Yet those were not "his own words," but rather a poor translation.
That no longer washes in the least.
There’s been more than sufficient time to publish a better translation of the contested phrases and sentences that have raised such a widespread furor.
The Vatican is clearly comfortable enough with the translation to let it stand as a published Vatican position.
The Vatican is evidently happier with it than you are.
I guess I don’t understand very well being wholesale submitted to the Pope etc. on the part of Roman Catholics.
Perhaps they’d adjust things post haste on receipt of your email.
Please let us know how they reply.
>>> Yet those were not “his own words,” but rather a poor translation. <<<
That’s nonsense, Petronski, and you know it.
The “toothy” translation of section 67 makes perfect sense in the context of Chapter 5 and the document as a whole. Section 67 is the conclusion and culmination of Chapter 5, which presents a slew of policy proposals related to finance, labor, poverty, the environment and so on, all in the context of the “integral” “development” of our planet’s human peoples. To deny the “toothy” translation — or to try to sweep the significance of section 67 under the rug by focusing all attention on this red herring — is to deny the key significance of “managed globalism” to _Caritas in Veritate_. Such a denial would only make nonsense of the entire document.
Please let me know if you want to engage in a serious discussion of the meaning of _Caritas in veritate_. A willingness to discuss what is meant by “Integral Human Development,” of individuals and of whole peoples, would be a start.
Lol. A "poor translation" from the Vatican itself!
If the Vatican doesn't like this translation why hasn't it put out another, more "accurate" one?
The simple answer is that the Vatican likes this translation just fine. It says what the pope wants it to say.