George Weigel on Caritas in Veritate -- Right On!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fr_of_Jazz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is two years old. When the encyclical came out, many on the political right criticized it. As a Catholic, I prefer to learn from the Church. Therefore, I tend to accept the encyclicals and the teaching of the Holy Father over the critics. I read Caritas in Veritate as a student, not a redactor and not an editor.
 
pnewton said:
This is two years old. When the encyclical came out, many on the political right criticized it. As a Catholic, I prefer to learn from the Church. Therefore, I tend to accept the encyclicals and the teaching of the Holy Father over the critics. I read Caritas in Veritate as a student, not a redactor and not an editor.
Click to expand...
Wow!

Well, I too prefer to learn from the church: it teaches my to THINK.

Encyclicals do not descend from heaven à la fundamentalist’s idea of scriptural inspiration. There are often machinations–why, even the very ones Weigel outlines–behind some documents. Did you note them? Did you compare this encyclical with the line of social teaching going back all the way to Rerum novarum?

Do you think income/wealth redistribution is in line with traditional Catholic Social teaching expressed in say . . . oh, I don’t know . . . Centesimus annus? Do you really think there aren’t lefties vying for a say in the The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace? Do you know who George Weigel is? He’s not exactly known for infidelity to the magisterium.

I was always taught, by the church, that to read something as a student requires thinking about it.
 
I believe it was Supreme Knight Carl Anderson who said of CiV “Don’t read it to see where it confirms your own prejudices. Read it to see where it challenges them.” As much as I respect George Weigel, he would do well to take that advice.

Benedict is one of the most thorough and meticulous thinkers of any intellectual and religious persuasion alive today. Weigel’s implication that the Pope rubberstamped something snuck in a draft which he would not have otherwise approved of is quite credulous.

I can sympathize with Weigel’s ubiquitous concern that some of these issues can be Trojan horses for decidedly more nefarious things. But the Encyclical makes it abundantly clear that these nefarious things are verboten. So there is no issue.

I would point out my perception that over the last few years Wiegel’s writing has crept toward being unhinged at times, perhaps coming out of this funk in the last year or so. His CiV essay was smack in the middle of that period. I can speculate as to why this has happened, although I’ll refrain for now as others might not share my perception.
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
Do you know who George Weigel is? He’s not exactly known for infidelity to the magisterium.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know who he is, as well as who Pope Benedict is. As to his article, I never was a fan of source criticism. So much of what Weigel said I weighed to be of little importance. How Pope Benedict came to write part of it is irrelevant to me. It is his encyclical. By the way, do not assume that I do not read thoughtfully just because I read with humility. I know who George Weigel is, but not you. Likewise, you do not know me.

As a rule, criticism of the teaching of the Church, regardless of who makes it, will probably receive some disagreement here. Surely you know this. Might I suggest you look up some of the archive on this. There was even a subforum on this encyclical when it was released.
 
manygift1spirit said:
I believe it was Supreme Knight Carl Anderson who said of CiV “Don’t read it to see where it confirms your own prejudices. Read it to see where it challenges them.” As much as I respect George Weigel, he would do well to take that advice.

Benedict is one of the most thorough and meticulous thinkers of any intellectual and religious persuasion alive today. Weigel’s implication that the Pope rubberstamped something snuck in a draft which he would not have otherwise approved of is quite credulous.

I can sympathize with Weigel’s ubiquitous concern that some of these issues can be Trojan horses for decidedly more nefarious things. But the Encyclical makes it abundantly clear that these nefarious things are verboten. So there is no issue.

I would point out my perception that over the last few years Wiegel’s writing has crept toward being unhinged at times, perhaps coming out of this funk in the last year or so. His CiV essay was smack in the middle of that period. I can speculate as to why this has happened, although I’ll refrain for now as others might not share my perception.
Click to expand...
As I said there are many great points made well in the encyclical. The thing is in other cases–and I think this is Weigel’s point–it’s hard to assent to something when (1) it conflicts with teachings (humbly received) from the entire tradition of social teaching back to Rerum novarum; and (2) in several passages you don’t even know what it means.

(1) (a) Unlike every other social encyclical private property and private ownership are not mentioned once in CiV nor is collectivism/socialism condemned. And this coupled with
(b) the use of the word “redistribution” with respect to wealth at least 7 times #s 32, 36, 37, 39, 42 (3 times), 49]. We all know that “redistribution” is code for collectivist/socialist policies and ideologies. As you know, collectivism itself (not just atheistic communism) has been condemned or rejected by every social encyclical even by Popularum progressio (#33) and recently Centesimus Annus, (#41).

So what is one supposed to assent to? the traditional Catholic social teaching on private property and ownership of the means of production, market economy, and bridled capitalism OR now, apparently, collectivist income and wealth redistribution?

Where does the encyclical make it clear that collectivism is verboten?

(2) What exactly does this mean with respect to economic systems: “In order to defeat underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare structures, but above all on gradually increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion.” (#39)
The whole discussion of gratuitousness and gift in the context of economic policy is so nebulous, general, and left unapplied, many of us have no idea what they mean with reference to economic life: concretely and specifically he has not explained what this might look like in reality and what he is referring to. Should one expect the gift of more and more free stuff from the government? We know what this type of thinking is doing to the economies European countries and some of our own states in the US.

What is one supposed to assent to here as well?
 
pnewton said:
Yes, I know who he is, as well as who Pope Benedict is. As to his article, I never was a fan of source criticism. So much of what Weigel said I weighed to be of little importance. How Pope Benedict came to write part of it is irrelevant to me. It is his encyclical. By the way, do not assume that I do not read thoughtfully just because I read with humility. I know who George Weigel is, but not you. Likewise, you do not know me.

As a rule, criticism of the teaching of the Church, regardless of who makes it, will probably receive some disagreement here. Surely you know this. Might I suggest you look up some of the archive on this. There was even a subforum on this encyclical when it was released.
Click to expand...
And you shouldn’t think that that I dont’t read humbly because I think encyclicals through and compare them with prior teachings.

As I said there are many great points made well in CiV. The problems of exactly what to assent to (humbly) in other parts of the encyclical are spelled out in response to “manygifts1spirit” below.

I’ll check out the subforum.
 
I suggest that people have a look at Quadragesimo anno of Pius XI. As well as Populorum Progressio of Paul VI. The Roman Pontiffs have never endorsed unbridled capitalism which is not the same thing as a free market, contrary to what many neo-conservatives may think. An economy regulated on Christian principles is not the same thing as ‘socialism’.
 
Hadrianus said:
I suggest that people have a look at Quadragesimo anno of Pius XI. As well as Populorum Progressio of Paul VI. The Roman Pontiffs have never endorsed unbridled capitalism which is not the same thing as a free market, contrary to what many neo-conservatives may think. An economy regulated on Christian principles is not the same thing as ‘socialism’.
Click to expand...
True. I said bridled capitalism.
True. An economy regulated on Christian principles is not the same thing as ‘socialism’.

My concerns are different as I indicated; and I accept the teachings of all prior social encyclicals. Like I said, I just don’t know what to assent to in certain parts of CiV for the reasons given. Others, NP.
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
And you shouldn’t think that that I dont’t read humbly because I think encyclicals through and compare them with prior teachings.
Click to expand...
I would never think or assume such a thing, nor did I say you didn’t.
 
George Weigel’s take on Caritas in Veritate is thinly-veiled and very poorly argued for dissent from the teachings of a papal encyclical.

Please read this article for an excellent summary.

Also, this political cartoon really just says it all.
 
If you start listening to one part of the encyclical and ignoring that which you don’t like makes you a cafeteria Catholic. What next? Take the parts out of the Gospels that make you uneasy, or challenge you.
" Gee, I just don’t think turning of the other cheek is in concert with my belief in human dignity"- or do you say-“Hard as it is Shouldn’t I try to do it?”
As human beings we have a tendency to disregard or rationalize our opposition to that which makes us uncomfortable. In my class I I teach that if the Gospels don’t make you feel uncomfortable or challenge you , but only leave you feeling good about yourself then -YOU ARE NOT READING IT RIGHT!. Scripture should cut you to the heart-it should make you take stock in how far you will go to practice what the Word preaches. Same with any church document that teaches. If it doesn’t make you look to your own failings and how you can improve yourself or society- then why write it? Making you feel good is not Gospel imperative. Salvation is.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
George Weigel’s take on Caritas in Veritate is thinly-veiled and very poorly argued for dissent from the teachings of a papal encyclical.

Please read this article for an excellent summary.

Also, this political cartoon really just says it all.
Click to expand...
Thanks for information and discussion.

First, when I read the encyclical I loved the many good and original points he made (the majority of the encyclical) such as his further elaboration of the theme of development started in Popularum progressio, his emphasis on the rule of law, and not creating dependency relationships with those we help. But there were from the beginning some things that I didn’t know how to make sense of in the light of all prior social teaching. See below. Weigel’s article gave voice to some of the same concerns I had in his own (at least supposedly) Vatican-insider way. So far no one in this discussion has addressed these concerns except peripherally.

Second, I don’t know if you read my concerns to “manygift1spirit” immediately below, but rather than just cry dissent (which I abhor too) check out what I’m really saying. My problem is I have no idea–in these few cases–just what one is expected to assent to.

For convenience I’ve basically copied it below, if you wish to address these issues head on. I would find it instructive.

As I said there are many great points made well in the encyclical. The thing is in other cases–and I think this is Weigel’s point–it’s hard to assent to something when (1) it appears to conflict with teachings from the entire tradition of social doctrine back to Rerum novarum; and (2) in several passages you don’t even know what it means.

(1) (a) Unlike every other social encyclical private property and private ownership are not mentioned once in CiV nor is collectivism/socialism condemned. Also economic initiative in the sense of (Compendium of Social Teaching 186, 336, 343; Centesimus annus, 13; Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 15; CCC, 2429) is hardly if at all mentioned. And this is coupled with
(b) the use of the word “redistribution” with respect to wealth at least 7 times #s 32, 36, 37, 39, 42 (3 times), 49]. We all know that “redistribution” is code for collectivist/socialist policies and ideologies. As you know, collectivism itself (not just atheistic communism) has been condemned or rejected by every social encyclical even by Popularum progressio (#33) and recently Centesimus annus, (#41) and the CCC.

So what is one supposed to assent to? the traditional Catholic social teaching on private property and ownership of the means of production, market economy, emphasis on economic initiative, and bridled capitalism, OR now, apparently, collectivist income and wealth redistribution?

(2) What exactly does this mean with respect to economic systems: “In order to defeat underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare structures, but above all on gradually increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion.” (#39)
The whole discussion of gratuitousness and gift in the context of economic policy is so nebulous, general, and left unapplied many of us have no idea what they mean with reference to economic life: concretely and specifically he has not explained what this might look like in reality and what he is referring to. Surely he doesn’t mean that one should expect the gift of more and more free stuff from the government? Does he?? We know what this type of thinking is doing to the economies European countries and some of our own states in the US.

So, again, what is one supposed to assent to?
 
juliamajor said:
If you start listening to one part of the encyclical and ignoring that which you don’t like makes you a cafeteria Catholic. What next? Take the parts out of the Gospels that make you uneasy, or challenge you.
" Gee, I just don’t think turning of the other cheek is in concert with my belief in human dignity"- or do you say-“Hard as it is Shouldn’t I try to do it?”
As human beings we have a tendency to disregard or rationalize our opposition to that which makes us uncomfortable. In my class I I teach that if the Gospels don’t make you feel uncomfortable or challenge you , but only leave you feeling good about yourself then -YOU ARE NOT READING IT RIGHT!. Scripture should cut you to the heart-it should make you take stock in how far you will go to practice what the Word preaches. Same with any church document that teaches. If it doesn’t make you look to your own failings and how you can improve yourself or society- then why write it? Making you feel good is not Gospel imperative. Salvation is.
Click to expand...
True.

Now could you address my questions (to “fone bone 2011”) head on so I know what to assent to in the encyclical and the gospel can make me feel bad too.
 
‘What Weigel appears to me to be doing is minimizing the force of Caritas in Veritate. He seems to be bent on explaining away those political and economic positions that resemble the “then-popular leftist and progressive conceptions” that played a role in Populorum Progressio. What really seems to be going on here is this: Weigel is expressing his discomfort with Caritas in Veritate and those elements that are contrary to the neo-liberal positions to which he clings. For years he has been proclaiming the alleged liberalism of John Paul II in an effort to bring together Catholic social principles and conservative ideology in America. The latest encyclical threatens this union, so Weigel has invented sources of light (who write with gold ink) and darkness (who write in red ink), situating them together in a grand epic that narrates their clashes in the writing of papal social encyclicals. Weigel, then, fancies himself our guide through the story (since he has those degrees in Vaticanology), parsing out whats good and true, and what is just “clotted and muddled.” Ah, the imagination runs wild’
You really should the material on fone bones link. . as far as Gospel unnerving folk - in the NT it unnerves enough people to make Jesus’ life dangerous It should unnerve us to follow his path as best as we can. I have failed to live up to all the principles that I read and teach about. When I recognize it - yes it troubles me. And yes, I try much harder to live up to it. .
redistribution of wealth was a principle in the primitive church. It is a belief that was never really discarded- and maybe one whose time has come again.
 
juliamajor said:
‘What Weigel appears to me to be doing is minimizing the force of Caritas in Veritate. He seems to be bent on explaining away those political and economic positions that resemble the “then-popular leftist and progressive conceptions” that played a role in Populorum Progressio. What really seems to be going on here is this: Weigel is expressing his discomfort with Caritas in Veritate and those elements that are contrary to the neo-liberal positions to which he clings. For years he has been proclaiming the alleged liberalism of John Paul II in an effort to bring together Catholic social principles and conservative ideology in America. The latest encyclical threatens this union, so Weigel has invented sources of light (who write with gold ink) and darkness (who write in red ink), situating them together in a grand epic that narrates their clashes in the writing of papal social encyclicals. Weigel, then, fancies himself our guide through the story (since he has those degrees in Vaticanology), parsing out whats good and true, and what is just “clotted and muddled.” Ah, the imagination runs wild’
Click to expand...
First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond. It’s an important discussion.

And I did read fone bone 2011’s material so I recognize your quote of the last paragraph in the article. But again it is peripheral to the concerns that I took the time to lay out in systematic way.
You really should the material on fone bones link. . as far as Gospel unnerving folk - in the NT it unnerves enough people to make Jesus’ life dangerous It should unnerve us to follow his path as best as we can. I have failed to live up to all the principles that I read and teach about. When I recognize it - yes it troubles me. And yes, I try much harder to live up to it. .
redistribution of wealth was a principle in the primitive church. It is a belief that was never really discarded- and maybe one whose time has come again.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am not hearing you correctly. Every social encyclical, the CCC, and the Compendium of Social Doctrine condemns collectivism. You’re saying not only that you acknowledge that CiV actually now teaches it but that that departure from the entire tradition of social teaching is acceptable: the times have changed and our doctrines must change with them. Would you say that about any other teaching with the same history? Vat II affirmed that (among other things) we know the level and certainty of a teaching from the frequency with which it is repeated. If someone revised the teaching on the Eucharist for the modern mind, that would trouble me. OK maybe that unfair, let’s say the tradition of social teaching on the primacy of the family were revised, that would trouble me. Does that make it the gospel then?

If you’re saying what I think you’re saying, the tradition of social teaching does not enunciate structural and inherent truths about a just society rooted in revelation and it can be “revised,” then maybe the teaching of CiV is also such a case and need not be assented to since it will change. . .back maybe.

Again, (2) the nebulous, general, and unapplied teaching on gratuitousness and gift in the context of economic policy. What does it concretely and specifically mean with respect to the economic sphere? What should one assent to?
Again, surely he doesn’t mean that one should expect the gift of more and more free stuff from the government? Does he?? We know what this type of thinking is doing to the economies European countries and some of our own states in the US.
 
Weigel is part of the new Cafeteria Catholic movement - right-leaning Americans that want to deny the Church’s authority to teach on social justice matters. It is astonishing to me that a supposedly orthodox Catholic commentator had the hubris to color code the Church’s teaching and indicate the parts that Catholics should (in his opinion) ignore. If a liberal commentator did the same he would be (rightfully) excoriated for doing so. Weigel’s brand of cafeterianism deserves the same treatment.
 
TMC said:
Weigel is part of the new Cafeteria Catholic movement - right-leaning Americans that want to deny the Church’s authority to teach on social justice matters. It is astonishing to me that a supposedly orthodox Catholic commentator had the hubris to color code the Church’s teaching and indicate the parts that Catholics should (in his opinion) ignore. If a liberal commentator did the same he would be (rightfully) excoriated for doing so. Weigel’s brand of cafeterianism deserves the same treatment.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your addition to the conversation.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned Weigel in the title–it seems to pull everyone’s attention from the real issues and down the road of branding and name calling.

I’d be grateful if you would address yourself instead to the issues I spelled out in the post above and the one below to “fone bone 2011” (post #6). They are real ones, as far as I can see for those of us who are faithful to the magisterium, until they are resolved. Maybe you can help. What is your solution?
 
Juliamajor
redistribution of wealth was a principle in the primitive church. It is a belief that was never really discarded- and maybe one whose time has come again.
Click to expand...
Hardly.
Acts 2:44-47, where the faithful lived together and owned everything in common. These so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”
[See *Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p46, (with a new edition, since) by Dr Alejandro Chafuen.

Two major principles of Catholic social teaching are solidarity and subsidiarity, plus condemnation of the Welfare State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top