Here are some more points on social justice:

The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with SOCIAL JUSTICE so as to correspond to God’s plan for man.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above, other than the “God’s plan” bit. And then there is this:

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Agreement between parties is not morally sufficient to justify the amount received in wages? That doesn’t sound like Tea Party capitalism. Where do these moonbatty ideas come from?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Let me continue to say that while I am not Catholic, I do tend to align very closely with the Catholic catechism on social justice issues. I think they do great work in this area.