Good Catholic Reads

[dUSt]

On 1/22/2017 at 6:50 PM, Jack4 said:

...recommended by the Pope. Most of what he says is "invalid".   

Can you explain this?

On 1/22/2017 at 7:08 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Never know when that "God of surprises" is going to spring something new on us, after all.

Can you explain this joke please?

[Nihil Obstat]

29 minutes ago, dUSt said:

Can you explain this joke please?

Yes. Catholic doctrine does not contain surprises, due to fact that revelation is closed. Therefore we are sure that our holy father means something different in his invocations of the God of Surprises.

[Amppax]

On 1/20/2017 at 10:48 PM, Socrates said:

I wouldn't.  About everything he says in that book is dead spot-on based on my own obervations.  No Shea-like slanders, obscenity, or distortion of Catholic teaching - whether you personally agree with his political leanings or not.  Next time, I'd suggest actually reading the book before trashing it.

1

I'll admit to not reading all the book, but my observation was based more on my familiarity with his writings on various websites. I do think he distorts Catholic teaching, particularly various social teachings, in the name of his politics. I think you do too.

Quote

Here's two good ones from Anthony Esolen, perhaps my favorite current Catholic writer (and acclaimed Dante scholar):

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching

Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity

 

 I've been meaning to pick up Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching. 

[HopefulHeart]

I recently started Your Life Is Worth Living, by Ven. Fulton Sheen. I am trying to read a chapter each morning. It's a thought-provoking and uplifting book, just what I need at the start of a busy day.  

Last month, at the recommendation of a religious sister, I read God and You: Prayer As a Personal Relationship, by William A. Barry, S.J. It had some valuable insights, though it was a bit different from the more traditional works with which I'm familiar.

[Jack4]

3 hours ago, dUSt said:

Can you explain this?

Just a joke. Remember the Pope said that most marriages were invalid? EOTT had published a satire article then: Most words that come from my mouth are invalid: Pope Francis

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Just a joke. Remember the Pope said that most marriages were invalid? EOTT had published a satire article then: Most words that come from my mouth are invalid: Pope Francis

I remember that article well. For those who haven't read it: http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2016/06/17/most-of-the-words-that-come-out-of-my-mouth-are-invalid-pope-francis-suggests/

[Socrates]

On 1/24/2017 at 5:33 PM, Amppax said:

I'll admit to not reading all the book, but my observation was based more on my familiarity with his writings on various websites. I do think he distorts Catholic teaching, particularly various social teachings, in the name of his politics. I think you do too.

Perhaps you could give specific examples of where I "distort Catholic teaching" (or of Zmirak for that matter).  I don't think that one has to agree with my every political opinion to be a Catholic in good standing, but I don't believe I've said anything contrary to the Faith on here.  And I certainly don't believe that Catholic teaching dictates embracing leftist politics or economics.

Quote

 I've been meaning to pick up Esolen's Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching. 

Again, I'd highly recommend it.  It focuses on the writings of Pope Leo XIII (sometimes called the "father of Catholic social teaching").  Dr. Esolen makes a strong case against the modern Leviathon welfare state, and how it has usurped and destroyed the proper roles of the family, the Church, and voluntary civil organizations such as workman's guilds.  The book is more philosophical and spiritual in focus, though, and isn't a political tract.  But it does certainly challenge the mis-belief that Catholic social teaching demands a massive tax-and-spend welfare state.

I haven't read all his books, but so far I'd highly recommend all of Esolen's writings.  He's a profound thinker and eloquent writer.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Socrates

[Amppax]

16 hours ago, Socrates said:

Perhaps you could give specific examples of where I "distort Catholic teaching" (or of Zmirak for that matter).  I don't think that one has to agree with my every political opinion to be a Catholic in good standing, but I don't believe I've said anything contrary to the Faith on here.  And I certainly don't believe that Catholic teaching dictates embracing leftist politics or economics.

Again, I'd highly recommend it.  It focuses on the writings of Pope Leo XIII (sometimes called the "father of Catholic social teaching").  Dr. Esolen makes a strong case against the modern Leviathon welfare state, and how it has usurped and destroyed the proper roles of the family, the Church, and voluntary civil organizations such as workman's guilds.  The book is more philosophical and spiritual in focus, though, and isn't a political tract.  But it does certainly challenge the mis-belief that Catholic social teaching demands a massive tax-and-spend welfare state.

I haven't read all his books, but so far I'd highly recommend all of Esolen's writings.  He's a profound thinker and eloquent writer.

 

 

I don't think Catholic teaching dictates leftist politics or economics either, and I agree that it is a misapplication of Catholic social teaching to say that it demands a massive welfare state. I think that your definition of "leftist" is probably a tad bit more broad than mine (as far as I can tell it's "everything I disagree with"). That being said, I think a good example of Zmirak dissenting from Church teaching in the name of his political beliefs is clearly annunciated in this article: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/08/30/the-myth-of-catholic-social-teaching-2/. To the extent that you agree with his characterization of the various teachings of the magisterium on social matters, I'd say that you have a flawed understanding of Catholic teaching. However, I want to be overly confrontational in this, I want to be clear that I'm not accusing you or him of heresy, just misunderstanding. And I'm not equating your misunderstanding (as I see it) with liberal dissent on issues such as gay marriage or abortion. Morally, the liberal dissent is far more grave. 

But though the liberal dissent is far more grave, I don't think that means that it isn't problematic that some conservatives (such as Zmirak) disregard what the Church has taught because it doesn't agree with their preferred politics or economics. 

After reading your description, I'll definitely try to go and pick up a copy of Esolen's book. Thanks. 

[philothea]

Not technically Catholic, but I would highly recommend for all Catholics, especially if you debate aggressive atheists, or enjoy philosophy at all: The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, and Bliss by David Bentley Hart (an Orthodox philosopher). One of my favorite books of the past few years. Discusses the philosophical commonalities between all ancient religions about the nature of God, and how nonsensical naturalist atheism is. Hart is erudite, witty, and QUITE snarky. 

Edited February 2, 2017 by philothea

[Socrates]

On 1/31/2017 at 1:04 PM, Amppax said:

I don't think Catholic teaching dictates leftist politics or economics either, and I agree that it is a misapplication of Catholic social teaching to say that it demands a massive welfare state. I think that your definition of "leftist" is probably a tad bit more broad than mine (as far as I can tell it's "everything I disagree with"). That being said, I think a good example of Zmirak dissenting from Church teaching in the name of his political beliefs is clearly annunciated in this article: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/08/30/the-myth-of-catholic-social-teaching-2/. To the extent that you agree with his characterization of the various teachings of the magisterium on social matters, I'd say that you have a flawed understanding of Catholic teaching. However, I want to be overly confrontational in this, I want to be clear that I'm not accusing you or him of heresy, just misunderstanding. And I'm not equating your misunderstanding (as I see it) with liberal dissent on issues such as gay marriage or abortion. Morally, the liberal dissent is far more grave. 

But though the liberal dissent is far more grave, I don't think that means that it isn't problematic that some conservatives (such as Zmirak) disregard what the Church has taught because it doesn't agree with their preferred politics or economics. 

After reading your description, I'll definitely try to go and pick up a copy of Esolen's book. Thanks. 

I don't have time to go into a comprehensive explanation of leftist ideology, but let's just say your criticism of my so-called "dissent" doesn't come across as right-wing in flavor.  Honestly, I can't say much about your own beliefs.  Based on your various comments and such on here, it seems you have a general dislike of conservatism, but I really haven't seen you explain much positively what you yourself believe.

And, no, I don't really have an issue with the gist of what Zmirak says in that article.  (He has a whole chapter on the topic in the aforementioned book, which he elaborates on it a bit more.)  I agree with him that the Popes are not Delphic oracles, and their various scientific, economic, and prudential opinions are not in themselves infallible.  (For instance, whether he happens to be right or wrong, Pope Francis's beliefs on man-made global warming are not infallible dogma, but are a question of physical science.)  Papal teaching must be adhered to as part of the ordinary magisterium when it reiterates that constant teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals in union with all the bishops.

If you think that every single prudential opinion of  a Pope is infallible doctrine, then I'd say it's you that misunderstand Church teaching on this matter.

You still haven't explained exactly where you think Zmirak dissents from Catholic doctrine, and your charges are extremely vague.  I'll need something a bit more authoritative than "Ampax from Phatmass disagrees" to be convinced here.  (Though perhaps in another thread, as we've probably already hijacked this book thread enough.)

But do read Esolen when you get a chance; you'll probably like him, and he may even change your mind.

[Peace]

Here are my meager contributions.

1) Searching for and maintaining peace (Phillippe).

2) Life and Holiness (Merton).

3) The Latin Mass Explained (Moorman)

4) The Rite (Matt Baglio)

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

You still haven't explained exactly where you think Zmirak dissents from Catholic doctrine, and your charges are extremely vague.

I am not very familiar with the author but in "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching" he seems to suggest that other than in instances of infallibly made statements, God does not act within or guide the Church, and that Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics (and presumably many other things as well). Or that in effect each individual Catholic becomes the ultimate judge of every issue that is not infallibly defined, and need not give the Pope's view or his Bishop's view any more deference than he would give to a random person on the street. His view strikes me as one whereby the Church sets forth certain "timeless principles" but beyond that each individual Catholic is free to decide the manner of it's application (in other words, that a Catholic has no duty to attempt to discern the mind of the Church concerning the manner in which revelation should be applied in a concrete sense, because in fact the Church has no mind concerning the concrete application of revelation to things like politics or economics). It strikes me as a somewhat protestant view of the nature of the Church and authority within it. It seems a bit like Protestantism-Lite, the only difference from Protestantism being that Catholics are bound to authority in the rare instance of an infallibly defined statement.

[Jack4]

56 minutes ago, Peace said:

1) Searching for and maintaining peace (Phillippe)

<3

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you think that every single prudential opinion of  a Pope is infallible doctrine, then I'd say it's you that misunderstand Church teaching on this matter.

I'd like to add that Popes have given contrary opinions. 

[DominicanHeart]

I just bought "The Ear of the Heart" about Mother Dolores. It's a big read but I can't wait to get it started after I finish rereading St. Teresa of the Andes once again....

[Amppax]

Christ, the Life of the Soul by Bl. Columba Marmion. Possibly one of the most profound and life-changing books I've ever read, and I'm less than a quarter of the way through. It's one of those books that you have to read very, very slowly and meditatively.