As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, there are some things, such as
redistribution, that are permitted in an emergency, but not as a usual
thing. Unfortunately, many people like
to take the exception, and turn it into the rule.
Socialists, for
example, take what is permitted in extreme cases in an emergency, and they turn
it into the general rule for distribution.
That is, they take what is permitted under extremely limited
circumstances, and turn it into a mandatory rule in all cases. Religious people even twist what Jesus said
in order to justify this, i.e., Jesus’s response to the rich man who
asked what he must do to be saved: “Keep the commandments.”
When the wealthy
man asked what more he could do, then (and only then) did Jesus answer, “Go
and sell all you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and come and follow Me.” Salvation does not require that anyone give up
worldly goods, just worldly evils, otherwise Jesus is a liar.
Something similar
occurs with the death penalty. Normally,
you may not kill another human being, even one who is guilty of a crime. In extreme circumstances, however, and when
all other recourse has been exhausted, it is permissible to execute a criminal.
 |
| Pope Francis |
Obviously, some
people have taken this to mean that the death penalty is or should be a
standard penalty for certain offenses.
The caveat (that many people forget) is that there must be no other recourse
available.
When read
closely, Pope Francis’s “controversial” statements concerning the death penalty
actually adhere to the traditional understanding of capital punishment as an
extraordinary measure. All he has said
is that, given the current state of society, it does not appear that the
death penalty is admissible.
Now, whether the
current state of society really does render the death penalty inadmissible is a
matter of opinion, nor does it preclude the possibility that circumstances can
change. Those who insist that Pope
Francis has changed Catholic doctrine in this matter are therefore
mistaken. He has done no such thing —
nor could he. All he has done (and which
he is obliged to do) is change the application of a doctrine, not the doctrine
itself.
Frankly, this is
the same sort of thing we see in other areas of Catholic social teaching. For example, the “just wage.” It is a matter of doctrine that a just wage
must be paid. The question is, what
constitutes a just wage? That depends
almost exclusively on social conditions and the institutions of the common
good. As Pope Pius XI pointed out,
 |
| Pope Pius XI |
In determining the
amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on
must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive
wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to
the workers. If, however, a business makes too little money, because of lack of
energy or lack of initiative or because of indifference to technical and
economic progress, that must not be regarded a just reason for reducing the
compensation of the workers. But if the business in question is not making
enough money to pay the workers an equitable wage because it is being crushed
by unjust burdens or forced to sell its product at less than a just price,
those who are thus the cause of the injury are guilty of grave wrong, for they
deprive workers of their just wage and force them under the pinch of necessity
to accept a wage less than fair. (Quadragesimo
Anno, § 72.)
What many people
miss in this discussion is that it applies only to those workers who have
only their labor to sell, and therefore are utterly dependent on wages for
their total income. Co-owners and
partners are not considered. It would,
after all, be ludicrous to assert that a worker-owner who receives five dollars
a week in wages, and $1,995 in profit-sharing is somehow being cheated for not
receiving $15 per hour for a 40-hour work week.
That is where
social justice comes in, as Pius XI stated repeatedly. When it is impossible under current
conditions to pay a just wage and workers have only their labor to sell, people
must organize not to be paid more anyway, regardless of the consequences, but
to make it possible to be paid more.
Even that is only
a distant second best, for the real goal is to make it possible for workers —
and everybody else — to become capital owners:
 |
| Social justice, or socialism? Is there a difference? |
The redemption of the
non-owning workers — this is the goal that Our Predecessor declared must
necessarily be sought. And the point is the more emphatically to be asserted
and more insistently repeated because the commands of the Pontiff, salutary as
they are, have not infrequently been consigned to oblivion either because they
were deliberately suppressed by silence or thought impracticable although they
both can and ought to be put into effect. And these commands have not lost
their force and wisdom for our time because that “pauperism” which Leo XIII
beheld in all its horror is less widespread. Certainly the condition of the
workers has been improved and made more equitable especially in the more
civilized and wealthy countries where the workers can no longer be considered
universally overwhelmed with misery and lacking the necessities of life. But
since manufacturing and industry have so rapidly pervaded and occupied
countless regions, not only in the countries called new, but also in the realms
of the Far East that have been civilized from antiquity, the number of the
non-owning working poor has increased enormously and their groans cry to God
from the earth. Added to them is the huge army of rural wage workers, pushed to
the lowest level of existence and deprived of all hope of ever acquiring “some
property in land,” and, therefore, permanently bound to the status of
non-owning worker unless suitable and effective remedies are applied. (Ibid., § 59.)
The bottom line
here is social justice. Does social
justice consist of redistributing wealth, ending the death penalty, paying
higher wages, or turning workers and others into owners?
No — and that is
where most social justice advocates come to grief.
Social justice
consists of this, and only this: making it possible to be individually virtuous. Thus,
WHAT
SOCIAL JUSTICE IS NOT
|
WHAT
SOCIAL JUSTICE IS
|
1. Redistribution
as a way of life.
2. Ending the death
penalty.
3. Paying a just
wage.
4. Turning people
into owners.
|
1. Making it
possible to live without redistribution.
2. Making it
possible to end the death penalty.
3. Making it possible
to pay a just wage.
4. Making it
possible to turn people into owners.
|
Oddly enough,
there are people who will fail to see the distinction between what social
justice is not, and what social justice is. If so, they
might find it useful to read CESJ co-founder Father William Ferree’s pamphlet, Introduction
to Social Justice (1948).
#30#