What is Social Justice?

[ 14 ] February 27, 2013 AD |

When last we met, we looked at Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical which inaugurated modern Catholic social thought. We now continue our magical mystery tour by turning our attention to Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno of 1931. Before we explore the major themes of this incredibly important document, however, it would serve us well to examine a term that Pope Pius formally introduced into the Church’s social doctrine, but which is the source of much confusion, particularly in the United States. What, exactly, is “social justice?”

Political commentator Jonah Goldberg, in his New York Times bestseller The Tyranny of Clichés, identifies “social justice” as one of several clichéd terms which short-circuit political debate. He argues that it has come to mean simply “goodness,” as defined by whoever happens to be speaking, and if you disagree, then you’re against social justice, which means you are for “badness.” Even when specifics are given by active political groups, they are not always universally accepted good things. One particularly humorous example is from the Green Party, which lists secession of the State of Hawaii as a requirement of social justice.

Even for those of us who are fully immersed in the social doctrine of the Church and use the term “social justice” on a regular basis, Goldberg’s point can be well-taken. And, to his credit, he does explore the historical roots of the term in the Catholic intellectual tradition. Goldberg also notes that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “social justice” is a synonym for “distributive justice,” another term we find explored in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Goldberg correctly asserts that for many, particularly on the political Left, social justice is merely the pursuit of the good, whatever that might mean for each person or group. It is also true, however, that for many on the political Right, social justice simply means the pursuit of the bad. It is a fundamental law of the universe that if you write or speak to an audience of at least a few dozen people about economic or social justice, you will be accused of believing that the government should redistribute wealth and ensure that people who refuse to work live lives of material comfort at the expense of the productive members of society.

Of course, that is not what the Church means when she speaks of social or distributive justice. In fact, a quick look at the Catechism debunks that idea. Social justice is treated most directly in paragraphs 2426-2435, immediately following the section on the social doctrine of the Church (the entire discussion falls under the Seventh Commandment, “You shall not steal”). In paragraph 2427, it is made clear that work is a duty that is bound up with our dignity as human beings. That oft-quoted statement from St. Paul, frequently used to “debunk” the idea of social justice (“If any one will not work, let him not eat”) is here cited as an essential part of the Church’s understanding of social justice.

Let us be very clear on this point. Social justice has nothing to do with the negative consequences a person suffers due to their own bad choices. If a man has access to honest employment at fair wages sufficient to support himself and his family, and he refuses to work, the resulting suffering is not a question of social justice. This clarification should make clear what would be a violation of justice in economic terms. If the same man is more than willing to work, but is unable to find honest employment, or if the wages he can receive are inadequate to meet his and his family’s basic needs, that is an injustice. He has a duty to work to support his family, and his human dignity demands that he do so. The fact that he cannot achieve that is an injustice, due to no fault of his own.

Distributive justice, the economic component of social justice, does not mean that each person is entitled to a fair share of the produced wealth of the community, regardless of  his or her input. It does, however, mean that he or she is entitled to compensation equivalent to his or her contribution. The injustice that was so apparent to Pope Leo and Pope Pius was that so many were contributing their labor to the production of great wealth and receiving barely subsistence-level wages while the employers were gaining vast fortunes.

To compound the injustice of these circumstances, the problems were largely dismissed by the rich and the powerful as the result of immutable economic laws. Pope Pius does not condemn the accrual of wealth through honest and just means. He does, however, explicitly condemn the defense of manifest injustice as a natural necessity and the insistence by the wealthy that they had no moral obligation to better the lives of the working class except through whatever charitable contributions they might happen to make.

It is not my intention to imply that there is only an economic component to social justice. Of course, we can also acknowledge that there are “structures of sin” that go beyond personal moral choices and have no direct economic context. The widespread legal and cultural promotion of abortion is the clearest contemporary example. Few of us would object to the idea that the prevalence of abortion is an injustice at the societal level. However, the challenge to many of us who come from the political Right is acknowledging the need to address economic injustices (and I do mean us; for a long time, I denied the concept of social justice in economics).

Having hopefully cleared away some prominent misunderstandings which could hinder our appreciation of Pope Pius XI’s contribution to Catholic Social Teaching, next time we will take a closer look at the teachings found in Quadragesimo Anno.

Tags:

Category: Politics, Social Teaching

About the Author ()

Jason Hall is an attorney and Catholic convert. After spending some time working in the political world followed by a brief sojourn in seminary, he apparently discovered the value of moderation and now works as a lobbyist for Kentucky's Catholic bishops. In his spare time, he likes to read great books, analyze political and social trends, and cheer on his beloved Cincinnati Reds. Jason's contributions to Ignitum Today primarily focus on the principles and application of Catholic Social Teaching.
  • Patricia Nischan

    Re: Jason Hall’s Social Justice article, read John Mueller’s book, Redeeming Economics: Rediscovering the Missing Element. It will knock your socks off.

    • J.Q. Tomanek

      Patricia, good recommendation!

  • Pingback: Harvard Debate Stresses Meaning and Purpose of Marriage

  • Stilbelieve

    Regardless what the Catechism says, “social justice” has been co-opted by the left, and the bishops of the Catholic Church in America have thrown the full weight of the Church behind it. Two of the biggest and worst consequences of this have been the U.S. bishops support for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and expanding the definition of “pro-life” to include “social justice” forming a “Consistent Ethic of Life.”

    The CRA over time as developed and implemented by Democrat Administrations and “community organizers,” like Barack Obama and ACORN, resulted in the creation of sub-prime loans pushed on the banking and mortgage industries to “serve” the “needs” of “low and moderate income communities.” These loans were backed up by two quasi government agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whose objective leading up to the financial bust was to grow their “affordable-housing” business even faster to meet political imposed targets. They increased the lending to sub-prime borrowers by creating new ways to extend credit eventually causing the political house of cards to collapse. Efforts made by Congressional Republicans to pass legislation to tighten the lending practices that were loosened over the years with political force leading up to the collapse were rejected by the Democrats. The USCCB also opposed any efforts to tighten lending standards that would “hurt people in low income and rural communities.” In other words, the bishops didn’t believe, know or care if the sub-prime loans would cause the mortgage industry to collapse hurting everyone. They only cared about the poor not having as much low income housing to own or rent that these artificial lending practices created. Congressman Barney Frank, ranking minority leader on the House Financial Services Committee said, “These two entities (Fannie and Freddie) …are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”[47] In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his “famous dice roll”:[48] “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing.”[49] In July 2008, Frank said in an CNBC interview, “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.” (Wikipedia)

    The banks were only following the mandates that the leftist politicians forced on them, politicians who have taken no responsibility for what they caused. Everybody who owned a home or had money in retirement investments like IRAs suffered as a result, and many of us have not recovered. So where was the “common good” the bishops saw in opposing tighter regulatory controls over Fannie and Freddie which went bankrupt a few months later and the taxpayers are having to bail them out at an expected $200 billion?

  • Stilbelieve

    The bishops’ support for the CRA only cost people the loss of their homes, their future retirement standard of living and about 40% of their stock market investments.

    On the other hand, “The Consistent Ethic of Life” cost lives – 56,000,000 to date and no end in sight. Bringing “social justice” issues into the house of “pro-life” enabled Catholic Democrats to consider themselves “pro-life” without having to abandon their beloved Democrat Party, claiming in smug and smearing way that “their pro-life doesn’t end at birth.” Adding “social justice” issues to the pro-life cause even caught the attention of a Chicago young “community organizer” named Barack Obama who told a group of eight different Catholic newspaper publishers, editors and reporters in a meeting July 2009, his first year as President, that he “continues to be profoundly influenced by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, whom he came to know when he was community organizer in a project partially funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Obama said his encounters with the Cardinal continue to influence him, particularly his ‘seamless garment’ approach to a multitude of social justice issues.” Bernardin’s “seamless garment” is the reason abortion-on-demand remains the law-of-the-land because it enable the largest, single group supporting the pro-abortion Democrat Party to remain so even though they claim to believe God is the giver of life and the pray for God’s “will (to) be done on earth.”

    The majority of Catholic priest who are registered to vote, are registered in the Democrat Party, and that goes for bishops, too. I live in conservative O.C. CA and that is true here, too. I’ve seen data that 75% to 83% of priest registered to vote in Chicago, vote Democrat. It is a sin against the 5th Commandment to harbor racial or religious prejudice, and “is particularly so to join an organization that promotes it.” That is true, confirmed to me by a Cardinal who should know. If it is a sin against the 5th Commandment to merely Harbor such prejudice, and particularly so to join an organization that PROMOTES it; why then is the Roman Catholic church in America silent about joining and supporting the only organization that defends and promotes the murder of innocent unborn children on demand? Catholics are the largest, single voting block the pro-abortion Democrat Party has. How do Catholic theologians wiggle out of the culpability Catholics have for abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land? Is it because Catholics don’t HARBOR ill will towards the unborn? The theologians don’t give KKK members and Nazi Party members (both examples used in Catholic catechism for adults) wiggle room, releasing them of any wrong doing; I’m sure some of those members don’t harbor ill-will towards racial or religious people, they joined those organizations for other reasons – the Nazi Party got people jobs to support their families, and KKK people were charitable towards other poor, white people; no leeway given to them. Why do the U.S. bishops not see that without Catholic registration in and support for the Democrat Party, that party wouldn’t have the political POWER to keep abortion legal? Social justice is a lot more different in the hands of the left than it is in the Church, but the bishops don’t seem to see the difference. The Church sees it as a way to help people; the left sees it as a way to destroy the Church. And they have ever since Lawrence J Lader, founder of NARAL explained the plan to pro-abortion Dr. Bernard Nathanson, close confident of Lader;s and a co-founder of NARAL in Nathanson’s book, “Aborting America.”

  • Stilbelieve

    I won’t even go into the bishops’ continued support for Unions which are bankrupting cities and states, already destroyed the public education system, and are the biggest supporters in terms of campaign money and time to getting pro-abortion Democrats elected to office.

    Yeah, the bishops sure have been effective in their involvement in government to help bring about the common good, which they seem to think only can be achieved through one party – the pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage party.

    Oh, I almost forgot. The bishops supported the destruction of our healthcare system even though 85% of Americans liked the healthcare they had. In its place they supported the Democrat only crafted, and one sided vote, – Obamacare, that is, until sneaky old Obama decided he had them where he wanted them and lowered the boom – tax payer funding for abortion and mandatory birth control in all health insurance plans provided by employers. And lo and behold, Obama gets re-elected and the only thing that can save the Church from Obama’s mandate is the U.S. Supreme Court whose Chief Justice told the nation it his ruling on on the Constitutionality of Obamacare that: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law. We possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, WHO CAN BE THROWN OUT OF OFFICE IF THE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THEM. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES.” (my emphasis) Now it comes out from the Office of Budget that Obamcare is going to cost the taxpayers 6,000,000,000,000 – that’s 6 trillion, and most of us will not be able to keep our current healthcare providers. And, oh,yeah, there is a board of 15 appointees who will have exclusive authority to determine who gets what healthcare services and what they will cost. Sarah Palin, someone I never heard a single bishop defend while attacked by mainstream Pravda media about every thing from her daughter’s out of wedlock pregnancy to her deciding to give birth to a Down’s Syndrome child, called that board a “Death Panel.” And she’s proven to be right. The bishops would be a lot more successful in supporting real good ideas for “common good” if they hired her to advice them on their political lobbying positions. We wouldn’t be having this complete destruction of the best health system in the world to be replaced by the first stage of a socialist system for the “common good” of illegal aliens.

  • Luket

    To StilBelieve:

    You hit a home run bud! I couldn’t agree more. The history you give of the financial meltdown is spot on. Unfortunately it doesnt’ fit the mainstream media’s narrative, and all our “social justice” friends don’t seem to care. It’s so lazy and disengenuous (and sinful) to blame the “evil wallstreet bankers” when our politician (Carter/Clinton/Reno/Frank/Dodd) caused this mess with complete inpumity. Dodd and Frank actually retired rather than face tough re-elections where this info might be brought into the light. And no one seems to want to recognize that the single most prominent idea in the history of the world responsible for lifting the most people out of poverty is free-market capitalism. Nothing comes close. Talk about social justice.

  • Katherine

    Dear Stilbelieve,

    When you decided to drop a sylable from the proper name of the Democratic Party, I decided to stop reading the rest of your post. Calling a person or organization by its real name seem to be the first requirement of respecting the dignity of others.

    • Stilbelieve

      56,000,000 murdered unborn American babies because of the pro-abortion Democrat Party, and you object to reading what I had to say because I didn’t add “ic” to end of that despicable organization’s name?! Do you know the Catholic Church teaches it is a sin against the 5th Commandment to harbor racial or religious prejudice, and is “particularly so if you join an organization that promotes” such prejudice? But they say nothing about joining that —ic party.

      You, my dear Katerine, if I may be so bold to say, should be more concerned about the murder of 56,000,000 innocent unborn babies created by God according to what we Catholics profess to believe and pray for than my choosing to not “respect” the name of the only organization responsible for keeping the murder of the unborn legal.

      • Katherine

        Ok, Stillbelieve. Call me when you want to have a serious discussion.

      • Anonymous

        “Ok, Stillbelieve. Call me when you want to have a serious discussion.”

        Let’s have it here.

  • http://yheard.me Burke Ingraffia

    Josef Pieper’s book, The Four Cardinal Virtues has an excellent breakdown of the virtue of justice. Thanks for this article.

  • Pingback: Poor Jason Hall

  • Pingback: Poor Jason Hall | CATHOLIC FEAST