The Fred Martinez Report

Posts

Why have the Francis/Leo Vatican seemed obsessed with the "rights" and blessing of individual homosexuals as well as the "rights' of law braking individual migrants instead of the common good of the societies they invade?

Pope Leo appoints German bishop who endorsed homosexual ‘blessings,’ claimed sodomy ‘not sinful’ Pope Leo named Bishop Christian Würtz the new ordinary of Eichstätt, though Würtz approved documents of the heretical Synodal Way that denied Catholic teaching on homosexuality and other issues. Pope Leo XIV presides over the Prayer Vigil for Peace at St Peter's Basilica, on April 11, 2026 in Vatican City, Vatican. . [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-leo-appoints-german-bishop-who-endorsed-homosexual-blessings-claimed-sodomy-not-sinful/?utm_source=featured-news] Pope Leo XIV... appears to have adopted “humanitarianism” as his default position. - Daniel Mahoney Political philosopher Pierre Manent’s shows how the worldly conceptions of "rights" and "human dignity" differ from classical and Christian anthropology. Manent argues that these concepts apparently pushed by the humanitarianism of Francis and Leo sever us from the common good societies which should ul...

You are likely thinking of C. S. Lewis's famous observation regarding a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". He argued that this type of oppression can be the most unyielding and dangerous form of tyranny.His reasoning for why this is worse than cruel or selfish tyranny ("robber barons") includes:Good Intentions Justify Anything: When oppressors believe they are acting "for your own good," their cruelty is backed by the approval of their own conscience. Because they think they are helping, they never feel a need to stop.No Limits: A selfish oppressor's cruelty may "sleep" or be satiated once they get what they want (like money or power). However, someone who polices and torments you to improve you will do so endlessly.The Absence of Consent: Lewis suggested that it is better to live under the thumb of those whose cruelty makes them dislike themselves (and may occasionally sleep) than under "omnipotent moral busybodies". Moral busybodies impose a standard they believe you must adopt, entirely disregarding your personal freedom or choice.Lewis originally detailed this concept in his essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" (published in God in the Dock) to critique systems that punish people to "cure" or condition them, rather than because they objectively deserve it.

You are likely thinking of C. S. Lewis's famous observation regarding a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". He argued that this type of oppression can be the most unyielding and dangerous form of tyranny. [ 1 ] His reasoning for why this is worse than cruel or selfish tyranny ("robber barons") includes: [ 1 , 2 ] Good Intentions Justify Anything: When oppressors believe they are acting "for your own good," their cruelty is backed by the approval of their own conscience. Because they think they are helping, they never feel a need to stop. [ 1 , 2 ] No Limits: A selfish oppressor's cruelty may "sleep" or be satiated once they get what they want (like money or power). However, someone who polices and torments you to improve you will do so endlessly. [ 1 ] The Absence of Consent: Lewis suggested that it is better to live under the thumb of those whose cruelty makes them dislike themselves (and may occasionally sle...

Francis/Leo?: C. S. Lewis once observed something that rang very true for me. In his book God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Lewis wrote: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

https://www.econlib.org/two-rules-of-thumb-regarding-reformers/ C. S. Lewis once observed something that rang very true for me. In his book God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics , Lewis wrote: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Ultimately, this dissertation will argue that the Lockean problem underlies a coherent, though problematic, theology of labor in Rerum Novarum. At the root of this theology sits the voluntary alienation of labor under the auspices of remunerative consent. While the sorrow and suffering that accompanies bodily labor derive from the mortal consequences of the Fall, Christ’s freely chosen participation in postlapsarian labor transformed the conditions that burden bodily labor into a cruciform burden. It is this cruciform burden that the laborer carries on the via dolorosa, the way of suffering, that leads from this “vale of tears” to the soteriological horizon of the Crucifixion. At the same time, precisely because Christ freely chose his earthly labor, to participate in Christ’s redemptive suffering and labor requires a voluntary act. Thus, the very consent that alienates one’s labor serves as the voluntary act that renders the sorrow and suffering of bodily labor cruciform. Therefore, inasmuch as Leo’s social teaching assumes Lockean principles and logic, the Lockean problem underlies the theology of labor in Rerum Novarum. From this problem, Leo’s theology of labor represents the sacralization of alienated labor. Committee Vincent Miller (Committee Chair)

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/etd/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=dayton1670703204969679 2022, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), University of Dayton, Theology. Abstract Widely considered the foundational document of modern papal social teaching, Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum articulates a host of principles that have informed Catholic social teaching and thought through the twentieth century and beyond. Of these principles, one of the most enduring is Leo’s defense of private property as a natural right. Yet, as a host of commentators have pointed out, this defense bears a striking affinity with the property theory of John Locke. Most crucially, Leo seems to assume the Lockean principle that the natural right to property derives from the act of labor. Insofar as Locke is often referred to as the “father” of classical liberalism, it seems that Leo writes one of, if not the, primary tenets of laissez-faire liberalism into papal social teaching at its foundation. R...

Google AI: Rist critiques Leo XIII for redefining the common good into a "social expression of individual rights." Under this modern framework, the common good is no longer a shared end, but merely the aggregate sum of individual protections.

John Rist ’s critique centers on the claim that Pope Leo XIII’s foundational encyclical, Rerum Novarum (1891), fundamentally shifted Catholic political thought by adopting a modern, liberal, and individualized framework of human rights instead of maintaining the classical, Thomistic view of the common good. As a prominent Catholic philosopher and classicist, Rist argues that Leo XIII—by responding to the rise of state socialism and raw industrial capitalism—mistakenly attempted to beat modern secular thinkers at their own game. In doing so, Rist contends that the encyclical began explicitly defining social structures as a mechanism to protect individual rights under the banner of strict justice rather than theological charity . [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] The Core Mechanisms of Rist's Critique 1. The Privatization of Justice over Charity [ 1 ] Rist claims that Leo XIII created a problematic boundary between justice and charity. In Rerum Novarum , the Pope famously argued that while the stat...