The Fred Martinez Report

Posts

Showing posts from November, 2025

Show all

The notion of justice implies that what is given is owed to the recipient; charity, on the other hand, acknowledges the reality of a free gift that is not owed to the recipient. This difference is obscured in contemporary liberal societies where, because of the absence of transcendent metaphysical commitments, the demands of social justice replace charity. A Thomistic analysis, however, recognizes a metaphysical order as the basis for justice. This order limits the sphere of justice and so allows for acts of charity motivated by love for God. If we do not recognize this distinction, we reduce all charitable acts to acts of justice and therefore ignore the most important debt of all: the debt humans owe to God that can only be repaid by loving Him and our neighbor.

ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/272879650_On_the_Difference_Between_Social_Justice_and_Christian_Charity

Mac: You know, that’s a that’s a a very excellent question, and I’m not a pollster. I do know that the polling data I’ve seen suggests that 70% of likely voters that have been polled have said, “Let’s not go into Venezuela.” In other words, they don’t support the idea. So, that tells us something. I think there are still a lot of Americans that were taken in by the argument against drug cartels. I run into people all the time that say, “Doug, you know, you’ve been a real staunch supporter for defending the border. You want to go after these drug criminals here inside the United States? That’s great. What’s wrong with bombing Mexico? What’s wrong with bombing Venezuela? And I keep trying to tell them that you’re not going to accomplish much other than kill a lot of people that we’d rather not kill who are not necessarily our enemies. And then secondly, infuriating much of Latin America that is already not terribly enthusiastic about us at this point.

Happy Thanksgiving! The Cost Of Empire Mark Wauck Nov 27

Suárez as Exemplary of Tensions: The figure of the Spanish Jesuit theologian and jurist Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) is presented as a key transitional figure. While Suárez incorporated many aspects of Thomistic natural law, he also adopted Ockhamist elements that led him to define ius (right) as an individual's moral power or faculty (a subjective right). Eclipsing Justice: According to Villey, this redefinition exalted subjective right as the primary legal reality, which ultimately eclipsed the classical, objective concept of justice (iustum) as "giving each person their due". This shift redefined law itself, moving away from an objective order of relationships to a system centered on individual claims and powers. This interpretation positions Suárez as a pivotal, albeit internally contradictory, figure in the historical development of modern legal and political thought, linking medieval nominalism to later theories of individual autonomy and natural rights.

AI Overview The provided text is an accurate summary of an argument made by the French legal historian and philosopher of law Michel Villey . Villey argued that the shift in legal theory from an objective understanding of justice (associated with classical and Thomistic thought) to a focus on subjective rights (rights held by individuals) marked a crucial and problematic turn towards modernity. Michel Villey's Argument Villey's central thesis, as described in the prompt, involves the following points: Critique of Modernity: Villey contended that modernity's understanding of law is not univocal and contains inherent tensions. The Role of Ockham: He traced the origins of the modern concept of subjective rights back to the nominalist philosophy of William of Ockham in the 14th century, who emphasized individual will and potentia (power/right). Suárez as Exemplary of Tensions: The figure of the Spanish Jesuit theologian and jurist Francisco Suárez ...

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE CONQUEST OF AMERICA1: Other authors, such as Villey, on the other hand, claim that the Spanish betrayed the teaching of St Thomas by attributing subjective rights to the American Indians, in fact assuming, despite their intentions, the doctrine of the theologi moderni or juniors who were heirs to the Ockhamist tradition.120 The thesis I'm going to defend is that our notion of the law has the defect of being itself a foreign body, and is the product of the infiltration into law of a Theology, that this infiltration has unfortunately taken place in modern times and that the Spanish scholasticism is largely responsible for this happening121 .

https://www.giuseppetosi.com.br/arquivos/fill/4c2bbebeee02df2b4c9104f93f66f275_interpretations_of_the_controversy_over_the_conquest_of_america.pdf#:~:text=Some%20defend%20the%20thesis%20that%20the%20scholastics,not%20develop%20a%20doctrine%20of%20subjective%20rights Page 29? Other authors, such as Villey, on the other hand, claim that the Spanish betrayed the teaching of St Thomas by attributing subjective rights to the American Indians, in fact assuming, despite their intentions, the doctrine of the theologi moderni or juniors who were heirs to the Ockhamist tradition.120 The thesis I'm going to defend is that our notion of the law has the defect of being itself a foreign body, and is the product of the infiltration into law of a Theology, that this infiltration has unfortunately taken place in modern times and that the Spanish scholasticism is largely responsible for this happening121 . 121 VILLEY, M. La formation de la pensée juridique moderne. IV ed., Paris 1975 p. 362. See als...

Human Rights Theory Rooted in the Writings of Thomas Aquinas Anthony J. Lisska

https://diametros.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/542/1082#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20the%20jurisprudential%20contributions%20of%20de%20Vitoria,into%20the%20modern%20theory%20of%20human%20rights. Human Rights Theory Rooted in the Writings of Thomas Aquinas Anthony J. Lisska Abstract. This essay is an analysis of the theory of human rights based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, with special reference to the Summa Theologiae . The difference between a jus naturale found in Aquinas and the theory of human rights developed by the sixteenth century scholastic philosophers is articulated. The distinction between objective natural rights—“what is right”—and subjective natural rights—“a right”—is discussed noting that Aquinas held the former position and that later scholastic philosophers beginning with the Salamanca School of the Second Scholasticism developed the latter position. The subjective theory of rights evolved into the modern and contemporary account of indiv...