discussing politics, sex, or anything else remotely controversial in their homilies. ·4 hours ago
I’m firmly esconced in Spirit of Vatican II land with lots of polyester garments, guitars, On Eagle’s Wings and People of God as well as small christian faith sharing communities, modeled on those used to spread all kinds of bizarre notions.
If you were to say “Mysterium Fidei” out loud in these settings a hush falls over the room as if you swore.
I’m asking whether you agree that it has a valid use?
I agree entirely with the Synod document that it has a valid use in the words described above and that it must be understood in light of the mystery. I find a disturbingly large number of people who use the term without reference to the mysterium fidei.
Okay. I’m glad we agree on that.
Just as you don’t like it when Catholics misuse the term and dissociate it from the complementary meanings of Church, I don’t like it when Catholics use the fact of its abuse as an reason to reject or neglect its valid meaning. I especially don’t like it when they impute the false meaning of the term to me without cause.
BTW, this First Things article by Avery Dulles explains and defends the way in which it is legitimate to refer “in a sense” to the sins of the Church, even while we hold her to be first and foremost the Mystical Body of Christ, free from all taint of error and sin.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/should-the-church-repent-37
I consider myself a reasonably well-informed Catholic layman, but honestly you two are both talking way over my head right now. Is this discussion of the meaning of “People of God” related to the topic of Social Justice? If so I’m not following the connection.
I still found the concept a very peculiar one, and since 1998 I don’t think very much of the goodwill toward the Church has emerged. I share Glendon and Johnson’s reservations about the entire project and given the bizarre ahistorical nature of most people’s knowledge…
Nothing wrong with finding it peculiar and/or having reservations.
I think JP II was very conscious of the fact that he was proposing a kind of development of doctrine in this, as in other places. This is why (I suspect) those notes Cardinal Dulles mentioned were unsigned and unpublished. He wanted to proceed with care and caution and due regard for both the “hermaneutic of continuity” and the possibility (always attending valid developments) of unsettling the faithful and spreading confusion.
As for the good will, I think manifestly better relations with the Jews and with the Orthodox and with Protestants are among the unmistakably “good fruits” of John Paul’s efforts on this front.
I’ve read many stories of people who were deeply moved by his words and gestures of repentance on behalf of the Church—moved to new openness.
It’s related at least in the thought of JP II, who was so profoundly alert to the “truth about man”, and who spoke eloquently of ethical implications of BOTH the individual and “communitarian dimension” of the human person.
We can’t rightly understand the Catholic concept of “social evil” or “social injustice” until we give some attention to his thought on the subject, including his stress on things like human solidarity and corporate repentance.
The “People of God” as I’ve relentlessly heard it from the pulpit for the last 10 years (I have never heard anyone preach on the Mystery of the Church, only read it) has been used as a post conciliar stalking horse for various bizarre concepts never found in the conciliar texts or preconciliar texts. And, yes, it is often used to not only suggest that the hierarchical ordained priesthood is redundant, but often as a presage to “drum roll” social justice as socialist justice.
If, however, the the concept is not cleaved from its various other aspects as the Magisterium has unfolded them — with mystery as its anchor — it starts to sound rather silly to speak as if the Church is one big NGO.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/should-the-church-repent-37
I’ve read that article before, many years ago now. Thanks for the link as I’d forgotten about it. The late Cardinal lays out the historical development and various schools of thought admirably, as the excellent historical theologian that he is.
I still found the concept a very peculiar one, and since 1998 I don’t think very much of the goodwill toward the Church has emerged. I share Glendon and Johnson’s reservations about the entire project and given the bizarre ahistorical nature of most people’s knowledge, the usual rejoinder I hear from the type of folks Jay Leno encounters on the street:
“Hey, its great you guys finally apologized for burning Galileo at the stake.”
(*actual text of conversation with actual live fallen away Catholic recently released from captivity. *)
The “People of God” as I’ve relentlessly heard it from the pulpit for the last 10 years (I have never heard anyone preach on the Mystery of the Church, only read it)
I can’t recall ever hearing either term in a homily. Nor much about social justice, come to think of it. In my experience priests generally avoid discussing politics, sex, or anything else remotely controversial in their homilies.
If you stick to the text of what people have said, I think you’ll find there is no opposition.
Pope Francis used the phrase “the sins of the Church”, didn’t he?
It seemed to me you were correcting the Pope on that point.
I am in no way “pre-occupied” with the title “People of God.” I only consider it real and valid. Don’t you?
Pope John Paul II spoke of the Church as a “unique corporate subject” in history. He also spoke of our solidarity and “co-responsibility”, so that, in a way, we all share in the guilt of our members, just as we share in the sanctity of the saints. This is what makes it meaningful and efficacious for us to repent for the sins of Christians in history. It makes it meaningful for us to shout, “Crucify him!” on Palm Sunday and Good Friday.
They convened a theological synod because of the confusion over the matter and I stand by what I wrote and what are in those documents on the matter of ecclesiology. I have always understood — I’ll cite Cardinal Journet’s works on ecclesiology as but one example — that the Church is sinless, while its members sin.
Its the job of the Papal House Theologian to vet off the cuff remarks by the papacy in various languages and clarify language that may be misinterpreted.
I have met very few Catholics who understand the genealogy of the Mystical Body of Christ and the hermeneutic of discontinuity’s appropriation and misuse of the term People of God to set up a false opposition between the two concepts. The document I referenced tills that soil fully and there’s no need for me to relitigate the document.
If the Church is not sinless, then please point to Denziger or another source that correct my ecclesiological error.
Pseudo, of course, as I said above, I hold with you that the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is sinless.
I also agree with you that the term “People of God” has been misappropriated and misused.
I’m asking whether you agree that it has a valid use? That People of God—a term incorporated into the documents of Vatican II, which Pope Emeritus Benedict asked us to study for the Year of Faith—is a true expression of the meaning of “Church”?