There remains, however, the Encyclical's chief error if one may call it that, that was immediately noted by Professor Zmirak: the recommendation of a presumably armed global authority. The nature of the UN - for which His Holiness unfortunately acknowledged 'esteem' when he visited it, though it is responsible for enormous slaughter in its promotion of legal and forced abortion - & the EC surely indicates where such authority would head. With apologies for the length of what follows, it is fair to assume such authority as His Holiness explored would soon pursue the demonic hungers below described.

President Obama's top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a 'planetary regime' that would use a 'global police force' to enforce population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren's 1977 book 'Ecoscience,' which he co-authored with colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind's greatest threat, overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the
foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear.

These proposals include:

- Sterilizing entire populations by adding infertility drugs to the nation's water and food supply.

- Legalizing 'compulsory abortions,' carried out against the will of the pregnant women as in China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by authorities to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption.

Another proposed measure would force mothers to demonstrate they will care for the child according to government prescriptions, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of 'involuntary birth control,' where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to 'general social deterioration.'

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized 'planetary regime' that would utilize a 'global police force' to enforce the measures outlined above.

The 'planetary regime' would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

Following are quotes from the book:

Compulsory abortions would be legal.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.

To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and
removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

The kind of people who cause 'social deterioration' can be compelled to not have children.

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility, just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns providing they are not denied equal protection.

Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to
control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

We will need to surrender national sovereignityto an armed international police force.

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.

This last is the final paragraph of the 1977 book. John Holdren is now the chief science and technology advisor for the American Empire, where personnel is policy.

And notably, John Holdren has never publicly distanced himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the book was first published. He recently displayed a copy of the book in his own personal library and is happy to be photographed with it.

It is also important to stress that the positions adopted by the Empire's chief science & technology advisor are advocated by numerous other prominent public figures in politics, academia and the environmental movement, including David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates, all three of whom also have integral ties to the eugenicist movement. These three recently met with other billionaire 'philanthropists' in New York to discuss 'how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population,' according to a London Times report.

Ted Turner has publicly advocated population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west.

In the third world, Turner has contributed billions of dollars to population control programs.

If people disagree with points in the encyclical, I wish they would quote very specific texts, and make arguments about those texts. That would make it easier for everyone to think about the substantive issues at stake. As it is, we are left with little more here than the unsupported implication that David Warren understands "how the world works" better than Benedict XVI, followed by an admission that Benedict XVI is sometimes brilliant, apparently because he sometimes says things consistent with the views of David Warren.
I know the title here is presumably not Warren's doing, but it is worth noting that the article is not actually about understanding Caritas in Veritate as written. It is (like a number of other commentaries on the encyclical) a brief instruction on which parts of the encyclical this writer likes, and which parts he does not like. There is not necessarily anything wrong with this, but it is not at all the same thing as an effort to understand the encyclical.

What you seem to saying, David, is you shouldn't talk/write about topics you know little about... whether you're an admirable philosopher or a pope.

My question is, why does a person need to be an "expert" in something to have a worthwhile opinion about it, or to have something to say? Perhaps their perspective or particular knowledge can offer a fresh look at something.

Even people who are experts, who have experience with an issue, often have vastly different views. Sometimes it depends on the place you start from when looking at something.

Especially with Darcy. Once again, as with George Weigel, Warren's commentary reveals more about the writer than it does about Caritas in Veritate. That's not a compliment.

The author has the right to complain about the naivete of Grant when it came to Vietnam, but in a sense he had a naivete of his own, when he focused on communism, rather than on nationalism as the real issue.

The fact was that at the bottom Ho Chih Minh was a nationalist, whose attachment to communism was a pragmatic one, it worked or promised it would work to achieve his goals, so he embraced it. This was recogznied, among others, by that old communist dupe, Francisco Franco, who could not understand that since everyone involved, the US, the Southeast Asia countries, Russia, and North Vietnam all wanted to same thing, to keep China out, they could not come to an agreement.

Vietnam fell to communism, and now? Now it as a booming economcy, it provides a labor market for capitalist firms, and is a place where it is safer to be a government opponent, according to the Economist, than in neighboring countries like the Philippines. Even when they persecute catholics, they are a lot milder than Imperial, pre-communist Vietnam used to be.

Perhaps contemplating his own holes, the author will not be so quick to condment as ignorant Papal statements with whom he disagrees (and in this, how different he is fromk those who codemnt as ignorant and benighted Papal statemetns about birth control?)

I agree with other comments here that one must be careful: Caritas in Veritate contains some moral truths which have been always taught by the ordinary magisterial authority of the Church.

When an item in the encyclical strikes us as wrongheaded, first we must force ourselves to examine this feeling. What prompts it? What instinct drives it?

Motive #1: Are we prompted by rebellion against authority telling us what to do? Or, Motive #2: are we prompted by a desire that authority would never say anything which could be misconstrued to error, lest that authority be unjustly discredited in the eyes of others?

If we take him at his word (and I do, though I sometimes think the best of people to the point of looking gullible) then we must conclude that David Warren's instinctive negative reaction to certain phrases in the encyclical is driven by Motive #2, which is the more creditable of the two. He is gives the reader a sense of being "on the pope's side," rather than a sense of "being pissed that the pope isn't on my side."

So while we're all examining our reactions to the encyclical, let's not misconstrue David Warren's. He seems to have been open about his emotional reaction, here -- a risky thing to do in front of a crowd of Internet observers who, from the safe distance of functional anonymity, can get pretty "brave behind the keyboard."

But in that openness I don't see rebellion, but a desire that the pope's words not be used as propaganda in favor of positions the pontiff himself would never countenance.

So I'm cutting Mr. Warren some slack here...as much as I'd wish to have cut for me, were I to similarly expose my raw reactions to an Internet crowd.

By the way, Adriana, you ask:

I answer: Different, in some important ways.

There are three categories of Papal statements (about birth control, or other topics):

Category 1 (Teachings on Faith/Morals): "Artificial contraception is wrong, don't do it."

Category 2 (Assertions Outside the Realm of Faith and Morals): "For sociological and medical reasons, if you advocate condom use in Africa, it won't help prevent HIV and may in fact accelerate its spread."

Now those are two categories of Papal Statements, but I think there are three categories of criticism of Papal Statements:

Criticism Type 1 (The Pope Is Wrong on Faith/Morals): If a person condemns a Category 1 Papal Statement as "ignorant" or whatever, he is thereby implicitly declaring the following: "The Pope said something totally obviously wrong while exercising his extraordinary Magisterial authority to deliver a teaching on faith and morals. Morever, that same teaching was totally obviously wrong even when it was previously taught by the ordinary Magisterium throughout the whole 2,000 years from apostolic times to the present."

Criticism Type 2 (The Pope Is Wrong on Some Assertion Outside the Realm of Faith and Morals): If a person condemns a Category 2 Papal Statement as "ignorant" or whatever, he is implicitly saying: "A bishop, even the bishop of Rome, can be totally and obviously wrong about a matter of sociology or medicine."

You can see the difference! The first type of condemnation is heresy and rebellion by definition. The second type is a disagreement with a bishop on a matter where that bishop is no more an authority than any other equally intelligent man who'd taken the same amount of time to study the topic.

(By the way, I think the pope's right in both areas re: contraception! But that's not my point. My point is that disagreeing with Magisterial authority in faith and morals is different from disagreeing with a bishop about horticulture or set theory or quantum physics. The former means you're both wrong and out of the Church pending repentance; whereas the latter may not be any kind of sin, and even admits the possibility that you're correct and the bishop is wrong!)

But there's a third type of criticism of Papal Statements....

Criticism Type 3 (The Pope Is, Unnecessarily, Saying Something In A Way Guaranteed To Be Misconstrued And Used As Ammunition Against The Good And Just): A person who levels this criticism may not even think that the Pope is wrong. He may think he is right, or that he's wrong. He may even be uncertain about what the Pope really thinks, and therefore be uncertain as to whether the Pope really is right or wrong. But whether he thinks the Pope is right or wrong, or doesn't know, he wishes the Pope would be more savvy about how folks will twist his words.

Now, Adriana, you compare David Warren with those who oppose/criticize the Pope on birth control.

The pertinent question, I think, is: Which category of criticism is being leveled in each case?

My answer is: David Warren is leveling Criticism Category 3, and perhaps Criticism Category 2; whereas the usual opponent of birth control is leveling Criticism Category 1, and perhaps Criticism Category 2.

Therefore, on the whole, all other things being equal, and all other necessary caveats being implicitly assumed, we can say that Mr. Warren, when grumbling about Caritas in Veritate in this particular way, is more innocent of heresy, and more faithfully Catholic, than those who oppose Church teachings on birth control.

That, I think, is the difference, and if it is not a total difference, it is nevertheless an important one.

Reading Mr. Warren's and Mr. Hudson's articles on Caritas in Veritate (and accompanying comments) is confusing. Until now, I've absented myself from these debates, because there are many issues I don't understand and so many seeming contradictions between this encyclical and previous papal teachings about socialism (which has been roundly condemned).

When I was in RCIA, someone once differentiated an ex cathedra teaching on faith and morals (which is infallible) from the Pope suggesting which horse to bet on in the third.

Do I understand correctly that in order for a papal teaching to be infallible, it must: 1) come from the Pope; 2) speaking ex cathedra; and 3) cover faith and/or morals?

If so, where does a papal encyclical fall with regard to these three categories?

And given previous popes' encyclicals condemning socialism (and the kind of "one world government" this encyclical seems to champion), how can these different ideas be reconciled?

R.C., I would be particularly interested in hearing your response.

For Adriana:

Yes, in thriving Vietnam they thrivingly throw priests out of windows because they dared to stand up for freedom of religion. Since the Communists conquered the South, the Church in Vietnam has been persecuted. Your fellow Catholics are bleeding and dying in thriving Vietnam as you write in comboxes.

Harmless nationalists don't throw priests out of windows. The "harmless little fuzzball nationalist" meme was false when it was propagated in the 1960s when I came of age and it's false today.

Vietnam is a communist country.

Hmm. A big question, fraught with potential for unintentional inaccuracy.

I will give you my understanding of the topic (I have no one else's to give!). I hope that if I accidentally misconstrue anything, someone wiser and better-versed will step in to correct me.

Okay: There is ordinary magisterial infallibility, and extraordinary magisterial infallibility. The former, I am told, pertains to the teaching authority of the church as a whole, led by the bishops. The latter pertains to the teaching authority of the pope, as the only bishop who, in addition to his bishopric in Rome, also has an office of pastorhood over the "entire flock" of Jesus' "sheep," namely, all Christians.

The infallibility of either magisterium comes from a charism, a gift of the Holy Spirit. This charism of infallibility is not so much like a power-pill as like a safety net, in that it does not assure correct and timely teaching; it merely prevents incorrect teaching from overcoming correct teaching in the official doctrinal promulgations of the Church.

Now, for the bishops, this does not prevent them promulgating erroneous doctrines in matters of faith and morals. In fact, they have sometimes done this, as when for a time, in the early Church, around half the bishops were believing or at least not decrying the Arian heresy.

But the Pope stepped in and corrected them, eventually putting Arianism down. He can do this because his extraordinary magisterial authority is a bit stronger by virtue of his office: In matters of faith and morals, he is always prevented by God from promulgating an incorrect doctrine as if it were correct and obligatory on the whole church.

Therefore, if a bunch of bishops are teaching something questionable, and appeal it up to the Pope, and he says nothing about it right away, one can't know if the questionable teaching is right or wrong. But if the Pope does make a firm decision, and promulgates it as obligatory doctrine for the Church, and it is related to faith or morals, then one knows the decision was correct, because the Holy Spirit would have prevented him from teaching something incorrect.

There is in fact an example in history of a pope holding a weak opposition or somewhat accommodationist view about a heresy; he may not have been a heretic himself, but seemed on the verge of promulgating the notion that those holding the heresy shouldn't be excommunicated. But before he could propagate this view, he died (somewhat suddenly). It's plausible to me that the Holy Spirit made sure he died early, not so much as a punishment for his intent not to excommunicate (which could have been a mere confusion about how to balance compassion with insistence on the truth), but rather to prevent the Church from receiving error. Such is the nature of a charism intended as a fail-safe to prevent error: You might be about to promulgate something wrong, but you won't live long enough to actually do it!

This charism extends to faith and morals only. The Pope can be as wrong about automotive repair techniques as the next fellow.

And it only extends to teaching about faith and morals, not doing. The Pope goes to confession weekly at least; he's a sinner like the rest of us. Christ is protecting his Church from being misled; but he is not overriding the free will of the successor of Peter. (And of course the Borgia popes were real scoundrels, and it'd be no great shock if some those former popes are in hell.)

Okay, much of that probably sounded like the standard RCIA fare.

In my next note, I'll try to fine-tune a bit, to apply things toward your questions more directly.

(And, once again, if someone thinks I've misunderstood something, please step in and correct me.)

Vatican II (LG#25) teaches that ordinary Magisterium must receive "loyal submission of the will and intellect...in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra..."

The American Catholic Church (including those on the left and right) has made a sport of setting aside this teaching, and the consequences are all around.

...continuing response to Hess Family...

There are different areas of teaching which one might hear from a bishop, including the bishop of Rome. I divide them into the following 5 categories:

1. Dogma
2. Theological or Moral Doctrine
3. Discipline
4. Advice
5. Mere Opinion

1. Dogma represents items which were a part of the original "deposit of faith delivered once for all to the apostles," which was handed down to us as Sacred Tradition, which was all initially in verbal form, but was transferred into written form at various times.

(That which was transferred into written form by the apostles and a few other Christians who knew Jesus, we call the New Testament; that written down shortly thereafter by folks who knew the Apostles but who didn't know Jesus during His earthly ministry we call the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, shortly later came the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and then after 500 AD or thereabouts, the Later Church Fathers.)

Dogma is all about faith and morals, and is formally defined and dogmatically declared by the Church in ecumenical council and in accord with or approved by a Pope, or in very rare circumstances, it is merely declared by a Pope. But the declaration isn't when a dogma is invented; it's just when it gets labeled as "dogma" for the first time.

Dogmas are infallible and unchangeable.

2. Theological or Moral Doctrines which aren't yet declared dogma are in a different category. This includes such notions as the nature of predestination and how it interrelates with grace and free will. A particular view on such things might be taught by this or that theologian; it may even be believed by many bishops or the pope, but it has not been declared dogma, nor has it been always taught by the Church with total agreement from all the popes and bishops.

As long as these don't contradict any dogmas, but represent ways of looking at or further explaining existing dogmas or suggested implications of those dogmas, then these Doctrines are optional, not obligatory.

3. Disciplines are matters of obligatory practice, rather than propositional truth. They say, "Do this," not "This is true."

Disciplines are things which may have been done differently before, and may change again later, but have been made obligatory on the faithful for now because, in the judgment of the Church, they're a good idea.

Two such examples are "no meat on Friday" and "no married Western Rite clergy unless Rome makes an exception under a special pastoral provision." These are disciplines, and they are obligatory on the faithful when in force, but cease to be obligatory when changed.

(The "no meat on Friday" is no longer in force except during Lent, but it is supposed to be replaced with other penitential practices, as we remember Christ's crucifixion. The discipline of clerical celibacy remains in force, but could be changed one day.)

Now, it is permitted to disagree with the Church about whether a discipline is a good idea or not. There is no charism guaranteeing all disciplines currently in force are better than all alternatives the Church might otherwise have enacted. So if you think clerical celibacy is a bad idea, well, who knows, you might be right! ...but it's still obligatory, until the Church decides it's not. (I myself think it's a good idea.)

4. Advice or Counsel from a bishop is not to be discounted out-of-hand; they're mostly good and wise men. This is doubly true if we're talking about Advice or Counsel from the Pope! But it is not protected by a charism of infallibility if it isn't about faith and morals. It isn't even protected by a charism of infallibility if it's about faith and morals, but is directed to you as private advice rather than as an official promulgation. So, you can, without heresy, disagree respectfully with advice or counsel given in this fashion. But you should give it a good listen first; don't just say, "Well, it isn't infallible, so I won't listen at all!" And if it is in areas of faith and morals (e.g. "you need to forgive that family member" or "you ought to try praying the Rosary") you should really listen, because such topics are "up their alley."

5. Mere Opinion is when Bishop X recommends monetary policy, or a Bishop Y opines about the best practices for achieving superfluidity or superconductivity in supercooled elements, or Bishop Z opines about the best way to outflank an enemy Armored Cav unit.

These fall under no charism of infallibility, and aren't even close enough to faith and morals for synergies with the special duties of the office of bishop to offer any special insight.

So, whether you listen to these bishops' opinions is based on the same considerations as with non-bishops; i.e., are they well-advised, and do they have any training or expertise on the topic? If Bishop X was trained as an economist, or Bishop Y as a quantum physicist, or Bishop Z at West Point, then their opinions carry more weight for those reasons. But their bishoprics aren't relevant.

...onward, about the encyclical, in my next...

I hope people on the blogosphere keep talking about this encyclical weeks and months from now. I'm trying to digest it, and read more background with what little spare time I have before reading too much commentary and talking a lot about it. I'm afraid everybody's going to be burned out by the time I have my arms halfway around it. Just in case that happens here is my "gut": a lot (though not all) of the trouble folks have with this encyclical is that :

a) it is often read from a distinctly American context (i.e. how the words would be interpreted were they said by an American President rather than by the Pope) and certain concepts and definitions are read into the encyclical which are off point ;

b) there are not a few people who judge the Church in light of their political philosophy rather than the other way around ("mater si magistra no") ; and

c) [bear with me as I take a stab at articulating this one—a point that is itself contained in the encyclical if we pay attention] related to "b", people fall into various forms of political messianism and/or the age old tendency to want their religion to be in lock step with their politics. The two do need to be in harmony. Nevertheless, the Church and the faith take a view that is above and broader than contemporary politics and economics. It is possible for justice to thrive or be lacking under more than one economic system. Perhaps some are better calculated to achieve such justice. The same goes of political systems. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, while a monarchy is the most efficient of the legitimate forms of government, when corrupted it is the worst of the illegitimate forms of government (because it seeks then the good of only one). While rule by the people is the least effective of the legitimate forms of government, it is the least bad when it is corrupted (because at least it seeks the good of a larger group). It really comes down to virtue in the people and their leaders. Good men can work justice under any legitimate political or economic scheme. Bad men will not be reigned in by even the best-conceived form of government. Even the rock star Sting gets it: "There is no political solution to our troubled evolution" ("Spirits in the Material World").

I believe that the major problem we are seeing in America is the mass desire for socialized health care. People are not thinking that they are being called by the Holy Father to answer the call to be a servent of God. They think the Pope wants someone to take care of the poor, why not the government? This mega-government plan that is to care for everyone is just a means to issue a QALY plan giving life a value based on worth to society and bringing the culture of death to a new and darker reality. See more about the bishops interpretations and the dangers of the health plan on my website...www.catholicfemina.com

...but it was half-past midnight where I was and I needed some sleep.

I'm awake and have some break-time now, so here are some quick points:

1. The encyclical is not to be viewed as a new teaching, but an expansion or further clarification of themes already presented in earlier encyclicals.

(Therefore, even when something in it sounds socialist, it isn't intended that way, since earlier encyclicals denounced socialism.)

2. The encyclical is written for the ages, not for the audience of today.

And, the encyclical is not a criticism directed at Americans about American problems, but a general vision for the world which has in mind various problems happening around the world.

For these reason the possible misunderstandings of the audience of today may not really be of any concern. A phrasing of some concept which is likely to make today's audience say "The Pope wants Cap-and-Trade in America!" or "The Pope wants government ownership of all businesses in America!" is more likely to be intended to make folks five hundred years from now say, "Hmm, it looks as if the pontiff was communicating to the Catholic faithful a need for volunteer green-space conservation at the community level in Japan" or "Hmm, it looks as if the pontiff was concerned with land monopolization by hereditary Jefes in Colombia."

3. Remember that Subsidiarity is a crucial Catholic concept when it comes to the organizing of communities, and, well, the Pope "is Catholic." When communities undertake necessary action, especially to compel it by law, it generally should be undertaken by the lowest and most-local level of governance or community organization capable of handling it.

Therefore, when we are taught to do something for the needy, "we" does not first and foremost mean the Federal Government. It means individuals do most of the caring-for-the-needy. Then families do slightly less. Then neighborhoods do slightly less than families. Then towns do slightly less than neighborhoods. Then counties do slightly less than towns. Then states do slightly less than counties. Then, if there's anything left over to be accomplished after so much has been accomplished at lower levels of community organization, the Federal level tidies up what little remains.

You'll note that the encyclical speaks of the responsibilities which go along with rights. Rights are exercised by individuals; they are only protected by force or the threat thereof exercised by larger forms of organization.

Similarly, responsibilities are exercised by individuals; but they are made legal (and hopefully encouraged; for as Dorothy Day put it, "a good society is a society which helps you to be good") by the social structures put in place by larger forms of organization.

This is the Subsidiarist approach to rights and responsibilities. It is not individualist; or rather it is not "individualism" in the negative sense of the word which often appears in encyclicals, which refers to a rights-only, no-responsibilities view of the individual. (Oddly, in American political culture, that view is called libertinism, and the subsidiarist view is called...individualism! Terminology can be frustrating when no-one agrees on the definitions.)

4. Another mis-match between American political culture and the terms used in recent social-doctrine encyclicals is the use of the term "capitalism." Folks who call themselves "capitalist," who are also Christian, generally understand "capitalism" to be dependent upon the rule of law and equal protection under the law, and think of any excessive concentration of ownership or long-term monopoly as a distortion of the free market, usually caused not by markets at all but rather by government patronage of particular businesses. Furthermore, they aren't just "capitalists" but "free-market capitalists" and "entrepreneurialists."

In that sense, an American "capitalist" views the end of a game of Monopoly (where one person has everything) as (a.) not likely ever to happen in a market where the government doesn't tip the scales in favor of someone, and (b.) no longer "capitalism" in that there's no longer a market or any entrepreneurs rocking the boat.

But in the encyclicals, this sort of thing would be referred to as "unfettered capitalism," suggesting that such situations represent the apotheosis or desired end-condition of capitalism rather than, as an American might see it, a perversion or collapse of it.

Chesterton quipped that "the problem with capitalism is not that there are too many capitalists, but that there are too few capitalists" meaning that, what with restricted government licensing and the difficulty of starting new businesses and of acquiring ownership shares in existing ones, ownership of whole markets tended to be concentrated in few hands, and unshakably, systematically kept there, leaving everyone else to be a wage-slave, making no more contribution to production than a robot might. An "unfettered capitalist" in the encyclical definition would express this as his desired end-game, but a typical "free-marketer" in the U.S. would be horrified, yet still call himself a capitalist.

Anyway, these are some of the principles I keep in mind while reading the encyclical, and its predecessors in the Social Doctrine for the last two hundred years: (1.) It is continuous with earlier teachings and does not contradict them; (2.) It is for audiences (and has in mind problems) in all years and places, not merely here and now; (3.) It is Catholic and takes a Catholic approach to community, which includes aversion to force when voluntary action will do, and a subsidiarist approach rather than a centralized, top-down approach; (4.) It may use terms in a fashion different from how those terms are understood in the U.S., and lead to misunderstandings if one isn't careful to distinguish usage.

Testing 1, 2, 3...

Hi R.C.

We have a filter on our comment software that delays posting comments it suspects might be spam until we manually publish them. All seven of your comments came through -- they were just held for our approval. That often happens with longer comments (which is why your short "Testing...1, 2, 3" post went right through while the others didn't).

Anyway, your original comment is up. Let us know if you have any other problems.

Thanks very much! I was wondering about that.

Happy to help. Your insightful comments are always welcome here.

Darcy's right. This article & its headliner are a joke. I have an idea: Why don't the IC Editors publish R.C.'s comments on this encyclical? I got alot more out of reading them than I did from David Warren.



"If people disagree with points in the encyclical, I wish they would quote very specific texts, and make arguments about those texts. That would make it easier for everyone to think about the substantive issues at stake. As it is, we are left with little more here than the unsupported implication that David Warren understands "how the world works" better than Benedict XVI, followed by an admission that Benedict XVI is sometimes brilliant, apparently because he sometimes says things consistent with the views of David Warren.
I know the title here is presumably not Warren's doing, but it is worth noting that the article is not actually about understanding Caritas in Veritate as written. It is (like a number of other commentaries on the encyclical) a brief instruction on which parts of the encyclical this writer likes, and which parts he does not like. There is not necessarily anything wrong with this, but it is not at all the same thing as an effort to understand the encyclical.
Written by Darcy"

Your explanation was excellent. I appreciate your time and effort!

Thanks for such complimentary reactions to my posts, G and Hess Family. I'm happy to have been of some help.

I also wrote another post in an earlier thread (that is, in the comments responding to an earlier published piece in IC) about interpreting the encyclical. It added, to what I wrote in the posts above, the observation that we'll understand this encyclical better after some time passes.

I think I'll copy-and-paste that earlier post here, too; folks might find it useful. It'll be somewhat redundant with what I've said here, but not altogether so.

I posted this comment under an earlier thread on Caritas in Veritate; I thought it might come in useful, here:

Hermeneutic of Discontinuity?
Protestant interpretations of Scripture are often begun under a self-imposed ignorance of Christian tradition. As a result, they produce novelties of doctrine which are entirely defensible as interpretations of Scripture, but are implausible anachronisms and novelties when examined in historical context.

Early interpretations of Caritas in Veritate suffer, I fear, from the same problem, only more so.

The Benefits of Many Voices, More Data
For here we have a shorter work than Scripture. There is necessarily less data with which to work. And it is issued by a single man -- not that I am denying either the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the contributions of others who may have assisted his scholarship, but the document has a voice of authorship which is the Pope's.

I found in school that hearing the same topic explained by several different people in slightly differing ways allowed me to "triangulate" in on a concrete understanding of that topic...or at least to find an explanation which made the most sense to me. We don't have a multi-voiced explanation, here.

And repetition helps also, and the passing of time. How much time have we had with this document thus far? How many re-readings, before opining on it?

Rinse, Repeat
I fear that many are rushing to have an instantaneous understanding of Caritas in Veritate when it should be allowed to simmer, or percolate at a low boil of periodic re-readings. I fear that many are rushing to soundbite it when it is intended to be understood as being "all of a piece," articulating a vision of Christendom.

And I fear that because words and phrasing and timing and nuance can be viewed differently by different readers, the only person who could learn the "framer's intent" of Caritas in Veritate using a quick, isolated exegesis would be...the pontiff himself! All others using this method will read too much of their own linguistics into it, for it lacks an important benefit we have in Scripture gives us; namely, the voices of several different authors trying to articulate the same thing. (For in reconciling all their explanations, we are able to discard incompatible interpretations, as when understanding "works of faith" through the different "voices" of James and Paul).

But most of all I fear it is taken out of context of relevant prior teachings, or with the shyest little nods to prior teachings.

Context
The worst offenders will read it by itself and extract meaning, a sort of Sola Encyclica instead of Sola Scriptura. This will naturally produce several contradictory meanings, as the Sola approach does with Scripture.

Those who come closer to the truth will read it in the context of a few quotes from Centesimus Annus, Quadragesimo Anno, Rerum Novarum, and the like...but only their very favorite quotes.

Those who come closest will be those who simmered in those earlier encyclicals for long months of study, and who are willing to do the same for this one, and who furthermore view all of them through a lens which understands them to be part of an organic process of growth, or what the Venerable John Henry Newman called natural and valid development of doctrine.

Natural Development
For no man in his lifetime can expect a 2,000 year old tree to suddenly double in size over the course of a hundred years, or put out a branch which is twice the size of all previous branches, or with an entirely different texture of bark, or leaves of a different shape. If we understand what we see here to be a new bud, perhaps a new Y-shaped divergence on a slender twig standing at the end of a branch which is itself a growing-out from a larger branch, then we will have a better sense of perspective.

And if we furthermore observe that newly-forming branches on a tree often look a fair bit like branches that developed years earlier, then we will see what another commenter mentioned...a view that would look quite a bit like Christendom. As a younger branch looks like an older one.

Rumination, Elimination, Germination
I don't know how best to view Caritas in Veritate. I will know in fifty years, perhaps. I can draw some conclusions earlier, but others should wait.

Some interpretations or conclusions can, I think, be eliminated out-of-hand because, while they might be entirely consonant with the words of this one encyclical, would require an interpretation of those words which would reverse earlier teachings. Those who see a mandate for further centralization and delegation of an already too-centralized and too-delegated system of almsgiving-by-taxation are incorrect; such a view would amputate Subsidiarity and Personal Responsibility from the Social Doctrine pretty soundly. Other views could be eliminated through a similar process.

But in the end, we'll know the shape of the flower only after it has opened, the shape of the branch after a few more seasons.

Prior to that, everyone has a right to speculate, and those will do best who remember the context of history. But even such speculations will fall less under the heading of "dogma," and more under the heading of "pious opinion."

EL MACROSEÍSMO QUE VIENE. San Pablo de fue un caballo de Troya enviado por el Sanedrín para infiltrar el movimiento cristiano y mantenerlo sujeto a la Sinagoga. Desde entonces el talón de Aquiles de la doctrina de la Iglesia ha sido el profetismo judío. En estos momentos en que la Iglesia agoniza ante el mortal ataque de sus eternos enemigos, el liderazgo pontificio del helenismo secular cristiano que abrogue el Antiguo Testamento de nuestra fe, será en lo futuro el liderazgo de una Iglesia triunfante. Benedicto XVI, tiene la oportunidad histórica de salvar a la Iglesia promoviendo la helenización de cristianismo y abrogando la religión chatarra judeo cristiana que formuló San Pablo. La reciente trilogía Encíclica sobre la caridad, la esperanza y la verdad, son sintomáticas de un pontificado intimidado por los continuos e intensos ataques de propios y extraños, no solo contra la Iglesia, la doctrina milenaria y la autoridad pontificia, que son promovidos encubiertamente desde la Sinagoga; lo cual explica el reduccionismo absurdo de Caritas in veritate al promover los valores mínimos de la ley natural y la convivencia social para barnizar de humanista el modelo socio económico actual, dejando de lado los valores máximos de la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta que promueven la justicia social y el desarrollo espiritual de la humanidad mediante la practica intensa del altruismo, el misticismo y el activismo social.

El perfil moral del humanismo secular tiene una banda muy ancha debido a la ausencia de dogmas pero no de principios que enaltezcan la dignidad humana. Su mayor virtud es la búsqueda intensa y apasionada del bien y la verdad, utilizando la razón y el libre pensamiento. Porque la sabiduría y la bondad son el norte que orienta su vida y sus actos, para encontrar la salida a los laberintos mentales que mantienen perpleja a la humanidad en el oscurantismo medieval religioso, utilizando el pensamiento crítico. El humanismo secular y su etiqueta de ateo, se debe a que los libre pensadores, concientes de la dignidad humana estamos en contra de la manipulación y enajenación que promueve la religión organizada, y seguimos la directiva que expuso Protágoras al analizar el ethos y el pathos de los dioses del Olimpo y caer en cuenta que las narraciones sagradas eran una mitología producto de la fantasía humana, a fin de explicar los portentos. Conclusión que lo llevó a señalar que el hombre es la medida de todas las cosas, abrogando el culto a los dioses del Olimpo, aún el dios desconocido. A partir de entonces, los pueblos herederos de la cultura helénica intentamos construir un mundo mejor cimentado en la ciencia, las humanidades y la educación laica de las multitudes en los valores del humanismo secular que tiene como polos la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta, a fin de desarrollar las potencialidades interiores ejercitando el altruismo y el activismo social intensos, imitando a Cristo.

El movimiento secular cristiano iniciado por los sabios alejandrinos en el primer siglo, tiene su raíz en el misticismo secular helénico practicado antes de Cristo por cínicos epicúreos y estoicos. Comprende solo los valores espirituales que enaltecen la dignidad humana, dejando de lado los relatos de las divinidades y el culto. Es decir no solo reconoce la importancia de la dimensión espiritual humana sino que promueve la divulgación del conocimiento espiritual, a fin de que la humanidad trascienda el subdesarrollo espiritual en el que se encuentra, a causa de los errores de la fe; y por ello, desde un punto de vista aquo, utiliza la razón para disolver los fundamentalismos perniciosos de creyentes y ateos, mediante un juicio justo.

En un principio el cristianismo fue un movimiento laico. La Epístola apócrifa de los Hechos de Felipe, expone al cristianismo como continuación de la educación en los valores que persigue alcanzar la paideía griega, promovida por los sabios alejandrinos que fueron los primeros en percatarse del movimiento secular cristiano cuando unos griegos se entrevistaron con Cristo (Jn XII, 20 al 24). Posteriormente enviaron al medico Lucas a dar testimonio escrito de los portentos, vida, ejemplo y enseñanza de Cristo, a fin de dar fe que es cierta la teoría de la trascendencia humana formulada por Aristóteles al abordar el problema del alma truncada que sostiene que el hombre puede trascender a sus propias limitaciones si practica las virtudes opuestas a sus defectos hasta alcanzar la supra humanidad. A partir de entonces, los pueblos helénicos siguieron el movimiento cristiano como el mejor modo de alcanzar la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta que pretende la paideía griega; por ello lucharon por helenizar el cristianismo a fin de estructurar la fe conforme a la razón. Lo cual propició el choque entre culturas ante la oposición radical e intransigente de los príncipes de la sinagoga tendente a evitar que se helenizara el cristianismo para judaizar el cristianismo y mantenerlo sujeto a los intereses judíos. Separando la fe de la razón __cuya unión inseparable, Cristo había revelado metafóricamente al ciego de nacimiento (Jn IX, 39)__ Provocando en los pueblos cristianos la estulticia generalizada y la entronización del oscurantismo, al olvidar las raíces helenistas de nuestra cultura; lo cual ha convertido las Iglesias en sinagogas, los sacerdotes en rabinos, los cristianos en siervos del gobierno mundial judío, y el judeo cristianismo en religión chatarra. Así el movimiento cristiano dejó de ser laico y dejó de perseguir los fines últimos de la paideía; y por ello, no hemos alcanzado la sociedad perfecta ni la trascendencia humana.

El triunfo del judeo cristianismo sobre el incipiente helenismo cristiano es eminente, debido a que el progreso de las ciencias y las humanidades, amenaza con derrumbar la doctrina medieval de la iglesia; por ello, los emisarios de la Sinagoga, han promovido la lucha intestina entre conservadores y modernistas, para abrogar sutilmente la doctrina milenaria de la Iglesia tratando de adecuar el discurso de la Iglesia a los tiempos modernos, pero sin criticar el profetismo judío. Ante esta situación, 1) los esbirros de la Sinagoga pretenden terminar de judaizar el cristianismo, abrogando de nuestra fe el dogma de la divinidad de Cristo, el dogma de la Santísima Trinidad, el dogma de la Nueva Alianza, convirtiendo a Cristo en un profeta menor de Israel, testigo de Jehová. 2) los helenistas cristianos pretenden actualizar la doctrina de la Iglesia estructurando la fe conforme a la razón: sacralizando la doctrina y la teoría de la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta predicada por Cristo. Abrogando de nuestra fe el Antiguo Testamento por ser una mitología oscurantista y enajenante; lo cual abrogaría la Reforma Protestante, uniría la religión y la ciencia, y uniría las Iglesias en Cristo. Y para lograrlo, solo es necesario criticar el profetismo judío enmarcando científicamente la controversia entre la fe y la razón en el fenómeno espiritual de la transformación humana, utilizando los principios universales de la filosofía y la ciencia de conocimiento espiritual, a fin de deslindar del camino ecuménico y hacer objetiva la desviación del cristianismo hacia la ecumene Abrahán-ica que nos conduce al precipicio de la perdición eterna. 3) el humanismo secular pretende prescindir de la religión organizada, convirtiéndolo en un humanismo secular cristiano, con catedrales en las universidades, institutos, fundaciones altruistas y voluntariados

Los libre pensadores defensores de Cristo, la Iglesia y de las raíces greco-romanas de nuestra cultura, apostando por el helenismo cristiano, criticamos el profetismo judío aportando los elementos de juicio que justifican la abrogación del Antiguo Testamento de nuestra fe. La crítica al profetismo judío puede abordarse por diversos procedimientos. El más polémico, es la revisión jurídica de la sentencia dictada por Cristo en su diatriba contra el puritanismo hipócrita de los sacerdotes y escribas de la ley, señalando como reos de pena eterna a los seguidores de la doctrina (ethos supremaciíta) y ejemplo (pathos avasallante, criminal y genocida serial) judíos. Debido a que S. S. Juan Pablo II difiere de esta sentencia culposa opinando que los judíos son nuestros hermanos mayores en la fe. Los otros procedimientos son los siguientes:

• Enmarcando la disertación científica en el fenómeno de la trasformación humana abordado por la doctrina y la teoría de la trascendencia humana: conceptualizada por la sabiduría védica, instruida por Buda e ilustrada por Cristo, y sus jornadas descritas metafóricamente por los poetas místicos del Islam,; la cual concuerda con los planteamientos de la filosofía clásica y moderna, y las conclusiones comparables de la ciencia: (psicología: logoterápia), congruencia que da certidumbre a nuestros juicios de valor.
• Enmarcando la disertación filosófica en: “el deslinde del camino ecuménico que tiene como polos la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta. Utilizando los principios universales del saber filosófico y espiritual como tabla raza, a fin de hacer objetivo el desvió del cristianismo hacia la ecumene Abraham-ica demarcada por los convencionalismos de lo que es sagrado para de Israel” (su territorio, su pueblo, sus ancestros, Jerusalén, el templo, y el libro de Israel), conducidos por San Pablo para que los hijos de Israel seguidores de Cristo siguieran siendo Israel, y los gentiles cristianos ayudaran a Israel a llegar a ser la principal de las naciones; y para perpetuar el error separó la fe de la razón: (1ª Corintios I, 17 al 27), e indujo el error fundamental (2ª Timoteo 16, 17) que nos lleva a conclusiones falsas que nos confunden, conflictuan, enajenan y deshumanizan, polarizando la sociedad en explotadores y oprimidos. Convirtiendo en paradoja el cuestionamiento sobre la relación entre la fe y la razón planteado por los helénicos a San Pablo en el Areópago, lo cual ha mantenido perpleja a la humanidad en espera de una respuesta satisfactoria
• Enmarcando la disertación jurídica en la revisión del diferendo pontificio {opuesto a la sentencia dictada por Cristo [Mateo XXIII, 1 al 35] en su crítica a la utopía judía señalando como reos de castigo eterno a los seguidores de la doctrina (el ethos) y la conducta (el pathos) de Israel -VS- la honorable opinión de Su Excelencia Juan Pablo II señalando a Israel como hermano mayor en la fe} a la luz de los hechos bíblicos e históricos; para demostrar que sigue vigente el ad quem recurrido y el diferendo es una apostasía mayor tendente a judaizar el cristianismo
• Dejando al descubierto las implicaciones educativas, judiciales, morales y religiosas del latrocinio de tracto continúo en que incurren las iglesias y organizaciones religiosas al encubrir tendenciosamente el error fundamental; así como el interés jurídico y competencia del Estado para conocer y juzgar este relevante asunto, en razón del severo daño moral causado a la sociedad.
• Convocando el emplazamiento a juicio de las Iglesias y organizaciones religiosas tendenciosas, a efecto de corregir el error fundamental. En primera instancia ante el tribunal de la razón, en segunda instancia ante el tribunal de la ley. Y en tercera instancia en el estrado revolucionario de la justa indignación pública expulsando de las Iglesias a los sacerdotes y pastores fideístas renuentes a corregir el error fundamental; tal como lo hizo Cristo cuando expulsó del templo a los mercaderes.