Skip to main content

Read It Like This, Part 1

There is so much in the Holy Father's new encyclical that even picking through it seems like an injustice. I thought it would be most helpful just to ask a few questions pertaining to terms that Pope Francis uses, to help us see where he is coming from. A big problem I see from Catholics is that we ask, "Am I bound in conscience to this? As a matter of divine faith? No? Then I will ignore it." We can't do that. We are Catholic. We have an all-embracing gospel that is supposed to touch every aspect of life; thus, the Holy Father as the Successor of St. Peter has an important role to play in reminding us of the principles of the faith we profess. The Church never agrees with the common sentiment you hear in the world: "Well, religion is religion, and politics is politics, and each should stay clear of the other." Anything that affects the dignity of the human person, and how she relates in this world, and how she seeks God within it, is fair game. I don't have to agree with everything the pope says, but I'm bound by a lot more of what he says than most people realize. The Sacred Tradition has much more to say about living the Christian life than just abortion, sex, and whatever else Obama is wrong about. The upshot of that, friends, is that even when the pope is giving a private opinion, it still counts for more than ours does. This is very humbling and challenging. So even if the social doctrine didn't exist--but it so totally does--I'd still need to listen, to a degree that I do not listen to any other person. We do more than respect the office, as they say. The pope is our spiritual father, and the first guardian of the deposit of faith. I wouldn't say there is an abundance of this awareness out there. Even "faithful" Catholics treat the pope like a president they don't like.

I digress. Here we go:

What is the "common good"? (CCC, 1905-1912, 1924)

What 3 essential elements comprise the common good? (CCC, 1925)

Why should the common good be pursued? (CCC, 1926)

What is the Church's position on the existence of an international community? Why is this important? (CCC, 1927)

Let's stop for now, and we'll pick it up later, eh?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more