Justice University

Yes, we realize that it’s so much easier to tell others what they’re doing wrong and demand that they do it right, but face it.   Do you think people really want to do things wrong?   Maybe it’s just that nobody bothered to tell them there’s a right way . . . our Just Third Way. . . .

Back in 1984, two representatives of the Center for Economic and Social Justice (CESJ) testified before the Lay Commission on the Economy that attempted to advise the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the draft of their pastoral on the economy.   Remarkably, not one word of what was said made its way into the final document. . . .

  From the Just Third Way perspective (i.e., natural law in the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition), as a religious event, the Second Vatican Council is of no relevance.   As an application of natural law principles to counter the “new things” of socialism, modernism, and esotericism, however, it is of great importance . . . especially given the way (in our opinion) it was diverted and used to advance the very things it was intended to counter.

As a follow-up to the previous video podcast on “the Act of Social Justice,” this week we bring you “Economic Justice for All.”   Note that although this podcast has the same title as the U.S. Bishops’ pastoral on the economy, it takes a slightly different — as well as more effective and respectful of human dignity — direction.

Although in everyday usage social justice is a rather vague term (and a compliment or pejorative, depending on who is speaking), there is actually a well-developed body of thought on social justice within the framework of the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas:

The problem with trying to get a handle on solidarism these days is that few people who consider themselves solidarists are aware of the history of solidarism.   Without that basic knowledge of how solidarist thought developed, however, it is often impossible to discern “true” solidarism as (re)developed by Heinrich Pesch, from the other schools and distortions:

Perhaps not surprisingly, today’s video on G.K. Chesterton has proved to be one of our most popular.   Why?   Perhaps it has to do with our rather heterodox position on Chesterton and his life’s work.   We think, for example, that he was not a socialist or a capitalist, but an advocate in somewhat limited form of what we today call the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism.   It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue as trippingly as the same old things, but judge for yourself:

It does seem rather astonishing at times that an individual or group can tell other people straight to their faces what they plan on doing to them, and are dismissed, brushed aside, ridiculed or ignored . . . until action is finally taken.

  Yeah, we’ve been going a “little” heavy on “Catholic” stuff in the blog and in the podcasts, but we’ve got a good excuse: that’s what we’re working on at the present time and to add more areas to write about on top of everything else is just too much.

       Everybody likes DIY (“Do It Yourself”) videos, right?   Well, not everybody can whip out a mission-style house with all the furniture (unless your name happens to be Norm Abram, that is, and you have every power tool known to man or woman), but you can join in the feeding frenzy when it comes to undermining the fundamental principles of natural law and common sense:

       How did “the new things” of socialism, modernism, and esotericism (“New Age”) manage to become part and parcel of the political and economic thought of so many people?   After all, as we define it (abolition of private property in capital), socialism is not particularly social, modernism (not modernity, but a philosophical/theological shift from the human person to the abstraction of humanity) is not really all that modern, and esotericism or the New Age is not all that new.

  Ninety years ago, the noted English writer G.K. Chesterton gave his opinion of socialism and modernism.   As he said, “ anything can be called Socialism , . . . it seems to mean Modernism ; in the sociological as distinct from the theological sense. In both senses, it is generally a euphemism for muddle-headedness .” ( “There Was a Socialist,” G.K.’s Weekly , May 10, 1930. )

  This week we have another video from the “Sensus Fidelium” YouTube channel.   Yes (as we’ve said before), it’s a “Catholic channel,” and if you search through the thousands of hours of programming on the channel, you will find a great deal of material oriented to Catholics.   There’s a bit of that in these videos, too (of course), but the primary emphasis is on the “natural law” aspect of Catholic social teaching, so you can mentally filter out the explicitly Catholic material if you’ve a mind to, and you won’t miss anything.

  This week we have another video blog from "Sensus Fidelium," hosted by Steve Cunningham.  Again, we issue the caveat that this is a "Catholic" show, but the subject (the origin of the encyclical Rerum Novarum ) has a direct bearing on the Just Third Way of economic personalism.  As you listen, you will start to realize just how the antics of politicians and economic conditions affect general understanding of such inalienable natural rights of life, liberty, and private property:

  This week we have a video blog from "Sensus Fidelium," hosted by Steve Cunningham.  Yes, it's a "Catholic" show, but don't let that fool you.  The topic — the origin of socialism — is actually a discussion of natural law that applies to everyone.  It just so happens that the origins of socialism and of Catholic social teaching are related: Catholic social teaching developed in response to the rise of socialism, and socialism was first presented as a replacement for traditional Christianity.  Anyway, here goes: