Thomas More was not a secular humanist--which is the implication in Derkson's piece. Read again the following scandalous quote:
"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption."
MAN IS THE PRIMARY ROUTE THAT THE CHURCH MUST TRAVEL IN FULFILLING HER MISSION: HE IS THE PRIMARY AND FUNDAMENTAL WAY FOR THE CHURCH, THE WAY TRACED OUT BY CHRIST HIMSELF...
First of all, what the hell does this mean? If it means we must love our neighbor as Christ did--why doesn't he just say this? But he seems to be intimating something else. It is the focus on ourselves that somehow is supposed to lead to salvation, that is going to be the primary route for the Church from now on. If so, then it is not to the saints, it is to Freud and Husserl and Karl Marx and the other big names that the world venerates and celebrates to whom the Church will turn for direction from now on--and this is reprehensible and unCatholic. It is secular humanism at its very worst.
Humanism and secular humanism are two different things and I never called More a secularist.
If Derksen actually believes that Pope John Paul II is a secularist he is not living in the same reality that the rest of us inhabit.
If one wants to call the Holy Father a humanist, then that's fair. St. Thomas More, St. Robert Bellarmine and the whole devotio moderna came out of that school.
First of all, what the hell does this mean?
I would recommend reading Redemptor Hominis in its entirety rather than relying on Derksen's piecemeal, ellipsized version.
The basic argument of the encyclical is this: the two foundational mysteries of the Catholic faith are the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Incarnation implies two things: that God humbled Himself for our sake and that, simultaneously, He ennobled us for His sake.
Because of this ennoblement, the Christian perceives human dignity in a transformed and redemptive light.
Christ taught that charity - the love of God for man, of man for God and of men for one another - has redemptive power.
Christ's description in Matthew as to his criteria for salvation: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren that you do unto Me."
Christ has made man's solicitude for his fellow man as fundamental element of the path to salvation, as a way of encountering the risen Christ in our daily activities.
Christ Himself traced this out by his works of mercy and healing.
there is nothing unorthodox or sinister in this teaching and Derksen's lumbering attempts to twist this rich encyclical out of its context and purpose is dishonest.
But he seems to be intimating something else. It is the focus on ourselves that somehow is supposed to lead to salvation, that is going to be the primary route for the Church from now on.
You should read the encyclical before commenting further.
The primary route for the Church proposed in this encyclical is the primary route proposed by Christ, that we love one another as He has loved us.
If so, then it is not to the saints, it is to Freud and Husserl and Karl Marx and the other big names that the world venerates and celebrates to whom the Church will turn for direction from now on--and this is reprehensible and unCatholic.
Yet somehow, the encyclical fails to cite Husserl, Marx or Freud. (By the way, Husserl was not a secular humanist, but a separated Christian).
It cites Scripture, Councils and Popes instead.
It is secular humanism at its very worst.
Only a fantastical hermeneutic of suspicion could tease such a notion out of the encyclical.