I'm glad you noticed that too. How despicable.
Perhaps he's pining for a new Crusade - the Muslims have seized Aleppo.
How else does Novak expect to defeat sin but through caritas, virtue, and justice?
This statement of Novak's has to be understood as a nod to the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly to the thesis that self-interest in the market place ends up promoting public goods. The thought is that capitalism defeats sin by making use of sin.
I have to admit that I find Novak's breezy assertions somewhat amusing.
Wow. Too much stress upon caritas, virtue and justice. Pff, unimportant drivel as we all know. More importantly, did anyone else catch the full implications of this? *Defeating Human Sin* Apparently Mr. Novak believes that men can be made into saints by external force. I would be more amused if Utopian social projects had less of a historical track record of mass murder and horrific oppression.
And then I read the article. The man is extremely confused and a heretic. Two telling quotes:
"Caritas is the love proper only to God, among the Persons of the Divine Communion for One Another, All one in perfect Communion."
"The most holy, the noblest, the best, the most godlike things about us is our human capacity to learn personhood in responsible self-government (taking up personal responsibility for our own eternal fate) and to share in communion with other persons, and most of all with the unseen God."
Confirms what I've thought about Novak for decades.
It seems a good article until the end. Is he referring to prayer, the sacraments, spiritual direction and ascetical practices? Haven't finished CiV yet. Deus Caritas Est seemed to talk about the life of prayer briefly at the end. Is this Novak's complaint?
methods for defeating human sin
Does Novak suppose that when he opens a closet door all the dark leaks out?
It seems to me one can no more "defeat" sin that a floodlight "defeats" the darkness. Isn't sin not a thing of positive existence, but a disorder, a lack of the good?
On the other hand, peace, justice, and goodness are attributes of God, who is the source and end of all being.
Novak's another squalid Catholic trimmer of a sort becoming more common. I see a small island ambassadorship for him in a future Palin administration.
Now that I think about it, I am being overly unkind to that nasty man, Dale Vree, because at least Vree has historically, until he REALLY went off the rails into crankdom, managed to somehow supporter wet noodle peace 'n justice stuff like the encyclicals PP and SRS while simultaneously loathing both sinner and sin a la John Knox.
The Church's official stance is as follows (from Dei Verbum): http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUN...ILS/
v2revel.htm
And also this (from CCC): http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1...cc/
p1s1c2a3.htm
In regards to Catholic Bible study materials, the vast majority are unfaithful to the Church in particular and Christianity in general. The purpose of these studies is to relativize the Bible so that the comforts of religion can be enjoyed without the corresponding sacrifices.
To religious liberals, the Church as a glorified book club is the order of the day. Scripture study is for them a contest of sorts, wherein the participants compete to see who can take their religion least seriously. The point of this exercise, if I understand correctly, is affirmation and the loosening of traditional mores, especially sexual ones, in favor of a more cosmopolitan spirituality that sees various religions as convenient symbol systems for the creative expression of political ideals.
It would be a grave mistake to think religious liberals actually believe in their claimed religion; it would be more accurate to classify them all in a religion of their own, and then differentiate them according to sub-templates based upon which religion they prefer to draw their symbols from.
In truth, the liberal Christian and the liberal Buddhist (try looking in the "Buddhism without Beliefs" section for these types) have more in common with each other than with their purported coreligionists--one merely prefers the cross as a symbol of emotional resurrection while the other prefers the lotus blossom.
As can be intuited from the above paragraph, the liberal--or perhaps more accurately, relativist--problem is not unique to Christianity. It is symptomatic of our modern era, and that is why it is most often termed "Modernism."
Modernism, more than anything else, is an anti-religion; but though it is new, it is actually very old and not at all unlike the political religion of Rome--a mixture of pieties, customs, and traditions remnant from a long since discredited mythology.
Modernism is part of a natural cycle in the religious thought of men; it crops up right at the junction of social stagnation, political upheaval, and a general weariness of existence. The beliefs of yesteryear provide fuel to the very flame that consumes them, and the hallowed and ancient trees of prophets and sages from long ago are felled to make room for new growth.
The forest is renewing itself once more in a baptism of fire and spirit. What comes next, we can only anticipate with a combination of jubilant excitement and grave concern.
"But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,' God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God" (I Corinthians 2:9-10).
Sorry, ignore the above post, it was intended for a previous thread.
Mark,
If you're having trouble with Michael Novak's reaction to Pope Benedict's encyclical, wait till you read George Weigel's take on it at NRO. In a very odd application of the documentary hypothesis, Weigel discerns two authors of the encylical: one is Pope Benedict himself; the other, is the Justice and Peace lobby (J&P for short).
Have a look for yourself:
http://article.nationalreview.co...M2ZiMmE=&
w=MA==
Mark,
I sent the last message before reading all your entries for the day. I see that you have already commented on the Weigel piece. Please disregard the above.
Though that is probably true. It doesn't justify Weigels arguments. Just that Papal Encyclicals are sometimes written completely/mostly by the Pope (Fides et Ratio comes to mind) some exclusively by Congregations and signed off (? Donum Vitae) and some by both. Again not to justify Weigel's arguments. Just a fact.
methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms
Interesting that Novak should push this, since Pope Benedict specifically downplays this dynamic:
A vocation is a call that requires a free and responsible answer. Integral human development presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this development over and above human responsibility. - Caritas in Veritate, section 17
First Weigel, now this. Not a good week for the First Things crowd. Their reaction proves the necessity of the encyclical.
As near as I can tell, Novak is embracing a classical Liberal flaw summed up by Hauerwas: trying to have a just society without a just people.
Otherwise one has to think Novak just hasn't read the encyclical. Pope Benedict is quite clear about the dangers of love without reason and reason without love.
Perhaps there is a pundit's bias against appearing fawning and uniform in praise. So token criticisms must be made, no matter how superficial. (Yet the same people didn't even make token criticisms of certain highly dubious American policies.)
I'd like to think Neuhaus could have kept this unseemly display of knee-jerkism in check.
Though not as bad as this author calling a section of Gaudium et Spes Pelagian:
"In the commentaries of the document, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) called certain parts of Gaudium et Spes "downright Pelagian," particularly in the treatment of free will in article 17."
When I read this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/t...20090707?
rpc=60
I am dumb struck. Weigel and Novak aside, I'm curious how I can comprehend calls for a "global authority" of the economy with " 'forms of redistribution' of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises."
This seems to me to be problematic for several reasons, the first of which is this is the political and economic model which has led Europe into a spiritual morass, and, on top of that, it seems--to me--to be putting the world into the hands of a UN type body, which has been and will always be the antithesis of the Church. I cannot read this without thinking that the role of the CHURCH is to care for the sick and the poor and the hungry, and that the role of the government(s) (plural for now, I suppose) should be limited and handcuffed...governments are never the friend of the Church...why would there be benefit in empowering them. Or worse yet, consolidating them into one...I must say, all of this has left me confused, and disheartened.
Why it's as baffling as Paul (that statist wimp) saying that Nero was God's servant (!) in Romans 13 and calling his flock to "honor the king". Clearly, he must have been endorsing everything about Nero and signing off completely on a program for limitless power to an anti-christian regime. What a naive fool. There's no point in listening to a word he says. He exposed his *true* political colors! I thought Paul was reliable but he just another Church bureaucrat enamored of failed political ideas!
Eric, I think the answer lies in an honest and thorough research not only of this encyclical, but the broader Catholic Social Tradition in which it sits. While this document does stand pretty well on its own (if all of the seemingly more audacious quotes are put into the full context of the letter), nevertheless we are still talking of an encyclical with 160 footnotes (some of which reference more than one other source). Any academic treatise would be treated with the perspicacity worthy of work at this level, namely the looking into referred-to sources and the consideration of quotation in the fuller original context of each.
All that having been said, my gathering from the calls for a world-wide political order is just that: an "order." In other words, we can't globalize and interact internationally just by the seat of the pants. World leaders need to establish some coherent philosophy and mechanisms for their dealings. But this isn't calling for any more actual institutional structuring or beaurocracy than is already there. I think the current framework and set up are sufficient, but in need of reform on the level of philosophy and ideas. Without the right goals, how can we expect to float to appropriate ends? That's the type of organization I think the Pope is calling for. It shouldn't conjure images of Leviathan or some sort of Big-Brotherly bohemoth of governance. Rather, a sort of corporative (in the best sense of the word) solidarism between independant States, always with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity.
It almost sounds like Novak is the conservative mirror opposite of TEC's Kate Schiori..
I just got my weekly news from the diocese and linked to Benedict's writing. I will not claim to have read the whole thing, rather I did a heavy skim and found it to be moving and inspired. I think Benedict really wrote down a lot of things that, first as a Catholic and second as a liberal, that I believe in. We all have a duty to one another, and this duty includes us richer people in the States not acting as if we somehow have special rights that exempt us from moral and ethical claims. I think that Benedict is a fantastically brilliant Pope and this work really shows it.
Joey G,
Thanks for the response...the article I quoted said this:
"Benedict said "there is an urgent need of a true world political authority" whose task would be "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."
While I understand your point, and would like to read things the way you do above, I see that quote and it makes me wonder...I will be diving more into the actual writing itself...
Mark, I respect you, but sometimes the sarcasm is such that I have trouble understanding 1) who it is directed at, and 2) what the "more reasoned flip side" of the sarcasm really is. I know it's there. I've followed you (off and on, granted) long enough to know that...
An international order might include something à la Breton Woods, a period which saw some of the greatest economic growths in the XX century across the planet and of which the U.S was a key player.
Jaci
I totally agree. Something does need to be done to prevent the types of abuses both to our fellow humans and to our planet. While the State (broadly understood) has never really done a wonderful job in controlling these types of things, I think leaving these things to Corporations has proven to be a disaster.
"Why it's as baffling as Paul (that statist wimp) saying that Nero was God's servant (!) in Romans 13 and calling his flock to "honor the king". Clearly, he must have been endorsing everything about Nero and signing off completely on a program for limitless power to an anti-christian regime. What a naive fool. There's no point in listening to a word he says. He exposed his *true* political colors! I thought Paul was reliable but he just another Church bureaucrat enamored of failed political ideas!"
Umm...I don't think the analogies are even remotely comparable. It is one thing to call for the respect of current institutions, it is another to ask for a new, disastrous one. You accuse people of isolating parts of a work and dwelling on that without looking at context, and then you go on and do it yourself. What's up with that?
That said, jaci's comment that the Pope is simply calling for a reorganization or rethinking of current international institutional structures makes sense. If we take this to be the meaning, then the encyclical's prescriptions are consistent with the Pope's diplomatic efforts to date. Lord knows, the UN is no friend of Christians (or much of anybody else in that regard), but reevaluating and restructuring it may be the best path forward.
I thought Paul was reliable but he just another Church bureaucrat enamored of failed political ideas!
Plus, he pushed that faith, hope, and charity crap, so what the hell does he know anyway?
Well, it goes to show, Novak's pleas for "Augustine" to encounter Benedict, points to the Jansenist core behind Novak's work, and that is, of course (you were expecting this) evidence of Novak's Calvinism.
An international order might include something à la Breton Woods, a period which saw some of the greatest economic growths in the XX century across the planet and of which the U.S was a key player.
Now, a Bretton Woods type agreement might not be a bad thing but that is because under the old monetary arrangement, currencies were still backed by species. They aren't now. That has much to do with the causation of the current troubles and also makes re-stabilizing our fiat currencies a severe challenge. The encyclical of course does not address the technical issues that have put us where we are but does make a blanket call for more governmental authority supposedly to make conditions better. There is a term for that...oh yeah, knee-jerk leftism.
The theme is now all over the media that Pope Benedict is more left-wing than Obama. It does not matter now that that may not be true. The perception is there and the Curia has given the Obama administration cover to veer even more to the left. The politicization of American Catholics, being divided into bitterly opposing camps will become more severe, not less as a result of this. And our economic troubles will still not be addressed.
I'm not surprised after reading Novak's "On Two Wings" at his response to B16.
This is shaping up in strange ways on the net. The pro-encylical crowd sounds like those who used to extol everything from "John Paul the Great" before they ever understood it- much less agreed with it. Wiegel & Novak and Co. sound like the old SSPX.
Interesting times
Breton Woods was dominated by the US, yes? Thus it wouldn't fit the Pope's call for an international order that integrates smaller countries and accepts them as partners rather than client-states.
I think the whole idea behind a new sort of Breton Woods isn't that it would be dominated by the USA rather that it would allow States to exert some much needed oversight over Corp. that are clearly more interested in their own bottom line than in any sort of responsibility outside of that. (mind you, that isn't all bad per se, a corp is supposed to make money for their shareholders...that does often conflict with the rest of the planet however)
Having finished reading CiV last night, I am going to float a cautious sympathy with certain political scientists for critiquing the convoluted language in parts of the text, without conceding ANY of their reservations re: content. Even Amy Welborn noted whether it was necessary to include so many divergent "examples" of how principles of the teaching could be played out (and there's the first word I had an issue with - life isn't a trivial game, so just who is that character called "player"?) JPII used "actor" from a philosophical sense that indicates a moral dimensions to our acts from pure practical reason, without recourse to faith)
Here's the only sentence I could not comprehend in the whole thing, and really perhaps Mr. Novak can help me see whats lacking in the focus on "intention" (a pre-requisite for mortal sin, of course, I get that much):
"Above all, the intention to do good must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce goods."
Why the double negative? Resolve that mathematically, it would we're still no clearer what is meant:
"Above all, the intention to do good must be considered compatible with the effective capacity to produce goods."
in the context of reforming financial services.
Even reading the Pope's original German
"Vor allem darf die Absicht, Gutes
zu tun, nicht der Intention nach der tatsächlichen
Güterproduktionskapazität gegenübergestellt werden"/i>
didn't help since he uses Intention and Absicht (means "intent") twice...?
Anyone got a clue what the Pope's getting at regarding financial services and production? I'm at a loss - who's "doing good" the banker or the entrepreneur asking for a loan? Who's metric are we to measure "effective" (factual, real?) production? And production of what - the raw materials, or their production yeilds, or the collateral of "funny money" being created by credit?
To answer Novak, I would have liked the Pope to have modelled subsidiarity and solidarity within the Curia by commissioning all local bishops to draft a customized version of CiV tailored to their dioceses, and then called a synod a year from now (at the end of the Year for Priests) to publish the findings for: (1) instruments of development in accord with CharityinTruth in their own territories (education, healthcare, natural law reflected in statutes, financial soundness in public and civic realms, variety of cultural liberties) and structural obstacles to development (ignorance, illness, indifference to natural law, indebtedness, determinism in cultural fundamentalism). Men sin, but men also make the structures of sin. We ought hold ourselves accountable for the barriers we erect that thwart Divine Grace, no?
God Bless!
sorry about poor legibility in italics last bit should've looked like this
>>SNIP>>
didn't help since he uses Intention and Absicht (means "intent") twice...?
Anyone got a clue what the Pope's getting at regarding financial services and production? I'm at a loss - who's "doing good" the banker or the entrepreneur asking for a loan? Who's metric are we to measure "effective" (factual, real?) production? And production of what - the raw materials, or their production yeilds, or the collateral of "funny money" being created by credit?
To answer Novak, I would have liked the Pope to have modelled subsidiarity and solidarity within the Curia by commissioning all local bishops to draft a customized version of CiV tailored to their dioceses, and then called a synod a year from now (at the end of the Year for Priests) to publish the findings for: (1) instruments of development in accord with CharityinTruth in their own territories (education, healthcare, natural law reflected in statutes, financial soundness in public and civic realms, variety of cultural liberties) and structural obstacles to development (ignorance, illness, indifference to natural law, indebtedness, determinism in cultural fundamentalism). Men sin, but men also make the structures of sin. We ought hold ourselves accountable for the barriers we erect that thwart Divine Grace, no?
God Bless!
oh and (65) was where the murky meaning can be found!
I liked Sirico's piece on the encyclical in the Wall Street Journal (and not just because he made the link between Bastiat and B-16).
Back in the 1980s, I read J.M. Cameron's demolition of Novak in The New York Review of Books. I've never been able to take Novak seriously since. The best that can be said about him is that at least now he finally accepts Humanae Vitae.
First Weigel, now this. Not a good week for the First Things crowd. Their reaction proves the necessity of the encyclical.
"The First Things crowd" is not all of one sort.
There are other, more positive reactions on the FT site so far.
Here's an amusing mental exercise. Imagine you are able to travel back in time to, say, 1985 or 1990, a moment when the Ratzinger-is-the-evil-Inquisitor-the-Panzer-
Cardinal narrative was in full swing. And you find the journalist Peter Hebblethwaite (may he rest in peace), one of the propagators of Cardinal's reputation.
And you tell him that in 2009, Ratzinger is Pope. (Give him a moment, it will throw him for a loop.) Then tell him in summer of '09, Pope Ratzinger has issued an encyclical.
"Probably criticizes immoral actions like abortion, gay marriage, and contraception, doesn't it?" Hebblethwaite growls.
"Yes," you allow. "It does."
"Not surprising," he nods. "Some things never change, I see."
"And some people," you add, "are picking and choosing which parts of the encyclical they like and which they don't."
"Well, sometimes a discerning conscience is--"
"It's the conservatives doing it."
"Huh?"
"Yes, and they're mad at him."
Poor Peter is getting very confused now.
"They are? For what?"
Pause for effect. "They say he's focusing too much on love and goodness, not enough on rooting out sin."
Now you've either driven Hebblethwaite stark raving mad or convinced him that you're from a bizarre parallel universe and your time machine dropped you off accidentally in ours.
The World Health Organization still seems to put too much stress on diagnostics, sanitation, and the distribution of medicine, and not enough on treating disease in all its deviant and persistant forms.
Perhaps Novak isn't Calvinist or the worst person in the world. Perhaps he is just wrong.
Same for Weigel.
Carry on.
TGC:
Thank you for that utterly irrelevant and meaningless rebuttal of a straw man. Carry on.
The question is why someone is wrong, what leads them to be wrong, what is influencing them.
Anybody thought to ask him what he means by it? How can it be "content-free" and at the same time lead to cozens of negative interpretations as to what it might mean?
I miss the other Novak.
"Thank you for that utterly irrelevant and meaningless rebuttal of a straw man."
Thanks for the correction, Mark. I didn't realize I was rebutting any argument, whether made of straw or any other substance.
I thought I was referring to some intemperate (but apparently "utterly relevant") remarks concerning the articles by Novak and Weigel, such as:
"Perhaps he's pining for a new Crusade."
"Novak's another squalid Catholic trimmer of a sort becoming more common. I see a small island ambassadorship for him in a future Palin administration."
"neocon = gnostic filth."
"I hope Michael Novak isn't too disappointed that the Holy Father is continuing to spout that naive Justice and Peace crap about charity instead of just having the Swiss Guard run him through with pikes and defeat the evil of abortion the neocon way."
Mea culpa
Commenting by HaloScan
