Social Justice Isn’t What You Think It Is

Those Catholics who call themselves progressives sometimes make this same argument against the Vatican.

They want more liberties and powers given to local authorities (national and lower), rather than being held in the hands of the Vatican. At the same time, ironically, they have a tendency, particularly in regard to the social programs of the secular state, to favor the higher power over the lower. For instance, in the United States, decisions on school busing for racial purposes, on the federal takeover of the laws and rules for political elections, and on affirmative action were for a time entrusted to federal rather than local authorities.

These examples show that sometimes the common good may be better served by exerting superior federal powers. Still, the general rule holds. Higher powers tend to be more ignorant of local realities. And higher powers tend toward self-aggrandizement and the arrogance of power. Costs tend to rise precipitously; rules set from afar play out irrationally and counterproductively on local ground; and the competencies of local authorities wane from disuse. In addition, the bureaucratization of social assistance greatly diminishes the scope for human sympathies and personal knowledge. Abraham Lincoln willingly helped his brother with a significant loan, but by painful experience learned how his brother misspent it, and in consequence he refused to contribute further to his brother’s dissipation by making another loan. He wanted to see a change in his brother’s behavior first.

Neighbors know these behavioral tendencies in a way that distant welfare bureaucrats don’t. Under the latter, recipients of social assistance must be treated like clients, not neighbors and loved ones. From such experiences comes section 48 of Centesimus Annus:

“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Finally, there is a natural tendency for taxpayers involved in assistance to the poor to let government do it all, and to stop caring for the poor on their own. The impersonal squeezes out the personal. From this, huge miscalculations are made about what works, about the real consequences as distinct from the good intentions of social action.