All right, I’ve finished, at last, a serious read through the new encyclical Caritas in Veritate, recording—for my own edification, though probably no one else’s—the first thoughts that occurred to me along the way. For what they’re worth, here the ten posts are:
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Time now for me to try some second thoughts. What does the encyclical move me to consider that I had failed to consider before? What does respect for Joseph Ratzinger’s great theological mind force me to rethink? What does respect for Pope Benedict XVI’s papal authority demand that I rephrase and reform? What is new in Caritas in Veritate? And how must I, as a result of its promulgation, change my life?
This, by the way, is how I think encyclicals should be read. If you don’t engage the text, determining exactly where it strains you as a reader and believer and thinker, then assent is meaningless.
Much of the commentary—sliding, alas, down the greasy and typical old lines of liberals vs. conservatives and quick to shout at its opponents—has failed, I think, to read the text seriously.
But there it is: The division between left and right is real, and it won’t be overcome merely by saying that it shouldn’t exist. At a quick glance, I’d say that the tendency to politicize the text has been much worse on the left than the right: Among the many who’ve decided this is an occasion to swipe at economic and social conservatives, where is any admission that part of the material in the text forces them to rethink some of their own commitments?
Maybe I’m wrong—I’d welcome correction on the point—but it looks as though, in the innumerable comments that say there’s something in the encyclical to displease both conservatives and liberals, the turn is always then to say that therefore conservatives were wrong and must change. I’ve seen nothing saying that therefore liberals must also change.
Ah, well, the claim that we should rise above politics occurs in a political context, and, whatever the beyondists say, there’s no easy way out of that. Witness my own inability to avoid snarling back here against those who’ve snarled at me about this encyclical.
Anyway, coming soon: Second Thoughts on Caritas in Veritate.
July 10th, 2009 | 2:29 am
[...] Jody Bottum has finished his 10-part reading of Caritas in Veritate, posting his “first thoughts” along the way. Time now for me to try some second thoughts. What does the encyclical move me to consider that I had failed to consider before? What does respect for Joseph Ratzinger’s great theological mind force me to rethink? What does respect for Pope Benedict XVI’s papal authority demand that I rephrase and reform? What is new in Caritas in Veritate? And how must I, as a result of its promulgation, change my life? [...]
July 10th, 2009 | 9:05 am
I think your initial approach to the text is best amongst the many I have seen: careful comments, which have a provisional nature about them. Nevertheless, I think commentary, all of it, not simply yours, should proceed from careful reflection after a longer period of time. First thoughts on an encyclical should probably percolate more than two or three days.
As to matters you discussed in the post, you say, “The division between left and right is real, and it won’t be overcome merely by saying that it shouldn’t exist.” I think, however, that as Catholics and Christians the divide will begin to be breached by reading openly and with charity, and demonstrating that the Church’s teachings take precedence over our deeply held loves when the Church’s teachings call them into question. I do believe that was what you were calling for, but then you slip into the “liberal” and “conservative” dichotomy.You write, “it looks as though, in the innumerable comments that say there’s something in the encyclical to displease both conservatives and liberals, the turn is always then to say that therefore conservatives were wrong and must change. I’ve seen nothing saying that therefore liberals must also change.” I have not seen that myself, but I do note that, as a conservative, it has been conservative commentators, Weigel and Novak, who have called the integrity of the text into question and so that must change. The text itself must challenge all of us to change, given that original sin stains us all and, I suspect, is prior even to be one being a conservative or liberal.
July 10th, 2009 | 11:21 am
“Among the many who’ve decided this is an occasion to swipe at economic and social conservatives, where is any admission that part of the material in the text forces them to rethink some of their own commitments?”
Who’s swiping at social conservatives?
So far, the only swipes at conservatives I’ve encountered are swipes at a neo-liberal economic “conservative” misrepresentation and/or belittling of the encyclical and of its author–George Weigel’s and Michael Novak’s come especially to mind–and these critiques are directed not so much at the economic positions taken by these authors themselves (sure, I disagree with these positions, but so what?) as at their transparently self-serving attempt to deny, ignore, or otherwise explain away the Pope’s actual criticism of their views. It would be one thing if Weigel and Novak were to admit that the document challenges some of the core tenets of their neo-liberal ideology, and subsequently entered into a dialogue with the text on these points. But what we rather find is a casual, even mocking, dismissal of those statements in the encyclical which challenge their ideology. And they are rightly to be criticized for this, no less than is Fr. Reese or David Gibson rightly to be criticized for downplaying the text’s clear emphases on abortion and other issues that sit uneasily with their own ideological affiliation.
Perhaps you don’t think there is any escaping ideology. I don’t know. Perhaps this is why you are “beyond beyondism.” But it is clear to me that the Pope in this encyclical *is* articulating a vision for human social life, grounded in Christian anthropology, whose actualization quite clearly demands that *both* those on the liberal left and those on the liberal right be willing to question and, if necessary, reject their antecedent political and ideological commitments.
Quite frankly, whining that only neoliberal economic conservatives are being asked to sacrifice anything here is just not persuasive.
July 11th, 2009 | 2:29 pm
For the life of me, I can’t understand why you’re so dead-set on the distinction between ‘left’ and ‘right’, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’. You do realize that the differences are, in the final analysis, negligible? You do realize that the Kingdom lays claims to our lives and calls us ‘out’ – I almost said ‘beyond’ (gasp) – of the ‘world’?
July 13th, 2009 | 4:27 pm
In light of your declared war on beyondism, I found this line from the encyclical interesting: ‘Truth, by enabling men and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, allows them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of the value and substance of things’.
July 17th, 2009 | 8:41 am
A willingness to heed the prophetic voice of CIV doesn’t mean that textual criticism must be ruled out of bounds. Nor does it mean one won’t find conflicts within the Vatican and resulting weaknesses in the document. The question is wether or not a given critique is valid. In this regard, another take on the document –and its critics– may be found here: http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/07/gold-red-dark-blue.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact