Good Catholic Reads

[Socrates]

On 2/4/2017 at 10:03 PM, Peace said:

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).  . . .

Actually, he does not, and if you read the book I recommended, he makes this quite clear and explicit.  In fact, he says that Catholics must hold to the Pope's teachings in the ordinary magisterium when he is teaching on faith and morals in union with all the bishops of the Church.  The article (taken from part of the book actually) is addressing one particular argument, and doesn't go into all his views in the broader topic.  You are putting words in his mouth and claiming he says things that he never actually does.

It is true that popes are not infallible when they speak on other matters such as the particular facts of economics, the physical sciences, politics, etc.  The idea that the Popes are some kind of divine oracle and that every thing a pope says about anything is divinely inspired and must be believed by all faithful Catholics was never taught by the Church, ever.  There's no point in pretending the Pope possesses magical powers he does not have.  Catholics must respect the authority of the Pope, but that doesn't mean we must shut off our brains and suspend our critical thinking abilities every time a Pope opens his mouth.

Methinks you're too quick to call any Catholic who doesn't agree with your own opinions "Protestant."

 

On 2/4/2017 at 10:27 PM, Jack4 said:

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

Exactly, which was a point Zmirak made in the article.  (He gives a number of examples.)  To be consistent, if we follow the whole "Pope as infallible divine oracle" notion, we must conclude that God contradicts Himself or changes His mind, which is certainly not a Catholic idea.

[Amppax]

His whole argument that people think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle is such a strawman that it's really not worth engaging. 

[Socrates]

5 hours ago, Amppax said:

His whole argument that people think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle is such a strawman that it's really not worth engaging. 

Maybe a rhetorical exaggeration, but would refer to those who (for instance) insist that Catholics are bound by Faith to agree with Pope Francis's opinions on global warming or that "trickle-down economics" and lack of sufficient government interference in the market are to blame for poverty.

It's certainly no more a strawman than the following, none of which Zmirak actually argues:

On 2/4/2017 at 10:03 PM, Peace said:

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. 

 

You've still failed to show where either Zmirak or I dissent from Catholic doctrine, though perhaps it would be best to start another thread.  (My apologies for furthering the hijack.)

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

You've still failed to show where either Zmirak or I dissent from Catholic doctrine, though perhaps it would be best to start another thread.  (My apologies for furthering the hijack.)

OK. I think it should be fairly easy to do that, but perhaps I am wrong. I will get back to you and try to quote specific things that he writes, and how they are contradicted by specific documents of the Church.

[Spem in alium]

The Bible is top. After it I do quite like Carlo Carretto's books, particularly Love is for Living, and Fr Walter Ciszek's He Leadeth Me, which is a book I can read over and over again (read at least 4 times) and still find something new. His book With God in Russia is also good.

[Peace]

Quote

It's certainly no more a strawman than the following, none of which Zmirak actually argues:

@Socrates

Here is what I wrote:

On 2/4/2017 at 11:03 PM, Peace said:

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).

Here is where he suggests it:

Quote

But there are smart, sincere people out there who struggle seriously with the idea that the papacy is a 2,000-year-old Delphic oracle, that a “spirit-led Magisterium” inspires and guards from error the statements of popes about economics and politics. Even if such statements are not infallible, we are obliged to grant them a docile “religious submission,” as we are to other non- ex cathedra assertions of Catholic teaching. Or so people say.

Here, he refers to the ordinary magisterium of the Church by invoking the words "religious submission". He indicates that we are to give religious submission to "other non-ex cathedra" Catholic teaching (by these he refers to things other than economics and politics).  By writing "or so people say" he indicates that "religious submission" need not be given to statements of popes concerning economics and politics (as though there is such a sharp dichotomy between "faith and morals" and "economics and politics" that papal statements can be easily separated into one category or the other).

Now why wouldn't it be wrong to deny religious submission to statements by popes concerning economics or politics? The implication is that it would not be wrong to give assent to statements by popes concerning economics or politics, because these statements reflect merely the pope's personal opinions, and do not reflect anything that Jesus or the Church has to say about them.

He also suggests it here:

Quote

But is it true? Is there a “spirit-led” “social Magisterium” that works by accretion over the centuries, gradually building up a coherent, defensible program of economics and politics, which can be drawn by simply reading what popes have said and fitting those statements together like Lego blocks, to construct a Catholic city? Is that what Jesus intended to give us when He founded the papacy?

Here he mocks the very idea that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church toward a concrete teaching concerning economics or politics.

Here is what I wrote:

On 2/4/2017 at 11:03 PM, Peace said:

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. 

And here is where he suggests it:

Quote

 

But those are not the only choices. A third way is to see Catholic social teaching not as analogous to Eucharistic doctrine and Marian dogmas, but as something much more akin to the Catholic literary tradition – a treasure trove of often-brilliant insights and deep investigations into the best ways for men to live which claims our respectful attention.

We could quote a papal encyclical where it is apropos as we might a piercing insight from Dante or Walker Percy, aware that when popes spoke on economics and politics, they claimed no divine authority, but instead addressed key implications of natural law as best as their intellects and advisors advised them.

 

Here he indicates that we should treat CST papal encyclicals in the same manner that we might treat a work from Dante or Walker Percy. He suggests that papal views on these subjects should be given no more weight than we would give to any other random person (in this case Dante or Walker Percy).

[Peace]

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

Actually, he does not, and if you read the book I recommended, he makes this quite clear and explicit.  

I have no interest in reading the book. From the small portions that are available for free on Amazon, and from what the author has written online, there does not seem to be anything of value in the book. If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, there are far better sources.

But I will tell you what.  If you will paypal me the cost of the book, and an additional $400 (at a rate of $200 per hour) in lost opportunity cost for the 2 hours that it will take me to read the book, I will be happy to read it.

Otherwise, I will not. Thank you for the kind recommendation.

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

In fact, he says that Catholics must hold to the Pope's teachings in the ordinary magisterium when he is teaching on faith and morals in union with all the bishops of the Church.  The article (taken from part of the book actually) is addressing one particular argument, and doesn't go into all his views in the broader topic.  You are putting words in his mouth and claiming he says things that he never actually does.

I believe that I already substantiated my claims above. From the free portion of the book available on Amazon, he also writes the following:

Quote

No doubt you have read breathless accounts in the press of the exiting new changes allegedly impending Catholic teaching. Pope Francis has used his bully pulpit tirelessly to vent his private opinions on global warming, economics, immigration, and a long list of other issues on which he is less well-informed than the average American who watches Fox News. None of that matters. As you will learn, these subjects are outside of the pope’s scope of divinely appointed authority. He has no more claim to anyone’s deference on these subjects than a traffic cop who stops you to offer gynecological advice.

Besides being blatantly disrespectful, the above quote also substantiates my claim that the author suggested that the Pope's views on economics or politics should be given no more deference than a random person on the street.

You can continue to deny this if you want, but I doubt that you will convince anyone other than yourself.

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

It is true that popes are not infallible when they speak on other matters such as the particular facts of economics, the physical sciences, politics, etc.  The idea that the Popes are some kind of divine oracle and that every thing a pope says about anything is divinely inspired and must be believed by all faithful Catholics was never taught by the Church, ever.  There's no point in pretending the Pope possesses magical powers he does not have.  Catholics must respect the authority of the Pope, but that doesn't mean we must shut off our brains and suspend our critical thinking abilities every time a Pope opens his mouth.

This is a straw man, as @Amppax indicated above.

22 hours ago, Socrates said:

Methinks you're too quick to call any Catholic who doesn't agree with your own opinions "Protestant."

No. I call people Protestant when they "protest" against the authority of the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  And that is precisely what the author of the above article did. He attempts to limit the authority of the pope to a "faith and morals" box, the boundaries of which the author gets to define. Then, all too conveniently, any papal teaching that he disagrees with, he puts outside of the box that he himself has defined, as though the the Church's moral authority does not extend to practical implications for economics or politics. The author is essentially no different than a scientist who asserts that the Church has no moral authority to speak concerning abortion, contraception, or the "after-morning pill" because scientific questions concerning procreation and the beginning of life are outside of the Church's competence, or a psychologist who says that the Church has no moral authority to speak concerning transgender issues, because questions of physiology and psychology are outside of the scope of the Church's competence.  John Zmirak does exactly the same thing, when he suggests that the Church has no moral authority to speak concerning economics or politics, because these are outside of the realm of the Church's competence.

His view is directly contradicted by what the Popes themselves have to say about it.  As one example:

https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

Quote

 

41. Yet before proceeding to explain these matters, that principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.[27] Certainly the Church was not given the commission to guide men to an only fleeting and perishable happiness but to that which is eternal. Indeed" the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns"[28]; however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law. For as to these, the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.

42. Even though economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere, it is, nevertheless, an error to say that the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter. Certainly the laws of economics, as they are termed, being based on the very nature of material things and on the capacities of the human body and mind, determine the limits of what productive human effort cannot, and of what it can attain in the economic field and by what means. Yet it is reason itself that clearly shows, on the basis of the individual and social nature of things and of men, the purpose which God ordained for all economic life.

43. But it is only the moral law which, just as it commands us to seek our supreme and last end in the whole scheme of our activity, so likewise commands us to seek directly in each kind of activity those purposes which we know that nature, or rather God the Author of nature, established for that kind of action, and in orderly relationship to subordinate such immediate purposes to our supreme and last end. If we faithfully observe this law, then it will follow that the particular purposes, both individual and social, that are sought in the economic field will fall in their proper place in the universal order of purposes, and We, in ascending through them, as it were by steps, shall attain the final end of all things, that is God, to Himself and to us, the supreme and inexhaustible Good.

44. But to come down to particular points, We shall begin with ownership or the right of property. . .

 

So his view (and your view to the extent that you disagree with it) is rightly termed a Protestant view, because it denies that the popes have the very authority that they claim for themselves.

What I find amusing is that the so-called "conservatives" will not hesitate to quote a pope as an authority when it comes to things such as private property rights and denunciation of socialism, but when a pope denounces pure capitalism, or the tyranny of free markets, or speaks concerning a just wage, their views are to be disregarded because they do not relate to faith and morals. 

There is nothing to call it but Cafeteria Catholicism.

[Jack4]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Amppax said:

His whole argument that people think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle is such a strawman that it's really not worth engaging. 

With all due respect, I beg to differ. You haven't seen the hardcore ultramontane ones, have you?

[Amppax]

8 hours ago, Jack4 said:

With all due respect, I beg to differ. You haven't seen the hardcore ultramontane ones, have you?

That doesn't make it less of a strawman, as he collapses a whole range of people to that of a small minority. Plus, there's a wider context here, you have to take into account his interlocutors on this question. He is, in large part, accusing the likes of Thomas Storck and John Médaille at the Distributist Review of holding this position, that's the wider context of the piece that I earlier called into question, "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching." That accusation, more specifically, is most definitely a strawman.

This article also helps to give more context. Zmirak falls squarely in the former camp, and decries the latter camp as "illiberal Catholicism." Somewhat of a generalization, but, I think, a helpful one. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Amppax

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

That doesn't make it less of a strawman, as he collapses a whole range of people to that of a small minority. Plus, there's a wider context here, you have to take into account his interlocutors on this question. He is, in large part, accusing the likes of Thomas Storck and John Médaille at the Distributist Review of holding this position, that's the wider context of the piece that I earlier called into question, "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching." That accusation, more specifically, is most definitely a strawman.

This article also helps to give more context. Zmirak falls squarely in the former camp, and decries the latter camp as "illiberal Catholicism." Somewhat of a generalization, but, I think, a helpful one. 

Ok then, I'm not familiar with his writings. I was just responding to your denial that "people" think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jack4

[Amppax]

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Ok then, I'm not familiar with his writings. I was just responding to your denial that "people" think the Pope is an infallible divine oracle. 

 

I didn't mean to deny that, just Zmirak's assertion that those who agree with the Church's social teachings fall into the general grouping of believers in the Pope as divine oracle. I suppose that wasn't quite clear in what I wrote, mea culpa. 

 

Sorry I'll try to stop sidetracking this thread. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Amppax

[Socrates]

On 2/25/2017 at 2:15 PM, Peace said:

I have no interest in reading the book.  . . .

Yet you've wasted plenty of time making lengthy denunciations of the author, whom you've admitted you are not familiar with.  If you can't be bothered to read the book, you cannot have anything of substance to say about it.

("I have no interest in this book, nor in reading anything the author might say which might contradict my own ignorant negative preconceptions about his ideas, yet I'll go on and on attacking his faith.")

Those who have actually read the book (and not just things cherry-picked off the interwebz) will know that your accusations against the author are nonsense, and he actually answers most of your objections in its pages. (You'll have to read it yourself though - I don't have time to manually copy large blocks of text.)

If you read it, you'd know that Zmirak certainly does not in fact believe that "God does not act within or guide the Church" nor does he claim that "Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics."

He says that we are bound to heed the moral principles taught by the Church and the Popes in encyclicals and such, and says that these moral teachings preclude Catholics from believing in certain ideologies that are based on false moral and philosophical premises, for including both socialism (based on envy and theft and false premises about the nature of man) and the Ayn Rand school of extreme libertarianism (which declares selfishness a virtue, and says the materially successful have no moral obligation to help the poor and suffering).

As John Paul II has pointed out, the Church does not, however, demand that Catholics must follow or particular political ideology, nor does it lay out a detailed political-economic program to follow.

However, opinions of individual popes on the particular facts of economics or science are not themselves infallible, nor are Catholics bound to agree with them.

As a Catholic I'm not required to agree with Pope Francis about so-called "trickle-down economics" and his thinking that more government control over markets is needed.  Neither must I agree with Benedict XVI's suggestion to put the international market on under the control of a single global economic authority.  Nor must I agree with Gregory I, etc. on slavery being acceptable, nor Urban VIII on astronomy.

And while the Holy Spirit may guide the Church and protect it from teaching error, that does not mean everything said or did by the Pope, Cardinals, bishops, etc. is guided by the Holy Spirit - unless you're really prepared to say the massive cover-up of priestly sexual abuse was guided by the Holy Spirit . . .

But I've probably wasted enough time arguing about a book with someone who refuses to read it.  Either read it, or else shut up about it.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

Yet you've wasted plenty of time making lengthy denunciations of the author, whom you've admitted you are not familiar with.  If you can't be bothered to read the book, you cannot have anything of substance to say about it.

("I have no interest in this book, nor in reading anything the author might say which might contradict my own ignorant negative preconceptions about his ideas, yet I'll go on and on attacking his faith.")

Those who have actually read the book (and not just things cherry-picked off the interwebz) will know that your accusations against the author are nonsense, and he actually answers most of your objections in its pages. (You'll have to read it yourself though - I don't have time to manually copy large blocks of text.)

Please. He published an article. I commented on the article. I made no mention of the book whatsoever until you attempted to bring it into the conversation. He wrote the words contained in the article and he is accountable for what he wrote, regardless of whatever else it is that he may have written elsewhere.

Anytime I comment on a specific article am I then required to go and read an entire book by the same author? I do not have time for all of that (nor does anyone else on this site) but again, if you think it is so important you can pay me for my time. My fee is $400 plus the cost of the book.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you read it, you'd know that Zmirak certainly does not in fact believe that "God does not act within or guide the Church" nor does he claim that "Jesus and the Church have nothing of substance to say concerning politics and economics."

He says that we are bound to heed the moral principles taught by the Church and the Popes in encyclicals and such, and says that these moral teachings preclude Catholics from believing in certain ideologies that are based on false moral and philosophical premises, for including both socialism (based on envy and theft and false premises about the nature of man) and the Ayn Rand school of extreme libertarianism (which declares selfishness a virtue, and says the materially successful have no moral obligation to help the poor and suffering).

That may be all well and good, but I am not concerned with what he believes.  What he believes is between him and God. I am concerned with what he wrote. In particular, I am concerned with what he wrote in the specific article that I commented on.

How ridiculous would it be if you commented on a specific statement by Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and I said to you "Oh yeah, well even though she said X what she really means is Y.  But to understand that I want you to go out, spend your hard earned money, and read her entire book?" I am sorry. I know that you want me to read the book, but that is simply not the way that a discussion forum works. I do not have to read a person's entire body of work to comment on a specific article that was made publicly available. There is no precedent for such a thing on Phatmass whatsoever, nor does it follow from reason.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

As John Paul II has pointed out, the Church does not, however, demand that Catholics must follow or particular political ideology, nor does it lay out a detailed political-economic program to follow.

However, opinions of individual popes on the particular facts of economics or science are not themselves infallible, nor are Catholics bound to agree with them.

As a Catholic I'm not required to agree with Pope Francis about so-called "trickle-down economics" and his thinking that more government control over markets is needed.  Neither must I agree with Benedict XVI's suggestion to put the international market on under the control of a single global economic authority.  Nor must I agree with Gregory I, etc. on slavery being acceptable, nor Urban VIII on astronomy.

That is all good but the author goes way beyond that in his article, as documented in detail above.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

And while the Holy Spirit may guide the Church and protect it from teaching error, that does not mean everything said or did by the Pope, Cardinals, bishops, etc. is guided by the Holy Spirit - unless you're really prepared to say the massive cover-up of priestly sexual abuse was guided by the Holy Spirit . . .

 More straw man.

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

But I've probably wasted enough time arguing about a book with someone who refuses to read it.  Either read it, or else shut up about it.

Please.  My initial comments were directed to his article. You brought up the book. I decline to buy it unless you pay me for it.  And I can and will comment on the article without buying the book, as is my right.  If you do not like that then you can exit the conversation yourself.

Have a good night.

[Peace]

23 hours ago, Jack4 said:

With all due respect, I beg to differ. You haven't seen the hardcore ultramontane ones, have you?

Who is it that you are referring to here, by the way? Can you name any living person who is a "hardcore ultramontane" so that I can have an example of the type of person you are speaking of?

[Jack4]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Who is it that you are referring to here, by the way? Can you name any living person who is a "hardcore ultramontane" so that I can have an example of the type of person you are speaking of?

Well, you wouldn't recognize them by their names, they are normal people ordinary crazy people. 

He acknowledges his support for the actions Medici Popes, Borgias, Honorius, Vigilus, Liberius; and his justification for that is "The Pope is the Vicar of Christ! Today Peter speaks through Francis! The Pope is my link to God!". 

This is what I'm referring to. 

I'm abstaining from teh interwebz for Lent; I'll come back to you then.