Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:
Italian
English
Spanish
Portuguese
Question
Dear Father Angelo,
I write to you, Father Bellon, again presenting my questions about religion, but this time I would like to address some issues related to the social doctrine of the Church, if you do not mind.
1) Separation between charity and justice:
When we say that “charity must illuminate justice” what is meant? What difference is there between the two principles?
Furthermore, it seems to me that in many encyclicals of Leo XIII and other Popes the relationship between justice and charity seems to prefigure a more radical and clear distinction.
I report the following quotes from S.S. Leo XIII.
In order to settle the quarrel between the rich and the proletarians, it is demanding to distinguish justice from charity. There is no right to claim, except when justice has been infringed (rf. Encycl. Rerum Novarum).
Obligations of justice, as regards the proletariat and the masters, are these: to lend entirely and faithfully the work that was freely and according to fairness agreed; do not harm the property, nor offend the person of the masters; in the very defense of one’s rights, refrain from violent acts or never transform it into mutinies (rf. Encycl. Rerum Novarum).
Obligations of justice, as regards the capitalists and the masters, are these: render just wages to workers; do not damage their just savings, neither with violence, nor with fraud, nor with open or soothed usury; give them freedom to perform religious duties; do not expose them to corrupting seductions and to the dangers of scandals; do not alienate them from the family spirit and the love of savings; do not impose on them jobs that are disproportionate to their strength, or ill-suited to age or sex (rf. Encycl. Rerum Novarum).
The duty of charity of the rich and landowners is to help the poor and needy, according to the evangelical precept. This precept obliges so gravely, that on the day of judgment in a special way will be asked to account for its fulfillment, according to Christ himself (rf. Matth. XXV) (rf. Encycl. Rerum Novarum).
I think that Leo XIII meant that there are two principles that regulate fraternal and supportive relationships between men which are applied in different situations and ways.
Charity must regulate the spontaneous and voluntary actions of the faithful towards their less fortunate brothers and cannot be coercive.
Justice, on the other hand, is the principle to which the organization of society must strive and may have to prevail even coercively (for this reason it can be the subject of a demand).
Charity obliges us to assist the poor with our goods; justice requires you to give them what they have earned.
I doubt that this distinction is taken up by the philosophy of the doctors of the Church, in particular by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who considered the activity of rulers and magistrates subjected to a particular ethics, different from the general one; in the Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas argues that sometimes some actions, prohibited by God’s law, do not constitute sin if a judge disposed them (e.g., death penalty).
2) Equality according to the Gospel:
What exactly does the ideal of equality consist of, as expressed in the New Testament?
“But, on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel, the equality of men consists in this: that all, having inherited the same nature, are called to the same most high dignity of the sons of God, and that, as one and the same end is set before all, each one is to be judged by the same law and will receive punishment or reward according to his deserts. The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, ‘from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named’ (Eph 3:15). But the minds of princes and their subjects are, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, bound up one with the other in such a manner, by mutual duties and rights, that the thirst for power is restrained and the rational ground of obedience made easy, firm, and noble”. (Leo XIII, encyclical Quod Apostoloci Muneris, 6).
Wherefore, according to God’s commandment, in human society there are princes and servants, masters and proletarians, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebeians, who, united in a bond of love, help each other. Each other to achieve their ultimate end in Heaven; and here, on earth, their material and moral benefit (rf. Leo XIII, Encycl. Quod Apostolici Muneris).
So, when in the New Testament we talk about equality between men, how should we interpret the equality of rights or property?
I hope you will find time to answer me.
P.S. Forgive the length of my emails.
The priest’s answer
Dearest,
1. there is a distinction between justice and charity.
Justice – which consists in the good and constant will to give everyone their own – is required by natural law.
Charity – which consists in loving everyone with the heart of God – is required by the Gospel law and therefore by a law of a supernatural order.
2. These two virtues have many reciprocal relationships.
First of all, it is necessary to remember that charity cannot replace but require justice, according to the well-known theological axiom that grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it (“gratia non destruit, sed perficit naturam”).
Now, in order to perfect that, it presupposes that.
So, charity, precisely insofar as conformity with God’s heart and will, cannot bear that someone does not have or cannot benefit from those goods that God has given him so that he can achieve his own perfection.
3. For this reason Pius XI, in Divini Redemptoris, very firmly said: “But charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into constant account. […] a “charity” which deprives the workingman of the salary to which he has a strict title in justice, is not charity at all, but only its empty name and hollow semblance. The wage-earner is not to receive as alms what is his due in justice. And let no one attempt with trifling charitable donations to exempt himself from the great duties imposed by justice” (DR 49).
And Pius XII: “To be authentic and true, charity must always take into account the justice to be established and not be content with masking disorders and insufficiencies of an unjust condition” ([tr.] Letter to the President of the Social Week in France, 1952).
Therefore, charity urges people to realize justice.
But that’s not just its duty.
4. As far as justice is concerned, we must remember that, alone, it cannot do most of what is required for a good and peaceful coexistence among men.
Others should not be treated simply as others or even as enemies. But they must be loved with a love that goes beyond their defects and even their merits or demerits.
Otherwise, coexistence becomes unbearable.
Charity remedies this.
5. In this regard, a great teacher of social doctrine of the Church, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, who was president of the social weeks for almost thirty years, wrote: “The reason for God’s love is valid for all, and beyond them all, and victoriously replaces all the contrary reasons.
In fact, if the reason for the fraternity were closeness, habit, sympathy, convenience, interest, the goodness of fellow men, their moral stature, beauty, … the reason could miss at some time and fraternity could miss.
It is difficult to always love men, if the reason for loving them is not greater than their defects and their inefficiencies. God is always lovable, He is above all infinitely lovable, and then because the love of God all His children can be loved, however they show up.
How possibly love the murderers, the thieves, the impostors, if that is not done for the love of God? Fraternity cannot live among men without the love of God. On the other hand, to make peace between men, fraternity is not enough if it discriminates the good from the bad, the serious from the foolish, and so on …, because such a fraternity would divide more than unite.
Thus fraternity, based on the love of God, is free from any inferiority complex afore human sins and deformities. We say free, because the presence of sin or moral and physical deformity does not force it to retreat, or reduce itself to become upset and angry” ([Tr.] G. Siri, The road passes through Christ, Pastoral Letter of 1956, published in ibid., I, p. 7-8).
6. Only a theological motivation (“He first loved us when we were still his enemies”) can drop all the possible reserves that would prevent our benevolence towards others and (especially) towards enemies.
“The unbridgeable debt we owe to God nullifies all possible demands of punitive justice against our enemies; afore God we must settle the accounts towards our debtors, and this thought overturns our perspective of justice and from creditors we pass to the role of debtors towards all. And so that charity becomes possible and necessary even towards the worst enemies” ([tr.] Ib., 8).
7. This is not the only task of charity.
But in social coexistence this is indispensable and the first.
Otherwise, enmity and aversion against those who do not think like us are cultivated.
And in some cases, hatred and class struggle are also generated.
So, you see, charity is not reduced simply to “regulating the spontaneous and voluntary actions of the faithful”, but it holds the task of animating and perfecting justice.
As you can see, it is much more.
8. About the second question.
It should be remembered that equality among all is in the dignity of the person and in the very high vocation of becoming children of God.
But the roles between the individuals are different.
To be clear: a male person does not have the right to be a mother, but the right to be a father.
Thus, a woman does not have the right to be a father, but a mother.
These roles are given by nature.
Equally within society: all are equal for the dignity of the person and for God’s vocation to become His adopted children.
But the roles are different. Who does not have the right skills cannot say: “I have the right to be president of the republic”. He can be answered: you will be able to claim that right only when it is conferred on you by the person in charge, that is, by the people or their representatives.
The same thing is also true within a company, a school and even a family, where rights and duties are different depending on the role played there.
9. Some examples brought by the Magisterium of the Church (such as those you reported) are understandable indications within a specific era and a specific culture.
But they do not have the same weight as the ordering principles of society (solidarity, common good, subsidiarity) or the doctrinal principles according to which the relationship between man and society is governed, as the basic principles of social coexistence.
10. Finally, I will say a word about an incorrect statement: “in the Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas argues that sometimes some actions prohibited by the law of God do not constitute sin if a judge disposed them (e.g., death penalty)”.
What is forbidden by God remains evil even if the state judges it possible (for instance, voluntary abortion).
That is why St. Peter said “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
In reference to the death penalty, however, medieval theologians thought it was a delegation by God to human authority to defend the innocent from the abuse of violence.
I thank you for your questions, I wish you every good, and I bless you.
Father Angelo