CCNL:

The Jesus Seminar has been discredited for at least the previous two decades. No recognized biblical scholar in either the Catholic or Protestant traditions teaches any part of the hypothersis postulated by Mr. Crossan and friends. John Crossan et al, have found a method for making pocket change while thumbing their nose at the establishment. This adolescent nonsense
no doubt explains part of your obsession with the topic.

Matthew's gospel, and therefore Matthew as an apostle and evangelist, is one of the easier NT Texts to date and establish as credible. Matthew's gospel was written to the Jewish converts in Jerusalem, the only gospel to address the Jewish Palestinian community. We know that all Jewish people were expelled from Jerusalem by 70-72 AD. Therefore, the text of Matthew existed in the 60's or even 50's AD.

In fact, we can date Mark's gospel to the late 40s to early 50s AD because Matthew depends largely on the Marcan text. We also know that Matthew is included in every list of the apostles in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Among the original material included by Matthew is narrative of his own call to join the Apostolic college, which is confirmed in the later writings of the NT.

Can you move on to another friggin' point?

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

You present a reasonable analysis, but perhaps your press deadline left you insufficient time to digest fully this 100,000 word document.

As Fr. David O'Connell and Fr. Robert Sirico have pointed out, this is the first papal social teaching in which the Church's "gospel of Life" is made the centerpiece of of her social doctrine. I.e., the teaching on the economy only becomes Christian when it serves the weakest and must vulnerable among us. Far from minimizing the pro-life teaching, it elevates Catholic Social Teaching to an integral part of the Church's most vital work, the preservation and support of all human life.

Redistribution of wealth will understandably be difficult for citizens of the first world. But as secular development and world peace experts have warned repeatedly in the last year. this economic crisis is driving more of the poor below the subsistence level of poverty, which creates new risks for violence and war. Those countries that have more than they need to survive are obligated to be proactive in reliving this suffering.

Regarding the premise of your column, it is not the task of the Pope to explain Caritas in Veritas to Catholics in Peoria, although I expect you would find more support than you suggest. It is the task of the bishops, priests and theologians to break down the document for homilies and adult education, so that the entirety of the Faithful can share in this beautiful teaching.

or social justice.

Caritas in Veritate won't play in Peoria.

Too few of its citizens understand Latin.

I usually like Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's columns. But this is an exception. Who cares if his encyclical "plays in Peoria."!!!

Benedict is doing his job by challenging Peoria! Americans need to stop worship the false idols of greed and consumerism. That's what they need to hear and that's what this encyclical is about.

As an American Catholic not at home in either major political party, I think this encyclical is great!

Oh, for pity's sake... No wonder non-Catholics think that the only thing that Catholicism stands for is to ban abortion. Can we talk about the Pope's message of social justice, rather than rehashing the same old tired arguments about abortion?

garoth

You wrote, " While, in a perfect world, a perfect end would demand also perfect means, ie., an end to abortion would entail simply making it illegal,"

A "perfect world" would have no need of laws of any kind.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

In response to "withouthavingseen:" Thank you also for your comments. However, regarding abortion, as well as other social issues, one of the strengths of the faith is acknowledging that we live in a sinful world. While, in a perfect world, a perfect end would demand also perfect means, ie., an end to abortion would entail simply making it illegal, taking away funding, etc.; we do not live in such a perfect world, and have to use imperfect means. So a varied approach must be used, trying to educate, reduce the need for abortions, changing societal values, etc. The church has acknowledged this approach in other social matters - war, gambling, etc. It is the only way a dent will be made in this problem as well. The approach is not two-faced. A two-faced approach would be doing away with abortion, while not doing other things that support human life: eliminating capital punishment, helping those in need, etc.

I have yet to read Caritas, but it sounds hopeful. Whether it "plays in Peoria," as the professor says, is beside the point. The point is whether it is a faithful explication of the Gospel.

Ah, excuse my mistake. The previous was posted by

Ryan Haber
Kensington, MD

Overall, your piece is well written, Prof. Stevens-Arroyo. I am still working through the encyclical, but your presentation of it seems reasonably what one might expect. And its reception here in the U.S. will probably be as you described it.

The abortion issue is of course a very important issue, the crux of the various social justice questions, you might say. There are certainly pro-life Democrats: a group of 19 of them in the House of Reps just petitioned (unsuccessfully) to maintain the ban on federal funding of abortions. But just being in favor of "social justice" doesn't make one pro-life any more than being "pro-life" means that one has a whit's clue about social justice... and that's my sense of what the Holy Father is getting at, as I work through the document. The two concerns have to reconciled for either to be authentically itself. Quality of life isn't the first concern; innate dignity of life is. Dignity is an absolute, given by God in the process of creating us in His image and likeness; it is independent of "quality of life". Quality of life can only be addressed once dignity of life, it's philosophical basis, has been assured.

As for those who say they are pro-life but want to keep abortion legal, I say they speak out of both sides of their mouth. How can one pretend to stand for the dignity of life while approving (or even encouraging!) the legal legimation of the destruction of innocent life? Anyone who wants to see the incidence of abortion reduced will surely not agree to pay for them, at least. One thinks of an "abolitionist" wanting to reduce the incidence of slavery while keeping it legal. The absurdity is immediately apparent.

Again, thanks for the balanced piece. I for one look forward to studying the encyclical more closely as time permits over the next few weeks.

Obama's pre-Vatican overtures are a smokescreen-- http://bit.ly/1SR4eW . He is so against Catholics and it is time Catholics rejected him.

B16's position as leader of the RCC is hardly "rock-solid" because the "Thou art Peter......" (Matt 16: 18-19) passage only appears in one gospel i.e. single attestation with no equivalent in any other part of scripture or non-scriptural document. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb073.html

The almost unknown Matthew (not the Apostle or an eye-witness) was therefore a part founder/"necessary accessory" of the Catholic Church, as was Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James his brother, Mary Magdelene, Mary, Joseph and another father if you believe the mamzer stories, the Apostles Pilate and Constantine. It was a team effort with Pilate being the strangest "necessary accessory".

Should we not determine who the successors to these "necessary accessories" are and get their views on world economics???

Some might be living in Peoria!!!!