Now that Pope Francis’ much awaited encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si, is out, we have the chore not only of assessing the document but also its reception. (I’d also like to know how many authors contributed to this, which offices in the Vatican had input, and how much the making of an encyclical resembles the drafting of a president’s State of the Union Address. But that’s — all about — me and my enjoyment of shows like West Wing and Larry Sanders.)
The confusing aspect of papal pronouncements is how much authority they have. Is Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Church Beliefs Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church the place to start? If so, it looks like everyone who is under the pope’s rule needs to get on board:
Even doctrines not explicitly labeled infallible can be binding on Catholic belief because “[d]ivine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter,…when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner,’ they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium teaching … of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful ‘are to adhere…with religious assent’ (LG 25)” (CCC 892). Wise and good parents do not explicitly label everything they say to their children as “infallible”, yet wise and good children trust them. Similarly, we should trust Holy Mother Church, the Church of the apostles, saints, and martyrs, the Church with a two-thousand-year-long-memory, much more than we trust our own opinions.
The sign the Church attaches to an infallible teaching is Christocentric: “When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as being divinely revealed,’ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith'” (CCC 891). (101-102)
That sets the bar pretty high and may explain why not all Roman Catholics were fans of John Paul II or why some thought he did not adhere to the spirit of Vatican II.
But maybe people disregard papal pronouncements because popes say too much and it becomes easy to regard papal teaching as mere chatter:
First, the Big Question. Why? Why is the Catholic Church entering into the fray of doubtful global warming science? Why now and why with such shrill apocalyptic exaggerated rhetoric? Why strident calls for supranational government control at the same time the actual evidence for doom grows weaker and weaker?
Consider this. Used to be in the West when the Catholic Church spoke, people listened. Reporters and politicians would come calling before writing articles or making decisions and ask, “What say you, Mr. Bishop?” And the people, when they heard what the Church had to say, listened. They considered. Sure, they sometimes rejected, perhaps even more often than they heeded. But the Church was an influence. And it liked being one.
Not so now. The West has these past fifty or so years assumed an adversarial stance towards our ancient and venerable institution. The press, politicians, and people no longer care what the clergy has to say on designer babies (i.e. eugenics), abortion, homosexual acts, same-sex “marriage”, you name it. Not when a recalcitrant Church disallows female priests, divorce, and every other thing the secular salivate over.
Some who disregard the papacy on matters like the environment think papal infallibility only goes so far and that when popes speak about matters like economics and politics they are just another guy talking (think Joe Biden). From John Zmirak‘s Bad Catholics’ Guide to the Catechism:
Q: What about when the pope writes or speaks on politics and economics?
A: Most of the time, those topics involve specific disputes about how to apply moral principles, statements of fact or arguments over what’s prudent. Infallibility can’t apply to any of those. When he’s writing on those subjects, the pope is just an ordinary man — although in most cases a wise and learned one, whose ideas we should take seriously. For instance, when Pope Paul VI wrote in Populorum Progressio that the right way for rich countries to help poor ones was to tax their citizens and send money to Third World governments, that was a suggestion worth considering. But faithful Catholics can disagree. Many have noted that there is now an extensive track record of such foreign aid, and all too often it ends up in Swiss bank accounts or being spent to prop up corrupt regimes. Pope Paul VI made a prudential judgment, and faithful Catholics are perfectly free to reject it. The same applies if a pope speaks out on immigration policies, welfare programs or Middle Eastern politics.
Q: A lot of Catholics seem to disagree with what you just said. They suggest that the Holy Spirit picks who’s elected pope, then protects his everyday statements and policies from error.
A: The Church has never said any such thing — out of deference to the First Commandment, and perhaps to avoid becoming the laughingstock of even Catholic historians.
If the Holy Spirit directly picked the popes without human agency, we’d have to ask why He picked so many illegitimate children of previous popes; so many cardinals who bribed their way to the throne; or — my favorite example — the pope who so hated his predecessor that he dug up the old pope’s corpse and tried it for heresy, before dumping it in the river. We’ve done much better with choosing popes since the Council of Trent, but the process never became magical. Sometimes the cardinals pick a weakling, a coward or a bully. Popes do have original sin. The Holy Spirit oversees the process, of course, but allows a lot of room for human freedom and folly.
The pope can’t infallibly predict the weather, draw up the U.S. budget or tell us which wars are just or unjust. Think of the five “crusades” which Pope Martin V launched against cities full of Christians for “heresy.” Popes misused their authority so often and so egregiously that it helped cause the Reformation.
Q: What about when the pope does teach about faith and morals, but doesn’t invoke the divine-infallibility veto you’ve spoken of?
A: Catholics view every other papal pronouncement in context — the context of previous solemn church teaching on an issue. So if a pope reiterates some previous teaching, with roots in the Bible and the councils of the church, we defer to his interpretation. If he says something that seems new, we judge it against those previous teachings and are free to disagree — respectfully, of course. You shouldn’t mock the nakedness of your father. But you don’t have to bring him another skin full of wine.
If one pope contradicts another, or either contradicts a council, you can rest assured that none of the statements is infallible, and the issue is still open for debate.
Q: Are there examples of popes speaking fallibly at cross-purposes with one another?
A: Lots of them. I’m sure that I’ve already tested your ecumenical patience, but if you’re really interested, read this piece. In it, I explore conflicting papal statements on slavery, lending at interest, torture and religious freedom.
Q: Those aren’t petty issues.
A: No, they aren’t. But the Church has never pretended that Jesus made each pope a magical fountain of new divine revelations and brilliant policy ideas. We do the church no favors by inflating the papacy’s claims like a balloon. Our history is full of needles which could pop it.
Okay, Protestants are confused, but so are Roman Catholics.
For that reason, why does Rod Dreher react so strongly to Jeb Bush’s understanding of Roman Catholicism:
I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope,” Bush said. “And I’d like to see what he says as it relates to climate change and how that connects to these broader, deeper issue before I pass judgment. But I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm.”
Isn’t Jeb simply channeling Al Smith and John F. Kennedy who also had to wade through the thicket of church authority and constitutional requirements? Rod doesn’t think so:
First off, nobody believes that bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, are policy wonks, and nobody believes that they are experts at dictating economic policy. That said, Jeb Bush, as a Catholic, is not free to discard the social teaching of the Catholic Church, under which the new papal encyclical on climate change would appear to fall, because it doesn’t suit his personal beliefs. Note well that Bush doesn’t even know what Francis is going to say in the encyclical, but rejects out of hand that the Church has anything binding to say to him about economics.
Second, how is it that Jeb Bush has been a Catholic convert for 25 years, and doesn’t grasp that Catholic Christianity is not focused only on personal piety, but has a broad social dimension as well? On what grounds does he oppose abortion, then? On what grounds did he fight to keep Terri Schiavo alive as her governor? Does he reject what the Catholic Church teaches about the poor?
Well, given the lack of conformity among Roman Catholics in relation to papal teaching, Rod may well decide to forgive Jeb.
Or it might mean that all of us, including Roman Catholics, have a little Caitlyn Jenner in us. Ross Douthat picked up on Will Wilkinson’s comments on the religious significance of sex change:
One of the enduring puzzles of America is why it has remained so robustly religious while its European cousins have secularised with startling rapidity. One stock answer is that America, colonised by religious dissenters and lacking an officially sanctioned creed, has always been a cauldron of religious competition and, therefore, innovation. The path to success in a competitive religious marketplace is the same as the path to success in business: give the people what they want.
Americans tend to want a version of Americanism, and they get it. Americanism is a frontier creed of freedom, of the inviolability of individual conscience and salvation as self-realisation. The American religion does Protestantism one better. Not only are we, each of us, qualified to interpret scripture, but also we each have a direct line to God. You can just feel Jesus. In my own American faith tradition, a minority version of Mormonism, the Holy Spirit—one of the guises of God—is a ubiquitous, pervasive presence. Like radio waves, you’ve just got to tune it in.
The problem for Roman Catholics, though, is that the condemnation of Americanism as a heresy was part of the church’s social teaching. The intriguing aspect of the release of Laudato Si will be to see how much Roman Catholics, who lamented Caitlyn Jenner, wind up doing their own version of spiritual gender bending to avoid following the infallible Bishop of Rome.
Postscript: as part of Old Life’s service to instruct the faithful, here are a couple of scorecards for evaluating the authority of papal teaching.
First, the layers of instruction:
Dogma: Infallible expressions of divine revelation. Catholics owe these pronouncements the most serious response and consideration, what we refer to as “obedience of faith.” When it comes to ethics, dogma includes the most fundamental aspects of Christian morality (including those that Church has never had occasion to explicitly define as such). An example is the basic responsibility of Christians to act as stewards towards God’s gift of Creation.
Definitive Doctrine: Teachings that are not divinely revealed but are still essential to the protection of divine revelation. These teachings are also exercised with the charism of infallibility, and the faithful properly owe them “firm acceptance.” One example is the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Authoritative Doctrine: Teachings that are connected to divine revelation, but which are neither recognized as divinely revealed nor considered to be infallible. To these, Catholics owe “religious assent,” i.e., “religious submission of mind and will” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25). An example in theological ethics is the “universal destination of goods” which insists that “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 69; cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nos. 171-175).
Prudential Judgments: Instructions through which the pope and/or bishops employ dogma, doctrine, and authoritative secular information to provide guidance on particular issues/circumstances. These instructions do not have the charism of infallibility, but the faithful are called to openly, thoughtfully, and prayerfully consider these teachings as they form their consciences. An example would be a papal judgment about whether a specific structure, institution, or practice upholds or damages the dignity of Creation—especially of human persons and particularly of the poorest and most vulnerable.
By this criteria, Laudato Si is pious advice.
But don’t forget about the genre of papal expression:
Apostolic constitutions (apostolicae constitutiones): solemn, formal documents on matters of highest consequence concerning doctrinal or disciplinary matters, issued by the pope in his own name. They are published as either universal or particular law of the Church. (Examples: the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium; Constitution on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)
Apostolic exhortation (apostolica exhortatio): a papal reflection on a particular topic that does not contain dogmatic definitions or policy directives, addressed to bishops, clergy and all the faithful of the entire Catholic Church. Apostolic exhortations are not legislative documents. (Example: Familiaris Consortio, on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World.)
Apostolic letter (apostolica epistola): a formal papal teaching document, not used for dogmatic definitions of doctrine, but to give counsel to the Church on points of doctrine that require deeper explanation in the light of particular circumstances or situations in various parts of the world.
Declaration (declamatio): may be a simple statement of the law, which must be interpreted according to the existing law; or an authoritative declaration that is retroactive and does not require further promulgation; or an extensive declaration, which modifies the law, is not retroactive and must be promulgated according to the law.
Decree (decretum): a statement involving Church law, precepts or judicial decisions on a specific matter. It is an ordinance given by one having the power of jurisdiction (such as a bishop within his particular diocese, the head of an office of the Roman Curia, or the pope), acting administratively to promote compliance with the law. A decree announces that a given document or legislative text is in effect.
Encyclical (encyclica epistola – literally, “circular letter”): a formal apostolic letter issued by the pope usually addressed to the bishops, clergy and faithful of the entire Church. Example, Humanae vitae, concerning the Church’s teaching on birth control issued in 1968 by Pope Paul VI.
Instruction (instructio): explains or amplifies a document that has legislative force, such as apostolic constitutions, and states how its precepts are to be applied. (e.g., Liturgiam authenticam, on liturgical translation, an Instruction on the correct implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.)
Institutio: instituted arrangement or regular method, rules (as in Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani).
Motu proprio (literally, by one’s own initiative): a legislative document or decree issued by the pope on his own initiative, not in response to a request. (Examples: Apostolos Suos; Misericordia Dei.)
Promulgation (promulgatio): the process whereby the lawmaker communicates the law to those to whom the law has been given. (The official effective date on which a document is promulgated may or may not coincide with the date on which a document is actually published.)
Recognitio: confirms the review of documents that are submitted by a conference of bishops to the relevant office (dicastery) of the Holy See. Recognitio is required before the provisions of documents that modify universal law may come into effect. Recognitio thus signals acceptance of a document that may have legislative force. (Recognitio is required for all documents that modify universal liturgical norms, for example.)
Now I’m lost. Can’t we just have the Bible, Confession and Catechisms, Book of Church Order, and Directory for Worship?
Old Life 
The encyclical questions the widespread adoption of air conditioning. Maybe that explains why Jeb, who is from Florida, picks and chooses what he’ll believe.
Maybe the Reformation would have been started by a Floridian if air conditioning and Francis were both around in the 16th century.
LikeLike
I don’t read Latin, but I’m thinking “Laudato Si” translates as “This Encyclical sucks”?
LikeLike
DGH,
I’m no Roman, but the pontiff made an interesting point…
“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion,” the encyclical says. “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”
May make the left who were looking for religious credibility a little nutzo… And that is good theater!
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/pope-francis-climate-change-and-abortion-are-interrelated-20150618
LikeLike
It makes the US tax code look simple. Oops, shouldn’t have brought that up or the Bishop of Rome will want to write that as well.
LikeLike
The Catholic Church: The United States Internal Revenue Service of Religion.
Apologist Tom tells us it’s almost all optional, so don’t sweat it.
LikeLike
Now that the new “green” pope has spoken so strongly in favor of environmental controls and Gaia worship, the automobile drivers in this densely populated, heavily RC urban area should be bowing down to me when I’m out and about on my bike instead of trying to run me off the road.
LikeLike
Gage, as with many papal documents, who will care? We need a novel about a pope who grows frustrated with his failure to get people to follow his instruction and so he resigns and goes into politics.
LikeLike
“There is no political cause more amenable to the conservative vision than that of the environment.” –Political Philosopher Roger Scruton (Anglican).
I think most are against the encyclical (without having read it) because they think seeking to limit unnecessary destruction of the God-created natural environment promotes some nebulous left/liberalism- they put on their partisan “thinking” caps.
Scruton argues environmental conservation should really be considered a patriotic issue. The bellicose Teddy Roosevelt acknowledged that the long-term of our nation depends on it, and I’m with him on that (and little else).
If all of this means more parkland in Brazil, birds in Cape May, and preservation of our remaining supplies of oil (which we may well need someday and are fools to be digging up now), great.
Climate Change / Global Warming is a slightly different issue – I’m not convinced on the science of it, myself. If Francis is, then indeed he is offering pious advice – perhaps not ideal for the genre of papal encyclical.
And whether he himself wrote it or not, his name is on it, so it is his, i.e., ‘The buck stops here.’
LikeLike
DGH,
Ah. Yep. Good point. He’s obviously not a 2k Escondido guy.
Making libs… Cray-cray (sorry… Learned that from my 15 yr old daughter) is a good sport to watch but of course your right. Parsing the papacy is like parsing the FV.
Hard to do… So u just ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Learned that from my daughter too… Sorry
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 18, 2015 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
The Catholic Church: The United States Internal Revenue Service of Religion.
Apologist Tom tells us it’s almost all optional, so don’t sweat it.
Y’all’s distortions of what I say are bad enough, but distorting what I didn’t even say is a new level of Old Life wack.
As for Darryl’s confused rant here, Benedict explicitly says in Caritas in Veritate [2009]
I’m a skeptic on warmism, but something is happening. The question of degree of harm is technical, as is the cost-benefit analysis of what we can do about it. But it’s entirely proper for the pope to open dialogue on the issue.
LikeLike
“I’m a skeptic on warmism”
How are you doing, vd, t, with the resurrection?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 18, 2015 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
“I’m a skeptic on warmism”
How are you doing, vd, t, with the resurrection?
It’s always so odd when you change the subject like this, especially making a gotcha game out of your own religious beliefs. It seems, I dunno, profane. I suppose it might be to deflect from this essay not holding up very well under closer inspection. There’s really nothing untoward about Francis’s actions; Benedict and JPII made similar noises.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3601/if_pope_francis_is_a_radical_environmentalist_what_was_pope_benedict_xvi.aspx
As to your question, if God could become man, He certainly could rise from the dead. Indeed, if He doesn’t, the Christian narrative doesn’t really make any sense.
LikeLike
Kevin,
The issue those who object to the Encyclical likely have is that the Pope has no clue how wealth is created or what it takes to run an enterprise that employs people. What does the Church produce? They rely on charity and pay/pray/obey for their material survival. For once it would be nice if he would say “thanks!” to capitalism vs. always looking down his nose at it. That’s what liberals do. Liberals usually reside in liberal institutions.
LikeLike
Kevin – and preservation of our remaining supplies of oil (which we may well need someday and are fools to be digging up now), great.
Erik – I would leave that decision to the owners of said oil and the marketplace to decide, not to a religious leader in Rome (formerly in Argentina).
LikeLike
From the WSJ last weekend:
Notable & Quotable: Milton Friedman
‘Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?’
June 14, 2015 5:49 p.m. ET
193 COMMENTS
From an interview with economist Milton Friedman by television talk-show host Phil Donahue in 1979:
Phil Donahue: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed’s a good idea to run on?
Milton Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.
Friedman: And what does reward virtue? . . . I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.
LikeLike
#thisisthesubjectchangercallingthesubjectchangersubjectchanger
Glad to see you affirm the resurrection and the Bible. Just testing where you belief in science begins and ends. I recall you had a little trouble with the First Adam.
LikeLike
All,
Actually, I just read the first quarter of Laudato Si (Italian, not Latin, as indicated in its first sentence – sorry to be the schoolmarm, Erik). Since few will actually read it, I’ve summarized a section I found of great interest.
FYI, he disclaims the Church’s authority to determine the science of climate change (61).
Addressing ecological issues requires consideration of social issues (49) such as loans by wealthy nations and international bodies (c.f. Confessions of an Economic Hitman?, although he doesn’t name names) which impoverish poor countries and require them to implement birth control (50).
Multinational corporations (51) catering to short-sighted consumerism interfere with the political process (54) and enable a culture devoted to financial speculation (56) which is incapable of honoring God as Creator; “this is how we end up worshipping earthly powers, or ourselves usurping the place of God”; by putting an end to man’s absolute claim of dominion over the earth (only God’s claim is absolute), we make it more difficult for them to “try to impose their own laws and interests
on reality.” (75)
“Selective consumerism” is a pervasive problem, and the refusal to acknowledge the totality of God’s plan for creation is often nothing more than the result of special interests’ attempts “to legitimize the present model of distribution,” which is no friend to the poor or a legitimate spirituality (50).
I’d suggest anyone mildly interested read the paragraphs I cite (and skip the earlier ones summarizing environmental issues). Of particular interest may be “Wisdom of the Biblical Accounts” (65-75).
Seems like a valuable and permanent contribution to Catholic Social Teachings to me.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 18, 2015 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
#thisisthesubjectchangercallingthesubjectchangersubjectchanger
Glad to see you affirm the resurrection and the Bible. Just testing where you belief in science begins and ends. I recall you had a little trouble with the First Adam.
Asked and answered. I do not find a literalistic fundamentalism tenable.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/knowing-ape-from-adam.html
LikeLike
vd, t doesn’t your rejection of fundamentalism run up against the resurrection? There are ways of finding the spirit of 1 Cor 15.
LikeLike
Erik – I generally agree with your policy positions. As an aside, the peak oil alarmists didn’t foresee that technical breakthroughs like fracking would unlock vast stores of oil or that imaging technology would allow exploration companies to discover huge new pools of black gold. Malthusian theories are tedious.
As for the Bishop of Rome (henceforth the BoR), my own pious advice is that he stick to the ministry of word and sacrament.
LikeLike
At those L.A. cocktail parties Tom’s social peers find the idea of a literal Adam preposterous, while they’re completely open to the idea of Christ’s resurrection.
No they’re not.
LikeLike
Kevin – Since few will actually read it
Erik – Correct.
LikeLike
Kevin,
So in other words there is nothing in there that some bearded crazy man in a cabin in the wilds of Montana couldn’t come up with as a critique of markets and capitalism.
LikeLike
“by putting an end to man’s absolute claim of dominion over the earth (only God’s claim is absolute), we make it more difficult for them to “try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.”
What does this even mean?
Since when does reality care what laws and interests are imposed upon it?
Last I checked, reality was reality. Liberals are the ones who spend all their time trying to deny it.
LikeLike
“in a competitive religious marketplace; give the people what they want.”
seems to be what the Lord is allowing, for a time: if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether multiple gods, man, moroni, etc. Josh 24: 15
LikeLike
Erik – Or a bearded crazy man writing in the British Library for 12 years.
Hint: I prefer Groucho.
LikeLike
Publius,
“As an aside, the peak oil alarmists didn’t foresee that technical breakthroughs like fracking would unlock vast stores of oil or that imaging technology would allow exploration companies to discover huge new pools of black gold. ”
There is some merit to thinking we will overcome projected limitations/problems by our technical prowess and ingenuity (the Audi fuel breakthrough a few weeks ago just one example), but it’s a bit naive to just assume that we will and so we can just keep on chugging along without a care because surely “we’ll figure something out before things get bad”. And alarmist rhetoric can actually help to motivate those very breakthroughs – see Elon Musk and others.
Erik,
Yes and part of Milton’s points elsewhere is that government interference has given rise to the corporate special interest groups and lobbyists. That’s pretty much become part of “capitalism” now whether we like it or not. Critics of the status quo are not automatically Marxist socialists.
LikeLike
Clete – And alarmist rhetoric can actually help to motivate those very breakthroughs – see Elon Musk and others.
Erik – You never heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?
Alarmist rhetoric mostly just causes people to tune everything out. We’re numb to it.
LikeLike
Clete – Yes and part of Milton’s points elsewhere is that government interference has given rise to the corporate special interest groups and lobbyists. That’s pretty much become part of “capitalism” now whether we like it or not. Critics of the status quo are not automatically Marxist socialists.
Erik – It’s called “rent seeking” and it’s quite old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
LikeLike
The whole question of whether what the Pope is saying is correct or not is way less interesting than the question that Darryl raises- What separates what he is doing from what the PCUSA does with the exception that he’s still a (nonjudgmental) prude about sex and the PCUSA is not?
LikeLike
Erik –
1) “So in other words there is nothing in there that some bearded crazy man in a cabin in the wilds of Montana couldn’t come up with as a critique of markets and capitalism.”
I think the key difference (aside from the beard) is that many do in fact listen to him, at least intermittently (witness press coverage, at times coyly cultivated), and that greater countenance may be given to just criticisms of particular economic arrangements.
“Markets and capitalism” are two terms used in a variety of ways… I like what I’ve heard of the postwar WWII “social market economics” that led to the “German Economic Miracle.” Unfortunately, I understand these policies have been diminished by increasing socialism. But I’m not at all well-read in economics.
2) “by putting an end to man’s absolute claim of dominion over the earth (only God’s claim is absolute), we make it more difficult for them to “try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.” – What does this even mean? – Since when does reality care what laws and interests are imposed upon it? – Last I checked, reality was reality. Liberals are the ones who spend all their time trying to deny it.
My summary truncates things a bit. Agreed, ideological liberalism constitutes a denial of reality (or an attempt), and yet it really motivates people. So somehow we should address it for the good of our society and implementing the Christian vision.
I think those who deny their place in society, in history, as a part of families, their own sex, the clear consequences of their own actions, etc. can be said to impose their own laws and interests on reality. Perhaps it’s a manner of speech – but there cases in which man has an immoral desire, formulates its fulfillment as a universal law, and the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. This law is not a true law, but a false idea like ‘pornography is free speech’.
As for interests, examples aren’t far to come by: permission to transfer pharmaceutical patents to Bermudan subsidiaries and thereby generate an on-paper license fee loss resulting in $0 in US corporate taxes paid; influencing municipal or state governments to use eminent domain to award privately held land to private corporations; the pure frivolity of at least the bulk of contemporary popular entertainments which encourages a solipsism (Like, Oh My God!, He Was Totally, Like) which keeps the advertisers on board.
Just my thoughts, I’m not infallible when it comes to interpreting Francis.
LikeLike
Erik – Rent-seeking. Exactly. And the poster boy for rent-seeking is? Elon Musk. Solar City and Tesla would not exist – and are totally uneconomic without – the massive the government subsidies included in the stimulus. He’s basically the corporate version of a welfare queen, living out his dreams on someones else’s dime. He’s a brilliant guy, but the government should not be bankrolling his endeavors. That’s why we have VCs and capital markets.
Cletus – As for alternatives to carbon based fuels I say, let’s do it. But the best way forward is to let free people figure it out for themselves. Government planning begs for corruption and inefficiency. In the same way the BoR should stick to ministering word and sacrament the gubmint (what some of us like to call “the civil magistrate”) should stick to administering basic justice, the common defense, and public administration.
LikeLike
Publius,
“Government planning begs for corruption and inefficiency”
I agree – it was Audi after all that developed it, not “Central State Energy of Germany”. But let’s not overstate things – even Friedman admitted the government should be responsible for implementing and planning certain things that should not be privatized.
“In the same way the BoR should stick to ministering word and sacrament the gubmint (what some of us like to call “the civil magistrate”) should stick to administering basic justice, the common defense, and public administration.”
Okay so you don’t want the BoR to outline public policy for the environment. Do you want the BoR to affirm and recommend we be responsible and prudent stewards of creation? Similarly, you presumably do not think the BoR should outline economic policy correct? Given that, should he also not call for a just wage at all?
LikeLike
Publius, “Government planning begs for corruption and inefficiency.”
You mean, like the Vatican bureaucracy?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Will you be leading the call to dismantle General Assemblies, get rid of the home office in Willow Grove, and dismantle the Committees on Christian Education, Home Missions and Church Extension, and Foreign Missions?
LikeLike
Darryl – Precisely. Glad to see you are picking up exactly what I am putting down.
Cletus – Ah yes, Willow Grove the next Papal States. The building at 607 N Easton reminds me of nothing so much as St Peter’s. And the GA in Sioux City is more or less the same as summering at Castel Gandolfo. But where were the Swiss Guards?
LikeLike
Erik –
Special interests subverting our political structures are a real problem with real effects. When farm leaders in the 1980s appealed to Fed Chair Paul Volcker for relief on crushing interest rates, his response was “Look, your constituents are unhappy, mine aren’t.”
Are the powerful segments in government looking out for the common good, or do they have constituents other than every citizen of the USA?
If the problem can be admitted, shouldn’t we then praise those who seek in good faith to use the power they have to address it, according to the social and institutional roles they hold?
LikeLike
Publius,
So it is not bureaucracy thats the problem, just the scale? I do not think Havana reminded people of the Kremlin and Red Square.
LikeLike
And no fair criticizing me for writing “are” when I should have written “is.” I’m walking through traffic (past homeless people) in Manhattan.
LikeLike
“So it is not bureaucracy thats the problem, just the scale?”
A bureaucracy by definition is large scale.
This is why we can’t trust you, vd, c. You try to hard to say that Budweiser is good beer.
LikeLike
“So it is not bureaucracy thats the problem, just the scale?”
A bureaucracy by definition is large scale.
Right.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 18, 2015 at 4:33 pm | Permalink
vd, t doesn’t your rejection of fundamentalism run up against the resurrection? There are ways of finding the spirit of 1 Cor 15.
Previously asked and answered. It was a very good discussion we all had here at your blog, even Erik. Shame you missed it.
http://www.theaunicornist.com/2014/12/can-ed-feser-save-adam-and-eve.html
But back to business, Butch–you’re clearly not interested in this metaphysical hoohah and instead have moved on to the next game. But before we do, as Augustine warned about getting all literal on Genesis: If you want to insist on a literal Adam, you risk bringing your own religion into disrepute, which IMO you have. A literal genetic Adam is as scientifically untenable as the Mormon claim that the American Indians were genetically Jewish. [They ain’t.]
Per 1 Cor 15, the reply is yes and no. As a historian, you’re well aware that the even the “unitarian” scientist/theologian Joseph Priestley–who disbelieved Jesus was God–still believed in the Resurrection and that Jesus was the Messiah, that God had sent his only Son to reveal the New Testament, the Good News of salvation, directly to man.
So, the infidel Priestley still holds half a loaf–Jesus’s resurrection, hence an afterlife.
LikeLike
Publius – And the GA in Sioux City is more or less the same as summering at Castel Gandolfo
Erik – Sioux Center is way nicer than Sioux City. OPC delegates aren’t martyrs.
LikeLike
Dated a girl from Sioux Center during college in Orange City. She was a good one.
LikeLike
vd, t “If you want to insist on a literal Adam, you risk bringing your own religion into disrepute”
By that standard, the resurrection brings Christianity into disrepute.
LikeLike
Since when has religion been in repute?
LikeLike
Tom forgets how little Calvinists care about good PR. Remember that predestination thing you criticize us for?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 19, 2015 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
vd, t “If you want to insist on a literal Adam, you risk bringing your own religion into disrepute”
By that standard, the resurrection brings Christianity into disrepute.
Not so. We discussed all this. You’re unnecessarily complicating the Genesis issue, as Augustine warned against.
However the claim of Jesus as both God and man is in a different category. By blowing it on something as obvious as Adam, you destroy your credibility on Jesus. You read Mencken, you know the Monkey Trial, Dr. History.
LikeLike
Tom,
How did you make out in Vegas? Up or down?
See any good shows?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 19, 2015 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
Tom,
How did you make out in Vegas? Up or down?
See any good shows?
Lost about 50 bucks, which is really only 10 dollars a day. The price of fun. No high roller, I.
Saw the Avengers movie, got a comp. That’s about it, our yearly trip, 29th anniversary. Low key. Thx for asking. 😉
LikeLike
TVD –
The link you posted is based upon a challenge issued to evolutionary biologists – what would have to be true for the Biblical account of A&E to be true (ran across it last year). The proposals are interesting in a speculative sense (heresy can be interesting, but we still have to reject it, not that I’m saying everything there is necessarily heretical: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-you-dont-believe-in-adam-and-eve-ask-an-atheist-for-advice/).
I don’t think there is adequate evidence to compel us to accept evolution (c.f. David Berlinski).
I also find it interesting the Chinese, Mayan, Indian, Near Eastern, etc. calendars don’t go back before 6000 bc or so.
I believe A&E were real people, created by God, and possessed of Original Sin, which they subsequently passed down to the human race. As to the origins of man beyond that, I don’t know. If science can offer additional illumination, great, but I’m hesitant to adopt fantastic or fashionable theories.
Atheists already think I’m nuts for believing a piece of bread will infallibly turn into God following the recitation of a series of words by a priest.
Catholics ought not to care overly for PR either – I admire all men who don’t mind the ridicule of the world, Oldlifers included.
LikeLike
Anyone know whether there was discussion at Nicaea to include Adam & Eve in the creed?
LikeLike
“Not so. We discussed all this. You’re unnecessarily complicating the Genesis issue, as Augustine warned against.”
Yes we did. Mtx took you to the woodshed over this. The bigger sticking point is that you denied physical death of human beings entered because of Adam & Eve’s sin (whether you understand them to be historical people or literary representatives of the first bearers of God’s Image). This is much more problematic and does not rest on a literal reading of Genesis but on a literal reading of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Your conclusion was that the dogmatic statement from an ecumenical council asserting this was wrong. Interesting conclusion indeed! As a prot, no problemo (come on in, the water’s warm…at least once you get used to it), but for an RC – well you are entering into Wills’s territory. If the ecumenical council could get a dogmatic statement wrong, then the whole CtC apologetic collapses. And Susan’s epistemic superiority goes poof.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you want to insist on a literal Adam, you risk bringing your own religion into disrepute, which IMO you have. A literal genetic Adam is as scientifically untenable as the Mormon claim that the American Indians were genetically Jewish. [They ain’t.]
I’d highly recommend John H. Walton’s work on the compatibility of a real, historical Adam (or literal), and modern science’s evolutionary claims. The fact of the matter is that evolution does no violence to the claims of Genesis, once they are understood in their proper cultural and historical context. I’d maintain it’s also possible to maintain Reformed federalism and the historicity of Adam and to grant modern scientific claims. I’m probably in the minority here, but I don’t think that Science or Scripture properly understood are at odds.
LikeLike
And Susan’s epistemic superiority goes poof.
That happened about the time our resident skeptic authoritatively declared her to be the reincarnation of Bellarmine and her arguments were unanswerable.
Now we are told that the first Adam can by mythic, but not the second.
Uh huh.
Where did this guy say he goes to church?
He didn’t and he doesn’t.
Figures.
LikeLike
vd, t, now you side with Mencken?
Earlier you were defending the Crusades.
In the spirit of Mencken, you are entertaining — especially when you don’t sing.
LikeLike
@Jed If you haven’t seen it before, Biologos has a nice primer on why genetic sequencing implies modern humans could not have descended from a single couple. Walton supports a view that holds A&E as archetypal even if there was a historical Adam.
I’m very sympathetic to this view, but then there is the question of death. If death isn’t a consequence of sin, then I have a hard time understanding what the resurrection is all about (won’t are glorified bodies just die again?). The thread running through scripture is sin=death, !sin=!death, Christ’s work has defeated sin and death, therefore, the believer looks forward to eternal life with a resurrected body. It seems to me that scripture teaches that there is a discontinuity pre/post fall. Is it really just a discontinuity of perspective? I think the parallels with Christ and the hope of a future resurrection of the body rule that out.
LikeLike
Tom,
Good for you. Congratulations on the anniversary. That’s great.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 19, 2015 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
vd, t, now you side with Mencken?
Earlier you were defending the Crusades.
In the spirit of Mencken, you are entertaining — especially when you don’t sing.
Incoherent as usual.
The irony is that instead of leading the Presbyterian Church, the clever ones like you and Machen self-marginalize. By bringing orthodoxy into disrepute by insisting on the unnecessary and untenable, you helped bury it.
It is you who marginalize orthodoxy; it is you that makes “one holy catholic and apostolic” church impossible. That’s the irony here, Dr. Hart. The PCUSA did what people do, built a Golden Calf. It is you smart guys who dropped the ball, or rather took your ball and left, pride over prudence.
LikeLike
Machen didn’t so much leave as he got the boot. If your choices are knuckling under to liberalism or getting the boot, it’s not so bad to get booted.
http://www.opc.org/books/conflict/ch8.html
“Thus ended the trial of the Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt.D., before the Special Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of New Brunswick. Dr. Machen appealed the decision to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, but he lost the appeal and was suspended from the ministry of the church.[31] The years that have intervened only make the decision all the more unfair and sad. This travesty of justice remains as a blot on the history of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and as an illustration that history repeats itself. The church is once more in a state of apostasy and spiritual decay, for how else could it ‘excommunicate’ one of its greatest and most valiant soldiers of the truth?”
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 19, 2015 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
Machen didn’t so much leave as he got the boot. If your choices are knuckling under to liberalism or getting the boot, it’s not so bad to get booted.
I don’t think you’re following the argument. Machen could have shut up and lived to reform his church another day. His soul was in no danger over the mission issue. The irony is that he helped bury orthodoxy by abandoning his church to liberalism, as do many orthodox types who win the battle and lose the war.
This is exactly what Francis is dealing with. He is not changing orthodoxy as promulgated by Pope Ratzinger; what he IS doing is pastorship. You do not save the church by emptying it; the shepherd does not look at the lost sheep and say, the hell with him. One way to preserve orthodoxy is to spirit it way and set up a new church, but this brings splinter after splinter, schism after schism. This, frankly, is the fruit of the Reformation, and I don’t think the sola scriptura case for endless schism over theological hairsplitting is very strong.
Hey, I dig and respect orthodoxy, whether or not I embrace it. I admire Jews who live the Law and I wouldn’t give you a shekel for those who don’t. I just see an irony in that the greatest and ablest defenders of orthodoxy such as Machen help bring about its defeat, with pigheadedness over inessentials like this.
Truth is good, but wisdom is the prudent use of it once you’ve got it. Any fool can use the Bible as a weapon, as a club. But this isn’t how a proper shepherd goes about things.
LikeLike
Tom,
The trick is knowing what you can tolerate and what you can’t.
To be a pillar of orthodoxy in the midst of a bunch of clowns may not necessarily be the way to go. Why? Because clowns begat more clowns.
It might be preferable to go hang out with serious people.
Same thing with a team or a company. The bad drives out the good.
LikeLike
Kind of like solidifying the Cavaliers for a playoff run — by bringing in some Knicks. Didn’t work out so well.
LikeLike
Knicks and china dolls are no way to build a winner in the NBA
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 19, 2015 at 6:22 pm | Permalink
Tom,
The trick is knowing what you can tolerate and what you can’t.
Well, that isn’t pastorship. Preserving orthodoxy by stealing off with it and leaving them to build their Golden Calf doesn’t ring true to me.
Well, the Catholic interpretation of this is pretty obvious. But even in the Protestant context, you can’t feed his sheep if you abandon them. Remember, Exodus shows us that once Moses turns his back, the default of mankind is the Golden Calf.
To be a pillar of orthodoxy in the midst of a bunch of clowns may not necessarily be the way to go. Why? Because clowns begat more clowns.
It might be preferable to go hang out with serious people.
Same thing with a team or a company. The bad drives out the good.
The future of the Reformation in a nutshell, I make it, specifically when it comes to orthodoxy. There is no safe haven.
LikeLike
#icanspellincoherent
LikeLike
vd, t, what does it matter whether Machen or Francis save orthodoxy since everyone will be saved anyway (except for Esau)?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 19, 2015 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
#icanspellincoherent
D. G. Hart
Posted June 19, 2015 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
vd, t, what does it matter whether Machen or Francis save orthodoxy since everyone will be saved anyway (except for Esau)?
The better question is, “If you’re Elect, why does anything else matter? And if you’re not Elect, what’s the damned difference?”
Anybody can overturn the chessboard, Butch.
LikeLike
#watchmeavoidaquestion
LikeLike
Father Dwight counsels, take it with a grain of salt:
LikeLike
How to follow Pope Francis and not give up national parks:
LikeLike
Pope Francis may have been speaking to everyone, but Republicans are not heeding everything he said:
LikeLike
~But it is ok to ignore the Pope, because the ‘Catholic’ Republicans are serious on ending abortion, waging only just foreign wars, promoting economic policies that result in wages adequate that a mother can stay home to raise her kids should she choose, and promoting political localism.~
LikeLike
The Pertinacious Papist has a summary of the interpretations (all of which are well above the pay grade of the payers, prayers, and obeyers).
LikeLike
Something did change after all, says Rusty Reno:
LikeLike
Pope Francis wants change too:
Would this mean changing the globalism of papal supremacy?
LikeLike
Perhaps reflecting on the conceptual distinction between “good” and “bad” would resolve that question.
Although public image aside, he seems to be the most authoritarian pope we’ve had in a very long time.
LikeLike
And here I thought the point of being Roman Catholic was all the unity:
LikeLike