Posted on 10/13/2009 12:56:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.
Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues.
This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order.
Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldviewtimes.com ...
Very good points. Thx.
Did I mention my conversation with Sister Joseph Andrew, OP the other week? She was visiting to be part of a sort of career day thing at the UVA (if I understand it all) and she was presenting the possibility of being a "religious".
I asked her how she felt about the response, and she said she was surprised and encouraged by the interest and the fervor of the interest in giving one's life to Christ. I told her how amazed I was at the commitment and fervor I have seen for 4 years of RCIA. (As you know, that's our program for ensnaring innocent young souls into the arms of the ho' of Babylon.)
Then I related my hunch that this is God preparing us for a time of martyrdom. Her response was that she also had had the hunch that this was a "time of mercy" which would lead to a "time of purifying."
It's a Catholic thing to take the first part of Psalm 19 and make it an image of the spread of the gospel, that it's as unstoppable as the rays of the sun or the song of the stars. "Their voice has gone out into all the world ..."
Yeah, we all have to do a gut-check. This is a roiled and troubled time and I think it gets worse before it gets s better.
Once again, thanks for ignoring the specific points I made about _CiV_ in my previous and most recent posts.
>>> Seems to me you are engaging in preemptive panty bunching. The Catholic Church is not a threat. <<<
“Panty bunching”????
I’m not sure in what sense you think the Church of Rome is being called a threat, but once again that’s not the point I’m making. It is worthwhile to “call out” someone (or some institution) for advocating a grave evil regardless of whether or not that person is the head of a small university or the head of a major nation-state. Or of the Church of Rome.
>>> The same crowd who engage in collective hand-wringing and Pope bashing are the first to bemoan the Churches lack of ability to crack down on wayward Catholic politicians. <<<
And what crowd would that be? Please detail my connection to this “crowd.”
If you think that my posts are about “Pope bashing,” then I can only assume that you are not reading them with any degree of seriousness. _CiV_ is addressed, in part, to “all people of good will.” Honest, it’s right there on the title page. _CiV_, as far as I can tell, does not say that it as a document is beyond criticism; if it were, why bother to address people of good will outside of the Church of Rome?
>>> I believe, like many, that the writing of the CiV was guided by the same Holy Spirit that guided the writing of the US Constitution. <<<
Ah. Rushdoony. That explains a lot. As for _CiV_ being inspired by the Holy Spirit, let’s say that I strongly doubt that is the case.
>>> The Church has a duty to God to serve all of mankind, not just those fortunate enough to have been born in the US. <<<
(Sniff-sniff) I think I smell boiler-plate here. I’ve read this reply before, almost word-for-word.
My rejoinder: does the DUTY of the Church of Rome include the advocacy (and, one would guess, at least moral support) of a reformed UN and a global political, juridical and economic ORDER as the means to best administer all of those roadblocks to “integral human development” discussed in _CiV_? That’s the point at issue here. Please stick to the point.
>>> The CiV reaffirms that all men are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, not just Protestant Americans. <<<
Apparently so, and yet the _CiV_ ALSO affirms the creation of a global political, juridical and economic ORDER that would be the world’s greatest threat to those inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Quite the self-contradiction, don’t you think? It’s as if Pius XII had issued an Encyclical in 1939 advocating that the Empire of Japan should be driven out of China, BUT with the previso that no Japanese soldiers should be injured or killed while driving them out.
Actually, this is an interpretation that I’ve considered. I believe Quix has, too. Namely : that _CiV_ is in large part systematically confused, if not incoherent, on the question of globalization.
>>> If you have a problem with that I have to question the sincerity of your Christianity. <<<
To be honest, I’m finding it difficult understanding what you are driving at here. A problem with what? Be precise. If you think that I’m advocating that US Roman Catholics should be deprived of their civil rights, you are sadly mistaken.
INDEED.
VERY WELL PUT.
GOD BLESS THE DEAR SISTER AND HER COHORTS.
Like most large bureaucraic political speak . . . The Vatican can point to whatever parts of the encyclical it needs to to appease or satisfy or mollify whoever is ranting about it.
There are sufficient weighty code-word sorts of phrases in the document to satisfy the most tyrannical globalist.
There's also sufficient moral Christian this's and thats in phrases and word choices to be able to claim [not with a very straight face but when do magicsterical bureaucrats speak with a straight face anyway in any organization] . . . for them to be able to claim that Mother Mary is quite thrilled with the whole thing. They probably even have copies bound in white hankies for the very faithful and well heeled benefactors.
Soooooooooo, yet again, the Vatican plays real politics in the world of globalism and geopolitics while mollifying the 'paranoid' faithful. . . . insuring that the latter group is increasingly marginalized. No need to upset further the remaining Ted Kennedys, after all.
>>> Nothing wrong with wanting and working for a united world. It just depends what you mean by that and how you go about it. <<<
“Nimrod! Would a Mr. Nimrod please pick up on the white courtesy phone!”
>>> I think that the encyclical is a deliberate obsfucation of the Vatican’s attitude towad globalism while also including a very potent paragraph declaring, essentially, that some form of tyrannical global control is essential for whatever moral or other reasons to the welfare of humanity, if not the globe. <<<
I agree. You can make a document long enough and vague enough so that a spokesman can make it say whatever fits the occasion. Our Congress is especially adept at this sort of thing.
Thus, I think you’re right about the Church of Rome’s attitude toward globalism... well, except for the fact that I’m not so sure about the existence of “bad faith” on Rome’s part. The confusion or contradiction could simply be a reflection of a division within the Vatican over “what is to be done” about the juggernaut of globalism. Or perhaps indicative of an inability to come to terms with it.
And let’s not forget that there are two kinds of globalism in _CiV_: the bad, insufficiently uncontrolled kind and the good, tamed kind. I’d say that _CiV_’s bad kind would be “the system of international capital” or modern capitalism. Some posters to this thread have noted that the Church of Rome has a strong ANTI-COMMUNIST tradition. This is true enough, but ignores the fact that Rome has a fairly strong ANTI-CAPITALIST tradition, too (especially when it comes to things like international finance). Not so sure about their being anti-Socialist. Pretty sure that they are NOT anti-Monarchist!
Let’s also not forget that the “very potent paragraph” that is Section 67 is also the final paragraph of Chapter Five, “Tho Cooperation of the Human Family.” It’s not just an afterthought that was poorly translated into English; it’s the climactic resolution to the problems and conflicts set forth in the rest of the chapter.
Imagine here that _CiV_ is a play in 6 acts. Act 5 begins with a litany of problems or dilemmas: alienation, secularism and a lack of religious discernment, economic aid to LDCs, international tourism...international tourism ???!!!... yah, international tourism, etc. As the Act ends, the orchestra starts to play a rousing march. A group of soldiers file in to occupy the stage and bring an end to the discord and strife. And all the men are wearing... little blue helmets. Gee, makes me wonder what will happen in Act 6!
Excellent points . . . WHICH I AGREE WITH WHOLESALE.
I don’t know that the Vatican has deliberate bad faith about tyrannical globalism . . . it just seems that way in that key paragraph.
And all the obsfucating double speak does not water such down for me . . . at all.
Good. If I decide to become a devout Christian, I'll be sure to ask you if your church has a branch in the DC area.
CiV does call for global change, but not the kind of changes you are worried about. I calls for the relationships between and among nations to be governed by God’s laws. Do you really have a problem with that?
Because it didn't happen. And Anyone with any brains in the Catholic community; or any denominational Christians need to realize that they had no business voting for this current phoney pReZident barack hussein obama.
Any "Catholics" that voted for him better get your heads on straight. Doubt your here as FReepers, but if you are, best be checking on that.
So much depends on the attitude one brings to a document. One of my favorite guys and favorite priests was a student of Joseph Ratzinger's (as he was then) and he thinks he is a wonderful guy and he rejoices that now that he's pope he has the chance to show his loving and pastoral side -- a chance he didn't have when he was Chief Inquisitor or whatever he was.
Consequently, I come to his stuff expecting the work of a VERY learned, thoughtful, and devout man. And I do not expect Jesuitickal (spelling intentional) duplicity.
The matter is complex. Most matters are, if not in themselves then in the language one must try to use to explain them.
We don't want a simply secular world government, we dread it. We don't much look for a government as the world currently does governing. We DO, however, have a vision of pervasive charity. And thought of world-wide cooperation is a part of that vision, however unlikely we think it that the vision would come true any time soon.
I haven't read the entire encyclical. But My approach to it is not so much to understand politics as to understand what God's love requires "on the ground."
>This is vaguely like reading Aquinas on Love and discovering that it is in that section of the Summa that he deals with war. He's not advocating war and you wouldn't read that part (or any part) of the Summa to learn how to fight a war. But war is a matter with which Christian thought must deal and the starkest problem is how we can possibly "study war" when we are called to love.
One more: When one reads the Inferno and the Purgatorio, one learns about human failures to love and what follows from them. Thus one learns more about what love and loving are. When one looks at the current state of the world.... well, pretty much ditto.
Gotta go.
SOUND, REASONED, ACCURATE POINTS, IMHO.
THX MUCH.
I think the sweep of history in era will make most of these cogitations and pontifications of ours far more moot than we would prefer in our finiteness.
Thankfully, FATHER GOD DOES ALL THINGS WELL.
LUB
HOPE YOUR VIGIL PRICKS SOME CONSCIENCES. I did my stint there during our local 40 days.
What you are seeing here is the Soros anti-Catholic/Christian campaign.
Similar slanderous attacks are directed at fellow Chistians and Jews, and I am able to see them for what they are. Attacks on faith in God.
The Vatican in no way endorses Obama, they respect his presidency. The Vatican in no way endorses Obamacare, or Cap and Trade. This “article” is filled with empty baseless, accusations.
Are there liberal priests who don’t follow church doctrine? Yes, it is ultimately “the vatican” who will either set them straight or kick them out.
That is why we don’t go with the secular flow like the Episcopelian church and others. I think Jesus knew what he was doing in appointing Peter to lead His church.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
That is why the Catholic faith is such a threat to these Marxist goons.
>>> CiV does call for global change, but not the kind of changes you are worried about. <<<
The “kind of changes” I am “worried about” are stated explicitly in the text of _CiV_. If you have a problem with them, I suggest writing a letter to your bishop or someone higher up the line.
>>> I calls for the relationships between and among nations to be governed by God’s laws. Do you really have a problem with that? <<<
Whether or not I would have a problem with a call “for the relationships between and among nations to be governed by God’s laws” would depend on how God’s laws are defined and, more importantly for the present discussion, how they are going to be ajudicated, followed and enforced. That is, how are God’s Laws going to be expressed in human, institutional terms. If you are familiar with the history of Europe and the Mediterranean area, you’ll know that even if there is a large degree of agreement over what God’s Laws are, this does not entail much concord over how the laws are to be expressed or followed.
To tell the truth, what I have a big problem with is the MEANS whereby _CiV_ calls for international relations to be governed by God’s laws. I’ve been pretty clear about that.
A global controlling legal authority with enough power to deal with all the issues that _CiV_ identifies as impediments to reaching “integral human development” of “entire peoples” is a global institution that has enough power to extinguish the liberties of me and my neighbors. Given Man’s post-lapsarian “nature,” the prospect of such an authority fills me with dread, not hope.
And as you might remember, I also have a problem with the gap between Our Lord’s call to love our neighbor as ourselves and _CiV_’s call to, say, reform the international tourism industry to better facilitate the educational development of the world’s peoples. The lack of a bridging argument to go from Gospel point A to _CiV_ point B is more than a little troubling: both the “how” to go there and the “why” go there need to be adumbrated before I could even think of giving my assent.
>>> We don’t want a simply secular world government, we dread it. <<<
As for me, I simply don’t want a world government.
The question immediately arises whether the notion of a specifically CHRISTIAN world government makes sense before Our Lord’s return. CHRISTIAN world government strikes me as being an oxymoron, sort of like “Christian COMINTERN.”
>>> When one reads the Inferno and the Purgatorio, one learns about human failures to love and what follows from them. Thus one learns more about what love and loving are. When one looks at the current state of the world.... well, pretty much ditto. <<<
Perhaps you should be reading Dante’s _Monarchia_, too.
BXVI is clearly calling for institutional remedies on an international and global scale. _CiV_ is not simply a call to love thy neighbor, to treat him charitably. It’s a lot more complex and detailed than that. And, as Cicero’s post stated, the devil here is in the details.
Your problem is not with the means, or een the content of the CiV. Your problem is with the author. A common theme in your posting history is an intense dislike and distrust for all things Catholic. That is a completely irrational position so further attempts at a rational dialog are not possible.
What would I find? I guess I'm mostly a poetry guy when it comes to Dante.
In all seriousness, can we reasonably envision differing world gummints without war sooner or later happening? I guess I actually do think that's possible, but I don't know.
I think that if people ignore what PapaBenXVI and the Church generally say about subsidiarity then the general point he's making is not likely to be understood. TO me, at least (and bearing in mind I haven't really blitzed this document) it sounds like the embodiment of a government which is on the money about subsidiarity would have to be a federalism looser than any we've enjoyed in the US in the past 100 years.
Not trying to be nasty! If you wish to quote the Vatican it would be great for it to come from the original source document not some guys take on what he thinks it says. The meaning of the original pronoucement is a little skewed by the article that is all!
Cheers
Mel
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.