Vis Fati #9
But as Catholics, aren’t we required to embrace it? Isn’t this where the Church asserts “infallibility”?
Of course Dr Thomas E Woods is correct this is NOT a papal document but from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
No papal or any other documents are infallible – only definitions of dogmas or doctrines on faith or morals therein are infallible.
American news services quoted a principal dissenter the Jesuit, Father Thomas Reese, as claiming that the Vatican document was “to the left of Nancy Pelosi.” That’s the dissenting myopia alright.
[
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12159]](
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12159])
tinyurl.com/3mqwtdz
Pope Benedict calls for ‘central world bank’ … only he didn’t. Here’s why.
by Thomas Peters,
October 24, 2011 (Catholicvote.org) – “You may have seen this story which was headlined earlier today on the Drudge Report:
“The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
“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.
“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. [My underlining].
“Liberal Catholics 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.
“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.”
Couldn’t agree more, including the dismissal of a correct conscience that must be formed by the doctrine of the Church.
It is confusion and incompetence that result in such aberrations, and are reflected in supportive comments of no substance. They all blithely ignore, apparently through choice, that even Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.
In 1931, we were taught: “…lastly, summoning to court the contemporary economic regime and passing judgment on Socialism, to lay bare the root of the existing social confusion and at the same time point the only way to sound restoration: namely, the Christian reform of morals. [Pius XI in *Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 15].
- strange idea) aren’t.
