I shall try again.
There are a variety of "lenses" any man might use in evaluating a thing.
In ethics for instance, he might use consequentialism (the end justifies the means), virtue ethics (all men are good), ethical relativism, natural law and so on.
If he is a one lens kind of guy like Peter Singer, he would justify to himself infanticide, euthanasia and a great many other evils if done for a greater good.
But the wise judge is rational; he does not use just one lens but several in considering a matter. And the wisest judge always considers a matter in light of that which does not change.
The Catholic lens - and the author of the encyclical is of course Catholic - is universal per se. So, of course, that lens is global in everything from theology to economics to governance.
The Protestant lens - and the founding fathers were educated through that lens (New England Primer) - is anti-universal per se. And so, of course, that lens would reject globalism in everything from theology to economics to governance.
These two lenses are polar opposites.
And even in normal theological disputes we see the contention that arises when one side or the other does not consider a matter through both lenses, one insisting on a global theological authority and the other rejecting such authority just as stridently.
And some Christians have additional lenses or a more focused lens. For instance, the apocalyptic lens sees every current event, including this encyclical, in light of Biblical prophecy. And that lens might be further focused by an interpretation of prophecy or a hope for or against the prophecy to be fulfilled at this time.
But at the root we are all Christian. We all agree to the standard that does not change: Who God IS, Who Jesus IS.
Therefore I aver that we should each present what we see through all the lenses we use, acknowledging but not berating the other Christian for what he sees through his own lenses.
They are, after all, only lenses - the important part is that which does not change, God Himself.
You were prescient dearest sister in Christ!
The odd thing is that Protestants are deeply concerned with End-times prophecy, while Catholics (for some strange reason) seem almost perfectly indifferent to it. They just don't seem to worry about the End-times much at all. They know there will be an End; the Pope references it in this encyclical. They just don't seem to exercise themselves too much about it. I can't explain the reason for this difference, but observe it is definitely there.
Anyhoot, that's just one more difficulty standing in the way of "both sides" getting on the same "playing field," so to speak.
Speaking for myself, the way I read Caritas in Veritate is as (1) a biblically-based Christian and (2) as a person schooled in classical philosophy. To me the authority of the Pope is either a gift or grace of God directly or it is no authority at all. In that light, I see this encyclical as having been composed in the full light of the Holy Spirit; it is replete with the pleroma of Christ.
JMHO FWIW.
The Pope wasn't writing just to Catholics; but to universal humanity — just as you suggested. Universality ultimately is a philosophical notion. And the Pope (among other things) happens to be a philosopher. So we "get along fine." :^)
Thank you ever so much for your wise and gracious essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!
Not sure what to add about lenses.
Certainly I have . . . in some respects . . . as all of us do . . .
ONLY our OWN lens with which to view things.
Our OWN lens will no doubt have components . . . as say in a multi-component large telescope . . . of many other lens 'manufacturers.'
Yet, each composite whole will be unique to each individual. Even our understanding of God's 'components' or, try as we might, of God's very unique whole lens . . . is idiosyncratic to each ourselves.
As finite beings, with unique histories, bounded in this time and space, it can be little more than that.
And that little more can only be by outside intervention--by God's breaking through into our time and space . . . and our minds, hearts, souls . . . with HIS TRUTH via Holy Spirit's injected snippets of said Truth.
I suppose the same could be said of satan's injection of lies as truth though to a far lesser degree.
Nevertheless, you make a good point.
I realize that most . . . RC's hereon certainly . . . will likely be more than a little incredulous to read that I earnestly indeavored (and still do) to find a logical, Biblical, true-to-current realities 'out' for the Pope and this encyclical. It's microscopically conceivable to me that I might find such an out on reading the whole thing. I very much doubt it.
And, interestingly, none of those on the other side have dealt a shred with my points--much less logically and much, much less true to the context our era provides. But, imho, the replies against my perspective are not all THAT true to what I read in the encyclical--particularly when considered alongside the realities in our era.
If my lens . . . if my logic . . . if my perspective is that far out of whack vis a vis current realities, it should be somewhat doable, if not easy, to show it logically. I've not observed that happening.
One might say . . . welllll, Quix, your lens, your a priori assumptions etc. soooooooooooooo stack the deck . . . yada yada yada.
I disagree.
1. I read word choices, phrases which are parallel to, in concert with, if not identical to globalist word choices, phrases, goals that I've studied for 44 years.
2. What real cause is there to label one set of such phrases etc. BLACK and a very similar set WHITE? Please show me. I've seen no logical justification for such divergeant labels of such identical word choices and phrases.
3. I've stated that whatever the Pope is saying, trying to say, hinting at, postulating, challenging the world to rise to--however one wishes to put it--whatever he is saying--he IS SAYING IT IN A CONTEXT WHERE GLOBALISM HAS BEEN IN CONTROL FOR AT LEAST 100 YEARS. That's just a fact.
4. No one, on the RC side, that I can recall, has even given passing lip service to noting and understanding that fact.
5. Certainly there are FREEPERS who do not believe such facts about globalism. It boggles my mind that such could be the case on such a conservative website--yet, it is. Blindness, being poorly informed, willful blindness etc. seem to abound in our era--even on FR, sadly. Thankfully, such ranks are diminishing by the day as yet another headline trumpets the wonderous glories of 'culling the populace by abortion' a la Ginsburg etc.
6. No one, on the RC, side, has said a thing, that I can recall, about how serious and comprehensive a factor it is that said satanic globalism IS AND HAS BEEN the reigning power over the globe for so many decades with increasing levels of overt control; increasing tyranny; increasing brazenness. No one.
7. Welllll, it's a fact, or it's not a fact. One could say, PERHAPS--BY SOME WILD STRETCH--that globalism is only 51% in control of the globe . . . or whatever percentage. But to say that satanic globalism is not at the door is maximally idiotic, imho. And, personally, how anyone could say anything lower than 85% or so with OThuga in power and brazen headlines assaulting us every few days about yet another globalist goal or accomplishment or tyrannical method . . . well . . . boggles the mind would be a weak phrase.
8. Does ANY Bible believing, remotely prophetically astute Christia believe that the satanic global government will NOT be in wholesale power and tyrannical control in this era? If so, then, my understanding of Scripture would assert that they don't really believe The Bible--plain and simple.
9. IF they do believe The Bible plainly as written, then it is inescapable to me that the ruthless satanic global government WILL be increasingly in thorough going and comprehensive control over the planet in this era in which Israel became an overt Nation again in the Holy Land.
10. And, certainly the news headlines have INCREASINGLY AFFIRMED THAT VERY THING over the whole of my life--well at least, since 1948--I was born in 1947.
11. So, to me, at some point the above issue is a matter of basic Biblical and basic geopolitical reality testing. Folks either are aware of those realities and accept that they are real, or they aren't &/or they don't.
12. If folks do not realize that basic geopolitical reality vis a vis tyrannical satanic globalism, then there's no dialogue to be had regardless of what lens one actually uses or professes to use.
13. IF one realizes that reality, then one MUST consider the encyclical in light of that reality. There's no alternative. We deal with life as it IS vs as we fantasize that it is. The folks in the assylum deal with "life" as they fantasize that it is.
14. When we consider the encyclical against the realities of this era vis a vis globalism . . . then we have a problem.
15. Please, someone, anyone . . . what OTHER options are there than these?
B) The Pope IS aware of those realities but is in denial about them. That's not overly likely but is somewhat plausible. All kinds of reality is distorted in the name of organizations; the status quo and certainly of !!!!RELIGION!!!. C) The Pope IS aware of those realities but is deceptively playing an intellectual game for whatever purpose(s). One would hope that's not very likely. Yet, a number of Popes have done worse for various reasons. b) a way of helping parisioners cope. c) a way of buying time for intellectual, religious maneuvering with the globalists to try and cobble together whatever concessions or delays one can vainly engineer. d) a way of buying time to vainly await some miraculous intervention to preserve the organization, the power, the perspective of the Vatican. 3) A kind of schizoid sort of fractured response to reality. Yeah, "A" is true and should have response "B" but that is sooooo distressing, we'll just respond with "Z" and pretend that's sane and normal. And when folks are incredulous, we'll just insist that they don't understand our dictionary or that they have the context terminally wrong. I sure hope THAT'S not true. 4) I don't know what OTHER REALISTIC possibilities there logically are. And I have other things to do than try and arrive at a truly exhaustive list. But the options are NOT endless. They are VERY FINITE. And I have not read any convincing ones from ANY RC proponent.
Alamo-Girl, Christian harmony and lack of discord, contention etc. are great Biblical priorities. However, they are not the Supreme Biblical priority. I don't know that they are even in the top 5 or the top 3.
The TRUTH IN LOVE is, to my mind, a rather high priority. And many times, the truth is not FELT to be love, when it actually is. My guess is that you still believe that regardless of whether you believe in a particular application or example of that, or not.
To me, satanic globalism is such a hugely important Biblical End Times issue of serious Eternal Life/Eternal Death import to millions of souls . . . it MUST NOT be dealt with in a slippery, diplo-speak slicing and dicing fashion.
The facts are brutally, starkly true. We have a Supreme Court Justice speaking of culling the undesirables out of society by infanticide. Worse, THERE'S NO UPROAR remotely equal to the outrageous position she's taken. And that's just ONE amongst several HUNDRED starkly brutal facts about this moment in global history.
Folks may wish to read the encyclical as though such facts do not exist or are not true--but it won't fly for any seriously thinking and any seriously aware Christian Conservative.
Given that such global and globalist facts ARE TRUE, then the encyclical MUST be read in that light.
Those facts do NOT provide even the Pope a lot of wiggle room.
He can pontifically CLAIM all the wiggle room the magicsterical encourages him to claim. He can clutch tightly all the Pontifical power still at his disposal. He can use all the propaganda resources of the Vatican to spread the view through the Vatican lens far and wide over the globe.
In the end, it won't matter. Scripture is clear. ALL PEOPLE GROUPS, NATIONS ETC. WILL COME UNDER THE IRON THUMB, THE IRON BOOT, THE GUILLOTINE of the global government.
So, anyone--Mark OMalley?--anyone--PLEASE tell me . . . what hope has this encyclical--EVEN GIVEN THE BEST LIGHT INTERPRETATION--WHAT HOPE does this encyclical have of effecting redemptive results of the slightest sort lasting another minute once the global government decides to lower the boom on all matters on which the encyclical touches?