without identifying that term's most prominent originators- the Jesuit Order
Okay.. Glenn Beck shows us the logos -- each against a red background flag color -- of the Nazis and the Commies -- noting their simularity.
But of course he fails to point out where this red standard existed earlier in history.
Likewise, in his following presentation of the 1930s radio speaker 'Father Coughlin' who had his own magazine and message of 'Social Justice'.
'Social Justice' is a term long used by Jesuit run 'activist' organizations, such as those under a 'soo good' aura of some mode of environmentalism, those seeking Northern Ireland's merging with the Republic of Ireland without the former's majority's consent, those who opposed Rhodesia though would say comparitively little or nothing about similar disproprtionate landownerships by Whites in Roman Catholic South America, and particularly those promoting re-establishing the ancient Roman Empire's name of 'Palestine' to the lands now occupied by the modern state of Israel, for both imaginary and real crimes such organizations would otherwise ignore if committed by any nation other then Israel (particularly those far broader crimes by perhaps the most Roman Catholic theocratic nation-state of Croatia- such as the US military aided 1995 'Operation Storm' to decimate Serbian Krijina).
'Social Justice; is indeed a term coined by Jesuits:
Luigi Taparelli D'Azeglio, S.J. (1793—1862) and the Development of Scholastic
Natural-Law Thought As a Science of Society and Politics*
by Thomas C. Behr
Luigi Taparelli, S.J. promoted the revival of scholasticism at the Collegio Romano in the 1820s, where the future Leo XIII was among his students. With his Theoretical Treatise on Natural Right Based on Fact, 1840 —1843, he elaborated a natural-law approach to politics that became a hallmark of Catholic social doctrine. Among those whom Pius IX assigned to found the journal Civiltà Cattolica in 1850, Taparelli's critiques of radical liberalism left him erroneously marked in public consciousness as an intransigent opponent to political liberalization in general. This reputation marginalized interest in Taparelli and obscured the relevance of his theoretical works to the development of the Catholic liberal tradition. Among other things, Taparelli elaborated the concepts of social justice and subsidiarity but with implications at times quite different from how these terms have been used historically.
Luigi Taparelli was a widely known Catholic polemicist in the heated mid-nineteenth-century era of social revolution in Europe and unification in Italy. Writing regularly in the Civiltà Cattolica for twelve years, he had the added celebrity of being the Jesuit brother of one of the leading nationalists and liberal prime ministers of Piedmont, Massimo D’Azeglio. Even though Taparelli has been credited with inaugurating a Catholic sociology of politics and with coining the phrase “social justice,” not even the recommendation of Pius XI in the 1930s that students should take up his works, right after those of Saint Thomas Aquinas himself, could stimulate more than sporadic interest—and that, predominantly from subsequent Jesuits associated with the journal Civiltà Cattolica, cofounded by Taparelli in 1850. On the one hand, the opinion of the secular historical profession, mostly Italian, influenced generally by a superficial and unsympathetic reading of a few of his well-over two hundred articles on politics and culture in the Civiltà, has tended to label Taparelli as a sophist and reactionary zealot. On the other hand, specialists interested in the history of the revival of Thomism and Scholastic philosophy have long recognized Taparelli’s part in that history, with his tireless promotion of Aquinas and the later Scholastics dating already from the mid-1820s when he was the Rector of the re-founded Jesuit seminary of Rome, and among his students was found the future Leo XIII.1
Taparelli’s own account of his “conversion” to Thomism in 1825 leaves no doubt about his motivation: Metaphysical confusion was dangerous to sound theology and morality.2 Taparelli argued that the post-Cartesian abandonment of the hylomorphism of Aristotle and Aquinas came at a steep cultural and political price. Unlike the natural sciences, where differences of opinion, Taparelli analogized, have no effect on the actual course of nature, mistaken metaphysical assumptions have a direct bearing on the direction of individual wills and lead to disorder in society.3
His proposals for the orientation of studies at the Collegio, submitted at the beginning of the 1827–1828 academic year argue for a return to the metaphysics of the Scholastics, to the “Ratio studiorum” of the Jesuits promulgated in 1586 as the antidote to the corrosive influence of Cartesian universal doubt on sound reasoning.4 Taparelli offered his definitive remarks concerning the weaknesses of modern philosophy versus the strengths of the classical and Scholastic approach in an article in the Civiltà Cattolica from 1853, “Di due filosofie:”5
We will demonstrate therefore that the philosophy of the Scholastics, as demonstrative, can be contrasted with modern philosophy, as inquisitive, in regard to four aspects: namely,The former proceeded from certainty, the latter from doubt;
The proper scope of the former was evidence, of the latter certainty;
The former, in ascertaining its judgments, relied on any rational element whatsoever; the latter accepts only one, ratiocination;
The former produced in souls a disposition that was catholic, social, and practical; the latter a disposition that is heterodox, anti-social, impractical. It is important to note the larger political context, as an aside, that the elusiveness in the first half of the nineteenth century of a systematic Catholic approach to the social and political questions of the day had contributed to no small amount of doctrinal and practical confusion among both clergy and lay activists, ever since the human costs of industrialization and urbanization began to become manifest in Catholic areas such as France, Belgium, northern Italy, and the Catholic zones of Germany.
The prevailing Catholic response had included the expansion of traditional charitable works along with isolated episcopal calls for greater charity and less capitalist greed. But this ad hoc approach found itself, especially after 1848, caught in a virtual no man’s land between socialists, who characterized the purely evangelical approach as reactionary, and laissez-faire capitalists, who charged such activists with fanning the flames of revolution.6 Closer to home in Italy, the “Social Question” was less pressing than the “Roman Question,” that is, the heated debate over the reforms necessary in the Papal States, the constitutional form that an eventually united Italy would take, and the place of the papacy within it.
It was precisely the complexity and urgency of these critical situations that led Taparelli already in 1847 to implore the Jesuit Father General to launch the sort of journal that the Civiltà Cattolica became in 1850, a journal that could engage the ideologues of the heterodox spirit—laissez-faire liberal or socialist—from the foundation of neo-Scholastic natural law.7 The Jesuits, widely accused of political intrigue
historically, had been reluctant to openly enter the fray between radical, secularist liberalism and socialism in the defense of Catholic values, but the traumatic events of 1848 persuaded Pius IX to endorse the journal. Taparelli, already by that time an established expert on natural law, was an obvious choice to head up, along with Carlo Maria Curci, the project.