"Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched." ~ Guy de Maupassant
The Fraud of "Social Justice"
Submitted by Anthony Gregory on Wed, 2010-09-08 03:00
Carl L. Bankston III on the cultural origins of this redistributivist horror.
0
Your rating: None
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
-
1 day 7 hours ago
-
1 day 19 hours ago
-
2 days 16 hours ago
-
2 days 17 hours ago
-
2 days 18 hours ago
-
2 days 21 hours ago
-
4 days 4 hours ago
-
5 days 6 hours ago
-
5 days 23 hours ago
-
6 days 3 hours ago
Root Strikers
Supporters
Merchandise
User Map
Latest Tweets
New recommended column on STR: The Voluntary Voice (Book Review #4) http://t.co/6QCn3oykFR
2 days 7 hours ago
New recommended column on STR: Dante’s Divine Comedy and the Divine Origins of the Free Market http://t.co/jW0qF12WRc
5 days 7 hours ago
- 1 of 41
- ››







Reprint Rights
Comments
The concept of "social justice" is Catholic in origin and older than this author would suggest. In the 1840s, Father Luigi Taparelli used the phrase to criticize the major economic theories at the time for ignoring moral philosophy and for undermining the unity of society by dividing it into competing classes. Since then, the Catholic Church has been clear about its condemnation of both socialism and unrestrained capitalism.
In Pope Pius XI’s 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, he praised laws that “undertake the protection of life, health, strength, family, homes, workshops, wages and labor hazards, in fine, everything which pertains to the condition of wage workers, with special concern for women and children,” but noted, “it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community.”
I wrote column about this misunderstanding: http://www.politicalchristian.org/wordpress/2010/03/31/marxism-and-socia...
"Social Justice" is a term that has largely been hijacked by Statists and leftists, but the Church has condemned its mutant strain (liberation theology).
This author's arguments are good the way he sets up his paper, but his paper is seriously lacking in historical depth and context.