>>> 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.
“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.”
Uh, see, you still don’t get the distinction between optimism and hope.
See, in terms of optimism, I’m very pessimistic about a reformed UN. For all I know, Benedict XVI is just as pessimistic.
Pessimism/optimism has to do with what one can reasonably expect, humanly speaking.
But you trashed the pope on his hope. Hope is not based on what can be reasonably expected, humanly speaking. I don’t expect to see a reformed UN anytime soon. I’m not optimistic about it.
But the pope hopes (that’s a theological virtue, one of three Christian theological virtues; it is a gift of God by grace) for a reformed UN because, he believes that a reformed UN is needed as a check on the dangers of nationalism on the one hand, but also believes that subsidiarity is needed as a check on the power of states and even reformed UNs.
But see, you don’t bother with such distinctions. You mocked the pope for his fruitless hopes.
Humanly speaking, a reformed UN is a pipe dream. But I was talking about hope, a choice of will, by grace.
So, nice try at a gotcha. But we are still not communicating. You are reading the pope through your pessimism/optimism lenses. But, the thing is, as pope, he has to write from religious and theological conviction. So he can’t just stop with pessimism and optimism.
So when you read this document purely as a political and economic statement, which is the way the NYTimes and just about everyone else in the chattering classes is reading it, you are going to miss his point.
I was trying to point that out.
But then I’m just a shill, gussying up the pope’s nonsense.
No one objects to the fact that you aren’t a Catholic. Had you not reported that fact, we’d not know it.
The thread was however, quite specialized regarding the translation of one phrase. You and your intersecting bud Q. are the ones who started the global pope-trashing. It may interest you to know that there are plenty of Catholic pope-trashers around so you don’t need to worry about not being Catholic.
Pointing out a aspect of poor translation (abject mistranslation?) does not an "apologia" make.