Did Pius XI 's use of the "problematic" term "social justice" introduce into the Church so-called Rousseau-like sinful "structures...[as] the primary cause of corruption of human beings...[so that] Social reform takes precedence over personal reform" according to scholar Fr. Fortin?

Social Justice According to Pius XI

Catholic Social Teaching Thomas Storck

Jul 25, 2016

[https://distributistreview.com/archive/social-justice-pius-xi]

"The debate over 'structures of sin' highlights a major shift in how the modern papacy connects individual morality to global systems. Pope John Paul II used structural language but strictly tethered it to individual accountability to avoid the pitfalls of collective guilt. In contrast, Pope Francis expanded structural sin into a broader, prophetic critique that moves away from tight, bounded definitions of personal culpability." - Google AI

So if your question is “Who actually secularized redemption in the sense described?”, I would distinguish three levels:

If by “who explicitly brought this about” you mean who most clearly made the shift from individual moral corruption to social/structural corruption, the answer is Rousseau, but with an important qualification: the formulation “Rousseau secularized redemption” is an interpretive characterization, not a phrase I would attribute verbatim to Fortin without a specific Fortin citation.

The intellectual sequence is roughly:

• Christian account: the fundamental human problem is internal and moral—sin, disordered desire, and separation from God. Social institutions can also be unjust, but reforming institutions does not by itself redeem man.
• Rousseau: human beings are naturally good or at least not naturally vicious; corruption arises largely through social development, dependence, inequality, and artificial institutions.
• Political consequence: if society is the principal source of corruption, then changing society becomes central to overcoming human misery.
• Later philosophy of history: this becomes more systematic. Kant gives history a hidden purposive direction; Hegel makes historical development the arena in which freedom realizes itself; Marx turns the problem explicitly toward material/social structures and revolutionary transformation. - ChatGPT

Fr. Ernest Fortin, who was a prominent scholar of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, shows that the first pope to use the "problematic" ambiguous term "social justice" was Pope Pius XI. Fortin apparently suggests that Pius Xi unwittingly introduced into the Church so-called Rousseau-like sinful "structures... [as] the primary cause of corruption of human beings... [so that] Social reform takes precedence over personal reform":

Against the background of these ideas one is in a better position to measure the gulf that separates the Augustinian from the modern view of history. The philosophy of history came into being with Kant at the end of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth century in the wake of Rousseau's epoch-making attack on bourgeois morality. Its basic thrust was not only to restore genuine morality but to insure that its exercise would not be obstructed by oppressive political structures. With typical modern realism, it assumed that human good will alone could not be relied upon to overturn these evil structures and that the necessary reform would come about only through the operation of a hidden "teleology" ['Kant gives history a hidden purposive'] direction at work in the historical process... 

... The one point on which both views would appear to be in agreement, even though it is never explicitly discussed by Kant, concerns the linear and nonrepeatable character of the historical process. That this central premise should have been so easily taken for granted by modem philosophers of history is perhaps an indirect tribute to the persuasive power of the City of God. But then the notion that history takes its course along a straight line can hardly be considered an Augustinian innovation. It underlies the whole of the biblical account of human existence, for which both Kantian and Hegelian philosophy were intended as a substitute...

... The notion of social justice is itself problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least troublesome of which is that no one has yet to be able to find it with any degree of precision. The first author to use the term is thought to be the Roman Catholic theologian Taparelli d' Azeglio, who devoted a chapter in his theological essay on natural rights, based on facts.... The oddity of this in this instance is that Taparelli himself showed no awareness of the novelty of the expression and seemed to have assumed that its meaning was self-evident, something which could hardly have happened if the complex ideas associated had not already been part of the intellectual landscape of that period... 

... The question was taken up by numerous theologians and social theorists, including the members of the Freiburg Union, whose discussion over a ten years period in 1980 supplied the background for Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, to which the three hitherto known forms of justice, legal, distributive, and commutative, did social justice correspond, or if it did not correspond to any of them, in what way was it different? The opinions were different, so scholars opted for legal justice and other distributive justice, but not without some hesitations, since the use of the adjective social to qualify a virtue that is preeminent social, to begin with, evoke a different set of connotations. The hesitation were fully justified. As nearly as I can make out, social justice, encountered distinction to either legal or distributive justice, does not refer to any special disposition of the soul, and hence cannot properly be regarded as a virtue. Its subject is not the individual being, but a mysterious society named "X", which is said to be unintentionally responsible for the conditions of its members, and in particular for the lot of the poor among them. It makes complete sense only in the context of the new political theories of the seventeenth century, and the thrust of which was to shift the focus of attention from virtue or social character to the reordering of our social structures in such a way as to ensure the security and freedom of the atomic individuals who chose to enter society and accept and remain in it for that reason and that reason alone. As such, it is at peace with the modern rights theory, which is concerned only with the perfection of the social order, as distinguished from that of the individual. Yet it goes beyond the early modern view in that it seeks to equalize social conditions as much as possible, with an eye for guaranteeing the freedom of individuals to promote equity required for its exercise...

... Rousseau's egalitarian scheme and politics of compassion go hand in hand with it. It is thus best understood as part of an all-out endeavor to ground politics in something more fundamental than the desire for self-preservation, namely freedom, or in more recent parlance, the sacredness of the individual qua individual. Rousseau himself never used this expression, "social justice", but it is not unreasonable to think that he prepared the ground for it in his radical critique of civil society and his rearticulation of virtually all the fundamental problems in terms of the distinction between nature and history, as opposed to the classic distinction between body and soul...

... If society's and its action structures are the primary cause of corruption of human beings and the evil attendant upon it, they must be changed. Social reform takes precedence over personal reform. It constitutes the first and perhaps the most moral imperative: better institutions will give us better individuals, not vice versa. Under such circumstances, the premodern emphasis on education and moral character as true cause of happiness of both the individual and community would itself be laid in sight. The only true evil is social evil. As such sin is social sin. (Classical Christianity and the Political Order: Reflections on the Theologico-Political Problem by Ernest L. Fortin, Pages 129-131, 233-235)

Notes: 

1. "Pius XI used to recommend the study of Taparelli’s works in conversations with his friends and colleague." [https://isi.org/the-origins-of-social-justice/]

2. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review, served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council and secretary of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Monsignor Fenton is quoted from his diaries by author David A. Wemhoff in his book, "John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition: How the CIA's Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church" saying that Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius XI apparently held some questionable "opinions as a personal theologian[s]":

"As far as I can make out at the moment, the contentions of Lieber are true, even if his statements, as I explained in note, are scandalous as a betrayal of trust. Apparently, the Pope, as a private theologian, does approve of Murray, or at least is not unsympathetic with him. But this is not a doctrine which he attempts to teach or support, even in his capacity as a private theologian. On the other hand, the one authoritative statement which has come from him has upheld the Ottaviani thesis. There is a parallel in the case of Pius XI. According to Yele, an old rector, the old man held some weird opinions as a personal theologian. The Pius XII case seems to be a case in which the divine protection of Catholic doctrine has become, for all intents and purposes, visible." (Pages 461-462 from Fenton Disries, "Entry June 12, 1954, "Ninth Trip to Rome." 112-116)

3. Google AI: The debate over "structures of sin" highlights a major shift in how the modern papacy connects individual morality to global systems. Pope John Paul II used structural language but strictly tethered it to individual accountability to avoid the pitfalls of collective guilt. In contrast, Pope Francis expanded structural sin into a broader, prophetic critique that moves away from tight, bounded definitions of personal culpability. [1, 2, 3]

The theological differences in their approaches break down into a few key areas:

1. The Theological Source: Personal vs. Prophetic

• John Paul II (Strictly Subordinate): In his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern), John Paul II introduced the phrase "structures of sin." However, he explicitly stated that these structures are "the expression and effect of personal sins." He insisted that a structure cannot sin, feel guilt, or seek forgiveness on its own. For him, systems are merely mirrors of the human heart. [1, 2, 3]
• Pope Francis (Prophetic and Multivalent): Influenced by Argentine Theology of the People, Francis treats structural sin not just as a byproduct of individual choices, but as an independent, toxic environment. In encyclicals like Fratelli Tutti and Laudato Si’, structures—like the global financial system or consumer culture—act as forces that actively shape, trap, and corrupt human behavior. [1, 2, 3] 
• 4 ChatGPT:

• If by “who explicitly brought this about” you mean who most clearly made the shift from individual moral corruption to social/structural corruption, the answer is Rousseau, but with an important qualification: the formulation “Rousseau secularized redemption” is an interpretive characterization, not a phrase I would attribute verbatim to Fortin without a specific Fortin citation.

  The intellectual sequence is roughly:

  • Christian account: the fundamental human problem is internal and moral—sin, disordered desire, and separation from God. Social institutions can also be unjust, but reforming institutions does not by itself redeem man.
  • Rousseau: human beings are naturally good or at least not naturally vicious; corruption arises largely through social development, dependence, inequality, and artificial institutions.
  • Political consequence: if society is the principal source of corruption, then changing society becomes central to overcoming human misery.
  • Later philosophy of history: this becomes more systematic. Kant gives history a hidden purposive direction; Hegel makes historical development the arena in which freedom realizes itself; Marx turns the problem explicitly toward material/social structures and revolutionary transformation.

  So if your question is “Who actually secularized redemption in the sense described?”, I would distinguish three levels:

  Thinker	Transformation
  Rousseau	Moves the fundamental problem toward social corruption rather than inherited/intrinsic moral disorder
  Kant	Gives historical development a teleological/providential structure that can progressively overcome oppressive conditions
  Hegel	Makes historical development itself the medium of Spirit's realization of freedom
  Marx	Gives the structural transformation a concrete socioeconomic and revolutionary form

  Thus, Rousseau is the crucial starting point, but the full-blown idea of historical/social transformation as a kind of secular redemption is more accurately described as a development across Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, rather than something Rousseau alone fully formulated.

  And there is an important correction to the phrase “external structural conditions.” Rousseau did not simply say that individuals are innocent and society is evil. His account is more complicated: socialization changes human desires and relationships, producing forms of amour-propre, dependence, inequality, and domination. The distinction between internal moral evil and external social structures therefore becomes much sharper in some later thinkers than it is in Rousseau himself.

  If you are trying to identify the specific Fortin passage that supports the “secularized redemption” formulation, I can trace that claim to Fortin's actual text and distinguish what Fortin explicitly says from what is an inference from his argument.

• Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia and for the restoration of the Church.
  
  
  Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

  The Catholic Monitor

  
  

  

  The Catholic Monitor

  https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com

  I ask all The Catholic Monitor readers to also pray for the end of this war. Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTube: ...Read more Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTubeFranklin & Graham calls on Christians to pray for 'end to the bloodshed' ahead of Trump-Putin summit...7mo

  
  

  Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To ... Daily news from a Catholic perspective on issues relating to current events in the Catholic Church, world politi...

  
  

  
  

  Conclave Notes:

  Has the Trad Media fallen into a COVID-like mass formation with Leo XVI? While it's humorous to see the former anti-Francis Trad pundits suddenly acting like teen age girls infatuated with Leo, it could lead to a Trojan Horse effect

  It appears that a group of Bishops or Cardinals needs to give Leo XIV Dubia questions on if he still supports "Invalid and Sacrilegious" Confession

  "Prevost’s reported support...allowing divorced & civilly 'remarried'...to receive Holy Communion": “Whoever…helps...promulgation of heresy…is suspected of heresy.” - The Catholic Monitor

  
  -- Open letter urges Pope Leo XIV to correct ‘scandalous incoherence’ in Amoris Laetitia...[Wow! Even notorious Popesplainer Fr.] Harrison warns that Pope Francis taught a ‘dangerous self-contradiction’ on Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried,’ petitioning Pope Leo to correct the record. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/open-letter-urges-pope-leo-xiv-to.html]
  
  
  --  Dr. Seifert, regarded as one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher & friend of John Paul II, to Cardinals: INVESTIGATE FRANCIS' HERESIES, VALIDITY BEFORE THE CONCLAVE.."If Francis is found guilty of heresy or apostasy, then: - His cardinal appointments would be invalid" [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/dr-seifert-philosopher-personal-friend.html] 
  
  

  -- Are the Cardinals who will participate in the upcoming conclave authentically appointed & morally justified in voting, or will the shadow of Francis's possible illegitimacy cast itself over the next papacy?  [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/are-cardinals-who-will-participate-in.html]

  -- 5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]

  Francis Notes:

  l– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

  
  “[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
  (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

  Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
  [https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

  – “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

  – “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

  – If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html 

   –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
  
  The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
  
  –  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
  
  “The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
  
  – On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
  
  “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
  
  Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

  Election Notes: 

  – Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

  – Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

  – Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1

  – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
  http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

  What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the [J6] DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
  http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 

  Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

  Pray an Our Father now for America.

  Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.