"Charity vs. Justice"

[morostheos]

A popular explanation for gurus of Catholic social teaching is that of "charity vs. justice." In this explanation, charity is doing random acts of kindness because the suffering of others is pulling at your heartstrings, while justice is organized and works to change the "structures" that cause injustice.


What do you all have to say to this explanation?

To me, it just doesn't seem right. First off, it's an offense to charity to reduce it to random acts of kindness rather than the ultimate and complete gift of self in imitation of Christ on the cross. But I suppose that's just a matter of wording. Can anyone else point out where this goes wrong?

[qfnol31]

I think as virtues they're compl[i]e[/i]mentary, not contradictory.

[photosynthesis]

what gurus of Catholic social teaching? i'm not sure if i've heard people talk about charity and justice this way.

[morostheos]

They usually have some connection to the Jesuits, or Pax Christi, or other such organizations that focus a lot on social justice.

[journeyman]

Are they two sides of the same coin? Perhaps depending on how one approaches the problem?

Social justice could be described as an application of the golden rule – treat others as you wish to be treated. Where one sees another not receiving the same treatment as others, it is simple justice to attempt a remedy. Where one approaches a societal problem from the position of an equal, it might be called social justice. Where one approaches the problem from the position of an aristocrat, it might be called noblesse oblige (a belief that the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate - from French, meaning “nobility obligates”) or social charity.

Throughout history, there have always been multiple views of aristocrats – one of a heartless (and often mindless) tyrant; another of an enlightened monarch, striving to raise the entire level of society.

Another concept (perhaps this is due to the efforts of translators or word etymology) that seems to appear in Catholic teaching is that the word charity is synonymous with the word love. Love your neighbor as you love yourself is the second great commandment, and an expression of how well one lives the first.

An example might be the age old truism - give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; teach him to fish, and he eats for a lifetime. Giving is charity, teaching is justice.

[morostheos]

Doesn't that makes charity seem like shortsightedness though?

It is obviously better to teach a man to fish, than to just give him a fish, but being charitable is just as important.

I don't know, I think I must just be hung up on word choice and the inadequacies of the English language.....

[qfnol31]

[quote]It is obviously better to teach a man to fish, than to just give him a fish, but being charitable is just as important. [/quote]

Funny enough, I no longer know what to make of this. It actually is a modernist idea.

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that, ultimately, we must recognize that all of the Virtues are One, and that this one virtue is Love, for God is Perfect Virtue, God is Perfect Love, and God is One.

As such, true Charity contains within itself Mercy, Justice, etc. There is no conflict between them, and so there cannot be a dichotomy in which one is "versus" the other. If they seem to oppose, then this opposition must spring from our imperfect understanding of the Virtues, not from the virtues themselves.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Paphnutius]

I have always liked the explination that purgatory is where mercy and justice meet. Not toally connected to this, but perhaps a good insight.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 30 2005, 12:24 PM']I have always liked the explination that purgatory is where mercy and justice meet. Not toally connected to this, but perhaps a good insight.
[right][snapback]805386[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I like that too :

[journeyman]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 30 2005, 12:24 PM']I have always liked the explination that purgatory is where mercy and justice meet. Not toally connected to this, but perhaps a good insight.
[right][snapback]805386[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I heard once that justice is what we deserve . . . and mercy is what we hope to receive

[Socrates]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Nov 29 2005, 11:05 PM']A popular explanation for gurus of Catholic social teaching is that of "charity vs. justice."  In this explanation, charity is doing random acts of kindness because the suffering of others is pulling at your heartstrings, while justice is organized and works to change the "structures" that cause injustice.
What do you all have to say to this explanation?

To me, it just doesn't seem right.  First off, it's an offense to charity to reduce it to random acts of kindness rather than the ultimate and complete gift of self in imitation of Christ on the cross.  But I suppose that's just a matter of wording.  Can anyone else point out where this goes wrong?
[right][snapback]804729[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have no idea what "gurus" you are referring to here, but it sounds like the rhetoric of those Lefty "social-justice," "liberation theology" types who tend to denigrate individual acts of charity to the less fortunate in favor of "changing the structures" of oppression, etc. (Which usually amounts to Marxist-style socialism).

Some have even used this kind of thought to attack Mother Teresa for doing "useless" acts of charity for the poor, rather than "working to change the structure."

One must remember that Charity is one of the three capital virtues, and is up to the individual, not to a "structure."
It does not preclude doing things to help the poor and unfortunate have a way out of poverty.
The problem is when we have a government system that rewards irresponsibility and laziness and thus perpetuates dependency and poverty (as the current welfare-state).
Ironically, the socialism typically espoused by the "Social Justice" types does just that.

Denigrating a virtue to promote one's dubious political agenda is shameful for "religious" people.

[Socrates]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 29 2005, 11:51 PM'][quote]It is obviously better to teach a man to fish, than to just give him a fish, but being charitable is just as important[/quote].
Funny enough, I no longer know what to make of this.  It actually is a modernist idea. 
[right][snapback]804801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What is a "modernist idea"? It sounds like a good idea to me!

Edited December 1, 2005 by Socrates

[journeyman]

[quote] QUOTE
It is obviously better to teach a man to fish, than to just give him a fish, but being charitable is just as important.
[/quote]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 29 2005, 11:51 PM']Funny enough, I no longer know what to make of this.  It actually is a modernist idea. 
[right][snapback]804801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Can you elaborate?
the church has a long history of viewing education as a mission, and often views it as the first step in evangelizing or re-evangelizing a territory (witness the re-birth of religious orders in France post Revolution)
to the brothers, sisters and priests who perform the service, it is a mission - while it appears to us to be a charity (are we dealing with a corrupted modern definition = not for profit?)
while we think of education as "book learning" it also historically included employment - or skills training - even though those "employers" may have been identified as guilds or businesses - there are (I hope) examples of individual guild members/masters teaching or employing others because it was the "Christian" thing to do (one possible example, if my memory serves, Francis Thompson, author of the Hound of Heaven, was employed by a cobbler, even though he apparently had little talent in the field)

[qfnol31]

Real simply, since I am in a hurry, Francis Bacon says the same idea giving it the name "humanity" in place of "charity."