Wow! Without referencing anyone alive at this time, Fr. Mark makes a distinction between family of God and the fraternity of man. I wonder why he has brought that subject up? O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
I have finished the remainder of the encyclical. In this section, Francis elevates the ideal of fraternity through a discussion of 1) authentic social dialogue (para. 203), 2) a complimentary relationship between consensus and truth, reached by keeping the dignity of the individual in view (para. 212). But then, in paragraph 218, Francis develops this further; and I'll use this as an example of fostering a novel social covenant: 218. All this calls for the ability to recognize other people’s right to be themselves and to be different. This recognition, as it becomes a culture, makes possible the creation of a social covenant. Without it, subtle ways can be found to make others insignificant, irrelevant, of no value to society. While rejecting certain visible forms of violence, another more insidious kind of violence can take root: the violence of those who despise people who are different, especially when their demands in any way compromise their own particular interests. This has already been codified in the example of same-sex marriage. For two millennium, the Church has proclaimed not a consensus, but the plan of God: a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman for the sake of the family. Same-sex marriage repudiates this Plan; Francis seems to imply through his argument that as Catholics, we are to recognize other people’s right to be themselves and to be different. Are Catholics not suppose to stand upon the truth of God? After all, to stand against same-sex marriage is not simply s refusal to compromise my own particular interests, but to rather inculcate in the society God's truth concerning human relationships. Is this conviction an insidious kind of violence? Such thinking on the Pope's part strikes me as a slippery slope, indeed! His line of reasoning then progresses to Paragraph 228: 228. The path to peace does not mean making society blandly uniform, but getting people to work together, side-by-side, in pursuing goals that benefit everyone. A wide variety of practical proposals and diverse experiences can help achieve shared objectives and serve the common good. The problems that a society is experiencing need to be clearly identified, so that the existence of different ways of understanding and resolving them can be appreciated. The path to social unity always entails acknowledging the possibility that others have, at least in part, a legitimate point of view, something worthwhile to contribute, even if they were in error or acted badly. “We should never confine others to what they may have said or done, but value them for the promise that they embody”,[212] a promise that always brings with it a spark of new hope. Of course, the last highlight above can then be used as an argument against just war or the death penalty (para. 255-270) But lastly, I believe this whole train of thought elevates compassion and empathy above truth. This encyclical was addressed to the world and it falls under the parameters of a social rather than a doctrinal discussion. However, I believe Pope Francis should have kept in mind the quote that was partially quoted from the Abu Dhabi document in paragraph 273: In this regard, I wish to cite the following memorable statement: “If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others… The fullness of transcendent truth is not found by consensus, but rather through the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, proclaimed in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Just my opinion! Safe in the Barque of Peter!
A little side story about Little Richard. When I was about 19, I went to Vancouver, BC and worked summers in a hotel as a chambermaid. One of my rooms was occupied by Little Richard’s band. He was performing in Vancouver and staying at the hotel where I worked. However, me being from a small coal mining town in Nova Scotia, I had no idea who he was. When I knocked on the door to ask if they needed maid service, Little Richard answered the door and I recall I think he just wanted towels. He was very nice and asked me if I would like tickets to his show. I said no thanks (as I knew I wouldn’t go, since I didn’t even know who he was). I found that part out later. Lol
I can't even bear to watch. Such awful times we are going through. I'll pray for the Holy Father before going to bed tonight and let that do me. Poor, poor man, God have mercy on him. God have mercy on us all.
I think evangelii gaudium was a much worse document, because it said that not all doctrinal discussions should be resolved by the Pope's magisterium (which opens spaces for local synods outside the unit like that of Germany).
the most subtle way that Satan found to destroy the unity of the Church is to allow the local Churches to have autonomy over doctrine, as if each bishop were their Pope.
Thats all I can do. I can't read it. Prayer and more prayer. ( you know its starting to feel like those old cowboy movies when the wagon train is attacked by the Indians. "Circle the wagons boys! They're gaining on us!"
There is a gentleman in work who likes to talk. I mean really, really , really talk. Non stop very rapid talking that never stops. I struggle to understand how his poor brain keeps up with him. In addition once snared by him it is very difficult to escape without being impolite. However I early on decided I had to really , really make the effort to avoid him and close down conversations that were starting up as rapidly as I could. Why? Well for me silence is the language of God. The more silent we are the more chance to be directly on God's company. I live on my own, I don't bother with the neighbours, I only work with one other person who is a floor above me on the night shift so I can, very, very happily go days and days without speaking to a single soul. My heaven. As I get older I am a little more ruthless about all this. I suspect the poor gentleman I avoid and shut down (as gently as I can) senses and is annoyed about this. But I don't care. It's the same with the Holy Father. I find the greatest peace and happiness in avoiding all he says and gets up to. He is just too upsetting . I believe it says this in the old prayer the Deserata, 'Avoid loud and aggressive persons for they are a vexation to the soul'. I am afraid I find this with our poor Holy Father. That he is as vexatious to my soul as a fox in a chicken coop. So I just let the poor man be to get on with it. Some souls however I go out of my way to talk and listen too , like Manna in the desert. Our priest for instance is something of a saint. I treasure talking to him however briefly, the only problem being there is always a queque. Sigh. I think a good sign of someone to talk to is that they want to talk of God and the things of God. Heaven. I could talk to such people forever. They are the only thing I am truly interested in. As for the rest silence. Proverbs 17:28 Even fools are thought wise when they keep silent; with their mouths shut,
A whole encyclical about human fraternity and not one mention of the unborn or abortion? Can someone please prove that I am wrong?
You have described this perfectly--exactly where I am at. Silence is a wonderful thing. Silence in the Adoration Chapel when it is just me and Our Lord--heaven. But my life is noisy--lots of comings and goings. I have to make it an offering . Trivial conversations are a trial to me but it is another offering I must make. I think I am atoning for the years when I was one of the talk talk talkers and focused on very trivial things.
Although its true that often the people we meet can surprise us with joy. I notice again and again in Scripture how often Jesus encouraged the Disciples to withdraw to be on their won , to replenish their batteries. I went to a Novus Ordo mass this morning at Clonard Monastery this morning for the first time since the virus started and was greeted by two old friends. They were operating the most extraordinary machines which sent forth a spray of antiseptic vapour all over the Church. I was nearly the only one there without a mask. I got odd looks for singing along with the priest. I prefer my own Traditional Church, no masks and no vape machines and singing along like crazy. I feel guilty sometimes for not being afraid or buying into a lot of this old nonsense but there you go. Many, many , many Doctors all over the world are starting to ask very serious questions about what on Earth is going on.
Do you not know Padraig the new 11th commandment 'Thou shalt not sing'? The new Puritans rule the roost. Puritans 1644
Pope Francis’s Nightmare of a World Without Borders By John Horvat Pope Francis’s third encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, predictably deals with the plight of the migrant. This theme has characterized his pontificate, as he never loses an opportunity to take it up. Not all share his enthusiasm; most are apprehensive about what it means for the future. Mass migration is a sensitive subject for many Catholics in the West. The European Union, for example, is engaged in a demographic and cultural suicide. While Europe is contracepting and aborting itself to death, it also faces hostile migrants that threaten member nations’ identity and well-being. Thus, unrestricted migration represents the death of Christian cultures, which are replaced with onerous governmental programs meant to be all things to all peoples. For America, similar concerns prevail. A world without borders would overwhelm the nation’s ability to care for the hundreds of millions seeking new opportunities. A Wrong Understanding of the Universal Destination of Created Goods Amid this widespread concern, the pontiff’s encyclical declaring everyone to be brethren does not help. While the Christian West has generously received refugees, persecuted minorities and needy peoples, it is hard to accept that in pursuing their “dream of a better future,” everyone has an enforceable right to unrestricted entry into the country. However, this conclusion is part of the encyclical’s message. “[R]e-envisaging the social role of property,” is the key, Pope Francis thinks, to eliminating world borders. Traditionally, this social role did not mean that all property must be distributed to those claiming to be needy. Rather, private property’s proper use in production was paramount. As Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira affirms: “Private property and free enterprise are irreplaceable in expanding production. Pursuing this expansion is their principal social role” (“Função Social,” O Jornal, Sept. 30, 1972). But Pope Francis calls for a “re-envisaging,” so that private property’s social role would now mean helping everyone obtain “sufficient opportunities for his or her integral development.” Francis recalls the principle of “the universal destination of created goods.” However, the traditional understanding of this principle does not deny private property. Rather, it undergirds it, as Pope Leo XIII teaches in his encyclical Rerum Novarum: “The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to anyone in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man’s own industry, and by the laws of individual races” (no. 8 – our emphasis).
Continued Fratelli Tutti uses the meaning disavowed by Pope Leo to create a stepping stone for the pope’s untrammeled immigration policy. The Argentine pope says that if all created goods belong to everyone, then “we can then say that each country also belongs to the foreigner, inasmuch as a territory’s goods must not be denied to a needy person coming from elsewhere.” He further states, “If all people are my brothers and sisters, and if the world truly belongs to everyone, then it matters little whether my neighbor was born in my country or elsewhere. My own country also shares responsibility for his or her development.” Such shocking denials of national sovereignty fit with the internationalist framework of the pontiff’s dream for the world. The United Nations becomes the instrument for implementing this borderless world. The pope calls for investing the world body with executive powers, with “teeth,” to impose sanctions and enforce directives. Commonsense Solutions Such proposals are perplexing in light of the Church’s long history of aid to refugees and immigrants. The Church has always taught that the stranger must always be treated with charity, courtesy and respect. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not molest a stranger” (Exodus 22:9). No one contests the need to help those passing through a nation, especially when fleeing from persecution and injustice. The Church likewise does not contest the right to emigrate since the world was indeed made for all. However, Saint Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between peaceful and hostile migrations (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). No nation is obliged to accept those who are aggressive and wish harm to its citizens. Nor must countries allow themselves to be overwhelmed by immigrants to the detriment of their citizens. Immigrants must conform to the host country’s laws. It takes time for migrants to integrate into the local populations. Saint Thomas warns against granting immediate citizenship (which the encyclical encourages ). The Angelic Doctor claims that delaying citizenship is a matter of justice since the newly arrived will not be familiar with the nation’s affairs. He warns that “foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”
Continued A Universal Homeland Without Borders Thus, there is nothing new in asking the faithful to treat immigrants well and even welcome them into their communities. However, the encyclical misleads when calling for a universal homeland where all may pursue their utopias. In these dangerous times of terrorism, the pontiff assumes universal goodwill, that all might be welcome. Such a policy disregards reality and the well-founded concerns about the violent behavior of those who have so terrorized this sinful world. The pope extends this welcoming “encounter” yet further by proposing “a new network of international relations” as a means of ensuring “the fundamental right of peoples to subsistence and progress.” He imagines “an ethics of international relations” aimed at achieving equality among the nations. Trade is also mentioned as readers are asked to consider “a different way of understanding relations and exchanges between countries.” Wildly Unrealistic Even Pope Francis admits this “envisaging a new humanity” may “sound wildly unrealistic.” One might expect him to ask the faithful to turn to God for Whom all things are possible. However, the encyclical’s message is not even addressed to the Catholic faithful. It appeals to “a single human family” where “all people of good will” are invited to dialogue. Thus, the discussion is reduced to the lowest possible denominator so that all might participate and none will be offended or excluded. When concluding his utopian migratory vision, the pope asked people to unite “on the basis of a global ethic of solidarity and cooperation in the service of a future shaped by interdependence and shared responsibility in the whole human family.” The result is a shallow and secular appeal for a fraternity that is not rooted in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith. It inspires nobody. Not only does the encyclical depart from traditional Catholic magisterium, but it is also “wildly unrealistic.”
