George Weigel on Caritas in Veritate -- Right On!

[TMC]

You’ll notice I said “social encyclicals”–which are what formally teach the church’s social doctrine. What I said stands. I would also point out that “redistribution” is not used in Gaudium et spes nor in CCE “Guidelines for the Study of and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests.”

Popularum progressio rejects collectivism (#33) as does JPII and advocates “redistribution” in sense (2) below as does John Paul II which is clear from the explicit teaching his social encyclicals that, again, never use the word “redistribution.” In Redemptor hominis (16), which you cite, immediately before he uses the word “redistribution” he says “laws of healthy competition must be allowed to lead the way”.

I would distinguish, then, and perhaps we are thinking the same thing regarding the word “redistribution.”

(1) If by “redistribution” one means the taking of an individual’s or group’s earned or accumulated wealth by governmental fiat to redistribute according a governmental agenda which seeks a direct leveling down of wealth across a nation’s populace and to establish equality of result not just an equality of opportunity, that is tantamount to collectivism which is condemned. The principle of and the word “redistribution” in this sense has been part of European philosophical socialism, not catholic social teaching (=CST), from the beginning.

(2) If by “redistribution” one is speaking of the inevitable end result of the application of the actual social teaching of the Church (the aim of CST from the beginning) which includes the regulated but free market; private ownership of property and the means of production; independent individual or group initiative; competition; bridled, regulated capitalism; condemns collectivism; and also teaches the creation of opportunity; education; opening markets for broader access; establishment of the rule of law and democratic structures where lacking; opposing religious fundamentalism; sharing scientific, medical, technical, and business know how; the presumption of initiative; cutting back on expensive aid bureaucracies for poor countries, then I’m all for it.

Seems to me you are hanging your argument on some thing semantic threads - distinguishing between “social” encyclicals and other Church teachings (what does it matter how you label the documents, the teaching is what it is); and also straining to say that the teachings don’t really mean what they obviously say. I stand by what I have said all along – Caritas in Veritae was not hijacked by sneaky lefties slipping in code words past an addled or inattentive Pontiff, rather it reflects the long-standing teaching of the Church.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Seems to me you are hanging your argument on some thing semantic threads - distinguishing between “social” encyclicals and other Church teachings (what does it matter how you label the documents, the teaching is what it is); and also straining to say that the teachings don’t really mean what they obviously say. I stand by what I have said all along – Caritas in Veritae was not hijacked by sneaky lefties slipping in code words past an addled or inattentive Pontiff, rather it reflects the long-standing teaching of the Church.

So are you talking “redistribution” (1) or (2) when you affirm that it is taught in CST? Do they obviously mean (1) or (2)?

 

[TMC]

So are you talking “redistribution” (1) or (2) when you affirm that it is taught in CST? Do they obviously mean (1) or (2)?

The Church clearly supports both, but does not mandate precisely the mechanism to be used in either case.

 

[TMC]

So are you talking “redistribution” (1) or (2) when you affirm that it is taught in CST? Do they obviously mean (1) or (2)?

Do you buy Weigel’s argument that Caritas in Veritae was hijacked by nefarious elements that inserted material inconsistent with the Church’s long-standing teachings? If so, how did they slip their wrongful language past our theologian-in-chief?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Do you buy Weigel’s argument that Caritas in Veritae was hijacked by nefarious elements that inserted material inconsistent with the Church’s long-standing teachings? If so, how did they slip their wrongful language past our theologian-in-chief?

Weigel doesn’t quite say this. He says, “But then there are those passages to be marked in red–the passages that reflect Justice and Peace ideas and approaches that Benedict evidently believed he had to try and accommodate.”

As I mentioned to you above my concerns were over continuity with the tradition of CST, and ergo what to assent to. That’s what resonated with me in his editorial. I also indicated that these concerns are cleared up and I showed why.

The Church clearly supports both, but does not mandate precisely the mechanism to be used in either case.

I have argued that, excluding egregious exceptional cases, the church clearly falls squarely on the side of (2) not (1) at the systemic policy level for a national economy, and I gave the reasons by listing its teachings to that effect including what it rejects. At the policy level defining a national economy (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive in CST.

To make your case you need to show how at that level the church supports collectivism (1) which it rejects every time both explicitly and by the economic principles it affirms.