of the irrational
visceral
off the wall
JOKES
is increasing!
Fascinating.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/27/2009 5:07:40 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 08/26/2009 8:41:56 PM PDT by B-Chan
If a Latinist were asked to translate the phrase caritas in veritate into English without more information, he would almost certainly reply "love in truth." In the German translation, caritas becomes simply Liebe [love] . However, in the English version of this encyclical, caritas is rendered "charity." The English word is derived from the Latin, but the use of one for the other is a choice that seems to me to require a little explanation.
Caritas, like "charity" as that word is used in theology, is not so much an emotion as an operation of the intellect. "Love" can cover the idea, but love in the form of a disinterested, objective benevolence. The point is important, because one of the themes of the encyclical is "gift," in the sense of how the human race responds over time to the gift of creation. In this context, gift is almost equivalent to "truth," to the non-arbitrary nature of being. Freedom is defined here as the informed response to being, to the things we don't get to make up. The notion is almost Hegelian: we are free to the extent that we understand our constraints. If we wish the human race well, then, we must know certain things about the how societies and even history function.
Caritas in Veritate is ostensibly an extension of the social teaching of the encyclical Populorum Progressio, which was published in 1967 to the audible unhappiness of free-market enthusiasts everywhere. The 1967 document has been characterized as advocating a soft-socialist model of redistribution at the both the domestic and on the international levels. Many commentators see no more than this in Caritas in Veritate, and in fact the new document does mention redistribution. It also mentions some small-is-beautiful devices, like microlending and credit unions, which suggest that the author felt he had to make some gestures toward specificity in a document that is really about metahistory.
The pope expresses a great admiration for mechanism in the sense of technologies that ameliorate the human condition. A key point: the encyclical treats economies as just another mechanism of this class. I fear that I have more than once quoted Kipling's "The Secret of the Machines" in this space, but I quote it again because it does seem to express some of what Benedict is getting at:
But remember, please, the Law by which we live, We are not built to comprehend a lie, We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die! We are greater than the Peoples or the Kings- Be humble, as you crawl beneath our rods!-- Our touch can alter all created things, We are everything on earth--except The Gods!
Basically, the pope has some thought the Gods issue. Technology, and the economy, are everything and nothing. Their purpose transcends them, perhaps in the way that the purpose of history transcends historical mechanisms. And more to point from the perspective of public policy, they are not self-sustaining. Benedict notes:
In a climate of mutual trust, the market is the economic institution that permits encounter between persons, inasmuch as they are economic subjects who make use of contracts to regulate their relations as they exchange goods and services of equivalent value between them, in order to satisfy their needs and desires. The market is subject to the principles of so-called commutative justice, which regulates the relations of giving and receiving between parties to a transaction. But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and political context, but also because of the wider network of relations within which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well. Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil its proper economic function....It is in the interests of the market to promote emancipation, but in order to do so effectively, it cannot rely only on itself, because it is not able to produce by itself something that lies outside its competence. It must draw its moral energies from other subjects that are capable of generating them.
In this and in many other respects, including the view of Christianity is a future global community, Caritas in Veritate so perfectly mirrors the logic of William Ernest Hocking that I was surprised not to see him cited in the notes. As Hocking wrote over 50 years ago:
[T]he secular state by itself is not enough...just as economics can no longer consider itself a closed science, so politics can no longer consider itself a closed art...the state depends for its vitality upon a motivation which it cannot by itself command.
Like Hocking, Benedict does not see either economics or politics as fundamental. Indeed, the encyclical expresses considerable skepticism of the state, including the welfare state as the monopoly provider of public goods. Perhaps the greatest difference between the current encyclical and Paul VI's is that Benedict believes himself to be living in a different kind of historical era. Paul lived in an age of internationalism, which was still a context in which history was largely a matter of state action. Benedict's globalism is different in kind:
Sometimes globalization is viewed in fatalistic terms, as if the dynamics involved were the product of anonymous impersonal forces or structures independent of the human will[102]. In this regard it is useful to remember that while globalization should certainly be understood as a socio-economic process, this is not its only dimension. Underneath the more visible process, humanity itself is becoming increasingly interconnected; it is made up of individuals and peoples to whom this process should offer benefits and development[103], as they assume their respective responsibilities, singly and collectively. The breaking-down of borders is not simply a material fact: it is also a cultural event both in its causes and its effects. If globalization is viewed from a deterministic standpoint, the criteria with which to evaluate and direct it are lost. As a human reality, it is the product of diverse cultural tendencies, which need to be subjected to a process of discernment. The truth of globalization as a process and its fundamental ethical criterion are given by the unity of the human family and its development towards what is good. Hence a sustained commitment is needed so as to promote a person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide integration that is open to transcendence.
One of the ironies of 21st-century history is that the papacy is perhaps the last important defender of "reason" in the humanistic sense, and also of the reality and even necessity of historical progress. Catholic social theory is not the Hegelian dialectic: its necessities are moral imperatives, not coercive mechanisms. It describes things we must try to do to make the City of Man a better place; it does not guarantee that these projects will succeed. Nonetheless, as we have noted in this space, it has long been a commonplace of Catholic social doctrine that the brotherhood of man implies the long-term political unity of the species. Benedict attempts to update the point:
To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations.
Several commentators on this passage have noted that the primary reason poor countries are poor today is that they are run by crooks, and that giving such people a role in world governance simply expands the scope for their chicanery. It's a fair point, and the encyclical has nothing useful to say about global constitutional arrangements. However, we may recall that the point of the encyclical is that even the most splendid political mechanism will not work if it is not operated by people who have been humanized in a society open to the transcendent. The pope's insistence on that openness is not a mere flouish. I think Benedict is saying that the Enlightenment project, understood as the drive to create a unified, prosperous, and free world, has intrinsic merit and could succeed. What cannot succeed is the strain of the Enlightenment that sought to make this world wholly immanent, relying on no standards beyond its own and seeking no goal but its own preservation.
That is a fair point, too.
I do not agree with all of Mr. Reilly's opinions in the above piece, but he's definitely right about most of it.
Thank you for posting this. It’s not perfect, but it is good.
Palatable . . . after a fashion. LOL.
I still don’t think the troubling phrases and sentences are . . . ameliorated sufficiently for my comfort.
And, at some point, given the realities of globalism and the intensifying direction that is unstoppable this side of ARMAGEDDON . . . I don’t think the platitudes about TRUTH IN LOVE etc. etc. etc. SUBSIDIARITY etc. etc. etc.
will prove out to be more than a candle in an Antarctic blizzard compared to the press toward utterly tyrannical globalism.
Benedict XVI and the truth about charity
Three Misreadings of Caritas in Veritate (liberal, pro-Obama, package)
The Pope’s Gift to the President and to Us
Goldman Sachs executive claims new encyclical is the best analysis of the economic crisis
Samuel Gregg: Spiritual Trumps Secular in [Caritas in Veritate] Encyclical (Catholic/Ortodox Caucus)
US Politicians: [Caritas in Veritate] Encyclical Points to Human Dignity
Caritas in Veritate: Why Truth Matters (Relativists, beware!)
Benedict's Third Encyclical (Caritas in Veritate): A Summary [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
CWR Round-Table: Caritas in Veritate (Web exclusive)
Editorial: Pope's New Encyclical Speaks Against, not for One-World Government and New World Order
Caritas in Veritate: language in paragraph 67 [Vanity]
Why does Pope Benedict talk about Humanae vitae in the new encyclical? [Catholic Caucus]
[Caritas in Veritate] Father Fessio: A New Framework for Social Justice [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
A Capitalist or Anti-Capitalist Encyclical? [Caritas in Veritate]
Caritas In Veritate (Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical)-Full Text
Pope's New Encyclical Speaks Against New World Order [Catholic Caucus]
On the 3rd Encyclical (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Best Pro-Life Quotes from Pope Benedict XVI's New Encyclical
Encycli-bites for reading “Caritas in veritate”
In new encyclical Pope Benedict slams population control, urges openness to life
The New Encyclical [Cairtas in Veritate -- Love and Truth] {Ecumenical]
AP, Reuters Go Full Tilt in Spinning Latest Writing of Pope
Caritatis [sic] in Veritate: papal encyclical calls for new moral approach to global economy (CWN)
Supreme Knight criticizes use of Pope's encyclical for political agendas
Benedict XVI explains gifts and limitations of free market economy
Benedict XVI Tightens Up the Church's Social Teaching
Excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI New Encyclical "CARITAS IN VERITATE" (CHARITY AND TRUTH)
Love for others requires involvement in politics, pope says
The Pope is not shameful. And he knows a lot more about what is going on in the world as well as economics than you.
Why were you so mean to b-Chan? Telling him to give it up?
Why are you so rude to the Pope by calling his encyclical a “mule”?
Doesn’t sound too Christian to me.
Unfortunately your pope is not content to control the lives of Roman Catholics. No, in this encyclical he arrogantly presumes to map out a radically different life for every person on the planet.
But your pope does not have that right.
Have you read the ENTIRE encyclical?
If not, aren’t you just like the dimocrats who want to vote for the healthcare bill, but state that they have not read it?
“Love God as He has loved you.”
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The Two Great Commandments of Christ.
For your information, the Pope is your neighbor just as much as I am.
It remains a sad puzzle how supposedly "conservative" FReepers can view this outline for global government with anything but apprehension and scorn.
This foolish document calls for a single, global authority empowered to regulate and control the United States' immigration policy, disarmament, food allocation, taxation, environmental issues, social agenda and national defense.
Adding insult to injury, this global authority would have the right and means to enforce its will "with teeth." For Americans, such a warrant borders on treason.
Pathetic, as anyone can read for themselves.
From Section 67...
67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights [148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
This nearly-incoherent document is a pack of anti-democracy lies couched in platitudes that disgraces any American who follows in lock-step behind the call for a global potentate "vested with the effective power" and "the authority to ensure compliance."
As I said, your pope can outline whatever socialistic agenda he wants for Roman Catholics but he should not presume to tell the rest of America and the world how to live which is exactly what he's doing by urging the creation of a global government. He does not have that right.
You are only concentrating on one PART of this encyclical. Please read the entire letter.
When you sign a contract I assume you read the entire document. Why? Because there just might be a page or paragraph in there that is not in your best interest.
Regardless of the platitudes your pope has urrounded section 67 with, section 67 stands as testament to this encyclical's intentions.
Most conservatives are stunned at your pope's hubris and knee-jerk socialism. But at least he's shown himself for what he is.
I've asked a dozen times and gotten no answer to the following question. Maybe you know. Just who will be this "global authority" in whom your pope has invested so much confidence and world-wide responsibility?
This foolish document calls for a single, global authority empowered to regulate and control the United States’ immigration policy, disarmament, food allocation, taxation, environmental issues, social agenda and national defense.
Adding insult to injury, this global authority would have the right and means to enforce its will “with teeth.” For Americans, such a warrant borders on treason.
= = =
INDEED.
Though I suppose that we’ll now hear another long litiny of how THOSE words don’t mean ANYthing of ANY significance
while
the rest of the blather in the rest of the encyclical MEAN EVERYTHING.
And then they’ll expect us to put on our rubber logic circuits to believe that pile of stinking irrationality.
The vicious anti-Catholic fetish is not Christian, dear Salvation, your observation is correct.
For some, the urge to smear the Catholic Church is so intense, so visceral and primal, that it defies all common sense, civility and Christian charity.
It doesn't wash.
Either the words in the key paragraph mean what the UNRUBBERIZED DICTIONARY consistently have said they mean for many, many decades, or they don't.
If the words mean what I and my English professor colleagues assert that they mean . . . along with the UNRUBBERIZED dictionary . . . then, it is inescapable that the Pope is advocating
1. MORE GLOBALISM;
2. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL;
.
3. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED TYRANNY OVER NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY;
4. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL OVER IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION;
.
5. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL OVER FOOD DISTRIBUTION;
6. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL OVER TAXATION;
.
7. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL OVER ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICES;
8. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL OVER VARIOUS SOCIAL AGENDAS;
.
9. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL OVER DISARMAMENT; AND
10. MORE GLOBAL STRUCTURED CONTROL OVER DEFENSE.
Are you honestly trying to assert, Dear Salvation, that the words in that paragraph mean essentially nothing while the words in the rest of the Encyclical mean essentially everything?
Where is the Christian integrity and logic in that?
You [& Betty Boop; MarkOMalley;] seem to have above average Christian integrity, in such matters and even in some contentious threads on FR. I applaud you for that. Do you three CONSERVATIVE FREEPERS have enough Christian integrity to answer honestly, the following question?
Pretend that Caesar Chavez of Venezuela [OR George Soros, or Kissinger, or Z Brezenski, or Jimmy Carter, or Colin Powell] had been voted in as head of the UN 2 years ago. Pretend he had issued essentially the same document.
AS CONSERVATIVE FREEPER CHRISTIAN AMERICANS, WHAT WOULD YOUR RESPONSES TO THAT PARAGRAPH (& the document as a whole) HAVE BEEN THEN?
I ask that in all seriousness. It has appeared impossible to achieve enough of an objective perspective with this topic to manage some genuine dialogue. IF y'all are willing and able to respond in a convincingly candid way to that question, well and good. I'll prayerfully ponder whatever you say in all seriousness and objectivity. IF you won't or can't, then I'll understand THAT THAT TOO is a very telling answer.
They are all leaders on the world stage who've pontificated about such matters before. What if any one of them had been installed as head of the UN. Imagine seriously, then, essentially the same words from their pens and mouths. What would your honest responses have been then?
Would you have been cheering and defending essentially the same words in more or less the same ways you have in this case? Why or why not?
Do the words themselves have any meaning to you, or not?
I’ve asked a dozen times and gotten no answer to the following question. Maybe you know. Just who will be this “global authority” in whom your pope has invested so much confidence and world-wide responsibility?
= = = =
Perhaps the good Pope plans to elevate Petronski, NYer, Salvation or some such Vatican representative to such a lofty positon as new Global Czar.
THEN we Prottys could feel exceedingly safe, warm and cozy.
Now, now, Dr E.
You know that all Vatican/Roman Catholic
Jr gods
have such rights.
Where have you been? Go back to GO. Redo your faulty . . . catechism. Get your brain rewired. Get your rubber dictionary. Get in lock step. When within 150 feet of The Pope and any other Vatican Jr gods, abandon all conservatism and kowtow to the max. THEN you’ll be considered human again. Have you no cooth?
/s
So, Dear Salvation . . .
One of your neighbors . . . perhaps on the East of you. Or maybe on the South of you. Or perhaps on the North or West of you. Or maybe one on the East and one on the West of you.
One or two of your neighbors . . . flaming liberals with a difference . . . they too believe in guns . . .
They have been hosting meetings in their homes about a new movement about how to
Increase OVERT GLOBALIST CONTROL OVER
Americans in terms of
1. immigration policy,
2. disarmament,
3. food allocation,
4. taxation,
5. environmental issues,
6. social agenda and
7. national defense.
It seems that the last month or two, the number of cars parked around your place—obviously of folks attending such meetings . . . has doubled. And the last couple of weeks, some of the larger male members of the group have taken turns guarding the door outside during the meetings.
And the last week, leaflets extolling the wonderful glories of such globalist plans have been appearing under windshield wipers all up and down the block.
How comforted and applauding would you be re: their meetings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.