Missing The Point Of Catholic Social Justice

Every time I write something concerning Catholic Social Justice, I am always met with rebuttals that, for lack of better phrasing, super duper miss the point.

For example, I recently posted a video in which I stated that healthcare is a right and an important part of the broader right to life—a truly non-controversial statement that is supported by the Catechism, the USCCB, and the Pope.

Yet, in response, a reader posted this all-too-common spiel.

Here is the problem with this. This implies that people have a right to healthcare at someone else’s expense. The cold hard truth is that some things are incredibly expensive to get care for due to a number of factors including specific skill sets, development of technology, etc. If I have an absolute right to those things no matter my ability to pay it means that someone somewhere has no right whatsoever to freely determine what they will do with their own productive property (capital, time, talent, etc.) I can perhaps say no, but someone down the line MUST say yes if someone has an absolute right regardless of their ability to compensate the person or people serving them. This is really the same line of thinking that others use to force others to violate their consciences. It is a mentality that I’m owed a certain quality of life and someone else must give it to me no matter what.

I will admit that, regarding application, the reader presents legitimate concerns. But that’s all they are: concerns. They are factors. They don’t do anything to change the original premise.

So many of us hold the belief that  justice is somehow relative to our own personal situation. But it’s not. Justice is objective. It is static. It doesn’t care about material obstacles. It doesn’t care whether *we* think it’s fair or not. And it certainly has no problem demanding sacrifice.

Justice only cares about justice, and our duty as Christians is to ensure that it is properly distributed–especially to the poor and marginalized.

So, yes, that means doctors, insurance providers, and taxpayers may have to contribute extra so all can receive healthcare.

Yes, it means business owners and those at the top may have to take a pay cut so workers at the bottom can receive a just and living wage.

Yes, it means a man with two homes should give one up for a man who has none.

And yes, it means that sometimes we must sacrifice our own luxuries for the greater good.

(I’d also add that this same line of thinking can be applied to abortion. Rebecca Bratten Weiss does a good job of illustrating how.)

Now, in no way does this mean that individual freedom, private property, and personal wealth are bad things—not by a long shot. But they do not take precedence over justice. As Pope Paul VI stated:

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” — Populorum Progressio

Let me also say that absolutely none of this is supposed to be easy or fun, and I’ll gladly admit my own hypocrisy and reluctance. I can barely make it through Ash Wednesday without complaining, and the thought of sacrifice makes me genuinely uncomfortable. But like everything else mentioned above, none of this changes my duty as a Christian.

I think I’ll use this season of Lent to reflect on those shortcomings and pray for the grace to better answer the call to justice.