Is the Catholic Doctrine of Justification a Form of "Justification by Works"?

Catholics believe that we are justified entirely by the righteousness of Christ and not by our own righteousness, but they believe that we receive this righteousness not only by means of its being imputed to us but also by means of its being infused within us and actually transforming us.  Protestants often complain that this destroys the gracious character of justification and amounts to a form of "justification by works".  Catholics are often baffled by this characterization, for reasons well articulated by Francis Patrick Kenrick, the Bishop of Arath and Coadjutor of the Bishop of Philadelphia, back in 1841, in this selection from his book, The Catholic Doctrine of Justification: Explained and Vindicated:

I cannot persuade myself that those who appear horror-stricken at the idea of inherent justice, have an accurate conception of its meaning.  When they represent it as "a doctrine of merits in opposition to grace, of works in opposition to faith," when they brand it as "the abomination of desolation," they surely mistake altogether its nature and character.  It is loudly proclaimed by us to be the gift of God, not merited by any effort of man: we have nothing which we have not received.  To God essentially belongs the glory of his gift, the excellence whereof serves only to his greater praise.  It is his Spirit that dwelleth in us, and that pours forth his charity into our hearts.  He "hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in Christ, as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in charity.  Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself; according to the purpose of his will: unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us (made us grateful and acceptable) in his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace, which hath super-abounded in us."  The soul in the state of grace is invested with a certain celestial beauty and dignity: the virtues which she exercises externally, but faintly reflect the internal splendor with which the sun of justice invests her: she is the spouse of Jesus Christ, whom he has loved, and for whom he has delivered himself: she has been washed from the stains of sin in his blood.  She is in reality, as she is styled, the beloved child of God.  What is there in this conception which detracts in the least degree from the divine glory, and from the merits of Jesus Christ?  Is it more glorious of God to cover sins, than to cancel them; to regard the sinner as just, than to make him so in reality?  Is the merit and efficacy of the price of our ransom less apparent when the stains of sin are washed away by the current of atoning blood, than when they are supposed to be merely passed over in reference to its effusion?  Shall we have a less sublime idea of this mystery of mercy, when we believe it to have merited for us the regeneration and sanctification of our souls, by an intimate operation of grace, a new creation, than in regarding it as leaving us in our original condition, and changing only our external relations?  If those who reject the idea of inherent justice would ponder well the force of the terms as used in the Church, they would, doubtless, find that the divine goodness in the wondrous work of human justification and sanctification is more admirably displayed, when conceived in the communication of actual justice and sanctity, than in any way merely extrinsic. . . .

    The Jews "not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God; for the end of the law is Christ, unto justice to every one that believeth."  Their own justice is that which they sought to establish on account of their fidelity in ceremonial observances, whilst they rejected Christ, whom all the ancient types prefigured, and who was the end of the law.  Thus they forfeited that justice which is the peculiar privilege of believers.  How unjust is it to apply passages like these, which have an obvious reference to the unbelieving Jews, and to legal justice, to Catholics who believe in Christ, as the Lord and Redeemer of men, who rest on him all hopes of grace and salvation, and who claim no legal or natural justice, but ascribe wholly to the gift of God, and the merits of Christ, that supernatural justice, no otherwise ours, than as the alms belongs to the beggar who has received it from the bounty of a benefactor!  Bishop M'Ilvaine says that faith "holds out the empty hand of a poor, miserable, worthless beggar."  Catholics cannot object to this comparison; but does it not detract from Divine goodness to say, that the poor beggar receives nothing?  We consider the justified man as a beggar clothed with a robe of justice, which divine bounty has bestowed on him.  There is surely no room left for pride, "for who distinguisheth thee?  Or what has thou that thou hast not received?  And if thou has received; why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it!"  (Francis Patrick Kenrick, The Catholic Doctrine of Justification: Explained and Vindicated [Philadelphia: Eugene Cummiskey, 1841], 90-92, footnotes removed.)

For more, see here and here.

Published on the feast of St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen