By Brannon Howse
Social justice promotes the redistribution of income in the name of "the common good." Among world influencers, it is important to note that "common good" is used by the Vatican and the pope over and over. That should not come as a surprise when we realize the term "social justice" was coined by a Catholic Jesuit. Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio, who lived from 1793 to 1862, was an Italian Catholic scholar of the Society of Jesus who coined the term social justice.
My friend and frequent Worldview Weekend radio guest Carl Teichrib, explains that many denominations now actively promote "social justice":
In today's Christian world-and Western culture in general-there's a myriad of changes taking place, and with it comes new language. "Social Justice" is certainly in the spotlight. Jim Wallis of Sojourners uses this term repeatedly. Brain McLaren's book Everything Must Change seeks to reframe Christianity in a social justice context. The Christian Reformed Church has a social justice office, as does the Salvation Army; and the Mennonite Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and an endless list of other denominations and church bodies speak of "social justice."
FBI founder and director J. Edgar Hoover, in his 1958 book Masters of Deceit, explains why communists insert their people as the heads of churches and other such organizations to promote communism in the guise of social justice:
To make a known Party member president of a front would immediately label it as "communist." But if a sympathizer can be installed, especially a man of prominence, such as an educator, minister, or scientist, the group can operate as an "independent" organization.
Karl Marx was educated at a secularized Jesuit high school, and interestingly enough, he and Jesuit Taparelli were contemporaries:
Marx and Engels fleshed out their "science of socialism" during the same time frame as Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio's "social justice." And The Communist Manifesto was published the same year that the Society of Fraternal Democrats called for social justice. Under Communism, wealth redistribution was to be used for social ends. In this structure, private property for personal gain was viewed as the cornerstone of the class system and was seen as the cause of social injustices and strife. Wealth redistribution, therefore, was aimed at producing a society where all people were economically equal. Hence, the abolition of bourgeois property (that of the capitalist class) was the key to Communism.
The Church of Rome via its Maryknoll and Jesuit Orders has promoted, aided, and propped up communism when it served its interests. The Pope's latest visit to communist Cuba more than proves the point. Roman Catholic Humberto Fontova wrote an article entitled "Pope Blesses Castroism." Read the article and weep for those suffering under Castro's police state. And yes, the Pope had time for the Castro brothers but no time for those languishing under them. In fact, the day after the Pope left the island, Castro's thugs arrested "at least 43 Cuban dissidents." 
This sort of thing is not brand new. In 2009, the Vatican, through a Jesuit newspaper, praised Karl Marx. Richard Owen of The Times Online reports:
L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said yesterday that Marx's early critiques of capitalism had highlighted the "social alienation" felt by the "large part of humanity" that remained excluded, even now, from economic and political decision-making.
Georg Sans, a German-born professor of the history of contemporary philosophy at the pontifical Gregorian University, wrote in an article that Marx's work remained especially relevant today as mankind was seeking "a new harmony" between its needs and the natural environment. He also said that Marx's theories may help to explain the enduring issue of income inequality within capitalist societies.
"We have to ask ourselves, with Marx, whether the forms of alienation of which he spoke have their origin in the capitalist system," Professor Sans wrote. "If money as such does not multiply on its own, how are we to explain the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few?"
Professor Sans's article was first published in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit paper, which is vetted in advance by the Vatican Secretariat of State. The decision to republish it in the Vatican newspaper gives it added papal endorsement.
Communism also hides within a mixture of socialism and capitalism known as communitarianism or "communism lite" and is being aggressively promoted by the Church of Rome and prominent neo-evangelicals.
Today's young people get a heavy dose of social justice curriculum written by individuals such Bill Ayers. As a result, many people tell me they are pleased that their church or denomination is involved in social justice. But Carl Teichrib explains why social justice is completely unbiblical:
"My church has a social justice mandate… This is something I support."
Sounds nice, but can you tell me what you mean? The usual response I get, thankfully, centers on feeding the poor, helping at a homeless shelter or safe house, assisting the elderly, working with troubled teens, or supporting an orphanage.
Sorry, that's not social justice. The dominant social justice concept for the past 150 years has been centered on the sliding slope of Papal-advocated wealth redistribution, and a Marxist version of Collectivism. Feeding the poor and assisting the helpless, from a Christian perspective, isn't social justice-its Biblical compassion, a generous act of love. Such acts of compassion engage individual lives, and are based on the Christian call of loving others more than self. This is the heart of compassion: An individual sees a need, and operating out of love, reaches to meet that need. Churches too are to function in a similar manner. A need is evident, and moved by compassion, the congregation works to solve the dilemma. Coercion never enters the picture, nor does a political agenda emerge, nor is a call for economic equality heard.
The Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan demonstrates true compassion (Luke 10). A Jewish man has been beaten, robbed, and left to die on the road. Various people pass him by, including the religiously pious. However, a Samaritan traveler sees the individual, and although the Samaritan is culturally alienated from the beaten man, he recognizes the desperation and individually takes action-dressing his wounds and providing a place of rest and refuge. And the Samaritan pays for it himself without demanding remuneration or compensation, either from the victim, his family or community, or from the government or ruling class.
However, if the Samaritan were a supporter of the dominant theme in social justice, he would have acted with a different motive for different ends. The Samaritan would have used the occasion to lobby for social transformation.
1. The robbers were really victims of an unjust economic system, and had acted in response to the oppression of the ruling class.
2. In order to bring justice to this oppressed class, and to steer them back to a caring community, equitable wealth redistribution should take place. The rich must be taxed to fund necessary social programs. A more equitable society is needed.
3. Who will pay the victim's medical bills? The community or the rich.
4. This tragic event, the Samaritan would tell us, is a graphic reminder of the class struggle. We are all victims of an unjust economic order. Therefore, we must be the "voice of the voiceless" and advocate for radical social change.
In the social justice framework there is another agenda that lurks behind the tragic: A political/economic cause is piggybacked and leveraged-the cause of economic equality through wealth redistribution. This isn't about truly helping the victim; it's about using the victim.
Biblical justice, on the other hand, never seeks to dismantle class structures. Evil actions are condemned, but this isn't specific to a particular social strata. Consider the words of Leviticus 19:15: "You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor."
Mark W. Hendrickson compliments the commentary of Mr. Teichrib when he writes:
[Biblical] Justice not only means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that (contrary to the doctrine of "social justice") nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor.
The fundamental error of today's 'social justice' practitioners is their hostility to economic inequality, per se. Social justice theory fails to distinguish between economic disparities that result from unjust deeds and those that are part of the natural order of things. All Christians oppose unjust deeds… [but] it isn't necessarily unjust for some people to be richer than others.
God made us different from each other. We are unequal in aptitude, talent, skill, work ethic, priorities, etc. Inevitably, these differences result in some individuals producing and earning far more wealth than others. To the extent that those in the 'social justice' crowd obsess about eliminating economic inequality, they are at war with the nature of the Creator's creation.
The Bible doesn't condemn economic inequality. You can't read Proverbs without seeing that some people are poor due to their own vices. There is nothing unjust about people reaping what they sow, whether wealth or poverty.
Jesus himself didn't condemn economic inequality. Yes, he repeatedly warned about the snares of material wealth; he exploded the comfortable conventionality of the Pharisaical tendency to regard prosperity as a badge of honor and superiority; he commanded compassion toward the poor and suffering. But he also told his disciples, "you have the poor always with you" (Matthew 26:11), and in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30) he condemned the failure to productively use one's God-given talents-whether many or few, exceptional or ordinary-by having a lord take money from the one who had the least and give it to him who had the most, thereby increasing economic inequality.
The Lord's mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us. In fact, Jesus explicitly declined to undermine property rights or preach economic equality when he told the man who wanted Jesus to tell his brother to share an inheritance with him, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you" (Luke 12:14).
Satan has used socialism, communism, and Marxism to build his "new order"-his own kingdom. He seeks to destroy Christianity, free nations, national sovereignty, and laws based on the character and nature of God. The devil has used dictators committed to Marxist/Leninist philosophies to kill countless Christians. Why? Because only committed Christians build God's Kingdom in the spiritual realm as they preach and defend the gospel.
One final quote captures the essence of what Marx believed and what he thought should be done: "The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed." Marx was dead wrong, but that doesn't change the reality that the worldview of Marx is alive and well in America and around the world. The influence of Marx's ideas is overwhelming, and his vile legacy continues despite the indisputable failure of his atheistic, communistic worldview wherever it has been tried.Source: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=9081