<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

 

Number 34

 

Integral Parts of Justice

 

As stated at the end of the last conference, we will begin this time with the INTEGRAL PARTS OF JUSTICE.  The author of my textbook states that there are two such integral parts.  The one is to “avoid harming”; the other is to “render the just due”.  Really, both can be combined into the latter, because each and every one of us “renders the just due” to society in general and to every individual in particular when we “avoid harming” either.  It must be pointed out, too, that the integral part we call “to avoid doing harm” cannot be something negative, a mere omission.  Merely NOT ACTING cannot be considered a virtue.  Therefore, the integral part of Justice that must accompany the “positive act of the will” TO DO GOOD, must include the “positive act of the will” NOT TO HARM.  Although the latter is only secondary and less perfect than the former, nevertheless both are necessary to the performance of a “complete” act of the virtue of Justice.

 

As a corollary to this, we are able to say that conduct which “keeps” those commandments that are stated in negative terms (thou shalt not) is not necessarily “virtuous” conduct.  To be an act of virtue, the “positive will” NOT TO DO what such commandments forbid, must be accompanied by the conduct that one “owes” to another individual.  (e.g. not simply to avoid lying by remaining silent, but also, to tell the truth).

 

As an aside, let me point out here that what I have said in the preceding paragraph helps to explain why the beginning stage in the journey toward spiritual perfection, which consists principally in the “struggle” to observe the ten commandments, is called the purgative way.  It is keeping the commandments faithfully over an extended period of time that manages to cleanse (purge) the soul of all evil tendencies.

 

Thereafter, that stage of the spiritual journey which consists principally in the “struggle” to acquire virtues is called the illuminative way.  This is done, of course, by imitating Jesus Christ.  The mere fact of making one’s conduct conform to the conduct of Jesus (which is the illustration of all His teaching) enlightens the mind so that one begins to “perceive” as Jesus perceives, and thus begins to acquire a “second nature”, out of which one “tends” sweetly and easily to be virtuous in all one’s deeds.

 

To complete the picture, the final stage of the spiritual journey is called the unitive say.  In this stage, one’s conduct is so totally “informed” by [imbued with] Charity, that one habitually goes beyond the virtue of Justice (which consists in rendering the exact due), and is so completely united with Jesus in Love, that, like Him, one becomes totally FOR OTHERS as He was and is totally FOR ALL OF US.  At that point, one is completely divested of self, and has “put on Christ” completely; i.e., one is completely dead to self, and completely alive in Christ.  (End of the aside).

 

The author of my textbook points out that ONLY in regard to Justice can the positive will “to avoid harm” be distinguished from the positive will “to do good”.  The other cardinal moral virtues (Prudence, Temperance and Fortitude) have to do with subjecting the natural passions to reason and Faith, and thus with setting the various faculties and powers of the soul, or better, our “humanity”, in due order within oneself.  That involves, among other things, choosing the “middle ground” between too much and too little, because one’s soul is “harmed” as well both by too much and too little as it is by gratifying the demands of lower nature (the sense appetites) to the detriment of the higher nature (our spiritual [rational] appetites).  Therefore the positive will to do good by “choosing” the middle ground is really identical with the positive will to avoid harm by “rejecting” both “too much” and “too little”.  Stated differently, the positive will to “do what is good for” one’s humanity is identical with the positive will “to avoid harming” one’s humanity.  Thus they may be distinguished conceptually, but not “really”.  (Recall, too, that the purpose of the cardinal virtue of Justice is to set an individual in due order” in relation to society in general, and to other individuals in particular).

 

Another way of demonstrating that the two integral parts are “really” distinct is to consider that there are two distinct ways to sin against the virtue of Justice.  One is to “inflict harm” by actively violating the rights of another, and this sin is called a “transgression”.  The other is to fail to render a just due, and this is called a sin of “omission”.

 

THE SUBJECTIVE PARTS OF JUSTICE.  As we stated in a previous conference, there is a “general” justice and a “particular “ justice.  General Justice is also called Legal Justice, because it has to do with what every individual “owes” to society, that is, all other individuals considered collectively.  Particular Justice has to do (1) with what Society (through the agency of individuals representing all of society) owes to the individual citizen of that society, and (2) with what the individual citizen of society owes another individual within the society.  The former is called Distributive Justice, the latter Commutative Justice, as we have already had occasion to state.

 

Furthermore, these three kinds of Justice truly differ from one another by reason of the individuals in which they inhere.  LEGAL JUSTICE (where it exists) resides primarily in the legislators within a given autonomous society, who decide what it is the individual citizens “owe” to all the society itself, and secondarily in the citizens of the said society.  DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE (where it exists) resides in those public officials who are charged with distributing benefits and responsibilities among the citizenry; and COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE (where it exists) resides in private citizens.

 

Finally, the three kinds of Justice differ by virtue of the different kinds of “equality” to be distinguished in each of the three.  In the case of COMMUTATIVE Justice, the equality must be “absolute”, that is, between the amount paid and the item sold, between the salary paid and the work done, between the goods unlawfully taken and the goods (or value) given as restitution.  This is designated as “arithmetic” equality.

 

In the case of DISTRIBUTIVE Justice it is a “relative” or “proportional” equality.  Individuals differ in dignity, abilities and need, and thus the goods and responsibilities must be given in proportion to all three.  My textbook refers to this as a “geometric” equality.

 

And the same (proportional equality) is true of LEGAL justice, except that here it is not a case of what is meted out from the officials representing the whole of society to the individual citizens, but rather a case of what the individual citizens, according to their respective dignity, abilities and resources, owe to the society in general.

 

My textbook asserts that when there are violations of all three of the above kinds of Justice, it is only possible to speak of “restitution” in the case of commutative Justice.  That is because only in the case of individual persons are the “terms” of the relationship on an equal footing as citizens.  The individual citizens cannot be considered to be “equal” to the entire community.  Another reason is that, in the case of distributive Justice, the individual citizen is not a “joint owner” together with all other citizens of the “common goods” of the society, and thus has no “strict” lawful claim to any portion thereof.  However, it may well be that the author of my textbook (and St. Thomas, on whose teachings it is based) were thinking of a much simpler society than the one we currently live in.  Speaking from my own limited experience, I would say that our legislators create categories of “entitlements” and state what those conditions are that must be verified in an individual citizen to qualify for the benefits to be distributed, and then the obligation is placed upon the citizen to apply for same.  Once the applicant proves that all the conditions are met, then a strict right to the benefit is engendered.

 

Particularly in regard to Legal Justice we may say that, in our current society, ordinary citizens are obliged to make restitution for injuries done to the common good, especially in criminal matters and in the matter of paying taxes.  However, in such instances, it must become known to the authorities who the culprits are who committed the crimes or failed to pay their fair share of taxes.  Besides, in the case of taxes, who can say “exactly” what is each citizen’s fair share?  And in the case of those convicted of crime, the emphasis is more on “rehabilitation” than on “making society whole”, as is the case with restitution strictly speaking.

 

Nowadays, we also speak of “social justice”.  According to my author, Social Justice is nothing more than LEGAL Justice, because it pertains to the legislators to define what it is that certain segments (we might call them interest groups) owe to other segments or groups in the society, on the supposition that when any definable group of citizens is “hurting”, ALL OF SOCIETY is hurting.  In other words, there shouldn’t have to be widespread unemployment, homelessness, hunger, lack of adequate medical care, in a word, all the evils attendant upon the poverty that is itself so widespread in our current society.  My personal opinion is that “social justice” as the term is used nowadays cannot be achieved as long as the spirit of “rugged individualism” continues to be in the ascendancy in our nation.  This is evident because government is looked upon as “intrusive” and “confiscatory”.  Then, too, so very many of the “solutions” of social ills proposed by modern governments violate Judaeo-Christian moral principles.  In my view, social justice will happen only when there is a complete change of heart on the part of individual citizens.  In other words, only when ALL individual citizens strive to live holy lives will we see the end of social evils.  All of the institutions of secular society are themselves seriously damaged by original sin and tend to become corrupt and corruptive.  That is why St. Paul says that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, (mere human beings and our own humanity) but against Principalities and Powers and the “rulers of the air” (secular society).  Thus I would like to see the Church leaders put as much (if not more) emphasis on helping Catholics to achieve personal holiness, as they do in reminding us to “be concerned about” and “work for” social justice.

 

THE POTENTIAL PARTS OF JUSTICE.  In last months conference I named all of them and stated that they are Virtues which closely resemble Justice in that they are also concerned with what we “owe” others.  We have:

 

1.       Religion, (toward God);

2.       Piety, (toward parents); and

3.       Observance, (toward dignitaries).  In regard to these three, we can never pay our debt “in strict equality”. 

4.       Truth, which we owe to others as a “moral debt”, not a legal one. 

5.       Gratitude, which we owe to those who do good to us, “gratis”. 

6.       Vindication, what we owe to those who do us evil, “gratis”.  Both of the latter are also “moral debts”. 

7.       Liberality, which is somewhat related to mercy, and finally,

8.       Affability.  We “owe” both of the latter for the sake of making life in community pleasant and peaceful.  They contribute to “honesty” and “decency” in human relationships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.