A letter from a reader in response to two recent columns posed a question and issued a challenge.

This reader took issue with the columns dealing with corporate responsibility for philanthropy and another about moral aspects of the economy. (Assume disagreement here since he felt the latter should have been titled “Pope Benedict is a closet lover of big regulatory government.”)

My correspondent asked: “Does social justice require a central government? Does the preferential option for the poor mean a preferential option for big government? Does social justice require a sovereign filled with enlightened, objective, selfless experts such as yourself to impose its utopian visions on fallible mortals such as myself?”

My answers — despite not being enlightened, selfless or expert — in order would be no, no and no.

The letter writer wrote of “accomplishing social justice by whatever the utopian scheme.”

Utopia, by definition, is an imaginary and indefinitely remote space, an impractical scheme for social improvement.

This is entirely opposite to the kingdom of God, a community to love one another as God loves us; a community of love, peace and justice. It is meant to be accomplished on earth today as well as to exist for all eternity. It is of this world and the next. It is both right now and not yet.

Like many, the writer fails to distinguish between faith belief and political beliefs — an important distinction to keep in mind during this election season.

The secular understanding is that following God’s will is somewhat impractical.

Government is meant to promote human dignity, human rights and the common good, and its functions should be performed at the lowest level possible.

This is what is meant by subsidiarity. This is the reverse of what is meant by today’s term to escalate a situation. If the salesperson is able to handle your problem in the store, don’t start with the vice president of customer relations.

Church teaching about the role of government says:

“In a democracy, government is a means by which we can act together to protect what is important to us and to promote our common values.”

Note the use of “we,” “together,” “us” and “common values.”

The letter writer represents a widely held view that government is an entity outside of community. This view reflects the concept of not believing that government is an agency, an instrument to assist — not take over — our responsibilities to bring about the kingdom of God.

Government structure may not be perfect, and some incumbents may be replaceable, but government is not the enemy. It is us.

Government is not bad. It does not have an existence outside of us. It does not have a primary or exclusive role, but it does have positive moral responsibility.

The writer — as do many — reflect the position that government is bad and the kingdom of God is an impractical concept, some utopian vision that has little place in the affairs of today.

The kingdom of God is not an impractical scheme for social improvement. Difficult, yes. Challenging, yes. But not impractical.

The letter writer’s challenge was this:

“If social justice does not entail a highly regulatory central government, then what public policy could achieve your goals of actually accomplishing the social justice that you envision whatever the utopian scheme?”

How about this: living by the kingdom of God’s values.

Kent, now retired, was editor of archdiocesan newspapers in Omaha and Seattle. He can be contacted at: [email protected].