Likewise, when the Church-on the basis of “fairness”, “social justice” or whatever-insists, or seems to insist on minimum wage laws (which praxeologically MUST increase unemployment if the wage set varies from the market wage, which it naturally will be or it would not be set in the first place), wealth redistribution (which undermines and weakens the very mechanism by which the standard of living for the poor is increased…not to mention undermining property rights and robbing the poor of their integrity on the pretext of saving their dignity,) or in any way attempts to prescribe a specific economic action, then the Church goes beyond its mandate.

Not only does it go beyond it’s mandate, but it’s actions are scandalous! Scandalous because anyone who has a sound grasp of the science upon which the bishops or Pope are trampling, is immediately put off by the Church. If he is Catholic like me, his confidence in the individual judgement of bishops and in that of the Pope is undermined, even if his confidence in the Holy Spirit’s protection of the magisterium is unshaken. If he is not Catholic, his skepticism towards religion and the Catholic Church in particular are increased, rather than decreased. That is why it is totally imprudent for the Church to behave this way.

To those who say: “But the Church has to say something!” I say: “Yes, the Church can make morally binding statements about what people must do to be just and merciful, but it can ONLY offer the general principles, it can never prescribe the particulars.” Maybe the Popes actually think they are being cautious when they say things like “States must make economic provision for the poor”. Perhaps they feel that this is the same thing as saying “Moral societies are those that make provision for the poor.” But it is not the same thing, not by a long shot. Moral societies can make provision for the poor in numerous ways that do not involve violent coercion by the State and this was done in the Middle Ages by the monks and in an earlier period in American history by private charities. How did the personal (individual) duty of Christian charity, commanded by our Lord, come to be replaced by this wicked welfare beauracracy? How can a Christian reconcile himself to these things? I do not believe Christian charity is compatible with any of the former. And more importantly, the entire Church, all the bishops and the Pope, every priest and every nun, every “third wayer” and distributist screaming in concert have, with their combined weight of opinion, not even a feathers weight of authority on these issues to change my mind.

If the Holy Father wants to learn economics, let him spend a good 3 or 4 years studying it. Let him study the classicals and the Austrians and the Keynesians and the Chicago school and everyone in between. Let him write books on the subject. But when he speaks on these issues, he speaks as a man and that is that. The Church can no more declare that we ought to have this or that economic reform than it can declare that a certain kind of building ought to be made out of certain kind of material. I mean no disrespect, only to spare the Church the embarrasment and disgrace that have almost always followed when churchmen have attempted to transubstantiate their spiritual authority into technical authority.

The current situation, in which the Church throws itself into the “social question” while failing to teach even the most fundamental doctrines of the faith with clarity and authority, is totally intolerable. Catholics, how many sermons in your life have you heard about heaven or hell (especially hell) or what is neccesary to be saved? Purgatory? The need for individual virtue? The question answers itself! But you’ve heard plenty of sermons on achieving “social justice” through political force and other heresies, once condemened by the Church, now tacitly endorsed by its silence and failure (is it fear?) to speak up in the sole area in which Christ authorized it to speak. The Church has sold its soul to a god named “Relevancy”, and now lost even that.

On some issues, there is less wriggle room. “Don’t kill innocent people. Don’t vote to allow the state or others to kill innocent people either.” But even then, there are subsidiary questions on which reasonable people will disagree – even if they are all honestly committed to the goal in question. (Reduce the speed limit to 10 miles per hour? Ban smoking? Outlaw steak knives and baseball bats… or, for that matter, the sale of gin, in case it’s used to procure abortions?).

On other issues, there is much more room for legitimate disagreement. Is “living in peace” better ensured by pacifism and disarmament, or by deterrence and just war? Is “look after the poor” better served by higher taxation (to fund welfare services) or lower taxation (to encourage economic growth)? But even so, there are limits: a Catholic (or indeed any Christian) could not endorse either “All property is theft” on the one hand, nor Ayn Randian “this is my property, and I’ll use it how I like, screw the poor” Nozickism on the other.

The whole tenor of Weigel’s piece is to undermine those aspects of Caritas in Veritate with which he doesn’t agree by claiming that they don’t really reflect the opinion of the Pope, but were thrown in by him as a measure to appease the Council for Justice and Peace. In doing so he (1) knowingly misrepresents the status of a signed encyclical, and (2) insinuates that Benedict XVI is either not willing or not able to free his text from the supposed influence of the Council (and in doing so adopts a ridiculous posture of condescension to an intellect and personality far greater than his own). All this is pursued with the aim of (3) convincing his readership of “conservative” Catholics that they may ignore those parts of the encyclical which Weigel has determined to be inessential–which, of course, are those very parts that would challenge their existent beliefs. Nowhere in his “analysis” does Weigel show the slightest interest in being instructed or challenged by the encyclical; and nowhere does he acknowledge that his own “analysis” of the encyclical is one expressly condemned in the encyclical itself. It seems to me that all this evidence, combined with what we already know about Weigel’s tendency to distort theology to suit his existent policy preferences, suggests that his “analysis” is not one undertaken in good faith, as a son of the Church, but is rather intended to misrepresent the text for the purposes of political ideology. I’ll call that a lie.

I am not saying that Weigel lies about the document because I disagree with his interpretation of it; I am saying that he lies about it because he quite clearly misrepresents both the character of the document and Benedict XVI himself with the intention of misleading others.

The “pro-choice” position, i.e. that the state should not interfere with the choice to have abortions, has been repeatedly — and authoritatively rejected by the Church. That it is the responsibility of the state to protect innocent human life is part of the Church’s social doctrine, and by no means optional. To take the pro-choice position is simply heterodox. (Moreover, I doubt very much that many people who are pro-choice would be pro-choice on infanticide. There, at least, they would see that the state has a positive obligation to protect innocent life, as the Church teaches.)

On the death penalty and war, the Church does not teach that these are intrinsically immoral. In fact, the Church authoritatively teaches that in some cases they are justified. So, in fact, your beliefs contradict authoritative Church teaching on all three issues you mention. The Church rejects the idea that war and the death penalty are “state sanctioned murder”. In an unbroken tradition from the early Church, through the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Church teaches that the state does have the authority in certain situations to wage war and execute criminals. A Catholic may certainly
judge that a particular war is grossly immoral or judge that the death penalty in certain situations should not be used. he could even say that 99.99% of wars are immoral. But to go from there to say that war and the death penalty are always immoral is to stray beyond the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy.

To WJ, I agree that rolling one’s eyes is NOT the appropriate response to a papal statement, but neither is calling a fellow Christian a liar, as you do Weigel, because one disagrees with his views.

This has already been well answered by SDG, but I’ll throw in my two cents. The Catholic Church actually makes fairly precise how much deference is owed to magisterial authority. If you consult the sources I referred to, you will see it laid out with almost Euclidean precision.
It is also laid out clearly in canon law. A Catholic would have no difficulty finding out what precisely the Church teaches on a subject and with what level of authority she teaches it.

What is done with Catholics who are unorthodox is a completely different question. Someone who would say, “I can get away with rejecting these teachings of the Church, in that no one will deprive me of communion, and so I don’t have to listen to the Church,” is already is a very bad place spiritually. There is, as you suggest, Joe, a very weakened sense of the seriousness of sin and of heterodoxy today among many Catholics. But the “lines of demarcation” are there and very clearly drawn for all to see. Unfortunately some people just don’t care about these lines. However, the general decline in belief and practice among Catholics seems to have bottomed out in this
country, and there are many healthy signs of movement in the other direction. The bishops seem much more zealous and vigorous in promoting orthodoxy now than they were in recent decades.