Monday, August 03, 2009

Caritas in Veritate (part II)



This time we are going to look at some of the reactions to Caritas in Veritate by some prominent Catholic commentators as well as some average people. In many cases, as we shall see, I think the commentators fail to get to the heart of the matter regarding this encyclical. I have to warn you, I get pretty mad towards the end of this one and make a few scatological references. Let the fun begin!

First up, George Weigel's piece in the National Review.

Weigel rightfully points out that this document is a hodge-podge from the Justice and Peace Commission. Consider this statement:

Those with advanced degrees in Vaticanology could easily go through the text of Caritas in Veritate, highlighting those passages that are obviously Benedictine with a gold marker and those that reflect current Justice and Peace default positions with a red marker. The net result is, with respect, an encyclical that resembles a duck-billed platypus.

Very clever. But it is not irrelevant - he is pointing out that in this one document we can see the hermeneutic of rupture clashing with the hermeneutic of continuity. I think he got it entirely right when he speaks of the processes that went into making this encyclical and calls out the irrationality of the Vatican placing any sort of hope in a world authority:

And another Justice and Peace favorite — the creation of a “world political authority” to ensure integral human development — is revisited, with no more insight into how such an authority would operate than is typically found in such curial fideism about the inherent superiority of transnational governance. (It is one of the enduring mysteries of the Catholic Church why the Roman Curia places such faith in this fantasy of a “world public authority,” given the Holy See’s experience in battling for life, religious freedom, and elementary decency at the United Nations. But that is how they think at Justice and Peace, where evidence, experience, and the canons of Christian realism sometimes seem of little account.)

Okay George, so I am convinced that this document is a hybrid, confusing disaster. Now what? Well, Weigel doesn't tell us that. He just pleasantly reminds us that this document is a muddle, that some parts of it are "naive or dumb," but doesn't give us any hint as to what we are to do with it. Some have criticized Weigel for parcing the document into sections that can be accepted and sections that can be discarded, taking a cafeteria-style approach to the encyclical based on his economic tastes. I don't think he does that in this article. He is right to point out the committee-style format and also right in not making any drastic calls on his own authority to accept or reject this encyclical. So I give Weigel's review a thumbs up.

Next up, Phil Lawler's comments at Catholic Culture.

Phil Lawler basically reiterates what Weigel said, but adds an important aspect that Wiegel left out: despite the fact that this is obviously some chop-shop production of a committee, at the end of the day, Benedict has signed off on it and it cannot be ignored or explained away based on the fact that he didn't literally write all of it:

Whether or not he drafted every sentence himself (and clearly he did not), Pope Benedict signed his name to the encyclical, and gave it the authority of his teaching office. We know that the Holy Father did not do this lightly. He rejected earlier drafts of the document. He allowed the project to slip behind schedule, even to the point of embarrassment. He was evidently determined to wait until he had a document that satisfied him. Caritas in Veritate satisfied him.

This is the only notable contribution to the discussion made by Lawler, except for this laughable quote from the British Lord Brian Griffiths:

Despite heavy competition from some of the world’s finest minds, it is without doubt the most articulate, comprehensive and thoughtful response to the financial crisis that has yet appeared.

Most articulate? Lawler seems to agree with Lord Griffith's assertion, which I find incomprehensible. Thumbs down for Lawler for just restating everything Weigel said and endorsing the statement of this British dufus.

Next on the chop block, Cathy Lynn Grossman's piece in USA Today entitled "Pope calls for 'God-centered' global economy."

At least Grossman understood what this encyclical is actually about instead of just ruminating on how it got produced and why. She mentions the encyclical is "theologically dense", which is much closer to the mark than Lord Griffith's claim that it is "articulate and thoughtful."

Her article has a pretty comprehensive run-down of the pertinent points of the encyclical, including the statements condemning demographic control and an "anti-birth" mentality. But when dealing with the issues surrounding the document's controversial "redistribution of wealth" statements, she turns to Fr. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit (uh-oh) professor at Georgetown to interpret them for us. Not surprisingly, Fr. Reese interprets these statements in the most socialist, left-leaning manner possible, arguing that redistribution of wealth means, well, simply, socialist redistribution of wealth, and tries to assert that this is now something that must be adhered to with Catholic obedience:

"Strong language here on the redistribution of wealth — not something people like to talk about in the USA. If the Catholic right is against the redistribution of wealth, they're against the pope. He doesn't believe an unregulated marketplace is going to solve all the problems of economy and poverty."

Amusing to see a Jesuit these days lecturing the "Catholic right" about obedience to the pope! However, Fr. Reese is not being logically inconsistent in assuming that redistribution of wealth means simply what it says - it is more truthful than the neocon pundits who are trying to assert that Benedict's "vision" for "redistribution of wealth" is actually different from liberal redistribution of wealth. The context of the encyclical makes it clear that they are the same thing.

Grossman's article does mention the world political authority, but also reminds us that Benedict envisions this authority "as simple and local as possible." It's good that she points this out, but it is naieve to imagine a true world authority that would be anything other than a stifling, top-heavy bureaucracy.

Reluctant thumbs up for Grossman's article, even though it is dull and just a rehash of what the encyclical states. At least she and her sources are honest about what the thing says.

Next, Lewis McCrary's article "Is the Pope for New World Order?" in American Conservative, available here.

McCrary's article attempts to reconcile everything in CV with previous papal statements, and the result is a dishonest and ignorant mess. First, he claims that despite the fact that CV calls for a one world authority, we are misconstruing what he means. He is not, according to this article, asking for some New World Order government, but is asking for an empowered and effective United Nations:

The need for global cooperation is argued for in the context of existing institutions such as the United Nations...it is hard to argue with the assertion that - as long as it remains the primary institutional means for global cooperation - the UN should be more effective in helping resolve pressing cross-border issues.

So, the Pope does not want a New World Order, just a more empowered and effective UN. My question is: What's the difference? It's the same concept.

McCrary adheres to a mentality that I found disturbing in the encyclical - the tacit acceptance of globalism as a fait accompli. The statement "as long as it remains the primary institutional means for global cooperation " presupposes that it is even good to have a secular institution of global cooperation, which may not be the case. I do not agree with Mr. McCrary that the UN should be more effective - I think it should be abolished.

So the Church, according to McCrary, is seeking a global authority, perhaps from some existing structure, that "has wider legitimacy." He brings up the fact that the United States is the only de facto "world authority", and then says that we have been very ineffective in promoting democracy around the world and in the Middle East. For McCrary, this is justification for calling for a world authority with "greater legitimacy", but for me it is an example of why we shouldn't have any global authority.

McCrary then goes on to argue that this authority is indeed necessary, for (quoting CV), without it "despite great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations." I say so what? No matter what, the balance of power will always be swayed by the strongest nations - that is the way of the world. Nor is it unjust - the stronger nations should have more of a say than some inconsequential, loser banana-republic. Furthermore, who has the authority to level out the national inequalities? Does an international authority gain legitimacy and authority just by virtue of being global? Balance of power has worked tolerably well in past and has preserved sovereignty. International balance of power is the equivalent of checks and balances and is necessary to prevent the kind of global tyranny that McCrary seems to be endorsing.

Like other commentators, McCrary seems to see no problem with the UN expanding its scope of operations and authority so long as it is "limited by the principle of subsidiarity."

Limited international authorities constrained by subsidiarity should not be feared.

I am all for subsidiarity, but does anybody else see any disconnect between the concept of international authority/world authority and subsidiarity? Subsidiarity must be real, not just apparent. Real subsidiarity requires real independence, which precludes the notion of any world authority. An international authority does need to be feared. Why? By virtue of the fact that it is an international authority.

There's some more of this bull-bleep in McCrary's article, some whining about the power of the G8 and the excessive power of the strongest nations...for the American Conservative it sounds like a bunch of progressive complaining. Look, there is nothing wrong with there being strong nations and weak nations. There is no inherent global equality, just like there is no inherent individual social equality when it comes to how we will all function and live in the world. I like the fact that I live in a powerful country. There is nothing wrong with wanting your country to be powerful - the things I advocate for our own country are things I think would make it stronger. The only problem is if your country abuses its power, which we certainly have in the past - but these people treat the very fact that we have power as an abuse of power in itself.

McCrary concludes his article by making two extraordinarily naive statements [my comments]:

How seriously one takes this claim of injustice is no doubt influenced by one’s perspective. Today a thoughtful friend remarked to me that the inclusion of the “world political authority” paragraph is evidence that the Pope has become a misguided utopian dreamer; he is living in a bubble, my interlocutor remarked, clueless as to the potential dangers of large-scale tyranny [and he is right to be alarmed]. But we must consider that perhaps it is we Americans who are living in a bubble. After all, it’s easy for Americans to dismiss the claim that other peoples of less firepower and economic might should have a seat at the table when America is already the de facto “world political authority" [in other words, we are prejudiced to be wary of a one world government and should not worry about preserving our own autonomy].

So I guess if you are worried about a large-scale tyranny you are living in a bubble. My question to Mr. McCrary is that in a world when large-scale tyranny is ever more possible and is even called for by persons in high places, how can you justify not be concerned about it?

The final paragraph of this article is the most laughable:

There is a danger that, taken out of context, this language could be used to support some kind of global tyranny. But a closer reading of Caritas demonstrates that more international solidarity is not necessarily a recipe for a global Leviathan, particularly if it is conditioned by the Church’s formulation of subsidiarity.

Hahaha! And of course, NOBODY has ever taken a post-Conciliar document out of context, have they? After all, the Vatican has spoken and nobody would DARE presume to misintepret anything the Vatican says, right? No, we don't need to be worried about that! Hahaha...don't know whether to laugh or cry.

By the way, did you notice how McCrary did not deny the Pope was calling for a one world authority? He just said that it was a one world authority "constrained by subsidiarity" and then went on to lecture about how we should want to step down and let other countries take our place. He never denied the call for one world authority - he just explained what kind of one world authority it was to be, as if that makes a difference. Our next commentator will make the same error.

McCrary's article gets a thumbs down.

This next one is by far the worst and most dishonest, from John-Henry Westen of Life Site News. His article is entitled "Pope's New Encyclical Speaks Against, not for, One-World Government." Really? That's funny, because in paragraph 67 CV says:

To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food, security and peace; guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration; for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.

"There is urgent need for a true world political authority." Okay, so according to Westen we are supposed to believe that what the Pope is really saying is that he does not want a world political authority despite saying there is "urgent need" for one?

Westen says, "The Holy Father differentiates his concept of a world political authority from that of a one world government." Same stupid distinction as in McCrary's article. As if we who are opposed to a "one world government" will suddenly be in favor of a "true world authority," as if they are two diametrically opposed concepts.

One world government.
True world authority.

Am I missing the distinction?

According to Westen, the distinction lies in the fact that the Pope's ideal "true world authority" will be marked by subsidiarity, as the Pope says in paragraph 41 of CV, where he talks about the importance of the State, saying that the role of the State "is not redundant" and actually "seems destined to grow." Therefore, according to Westen, this is not a one world government. It is a true world authority, made up of a union of states practicing subsidiarity.

Well, this is definitely a straw man argument. Essentially, Westen says, "The Pope is not calling for an authoritarian, centralized one world government. He is calling for a federal union of states, a true world authority, marked by subsidiarity. And that is ok." It is a straw man argument because nobody is arguing against the encyclical based on fears of a centralized, authoritarian global government - we are arguing against it based on fears of any global authority, authoritarian or democratic, central or federal, based on subsidiarity or otherwise. No global political authority. Period.

And by the way, I don't think the idea of the power of the States being "destined to grow" is a great idea either.

Is Westen really asking us to believe that a federal world government would be any better than a centralized one? The problem with a world government lies not in what kind of world government it is, but the fact that it is a world system. That's my hang up. Westen does not address it - instead, he says the Pope is not calling for a world order, then redefines what a world authority really is and tells us we should be in favor of it. What garbage.

One big stinking thumbs down in the rest-stop crapper for this article.

Finally, let's get the view of Protestant Marianne Davis of the Boise Christian Living Examiner, whose article is entitled "Pope Benedict XVI calls for a new world structure."

Unfortunately, this Protestant is the only one who has some common sense to see the plain shadow looming behind all of the hubbub. She puts her finger on it very plainly and says what these wimpy Catholic correspondents will not say.

After giving a brief, non-biased and relatively good synopsis of what Caritas in Veritate actually says, she concludes with this paragraph:

The Pope’s vision for the future, although altruistic, casts a foreboding light on a "political authority" with global power. Bible prophecy predicts that the Antichrist will emerge in the last days with a coalition of rulers (Revelation 17:12), and that the Antichrist will be "given authority to rule over every tribe and people and language and nation" (Revelation 13:7). According to biblical prophecy, the Antichrist will eventually grow corrupt with his unprecedented power, and will one day wage war on anyone who does not worship him (Revelation 13:5-18).

Amen. That's what this is all about. Why didn't any of the Catholic commentators get this? Thumbs up for Marianne Davis.

My main beef with the mainline Catholic defense of CV's "true world authority" segments can be summed up in these two points:

1) Despite the ineptitude of our own government, the immorality and flagrant corruption of the United Nations and the anti-God agenda of the globalist elitists, we are asked to believe that we can turn over authority to them and trust them to restrain themselves by the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

2) We are arrogantly told to believe that while a centralized, authoritarian one world system is bad, a decentralized, federal democratic one world system is something that should be appaluded. In actuality, any world government is to be shunned (in my opinion).

3) Many of the commentators are being dishonest by trying to make it look like the Pope is saying (or not saying) something that is stated very plainly in the encyclical.

I want no part of erecting the stage that the Antichrist will stand upon, which any one world system will become. In closing, I could point out what many others have said: the very fact that this encyclical lends itself to so much interpretation and argumentation is ample evidence that it is not in any way clear or unambiguous. It bears the Pope's name, so it has his authority and it must be given assent to in some manner. But this is no part of Tradition and not part of the deposit of faith.

The Church should not waste so much time trying to prop up decadent, secular world authorities and instead proclaim the only true world authority: the universal Kingdom of Christ, which claims every soul upon the earth. That's a one world kingdom I would stand up for.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank You!
Finally someone who sees it for what it is.

Fr Tim

CO said...

Your last paragraph is clear, direct, and truth. CiV almost seems to pass out ammunition to everyone, good and bad, and then expects "world democracy" to sort out truth. Good luck with that.

My only clarification concerns the emphasis on the often irresistible end-times. In the here and now, lousy economic actions precede needless suffering and destruction of accumulated wealth. That wealth (more than just "money") keeps us productive and improves life.

BONIFACE said...

CO-

I totally agree with you. But just because that is true does not negate the reality of what we know we can expect at the last days and the fact that we see many such similar trends and pieces of the puzzle being put in place now.

Johannes said...

There are two statements that are very interesting from a Peak Oil-aware perspective.

CV 44, second paragraph:

"On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs."

Thus, it is desirable that a country's birth rate never falls beneath "replacement level", or in equivalent terms, that a country's population never declines. (Actually the text could even be construed as saying that such a low birth rate is a highly undesirable case, not the only undesirable case.) Therefore, a country's population has only one acceptable way to go: up. And so does the world's population, since it is the sum of all countries'.

CV 50:

"On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God's gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity."

Obviously "room" does not refer to "physical space", since even deserts provide it: it refers to the availability of "the resources to live with dignity". Thus, the above statement says, in other words, that the Earth's carrying capacity can accomodate "everyone", "the entire human family". But "the entire human family" in 1800 was much smaller than that in 1900 which in turn was much smaller than today's. So, to what time's "entire human family" is the Pope referring? Clearly to any time's. Therefore, the Pope is stating that the Earth's carrying capacity can accomodate "everyone" living at any time, which obviously includes today.

If we now take this statement together with that in #44 quoted above, (any country's - and therefore the world's - population should only go up), the Pope is saying that the Earth's carrying capacity can accomodate an indefinitely large number of people. (Unless we assume that the second coming will occur before the world's population reaches Earth's carrying capacity, a statement that neither looks like a solid theological proposition nor was probably in the Pope's mind when he wrote that.)

Clearly the quoted statements are not definitive (and thus infallible) teachings. But how authoritative are they? Let's take into account at this point the profession of faith in JPII's motu proprio "Ad Tuendam Fidem":

“Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”

Thus the key point is: are the quoted statements "magisterial teachings" or "personal opinions"?

BONIFACE said...

Johannes-

I don't think your interpretation is sound about the world's population having to go up. First of all, the fact that the Pope cites lowering birthrates as a problem does not mean he is endorsing the unrestricted opposite (ceaslessly rising birthrates). He's merely pointing out the consequences of low birthrates without mandating anything. Just like if I say that fried eggs contribute to cholesterol and heart problems, I am not thereby saying that the only acceptable alternative is for people to stop eating fried eggs - I'm just pointing out what is going on and saying it is a problem.

Second, you said that:

Therefore, a country's population has only one acceptable way to go: up. And so does the world's population, since it is the sum of all countries'.

If this were true it would put individuals in a bind, since, as the world is the sum of all countries, a country is the sum of all individuals. If a country's population ought to only go up, you would have to say that individual's reproduction rates have to increase, or be beyond replacement level at least - something the Church has never taught. We are forbidden from interfering with the creation of life but not mandated to bring that creation about.

Interesting points, though.

Johannes said...

FYI, today we had an interesting exchange with Athanasius on this topic here

http://distributism.blogspot.com/2009/08/caritas-in-veritate-bane-of-austrianism.html

Rodolfo Plata López said...

San Pablo de fue un caballo de Troya enviado por el Sanedrín para infiltrar el movimiento cristiano y mantenerlo sujeto a la Sinagoga. Desde entonces el talón de Aquiles de la doctrina de la Iglesia ha sido el profetismo judío. En estos momentos en que la Iglesia agoniza ante el mortal ataque de sus eternos enemigos, el liderazgo pontificio del helenismo secular cristiano que abrogue el Antiguo Testamento de nuestra fe, será en lo futuro el liderazgo de una Iglesia triunfante. Benedicto XVI, tiene la oportunidad histórica de salvar a la Iglesia promoviendo la helenización de cristianismo y abrogando la religión chatarra judeo cristiana que formuló San Pablo. La reciente trilogía Encíclica sobre la caridad, la esperanza y la verdad, son sintomáticas de un pontificado intimidado por los continuos e intensos ataques de propios y extraños, no solo contra la Iglesia, la doctrina milenaria y la autoridad pontificia, que son promovidos encubiertamente desde la Sinagoga; lo cual explica el reduccionismo absurdo de Caritas in veritate al promover los valores mínimos de la ley natural y la convivencia social para barnizar de humanista el modelo socio económico actual, dejando de lado los valores máximos de la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta que promueven la justicia social y el desarrollo espiritual de la humanidad mediante la practica intensa del altruismo, el misticismo y el activismo social.

El perfil moral del humanismo secular tiene una banda muy ancha debido a la ausencia de dogmas pero no de principios que enaltezcan la dignidad humana. Su mayor virtud es la búsqueda intensa y apasionada del bien y la verdad, utilizando la razón y el libre pensamiento. Porque la sabiduría y la bondad son el norte que orienta su vida y sus actos, para encontrar la salida a los laberintos mentales que mantienen perpleja a la humanidad en el oscurantismo medieval religioso, utilizando el pensamiento crítico. El humanismo secular y su etiqueta de ateo, se debe a que los libre pensadores, concientes de la dignidad humana estamos en contra de la manipulación y enajenación que promueve la religión organizada, y seguimos la directiva que expuso Protágoras al analizar el ethos y el pathos de los dioses del Olimpo y caer en cuenta que las narraciones sagradas eran una mitología producto de la fantasía humana, a fin de explicar los portentos. Conclusión que lo llevó a señalar que el hombre es la medida de todas las cosas, abrogando el culto a los dioses del Olimpo, aún el dios desconocido. A partir de entonces, los pueblos herederos de la cultura helénica intentamos construir un mundo mejor cimentado en la ciencia, las humanidades y la educación laica de las multitudes en los valores del humanismo secular que tiene como polos la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta, a fin de desarrollar las potencialidades interiores ejercitando el altruismo y el activismo social intensos, imitando a Cristo.

El movimiento secular cristiano iniciado por los sabios alejandrinos en el primer siglo, tiene su raíz en el misticismo secular helénico practicado antes de Cristo por cínicos epicúreos y estoicos. Comprende solo los valores espirituales que enaltecen la dignidad humana, dejando de lado los relatos de las divinidades y el culto. Es decir no solo reconoce la importancia de la dimensión espiritual humana sino que promueve la divulgación del conocimiento espiritual, a fin de que la humanidad trascienda el subdesarrollo espiritual en el que se encuentra, a causa de los errores de la fe; y por ello, desde un punto de vista aquo, utiliza la razón para disolver los fundamentalismos perniciosos de creyentes y ateos, mediante un juicio justo. En un principio el cristianismo fue un movimiento laico.

Rodolfo Plata López said...

La Epístola apócrifa de los Hechos de Felipe, expone al cristianismo como continuación de la educación en los valores que persigue alcanzar la paideía griega, promovida por los sabios alejandrinos que fueron los primeros en percatarse del movimiento secular cristiano cuando unos griegos se entrevistaron con Cristo (Jn XII, 20 al 24). Posteriormente enviaron al medico Lucas a dar testimonio escrito de los portentos, vida, ejemplo y enseñanza de Cristo, a fin de dar fe que es cierta la teoría de la trascendencia humana formulada por Aristóteles al abordar el problema del alma truncada que sostiene que el hombre puede trascender a sus propias limitaciones si practica las virtudes opuestas a sus defectos hasta alcanzar la supra humanidad. A partir de entonces, los pueblos helénicos siguieron el movimiento cristiano como el mejor modo de alcanzar la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta que pretende la paideía griega; por ello lucharon por helenizar el cristianismo a fin de estructurar la fe conforme a la razón. Lo cual propició el choque entre culturas ante la oposición radical e intransigente de los príncipes de la sinagoga tendente a evitar que se helenizara el cristianismo para judaizar el cristianismo y mantenerlo sujeto a los intereses judíos. Separando la fe de la razón __cuya unión inseparable, Cristo había revelado metafóricamente al ciego de nacimiento (Jn IX, 39)__ Provocando en los pueblos cristianos la estulticia generalizada y la entronización del oscurantismo, al olvidar las raíces helenistas de nuestra cultura; lo cual ha convertido las Iglesias en sinagogas, los sacerdotes en rabinos, los cristianos en siervos del gobierno mundial judío, y el judeo cristianismo en religión chatarra. Así el movimiento cristiano dejó de ser laico y dejó de perseguir los fines últimos de la paideía; y por ello, no hemos alcanzado la sociedad perfecta ni la trascendencia humana.

El triunfo del judeo cristianismo sobre el incipiente helenismo cristiano es eminente, debido a que el progreso de las ciencias y las humanidades, amenaza con derrumbar la doctrina medieval de la iglesia; por ello, los emisarios de la Sinagoga, han promovido la lucha intestina entre conservadores y modernistas, para abrogar sutilmente la doctrina milenaria de la Iglesia tratando de adecuar el discurso de la Iglesia a los tiempos modernos, pero sin criticar el profetismo judío. Ante esta situación, 1) los esbirros de la Sinagoga pretenden terminar de judaizar el cristianismo, abrogando de nuestra fe el dogma de la divinidad de Cristo, el dogma de la Santísima Trinidad, el dogma de la Nueva Alianza, convirtiendo a Cristo en un profeta menor de Israel, testigo de Jehová. 2) los helenistas cristianos pretenden actualizar la doctrina de la Iglesia estructurando la fe conforme a la razón: sacralizando la doctrina y la teoría de la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta predicada por Cristo. Abrogando de nuestra fe el Antiguo Testamento por ser una mitología oscurantista y enajenante; lo cual abrogaría la Reforma Protestante, uniría la religión y la ciencia, y uniría las Iglesias en Cristo. Y para lograrlo, solo es necesario criticar el profetismo judío enmarcando científicamente la controversia entre la fe y la razón en el fenómeno espiritual de la transformación humana, utilizando los principios universales de la filosofía y la ciencia de conocimiento espiritual, a fin de deslindar del camino ecuménico y hacer objetiva la desviación del cristianismo hacia la ecumene Abrahán-ica que nos conduce al precipicio de la perdición eterna. 3) el humanismo secular pretende prescindir de la religión organizada, convirtiéndolo en un humanismo secular cristiano, con catedrales en las universidades, institutos, fundaciones altruistas y voluntariados.

Rodolfo Plata López said...

Los libre pensadores defensores de Cristo, la Iglesia y de las raíces greco-romanas de nuestra cultura, apostando por el helenismo cristiano, criticamos el profetismo judío aportando los elementos de juicio que justifican la abrogación del Antiguo Testamento de nuestra fe. La crítica al profetismo judío puede abordarse por diversos procedimientos. El más polémico, es la revisión jurídica de la sentencia dictada por Cristo en su diatriba contra el puritanismo hipócrita de los sacerdotes y escribas de la ley, señalando como reos de pena eterna a los seguidores de la doctrina (ethos supremaciíta) y ejemplo (pathos avasallante, criminal y genocida serial) judíos. Debido a que S. S. Juan Pablo II difiere de esta sentencia culposa opinando que los judíos son nuestros hermanos mayores en la fe. Los otros procedimientos son los siguientes:

• Enmarcando la disertación científica en el fenómeno de la trasformación humana abordado por la doctrina y la teoría de la trascendencia humana: conceptualizada por la sabiduría védica, instruida por Buda e ilustrada por Cristo, y sus jornadas descritas metafóricamente por los poetas místicos del Islam,; la cual concuerda con los planteamientos de la filosofía clásica y moderna, y las conclusiones comparables de la ciencia: (psicología: logoterápia), congruencia que da certidumbre a nuestros juicios de valor.
• Enmarcando la disertación filosófica en: “el deslinde del camino ecuménico que tiene como polos la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta. Utilizando los principios universales del saber filosófico y espiritual como tabla raza, a fin de hacer objetivo el desvió del cristianismo hacia la ecumene Abraham-ica demarcada por los convencionalismos de lo que es sagrado para de Israel” (su territorio, su pueblo, sus ancestros, Jerusalén, el templo, y el libro de Israel), conducidos por San Pablo para que los hijos de Israel seguidores de Cristo siguieran siendo Israel, y los gentiles cristianos ayudaran a Israel a llegar a ser la principal de las naciones; y para perpetuar el error separó la fe de la razón: (1ª Corintios I, 17 al 27), e indujo el error fundamental (2ª Timoteo 16, 17) que nos lleva a conclusiones falsas que nos confunden, conflictuan, enajenan y deshumanizan, polarizando la sociedad en explotadores y oprimidos. Convirtiendo en paradoja el cuestionamiento sobre la relación entre la fe y la razón planteado por los helénicos a San Pablo en el Areópago, lo cual ha mantenido perpleja a la humanidad en espera de una respuesta satisfactoria
• Enmarcando la disertación jurídica en la revisión del diferendo pontificio {opuesto a la sentencia dictada por Cristo [Mateo XXIII, 1 al 35] en su crítica a la utopía judía señalando como reos de castigo eterno a los seguidores de la doctrina (el ethos) y la conducta (el pathos) de Israel -VS- la honorable opinión de Su Excelencia Juan Pablo II señalando a Israel como hermano mayor en la fe} a la luz de los hechos bíblicos e históricos; para demostrar que sigue vigente el ad quem recurrido y el diferendo es una apostasía mayor tendente a judaizar el cristianismo
• Dejando al descubierto las implicaciones educativas, judiciales, morales y religiosas del latrocinio de tracto continúo en que incurren las iglesias y organizaciones religiosas al encubrir tendenciosamente el error fundamental; así como el interés jurídico y competencia del Estado para conocer y juzgar este relevante asunto, en razón del severo daño moral causado a la sociedad.
• Convocando el emplazamiento a juicio de las Iglesias y organizaciones religiosas tendenciosas, a efecto de corregir el error fundamental. En primera instancia ante el tribunal de la razón, en segunda instancia ante el tribunal de la ley. Y en tercera instancia en el estrado revolucionario de la justa indignación pública expulsando de las Iglesias a los sacerdotes y pastores fideístas renuentes a corregir el error fundamental; tal como lo hizo Cristo cuando expulsó del templo a los mercaderes

Rodolfo Plata López said...

Los libre pensadores defensores de Cristo, la Iglesia y de las raíces greco-romanas de nuestra cultura, apostando por el helenismo cristiano, criticamos el profetismo judío aportando los elementos de juicio que justifican la abrogación del Antiguo Testamento de nuestra fe. La crítica al profetismo judío puede abordarse por diversos procedimientos. El más polémico, es la revisión jurídica de la sentencia dictada por Cristo en su diatriba contra el puritanismo hipócrita de los sacerdotes y escribas de la ley, señalando como reos de pena eterna a los seguidores de la doctrina (ethos supremaciíta) y ejemplo (pathos avasallante, criminal y genocida serial) judíos. Debido a que S. S. Juan Pablo II difiere de esta sentencia culposa opinando que los judíos son nuestros hermanos mayores en la fe. Los otros procedimientos son los siguientes:

• Enmarcando la disertación científica en el fenómeno de la trasformación humana abordado por la doctrina y la teoría de la trascendencia humana: conceptualizada por la sabiduría védica, instruida por Buda e ilustrada por Cristo, y sus jornadas descritas metafóricamente por los poetas místicos del Islam,; la cual concuerda con los planteamientos de la filosofía clásica y moderna, y las conclusiones comparables de la ciencia: (psicología: logoterápia), congruencia que da certidumbre a nuestros juicios de valor.
• Enmarcando la disertación filosófica en: “el deslinde del camino ecuménico que tiene como polos la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta. Utilizando los principios universales del saber filosófico y espiritual como tabla raza, a fin de hacer objetivo el desvió del cristianismo hacia la ecumene Abraham-ica demarcada por los convencionalismos de lo que es sagrado para de Israel” (su territorio, su pueblo, sus ancestros, Jerusalén, el templo, y el libro de Israel), conducidos por San Pablo para que los hijos de Israel seguidores de Cristo siguieran siendo Israel, y los gentiles cristianos ayudaran a Israel a llegar a ser la principal de las naciones; y para perpetuar el error separó la fe de la razón: (1ª Corintios I, 17 al 27), e indujo el error fundamental (2ª Timoteo 16, 17) que nos lleva a conclusiones falsas que nos confunden, conflictuan, enajenan y deshumanizan, polarizando la sociedad en explotadores y oprimidos. Convirtiendo en paradoja el cuestionamiento sobre la relación entre la fe y la razón planteado por los helénicos a San Pablo en el Areópago, lo cual ha mantenido perpleja a la humanidad en espera de una respuesta satisfactoria
• Enmarcando la disertación jurídica en la revisión del diferendo pontificio {opuesto a la sentencia dictada por Cristo [Mateo XXIII, 1 al 35] en su crítica a la utopía judía señalando como reos de castigo eterno a los seguidores de la doctrina (el ethos) y la conducta (el pathos) de Israel -VS- la honorable opinión de Su Excelencia Juan Pablo II señalando a Israel como hermano mayor en la fe} a la luz de los hechos bíblicos e históricos; para demostrar que sigue vigente el ad quem recurrido y el diferendo es una apostasía mayor tendente a judaizar el cristianismo
• Dejando al descubierto las implicaciones educativas, judiciales, morales y religiosas del latrocinio de tracto continúo en que incurren las iglesias y organizaciones religiosas al encubrir tendenciosamente el error fundamental; así como el interés jurídico y competencia del Estado para conocer y juzgar este relevante asunto, en razón del severo daño moral causado a la sociedad.
• Convocando el emplazamiento a juicio de las Iglesias y organizaciones religiosas tendenciosas, a efecto de corregir el error fundamental. En primera instancia ante el tribunal de la razón, en segunda instancia ante el tribunal de la ley. Y en tercera instancia en el estrado revolucionario de la justa indignación pública expulsando de las Iglesias a los sacerdotes y pastores fideístas renuentes a corregir el error fundamental; tal como lo hizo Cristo cuando expulsó del templo a los mercaderes

BONIFACE said...

Hey Rodolofo, if you are able to make such long comments, apparently you can read English pretty well - so about using it next time. The United States has no official language but my blog does - please comment in English. Nobody else can understand what you are saying.

Anonymous said...

I can read Spanish very well. It seems to me he's a crackpot. He has posted similar rants in other places, so I suggest to remove his posts, as they are pretty long, disruptive, and in a foreign language.

On the other hand, yours is a good and thoughtful piece of essay. I can only comment that I suspect some people in the Roman curia are still pretty attached to the idea of a global imperial government taking care of secular business while the church, under its patronage, can take care of souls.