[Brian Kopp DPM]

The authors made it clear how it should be interpreted:

the very authors of the document make clear how it should be evaluated: namely, as a “contribution” (as opposed to a mandate), as a “possible path” (as opposed to a moral proscription), in line with the Magisterium’s social teaching (as opposed to introducing a new teaching), without getting into the technical issues (because the Church is an expert in humanity, not economics) while fully staying within the Church’s religious and ethical functions.

[count-your-change]

Yes, I read that and what are they saying except that what they wrote is quite normal, nothing radical, “in line with the Magisterium’s social teaching”?

If that be the case why the rush to say downplay it with explanations of how unofficial it is? Of all things it doesn't mean?

Or is it some sort of intellectual warm up exercise to justify support for a U.N. type global authority to dictate economic policy and enforce it?

[redgolum]

But the statement was made from a Vatican office, by a commission appointed by the Pope, view an official form of communication.

For most of the Catholics out there, it will be viewed as authoritative. You are right Doc in saying it isn't binding, but how many will realize that? How many will use this as a means to justify socialist actions?

The Vatican has a real PR problem if these are just a couple of rouge agents.

View it this way. What would your response be if the Southern Baptists or LCMS had released such a statement?