Comments on: Benedict vs the Neocons?

By: Walter

Walter — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:02:56 +0000

This is the same George Weigel who criticized Pope John Paul II for lacking the “political charism” given to George Bush and company when they decided to invade Iraq. Perhaps Mr. Weigel someday will receive the charism of humility.

By: Is Blog Stipes Est In Latin « Around The Sphere

Is Blog Stipes Est In Latin « Around The Sphere — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:13:42 +0000

[...] furthing discussion of Weigel, he links to Freddy Gray and Vox [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:31:42 +0000

George Weigel is learning what it means to be a Cafeteria Catholic. Was Rerum Novarum only partly written by Pope Leo and therefore not worth paying attention to? Ironically, it is Weigel who is allowing his American politics to interfere with his faith. And he is doing so not only with regard to Caritas in Veritate, but also with regard to the Vatican’s just war doctrine. Ironically, he had to write a second defense of his version of just war after it was determined there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Both he and Michael Novak failed to convince the Vatican of their skewed just war doctrines. Sometimes when you are wrong it is simply better to admit it, rather than to come up with explanations, especially explanations oppposing the Pope. It appears the shoe is now the other foot and now Weigel may not be so compliant a Catholic as he advised others they should be in past years. .

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:07:55 +0000

Plainly, only actual moral truths articulated in an encyclical have binding teaching authority. All statements concerning the optimal political authority or economic system (providing those systems have a just end and do not utilize immoral means) are only prudential judgments of the Pontiff, and the Church faithfull may disagree with such prudential judgments.

By: Alessandro

Alessandro — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:20:59 +0000

I am so glad George Weigel has interpreted this rather leftist sounding encyclical for us with his gold and red pens. Red=Bad and Gold=Good. Boils it right down to the fundamentals. Thank you, George. Whatever would the Pope do without you!

By: WJ

WJ — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:43:06 +0000

I would Nicholas Jenkins to explain to me how it is that a signed encyclical promulgated by the Holy Father only *partly* reflects authentic Catholic teaching. Because George Weigel says so? You really do need a better argument than that.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:27:05 +0000

Did you mention the part about how Benedict calls for a worldwide political authority? Or the part about how developed nations are exploiting the earths resources? Oh wait, no.

By: Thomas O. Meehan

Thomas O. Meehan — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:06:08 +0000

Not having read this encyclical, it would be foolish to comment. Still, I can’t help expressing surprise that people would expect the Church to have a detailed economic agenda of its own. Saving souls in a context of Christian charity would seem to be the goal.

I can’t help wondering what the economic/social service environment would be in the Papal States today, if they still existed?

By: Nicholas Jenkins

Nicholas Jenkins — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:57:02 +0000

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTdkYjU3MDE2YTdhZTE4NWIyN2FkY2U5YTFkM2ZiMmE=

This post fails to take account of George Weigel’s insight that only part of the encyclical is the work of Benedict and reflects authentic Catholic teaching and, in fact, people out of tune with Catholic teaching from the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace influenced large parts of the encylical, particularly the parts on gift.