What is justice? Is it a proxy for a particular policy prescription? Is it a given ideological vision of society? Is it a synonym for ideology?  The classical notions of justice built as they are upon a Christian anthropology refuse to see it as a restriction or expansion of other criteria. Justice is not confined to the realms of the modern philosophies insisting on political action.   Unfortunately, we have a tendency of seeing justice as a placeholder for egalitarian platforms, the expansion of autonomy, the protection of ownership, or the egalitarianism of political platforms.

The scenario complicates when we introduce the concept of “social justice.” The loss of the traditional understanding of justice has given way to most confusing ideas regarding the demands of justice. At its most basic understanding justice pertains to what is owed to another and is satisfied when the one owed receives what is his, suum cuique. Justice is a virtue, inasmuch as the trait exist in an individual person who exhibits the habit of giving to each his own—when referring to the virtue in persons we call it commutative justice. Justice primarily exist in individual persons, but it can be also expressed in the law of a community, when, aligned with right reason, the law becomes a guarantor of that exercise of giving to each his own. When justice pertains to the relationship of an individual to a community—community being a united group of persons for a common purpose—it is called distributive justice. In the latter, there are two sets of obligations, namely, obligations of individuals toward the community and of the community toward individuals. 

Modern theology calls distributive justice, social justice. It is rather unfortunate as, in my view, the traditional rendering avoids the merger of social justice with political platforms and political ideologies. People hear social justice and they think they heard socialism—both as a good or bad term. 

Our first duty as we confront the troubling times we are experiencing today is to make a firm resolve to render to each his due. To place our hearts at the service of justice is to place our whole being at its service. To know what is just, however, we must know what is good first. Both the objective norms of morality coming from special revelation and those flowing from the natural law assist us in discovering what is good for man qua man and for man in community. There are both objective absolute or exceptionless norms as well as prudential norms that must govern interactions between two people, a person and society, and society as a whole. 

Sincerity or law are not enough. A man who is in the habit of aligning with the moral law and the natural law is better prepared when prudence calls to make decisions where there exist alternative courses of action. A person who, ignoring these norms, appeals to a secular political program will certainly fail, despite claims of acting justly. The temptation to seek justice by any means,  even  by inflicting unjust treatment on others if necessary is always there, as the base inclinations of our appetites incline us all to get what we demand on any terms of our liking. 

The “social justice” that Christians ought to pursue is not the social justice of the socialist ideology or the partisan plan of a radicalized group. Claims of pursuing justice can at times become an excuse for anger, retribution, control, or the disregard of moral norms. That is why the radical sees justice as the ultimate end and prudence as cowardice. Justice must be tempered and supplemented with such things as empathy, prudence, solidarity, love, mercy, and forgiveness. This is why in his book, Social Justice Isn’t What You Think It Is, the great Michael Novak argues that social justice is “a habit of the heart embodied in individual persons” that inaugurates “a set of new habits and abilities that need to be learned, perfected, and passed on to new generations — new virtues with very powerful social consequences.”

Justice is a habit but so is tyranny. As Dostoevsky said, “Tyranny is a habit; once rooted, it grows like a disease. I am firmly of the opinion that the best man in the world can grow coarse and insensitive from habit to the point where he becomes indistinguishable from a wild beast.” He was then referring to Marxism. Ideologies can talk about justice when they are really meaning power or revenge, embodied in a narrative of history and of action that justifies evil and brutalizes our conscience. 

That is why we must resist the temptation of seeing justice as an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas that stimulate action. The most mobilizing ideologies indeed speak about justice and narrowly construe its parameters—depriving its meaning as a habit and making it a postulate within a narrative. The most successful ideologies are about the triumph of the will, not about the cultivation of virtue, they stimulate the mouth to shouting, turn protests into mobs, use images as weapons, and often bathe the streets in blood. All in the name of justice. 

Take the Black Lives Matter organization. One of their affirmations, among others, is revealing: “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.” Within that short affirmation there is a statement about justice with an ideological center: blacks are being systematically targeted for death. There is a large white supremacy network whose intention is to destroy blacks. It is an “us” against “them”, “oppressed” and “oppressor” racialized dialectic. 

Blacks need liberation and BLM adds: “We are a collective of liberators who believe in an inclusive and spacious movement. We also believe that in order to win and bring as many people with us along the way, we must move beyond the narrow nationalism that is all too prevalent in Black communities. We must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.” 

So, they see themselves as a vanguard of liberators forming a worldwide movement or front. The creation of fronts historically refers to Marxist movements for justice. Justice is here very specifically expressed in a collectivist fashion of specific collective action for collective liberation against a collective race. This has all the features of an ideology and it stifles conscience. It creates its own end, its own indictment, its own morality, its own perceived enemy. It incites you to look upon a certain group of others as your enemies! These ideologies use injustice even gleefully to channel pain upon an ideological target. In the process, like it was with fascism, it speaks of lofty goals such as unity, humanity, peace, love, harmony, dignity and, yes, justice, social justice. The ultimate aim however is the destruction of the other.

What is justice? Is it a proxy for a particular policy prescription? Is it a given ideological vision of society? Is it a synonym for ideology?  The classical notions of justice built as they are upon a Christian anthropology refuse to see it as a restriction or expansion of other criteria. Justice is not confined to the realms of the modern philosophies insisting on political action.   Unfortunately, we have a tendency of seeing justice as a placeholder for egalitarian platforms, the expansion of autonomy, the protection of ownership, or the egalitarianism of political platforms.

The scenario complicates when we introduce the concept of “social justice.” The loss of the traditional understanding of justice has given way to most confusing ideas regarding the demands of justice. At its most basic understanding justice pertains to what is owed to another and is satisfied when the one owed receives what is his, suum cuique. Justice is a virtue, inasmuch as the trait exist in an individual person who exhibits the habit of giving to each his own—when referring to the virtue in persons we call it commutative justice. Justice primarily exist in individual persons, but it can be also expressed in the law of a community, when, aligned with right reason, the law becomes a guarantor of that exercise of giving to each his own. When justice pertains to the relationship of an individual to a community—community being a united group of persons for a common purpose—it is called distributive justice. In the latter, there are two sets of obligations, namely, obligations of individuals toward the community and of the community toward individuals. 

Modern theology calls distributive justice, social justice. It is rather unfortunate as, in my view, the traditional rendering avoids the merger of social justice with political platforms and political ideologies. People hear social justice and they think they heard socialism—both as a good or bad term. 

Our first duty as we confront the troubling times we are experiencing today is to make a firm resolve to render to each his due. To place our hearts at the service of justice is to place our whole being at its service. To know what is just, however, we must know what is good first. Both the objective norms of morality coming from special revelation and those flowing from the natural law assist us in discovering what is good for man qua man and for man in community. There are both objective absolute or exceptionless norms as well as prudential norms that must govern interactions between two people, a person and society, and society as a whole. 

Sincerity or law are not enough. A man who is in the habit of aligning with the moral law and the natural law is better prepared when prudence calls to make decisions where there exist alternative courses of action. A person who, ignoring these norms, appeals to a secular political program will certainly fail, despite claims of acting justly. The temptation to seek justice by any means,  even  by inflicting unjust treatment on others if necessary is always there, as the base inclinations of our appetites incline us all to get what we demand on any terms of our liking. 

The “social justice” that Christians ought to pursue is not the social justice of the socialist ideology or the partisan plan of a radicalized group. Claims of pursuing justice can at times become an excuse for anger, retribution, control, or the disregard of moral norms. That is why the radical sees justice as the ultimate end and prudence as cowardice. Justice must be tempered and supplemented with such things as empathy, prudence, solidarity, love, mercy, and forgiveness. This is why in his book, Social Justice Isn’t What You Think It Is, the great Michael Novak argues that social justice is “a habit of the heart embodied in individual persons” that inaugurates “a set of new habits and abilities that need to be learned, perfected, and passed on to new generations — new virtues with very powerful social consequences.”

Justice is a habit but so is tyranny. As Dostoevsky said, “Tyranny is a habit; once rooted, it grows like a disease. I am firmly of the opinion that the best man in the world can grow coarse and insensitive from habit to the point where he becomes indistinguishable from a wild beast.” He was then referring to Marxism. Ideologies can talk about justice when they are really meaning power or revenge, embodied in a narrative of history and of action that justifies evil and brutalizes our conscience. 

That is why we must resist the temptation of seeing justice as an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas that stimulate action. The most mobilizing ideologies indeed speak about justice and narrowly construe its parameters—depriving its meaning as a habit and making it a postulate within a narrative. The most successful ideologies are about the triumph of the will, not about the cultivation of virtue, they stimulate the mouth to shouting, turn protests into mobs, use images as weapons, and often bathe the streets in blood. All in the name of justice. 

Take the Black Lives Matter organization. One of their affirmations, among others, is revealing: “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.” Within that short affirmation there is a statement about justice with an ideological center: blacks are being systematically targeted for death. There is a large white supremacy network whose intention is to destroy blacks. It is an “us” against “them”, “oppressed” and “oppressor” racalized dialectic. 

Blacks need liberation and BLM adds: “We are a collective of liberators who believe in an inclusive and spacious movement. We also believe that in order to win and bring as many people with us along the way, we must move beyond the narrow nationalism that is all too prevalent in Black communities. We must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.” 

Ideology has an advantage over other constructs: it gives you a simple plan, a clear target, an assured comfort that we have identified the error and we can now extirpate it. But there are, as said previously, consequences. Very powerful social consequences. Authentic social justice is not social because it is political or pertains to governmental policy or initiative. It is social because it inclines the person towards the common good. The free and responsible actions of men who have made space in their soul for justice is what we call “social justice.”