9 Comments

WJ
July 9th, 2009 | 4:04 pm

The definitive rebuttal of Weigel is not linked to above, but may be found here:http://evangelicalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/on-the-sheer-implausibility-of-george-weigels-story-part-1/

Telemann
July 9th, 2009 | 4:52 pm

Didn’t he parse the previous pope’s condemnation of the US war with Iraq the same way — popes know just what they are talking about unless they disagree with me, so I will now tell you what God and I have decided is the case …

Charlie Collier
July 9th, 2009 | 5:03 pm

Don’t leave out the funniest response to Weigel:

http://vox-nova.com/2009/07/07/the-good-pope-and-the-bad-advisers-a-fable-by-george-weigel/

adam
July 9th, 2009 | 6:14 pm

This comment posted at beliefnet has to sting…

”
posted by: jaho
July 8, 2009 9:09 PM

Dude, the only thing I have to say to Weigel is that if he’s going to start eating here in the cafeteria, he should make sure he keeps the line moving after he picks up his tray and silverware. Lotta people slow things down at the soft drink fountain or trying to snarf down something from the dessert buffet before hitting the hot line.

“

Caritas in Veritate: a Round-Up « Under Her Mantle
July 9th, 2009 | 9:10 pm

[...] Witness the kerfluffle over George Weigel’s article.  The entry and first comment at First Things has a round-up of reactions to Weigel’s [...]

Tom Piatak
July 9th, 2009 | 9:59 pm

Additional criticisms of Weigel may be found at the following:

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/07/07/first-thoughts-on-caritas-in-veritate.html

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/07/08/how-not-to-read-a-papal-encyclical/

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/07/weigels-attempt-at-source-criticism.html

Jason
July 10th, 2009 | 11:43 am

Another piece of evidence that the Pope actually believes this stuff and wasn’t forced to include it is this quote from a piece he had written for First Things a few years ago:

“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”
from Europe and Its Discontents January 06

Joseph Swanson
July 10th, 2009 | 10:50 pm

In the matter of Caritas in Veritate George Weigel as found some great & painful truths. He has done this by drawing attention to Benedict XVI’s concern for unity in the curia, and the history of the Pontifical Counsel for Justice and Peace.

What is important is not what to argue about what the Pope does not say here [c.f., Robert Sirico in today's Wall Street Journal], but to understand the inconsistencies within the encyclical. That these difficulties stem from the curial history on matters of economics is what Weigel offers, and what his critics fail to appreciate.

Frankly, Weigel appears to me to be irenic with respect to this encyclical. He leaves aside some of the most loopy elements. I select one: the notion that a worldwide financial regulatory body might have coped better with the current meltdown. History shows that aggregating regulation always make things worse. The list of loopy items can be extended to at least ten.

So why the virulent response to distinguished Weigel [in theology, history, and politics]? It must be that there are far more “justice & peace” types among Christian laity than I would have expected, that they have been licking their wounds for decades. To read the history, so accurately delivered, is too sharp a pain.

One must also consider Weigel’s pain when a long-term friend drops a big ball — the the second time in 2009.

Liam
July 11th, 2009 | 8:26 am

Joseph

Or you could consider another, simpler, option: that Mr Weigel is wrong. That might be too painful, of course.

A major clue that this is likely the more correct answer is that Mr Weigel, within hours of the release of an encyclical, engages in cherry-picking deconstruction thereof to demonstrate that the Pope really agrees with him notwithstanding anything else to the contrary. That’s not a terribly Catholic way to receive an encyclical ab inititio. Also, he actually offers no hard proof of his Big Bad Curia thesis – he relies on implication and inference and his past credibility as a Vatican insider. There’s no there there. A remarkably wide part of the Catholic spectrum – even fellow conservatives – has noticed this and identified this essay as flawed in any number of ways.