There is massive confusion these days about the difference
between justice and charity . . . to say nothing of the bewildered babblings
about virtue itself, rights, duties, natural law and supernatural law,
individual and social virtue . . . the list seems to be endless.
 |
| Defunct Economist John Maynard Keynes (the Long Run portrait) |
Even trying to find a common language to discuss the
situation seems an insurmountable task — for which we, in part, blame John
Maynard Keynes (why not?) and the widespread acceptance of a concept he
embodied as a fundamental premise of Keynesian economics: that the State (or
whoever has power) has the ability to “re-edit the dictionary” to conform the
meaning of words to whatever those in power find most convenient at the moment.
We kid you not. He
actually said that . . . right before he claimed that complete State control of
everything through control of money and credit is the inevitable end of
civilization, as demonstrated for the past 4,000 years. It’s in the first couple of pages of Volume I
of his Treatise on Money (1930), if
you’re curious. He also made the brilliant observation that, in the long run, we're all dead.
 |
| Double-Plus-Ungood |
George Orwell did a number on the modern tendency to try and control language à la Goebbels in 1984, describing how State manipulation of language is one of the most
powerful weapons to prevent people from thinking and keep them in line and
utterly dependent on government. After
all, if you don’t know what words mean from one moment to the next, how can you
discuss anything intelligently? Or, if
the “standard” of the currency changes from moment to moment, how do you know
what anything is worth, or even transact business in any meaningful way?
Obviously you can’t — which is why anyone who wants to
exercise power over others insists on changing definitions of terms at
will. Can you, for example, define
“marriage” today in a way that everyone accepts that definition?
Yet this is what has been happening to the terms “charity”
and “justice” for a number of centuries.
By mixing ’n matching different concepts, assumptions, and anything else
they find expedient, words stop meaning anything other than what you can force
others to accept . . . until you change your mind.
 |
| "Christian charity—a duty not enforced by human law." |
Remarkably,
however, we find a very clear distinction made between justice and charity in Rerum Novarum, the source probably cited
more than any other to justify today’s confusion between justice and
charity! (This raises the suspicion that
some people might only be seeing what they want to see when reading, and
hearing only what they want to hear, but that’s an issue for another day.) As Leo XIII put it,
“[I]f the question be asked: 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.” (Rerum Novarum, § 22.)
Believe
it or not, this is pretty clear. When
the issue is distribution on the basis of need, Leo XIII carefully
distinguished what is due in justice, from what is due in charity. The former can be enforced by the State,
while the latter is (and must be) purely voluntary.
When
can distribution on the basis of need by the coercive power of the State be
justified? When “extreme cases” endanger
the common good. Otherwise, it must be
left to charity.
 |
| Msgr. Knox, friend of Sheen and Chesterton. |
What appears to infuriate so many people, however, is that
you cannot force people to do what is right and be charitable. . . especially
as they define “right” and
“charitable.” Consequently, as Msgr.
Ronald Knox pointed out in Enthusiasm
(1950), those deemed ungodly, or unworthy, or whatever have no rights, and you
can do with them as you will, using the power of the State to punish those you
have decided are sinful. Not
surprisingly, Knox defined “enthusiasm” as “an excess of charity that threatens
unity,” an orientation based on “faith” (i.e.,
personal opinion) instead of reason.
Does this mean, as some “conservatives” insist, that welfare
(when it is given at all) must be made conditional not on need, but on the
recipients’ worthiness, hence drug testing and background checks? Or, as some “liberals” demand, that the State
confiscate what belongs to the wealthy to provide for everyone’s every needs
because modern conditions make it impossible for people to take care of
themselves?
Well . . . neither, actually. The “conservative” demand to make drug
testing a condition for receiving welfare is as wrong-headed as the “liberal”
demand that the rich be stripped of their wealth because they are rich and the
State be responsible for universal wellbeing.
 |
| A Possible Solution |
. . . which is not to say that someone should not be
required to prove that he or she is using welfare for the intended purpose(s)
and not subsidizing a drug or alcohol addiction, or that, in “extreme cases,”
the rich should not pay a greater proportion of their wealth over a reasonable
and meaningful exemption than other taxpayers until the emergency is over. In both cases, however, there should be
“reasonable cause” to demand a drug test or levy higher taxes.
What few people seem to realize, however, is that charity or
coerced redistribution (just or unjust) is not, and can never be a solution to
the growing wealth, income, and power gap throughout the world. At best, all such measures can do is buy time
until a real solution is designed and implemented.
The only real solution is to remove unjust barriers to full
participation in the common good, especially that part of it that relates to
economic activity, so that everyone can become productive through ownership of
both labor and capital, and thereby take care of their own needs through their
own efforts. Most immediately, this
would involve tax and monetary reforms to encourage productive activity and
make it possible for every child, woman, and man to own and control capital,
and enjoy the fruits thereof (i.e.,
get the income).
The Just Third Way as applied in Capital Homesteading
is one possibility, and one reason why we’d like to see Pope Francis issue an
encyclical on the three principles of economic justice on which the Just Third
Way is based.
#30#