You might be surprised to discover that the term ‘social justice’ comes not from the United States or from Marxism, but from a Catholic priest.
Luigi Taparelli, a Jesuit, coined it in 1840. Living in Italy in the 19th century, he was concerned about the socio-economic effects of the Industrial Revolution on the new working class.
To that end, he revived the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas — Thomism — in order to help resolve these problems, on which the Church had taken no defined position.
Taparelli’s scholarship played a part in Pope Leo XIII‘s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes).
Social justice has since influenced Catholic and Protestant teaching, despite its Modernist and Pelagian tendencies. It includes Taparelli’s concept of subsidiarity, which ties in with communitarianism. Like it or not, subsidiarity is part of today’s Church — Catholic and Protestant.
Subsidiarity relies on church programmes, small groups, volunteering in the community via the church and developing ties with community organisers, which the CCHD collections fund in the United States.
Many orthodox Christians shun these more populist programmes, and they are right to do so. Pope Pius X and John Gresham Machen both spoke out against making the Gospel into a social mantra and ignoring its message of salvation.
However, a number of Anglican parishes in the UK are helping David Cameron’s communitarian Big Society programme by getting members of church congregations ‘involved’ in volunteer work for national charities and community-based programmes.
Is that making ‘disciples of all men’? Traditionalists are right in saying that it does not. Modernists and postmodernists would counter that it doesn’t matter — the perceived social benefits trump Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross for our sins and His promise of eternal life.
Unfortunately, recent Popes have openly supported social justice concerns as have ‘liberal’ Protestant churches.
A Gospel message of eternal life has gone by the wayside.
Tomorrow: More on communitarianism
Churchmouse Campanologist 
6 comments
January 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm
jameshigham
The lure of the other side is always through illusion, rhetoric and manipulation of people’s altruistic and other feelings. There’s always the double process of unmanipulating first before the right path is found.
LikeLike
January 11, 2012 at 10:32 pm
churchmouse
Well said, James. The unmanipulation can be an arduous process, as we know.
LikeLike
January 13, 2012 at 2:29 am
Cyril Ignatius
Interesting post. Raises many questions indeed. The matter of inequality and the Christian obligation for benevolence and charity towards the poor is an old and somewhat elusive issue. I confess to being unable to really speak authoritatively on the matter despite doctoral specializations in social stratification and social policy.
To quote that old saying, “It does not appear to appear to me now, as it appears to have appeared to me then”. The experience of pursuing justice; especially justice to the poor has seen more than its share of unintended consequences. I remember vividly confronting these dilemmas in spite of myself and inspite of my generally livberal-left professors at Virginia Tech.
Nationally, what set the whole process in a morass of disagreement and indecision is the reluctance of so may people – yes, including so many clergy – to acknowledge the full scope of these unintended consequences. Too often people hide behind the symbolic comfort of “helping” the poor through policies of “compassion” without bearing the burden of looking honestly at the real world complexity of poverty and the very real problems associated with the programs of benevolence they support.
LikeLike
January 13, 2012 at 2:50 am
churchmouse
I agree, Cyril, having gone through the same shift in thought on the matter.
We have experienced things we never thought we would have in this area. However, for so many — clergy included (let’s not forget the senior Anglican clergy at St Paul’s!) — it’s a simple (for them) matter of going along to get along (or ahead). It seems to be a case of (what I would call) materialistic agreement: ‘I go along with whatever you say to gain promotion or to keep my job’.
Eventually, I hypothesise, that way of thinking becomes so ingrained, it’s second nature. This is what I think the US will face in the 2012 election cycle.
LikeLike
January 15, 2012 at 12:59 am
Anne Bennett (@AnneKavkaz)
Made sense in times gone by. But now the liberal protestants have gone much too far. Check out the forum of the United Church of Canada (Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists joined in the 1920’s). A very unfriendly place if you buy their extreme social justice beliefs. It is called Wondercafe. Google it, or better still, don’t, it is depressing.
LikeLike
January 15, 2012 at 1:08 am
churchmouse
Thanks, Anne. I’m not even sure if it made sense when the good ‘father’ developed it! After all, Catholic monasteries, convents, charities and hospitals were all in place at the time.
With apologies for another edit, but monasteries and convents have been known historically for giving food and first aid to the poor.
LikeLike