We interrupt our regularly scheduled blog posting to bring
you an important news bulletin. On
Monday, April 28, 2014, Pope Francis did it again. He completely baffled both “liberals” and
“conservatives.” He “tweeted” a short
message (as if there can be extended discussion in a tweet): “Inequality is the
root of all social evil.”
 |
| Is God evil? |
From the reactions on both sides of the aisle you’d have
thought Pope Francis said something like “sin is good,” or “God is evil.” Come to think of it, there do seem to be
people who put that interpretation on whatever Pope Francis says.
The fact is, we agree 100% with what Pope Francis said. Further, we are convinced more than ever that
he really needs to have a meeting with CESJ.
Pope Saint John Paul II did. We
can’t say that he was canonized because of that, but we also can’t say he
wasn’t . . . (aside from the fact that you can’t logically prove a negative). .
. .
Everybody’s reaction seemed to assume as a given that the
pope was talking only of income and
wealth inequality. From the past savings
perspective that rules economic, political, and social policy today, that can mean only one thing as the proposed solution to inequality: massive
redistribution of existing wealth and the imposition of desired results using
the coercive power of the State.
Right. Forget the
fact that the Catholic Church has condemned socialism in no uncertain
terms. Ignore that Saint Paul guy who
said if you’re too lazy to make yourself productive, don’t expect to have
anything to eat.
That’s sarcasm, by the way.
 |
| Understanding truth requires reason. |
It’s time to Get Real.
There is really only one thing we can assume from what the pope said and
the near- (and in some cases full-blown) hysteria of many of the
commentators. That is that most people
have no idea what the pope is talking about, any more than they understand one
of the most fundamental truths of Catholic social teaching.
The irony is that Catholic social teaching is so simple,
it’s astonishing that so many people can get it so wrong for so long. We have addressed this in other blog postings
and articles, and have a book in progress on this very subject, and we believe
we have identified the source(s) of the problem, but that’s a discussion for
another day.
To say again what we’ve said many times before, Catholic
social teaching addresses two distinct, yet related problems. If we are not aware of both of these
problems, we will egregiously misunderstand such otherwise innocuous statements
as, “Inequality is the root of all social evil.” What are these problems?
 |
| Charity is immediate. |
One, there is the
immediate and direct need to do something about the fact that people are in
dire need right now, at this very moment.
This is individual charity,
and it must be done now.
Two, there is the
mediate and indirect need to fix the problems that are causing people to be in dire need right now, at this very moment. This is social
justice, and it takes time.
Individual Charity:
Equality of Results
The present inequalities of wealth and income call for an immediate
increase in individual charity. In
“extreme cases” redistributing a measure of existing wealth may be justified,
assuming it is carried out by duly constituted authority and does not impose excessive
burdens on anyone. As Pope Leo XIII
explained in § 22 of Rerum Novarum,
“How
must one's possessions be used? — the Church replies without hesitation in the
words of the same holy Doctor: ‘Man should not consider his material
possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without
hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, “Command the rich
of this world . . . to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.”’ True, no
one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own
needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably
required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, ‘for no one ought to live
other than becomingly.’ But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and
one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the
indigent out of what remains over. ‘Of that which remaineth, give alms.’ It is
a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity — a
duty not enforced by human law.”
 |
| Justice takes time. |
Is the moral (not legal) obligation to share with others a
permanent solution? Hardly. The pope explicitly stated that sharing one’s
material possessions is only an obligation “when others are in need.” This is not a systemic response, but a provisional
bypassing of the system in order to achieve a specific, short-term, limited,
individual objective.
Giving alms or redistributing existing wealth must therefore
be regarded only as a temporary expedient on the way to a solution. It is clearly an individualistic (charity by
individuals) or collectivist (redistribution by the State) response to a
specific situation: people are in need.
It is not a systemic, that is, political
response leading to a sustainable solution.
Social Justice:
Equality of Opportunity
The present inequalities of opportunity call for getting
organized now to start taking
effective action to gain the long-term, systemic, social objective of eliminating the underlying causes of the
present inequalities of wealth and income.
Because most people are not used to thinking politically (in the classic
sense of the term), this requires more explanation than the demand for
immediate charity.
 |
| To become virtuous is the purpose of life. |
Man, as Aristotle noted in the Politics, is by nature a political
animal. This means each human being is
by nature a “person” (something with individual rights), but who carries out
the “business of living” (Volkswirtschaft),
that is, the task of becoming more fully human by acquiring and developing
virtue by exercising individual rights (“pursuit of happiness”) within the context
of the pólis, the organized social
unit.
Restructuring this “context,” i.e., the social order, is the second problem the popes address in
the social encyclicals. This recognizes
the fact that you can feed someone today, but he will be hungry again
tomorrow. Does that mean you have to
keep feeding him? How long can you
continue to take care of others without getting anything in return before
you’re tapped out, and can’t produce enough for yourself and your dependents,
much less for others?
Wouldn’t it be better for both of you, and more respectful
of his human dignity, to put him in the position of being able to take care of
himself? That is why social justice (as opposed to individual charity) is directed not at
meeting people’s individual needs, but at making it possible for people to meet
their own needs through their own efforts.
Social justice is therefore directed toward the social order
itself, “the system.” Social justice is not directed to the people who are
supposed to be using the system to help them meet their own needs and develop
more fully as human beings.
What, Exactly, is “Social Justice”?
Social justice is the particular virtue directed to the
reform of institutions (“social habits”) that are creating barriers against people
participating fully (or at all) in the common good.
 |
| Goods owned in common are not the common good. |
The common good is not the aggregate of individual goods, or
even goods owned in common for the sake of expedience (e.g., goods considered too dangerous or expensive for individuals). Rather, the common good is something
specifically common to every single human being and that, in fact, defines
humanity as human: the capacity to acquire and develop virtue, that is,
“human-ness” — the capacity to become more fully human.
As we noted above, humanity is by nature a political
animal. Human beings therefore ordinarily
carry out the task of becoming more fully human — of acquiring and developing individual virtue, habits of doing good
— within a social context, the pólis.
The common good can therefore be understood as that vast
network of social habits (institutions) that creates and provides the
environment within which people acquire and develop virtue. Social justice is the virtue — the habit of
doing good — that is concerned with repairing and maintaining this
institutional, social environment so
that it operates properly, and people can get on with the business of acquiring
and developing individual virtue.
Social Justice No
Substitute for Individual Charity . . . or Vice
Versa
It is critical to note that social justice is not
concerned with meeting individual
needs directly. That is the job of individual justice and individual charity, whichever applies to
a specific situation or transaction.
Social justice is concerned with making it possible for individual
justice and individual charity to function, not with trying to substitute or
make up for the failure of individual justice and individual charity.
 |
| Socialism is not the answer. |
Individual charity, that is, distributing on the basis of
need, is not social justice. It is, in
fact, when coerced (non-voluntary) no kind of “justice” at all — or charity,
for that matter. It is the abolition of both
liberty (freedom of association/contract) and property, the essence of
socialism. (Cf. Rerum Novarum, § 15.)
To try and force individual charity or coerced
redistribution to do the work of social justice and apply it as a solution, instead
of as an expedient on the way to developing a solution, is thus profoundly
wrong. As Pope Pius XI explained this
rather obvious point, “[N]o vicarious charity can
substitute for justice which is due as an obligation and is wrongfully denied.” (Quadragesimo Anno, § 137.)
In fact, implementing Karl Marx’s
dictum, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875) —
replacing “exchange” with “gift” — only makes things worse for those the
abolition of private property is intended to help. As Pope Leo XIII declared, “[the
socialists] would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State,
and create utter confusion in the community.”
(Rerum Novarum, § 5.)
The Source of
Confusion
This has been the source of massive confusion among people
attempting to “do” social justice. They
think that agitating for someone else or the State to redistribute existing
wealth, or condemning others for not redistributing existing wealth, is “social
justice.” People are often shocked or even
outraged to find out they are wrong.
This is not to say that such things as living or minimum
wage arrangements, family allowances, redistribution, healthcare, education,
and so on are not important, or (worse) are somehow evil. They are, in strict fact, very great goods .
. . and absolutely essential in the
present condition of society.
 |
| Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J. |
There are, however, two problems with distributions based on
need, what the solidarist economist Franz H. Mueller, a student of the great
Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J., called “meliorism.”
One, such things
build a sense of entitlement in the recipient, and create a condition of
dependency that makes it much more difficult for someone to become more fully
human. In other words, distribution on
the basis of “gift” defeats the purpose of being alive as a human being in the
first place.
Two, all these
measures and more are individual charity.
Social justice is something different.
As Pope Pius XI explained in no uncertain terms,
“What We have thus far stated regarding an equitable
distribution of property and regarding just wages concerns individual persons
and only indirectly touches social order, to the restoration of which according
to the principles of sound philosophy and to its perfection according to the
sublime precepts of the law of the Gospel, Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, devoted
all his thought and care.” (Quadragesimo Anno, § 76.)
So What Did Pope
Francis Really Say?
When Pope Francis said that, “Inequality is the root of all
social evil,” he was saying nothing less than the truth. The obvious and hideous evils caused by
inequality of wealth and income are, however, only the tip of the iceberg, socially speaking.
 |
| Just the tip of the iceberg. |
It is the unobvious,
yet equally if more subtly hideous social
evil that consists of the lack of equal opportunity in the system that is causing the individual
inequalities of wealth and income that is the 90% of the iceberg we don’t see. This, too, must be addressed. This is the great evil that overshadows all the
other evils, without, at the same time, making those other evils any less evil.
Fortunately, there is a way to address the greater evil
while, at the same time, addressing all the other evils.
One, increase
charitable giving. If necessary, increase
State redistribution. This will be much
easier and more feasible if done as a short-term temporary expedient instead of
as a long-term (and unworkable) solution.
This makes sense.
Anyone would rather give $200 now, secure in the knowledge that a program
is being implemented that means there is a high probability that it is the last time he
will be asked for money, than be faced with having $5 a week taken away for the
rest of his natural life, and imposed on his heirs and assigns for all eternity.
 |
| Pope Leo XIII |
Two, get
organized to push for the implementation at the earliest possible date of an
aggressive program of expanded capital ownership. Is this a solution? The popes have evidently thought so. As Pope Leo XIII clearly stated, “We have
seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a
principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership,
and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become
owners.” (Rerum Novarum, § 46.)
As the pope continued, specifically refuting the contention
that he was calling for anything resembling the abolition of private property,
redistribution as a permanent solution, or an expansion of State control of the
economy,
“Many
excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will
certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and
revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide
chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds
wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates
for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which
is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the
other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit
and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look
forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf
between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective
classes will be brought nearer to one another. A further consequence will
result in the great abundance of the fruits of the earth. Men always work
harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they
learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their
hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and
those that are dear to them. That such a spirit of willing labor would add to
the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident.
And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in
which they were born, for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land
if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life. These
three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a
man's means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to
possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State
has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but
by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and
cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of
more than is fair.” (Rerum Novarum, § 47.)
So, instead of trying to force Pope Francis’s words to fit
our own preconceptions and prejudices, why don’t we get with the program, and
start working to implement Capital Homesteading as soon as possible?
Don’t want to help?
Think we’re on the wrong track?
Well, then, get out of the way and stop impeding the effort, or stop
lurking in the corner and tell us, exactly, what’s wrong with what we’re saying
so we can fix it. Failure to do either
means that you — yes, you — are the
biggest part of the problem.
#30#
