The Concept of "Ius" in Thomas Aquinas

CALL FOR PAPERS - The Concept of "Ius" in Thomas Aquinas

The Conference highlights the particular relevance of the Thomistic vision of "ius" for the social teaching of the Catholic Church and for canon law.

For more information, visit https://t.co/uTx88x1c40 pic.twitter.com/PSeI109J5C

— Angelicum Thomistic Institute (@TIAngelicum) September 14, 2022

MacIntyre on Human Dignity

Beginning at 1:30PM ET: philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's #humaNDignity21 keynote, "Human Dignity: A Puzzling and Possibly Dangerous Idea?" Watch live: https://t.co/Bz29wC5BRc

— de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture (@ND_EthicsCenter) November 12, 2021

A Questionable Conclusion

very important to remind Catholics and even certain priests on Twitter that the Magisterium does in fact have something to say about these mandates and it isn’t in their favor

this for example is taken from paragraph 70 of Pius XI’s Casti connubii pic.twitter.com/zJjWMHfYH7

— Classical Theist ✠ (@ClassicalTheis) September 14, 2021

Injustice does provide limits to civil authority, but punishment alone doesn't tell us what is just and unjust.

A Failing of "Classical Liberal Theory"

or at least a lacuna if we are talking about Aristotle.

Legitimacy in liberal political theory depends completely upon the consent of the governed; in classical political theory, it depends upon the goodness of the governor. It perplexes me each day that liberal political theory is understood as the more progressive of the two.

— Jamie McGowan (@SpesScotorum) January 31, 2021

It's not either-or. It's both.

Robert George on the Commission on Unalienable Human Rights Report

Robert George on the Commission on Unalienable Rights Report https://t.co/m7ertmoQsk via @theird

— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) October 23, 2020

Athwart Symposium

We are excited to announce our symposium: Toward a Just Political Economy. This effort has been months in the making and we want to share our wonderful list of contributors and open up limited preorders for our supporters! pic.twitter.com/MlJrOQdMFu

— Athwart (@Athwart_Mag) September 18, 2020

More info.

What Does a Just World Look Like? Part I.

Libertarianism and Natural Law on Private Property

https://t.co/j3O7u5tLic

— Catholic Culture Podcasts (@CatholicPods) August 18, 2020

The Just Price

Here's my latest episode:

Understanding Just Price | Ep 57

YouTube: https://t.co/YhfSCsdm3s
Audio: https://t.co/pVRtDvdkUK

— Catholic Economics Podcast (@CatholicEcon) July 27, 2020

Draft Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights

The Glendon Commission (the U.S. Dept. of State Commission on Unalienable Rights, chaired by the magisterial legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School) has issued its Report. It re-roots human rights discourse in the principles of 1776 and 1948.https://t.co/dN9j2yH8Za

— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) July 17, 2020

Charles Taylor on Solidarity and Fairness

Church Life Journal

This is how the source of the deep cracks in modern capitalist societies presents itself. There are two contexts that justify our deeds; we can define them as the “democratic” and the “capitalist.” To be honest, we cannot reject either one. We cannot reject the democratic context, because it has become a central, inseparable element of our vision of legitimacy. We also cannot reject the capitalist context, because we have long ago passed the stage where we would be satisfied with a stagnant economy. Thus, we have to come to terms with them both. The first context is a great source of solidarity. When we manage to awaken and activate the feeling of our common citizenship we are capable of acting in often surprising ways by authentically devoting ourselves to others or in the name of the common good. This is especially apparent during times of war or during movements of national liberation—in a certain sense the Polish Solidarity movement was an important instance of such a movement. The second context demands that we put solidarity to the side and agree to bend or even break the rules of reciprocity in the name of effectiveness, which, it is apparent, we cannot renounce.

These are the two contradictory principles -both are illusionary and the illusions of "democracy" and "greater wealth" are used by the oligarchy to provide a cover of legitimacy. Does Taylor realize this, or has he drunk the Kool-aid as well? Being subject to the same state is insufficient to create "solidarity" and Taylor fails to recognize "civic nationalism" cannot overcome substantial differences in group identity or culture. Comparing Canada (or the U.S.) to a rather homogeneous ethnic state like Poland is comparing apples and oranges.

Solidarity is a solution but Taylor has no adequate means to promoting it because he doesn't acknowledge real divisions. Moreover, the state itself is opposed to solidarity and will not permit any true solidarity (as opposed to companionship in subjugation) to exist because solidarity is a threat to its power and existence.

Alasdair MacIntyre: "The Justification of Coercion and Constraint"

Distributism

1P5: Distributism and the Purpose of Private Property by Thomas Storck

Ecclesial Survival of the Fittest

From a comment by Fr. Augustine Thompson over at Fr. Z's blog:

I lived through the 1960s and it was the rapid and authoritarian way the liturgical changes were imposed that drove people out—and they had been trained in a “culture of obedience”! The act of imposing a novel form of worship on them undercut the people’s faith, and so remotely lies behind the later long-term loss of practice and faith.

A similar imposition of mandated changes today would be met with an even greater exodus, especially if the changes were in the traditional direction. (It would be hard to think of further “liberalizing” changes as causing any great disruption, save for the small group of traditionalists who have already fled to traditional or traditionalist parishes / chaplaincies.) The idea that a top-down imposition of Pre-Vatican-II forms of worship will bring people back to the Church is disproved by this very article.

Mary Douglas, the great Catholic anthropologist, brilliantly analyzed the religiously destructive nature of massive changes in religious ritual and culture imposed by elitist authorities in her book Natural Symbols—which should be required reading for all involved with liturgy.

I agree: liturgical reform should not be imposed by Rome, though Rome should provide an example to the other local Churches using the Roman rite. Liturgical reform must be handled properly through local action by bishops and presbyters. (Should bishops impose their vision on their collaborating presbyters? Probably not.)  But what do we do if one bishop undoes the good work done by his predecessor? Hence we must have active laity and presbyters who will defend their "canonical rights." Even for liturgical reform to be handled well at the local level, there must be ecclesial reform that makes the institutional Church more accountable to the laity, and protection of presbyters from bishops who are opposed to orthodox reform. In other words, to protect orthodox reform (liturgical and otherwise) requires that reform include institutional practices of authority.

This is what is reasonable -- but I don't see what is reasonable happening -- what will happen is that there will be a competition between churches of different traditions for members, and those who are most responsive to the orthodox faithful will flourish, while those that are not will die out. Not only that but liturgical reform, while important, is only one part of the crisis in Christian spirituality and living that must be addressed. A feminized institutional Church that makes its liturgy better but does not address the reasons why men are not interested in "practicing religion" will still fail.

Ephesians 6:12 and Spiritual Warfare

Ephesians 6:12

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Put into context:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 above all taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

With respect to our ultimate end, and the first object of our love, God, who is our enemy? What can other men do to prevent us from loving God? Nothing directly. They can only try to lead us away through temptation and persecution and torture. But who is the murderer from the beginning (John 8:44)? Doesn't the devil try to get us to reject God through temptation only? The devil cannot do anything to us directly. But the devil is much more subtle and clever than any human being, and he is our ultimate enemy.

If we are to become righteous in God, we must first deal with ourselves first, and the snares that the devil has set for us.

But this is not to deny that we do not have human enemies, especially with respect to secondary goods, like the good of the family or the good of the political community. And while the devil too operates in this sphere as part of his larger rebellion against God, still our human enemies are real, and they really are our enemies. Even if we are enjoined by our Lord to love them that does not mean that we do not need to respond to them and their attacks appropriately. The Gospel is not an pacifist humanistic religion.

Our human enemies have agency, and  a proper response, including the use of violence if necessary, should be understood as a form of correction or retributive justice.

Similarly, Matthew 10:28 -- is this another example of hyperbole? Can we ever get rid of the emotion of fear, instead of submitting it to reason? I don't think so. So perhaps what our Lord is really saying if you are to fear, you should really fear the devil and his cohort, who are trying to lead you away from God and to perdition. That is our first concern. But He is not denying that there are secondary goods--while secondary goods are not as important as the first good, God Himself, we may love them for the sake of loving God (and neighbor), and in grave circumstances it may be necessary to take extraordinary measures to secure those goods.

Keunwoo Kwon Reviews Justice as a Virtue

 Reading Religion

While this book is an excellent work crafted by a first-rate scholar, this reader has a minor quibble about an omission rather than a commission. In this volume Porter does not address the issue of “burdened virtue” raised by Lisa Tessman in her 2005 Burdened Virtues (Oxford University Press). Since Porter discusses with nuance the complicated relationship between justice and eudaemonia in chapter 5, it is a little bit of a surprise that Tessman’s well-noted challenge to the Aristotelian moral tradition is entirely absent in this chapter. To what extent would Aquinas acknowledge the contingent connection between virtue and flourishing? Is it legitimate to see the virtue of justice as a mean in an Aristotelian sense, given that there seems to be no mean for an intense sensitivity to others’ suffering in this tragic world? Would Aquinas’s emphasis on supernatural grace and his eschatology based upon the Exitus-Reditus framework somehow help resolve this tension? These questions deserve a serious response from Porter, especially when her work implicitly touches upon the issues treated with care by Tessman.

Justice

TouchstoneMag: Deliver Us From Evil: Justice Demands an Assessment of Injustice by Anthony Esolen

Defending the Common Good: Mercy and Punishment, from Stoicism to Christianity

Prof. Sarah Byers

Exactly

Chastek on Feser's defense of retribution

Should This Be Called [Roman] Catholic Integralism?

In Defence of Catholic Integralism by Thomas Pink

Is it necessarily bound up with acceptance of the modern nation-state?