Yeah ok, whatever. But check this out:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/
Principles of distributive justice are normative principles designed to guide the allocation of the benefits and burdens of economic activity. After outlining the scope of this entry and the role of distributive principles, the first relatively simple principle of distributive justice examined is strict egalitarianism, which advocates the allocation of equal material goods to all members of society.
[But hey, this is very OT...and by all means do not let me get in the way of your belief that the Pope is infallible, even if he writes in such a manner as to preclude logic from applying...]
Yeah, the first they choose to examine, because it’s the simplest.
Since the Catholic Church, in the same document stressed that the state cannot confiscate personal property for what it deems to be a superior purpose, and that in fact, private property and profitable use of property are fundamental rights, it’s should be obvious that’s not the meaning the Church has. In fact, you’re judging a 19th-century word usage by the connotations set forth more than a century of social perversion later.
The same Stanford essay does explicitly include non-material distribution, such as of justice (the original meaning) and opportunity, both of which I would say any true believer in free markets (as opposed to plutocracy and fascism, as well as socialism) would concur with.
I’ve only skimmed it so far (I will read it more thoroughly when i get the chance), but I’m guessing that the Stanford article finds the definition of “distributive justice” to be drifting at least as certainly as the meaning of “social justice” has drifted.
(In that vein, one of the key cardinals of the curia — I forget which — has been pushing the fact that Vatican needs to get with the fact that too many societies understand “social justice” to mean “economic redistribution,” “socialist” or other materialistic concerns which are entire alien to what the Vatican is usually talking about when it refers to “social justice.” To the American Religious Left, social justice means that those who refuse to work, or make horrendous choices should be spared the economic consequences of their actions, which actually would be injustice, whereas the Vatican is usually referring to respect for life, combatting corruption, the even application of the rule of law, and, yes, just compensation.)
Now I’m going to read this Stanford document more carefully... I’ll update this if I find anything which significantly changes my assertion...