The concept of social justice is not clearly fixed in the minds of most Catholics. Perhaps it is most generally taken to mean justice to social classes, especially the weaker classes, as against strict justice for individuals. Up to a few years ago, the term was more generally used by non-Catholics than by Catholics. Indeed, the former seem to have had almost a monopoly on the phrase.
In his commentary on the Encyclical “Quadragesimo Anno,” entitled “Die Soziale Enzyklika,” the Reverend Othmar von Nell-Bruenlng, S.J., observed that in theological treatises the concepts of social justice and social charity have been, as yet, only slightly studied and that, therefore, there rests upon theological science the important task of building up and deepening the Catholic teaching on both. Prior to the appearance of “Quadragesimo Anno,” almost the only systematic discussion of social justice came from the pen of the Reverend Charles Antoine, S.J., in his “Cours d’Economie Sociale,” published almost forty years ago. Father Antoine described social justice in substantially the same terms as the Holy Father. He declared that social justice means not merely the promotion of the common good as a unified entity, but also the common good as comprising the welfare of all society’s members.
Some twenty years after the appearance of Father Antoine’s book, one of his countrymen, the Reverend A. Michel, professor of theology at the University of Lille, produced a little book under the title, “La Question Sociale at les Principes Theologiques.” The secondary title of the volume was “Justice Legal et Charite.” Father Michel disposes of la justice sociale in eight pages and puts the adjective in quotation marks. His conclusions are: most of the obligations which some writers put under the head of social justice really pertain to the virtue of charity; the term “social justice” is not in conformity with good Catholic usage, as prescribed by Pope Plus X, and it ought to be discontinued. To be sure, Father Michel’s work was published ten years before the appearance of “Quadragesimo Anno.”
One of the greatest achievements of our late supremely great Pontiff was to give social justice a definite place in the category of virtues and to make Catholics acquainted with the concept. In this connection I desire to bring forward some of the most striking parts of a long article in “Dossiers de l’Action Populaire,” October 25, I938. Its title is “La Notion de Justice Sociale” and its author is the Reverend Andre Rocaries, S.J. It presents incomparably the most enlightening and satisfactory discussion of the term and the subject that I have seen.
At the beginning of his study, Father Rocaries notes that the expression social justice has only recently appeared in pontifical documents. Plus XI was the first Pope to give it official recognition. He uses it eight times in “Quadragesimo Anno” and several times in “Atheistic Communism.” Father Rocaries then asks whether the place given to the phrase by Plus XI implied progress in doctrine as well as in terminology. He answers his own question in the affirmative.
What is the object of social justice according to the thought of the Pope? Undoubtedly, it is the common good. What does the common good mean? In the Pope’s answer to this question, says Father Rocaries, we have the element that is new in the papal teaching on social justice. As usually understood, the common good signifies the good of society as a whole. This is, indeed, the primary object of social justice, but Plus XI indicates that social justice includes also the good of all and of each. The collective good is not sought as an end in itself but for the sake of each of the members of society. This is the second aspect of the common good. In passing, it is worthy of note that Father Antoine gave this same twofold interpretation of the common good and the corresponding twofold duties of social justice, more than forty years ago. The material object of social justice, says Father Rocaries, comprises goods and advantages for all classes, while its formal object is the production of this prosperity for the community as a whole and for each and all individuals.
Turning from the object of social justice to its subjects, that is, those who are bound by its precepts, Father Rocaries declares that they are individuals, associations and rulers, according to their opportunities, office and functions. All these are obliged to promote the common good as a whole. Those who are charged with the duty of promot- ing the common good distributively are the individual members of society, also social institutions and finally the state. Father Rocaries seems to hold that the state is the most important of those three subjects or agents of social justice on behalf of the individual members of society.
The various sorts of justice
How then does social justice, under the aspect just described, differ from distributive justice? Mainly, answers Father Rocaries, inasmuch as it binds individuals and social groups, as well as the state, while the obligations of distributive justice fall only upon the state.
The author has a long discussion of the relation of social justice to legal justice. He rejects the opinion which has been fairly common among theological writers that these two terms are identical in meaning. He maintains that legal justice covers only one of the two objects of social justice; that is, the common welfare as of the whole community. In addition, social justice aims at promoting the well-being of each and all, particularly by a more equitable division of the wealth of this world. And it is here above all, says Father Rocaries, that social justice incontestably differs from legal justice.
How then would Father Rocaries define social justice? In these words: “Social justice is the virtue which governs the relations of the members with society, as such, and the relations of society with its members; and which directs social and individual activities to the general good of the whole collective body and to the good of all and each of its members.”
In my opinion, this is the most precise and comprehensive definition of social justice that has yet been formulated.
In the concluding paragraphs of his article, Father Rocaries declares that the term social justice represents not merely a progress in terminology but a genuine doctrinal progress, or, if one prefers the expression, a more exact unfolding of social Catholic doctrine.
The place which Father Rocaries assigns to the state in conformity with his conception of social justice is very large. He makes the practice and enforcement of social justice depend to a very great extent upon the state, particularly in the realm of economics. He takes this position in evident conformity with the teaching of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI.
In “Rerum Novarum” Pope Leo declared: “The first duty, therefore, of the rulers of the state should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as to produce of themselves public well-being and private prosperity.” In the same encyclical, he gave his remarkable description of the functions of the state: “Whenever the general interest of any particular class suffers, or is threatened with evils, which can in no other way be met, the public authority must step in to meet them.” Social justice in both senses is implicit in both these extracts.
The following excerpts from the Encyclical on “Atheistic Communism” exhibit the relation between social justice and the state, and also one very suggestive illustration of the state’s economic functions:
In reality, besides commutative justice, there is also social justice with its own set obligations, from which neither employers nor workingmen can escape. Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand from each individual all that is necessary for the common good. But just as in the living organism it is impossible to provide for the good of the whole unless each single part and each individual member is given what it needs for the exercise of its proper functions, so it is impossible to care for the social organism and the good of society as a unit unless each single part and each individual member—that is to say, each individual man in the dignity of his human personality—is supplied with all that is necessary for the exercise of his social functions. If social justice be satisfied, the result will be an intense activity in economic life as a whole, pursued in tranquillity and order. This activity will be proof of the health of the social body, just as the health of the human body is recognized in the undisturbed regularity and perfect efficiency of the whole organism. But social justice cannot be said to have been satisfied as long as workingmen are denied a salary that will enable them to secure proper sustenance for themselves and for their families; as long as they are denied the opportunity of acquiring a modest fortune and forestalling the plague of universal pauperism; as long as they cannot make suitable provision through public or private insurance for old age, for periods of illness and unemployment. (Paragraphs 51 and 52.)
It must likewise be the special care of the state to create those material conditions of life without which an orderly society cannot exist. The state must take every measure necessary to supply employment, particularly for the heads of families and for the young. To achieve this end, demanded by the pressing needs of the common welfare, the wealthy classes must be induced to assume those burdens without which human society cannot be saved nor they them- selves remain secure. However, measures taken by the state with this end in view ought to be of such a nature that they will really affect those who actually possess more than their share of capital resources, and who continue to accumulate them to the grievous detriment of others. (Paragraph 75.)
The general principles above quoted from Leo and Pius and the particular illustration drawn by the latter from unemployment, taken together, show that in present-day conditions the state should be regarded as by far the most important agent and instrument of social justice.
