Summary of the encyclical “lumen fidei” (The Light of Faith)

[Bubba_Switzler]

This light, Bergoglio and Ratzinger note, has grown dimmer in our time. Post-modern humanity has convinced itself that faith is “incompatible with seeking,” with courage in the face of uncertainty — thus the profoundly influential Nietzschean critique of Christianity as “diminishing the full meaning of human existence and stripping life of novelty and adventure.” Determined to assert autonomy and what was understood to be maturity, Nietzschean humanity tried various antidotes to what were imagined to be the crippling effects of faith in the God of the Bible. The most common was the effort to separate faith from reason: Athens trying to make sense of life without the aid of Jerusalem. But that eventually came a cropper, the encyclical suggests:

Slowly but surely . . . it [became] evident that the light of autonomous reason is not enough to illumine the future; ultimately the future remains shadowy and fraught with fear of the unknown. As a result, humanity renounced the search for a great light, Truth itself, in order to be content with smaller lights which illumine the fleeting moment yet prove incapable of showing the way. Yet in the absence of light, everything becomes confused; it is impossible to tell good from evil, or the road to our destination from other roads which take us in endless circles, going nowhere.

nationalreview.com/article/353222/faith-lights-life-george-weigel

 

[StMartinTours]

The term “liberal” has a meaning which is quite misused around here.

One can be liberal in terms of the role of government and financial environment but hold Catholic moral teaching.

The same can be true (or untrue) among those termed “conservative”.

You are simply furthering the muddying of the definition of “liberal” so common around here and seeking to demonize those who identify themselves as liberal.
In other words. . . . . . .
“conservative”= American style right-leaning (GOP and/or libertarian), God fearing, moral and devout Catholic.
“liberal”= American style left-leaning Democratic Party, secularist, modernist, statist, and non-devout Catholic.

That’s not what “liberal” and “conservative” mean by definition.

Your characterization is insidious, targeted, agenda-drivien, inaccurate, and driven by either ignorance or out-right dishonesty.

Well, there’s political liberalism, and there’s theological liberalism (the two are not unrelated philosophically, of course). It is undeniable that the political Left has had an anti-religious element since its origin (the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution), which is not to say that all political liberals are anti-religious. Of course one can hold liberal views (or conservative views) in prudential matters (e.g., the economy or the role of government) and be a faithful Catholic. These matters ought to be discussed among Catholics as prudential/political matters, and there is no need to accuse the opposite side of disloyalty to the Church because they disagree. We need to agree on fundamental truths (Catholic doctrine), then discuss the best way to apply them to real-life situations (prudential matters). Theological liberalism as I understand it tends toward dissenting Catholicism.

 

[lynnvinc]

He said MORE liberal. Not A liberal. And it’s true. He isn’t as conservative as Benedict was. That doesn’t mean he isn’t what the church believes. It’s just his own style.

As my father said: “Let Pope Francis be Pope Francis and let Pope Benedict be Pope Benedict”

I think JPII, BXVI and Pope Francis are all much more liberal than any liberal American. Not as radical as Christ, but close and in that direction.

People who have read “Caritas en Veritate” (in whole, not just the parts that suit them) will understand what I mean. Or have listened to what these holy men say, including the Gospels.

One of the reasons I converted to Catholicism decades ago is because of the Gospels and their very liberal (actually radical) message…which did get thru to me, despite my conservative upbringing…and that the Catholic Church upholds them more closely. And there is nothing in Lumen Fidei that displeases me, and everything in it pleases me immensely. Quite rad, if one really gets into it.

 

[StMartinTours]

I think JPII, BXVI and Pope Francis are all much more liberal than any liberal American. Not as radical as Christ, but close and in that direction.

People who have read “Caritas en Veritate” (in whole, not just the parts that suit them) will understand what I mean. Or have listened to what these holy men say, including the Gospels.

One of the reasons I converted to Catholicism decades ago is because of the Gospels and their very liberal (actually radical) message…which did get thru to me, despite my conservative upbringing…and that the Catholic Church upholds them more closely. And there is nothing in Lumen Fidei that displeases me, and everything in it pleases me immensely. Quite rad, if one really gets into it.

I’m curious: what precisely do you mean by liberal?

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m curious: what precisely do you mean by liberal?

Various things that I’m not even doing…like selling everything and giving it to the poor. Only having only one set of clothing (or even 2 – one for wearing, one for washing).

As a secular Carmelite (OCDS) we sort of interpret that as being detached from worldly goods (and wonder if we really are detached from all the goodies we have). But even being detached in that way is also extremely radical.

Loving not only one’s neighbors and friends, but also one’s enemies. Doing good to those who persecute you…

I could go on.

It being more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven than a camel to enter thru the eye of the needle (even if that refers to a small portal into Jerusalem and not an actual needle). By that standard, considering how even the middle class in the US today are so much richer than King Herod, I’d say it is more difficult for a middle class American to enter into heaven than an elephant enter in thru the eye of a needle.

The Gospels (and writings of the popes) are very radical and opposite what our culture teaches us. I remember as a kid going to Sunday school and thinking Americans were hypocrites, then by the time I was a teen it occurred to me that they were not hypocrites, they were indeed true to their culture (if not to Christianity).

Our society and culture has drifted really far away from Christianity, but people keep thinking that their conservative philosophies (born of anti-Church Enlightenment philosophies) represent Christianity. From my vantage point it seems they confuse political conservatism with Christianity.

If all those claiming to be Christians in America actually lived the Gospels, then there would be no poverty…We are a very unChristian, stingy people. And we are, esp conservatives but liberals too, against stopping our harms to creation & others…we don’t even acknowledge there are harms…we’re like Cain.

When I think of the brand to conservatism that’s being promoted today, I’m somewhat reminded of the pharisees and rich people Jesus spoke against – neither they go in nor do they allow others in.

I actually should have written this on the other thread that questions whether liberals would be happy with Lumen Fidei, which is a very insulting question and misleading. One could equally ask if conservatives would be happy with it, if they were to be fully open to its implications and not just interpret it in their own way.

Or one could ask, “have you stopped beating your wife?”

 

[StMartinTours]

Various things that I’m not even doing…like selling everything and giving it to the poor. Only having only one set of clothing (or even 2 – one for wearing, one for washing).

As a secular Carmelite (OCDS) we sort of interpret that as being detached from worldly goods (and wonder if we really are detached from all the goodies we have). But even being detached in that way is also extremely radical.

Loving not only one’s neighbors and friends, but also one’s enemies. Doing good to those who persecute you…

I could go on.

It being more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven than a camel to enter thru the eye of the needle (even if that refers to a small portal into Jerusalem and not an actual needle). By that standard, considering how even the middle class in the US today are so much richer than King Herod, I’d say it is more difficult for a middle class American to enter into heaven than an elephant enter in thru the eye of a needle.

The Gospels (and writings of the popes) are very radical and opposite what our culture teaches us. I remember as a kid going to Sunday school and thinking Americans were hypocrites, then by the time I was a teen it occurred to me that they were not hypocrites, they were indeed true to their culture (if not to Christianity).

Our society and culture has drifted really far away from Christianity, but people keep thinking that their conservative philosophies (born of anti-Church Enlightenment philosophies) represent Christianity. From my vantage point it seems they confuse political conservatism with Christianity.

If all those claiming to be Christians in America actually lived the Gospels, then there would be no poverty…We are a very unChristian, stingy people. And we are, esp conservatives but liberals too, against stopping our harms to creation & others…we don’t even acknowledge there are harms…we’re like Cain.

When I think of the brand to conservatism that’s being promoted today, I’m somewhat reminded of the pharisees and rich people Jesus spoke against – neither they go in nor do they allow others in.

I actually should have written this on the other thread that questions whether liberals would be happy with Lumen Fidei, which is a very insulting question and misleading. One could equally ask if conservatives would be happy with it, if they were to be fully open to its implications and not just interpret it in their own way.

Or one could ask, “have you stopped beating your wife?”

I wonder if you could you clarify a few things: 1) what do you mean by conservative philosophies being “born of anti-Church Enlightenment philosophies”, and 2) in what ways does “the brand of conservatism that’s being promoted today” resemble the Pharisees of the Gospels.

 

[lynnvinc]

I wonder if you could you clarify a few things: 1) what do you mean by conservative philosophies being “born of anti-Church Enlightenment philosophies”, and 2) in what ways does “the brand of conservatism that’s being promoted today” resemble the Pharisees of the Gospels.

Both conservativism & liberalism came from the anti-Church Enlightenment philosophies, tho they have taken up different issues within that framework.

The Enlightenment concept of person and concept of society was of autonomous, free, self-sufficient individuals who bec of incessant warfaring or for some mutual benefits came together to rationally form society, and gave up only as much freedom as necessary for this union, but still retained most of their freedom. However the governments (with the Church somewhat complicit) of centuries ago had unnecessarily usurped too much of that freedom and were oppressive and abusive of power.

There’s actually some truth to that since sociopolitical complexity had been increasing over the millennia: band–>tribe–>chiefdom (e.g., early England)–>state–>stronger state. And that trend of increasing sociopolitical complexity continues, so we now have super-states. However, the Enlightenment developed democracy as a solution to that trend. So good came out of it. The US, born then & concerned about oppressive rule from afar, is perhaps the Enlightenment’s strongest adherent, and has perhaps gone overboard in its ideas of freedom and rights.

Now modern social sciences tell us we are eminently social beings, enmeshed in society, interdependent…NOT self-sufficient monads with no need of (or responsibility to) others.

This actually jives better with traditional notions, incl Judeo-Christianity, which emphasize duties and interconnections more than rights; or have rights as the other side of the duties coin. So while the US has the Bill of Rights, the ancients had the Ten Commandments.

The problem with “rights only” thinking (abstract & detached from duties) is that soon it became apparent to some that non-whites also had rights, then women also had rights, then children’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc.

Meanwhile, back at the Christian ranch, there is still this notion of duties and doing good to others, which fits better with modern understanding of people and society. And our more traditional Christain thinking solves this “rights” frenzy, because we first have duties to all of God’s creation and are required to love.

So there are problems with both conservativism and liberalism, & good as well. It behooves us as Christians to ferret out the good and reject the bad.

Then on the heels of the Enlightenment, creating both material good and harms, was the rise of industrialism and modern capitalism. Tribal and traditional state peoples that were self-sufficient and subsisting okay, have been sucked into the global economy, and while most are doing better, some are doing worse…unable to even afford clean, non-toxic water to drink (with multinationals buying rights to mine & sell potable water). The problems of pollution and resource destruction have grossly accelerated. Wealth has become concentrated among the few, who “buy” power to amass further wealth & do further harm. We are often unaware of the harmed people, and they themselves may not understand where their cancer or anencephaly (brainless) babies came from.

Just as Enlightenment-based democracy arose as a solution to gov and Church abuses, socialism arose to solve gross abuses to industrial capitalism. Some strands (just like some post-9/11 youth today) blamed religion, and threw God out with the bathwater of social evils. (I’m not an ideological determinist, so I don’t consider religion the root of all evil – rather people can be bad despite religion.)

And after WWII a great economic boom also brought gross pollution harming and killing people and God’s creation, and exhausting resources meant for all generations. We were able to pass laws and somewhat clean up this local pollution, but later came to find out about serious global environmental harms threatenting life on earth from our industrial (profligate) lifestyle, such as global wamring.

The upshot is that we need to avoid buying lock-stock-&-barrel into any non-Christian ideology, and learn to distinguish the good & reject the bad.

I think the papal writings are doing an excellent job of this, and in my view lean more liberal than conservative (tho they are beyond both). And they take into consideration enviornmentalism, understanding we need to protect creation, that life is fundamental, & economics instrumental & for the the common good.

It’s the anti-environmentalism in today’s conservatism I find particularly unfortunate, amounting to it being pro-death. Of course, it is good on the abortion issue, so conservatives tend to feel self-righteous like the pharisee in the parable; but neither they go in & humbly address the environmental harms against life they are participating in, nor do they want sinful liberals in their church.

So it really is not good to be a conservative, or even a liberal, but take the good from both, discarding the bad, and also from the 3rd concern of environmentalism re God’s creation, which ironically was a conservative issue in the past, but has been taken up by the liberals after current conservatives discarded it.

And the papal writings, including Lumen Fidei, show a way thru this morass of unholy and unhealthy ideas of both conservatism and liberalism.

 

[Schism_hater]

Both conservativism & liberalism came from the anti-Church Enlightenment philosophies, tho they have taken up different issues within that framework.

The Enlightenment concept of person and concept of society was of autonomous, free, self-sufficient individuals who bec of incessant warfaring or for some mutual benefits came together to rationally form society, and gave up only as much freedom as necessary for this union, but still retained most of their freedom. However the governments (with the Church somewhat complicit) of centuries ago had unnecessarily usurped too much of that freedom and were oppressive and abusive of power.

There’s actually some truth to that since sociopolitical complexity had been increasing over the millennia: band–>tribe–>chiefdom (e.g., early England)–>state–>stronger state. And that trend of increasing sociopolitical complexity continues, so we now have super-states. However, the Enlightenment developed democracy as a solution to that trend. So good came out of it. The US, born then & concerned about oppressive rule from afar, is perhaps the Enlightenment’s strongest adherent, and has perhaps gone overboard in its ideas of freedom and rights.

Now modern social sciences tell us we are eminently social beings, enmeshed in society, interdependent…NOT self-sufficient monads with no need of (or responsibility to) others.

This actually jives better with traditional notions, incl Judeo-Christianity, which emphasize duties and interconnections more than rights; or have rights as the other side of the duties coin. So while the US has the Bill of Rights, the ancients had the Ten Commandments.

The problem with “rights only” thinking (abstract & detached from duties) is that soon it became apparent to some that non-whites also had rights, then women also had rights, then children’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc.

Meanwhile, back at the Christian ranch, there is still this notion of duties and doing good to others, which fits better with modern understanding of people and society. And our more traditional Christain thinking solves this “rights” frenzy, because we first have duties to all of God’s creation and are required to love.

So there are problems with both conservativism and liberalism, & good as well. It behooves us as Christians to ferret out the good and reject the bad.

Then on the heels of the Enlightenment, creating both material good and harms, was the rise of industrialism and modern capitalism. Tribal and traditional state peoples that were self-sufficient and subsisting okay, have been sucked into the global economy, and while most are doing better, some are doing worse…unable to even afford clean, non-toxic water to drink (with multinationals buying rights to mine & sell potable water). The problems of pollution and resource destruction have grossly accelerated. Wealth has become concentrated among the few, who “buy” power to amass further wealth & do further harm. We are often unaware of the harmed people, and they themselves may not understand where their cancer or anencephaly (brainless) babies came from.

Just as Enlightenment-based democracy arose as a solution to gov and Church abuses, socialism arose to solve gross abuses to industrial capitalism. Some strands (just like some post-9/11 youth today) blamed religion, and threw God out with the bathwater of social evils. (I’m not an ideological determinist, so I don’t consider religion the root of all evil – rather people can be bad despite religion.)

And after WWII a great economic boom also brought gross pollution harming and killing people and God’s creation, and exhausting resources meant for all generations. We were able to pass laws and somewhat clean up this local pollution, but later came to find out about serious global environmental harms threatenting life on earth from our industrial (profligate) lifestyle, such as global wamring.

The upshot is that we need to avoid buying lock-stock-&-barrel into any non-Christian ideology, and learn to distinguish the good & reject the bad.

I think the papal writings are doing an excellent job of this, and in my view lean more liberal than conservative (tho they are beyond both). And they take into consideration enviornmentalism, understanding we need to protect creation, that life is fundamental, & economics instrumental & for the the common good.

It’s the anti-environmentalism in today’s conservatism I find particularly unfortunate, amounting to it being pro-death. Of course, it is good on the abortion issue, so conservatives tend to feel self-righteous like the pharisee in the parable; but neither they go in & humbly address the environmental harms against life they are participating in, nor do they want sinful liberals in their church.

So it really is not good to be a conservative, or even a liberal, but take the good from both, discarding the bad, and also from the 3rd concern of environmentalism re God’s creation, which ironically was a conservative issue in the past, but has been taken up by the liberals after current conservatives discarded it.

And the papal writings, including Lumen Fidei, show a way thru this morass of unholy and unhealthy ideas of both conservatism and liberalism.

 

[quiet52]

I’m wondering if anyone has heard their clergy speak of this encyclical yet during their homilies?

 

[livingwordunity]

In regards to this conversation about what the Pope should or shoudn’t be emphasizing, I was very happy to see that this encyclical mentioned traditional marriage.

Since the topic was Faith, the subject of marriage didn’t have to come up at all, and I certainly wouldn’t have thought it would be mentioned. But the fact the Pope Francis left it in there I think is very good. It means he went (a little) out of his way to mention a “controversial” subject and support traditional marriage when he didn’t have to.

I agree.

“The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage.”

Source: Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis