Plodding through the embargoed encyclical [Catholic Caucus]

Vanity (from L'Espresso's PDF) ^ | markomalley

[markomalley]

NOTE: This is a Catholic Caucus thread. If you aren't Catholic or if you are on the hit squad of schismatics, feel free to read...but start your own thread if you want to comment.

OK, so I am trying to plod through this "draft" encyclical that cost Sandro Magister his Vatican Press Pass.

Caveat: I haven't read the whole thing; my Italian is so rusty that I am only able to do a little bit at a time and am relying heavily upon my Collins dictionary (far more than even a few years ago). No, I really don't trust Google Translate or other auto-translate software.

The good news: It is not solely focused on globull warming, despite what the media claim. There appears to be a considerable focus on biodiversity, clean air and clean water...he also has a whole section talking about "human ecology".

I have seen a couple of good little gems in there that will undoubtedly be totally ignored in the reporting. For example:

• Paragraph 120: Dal momento che tutto è in relazione, non è neppure compatibile la difesa della natura con la giustificazione dell’aborto. (Since everything is related, the defense of nature is not a justification for abortion)
• Paragraph 124: In qualunque impostazione di ecologia integrale, che non escluda l’essere umano, è indispensabile integrare il valore del lavoro, tanto sapientemente sviluppato da san Giovanni Pa-olo II nella sua Enciclica Laborem exercens. (in any definition of integral ecology, it is indispensible to integrate the value of work, as expertly developed by John Paul II in his Encyclical Laborem Exercens)
• Paragraph 128: Il lavoro è una necessità, è parte del senso della vita su questa terra, via di maturazione, di sviluppo umano e di realizzazione personale. In questo senso, aiutare i poveri con il denaro dev’essere sempre un rimedio provvisorio per fare fronte a delle emergenze. (Work is a necessity, it is the meaning of life on this earth, the way of maturing, and personal realization. In this sense, help for the poor with money should always be seen as a provisional remedy in the event of emergencies.)

The bad news:

• He does maintain his economic vision (which is more of a forced distributism rather than socialism). For example, paragraph 49: Ma oggi non possiamo fare a meno di riconoscere che un vero approccio ecologico diventa sempre un approccio sociale, che deve integrare la giustizia nelle discussioni sull’ambiente, per ascoltare tanto il grido della terra quanto il grido dei poveri (but today we cannot do without recognizing that a true ecological approach is always a social approach, which must integrate [social] justice into discussions about the environment, to hear the cry of the earth as much as the cry of the poor)
• He appears to almost grant a personality to nature which is disturbing. For example, il grido della terra (from the above citation).

  Again, I've got to go through the whole thing once it's released, but the above are some impressions from what I've actually read.

[markomalley]

If anybody else has attempted to plod through this document and would like to share what he/she has actually read (as opposed to media reports about the document), please feel free.

Remember, as Archbishop Chaput opined a few years ago:

We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.

[flaglady47]

“forced distributism rather than socialism”

Same difference.

[BeauBo]

“forced distributionism rather than socialism”

The use of force is what distinguishes socialism from Christian charity.

[markomalley]

BeauBo: The use of force is what distinguishes socialism from Christian charity.

Flaglady47: Same difference.

Do either of you know what distributism is?

Personally, I think it is a massively utopian, but it is virtually the exact opposite of socialism.

Distributism ... is centered on the widest possible ownership of property as the best guarantee of political and economic freedom. A family that owns its own land or its own tools can make its own way in the world without being dependent on someone else for a “job.” Thus, Distributism seeks to extend property ownership to as many as possible, and end the concentration of ownership by few capitalists or state officials.

[SumProVita]

Mark Mallet has an excellent word on all this: It’s titled THE TESTING. Here is an excerpt:

A WORD OF WARNING

“What I am about to say will upset some of you. Already, a few are angry with me, accusing me of being blind, deceived, oblivious to the fact that Pope Francis is, they say, an “anti-pope”, a “false prophet”, a “destroyer.” Once again, in the Related Reading below, I have linked to all my writings related to Pope Francis, to how the media and even Catholics have distorted his words (which have admittedly needed contextualization and explanation); to how some contemporary prophecies regarding the papacy are heretical; and last, to how the Holy Spirit protects the Church through the infallibility and grace bestowed upon “Peter”, the rock. I have also posted a new writing by theologian Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi who responded to my question on whether a pope can be a heretic or not. [1]”

The entire post is well worth the read: http://www.markmallett.com/blog/the-testing/#more-16803

[To Hell With Poverty]

He has a point about the poor and bad stewardship being connected. Africa is one example, where the kleptocracies there force people into poaching and slash-and-burn subsistence farming. Without liberty, rule of law and property rights the only option millions have is the desperate exploitation of their immediate surroundings. But of course the Left will never see or say it that way.

[dila813]

I have done a quick read of it, it clearly calls for the creation of a world wide organization with the ability to enforce climate justice and a new economy.

The document reveals for the first time that Francis believes for certain that if there was a global organization that could override a country’s laws for the good of the planet’s climate, that socialism will work. Socialism fails because it can’t compete against capitalism.

This is what he believes.

I don’t believe this is Christian because it forces people at the end of the gun to hand over their property to governments and organizations where they take a cut (administration) before handing a token to the poor.

Charity isn’t created through corrosion, this is theft.

In the end, less money for the poor while we are going to get more rich bureaucrats and green subsidized companies.

[flaglady47]

It is still your centralized gov’t giving away YOUR property (if you fit into their definition of rich) to the masses. In other words, just another form of socialism by another name. It’s not quite communism which takes away ownership of property in favor of the “commune”. Fits better with socialism, where the State decides who will own what, and who will have power, or won’t. Not a perfect fit, but close enough.

[markomalley]

>>>I have done a quick read of it, it clearly calls for the creation of a world wide organization with the ability to enforce climate justice and a new economy.

In what paragraph a did you read this?

[Unam Sanctam]

I hope he doesn’t proclaim the mere use of fossil fuels in and of itself a sin. That goes far beyond good stewardship, and I don’t see where it is based in Scrioture or Tradition.

[defconw]

Is it in Italian? I can’t get the link to open. (Work Nazi’s, not your link).

[markomalley]

Yes, it’s in Italian.

[defconw]

I guess I had better wait until tomorrow then. I can't read Italian. I wonder how long before it appears in English? I am reading an article by Jimmy Akin over on NCR.

[dila813]

Start at Page 40 where he says rich countries have ecological debt owed to poor countries.

Page 44, Page 135 through 137

[markomalley]

>>>It is still your centralized gov’t giving away YOUR property (if you fit into their definition of rich) to the masses. In other words, just another form of socialism by another name. It’s not quite communism which takes away ownership of property in favor of the “commune”. Fits better with socialism, where the State decides who will own what, and who will have power, or won’t. Not a perfect fit, but close enough.

Socialism:

1:any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Communism:

1 a :a theory advocating elimination of private property

b :a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

As I said earlier, distributism is where ownership is maximized, not eliminated. Again let me stress it is Utopian (this I don’t believe it could ever work over multiple generations, if at all, in the real world).

If you were to look at small town, agrarian frontier America, that would be pretty close to a distributist society. And if you consider the society that preppers are prepping for, that post apocalyptic society will be pretty distributist as well (once all the fallout has dropped).

You may be talking about the “forced” part of getting to that society. I agree with you that this would be a grave evil, as it would involve theft (and, by the way, the very idea of which was condemned by multiple popes, particularly Leo XIII)

[dila813]

He coined a new phrase I think, he calls the new economy the “Eco-Economy”. I haven’t heard this before.

[defconw]

Freepers would do well to remember that the Pope is not an American and there are no other countries in the world that are/were as free as we are. Stop trying to fit the Holy Father into political boxes that apply only to American politicians. Maybe then you can actually understand what he is saying.

This is a Catholic Caucus thread and I am a Catholic.

[BlatherNaut]

I have done a quick read of it, it clearly calls for the creation of a world wide organization with the ability to enforce climate justice and a new economy.

According to Gloria tv, the encyclial also quotes the heterodox Teilhard de Chardin, and refers to a Sufi muslim as a "spiritual master". Is this accurate?

http://gloria.tv/media/pBdDh68odZ6

[dila813]

I am Catholic too.

Page 41 and 42 he mentions the United States Bishops being called out specifically

“it is appropriate to point “especially on the needs of the poor, weak and vulnerable, a debate often dominated by the interests more powerful. “ 31 We must strengthen the concept that we are one human family. There borders and barriers are political or social allow us to isolate ourselves, and for that reason there is even room for globalization quelling indifference.”

[dila813]

Only in a foot note, This is just a literal quote from another text.

Don’t put that much stock in it, there are lots of foot notes to other texts, many having to do with Islam used for context in the certainty of the main body.

Page 175, Foot note (quick google translate):
“159 A spiritual master, Ali Al-Khawas, from his experience, stressed the need to not separate too the creatures of the world experience of God within. Di- ceva: “No need to criticize a priori those seeking ecstasy in music or poetry. There is a secret in each of the thin movements and sounds of this world. Initiates arrive to capture what they say the wind blowing, the trees that flex, flowing water, the flies buzzing, doors creak, the birds singing, the sound of the strings and flute, the sigh of the sick, the cry of the afflicted ... “(and goes D and v itray - m eyerovitCh [Ed.], Anthologie du soufisme , Paris 1978, 200; trad. it .: The mystics of Islam, Parma 1991, 199).160 In II Sent., 23, 2, 3.”