“You don’t know me from Sam Hill.”
You apparently accused me of mind-reading to the Mod. When I wrote that you know optimism/pessimism but not hope, I did not have to read your mind. What I wrote was based on what you wrote. It was an attempt to explain the difference between optimism and hope. You accused the pope of foolishly relying on the UN as it is because you decided that you know the pope’s mind well enough to know that the pope’s call for a reformed UN is a pipe-dream.
And, by the way, you also appear to read the mind of several of us on this thread when you accuse us of hiding behind discussion of translation problems when our real goal is to gussy up (defend) what in your view are the pope’s hopelessly indefensible views on the world economic and political situation.
You entitled to be convinced that the pope is wrong about economics, politics, the UN etc. But why must you attribute impure motives, shilling, to those of us who believe he’s right?
“Gussied up” is not the language one uses in civil discussion.
I would hope that the Religion Moderator would address the same admonition to you that he or she addressed to me. You came on to a thread dealing with a very specialized aspect of the encyclical and made global accusations against the pope.
“Gussied up”
has been used most of the decades of my 62 years in a countless number of civil discussions public and private.
I might depend on the region one is in or comes from.
It’s not very formal, snooty or high falootin.
It is civil and very communicative.
>>> You apparently accused me of mind-reading to the Mod. <<<
Actually, I read the Religion Moderator’s warning to you before I posted, and decided that he/she was right. I have had no contact with the Relig. Mod.
As for Pope BXVI, if he thinks that the world is in need of a reformed UN (and other international groups) in order to establish an “authentic fraternity” of human peoples or to achieve the “summit” of the process of human development, I would argue that he is in error, not that he is foolish. My disagreement with him relies upon my understanding of what was written in CiV, not some ability to mindread. If you believe that my interpretation of CiV is in error, or that I am being unfair to Pope BXVI or the Magesterium of the Church, please show how and where.
And, for the record, weren’t you the one who called the reformation of the UN a pipe dream?
Your words, from post #44:
“I don’t expect to see a really reformed UN any time soon.
If I were the pope, I wouldn’t put much hope in seeing a really reformed UN.”
>>> hiding behind discussion of translation problems when our real goal is to gussy up (defend) what in your view are the pope’s hopelessly indefensible views on the world economic and political situation. <<<
Yep. “Hiding behind” as in throwing out an argumentative red-herring about mistranslation when, as I have argued, the rest of Section 67 of CiV sits well with the notion of “giving teeth.” I never said Pope BXVI’s views that I addressed here were hopelessly indefensible, just that I found them in error and needful of a defense. So far, the only defense that seems pertinent was markomalley’s Post#23. He seems to rely upon the notion that Section 67 has to be read in the context of all of CiV in order to see how it is acceptable; thus I am currently finishing my reading of it (along w/ “Populorum Pregressio” and “Sollicitudo rei socialis”).
>>> You entitled to be convinced that the pope is wrong about economics, politics, the UN etc. But why must you attribute impure motives, shilling, to those of us who believe he’s right? <<<
You’re mindreading again, not to mention misreading and misrepresenting my previous post.
>>> You came on to a thread dealing with a very specialized aspect of the encyclical and made global accusations against the pope. <<<
I came unto a thread that was not limited to RCs, as far as I could tell. If I am in error, please let me know. The thread is a self-acknowledged “vanity” which frames an apologia for the CiV. I found the basis for the defense unconvincing, and have argued so. If you want to discuss how I am in error in regards to CiV, please address the points I have made. I’d be happy to discuss them. If you want to engage in _ad hominem_ attacks against me or anyone else, or to draw me into such attacks, then don’t bother me to address me.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.