Having to wade through and ‘attempting’ to analyze shouldn’t be necessary. Encyclicals and writings should be clarity personified.
>>> Having to wade through and ‘attempting’ to analyze shouldn’t be necessary. Encyclicals and writings should be clarity personified. <<<
If the Declaration of Independence had been written in the “clear and accessible” style of _Caritas in Veritate_, we would still be a British Colony!
This is not a “timeless” document; Aquinas would start begging for a glossary after about page 3.
Seriously, though: does ANYONE here have the foggiest idea what phrases like “integral human development” and “authentic human development” signify? The “development” of peoples and, apparently, humanity? What does this jargon mean?
In Section 13 we read:
“Paul VI clearly understood that the social qustion had become worldwide and he grasped the interconnection between the impetus towards the unification of humanity and the Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity. In the notion of development, understood in human and Christian terms, he identified the heart of the Christian social messsage, and he proposed Christian charity as the principal force at the service of development.”
Some thoughts:
“the impetus towards the unification of humanity “ — What does this mean? It seems to mean that BXVI is arguing that unification as globalization is inevitable. There also seems to be the implication that this unification is morally neutral, that it can be “developed” and made right. This is cold comfort for those of us who believe that globalization is inherently evil and cannot be made right.
A WORLDWIDE “social question” — the implication being a world society. What would that entail, and does the notion even makes any sense? There seems to be a lot more going on here than just restating the Enlightenment notion of humanity in Christian terms.
“Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity” — What does this mean? Since when has a world-wide and “single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity” been a Christian ideal this side of Christ’s Return? This seems to be a lot more than just a call for some new Christendom, or an oblique restatement of the Great Commission. There seems to be a real strain of apocalypticism here, albeit one that has less to do with the Bible and more to do with what Dostoevsky was thinking about with his parable of the Grand Inquisitor.