As a follow-up to
last week’s look at social justice, yesterday we looked at social charity, that,
just as individual charity is the “soul” of individual justice, is the “soul”
of social justice. We discovered that
(as Father Ferree put it) in social justice nothing is impossible . . . even if
the institution in need of reform is social justice itself!
 |
| Dr. Norman G. Kurland, CESJ President |
Still, the wrong
idea of social justice has pervaded discussions of the subject. Demonstrating the grip that the wrong idea of
social justice as a form of pseudo individual charity has on those in power in
Church, State, and Academia, especially under the labels of socialism,
modernism, and the New Age, nearly four decades after explaining Pius XI’s
concept of social justice so clearly, Father Ferree joined with Dr. Norman G.
Kurland, president of the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice
(CESJ). Back in 1984 they testified
before the Lay Commission on the Economy that tried to address certain concerns
about the document that became the 1986 U.S. Bishops’ pastoral on the economy, Economic Justice for All.
Unfortunately,
the final document did not integrate any of Father Ferree’s and Dr. Kurland’s
testimony. Instead of socially just
solutions, the bishops focused on ameliorative measures that could only be
justified as temporary expedients.
 |
| E.F. Schumacher, Fabian socialist |
The program was
closer to socialism than to social justice.
In one case the text cited for support the work of Fabian socialist E.F.
Schumacher, Small is Beautiful
(1973), originally marketed as “the New Age Guide to Economics.” The pastoral letter may have been what
motivated Cardinal Pio Laghi, Apostolic Delegate and Pro Nuncio to the United
States, to remark to a friend of CESJ that he sometimes thought some of the U.S. bishops would be happy to
paint the Bethlehem Star red in the Christmas Manger.
It becomes clear that, to a
significant degree, the idea of social justice — right or wrong — is widely
accepted as something “religious.”
Strictly speaking, of course, social justice as understood by Pius XI,
Father Ferree, and CESJ is based on the Aristotelian-Thomist concept of the
natural law, the universal code of human behavior.
Social justice is therefore not
“religious” except insofar as any moral code is “religious,” and religions only
accept moral codes as true, they do not invent them. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches
that social justice is therefore “religious” because it is true, not that it is
true because it is “religious.” Social
justice — all the virtues, in fact, both individual and social, natural and
supernatural — is true because it can be proved by reason applied to empirical
evidence: what human beings have accepted as right and wrong in all times and
places.
Consequently, neither social
justice nor any other virtue is good because a religion says so. Rather, all religions and philosophies say
that virtue is good because it is so.
People may (and often do) disagree on the definition of particular terms
and virtues, and — especially — the particular applications of virtues. No one disagrees, however, that good is
good. Even Satanists, who worship what
others regard as evil, try to make the case that what others call evil is
really good.
 |
| Pope Pius XI |
That being said,
it cannot be denied that the modern theory of social justice (i.e., that of Pius XI) evolved within
religious society, specifically, that
particular religious society known as the Catholic Church. The terminology, development, and analyses of
social justice, right or wrong, are saturated, some might say overwhelmed, even
drenched, with religious language and concepts.
This religious
orientation, even though not absolutely essential to an understanding of social
justice, has had at least three extremely negative consequences. All of these have seriously impaired
acceptance and implementation of the restructuring of the social order that
becomes increasingly critical as time goes by.
One, when social justice has been
interpreted as directed to individual good instead of the common good, i.e., ensuring that adequate provision
is made for people’s material wants and needs, organized religion has been
“demoted” to a less efficient and redundant social service organization. Losing its special character and role as a
moral teacher and guide for society, people come to view organized religion as
an outdated and unnecessary burden on people, wasting scarce resources in a
futile effort to remain relevant in a world that left myth and superstition
behind centuries ago.
Two, when social justice is seen as a
“religious thing,” it becomes voluntary rather than a personal responsibility
of every individual. Religious beliefs
and practices must never be imposed by force, only by persuasion, and there are
rules about that, as well. Construed as
religious instead of truly social, social justice thereby becomes something
anyone can take or leave, as he or she feels inclined.
 |
| Archbishop John Ireland |
This confusion
between morality and faith gives immense leverage to both capitalists and
socialists, especially ethical capitalists, and religious or democratic
socialists. The capitalist argues
correctly that anything pertaining directly to religious faith must never be
coerced. He or she then wrongly
concludes that social justice, because it is moral, pertains directly to
religious faith and is purely voluntary.
The socialist
rightly claims that social justice is a moral obligation. He or she then erroneously concludes that
religious faith can be imposed by force because it is moral. Moral? Yes. As
Archbishop John Ireland noted, secularism is a de facto religious faith:
Secularists and unbelievers will demand their
rights. I concede their rights. I will not impose upon them my religion,
which is Christianity. But let them not
impose upon me and my fellow-Christians their religion, which is
secularism. Secularism is a religion of
its kind, and usually a very loud-spoken and intolerant religion. Non-sectarianism is not secularism, and, when
non-sectarianism is intended, the secularist sect must not claim for itself the
field which it refuses to others. I am taking
my stand upon our common American citizenship.
The liberty that I claim, I grant.
(Archbishop John Ireland, “State Schools and Parish Schools,” Address
before the National Education Association of the United States, 1890.)
And the correct
view of the obligation to engage in acts of social justice? Is it religious or civil . . . or a bit of
both?
That is what
we’ll look at tomorrow, right after we look at the third negative consequence.
#30#
