Caritas in Veritate

The emphasis on coherence, insisting that things (e.g. truth and love) be kept together which various parties try to separate, also results in the integration of various political matters within a coherent and consistent Christian worldview. As you say, the intellectual and spiritual appeal of this has a certain evangelical power that would not be there if the "detail and specificity" were missing.

I wish that he would have addressed the coherence of Religious Freedom between the received tradition and the development from Vatican II. Of course they are reconcilable, but how is still a question. He hinted at it, but maybe he could have gone farther.

Slavery is a term that covers a wide range of dependent relations. Modern chattel slavery, ancient war-booty slavery, medieval serfdom (depriving of personal liberty but with certain rights guaranteed by customary law). I see continuity in the broad sweep of Christian and Catholic history on this issue, not discontinuity.

But that's the connundrum of history: one man's discontinuity is another's continuity. History always involves both. Those who have an axe to grind to prove the Church reversed herself on issue X or Y will always find ways to demonstrate what they already know (e.g., Noonan on contraception, where I find his historical work crude). As a professional church historian, I do not see any instance of a genuine reversal in dogmatic Catholic theology over the millennia. I see an awful lot of ebb and flow in a wide variety of symbiotic and hostile interactions with changing human societies, economies, cultures.

But then I'm a Benedictine hermeneutic of continuity type. I became a Catholic because as a historian, after 20 years of study, I saw consistency and continuity in the Catholic Church that I saw nowhere else in the histories I studied.

But other historians, including historians who consider themselves Catholic, have eyes mostly for discontinuities. I could name some more names, but it's probably best not to.

Phil,
Your mistake is seeing the need for continuity at the non infallible level which is not guaranteed (see the intro to "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" Lutwig Ott). At the level of authentic church teaching, there can be inconsistency according to Ott and on morals.
_____________________________________________________________________

So here is Aquinas in the Supplement to the Summa Theologica regarding the marriage of a slave:

"wherefore children follow the mother in freedom and bondage; whereas in matters pertaining to dignity as proceeding from a thing's form, they follow the father, for instance in honors, franchise, inheritance and so forth. The canons are in agreement with this (cap. Liberi, 32, qu. iv, in gloss.: cap. Inducens, De natis ex libero ventre) as also the law of Moses (Exodus 21)."

Now here is Pope Nicholas V in 1454 in Romanex Pontifex giving Portugal the right to enslave all "other enemies" of Christ in the New World (those who resist the gospel):

" We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,"

Three subsequent Popes affirmed it in writing.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now here is section 80 of "Splendor of the Truth"

" the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".131 .....arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children"

Those are continuous to you?

And I am not inferring that the latter (section 80) is correct since actual chattel slavery was enjoined by God to the Jews in Leviticus 25:44-46 with perpetuity spelled out and the NAB using "chattel" also. So section 80 erred in calling something intrinsically evil that God enjoined while He never enjoined the really intrinsically evil like bestiality or witchcraft.

Yes.

Clayton,
I do so because the Catholic net is part filled with Catholic pharisees who use non infallible issues to denounce theologians like Rahner and Haring and Fuchs and Noonan, an historian of moral theology...people whom Popes won't denounce for 40 years now because those Popes know the difference between infallible and non infallible and they know those theologians also do. The non infallible areas can be inconsistent; infallible areas cannot be inconsistent. Benedict does not take the time to differentiate because most of his audience will live their entire life under-read on religious matters so he has to approximate or he thinks he does due to long standing custom.

And I do point such things out so because among those pharisees are some converts who as they convert have to "profess all that the Church teaches" as they convert. That wording is unfortunate because it then leads them to posit that all is infallible even the things that are not infallible at all in a provable manner and are under dispute.
Had you converted in 1454 then under Pope Nicholas under such wording, you would have been professing all that he instituted like imperialism and slavery by Portugal in Romanus Pontifex...but Romanus Pontifex was not infallible. Had you converted in 1521 after Pope Leo X in Ex Surge Domine denounced Luther's statement that burning heretics at the stake was against the Holy Spirit, then you, while professing all that the Church teaches at that time, would have been professing Leo X's acceptance of torturous death penalties and your and his view would later be condemned by both Vatican II and "Splendor of the Truth" as they condemned torture. But Ex Surge Domine never was infallible so people then should have questioned and dissented and had they done so, the Church would have stopped torture within its power much earlier. Dissent would have stopped non infallible papal adherence to torture which torture is now condemned by Vatican II and Splendor of the Truth. Dissent on certain areas was needed and never happened. And now I have to listen to droves of "faithful" Catholics denouncing theologians who Popes are not denouncing..at all...for the past 40 years when they had every chance to denounce them but did not.

Therefore the infallible and the non infallible should be kept separate. Consistency only applies to the infallible areas.

Converts should have to profess only those things which fall under infallibility. On other things they should be informed that they owe very strong relative assent but not absolute assent as they do in the cases of infallible issues. Benedict's continuity theory does not help; he should restrict it to infallible issues and I don't see him doing so. Here is the documentation that such a view (all things on morals are in the end kind of infallible because the Holy Spirit guides on morals) is not Catholic at all...the Holy Spirit's guidance is perfect within infallible statements like secion 62 of Evangelium Vitae which uses the language of infallibility...elsewhere in morals as in slavery, even a Pope can be off base:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
by Dr. Ludwig Ott
INTRODUCTION " With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus)."
_____________________________________________________________________

Fr. Brain Harrison on how far the guidance of the Holy Spirit actually does go in moral matters:

"However, the consensus of approved theologians interpreting such magisterial interventions seems to be that by no means all ecclesiastical legislation enjoys such a guarantee, but only that which is "universal", not just in the geographical sense of applying throughout the Catholic world, but in the anthropological sense of applying to the faithful as a whole. In other words, we can be sure the Holy Spirit is never going to allow Peter’s Successor to command, or even authorize, the Church as a whole – the great bulk of the faithful round the world – to commit sin, or to do something that will cause grave harm. For that would be contrary to the ’note’ of sanctity ("One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic") which is a revealed attribute of the Church."

Amy

Thanks for the insightful post.

Mr. H
http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

Clayton
According to Pope Paul VI in a January 1966 audience, passages like LG 25 themselves were not infallible. They are true but incomplete as Yves Congar noted saying Counciliar statements could have been said better often since they are not inspired of the Holy Spirit but guided by Him.
The completion of LG 25 is found in moral theology tomes that post date LG 25 and have Church approval...se Germain Grisez "Christian Moral Principles" page 854. That page allows for dissent if the person has gone through real struggle over an issue which struggle includes prayer, counsel and further reading. You'll note the catechism only deals with the conscience that has not read enough. The tomes like Grisez's always deal with the deeper problem of the person who has read everything the Pope says and still sees flaws in it. Struggled dissent is allowed and casual or rash dissent is not. I'm done here but email me with any questions whatsoever lest we hijack the thread further....bilbannon@hotmail.com

Re: world political authority, Mercatornet has a good primer on the harbinger of the UN, here:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/versailles_1919_2009_a_new_world_orders_legacy/
I think the Pope's with Dante (betrayal as the gravest sin): the imperial fratricidal wars of the 20th century and their negotiated hegemonies have left their mark on geopolitics in the here and now...

p.s.
in the same vein as "hands raised toward God in prayer"
consider the root of the term precarious (which entered our lexicon in 1646, "a legal word, "held through the favor of another," from L. precarius "obtained by asking or praying," from prex (gen. precis) "entreaty, prayer." and in 1687, after another spate of Christendom fratricidal glory, the Thirty Years war, took on a more secular, even ominous, tone "dependent on the will of another" led to sense "risky, dangerous, uncertain". Kinda puts the perspicacity of prego in perspective, no? Is not true Love amongst brothers, such as between commentators on this post, 'held through the favor[gratuitous gift] of another [Trinitarian Godhead]'? in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus autem caritas. In other words, we suffer fools gladly!

John RDC
That means that you are better than every Catholic who says something before a month or two passes which will include all the Catholic press and writers and every priest and nun and Cardinal and Bishop who says something prior to a month or two waiting period. Thanks for this example of announced humility.

I think we often mistake God's love for us as some sort of sentimental fuzzy warm feel good kind of thing. It was hardly sentiment however, that nailed Jesus to the cross.

Hmmm. I could imagine a strong case made that it was sentiment, pure and unadulterated, unmediated by any use of reason or moral comprehension, that nailed Jesus to the cross.

Remember the man who said at a distance from the arrogant pharisee,'Lord ,have mercy on me a sinner.' There is so much arrogant "Mental Masturbation" going on with this issue on these posts, we should all be mindful of the simple fishermen who were Chosen to Preach The Word. The Simple People didn't even know how to read for many centuries,and achieved great holiness of life anyway.Didn't Our Lord mention in The Gospel of Matthew 10 (25) At that time Jesus declared," I Thank Thee Father , Lord of heaven and earth , that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and Learned and revealed them to babes." blessings to all,MW

Markie
So then in 1524, you...as a little one... would have agreed with Pope Leo X that burning heretics at the stake was within the Catholic Faith but then you would also have agreed with John Paul II that torture is intrinsically evil and you would have agreed in all obedience with Pope Nicholas V that perpetual slavery was due to those who resisted the faith while you would also have agreed with John Paul II that slavery was intrinsically evil. Perhaps your concept of littleness is meant for accepting things that are de fide but that same littleness does not work when the matter at hand is not de fide which is most of what is written historically in bulls and encyclicals. So you may be extending the gospel phrase into areas where it does not work....since had you lived in every era, you in particular would have been obeying diametrically opposed positions.

Confession , Communion , Adoration,,,Confession , Communion , Adoration..you get the picture,Blessings MW

Markie
Peace. Life is not always made easy by being little ones...there is another passage about being wise as serpents and guileless as doves but wise as serpents remains one of your obligations and it requires reading alot.

Markie
Again...read extensively. Catherine of Siena was laity (not a nun) and rebuked Popes actually by letter and they read her letters. I rebuked all Bishops for their absolute silence on the about face on the death penalty and husband headship and I heard from not one of their secretaries. Not even a form postcard. That's a lot of stamps I used....money that could have been spent on Mexican food at El Charritos. And now is spent that way along with alms to a lay woman like Catherine who takes care of thrown away babies.

Markie
Mirus is talking of those who actually question both levels...infallible and non infallible. That's not me...I question the latter. Without the magisterium, I would believe in euthanasia of the dying who are in extreme pain for weeks...but John Paul II infallibly condemned it in section 65 of Evangelium Vitae by polling all the world's bishops and getting their assent and he did the same on abortion in section 62. Ergo I submit perfectly even if it is eventually me that is dying in pain. I hold the infallible way up high...period. The less than infallible is another story; the current Vatican prejudice against the death penalty is foolish...meanwhile our own Latin American Catholic dominated countries have some of the highest murder rates in the world (check WIKI which is good on that) and have had no death penalties for years except Guatemala which does have one. Rome never needs to research because Rome is never crossexamined by the press. Need I say Mexico which has no death penalty and has a war against its police by drug cartels who can only be put in prison to watch TV.
Lisa Cahill e.g. of the CTSA (that Mirus is speaking of) wrote an essay a few years ago in Theological Studies periodical (Jesuit) about allowing divorce within Catholicism for example saying that some marriages reached a dead state. The Council of Trent already settled that. And we believe in raising things from the dead including marriages.

I don't know if you are familiar with our site, the Catholic World Report, but we have a "Round-Table" wherein J. Brian Benestad, Francis J. Beckwith, Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., Richard Garnett, Thomas S. Hibbs, Paul Kengor, George Neumayr, Joseph Pearce, Tracey Rowland, Father James V. Schall, and Rev. Robert A. Sirico share their thoughts on Caritas in Veritate.

It's located at:
(http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121:cwr-round-table-caritas-in-veritate&catid=36:cwr2009&Itemid=53).