Posted on 10/24/2011 10:01:03 AM PDT by KOZ.
In a scenario which will surely strike some as deja vu, the liberal jesuit Fr. Tom Reese previewed the contents of the document last week, in much the same way that the liberal jesuit Fr. Charles Curran “previewed” Humanae Vitae for the mainstream media before the document was actually released (the pope overruled Fr. Curran’s claims that the Church would endorse contraception — but the media had already made up its mind and few bothered to actually read what the pope had to say).
Here’s Fr. Reese on MSNBC “explaining” the news:
Notice that Fr. Reese does NOT correct the news anchor that this document comes from a vatican congregation — not the pope! Fr. Reese seems perfectly happy to help the mainstream media fundamentally misunderstand the authority of teaching this document enjoys. He claims that the pope has “more in common with the people at occupy wallstreet” than the tea party, even though he has to immediately walk back that claim when it is pointed out to him how violent (and anti-Catholic!) the Occupy Rome demonstrations were (as I blogged about last week). I think it’s no surprise that Fr. Reese spends so much time talking about the 60′s — that’s still his cultural frame of reference.
Rather than get into the nitty-gritty of the 18-page document (which I may do at a later point), let me focus on the most important point: framing. Here’s how Cardinal Turkson, President of the Congregation for Justice and Peace, and Bishop Toso, the secretary, explained how the document should be received and read (underlining mine):
>> …It is in this spirit of discernment that the Holy See, with the note of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, wishes to make a contribution which might be useful to the deliberations of the G-20 meeting”.
>> Bishop Toso explained that the aim of the note is “suggest possible paths to follow, in line with the most recent social Magisterium, for the implementation of financial and monetary policies…”
>> The Church does not wish to enter into the technical issues behind the current economic crisis, but remains within the ambit of her religious and ethical functions…
I have nothing to immediately add to that, because 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.
Liberal Catholic routinely (and in this case) try to read the Church’s social teaching as dogmatic while choosing to view the Church’s moral and religious teaching as optional. In fact, the Church herself is always careful to make clear that her moral and religious teaching is dogmatic and binding while her social teaching –and particularly her economic teaching– is exhortative and prudential.
With those extremely important guidelines in mind, we can more fruitfully read the text.
That said, I am absolutely sure the media cycle for the coming days and weeks will totally miss all these key points and distill this document down to misleading statements such as “Pope Benedict Endorses Central World Bank.” But as I explain above, he didn’t.
Fr. Reese and his liberal Catholic friends would be better served acting as messengers of the Church’s teaching as opposed to creators of it.
What facts do we need to get straight?
Obviously the Vatican apparatus isn’t a huge leftist think tank living off of the tithes of the faithful-so what ‘facts’ are you talking about.
Orthodox thought doesn't encompass economics in an authoritative way. This is not an instruction. Like the man said, it's an exhortation. They do it all the time.
The Vatican is not a corporation. It's a College of Cardinals, which is a lot like any other college or university—which institutions the Church invented, by the way. Cardinals are free to talk and make pronouncements, some of them stupid—such as virtually anything that comes out of Justice and Peace.
The only teachings that are instructive or normative or dogmatic are those that the Church identifies as such. They're all on faith and morals, not politics or econ, and there are no surprises. It's funny. Non-Catholics and fallen-away Catholics are scandalized by two things: the Church's diversity of opinion on secular matters, and the Church's unanimity on faith and morals. Most of them seem to wish it were the other way around.
If Justice and Peace comes out tomorrow morning and says the Trinity doesn't really describe God, their offices will be closed that afternoon, pending a long inquiry and an invitation to the Cardinal in question to spend the rest of his life in quiet contemplation.
Is there any other Vatican institution that is advising world leaders that a single world currency would be a terrible idea?
That’s a real question. Are there institutions within the Vatican that argue free market principles? Why is it we only hear from the Marxists?
LOL.
No, "the Vatican" is not "a" corporation.
The RCC, however, is THE corporation.
The ONLY corporation.
And it has... a LOT of... subsidiaries... LOL...
Orthodox thought doesn't encompass economics in an authoritative way.
Including the mega-billions in the Vatican Bank and its controlling links with The City and Wall Street, which should not in any way be considered "authoritative."
LOL.
Don’t look now but Drudge has this story right under a big picture of Benedict.
Is this the organization we are talking about?
Reading this I think it is completely fair to say they speak for the Vatican on these matters. They were given this authority by two Popes.
Makes me {{{shutter}}} when you call the pope, holy father.
Do you really believe the pope is holy?
Seriously, I’m not trying to stir up trouble.
I’m just curious.
Some wit realized that this was ridiculous early on, so decided to rewrite the headline as:
VATICAN CALLS FOR ‘CENTRAL WORLD RELIGION’...
Why would you “shutter” (sic), haven’t you ever studied anything about Catholic faith and practice?
As for your question, Yes, I believe the Pope is holy... Of course, asking if someone is “holy” is as open a question as asking is someone “right.”
Turning the Bible into a legal document ain’t the only game in town, you know....
bttt
Not sure what you mean by this comment.
I've studied a little, not extensive. Is this in extra-biblical writings such as the Apocrypha <- did I spell that correctly.
I've always been taught that no one is holy except the Lord.
Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty. Referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't this deify the pope by referring to him as holy?
Again, not challenging you, just earnestly curious of the biblical context.
I'm also stunned that the Vatican would call for a world body of anything, seeing as the connotation drums end times prophecy talk.
Do you have an opinion in regards to this?
It’s the liberal media doing what it does, again.
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=21986
Liberal Charles Curran “previewed” Humanae Vitae and the libs claimed the Pope wants a central world bank. He doesn’t. It was a typical misstatement by the libs.
Many years ago, our local paper claimed that the Pope said that a widow could not remarry. Weeks later, and I would suspect after many complaints, the paper corrected their statement to just what the Pope actually said, which was that since marriage forms sexual appetites, a widow who remains chaste after losing her husband, receives special blessings. And, yes, of course she can remarry.
The liberal media never stops attacking the Catholic church.
Nevertheless, I do tend to the acerbic by nature and ask you to bear with me if I should ruffle your sensibilities.
I've always been taught that no one is holy except the Lord.
I understand. This is a fairly standard non-Catholic criticism of Catholics, and bear in mind i also understand you are not critizing per se, at this point.
This teaching comes from a legalistic reading of Luke 18:19 :
And Jesus said to him, Why call you me good? none is good, save one, that is, God
Now keep in mind, the same people who teach this as a criticism of Catholicism, and add Matthew 23:9 for good measure...(And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven) to criticize the Catholic tradition of giving priests the title "Father," don't seem to have any problem with Paul calling men holy in many places such as Titus 1:8 and 1Thes 5:27, nor do they grieve over NT writers repeatedly referring to Abraham as father all through the NT, not the least of which are the 4 or 5 examples just in Romans 4.
In summation, what I am telling you is those who have taught you, whether explicitly or implicitly, are looking for "problems to have" to justify their rejection of the Church that Jesus commissioned so long ago.
This is the import of my statement that had you wondering at the beginning of your post. Does a narrow reading of Scripture to bring accusation against the piety of another strike you as "grace" or "legalism?"
It may be fair. It's just not accurate. Nobody speaks for the Vatican on these matters any more than anyone else. Two Cardinals can (and do) hold press conferences on different days promoting opposite points of view.
Ironically, you haven't gotten your mind around the fact that, when you go outside of faith and morals, the Vatican is more of a philosophical free-for-all than any organization or corporation we Americans are used to. They don't speak for the Vatican on these subjects; they are allowed to speak by the Vatican. The Vatican doesn't back up what they say, or deride it. (You or I would deride it.)
You may find it infuriating. I think Justice & Peace is a waste of oxygen. But it is talk that is not binding on anyone with respect to his salvation. Just opinions. I agree that a lot of Marxist assumptions come out of these commissions, but that's Europe for you. Younger priests are much more conservative these days.
The story that ran on Neuters was what they wish it was. They do this sort of thing all the time. Drudge knows a good headline when he sees it, but the Pope said no such thing; you'll see more about that in the next day or two.
Talisker:
Including the mega-billions in the Vatican Bank and its controlling links with The City and Wall Street, which should not in any way be considered "authoritative."
Don't know what you're smokin', dude, but it's too strong.
I was just telling my husband there must be another side, so I visited FR, and sure enough there is.
Thank you!
Yes, Drudge needs to get his facts straight. Maybe we should all send him the true story, and let him know it’s on FR, by giving him the FR link to this thread.
Drudge is good, by makes mistakes, too.
All religions have individuals, who are mistaken, or wrong, on their opinions, but these mistakes/wrongs are not dogma.
No matter what the sin is, if the sinner is truly sorry for their sin, they will be forgiven, and should not be excommunicated after making a good confession.
Of course, we should still keep them away from children, in case they are tempted to sin again. The boy scouts have it right.
I've heard it on both sides to be fair. Sometimes I wonder if Christ is just shaking his head at all the bantering, thinking to himself, “Yep Dad, it was the right decision to go on down and save these poor saps. (My attempt at humor).
All mainline protestant denominations are losing folks just as the Catholic church. Satan loves to attack the church from within as we've witnessed so many times.
The muzzies, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, Jews all believe they are the only way. Scripture tells me that Christ is the only way and that men are sinful,prone to messing it all up.
How true, evidenced throughout my personal walk with the Lord.
I happen to revere the Catholic church, just so you'll know.
My heart hurts to see so much turmoil within the church.
Mans sinful nature and poor decisions throughout the leadership perpetuated really awful situations. Not exclusive to the Catholic church to be sure.
Often wonder how one reconciles with themselves knowing they've stripped bare the very faith they purport.
Tough stuff.
Beware! The first mistake people usually make when they can't determine who is right and who is mistaken, with the inadequate discernment they have at that time, is to declare everyone mistaken to some degree, instead of seeking to enhance and refine their ability to distinquish wolves from sheep....
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.