Government Is For Justice, Charity is For Transcendence
I have noticed that there is a rather contradictory stand held by many people. On the one hand, they speak out against “big government.” They think the best government is the one which interferes in the life of others the least. To them, government interference limits liberty. On the other hand, when addressing the question of universal human rights and whether or not the United States should treat non-citizens with such rights (such as illegal immigrants or terrorists caught by American operatives around the world), many will respond as no, because they are not citizens of the United States and its government should only provide liberty and freedom only to those who are its citizens. But how can this be? If government is what interferes with liberty, then how is it possible also to be the one who grants it?
What is obvious is that people lack an understanding of the role of government. Government is to exist for the sake of justice. Though some people will find their choices limited because they will not be allowed to act unjustly, more people are given freedom when justice is spread throughout a society. In other words, while it is true that government can and will limit some choices, these choices, if allowed, would ultimately limit and hinder humanity far more. This is why, for example, government can and should regulate businesses when businesses act unjustly. Yes, there is a price to pay – certainly goods can be “cheaper” if they were made by slave labor , or if businesses did not have to make sure their products are safe – but the human cost would be greater if the government didn’t intervene.
It is by the enforcement of justice that government allows for and creates liberty, and it is when such justice is not enforced that real liberty is lost. But if this is the case, then the question of human rights is important. When basic, universal human rights are not defended, then a government has lost itself, and can rightfully be disobeyed. This, we find, was believed by the early Christian martyrs, just as much as it was believed by the Founding Fathers of the United States when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. In this way, when dealing with non-US citizens, their human rights must be protected and guaranteed. It is not because they are citizens of the US that they have the rights; it is because they are human they have them. When in the custody of the United States, those rights are to be maintained if the United States wants to legitimatize its actions.
If government’s aim is for justice, this will of course mean it will work for and counteract serious injustice. Many people confuse this as an act of charity. It is easy to see where this confusion comes from – a rather simple logical error. Since charity can, and often does, seek to restore justice, when no one else is doing so, many people think this is what charity is about. However, the reason why charity would help someone out in this fashion is because an act of charity is an act out of love, and so an act of charity desires to raise others up to the best possible condition. Justice, on the other hand, does not seek to raise someone up to the “best possible condition;” it’s work is more limited. It seeks to restore what has been unjustly lost, or to make sure other similar injustices do not occur; it does not seek to go beyond that, while charity would. This is why Pope Benedict has stated that in a perfectly just society, the task of charity would continue, for we can and are meant to rise beyond our original state: we are meant to transcend ourselves and to become something greater than we are now. Charity can, therefore, be a means for justice, but its aim transcends justice.
Even if the state can and will do things which charities also do, this does not mean the state is overstepping its bounds; rather, if people see charity only in the light of justice, then it is the role charity which is understated. There is, moreover, something sinister with charity being treated in this light: people are being told they should not be helped, that they should not be given justice, unless someone else, in the goodness of their hearts, decides to help them out. What if no one desires to do such good for them? They should suffer and die just because others are selfish and lack any sense of charity? A variation of this is that we must perform acts of charity because it is good for our soul, therefore, we should not allow government to help people because it would limit our chance of doing good for others. How is it charity, how is it good work, to interfere and stop government from helping others? Charity is so misconstrued by such people, for they see the other as an object to be used for their own subjective advancement, while no real concern is had for those who need the help. Those who have true concern will not care if they are not afforded the chance to personally help out on an individual case – they will be pleased to see the situation rectified, knowing that they still will be afforded the chance to help out in other forms of love.
Many question social justice because they fear government. They say this is the reason why they only think charities should be given the role of raising people back up to some level of justice. Certainly governments can (and have a history of) interfering in the liberties of others. This, however, no more justifies a rejection of social justice as any other failure to live out a principle properly justifies the rejection of that principle. It only means that such governments have overstepped their role – they are no longer functioning to support social justice – and in complaining about such abuses, one in the end can only justify that complaint by accepting the value and necessity of social justice itself.
Like this:
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
[I hope you will excuse the "fisk" format of my response. But you said so many things that I found ambiguous and confusing, that I found it necessary to insert my comments directly into the text in order to show exactly where my problems lie. My comments are preceded by brackets.
I have noticed that there is a rather contradictory stand held by many people. On the one hand, they speak out against “big government.” They think the best government is the one which interferes in the life of others the least. To them, government interference limits liberty. On the other hand, when addressing the question of universal human rights and whether or not the United States should treat non-citizens with such rights (such as illegal immigrants or terrorists caught by American operatives around the world), many will respond as no, because they are not citizens of the United States and its government should only provide liberty and freedom only to those who are its citizens. But how can this be? If government is what interferes with liberty, then how is it possible also to be the one who grants it?
[Conservatives don't believe that government provides liberty and freedom. They believe those things are inalienable rights with which men are endowed by their Creator.
[You are not clear what your issue is with illegal immigrants, but the rationale for depriving them of certain rights enjoyed by American citizens, is the same as the rationale for depriving criminals of certain rights: That they have forfeited them by violating the law.
[The same basic principle applies to terrorists, except in their case they are treated as enemies of the United States, but enemies who are fighting in ways that violate the Geneva Convention, e.g. not fighting in uniform and deliberately targeting civilians. In doing those things they forfeit their Geneva Convention rights.
What is obvious is that people lack an understanding of the role of government. Government is to exist for the sake of justice.
[May I have a source for this statement?
Though some people will find their choices limited because they will not be allowed to act unjustly, more people are given freedom when justice is spread throughout a society. In other words, while it is true that government can and will limit some choices, these choices, if allowed, would ultimately limit and hinder humanity far more. This is why, for example, government can and should regulate businesses when businesses act unjustly. Yes, there is a price to pay – certainly goods can be “cheaper” if they were made by slave labor , or if businesses did not have to make sure their products are safe – but the human cost would be greater if the government didn’t intervene.
[I don't know anyone who disagrees with this.
It is by the enforcement of justice that government allows for and creates liberty, and it is when such justice is not enforced that real liberty is lost. But if this is the case, then the question of human rights is important. When basic, universal human rights are not defended, then a government has lost itself, and can rightfully be disobeyed. This, we find, was believed by the early Christian martyrs, just as much as it was believed by the Founding Fathers of the United States when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. In this way, when dealing with non-US citizens, their human rights must be protected and guaranteed. It is not because they are citizens of the US that they have the rights; it is because they are human they have them. When in the custody of the United States, those rights are to be maintained if the United States wants to legitimatize its actions.
[Again, I dispute the contention that "government ... creates liberty". And I dispute the implied contention that people who violate the law are nevertheless entitled to all the protections, freedoms and privileges of the law. I don't think that has ever been Church teaching, and in fact the New Testament admonishes us to obey the civil law.
If government’s aim is for justice, this will of course mean it will work for and counteract serious injustice. Many people confuse this as an act of charity.
[Here you are simply being too vague to respond to. You contend that "many people confuse this as an act of charity" when government works to "counteract serious injustice". But that depends entirely on what type of "serious injustice" government is working to counteract, and in what way. Also in what context. Clearly it is not government's job to work to counteract injustice in every arena of life.
It is easy to see where this confusion comes from – a rather simple logical error. Since charity can, and often does, seek to restore justice, when no one else is doing so, many people think this is what charity is about. However, the reason why charity would help someone out in this fashion
[In WHAT fashion???
is because an act of charity is an act out of love, and so an act of charity desires to raise others up to the best possible condition. Justice, on the other hand, does not seek to raise someone up to the “best possible condition;” it’s work is more limited. It seeks to restore what has been unjustly lost, or to make sure other similar injustices do not occur; it does not seek to go beyond that, while charity would. This is why Pope Benedict has stated that in a perfectly just society, the task of charity would continue, for we can and are meant to rise beyond our original state: we are meant to transcend ourselves and to become something greater than we are now. Charity can, therefore, be a means for justice, but its aim transcends justice.
[Agreed.
Even if the state can and will do things which charities also do, this does not mean the state is overstepping its bounds; rather, if people see charity only in the light of justice, then it is the role charity which is understated. There is, moreover, something sinister with charity being treated in this light: people are being told they should not be helped, that they should not be given justice, unless someone else, in the goodness of their hearts, decides to help them out.
[Here you've completely lost me. Again, I think this is because you are referring to specific things -- which surely are clear in your own mind -- but describing them in general terms. The result is ambiguity.
What if no one desires to do such good for them? They should suffer and die just because others are selfish and lack any sense of charity?
[Certainly no one should suffer and die due to the selfishness of others. Christ and the Church have made this clear: Every one of us has the obligation to feed and clothe the poor, tend the sick, etc., under pain of hell. Conservatives don't deny this.
A variation of this is that we must perform acts of charity because it is good for our soul, therefore, we should not allow government to help people because it would limit our chance of doing good for others. How is it charity, how is it good work, to interfere and stop government from helping others?
[This is the very first time I have heard such an argument. I find it silly.
Charity is so misconstrued by such people, for they see the other as an object to be used for their own subjective advancement, while no real concern is had for those who need the help. Those who have true concern will not care if they are not afforded the chance to personally help out on an individual case – they will be pleased to see the situation rectified, knowing that they still will be afforded the chance to help out in other forms of love.
Many question social justice because they fear government.
["[Q]uestion social justice”??? I don’t know what that phrase could possibly mean. Maybe you need to define specifically what you are referring to when you say “social justice”.
They say this is the reason why they only think charities should be given the role of raising people back up to some level of justice.
[Conservatives don’t say that “only charities” should be given the role of helping people. In fact it is primarily individuals who have a moral obligation to do so, since it is individuals who will be judged for having failed to. Nevertheless individuals often pool their resources and organize themselves in order to act more effectively.
Certainly governments can (and have a history of) interfering in the liberties of others. This, however, no more justifies a rejection of social justice as any other failure to live out a principle properly justifies the rejection of that principle.
[Again I don’t know what “a rejection of social justice” even means. I assume you have something specific in mind, but if so that phrase is not accomplishing the job of communicating it to me.
It only means that such governments have overstepped their role – they are no longer functioning to support social justice – and in complaining about such abuses, one in the end can only justify that complaint by accepting the value and necessity of social justice itself.
[The reason that I have advanced, for opposing government as the primary administrator and “funnel” of charitable works (by which I mean clothing, feeding and sheltering the poor, tending the sick, etc.) is that the U.S. government, officially, has a perverted notion of man’s nature and purpose in life, since it refuses to acknowledge his source and his end. As such, I deeply mistrust its ability to make good decisions about how people are to be “helped”, since much of its “help” is often deeply harmful and in many cases immoral. For this reason I prefer to choose for myself which charitable organizations I will support monetarily.
A couple more thoughts regarding the ambiguity of your post:
You make it sound as though people reject the very idea of “justice”, when in fact they may only be rejecting specific methods of trying to achieve justice, in favor of others which they consider preferable for one reason or another.
Thus you condemn them for rejecting justice, when they may only be rejecting your preferred methods of achieving it, or possibly your own preferred conception of what justice would consist in. For example, does justice consist in everyone having enough to eat? Or in everyone having roughly the same amount of money? You don’t say.
So when you say that “certain people” reject social justice, it’s impossible for me to know what you mean by that. Am I accused of rejecting justice because I oppose giving money to the government for feeding the poor? Or because I oppose a 90% tax bracket for the super-rich?
Thus it’s impossible to know who it is you are accusing of being opposed to justice, as well as what it is they are doing that has led you to that conclusion.
Agellius
I am sure you understand if I don’t go at length in reply to your questions/comments, because to do so properly, would probably require a book length response. Your questions often would require whole chapters to adequately respond to them. What you see as “vagueness” appears more that you have not studied the material behind the essay than anything else.
However, a few things from the top of my head (and so very rough).
First, stop the conservative/liberal paradigm that you use, because it is a false paradigm, and it is all relying upon liberalism as its root, and it is an argument from different segments of the liberal paradigm. I reject that paradigm. This, I think, is one of the basic hermeneutic mistakes you have when reading what I wrote.
Second, I will point out that the role of government is for justice, I will admit that can be reductionistic; there are other roles for government, and indeed, as St. Edith Stein points out, philia is necessary for government as well, indeed is necessary in order for government to be able to work for justice.
Thus, when you look into the question of food, do you really think it is justice if people don’t have enough to eat, that people are starving? The capitalist paradigm, which is a part of the liberal tradition, really has warped humanity here. Classical civilization (and true conservative traditions) have long recognized the right of people to food. People could “live off the land” as long as they ate what they needed and not in excesss. Capitalism has turned the basic right into “theft.”
You seem to fail to understand the distinction between natural law and positive law. While someone might break positive law, that does not, however, override their natural law rights. Your argument saying “they broke the law so lose rights” is exactly what those who support unjust positive laws use to support abuse of others — be it Rome against the Christians, pagan rulers against Christian missionaries “illegally entering their land,” Jim Crow laws, or the like. Natural law says basic human rights must still be afforded, even if someone broke a positive law. This is why one can and will reject what happens in positive law. Of course, so many who argue against humane treatment of illegals because “they broke the law” contradict themselves all the time when they engage the abortion debate: here they show they understand positive law’s defects.
Nonetheless, here is an example of someone (modern, in the liberal system) pointing out jusice is the role of government:
http://www.abanow.org/2009/05/aba-presidential-summit-justice-is-the-business-of-government-the-critical-role-of-fair-and-impartial-state-courts-4/
Or you can find this: http://www.cpjustice.org/content/government
1. The government of a political community bears responsibility to legislate, enforce, and adjudicate public laws for the safety, welfare, and public order of everyone within its jurisdiction. The guiding norm, or principle, for such laws is public justice
And if we look to the Compendium of Social Doctrine:
169. To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice[358].
389. The full attainment of the common good requires that the political community develop a twofold and complementary action that defends and promotes human rights. “It should not happen that certain individuals or social groups derive special advantage from the fact that their rights have received preferential protection. Nor should it happen that governments in seeking to protect these rights, become obstacles to their full expression and free use”.[789]
And, this also connects to the discussion, because it points out that David’s role as king: defender of the poor and promoter of justice, indicating once again what Scripture itself sees as the role of government:
324. Those who recognize their own poverty before God, regardless of their situation in life, receive particular attention from him: when the poor man seeks, the Lord answers; when he cries out, the Lord listens. The divine promises are addressed to the poor: they will be heirs to the Covenant between God and his people. God’s saving intervention will come about through a new David (cf. Ezek 34:22-31), who like King David — only more so — will be defender of the poor and promoter of justice; he will establish a new covenant and will write a new law in the hearts of believers (cf. Jer 31:31-34).
–
If you wonder what social justice is about, get the Compendium and read it. It will be a solid foundation for such discussions. This is also a good book which explores the recent history of Christian discussion on social justice: Donal Dorr, Option for the Poor: http://www.amazon.com/Option-Poor-Hundred-Vatican-Teaching/dp/0883448270/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305203262&sr=8-1
If you want something classical, there is a volume of St Basil, On Social Justice, which is very good: http://www.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Basil-Popular-Patristics/dp/0881410535/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305203348&sr=1-1-fkmr0
Henry writes, “I am sure you understand if I don’t go at length in reply to your questions/comments…”
Well thank heaven you shortened it! ; )
Henry writes, “What you see as “vagueness” appears more that you have not studied the material behind the essay than anything else.”
So basically, the reason I found you unclear is because of my own ignorance. I’ll just say I disagree and move on…
Henry writes, “First, stop the conservative/liberal paradigm that you use, because it is a false paradigm, and it is all relying upon liberalism as its root, and it is an argument from different segments of the liberal paradigm. I reject that paradigm. This, I think, is one of the basic hermeneutic mistakes you have when reading what I wrote.”
I’ll stop relying on my paradigm when you stop barking orders at me. ; ) You can reject any paradigm you want, but it’s your job as a writer to make clear what paradigm you’re operating under, if you want your reader you understand you.
Henry writes, “… there are other roles for government, and indeed, as St. Edith Stein points out, philia is necessary for government as well, indeed is necessary in order for government to be able to work for justice.”
I agree that philia is desirable for government. That’s why I oppose the idea of governments being officially secular. In the secular paradigm there is no objective basis for either justice or love. And when secular governments do profess those things, they are often warped and perverted imitations of them.
Henry writes, “Thus, when you look into the question of food, do you really think it is justice if people don’t have enough to eat, that people are starving?
I don’t even know why you ask. Did I imply such a thing?
Henry writes, “The capitalist paradigm, which is a part of the liberal tradition, really has warped humanity here. Classical civilization (and true conservative traditions) have long recognized the right of people to food. People could “live off the land” as long as they ate what they needed and not in excesss. Capitalism has turned the basic right into “theft.”
I have no quarrel with people living off the land, and I agree that people have a right to food — although with the biblical caveat that he who is not willing to work should not eat.
Henry writes, “… you also fail to understand the distinction between natural law and positive law. … Natural law says basic human rights must still be afforded, even if someone broke a positive law. … Of course, so many who argue against humane treatment of illegals because “they broke the law” contradict themselves all the time when they engage the abortion debate: here they show they understand positive law’s defects.”
Again you begin to lose me: Who argues against treating illegals humanely? I submit that this is not anyone’s actual argument, but your interpretation of someone’s argument based on applying it to your own paradigm of what constitutes humane treatment. Thus someone may argue that illegals should be deported, and you would assert that he is arguing against humane treatment because you consider deportation inhumane; whereas he himself would argue that they should be treated humanely at every step of the deportation process, and therefore would deny that he is arguing against humane treatment.
It’s very hard to argue against some of the things you say, not because your arguments are airtight, but because it’s often impossible to know specifically what accusations you are making, and against whom, and on what grounds.
Henry writes, “1. The government of a political community bears responsibility to legislate, enforce, and adjudicate public laws for the safety, welfare, and public order of everyone within its jurisdiction. The guiding norm, or principle, for such laws is public justice
I don’t have a problem with this.
Henry writes, “And if we look to the Compendium of Social Doctrine:
169. To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice[358].
389. The full attainment of the common good requires that the political community develop a twofold and complementary action that defends and promotes human rights. “It should not happen that certain individuals or social groups derive special advantage from the fact that their rights have received preferential protection. Nor should it happen that governments in seeking to protect these rights, become obstacles to their full expression and free use”.[789]
Again I have no quarrel with this.
Henry writes, “And, this also connects to the discussion, because it points out that David’s role as king: defender of the poor and promoter of justice, indicating once again what Scripture itself sees as the role of government: 324. Those who recognize their own poverty before God, regardless of their situation in life, receive particular attention from him: when the poor man seeks, the Lord answers; when he cries out, the Lord listens. The divine promises are addressed to the poor: they will be heirs to the Covenant between God and his people. God’s saving intervention will come about through a new David (cf. Ezek 34:22-31), who like King David — only more so — will be defender of the poor and promoter of justice; he will establish a new covenant and will write a new law in the hearts of believers (cf. Jer 31:31-34).
I think the “new David” is referring to Christ, whose kingdom by the way “is not of this world”. Still, if our government were officially Christian, and more so if it were officially Catholic and submissive to the Church’s teaching in the framing of its laws, I would have much less reason for objecting to its being the primary engine of “social justice”. What I find repugnant, and even scary, is having a government that officially rejects God and the Catholic conception of man’s nature and purpose, deciding what justice consists in and how it should be carried out.
Further, I submit that this is what the Founders had in mind: That not the government, but the people, would decide what constitutes justice, truth, right and wrong, etc. The government would follow the people’s lead and not the other way around.
Note that I’m not advocating for this form of government. In fact I think it is precisely the major problem with our society and culture, that the “will of the people” is deemed supreme. However in a scenario in which the government is officially and legally atheistic, I would far rather it be submissive to the will of the people, who at least have the right to be overtly religious and therefore may choose to be guided by revealed truth.
It is in the context of this “paradigm” that I say, I would rather decide for myself where my money goes for the assistance of my fellow man, rather than turn it over to the atheistic behemoth that is the government. This way I can at least try to make sure it is used in ways that are in harmony with man’s nature and purpose.