News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 33

The stock market is, of course, booming, although there doesn’t seem to be much of anything there except a lot of sound and the fury, signifying nothing.  After the event-filled trip to Cleveland, this has been a quiet week for the network:

Votes, Jobs, and Welfare

We missed it, but that’s nothing unusual.  On August 18, 1920, Tennessee ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote.  (And, as we might expect, there was a flurry of cartoons showing women refusing to state their ages in order to prove they were of age. . . . 1920s humor.)  Of course, Wyoming had extended the franchise to women decades before, but that was the Wild West, where men were men and women were glad of it, so it didn’t count.

Midsummer Tutorial on Social Justice, III: Civil Society v. Domestic Society

Today we conclude our brief series on social justice.  (We told you it was going to be brief.)  So far we’ve covered the definition of social justice, and why social justice and individual charity are two different things.  To grossly oversimplify, social justice is directed to the common good, while individual charity takes care of individual goods when individuals can't take care of their own goods.

Midsummer Tutorial on Social Justice, II: Individual Virtue v. Social Virtue

Yesterday we began our refresher course on social justice.  We looked at what social justice is.  Today we look at what social justice is not, that is, how it is distinguished from individual justice and, especially, individual charity.  This can get a little complex.  The most important thing to realize here is that there is a difference between individual goods and social goods, and thus individual justice and social justice.

Midsummer Tutorial on Social Justice, I: Introduction

It’s common these days (or any days, for that matter) to read or hear something to the effect that feeding the hungry, paying a living wage, providing healthcare, or any multitude of other things is “social justice.”  Trying to abstract the nature of social justice from such statements or declarations, we reasonably conclude that “social justice” means meeting people’s needs on a large scale, rather than looking after people individually or on a small scale.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 32

The Big News this week is the CESJ core group’s trip to Cleveland, Ohio.  A great deal of work was done on this trip.  The schedule was so full that both sightseeing tours were cancelled, no visits or calls were made to friends and family, but the results were well worth it.  The only downside was that somebody forgot to set up a meeting with Drew Carey to discuss how much better Cleveland could rock under the Just Third Way:

Womb With a View

Last week the buzz around some FaceBook groups was all about recent advances in the technology of artificial wombs.  With reservations, we think that this could be a good thing.  It has the potential to address certain concerns that come up when discussing a “pro-life economic agenda” geared toward removing all economic pressure or justification for abortion.

The Pursuit of Happiness

A (very) short time after we posted Monday’s blog concerning the Fulton Sheen’s call for an economic declaration of independence, we got a comment from a reader.  As he said, “My American Government teacher in high school always insisted that ‘pursuit of happiness’ meant the pursuit of property. Would you agree with that?”

Does Social Justice Lead Away from God?

A week or so ago we received a link to a review of An Anxious Age: The Post Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America (New York: Image Books, 2014), by Joseph Bottum, former editor of First Things magazine.  The review raised some questions about the general understanding of social justice in our society.

A Declaration of Economic Independence

In 1940, the late Fulton J. Sheen had a few comments on what he meant by “Freedom Under God,” which — by no coincidence — just happened to be the title of the book he was writing at the time.  In the chapter on “Communism, Capitalism, and Liberty” on page 75 of the 2013 Just Third Way Edition, Sheen listed what he called “the Three Declarations”:

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 31

The Summer Slow Down has not hit the Just Third Way.  The CESJ Fellow from Belgium has been working very productively, contacts are being made, and outreach efforts are increasing.  Last week’s press release about the naming of Father John Trigilio and Deacon Joseph Gorini to the CESJ Board of Counselors was picked up by a number of media outlets, while other potential contacts and alliances are being surfaced all the time:

Church, State, and Humanity, VII: The Solution

When everything is up for grabs, and there is no concept of anything resembling an absolute, then society will dissolve in chaos.  This can be gradual, as we have seen in the United States, or almost in the blink of an eye, as we saw in post-World War I Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Once the solid anchor of private property is gone from a society, pure moral relativism always takes over, especially if order is restored by someone or a group that forces its personal vision on the rest of society, as Hitler and the Nazis did in the 1930s.

Church, State, and Humanity, VI: The Effect on Civil and Religious Society

As we have seen in this series, there is massive confusion these days over the respective roles of faith and reason, charity and justice, supernatural law and natural law, where rights come from, who has them, and the meaning and purpose of life.  (We don’t get into the small issues on this blog!)

Church, State, and Humanity, V: The Source of Rights

In the previous two postings in this series, we outlined what happens when people begin distorting the concepts of Church and State to achieve some private end or realize a personal goal or interpretation.  This, of course, violates one of the principal “laws” of social justice, that the common good (that vast network of institutions within which humanity acquires and develops virtue) must remain inviolate:

Church, State, and Humanity, IV: A Fundamental Change in the Idea of Religion

Last week we saw that, as a result of the application of bad ideas about natural law, virtue, and the role of the State, the whole concept of civil society has changed.  People — human beings — are no longer considered sovereign, with inalienable rights that automatically define them as persons.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 30

While a number of other things have happened this week, the big news from the network is that two key people have accepted appointments to the CESJ Board of Counselors. Please feel free to copy the press release or link to it:

Church, State, and Humanity, III: A Fundamental Change in the Idea of the State

Yesterday we looked at the problem of “pseudo virtue,” that is, something that gives someone a feeling of righteousness, but that is contrary to or negates the principles of natural or supernatural law.  “Pseudo virtue” includes “charity” that violates, negates, or rejects justice, and “faith” that contradicts or rejects reason.

Church, State, and Humanity, II: The Problem of Pseudo Virtue

Yesterday we talked about the nature of truth.  That’s just a starting point, however.  Nowhere is the problem of truth, and the application of truth, more evident today than in the question, “What is virtue?”

Church, State, and Humanity, I: What is Truth?

Every now and then we get something from one of our readers that starts a train of thought, or forces us to clarify either our thoughts on something, or how we expressed those thoughts.  This is understandable.  When you’re dealing with something that is “so old it’s new” as the Just Third Way, sometimes you need some kind of shock (in a nice way, of course) to try and get not only your critics, but yourself, out of a rut you may be in.

“Science Proves Natural Law”, II: What’s the REASON?

Does science prove natural law? Yes — but unfortunately last week we came across an article in which the author included supernatural law (faith, hope, and charity) under natural law — and that cannot be proved by science.  So, last week we left you with a cliff hanger: Why is basing our understanding of the natural law on faith instead of reason such a dangerous error?  Isn’t everyone entitled to his or her opinion?  What the heck difference does it make?  Who really cares?

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 29

Although summer (especially July) is typically a slow month around Washington, D.C., things seem to be picking up at CESJ.  A number of meetings are being planned, we have a good fellow from Belgium doing yeoman service, new funding sources are being explored, and a number of projects are starting to get underway:

“Science Proves Natural Law”, I: What’s the Problem?

Knowing our interest in explaining and promoting an Aristotelian-Thomist understanding of the natural law (the basis of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic social teaching as well as that of ethical pagans who follow Aristotle), one of our correspondents sent us a link to a recent article in The National Catholic Register, “Science Proves Natural Law,” by Agnes M. Penny.  The subject line of the e-mail read, “For Your Reading Pleasure.”

Natural and Supernatural

No, this isn’t a new television series review.  Maybe it should be, but it isn’t.  This is just a little dissertation about the difference between the natural virtues, and the supernatural virtues, and why it might not be all that good an idea to mix or confuse the two.  What triggered this was the comment someone made to us recently that Thomas Aquinas had expanded the natural virtues into the spiritual realm.  Not exactly. . .

Faith and Reason Again, VI: Conclusion

In this brief series we’ve again been looking at the issue of faith and reason.  As we’ve already known, the bottom line here is that there is massive confusion today (as there has been for centuries) over some very fundamental issues.  What is the role of the Church?  What is the role of the State?  Most immediately and importantly, what is the role of the human person?

Faith and Reason Again, V: The Question of Coercion

You know what the problem is with (other) people?  That’s right.  They. Just. Won’t. Do. What. I. Want. Them. To. Do.  All those stupid (other) people simply refuse to acknowledge that I know what’s best for them.  They just won’t do the right thing.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 28

As the global economic, social, and political situation continues to worsen, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that nothing can be done to halt the seemingly inevitable descent into chaos.  Fortunately, that is not the case.  The more unreasonable and nonsensical the situation appears, the more apparent it becomes that the only real and sustainable solution depends on a return to reason and common sense, and to begin study and implementation of the three principles of economic justice.

Faith and Reason Again, IV: The Orthodox Position

So far we’ve stated the problem and summarized both the liberal and the conservative positions on the issue.  Today we look at what we’ve identified as the fundamental error of both the liberal and the conservative positions, and then give our opinion as to what we think is the correct or “orthodox” position.

Faith and Reason Again, III: The Conservative Position

Yesterday we summarized the liberal Catholic position.  Today we will summarize the conservative Catholic position in this whole faith versus reason issue.

Faith and Reason Again, II: The Liberal Position

Yesterday we began a series on tradition, faith, and reason in government and organized religion.  We decided to focus on organized religion, specifically the Catholic Church, since the issue seems more clear cut there than in most institutions.  Today we’ll look at the liberal Catholic position.

Faith and Reason Again, I: General Statement of the Problem

Last week we received an e-mail containing a link to an article in Crisis magazine by Dr. James Kalb, “A Vindication of Tradition.”  We thought the article was good, but also that the question of tradition is somewhat more complex than Dr. Kalb suggests in his article.  The debate over tradition is part of a much larger problem that has wreaked havoc in both civil society (the State) under the name of positivism, and religious society (organized religion, i.e., “the Church”) under the name of modernism, at least in the Catholic Church.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 27

The financial and political powers-that-be throughout the world remain baffled by the fact that you can’t get out of debt by spending more money that you don’t have, and you can’t consume what is not produced in the first place.  We think that the Just Third Way might have a few answers to this odd situation, but the problem is getting people to open doors for us so that we can surface leaders to carry the message:

The Ex-Im Bank Bafflement, III: Reforming the System

Despite all the baggage and misconceptions that have been loaded on to the term, we can look to the laws and characteristics of social justice for guidance in what to do with the Export-Import Bank of the United States.  First and foremost, of course, the goal of social justice is not the destruction of institutions or the social order, even if we believe with all our hearts and souls that is the only way to build new, presumably more just institutions and a social order.

The Ex-Im Bank Bafflement, II: The Ex(pedient) Import Bank

In yesterday’s posting, we noted that we do not believe that it is a proper function of government to be engaging in commercial activity.  We also noted, however, that not everything is black and white.  Especially in today’s society, in which so many people lack knowledge of fundamentals, such as basic principles of reason and justice, our institutions have become flawed to the point of incomprehensibility.  Many institutions no longer serve their original function, or serve them in ways that have results the complete opposite of what was intended.

The Ex-Im Bank Bafflement, I: What IS It?

One thing is painfully clear from all the brouhaha over the Export-Import (“Ex-Im”) Bank of the United States, a government agency that promotes exports of U.S. products by providing financing and loan guarantees.  That is that virtually no one involved in the debate has any idea whatsoever what a commercial or mercantile bank is or does.

Pope Francis, Capitalism, and War, II: The Just Third Way Peace Plan

Last week we looked at the questions Pope Francis has been raising, what to do in the short term about the increasingly serious problems that are being raised, and whether capitalism (or socialism) could really bring peace or a lasting solution to poverty.  Frankly, increasing charity and redistribution, while essential at present, can in no way be considered any kind of a solution.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 26

Possibly because of the three-day weekend due to Independence Day falling on a Friday, there hasn’t been too much news this week.  Still, many important advances are being made:

Pope Francis, Capitalism, and War, I: Can Capitalism Stop War?

A June 20, 2014 article in the British financial periodical The Economist, “Francis, Capitalism, and War: The Pope’s Divisions,” was a pleasantly positive spin on a subject with which many people have difficulties.  We were especially impressed that the author agreed, that whatever his economic expertise or lack thereof, Pope Francis is asking the right questions, and that his insights deserve serious discussion and consideration.

The Hobby Lobby Jobby

Everyone seems to be bent out of shape over the decision the U.S. Supreme Court handed down in the Hobby Lobby case (or “jobby” if you want to try and be cute).  Half the people are screaming for the blood of Hobby Lobby (which, as an artificial person, doesn’t actually have any), while the other half are trumpeting a great victory for religious liberty.

Pope Francis Writes Again, III: How Work Can Be Fulfilling

Actually, the title of this posting should be, “How Work Can Be Both Fulfilling and Remunerative,” but that doesn’t draw the reader in . . . besides seeming a little crass and materialistic, don’t you think?

Pope Francis Writes Again, II: Work and Fulfillment

Last Thursday we looked at one of those comments by Pope Francis that so many people love to misinterpret to fit their own preconceptions.  The main thing we pointed out (and hoped to get across) is that Pope Francis really isn’t saying anything different from any previous pope when it comes to Catholic doctrine or the social teachings.  Just don’t expect to get a scholarly treatise in a tweet.                                      

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 25

The media and the government keep insisting that the “recession” (a.k.a., “depression”) is over and we have been in recovery for five years.  This puts us in mind of the old aphorism that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  Be that as it may, here are the major happenings of this past week in the Just Third Way network:

Pope Francis Writes Again, I: Jobs and Income

As we’ve been pointing out on this blog for some time, people, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, liberal or conservative, Jew or Greek, slave or free, . . . whatever . . . have a positive knack for misunderstanding virtually everything that Pope Francis says.  Of course, a lot of this is conditioned by, one, the fact that most people (even doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs), have never learned how to think critically.  Two, most people hear what they want to hear, or what they think they want to hear.  The combination is fatal.

Distributism, Neo-Distributism, and the Just Third Way, V: Neo-Distributism

As noted previously on this blog, the differences with neo-distributism on specifics like money, credit, banking, finance, size of enterprises, and the act of social justice are far too numerous to list.  We should note, however, that the concept of distributive justice, understandably vague in classic distributism due to the confusion with social justice and charity, is completely transformed in neo-distributism.

Distributism, Neo-Distributism, and the Just Third Way, IV: Size Matters. So Does Justice

We hear a lot about how beautiful “small” is, and how “human scale” must be the rule for economic life.  The problem is, both “small” and “human scale” are a bit subjective, while producing marketable goods and services, whether for your own consumption or to exchange for what others produce (Say’s Law of Markets) tends to be a trifle objective.  Either you produce enough to meet your material needs, or you don’t.  It doesn’t get more basic than that.

Distributism, Neo-Distributism, and the Just Third Way, III: Financing Capital

Neo-distributists like to talk a lot about “banksters.”  This neologism, however (while a clever play on “gangster”), displays a great deal of ignorance on the part of neo-distributists concerning money, credit, finance, and (of course) banking.  It begins with the fact that few, if any, neo-distributists can even define the different types of banks properly.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 24

We recently had an enquiry about whether we thought that things like Military Banking Facilities, credit unions, and mutual insurance companies such as USAA should or must give way to the giants of today’s financial services industry.  If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you just know what we had to say about that . . . completely aside from the fact that a significant number of people in the CESJ Core Group qualify for USAA insurance. . . .

Distributism, Neo-Distributism, and the Just Third Way, II: The Slavery of Past Savings

The “slavery of past savings” accounts for Chesterton’s and Belloc’s pessimism regarding the possibility of establishing the “Distributist State.”  Given that the savings of the rich are the only source of financing for new capital, and that private property is a natural right that cannot be redefined or abolished (however much the exercise of that right must be defined and limited for the common good), widespread capital ownership can only result from one, the rich voluntarily redistributing their wealth, or, two, a collapse of the system, on the ruins of which a new, more just economy can presumably be built.

Distributism, Neo-Distributism, and the Just Third Way, I: The Basics

About the middle of May of this year we got a comment from someone who seems to believe that he knows a bit more about the Just Third Way than people who have decades of experience working with and developing it.  He kept insisting that it’s too complicated, and we should simplify it.

Why the Economy Remains an Enigma

Ordinarily when we critique someone or something on this blog, we send an e-mail first to the people concerned, especially if we’re saying something that disagrees with someone’s position.  We figure it’s only fair, after all.  We don’t like people talking about us behind our backs, so it’s only right that we not talk about others behind their backs.

Forward to Neverland

We know that we’re all supposed to be concerned about the “Cantor/Brat Affair,” but, really, what difference is it going to make for the average American?  Without the Just Third Way, things will pretty much continue as they are.  As long as significant systemic barriers exist to ordinary people becoming owners of capital, we might as well save all the time and trouble and stay where we are . . . unless we’re organizing to change the system, of course.

News from the Network, Vol. 7, No. 23

Some interesting events this week, many dealing with advances various members of CESJ are making in promoting the Just Third Way in politics, business, and academia.  A number of people in various internet social media forums have commented very favorably on the Just Third Way, suggesting that people may be ready to hear the message: