https://medium.com/catholicism-for-the-modern-world/catholic-social-teaching-isnt-catholic-537d6c65a266 Catholic Social Teaching Isn’t Catholic Michael D. Greaney Follow 7 min read · Aug 12, 2023 51 Press enter or click to view image in full size Pope Leo XIII C atholic social teaching isn’t Catholic . . . at least with a capital C. It’s catholic, that is, universal, with a small c. It applies to everyone. Atheists, agnostics, and the neighbor whom you’ve consigned to Hell thirteen times this week are subject to “Catholic” social teaching and (what some people don’t want to hear) protected by it as well. Consistent with the positive formulation of the first principle of reason — that which is true is as true and is true in the same way as everything else that is true (the principle or law of identity) — all human beings, even (or especially) those whom you dislike or hate with all the fervor at your command, are as human, and human in the same way, as you. Catholic social teachin...
Google AI Overview I would love to dive into both, but let's start with William of Ockham's fascinating role in the Franciscan poverty controversy, as it completely reshaped medieval political philosophy.Ockham became the intellectual heavy hitter for the Spiritual Franciscans in their fiery clash with Pope John XXII starting in 1322. At the heart of the debate was the question: Could one perfectly follow the life of Christ—who owned nothing—if they used property to survive?Here is how the controversy unfolded and why it matters:The Franciscan Stance: The friars argued for absolute poverty (usus pauper). They claimed to have the use of basic necessities (like food and clothing) without holding the legal ownership or property rights to them.The Papal Rejection: Pope John XXII issued the bull Quia nonnunquam, declaring that separating the legal right of ownership from the physical use of an item is logically and legally impossible. He argued that using food means consuming it, which inherently implies ownership.Ockham’s Counter-Attack: Fleeing papal custody to seek protection under the Holy Roman Emperor, Ockham wrote extensively against the Pope. He argued that the Pope was a heretic for claiming absolute dominion over the Church and redefining poverty.The Birth of Rights Theory: To defend the Franciscans, Ockham had to define what "rights" are. He famously distinguished between natural rights (which he framed as moral powers or human capacities granted by reason and divine law) and legal rights (which are established by human governments and popes).By arguing that humans have fundamental, natural liberties that even a Pope cannot strip away, Ockham helped lay some of the earliest groundwork for modern theories of natural rights.If you'd like, let's look closer at one of these angles:How Ockham's distinction between natural and legal rights sparked the shift into modern political thought.The specifics of how this contrasts with Thomas Aquinas's classical view of natural law and property.
AI Overview I would love to dive into both, but let's start with William of Ockham's fascinating role in the Franciscan poverty controversy , as it completely reshaped medieval political philosophy . [ 1 , 2 ] Ockham became the intellectual heavy hitter for the Spiritual Franciscans in their fiery clash with Pope John XXII starting in 1322. At the heart of the debate was the question: Could one perfectly follow the life of Christ—who owned nothing—if they used property to survive? Here is how the controversy unfolded and why it matters: The Franciscan Stance: The friars argued for absolute poverty ( usus pauper ). They claimed to have the use of basic necessities (like food and clothing) without holding the legal ownership or property rights to them. The Papal Rejection: Pope John XXII issued the bull Quia nonnunquam , declaring that separating the legal right of ownership from the physical use of an item is logically and legally impossible. He argued that ...