Pope Quote, Theologians

 At a mass celebrating the Holy Spirit's approach to mankind after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, Pentecost on May 28, 2023, Pope Francis related that event to the upcoming Bishops' Synod on Synodality (link HERE to the article, and first reference at bottom of post):

The Catholic Church's current Synod of Bishops should not be a "parliament for demanding rights," but a journey in accordance with the Spirit.

He emphasized, "the Holy Spirit is the heart of synodality and the driving force of evangelization."

But from the same homily, Francis warned, "We often hear so many so-called thinkers and theologians who give us cold doctrines that seem mathematical because they lack the Spirit."

The Pope covers at least three themes in his statements: the Holy Spirit; Church synods; and "cold" (assuming bad) doctrines of theologians. I'd like to address the third in my last post on these quotes. 

First, I don’t know if Pope Francis meant the doctrines or the theologians “lack the Spirit,” but I will not speculate directly on whether a specific individual has the Spirit or not.

Simply put, Catholic doctrines are defined as all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Heresies are ideas contrary to accepted, approved religious beliefs. Theologians study God and write about their findings and their thoughts can be very complex.  Many of us don’t understand them and thus lies one of the problems. We trust in our educated Church leadership, many themselves theologians, to sort through the opinions of others through the ages and then tell the rest of us what we need to know. 

Popes and bishops sometimes need to actively oppose false doctrines, as we saw in the Arian heresy (described in my last post HERE), where our Nicaean Creed was drawn, so that all Catholics can know the clear beliefs of the Church. Yet, as we saw in the same Arian heresy, many leaders were misled for a long time. So much so, that St. Jerome at one point said the world “awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.”

Some theologians resist what the pope and magisterium teach. At times, popes have required Catholic professors to sign pledges to teach orthodoxy (Church approved beliefs). That does not always stop their resistance, however. And, to be fair, the Church does change for the better sometimes due to new realizations, such as the injustice of slavery.

The Holy Father didn't name any theologians and neither will I, but I will mention two extremes of intellectual thought that, if not at this point can even be called Christian theology, have influenced theology and therefore culture in general. I’m not an expert and I’m defining these theories very broadly, so anyone out there who reads this and can add or correct, feel free. But I think these labels will fit well enough to be recognized and cover some of what is going on in minds both inside and outside the Church.

One theory is called “Naturalistic Modernism” (or some form of the term), where all of existence is from natural laws and material substance. The other theological theory is the “Supernatural Existential,” where all people who in some sense know they are human are infused supernaturally and ultimately called by God to the Divine Nature so that pretty much every person, no matter what they believe about God or have even heard of Him, end up with Him in Heaven.

Naturalistic Modernism started centuries ago and involved so-called intellectuals denying miracles, mostly because, I think, of the increase of understanding of nature and scientific method. They wanted to look at Christ in the sense of a simple human teacher but transformed in stories by what his disciples thought of Him. The theory led to the elimination of all supernatural phenomena, including God Himself. And, of course, this is where many people stand.

Concerning the Supernatural Existential, as I understand it, individuals, even avowed atheists, do not have to believe in Christ in order to be Christian. If they accept their own essence as human beings, with an innate transcendent consciousness open to God as the Other, they are Christian even if they don’t know it. As far as I can tell, if the theory is right, no one would be eliminated from Heaven. There is more to this than I can describe here or fully understand, so I refer you to a book by Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, linked below, called, Gethsemane: The Origins and Rise of the Intellectual Revolution in the Church.

Cardinal Siri did not flinch in denouncing this theory. Another negative analysis came from none other than Pope Emeritus Benedict, previously Pope Benedict XVI, also known as a brilliant theologian. In an interview HERE (reference below), the Pope Emeritus pointed out that simply accepting oneself as human does not explain the “drama of change and renewal that is central to Christianity.”

And this theory is not what is laid out in the Bible. In the first book of Romans, a letter by the Apostle Paul to citizens of that city, Paul first describes those faults of Gentiles which Jews point out. But in the second chapter, he accuses the Jews of the very same faults. In the third chapter he spells out, with verses marked under the Bible’s New International Version (Romans 3, NIV): 

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 

10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11

    there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 

All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”

Paul continues after naming more human faults:

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith…

Though all have sinned and are justified by the grace that comes through Christ’s sacrifice, this redemption is only received by faith.

Unfortunately, the Supernatural Existential thinking has permeated the Catholic Church, leaders and laity, to the point where evangelization is damaged. Why exert yourself if everyone is saved anyway? Evangelization can be very challenging.

Are people saved who never heard of Christ? It is up to God if He wants to make exceptions for His own reasons. It is our job to make sure all persons in our day hear the Gospels loudly and clearly. Are atheists or persons from other religions saved who have heard the Word and strongly deny either that God exists or that Christ is God and has atoned for our sins as long as we believe in Him? I very much don’t think so unless they change, no matter how much they accept themselves as human or transcendently spiritual they feel. 

Most of us are familiar with the verse, “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life,” (John 3:16). This is stated by Jesus Christ Himself. But the next two verses, especially 18, are not as familiar in our culture: 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (NIV). (Though the wording “they have not believed” may imply “at any time in our lives,” I think that as long as we are alive, we can realize and accept the truth of Christ and subsequently be saved.) 

Only Christ leads to God, which He distinctly told us, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). We consider the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and although the Bible itself can be challenging for the laity, it is not impenetrable. We also have faith that the Holy Spirit lives within Christians and leads us to Truth. 

The “cold doctrines” Pope Francis mentions are those that lead us away from Truth, from understanding and therefore from a right relationship with God. There are intellectual and theological ideas floating around right now which openly and obviously counter to what we seek in prayer, hear in our consciences, read in the Bible, and of what Christ Himself taught. These can be analyzed by sincere believers, theology professionals or not, in our reason and our hearts, and should be called out for the "cold doctrines" that they are.

I hope all Catholics will be willing to seek the Lord's will together, throughout the Bishops' Synod on Synodality and its aftermath.

References

Justin McClellen, "Pope on Pentecost: Synod is a journey in the Spirit, not 'a parliament,'" Catholic News Service, May 28, 2023.

https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-pentecost-synod-journey-spirit-not-parliament

Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Gethsemane: The Origins and Rise of the Intellectual Revolution in the Church (Franciscan Herald Press, 1981). (This book is again available in a reprint by Sophia Institute Press, 2022.)

Fr. Jacques Servais, SJ, “Faith is Not an Idea but Life: 2016 Interview with Pope Emeritus Benedict,” Catholic Culture website, Proceedings of the residency of Gesu on Justification by Faith, accessed Sept. 9, 2023.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11197

Pope Quote, Synod

In my previous post (HERE), I commented on Pope Francis's quotes at a mass celebrating the Holy Spirit's approach to mankind after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, Pentecost. On May 28, 2023, the Pope related that event to the upcoming Bishops' Synod on Synodality (link HERE with reference at bottom of post):

The Catholic Church's current Synod of Bishops should not be a "parliament for demanding rights," but a journey in accordance with the Spirit. 

He emphasized, "the Holy Spirit is the heart of synodality and the driving force of evangelization."

But from the same homily, Francis warned, "We often hear so many so-called thinkers and theologians who give us cold doctrines that seem mathematical because they lack the Spirit."

I mentioned that the Holy Father's comments brought out three major themes: the Holy Spirit; Church synods; and certain theologians.

Though these themes are interwoven, in my second post, I'll address Church synods, along with a closely related subject, Catholic Church councils.

Since it began around 2000 years ago, the Catholic Church has had 21 official ecumenical (worldwide) councils, listed in Catholic Answers Website HERE. The Pope doesn't have to attend these meetings of bishops but has to approve their concluding documents.

In addition, there are other meetings of bishops that are known as synods. They can be restricted to a certain geographical location. Also, a synod can be a meeting of bishops called by a pope to discuss a topic of theological or pastoral significance in order to prepare a document of advice or counsel to him. In an effort to keep the spirit of Vatican II (concluded in 1965) alive, Pope Paul VI enacted regularly spaced bishops' synods since then.

Though we might expect all meetings of Catholic bishops, many of whom have advanced to cardinals at this stage, to be smooth going, history shows this was not the case. Two particular situations were especially contentious for long periods of time.

One was the Arian heresy. It started when a man named Arius claimed that Jesus Christ was not a Person of God but rather made by God to be somewhere between God and humans as a mediator.

For a very in-depth report of that controversy, you can refer to a book, entirely online, by John Henry Cardinal Newman called, Arians of the Fourth Century (link HERE). You can also read a shorter summary under “Arian controversy” at Wikipedia HERE.

There were many synods between the two Councils that are considered the ones that officially condemned Arianism (which were Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople I in 381 AD). A list of the intervening meetings is found in Note 6 of Cardinal Newman's book (link HERE). These sometimes pronounced in favor of Arianism. There were various locations of all the synods due to various factors, even prevailing illnesses, so the events can be hard to follow. But in one of these Catholic Church synods the Arian heresy was supported even by a pope's signature (Pope Liberius at the Synod of Sirmium in 357 AD).

In those days, emperors got involved with religion, so some of the divisions were due to their interference. However, there were genuine disagreements between leaders of the Church, especially along what were considered geographical lines of East (Constantinople) and West (Rome). 

It is relevant to the current synod to say that the laity were intimately aware of the Arian heresy over these years and actively fighting it. Cardinal Newman felt free to give his view (Note 5 HERE) in Arians of the Fourth Century: 

The episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicæa on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not.

 After mentioning exceptions on both sides, such as Athanasius, he adds to the above quote:

This is a very remarkable fact: but there is a moral in it. Perhaps it was permitted, in order to impress upon the Church at that very time passing out of her state of persecution to...her long temporal ascendancy, the great evangelical lesson, that, not the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the unlearned, and the weak constitute her real strength. It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown; it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory.

Another example of Councils that did not bring immediate solutions were those of Pisa in 1409 and Constance in 1414 to 1418. In 1309, the geographical center of the Catholic Church had been moved from Rome to Avignon, France, largely due to political interactions with the pope and the king of France at the time (info HERE). In 1377, it returned to Rome, led by Pope Gregory XI. When he died and a new pope, Urban VI, was elected, he was critical of the cardinals who had lived in luxury in France. Some of them then returned to France in 1378 and elected an anti-pope, Clement VII. About 30 years later, some of the leadership got the Church into even more of a bind when they attempted to replace 2 popes at a meeting in Pisa in 1409, when they elected a new Pope. However, instead of the desired result of a total of one pope, the election was contested and the Church now had 3 popes.

At Constance (info HERE), the participants eventually emerged with one pope. However, they claimed supremacy of Church councils over the pope in certain cases, and pronounced that councils should be held every 10 years. This is known as conciliarism and was declared heretical by Pope Pius II  in 1460.

I hope you have seen it can take time to work out where the Holy Spirit is truly leading us when it comes to Catholic Church councils and synods.

References

Justin McClellen, "Pope on Pentecost: Synod is a journey in the Spirit, not 'a parliament,'" Catholic News Service, May 28, 2023. https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-pentecost-synod-journey-spirit-not-parliament

Karl Keating, "The 21 Ecumenical Councils," Catholic Answers, 6/1/1993. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-21-ecumenical-councils

John Henry Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, (Longmans, Green and Co., 1908). https://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/index.html

“Arian controversy,” Wikimedia Foundation, last modified March 1, 2023, 12:41 (UTC). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy

“Council of Constance,” Wikimedia Foundation, last modified July 12, 2023, 05:28. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance

Pope Quote, Holy Spirit

At a mass celebrating the Holy Spirit's approach to mankind after Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, called Pentecost, on May 28, 2023, Pope Francis related that event to the upcoming Bishops' Synod on Synodality (link HERE, the article is first reference at bottom of post):

The Catholic Church's current Synod of Bishops should not be a "parliament for demanding rights," but a journey in accordance with the Spirit.

He emphasized, "the Holy Spirit is the heart of synodality and the driving force of evangelization."

But from the same homily, Francis warned, "We often hear so many so-called thinkers and theologians who give us cold doctrines that seem mathematical because they lack the Spirit."

I'd like to comment on the Pope's statements in a very abbreviated way. As Francis often does, I'll point out three themes. Though the subjects are intertwined, it is perhaps easier to think about them distinctly: the Holy Spirit; Church synods; and certain theologians.

To learn about God, we use the Bible, which has records of Christ's life on Earth and early Church development. All Christians should read the Bible, with studies available through Church, schools, and other sources.  (This separate link to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website Bible, the New American Bible, Revised Edition, NABRE HERE, can be used for Bible verses given below and further reading).

That said, God is a Trinity of one essence and three Persons: the Father; Jesus Christ the Son; and the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures, human and divine. Though He is God, He came to Earth and took on flesh in order to live a perfect life and die in atonement for our sins, so that a just God would accept us into His presence in Heaven (to read more, click HERE).

To learn about the Holy Spirit, we can see what Christ said about Him. In the Bible's book of John, chapter 14, Jesus was talking with His disciples. He said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you (John 14:15-17, NABRE).

This is an exciting promise since the Holy Spirit is God Himself! It should make us pay close attention to what Christ means.

What are Christ's commandments? One is to love one another, as He tells the same disciples in the previous chapter (John 13:34).

But this is not all, as some seem to think. The other major commandment is to believe in Jesus Christ Himself. Again in the book of John at an earlier time, Christ answers a question in an exchange with a crowd following Him: "So they said to him, 'What can we do to accomplish the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent'” (John 6:28-29). He was referring to Himself as both God and Son of God.

Most of us are familiar with John 3:16, where Christ tells a Jewish leader that "God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” Belief is crucial.

Throughout the Old Testament, God had a special relationship with the Jewish people. However, He insisted they worship Him, the True God, and no false conceptions of other gods. They often failed and eventually were exiled by God to foreign lands.

Too often today even Christians don't take belief in the Trinity, including Christ, seriously enough. But it is a fundamental element of our relationship with God. He wants us to know Him, be devoted to Him and worship only Him as the Lord. Jesus Christ came to Earth, lived a perfect life and died in atonement for our sins, and our attention should be focused on what this means.

There are more verses about this subject that could be quoted. But for now, I want to address the other themes I mentioned, namely Church Synods and certain theologians.

References:

Justin McClellen, "Pope on Pentecost: Synod is a journey in the Spirit, not 'a parliament,'" Catholic News Service, May 28, 2023. https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-pentecost-synod-journey-spirit-not-parliament

“Good News – The Gospel!” Womanatwell Website, March 9, 2023. https://womanatwell.blogspot.com/2023/03/good-news-gospel.html

Natural Theology and Nature

I want to say just a little about the definition of "Natural Theology." It is meant in one way that we are able to determine some things about God by our human reason (in contrast to those things which come by revelation). But it also means that the Church can and has learned about God through His Creation.

Unfortunately, Catholics have lost a lot of appreciation of God through the very science that could lead them there. They are intimidated by the history of mistakes made toward Galileo by the Church and now by atheistic scientists and a culture of scientism. It is a shame, because, as I hope many of my blog posts have shown, biology is shining forth as a proof of His existence and genius. This is Natural Theology at its best, and it is being missed by many in places of influence in the Church and for that matter by much of the laity. (Although, I must say it is refreshing to see on the Internet that many do believe God made life and species directly.)

Catholic leadership is not, for the most part, learning from its mistakes. They should not be proclaiming evolution is true when they don't understand the science behind the reasoning both for and against. The results of the Galileo affair made the Church swing in an opposite and yet still wrong direction, where first they made decisions only on their interpretation of the Bible and they now agree with everything scientists say. 

St. Thomas Aquinas is a revered medieval theologian. He constantly used the term “science” alongside of these words: faith, revelation, Scriptures and doctrine. Yet now many Christians insist that science and religion do not mix. Of course, much thought has changed over the centuries about what science and religion are. But two wrongs do not make a right. One wrong is ignorance of science. The second wrong is a denial that science just might be the study of physical things that were Created directly by supernatural means. 

Actually, there are more than two “wrongs” going around. Another is the mindset that scientists will eventually solve all mysteries on a purely material basis. But many of us believe they will never know whether there really are multiple universes, no matter how much they speculate or assure us they have it all worked out. Our common sense can tell us that working proteins do not just form randomly no matter how much time the Earth has been here. We can get more technical by referring to the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, Part I, Question 2, where he explains our ability to know God as the Cause of what exists. It is just as reasonable to believe that “science” (as the culture now defines it) will never work some things out as to think it will.

I pray someday the current situation changes once again, where we can go to truly learning about God's Creation and realize how wonderful He is. That is the Natural Theology that we should be doing.

I'd like to add a personal note. I have been spending much of my Internet time on Catholic Answers Forums. We just got an announcement that they are shutting down on Dec. 31, 2020. It was a shock at first, but a little bit of a relief after I realized how intense I was in reading it and thinking about all the arguments on it.

I guess it is the way of Christian evangelization to want to be energetic in one's efforts to show others the truth of Jesus Christ. And yet we are human and have daily limits, and sometimes, even often, we push past them without being aware of it. We have to step back sometimes, take our breath and re-evaluate.

I've been reading about Church history, the Fathers who shaped the doctrine, and other past theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas. It's a lot to learn to say the least, the equivalent of a never-ending run, and it always felt like I was behind. Now I think I will be able to pace myself a little better, both with studying and earthly matters I continue to contend with. I now feel I have more time to cope.

So, I don't plan to make up the CAF Internet time one-to-one with this blog. For now, as far as studying goes, I will try to read St. Thomas' Summa Theologica, over 1000 pages of difficult reading. And I will not hurry.

Thomas Aquinas Continued

In my last post I was talking about St. Thomas Aquinas and Catholic thinking related to him. Aquinas has had influence in many ways, but is ignored in others. I compared two specific areas: the treatment of Catholic women by the Church because of Thomas’ opinion of them, and the misuse of his name for worldviews other than his belief in direct supernatural Creationism. But I made my point about women in the last post and now I want to say something about Creationism.

In Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 91, Article 2 (New Advent website HERE), Thomas stated:

The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God.

The definition of “immediately” is HERE . It means instantly and directly. Thomas again talked about direct creation by God when he discussed the creation of woman from the rib of a man in Part I, Question 92, Article 4 which can be seen HERE.

But, a 2009 Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution excluded Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates.  The organizers said we weren't scientific enough, although they are the ones ignoring science as well as the words of Thomas Aquinas.  The science is revealing biological systems way too complex to be answered by chance genetic mutations even when natural selection is factored in.

The human condition is to have all kinds of ideas bombard us from inside our heads and out. Some of these take hold and we are convinced they are true. Sometimes the ideas are right and sometimes not. As our science research discovers more and more, we are overwhelmed with facts and opinions about them. As our communications improve, we discover new religions and cultures. How do we sort it all out? It takes time and effort and discernment.

Of course, people have argued about things for a long time and for philosophers, argument is a living. But all the worldviews can be hard to learn and follow, and facts can be lost or mangled in our minds after time. Concerning the relationships between philosophy, theology, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Theory (ID), a good series of posts is by Discovery Institute's Jay Richards, "Catholics and Intelligent Design," Evolution News, April-May 2011. Even if you don’t agree with him, he is very good at explaining the situation. The fourth post has links to all previous so I will give that one link HERE. He of course emphasizes ID compared to Creationism, but much of the biology of Creationism is linked to the ID scientific theory.

The arguments in Aquinas’ day (13^th century) didn’t concern materialistic evolution but whether man was made by angels, as St. Augustine had said, or according to Aristotle’s philosophy with which Aquinas was wrangling. The Greek elements of Fire and Air seemed a more noble make-up for man than Earth and Water, the ingredients of the “Slime” which was closer to the Biblical account of God’s action. Aquinas takes his stand with the answer (also Question 91):

On the contrary, It is written (Gen 2:7): God made man of the slime of the earth.

Some of the totality of Thomas Aquinas’ thought, and it is a lot, still resonates to this day. He had a lot of detractors in his lifetime, and we can wonder if Thomas sometimes got discouraged and felt he was wasting his time.  As a matter of fact, he had a mystical experience at the end of his life, put down the pen and never wrote again.  He said then, as quoted by Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (1993), 9, “All that I have written seems like straw to me” (Wikipedia quote HERE).  And yet before that he used his gifts at a time when many were probably confused by the different interpretations and theories floating around in that day. He probably helped many get back to the faith or remain more solidly in it.

I’ve lately been reading Paul’s letters in the Bible and one of the things he says is:

Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness….(2 Timothy 2:23-25 NABRE).

I wonder sometimes if it is worth arguing about materialistic evolution. Since science changes so much, how long will these details be relevant? But in this day when scientism (belief that science is everything) is taking over like wildfire, I think science is a good approach for conversation. It is in this way people can think about whether biological life and diversity is beyond what can possibly be formed from the other currently known forces of nature. Though biology is complex, it can be appreciated on a certain level by everyone. Like it does with so many things, the Internet grants access to biologic wonder. With video searches, people can view muscle molecules contracting, DNA being copied, and a multitude of other biological functions. Then they can ask the harder questions: could these have formed in even billions of years? Was that time enough to randomly build a house or even make a brick? Did a computer chip form out of the primordial soup? Why then does the concept of billions of years answer the question of how and why we are here?

 

Ironically because science changes so much is one reason individuals need a more solid foundation in their lives. The researcher gets old like everyone else. My suspicion is that the Theory of Evolution has led many scientists to the sad conclusion that they consist of only atoms. But their inner feelings of fear and love must be inescapable. The unchanging and absolutely necessary foundation, hard as it is to believe for the hard-driving atheistic evolutionist, is Jesus Christ.

The overriding priority of Catholics is to evangelize the Good News of the Gospels, and we must find a way to work together to carry out our commission. Sometimes I get very discouraged and heartsick about our problems in the Church, particularly the child abuse scandal. Yet I believe our new Pope is trying to reform the Church as others accomplished in previous dark times. He talks about hope which is uplifting to me.  We know our Lord Jesus has conquered evil. Thomas Aquinas would have agreed:

Our help is in the name of the Lord, the Maker of Heaven and Earth (Psalms 124:8 NABRE).

St. Thomas Aquinas

If a Catholic has the unusual combination of interests in women’s dignity and the sister subjects of Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory, she or he would probably view the uproar caused by an op-ed column about Catholics by Jamie Stiehm, "The Catholic Supreme Court's War on Women," US New and World Report, Jan. 7, 2014, with a corner of one eye on St. Thomas Aquinas. Stiehm, was outright hostile toward the decision of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor.  These nuns did not want to sign over the right for an insurance company to pay for contraceptives and abortion for their employees. The problem has been festering ever since Obamacare made its move to include this cost in insurance coverage. The law is for the insurance to pay for contraception, not about whether the employer can force its employees to use or not use contraception. Many Catholics are responding in great anger and indignation to this column, both in comments at the site and at various blogs like the one linked above. The Little Sisters apparently felt that in agreeing to the payment of contraception and abortion even by another party they would still be violating their religious conscience about it.

Unfortunately, the arguments about contraception and abortion are caught up in each other and distinction of types of contraception beyond “natural” and “unnatural” are not made with Catholic leadership. Chemical contraceptives taken internally can cause death of a fertilized egg. However, man-made barriers can keep the sperm from reaching the egg and avoid embryonic death, but they are still deemed wrong by the Church. The reasoning stems from the Natural Law, derived in great part from Thomas Aquinas, the greatly venerated 13th century Doctor of the Church. The thoughts of Aquinas are carried down to this day within Catholic theology and philosophy.

We probably all know by now that the Catholic teaching is that every sexual act, which is allowed only for married persons, should be done with procreation in mind. A recent survey put out to the bishops by the Vatican concerning the deterioration of the traditional family refers to this Natural Law. The questions of the survey are listed in the bottom half a post in Vatican News and Natural Law is mentioned in Question 2 where the bishops are asked if Natural Law is still accepted (2019 Update: this link is no longer accessible). Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae, (Sec. 16) expressed a very limited exception of consideration for the burdens of giving birth continually, but they were only to be interrupted by natural means. These developed into what is known now as Natural Family Planning (NFP). NFP makes use of biological factors to prevent pregnancy and probably works if there is absolutely no human weakness between partners. In my experience of encountering couples who teach it, I’ve found they have had between 6 to 12 children.

Many women active in their field, say medical doctors, do not have time to properly care for 6 to 12 children unless they have superwoman levels of energy (some do but many do not). The Church does not seem to think that God would personally call a married woman to be a doctor instead of a mother. Perhaps this is because of St. Thomas Aquinas.  In Part I, Question 92, Article 1 of Summa Theologica seen at the New Advent website HERE, Thomas gave his opinion of women’s roles.  (His Summa is set up by first posing questions made by others and then he answers them below). The question, bad enough, was whether women should have been made in the production of things. His answer:

It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a ‘helper’ to man; not, indeed as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.  

By generation he means reproduction.  He goes on to describe sex between man and woman, then says:

But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation.

In other words, Aquinas said women can’t think. But unlike Thomas I assert that all women are intelligent and should be treated as such. Perhaps the existence of female Nobel Prize winners will assure that women have intellect. I am not saying that intelligent married women shouldn’t be mothers.  I am not saying all married career women are in their careers because they believe God called them there.  I am saying that when intelligent married women discern they are called by God to serve Him in specific ways other than motherhood, no one should tell them they must be mothers instead. 

Now what does the Church’s gender problem have to do with Creationism? Let’s go back to Thomas Aquinas. It is a curious thing that his teachings are ignored when so-called experts have other agendas. His name is used to press the idea that science will one day have no gaps, since God supposedly created an ordered world that man will thoroughly understand. This order in the world has taken, as a prominent example, the form of totally materialistic, naturalistic evolution. Evidence of this mindset is found from the exclusion of creationists and intelligent design advocates from a Vatican-endorsed conference concerning evolution.

Though the conference was back in 2009, the Thomists keep the worldview running. Consider a statement from Mark Shea at the National Catholic Register.  I link to a pertinent column HERE and will not quote the whole thing.  But very succinctly, he talks about why Thomists don’t agree with the Argument from Design.  He says there are several problems with this approach: 

The first is this: St. Thomas himself never says “We can’t explain X, so God did it”…

In fact, Aquinas addresses in Article 4 the creation of man and woman in the very same question at the very same link I gave before. Thomas Aquinas says:

Now the matter whence man is naturally begotten is the human semen of man or woman.  Wherefore from any other matter an individual of the human species cannot naturally be generated.  Now God alone, the Author of nature, can produce an effect into existence outside the ordinary course of nature.  Therefore God alone could produce either a man from the slime of the earth, or a woman from the rib of man.

In the next statement, Reply to Objection 1, Aquinas says:

This argument is verified when an individual is begotten, by natural generation, from that which is like it in the same species.

The points here are many, but for now I will emphasize this one:  if the bishops are nervous about whether women can discern wisely, they would be better off teaching discernment than dictating to half a billion people exactly what they should do. How do they know each heart better than God does? The answer is, they don't. When the Church leadership trusts women to discern God's personal calling instead of assuming Thomas Aquinas' opinion of women, a New Evangelization may truly start to take hold.

A New Day

What a difference a week makes. Pope Benedict XVI resigned. He had said all along he doesn’t think someone who is unable to do the job should stay, and I am glad for that. In these days of advanced technology, people often live longer but don’t necessarily retain competence. I don’t know if traditionalists would agree, but I hope they appreciate this is better than having years of waiting for another leader.

Some may dread change, but others look forward to it with cautious hope. Though some Catholics seem willing to ignore the child sex abuse crisis in the Church, may I remind them that we need to protect the vulnerable as well as hold up the faith. It should be possible to do both. No matter how one may dislike media, they have reported much that was true. In fact, it has been victims, their lawyers and the media who have informed us of secret policies of the Church. These have included hiding the identity of predator priests and passing them on to unsuspecting parishes and communities.

How can people accept child sexual abuse and endangerment from leaders of our Church? Catholic leaders should collectively know about evil and how important it is to overcome. Many Catholics don’t even believe in hell anymore. Does this kind of behavior deserve heaven? Christ died for our sins, but one of the first calls of His ministry was to repent (cf. Matthew 4:17 NABRE). When we sincerely are sorry, we also must try to do better!

It is not hard to suppose that the Christian Church is a favored target for evil. How better to turn people away from the Lord than to drag Christians into sinfulness? If you have read some of my posts, you know I’m interested in science. These days many scientists, including social scientists, don’t believe in the spiritual categories of good and evil. According to them, we have just evolved, there is no God. But from what I’ve read, some of the same people still define bad behavior in general terms of “hurting others.” This isn’t terribly logical, since one can’t define bad behavior without using the concepts of good and evil. How does their definition make it evil? If there is no good or evil, then hurting people is a neutral activity. Actually, in Darwinian terms, hurting others probably increases one’s own chance for survival.

It is a real shame that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both got caught up in duplicity concerning sex abuse. It is a shame because they both also seemed to understand the Truth of Jesus Christ and His salvation for those who believe, and the importance of evangelization. Though many Catholic theologians might tell us otherwise, this is critical for Christians to know. The tendency now is to believe that anyone can get to heaven, a theology called “Universalism,” which is a side-effect of wishful thinking on the part of certain “intellectuals.” This problem is discussed in a book by Ralph Martin, Will Many be Saved? (Eerdman's Publishing, 2012).  Martin goes into the details about two theologians who promoted this worldview and how their influence affected the faith of many.  He says they ignored a vital part of the Vatican II document concerning those who have never heard of Christ (Lumen Gentium, Section 16). Missions are still as important as ever, but now even many Christians are missing the point.

It is very easy to despair of change when the leadership seems so uninterested in what the followers think. Yet if we read Cyprian Davis, The History of Black Catholics in the United States, (Crossroad Publishing Co., 1995), we can be inspired by African American persistence in the face of demeaning prejudice by US Catholic clergy. Actually, the hierarchy in Rome was on the side of helping the descendants of slaves who pleaded their case to them. There was still much resistance, but eventually things changed for the better. However, the Protestants had already made great progress and many African Americans had joined them by the time the Catholics here saw the light.

In a way, we can be glad the hidden sins of our leadership are being exposed because that is the first step in fixing the problem. But the leaders are still without satisfactory solutions and we need to get this straightened out. No more secrets! No more ignoring bishops who have hidden sexual predators or have known about it!

But if leaders follow through as they should, do you know what that will do? It will create even more shortages than we already have with only celibate male priests and bishops. After all these sex scandals, I don’t want to hear about the beauty of celibate male priesthood or how priests don't have time for families. Celibacy may be a wonderful way of life for some, but celibacy is not necessary in order to serve the church. One example from the fourth century is St. Hilary of Poitiers (biography at Catholic Online HERE) who was made bishop. Even though he was married with a child, he had the time to fight a great heresy, Arianism. Admittedly, he was exiled and did a lot of studying and writing then. Perhaps we can look at that as a sabbatical.  But he also continued the battle and wrote hymns when restored to his office.

I feel sometimes like the leadership of the Catholic Church would rather provide obstacles to the Lord for the faithful than give us a helping hand. We need a forthright, just Church for our spiritual health and in order to evangelize. I sincerely hope the leaders humbly ask the Lord to protect all Christians from evil and pray that He teach us and help us to do our part for the good.

Conversion for All

On Nov. 12, 2012, Timothy Cardinal Dolan gave a presidential address to the General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (link HERE). This was shortly after the US presidential election, and was uncharacteristically humble for the Cardinal. The link above is worth reading, although it takes him a little while to get to the point. When he does, you find that he talks about conversion and penance. One would not be surprised if he meant for the people who voted for Obama, an action he and his fellow bishops heartily tried to prevent. But he actually meant first and foremost for bishops themselves.

One may cynically wonder if he had a victory speech prepared with entirely different substance if Romney had won. Though we may wish he spoke more plainly about his motivations for the need for conversion and penance, I think we all know what he meant. The half-year since their last meeting had brought court convictions for Msgr. Lynn in Philadelphia and Bishop Finn in St. Louis for the concealment of various forms of child sexual abuse. Along with the trials came media reminders of the failures of many, many other cardinals and bishops, including Popes.

If Dolan doesn’t know of the animosity many people feel against the Church leadership, he doesn’t deserve to be president of the USCCB. It seems this speech shows he gets it, at least in one form. Now if the words actually translate into action, we might all be a little happier. Penance is one thing, but conversion means the courage to change. Our strength is in the Lord  (cf. Psalms 118:14 NABRE), and we all need to pray fervently for it.

Many people have written about the need for accountability for Catholic bishops, such as defrocking and even excommunication. But a deeper question exists: why are there so few consequences? We can’t say there are none, since in the case of the Legionaries of Christ, the leader, Marcial Maciel, was so horrendously guilty he was finally taken from his post by Pope Benedict XVI. An obituary appears here by Adam Bernstein, "Marcial Maciel, 86; Founded Controversial Legionaries of Christ," Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2008. However, even this took a long, long time after years of his accusers being ignored. But most bishops who passed pedophile priests onto unsuspecting parishes and still hide some of their identities go on with their lives and their jobs while other Catholics are excommunicated for things like promoting women priests.

Though Cardinal Dolan may have had certain things in mind when he talked about penance for bishops, he may himself not understand the deeper reasons for this inability to deal with the problem. Well, of course, we would not be wrong to say it is because of their sin. But perhaps a little more analysis would be helpful toward conversion.

Though I usually like to separate different issues to analyze them, there are some things in common with several themes here: the dismal behavior of bishops in the child abuse case; the desire of bishops to stop abortion (I generalize but believe most bishops want to stop abortion); and their rejection of women in true equality (and by true equality I mean not just nominal or “equal but different”).  The commonality is the way we think about these things, whether we listen to other persons problems and ideas, and what we do about them.

In the abortion issue, the bishops want the potentially aborting woman to consider the life within her and not reject it. This woman has her reasons for aborting, which she thinks are valid: she does not think the fetus is yet a human; she can’t afford it; she is afraid of what relatives will do if they find she is pregnant. However, none of these reasons are valid according to the bishops. They would object in some way: the fetus is a real human; help is available; the family may accept her anyway. Furthermore, they expect these potentially aborting women to listen to their answers.

However, in the case of treating women equally, they have all kinds of reasons why ordination and leadership should not be inclusive: the 12 disciples were men; Christ was a man; Christ is the bridegroom. But there are also objections to these arguments: 12 men represented the old ways of the law of the 12 tribes of Israel, and when Christ arose from the dead he showed Himself to women first and told them to proclaim his resurrection to others; Christ was human and so are women; if only men can represent Christ as the bridegroom as priests, then only women (the brides) should be in the pews.

When Cardinal Dolan asks for conversion of bishops, one hopes he refers, at the least, to the child sexual abuse crisis of the Church. It is good to see some sign of acknowledgement, but the bishops should know better than most that there must be changes in action if conversion is true. This is not just about going to the confessional and a fellow bishop telling them their sins are forgiven. If they expect to be satisfied with that, they are not converted.  They need to think about why they are doing these things and what needs to change for good.

These three issues relate to each group having their mindsets for doing things and whether they can listen to others.  There are differences in how we think about issues and how some things may be right and wrong in each group.  If bishops expect Catholic women who plan to undergo abortion to listen to them (and perhaps even influence non-Catholic women), they should think about whether they themselves accept women as equal or reject them and their ideas. They could start by reviewing their reasons why they keep women in the out-group, and evaluate if these ideas are true theology, or man-made rationalizations which sit among the genuine doctrine.

Perhaps the American political election brought the situation home to Dolan. He finally started, however tenuously, what needs to be done. The question is, how far will he and other bishops go? Because their conversion journeys will be very long and painful for them if they are to be done right.  May we all realize that true conversion is worth the pain, and may we have the courage to do it.

Sisters Surveyed

There is a Vatican-ordered review of American Catholic women religious going on now. Catholic News Service reports that a questionnaire has been given to religious orders to describe their activities. One general question concerns the doctrine and teaching of women religious.

One factor in this questioning is the demand of women to be ordained. There are some outspoken nuns who speak about ordination. The clash is inevitable for those women who think it is wrong that there is no ordination of women in the Catholic Church. But clouding this subject is whether women religious are staying on track with other doctrine.

Unfortunately in my experience, in writings and teachings, many religious women are drifting off, often to universalism where it doesn't matter in their opinion what people believe. To them, God loves everyone, and everyone will get to heaven. How we would get along with those who never repented, I don't know. (Though I can't know their hearts at their ends, I give Hitler and Stalin as possible examples.) However, I find this mindset to be true with writings of male religious also. And I'm sure there are many religious women who are deeply committed to orthodox Christianity. I don't want to go into details of this now, but I write of these themes in my book, Unto Others. (My book is a mystery and so I hope entertaining, but takes on themes of today's Catholic Church and life in general.)

In the frustration of being treated as second-hand Church members, some women may get off the track altogether. However, being treated unfairly is not an excuse to leave the Christian faith. For one, we expect hardships in this life.

Even more importantly, we find dignity for women emanating from the Scripture. For example, in Galatians 3:28, NIV (BibleGateway link HERE) we find there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ."

Concerning the issue of "Jew or Gentile," the original Apostles already knew (after some discussion and visions) that Christ's sacrifice was made for all, and that any person can accept the salvation He gives.

(2019 Update: the following Wikipedia information was accessed in August 2009. It is now under "Christian views on slavery" HERE, Text, links and reference numbers have undergone changes.)

The slavery issue took longer to sort out. Even Popes were divided. While some condemned it, others didn't. Among the facts given in Wikipedia under Christianity and Slavery:

The papacy itself increasingly hardened its attitude. The 7th century Pope Martin I condemned unjust slavery, but in doing so implicitly suggested that he believed a just slavery to exist. In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law, by Pope Gregory IX[80][81], who had also introduced the Inquisition, trials for witchcraft, and the judicial presumption of guilt (rather than presumption of innocence). Roughly a century later, Gregory's namesake, Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[82].

and,

In 1917, one hundred and ten years after the official abolition of the slave trade in most of the rest of the world, the Papacy finally abolished the Canon Law support for the slave trade.

Today we finally know how wrong slavery is. Why is the "male-female" problem so stubborn?

I have written about prejudice before. Prejudice is subtle and though I think it is a temptation, it is often one we are not even aware we have given into. There are all kinds of reasons not to be fair. A person needs prayer and deep soul-searching to come to the right place.

Yes, Christ chose 12 Apostles, but He also had many women helping him. Women were with Christ at the cross and He first appeared to women when He arose from the dead. Would Jesus deny women the dignity of being ordained Deacons? I really doubt it. Would He ask that any other sacrament of the Church be given to men and not women? No.

Jews learned that Gentiles were to be included in Christianity. Slaves and others fought for the end of slavery. Though it may be a divisive issue with the Church, we must do what is right. Women are speaking out because we must, but we must not stray from the Truth. We pray for all eyes and hearts to be opened.

Evangelii Nuntiandi 2

Last post I commented on Pope Paul VI's 1975 encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization in the Modern World). To continue, he commented on economic matters as pertaining to the Church. The 1970's were a turbulent time in the developing world. People were becoming restless for justice, and Liberation Theology was spreading. This point of view followed Marxism to some degree. It taught that the struggle against poverty may sometimes have to take the form of physical action against upper classes. Unfortunately, some of this philosophy led to armed conflict, as in the case of several Central American countries with disastrous results.

In this encyclical, Paul makes clear that the Church has been and continues to be a force in human development. He says, "But evangelization would not be complete if it did not take account of the unceasing interplay of the Gospel and of man's concrete life, both personal and social" (Sec. 29). And, "Between evangelization and human advancement--development and liberation--there are in fact profound links" (Sec. 31).

However, he continues "We must not ignore the fact that many, even generous Christians who are sensitive to the dramatic questions involved in the problem of liberation, in their wish to commit the Church to liberation effort are frequently tempted to reduce her mission to the dimensions of a simply temporal project" (Sec. 32).

Though the small groups which comprise Liberation Theology often study the Bible, they do it with an agenda of seeking a theological basis for political revolution. We may all have some pre-conceived ideas of what Christ did and said, but we need to keep our eyes open and hearts humble to gain the true wisdom that is available to us through the Bible and Church teachings.

The Pope continues in Sec. 32 to explain that if the Church were interested only in temporal matters, the objective would not be unique and the ideology could be molded into the political fashion of the day or be subject to temporal power as easily as governments can be. The Church has a unique mission, and that is to proclaim the Gospel.

The encyclical goes on to describe various roles of persons in the Church, such as bishop and priest, religious and lay persons and how they relate to evangelization. An interesting theme throughout the encyclical is that the people of the Church itself need constant evangelization.

My husband and I belong to a writing group. We read some of our writing out loud to the rest of the group so we can hear their critiques and opinions. It can be helpful to get reactions from others, but the comments are not always on the mark. One lady reacts to most of my reading in a standard way--she says I am preaching to the choir. Of course, our Christian writing can often have the tendency to get heavy-handed, but on the other hand, Christians themselves like to think about God and enjoy when the same message is employed in different ways. I found this encyclical to reinforce the fact that we need to keep repeating the message, sometimes to each other. Then all believers can take that message to others.

I enjoyed re-reading this encyclical on evangelization in the modern world. It faces temporal reality, but points us to the reality of things beyond.

Evangelii Nuntiandi

Since reading Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, I've been wanting to re-read Pope Paul VI's 1975 encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi. Benedict's third encyclical is in large part about the relationships between human charity and world economics. Pope Paul's focuses on evangelization.

Paul makes note that the encyclical is released 10 years after the closing of the Second Vatican Council and one year after the Third General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which had been devoted to evangelization.

Pope Paul begins,

1. There is no doubt that the effort to proclaim the Gospel to the people of today, who are buoyed up by hope but at the same time often oppressed by fear and distress, is a service rendered to the Christian community and also to the whole of humanity (Sec.1).

The encyclical elaborates on this introductory theme. What I didn't remember from reading before was that the bishops were looking to the Pope at that time for a "fresh forward impulse" for a "new period of evangelization" (Sec. 2). The Pope explores what has happened in our day to the "hidden energy of the Good News." This is still a question with which our Church continues to grapple, and so the encyclical is worthwhile reading for all of us.

Paul makes no bones about the importance of evangelization:

Such an exhortation seems to us to be of capital importance, for the presentation of the Gospel message is not an optional contribution for the Church. It is the duty incumbent on her by the command of the Lord Jesus, so that people can believe and be saved. This message is indeed necessary. It is unique. It cannot be replaced. It does not permit either indifference, syncretism or accommodation. It is a question of people's salvation. It is the beauty of the Revelation that it represents. It brings with it a wisdom that is not of this world (Sec. 5).

Certainly belief in that urgency is a factor in the energy we put into evangelization. Another factor, says Paul, is the constant need for the Church itself to be evangelized:

The Church is an evangelizer, but she begins by being evangelized herself. She is the community of believers, the community of hope lived and communicated, the community of brotherly love, and she needs to listen unceasingly to what she must believe, to her reasons for hoping, to the new commandment of love. She is the People of God immersed in the world, and often tempted by idols, and she always needs to hear the proclamation of the "mighty works of God"[41] which converted her to the Lord; she always needs to be called together afresh by Him and reunited. In brief, this means that she has a constant need of being evangelized, if she wishes to retain freshness, vigor and strength in order to proclaim the Gospel (Sec. 15).

(Footnote [41]. Cf. Acts 2:11; 1 Pt 2:9.)

The Pope talks about living a good life in order to witness as a Christian (Sec. 21). However, he said evangelization is not complete without the proclamation of the name of Jesus Christ, and explanation that He came to offer salvation to all. It is upon each of us to accept that, be converted and in turn proclaim that Good News to others (Sec. 22).

Interestingly, Pope Paul also felt compelled to address economic problems in his letter. The bishops, especially of the Third World, even then were seeking support from the Church for the oppressed peoples of the underdeveloped countries, many of them Catholic. I will pick up discussion of the encyclical at this point in the next post.

Caritas in Veritate 3

In Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, he elaborates on many aspects of world-wide economy. (My first post of the review is HERE and the second is HERE.) The Pope is timely in the treatment of globalization and the recent economic crisis. In the last post, I had mentioned the current movements in Latin America of socialism and Liberation Theology. Some see the US as moving toward socialism in aspects such as health care.

The Pope warns against socialism, yet he advocates regulation at all levels in a world-wide economic system. One reason is that in globalization, wealth has become more an international pooling of individual business and financial institutions instead of previous status of rich vs. poor countries. Under international rules enforced by such agencies as the United Nations, he envisions private business working in tandem with non-profit agencies and socially-focused businesses. Benedict uses the term "principle of gratuitousness" to describe his overall vision. He wants every human to recognize "they are made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension." The alternative, he says, is when man believes he is self-sufficient and can control economic and social systems by his own power. This leads to an attitude that the economy must be isolated from religious morality, which in turn goes down a destructive path (Sec. 34).

Along with the sweeping changes at the top of the economic hierarchy, Benedict encourages subsidiarity, the inclusion of all levels of persons involved such as the workers and other interested local parties. He believes they should all participate in decision-making.

I think the major point Pope Benedict wants to make is that God is the ultimate giver of goods, and if we don't understand the spiritual dimension of human life, we will never have full development, either economically or personally. Also, charity should be a part of all we do, not just alms-giving.

As I said in the second part of this review, this encyclical is in part an anniversary tribute to Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Populorum Progressio. Pope Paul denounced the accumulation of riches to the few and declared that all persons should share in the Earth's bounty. That was in 1967, and though the encyclical may have increased awareness and perhaps guided some to be more socially active, it did not prevent the present economic mess. One can only wonder if Benedict's encyclical will do better. Pope Benedict at least makes the effort to tell what he thinks should be done, but one gets the feeling he speaks to the upper classes and leaves the poor to wait for them to respond. This is where Liberation Theology has its appeal to the poor: that they have a mode of action of their own. They get together in communities, read the Bible and discuss their immediate problems and what they can do about them. It is more practical on their level, though the problem with it, as the Pope has said, is that the leaders of the movement can tend to be Marxist in tone. That leads to a class separation of its own (poor trying to topple rich), which is as unhelpful as the self-imposed economic separation by the rich from the poor.

Since Pope Benedict doesn't like Liberation Theology, it seems he needs to come up with a more practical way for subsidiarity to take root, encouraging the Church more specifically than he does in his encyclical. I have heard there are small group movements in churches, but there none in my own and no official encouragement that I know of. Parish groups don't have to be based in Liberation Theology. They can be based in subsidiarity and spirituality as the Pope says we should all be. Maybe there are already meetings between rich and poor on a regular basis somewhere, but perhaps Bishops are in a position to personally lead individuals from different backgrounds to come together and make long-term commitments to each other. These groups could (and should) include the element of evangelization as an even greater purpose.

There is too much history of greed in our world to expect it to stop, even when denounced in an encyclical. The Pope is the head of the Church, not counselor for the United Nations. He needs to direct all Catholics to do what we can as soon as we can.

There are other aspects of the encyclical, such as environment and right to life issues. Eventually I hope to comment on these subjects, in reference to the encyclical and/or otherwise.

Caritas in Veritate 2

I recently posted about Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth). He talks about love and care for others, but stresses that the only way toward a truly fair society is by following the True God. It is God who makes us fully human, and He who can provide what we need. All other attempts rely on human power, which is insufficient. He says, "God is the guarantor of man's true development" (section 29).

The Pope's encyclical is in part a slightly overdue 40th anniversary tribute to Pope Paul VI's 1967 encyclical, Populorum Progressio. This is in the tradition of giving tribute to the famous 1891 social encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum. You can read more about that if you are interested at Wikipedia HERE. Several encyclicals followed at intervals to commemorate its significance.

In Populorum Progressio Paul VI had also talked about the relevance of God's Truth for social development. Benedict XVI reiterates some of what was already said, but points out that the change in world economics through globalization calls for a fresh look and evaluation of the social situation.

In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII in 1891 addressed the wretched conditions of laborers in the industrial revolution. Paul VI expressed that the economy should serve everyone, not just a concentration of rich and powerful.

As I said before, socialist leader Hugo Chavez of Venezuela presented President Obama with Eduardo Galeano's book, Open Veins of Latin America (Monthly Review Press, 1973). Galeano extensively described African and American slavery. One short passage in his book I found very interesting. In 1562, a Captain John Hawkins had smuggled some Africans out of Portuguese Guinea. Queen Elizabeth, sovereign of England at the time, called it a detestable act and believed he would be struck down by heaven itself. However, when he told her he had exchanged the slaves for sugar, pearls and other items from the New World, she "became his business partner (p.80)."

This is a good example for several reasons. First, it shows that people even in that time knew slavery was not right. People may have culturally accepted slavery more easily in times past, but our consciences can always speak to us clearly. Secondly, it highlights the problem we have even now, that material goods can all too easily turn us into oppressing agents.

Though most sovereigns no longer rule with great power, businesses, governments and financial institutions are still taking advantage of the land and workers. The Pope has gone to the Middle East to plea for peace, and talks with President Obama about life issues, but does he meet with those who monopolize businesses in Latin America and pay workers $1.00 a day? Perhaps he does, for he greets heads of states and talks with many persons. However, we do not see this in the media and the impact does not seem to be as great. Perhaps now that the Vatican is hooking up to the world by Internet, we will get more benefit from social teaching. I know the Pope has talked about materialism and so it is getting through on some level. Indeed, the encyclical says that new thinking and organization should go into ways to guarantee the human rights of food, water and life itself.

Economic oppression is what Pope Benedict has to address if he is going to criticize socialism and liberation theology. Latin America is already awash in both movements. States are taking over private businesses. I am not advocating the state confiscation of private businesses, but I am saying that because many people do not know how to curb their greed, they are facing some consequences. And if the Pope doesn't like the liberation theology agenda, he must supply the bishops and parishioners with one he does like, that effectively helps workers, business owners, financiers, etc. to somehow work together.

I totally agree that we need God to set things straight. Unfortunately, God is not on the minds of those bent on making money at all costs. The problem for the Church is how to best follow God when we face the evil of those who put Him, at best, in second place.

I have not finished reading the encyclical but will try to get it done this week and make final comments Friday.