Pope Francis new encyclical (Fratelli tutti): denies just war theory, celebrates communism

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Stalwart, Oct 7, 2020.

  1. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The new encyclical, Fratelli tutti, just dropped.

    Here is a good review:
    https://youtu.be/rSpKbWBo2Qg

    It’s really amazing the depths to which the Papacy is willing to abandon historic truths, such as just war theory, private property. These aren’t even Christian concepts, but belong to natural law, and the Roman church is chucking them out of the window.

    A billion people will over time be catechized to reject free enterprise, to celebrate communist regimes; who will reject just war, and eagerly invite oppression upon themselves and their families. Sad.
     
    bwallac2335 and tstor like this.
  2. tstor

    tstor Member

    Posts:
    61
    Likes Received:
    18
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Christian - Protestant
    Yes. It is to the point where even if one were to conclude that the theology of the RCC was correct, they would necessarily be driven to fringe organizations such as the SSPX, SSPV, etc.
     
    Lowly Layman and Stalwart like this.
  3. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    526
    Likes Received:
    266
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Well this aught to end Papel infallibility and the magnestrium being infallible.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  4. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    953
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Was that a hammer and sickle crucifix in Pope Francis' hands?...
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  5. tstor

    tstor Member

    Posts:
    61
    Likes Received:
    18
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Christian - Protestant
    It was.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  6. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
  7. tstor

    tstor Member

    Posts:
    61
    Likes Received:
    18
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Christian - Protestant
    "RE-ENVISAGING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PROPERTY" was vomit inducing.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  8. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    The Frutti-Tutti of the Fruitcakes. With extra nuts. ;)
     
  9. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I wondered how long it would take for that to emerge. I have downloaded it, and I am reading it, and I will reserve judgement until I have read it. In general I note that he is more popular with non-catholics than catholics, and not at all popular with Conservative Catholics.

    I did find this passage helpful and insightful.

    32. True, a worldwide tragedy like the Covid-19 pandemic momentarily revived the sense that we are a global community, all in the same boat, where one person’s problems are the problems of all. Once more we realized that no one is saved alone; we can only be saved together. As I said in those days, “the storm has exposed our vulnerability and uncovered those false and superfluous certainties around which we constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities… Amid this storm, the façade of those stereotypes with which we camouflaged our egos, always worrying about appearances, has fallen away, revealing once more the ineluctable and blessed awareness that we are part of one another, that we are brothers and sisters of one another”.​
     
  10. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    OK: I have now reads the encyclical Fratelli Tutti (brothers all) and whilst it is clear that it has not generated the media hype that Laudato Si (praise) did, though I suspect that many who wrote that one up had not read it.

    Francis is in the main considered left of centre and right of left. The politics of Fratelli Tutti are pretty much in line with that. Much of the trust of the encyclical is aim at encouraging true dialogue, as opposed to simultaneous competing monologues, to embrace diversity whilst holding true to the common purposes of all humanity.

    It comes with 288 back references to many sources including a good smattering of the Fathers. As such it is probably true to say that contains little in the way of strange or novel teachings.

    At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”. We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! (@248)

    and the reference


    Saint Augustine, who forged a concept of “just war” that we no longer uphold in our own day, also said that “it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war”

    I believe it is a reasonable point being raised, given that the nature of war and the manner in which it is conducted has changed significantly, and that the possibility of a Just War is really beyond our capacity. I think at one stage DJ Trump was speaking about 'commensurate response' to hostile situations, and on this matter they may be on similar paths.

    With the money spent on weapons and other military expenditures, let us establish a global fund[245] that can finally put an end to hunger and favour development in the most impoverished countries, so that their citizens will not resort to violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave their countries in order to seek a more dignified life. (@258)​

    The notion of turning swords into ploughshares does seem to be echoing through what Francis writes, and that is an historic position for Christianity.

    The world exists for everyone, because all of us were born with the same dignity. Differences of colour, religion, talent, place of birth or residence, and so many others, cannot be used to justify the privileges of some over the rights of all. As a community, we have an obligation to ensure that every person lives with dignity and has sufficient opportunities for his or her integral development. (@118)​

    I think that the question posed by Francis revolves around the idea of the common good. All of us (I imagine) accept that the Marie Antoinette response to being told the peasants have no bread is not OK, and our rights to private property are not rights that allow us to ignore the dignity of our fellow human beings. I don't see the notion of Private Property being abandoned, but rather being recognised as taking a place in a wider canvas.

    -------------------------------

    Overall I think it is a good document, and sadly, probably will not be read by many. It is a call for us to be more genuinely connected to both God and the world in which we are called to live out the good news. The peoples of the world are ultimately one family, Fratelli Tutti!
     
  11. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    526
    Likes Received:
    266
    Religion:
    ACNA
    At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”. We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! (@248)

    and the reference


    Saint Augustine, who forged a concept of “just war” that we no longer uphold in our own day, also said that “it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war”


    I believe it is a reasonable point being raised, given that the nature of war and the manner in which it is conducted has changed significantly, and that the possibility of a Just War is really beyond our capacity. I think at one stage DJ Trump was speaking about 'commensurate response' to hostile situations, and on this matter they may be on similar paths.

    The development of weapons has indeed grown but I am not sure the destructiveness of war has changed in the whole. We can just deliver this in a faster more efficient manner. Armies in the ancient world were known for plunder and the destruction of farm land and sieges of cities were brutal horrid affairs where many innocents were killed. They often brought disease with them. But to say that there can never be another just war is just crazy and illogical. It is giving yourself over to evil if we don't defend ourselves or be prepared to.

    So if Putin was to invade Poland, a vastly weaker country we should sit by and say well it is not just because our weapons have become more effient and the Poles should just roll over and let Russia take them? Self defense is a classic example of just war. The next genocide to erupt we do nothing because it is not a solution and we should just le the genocide happen?
     
  12. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    But you should see what Antipope Francis is doing there, he’s outright attacking Saint Augustine and denigrates his formulation of Just War theory as “something we no longer believe today.” Well think for yourself Mr. Francis, this Christian certainly believes in the moral rectitude of just war, and I side with St. Augustine over a 1970s hippie.

    Just war can never be denied by a Christian, because not only is it dictated by natural law and natural justice, but is taught in the Scriptures, and for Anglicans is taught in our Articles. I’d like to see some new evidence that makes just war in anyway obsolete or un-righteous.


    The common good is served by individual rights, which protect the (God-given) right of people to the fruits of their work, and raise the economic conditions for everyone, even the most poor. In America, the poor people are fat, have cell phones and receive free healthcare.

    On the contrary, the common good is NOT served by making the world’s goods common (communism), because people receive what they had not earned, and therefore are incapable of keeping. In all non-capitalist countries, life is miserable, brutish, and short. And likewise we Anglicans have a very strong affirmation of private property and rejection of any kind of communism in our Articles:

    Article XXXVIII, of Christian men’s goods, which are not in common

    The Riches & Goods of Christians are not Common, as touching the Right, Title, & Possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsly boast.
     
    Ananias and bwallac2335 like this.
  13. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    526
    Likes Received:
    266
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Yeah his part on war makes no sense when applied to the actual world
     
  14. Ananias

    Ananias Member Anglican

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    49
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    There is also the fact that no government in the history of mankind has ever been able to define the "common good" in any meaningful way. In America (and much of the modern Western world) we tend to define "good" in terms of material goods: food, housing, clothing, etc. It's rarely if ever defined in moral terms. And yet the whole notion of "common good" is primarily moral and spiritual, and only accidentally material. It is not the duty of our government -- or of any government -- to make us "happy". The government's only role is to establish (and enforce) a society secure and orderly enough to allow us to pursue our lives in relative safety and harmony, while respecting our God-given individual liberties and responsibilities.

    I submit that banning the heinous practice of abortion (and enforcing that ban under threat of severe legal penalty) would be a far more profound contribution to the "common good" than any number of food drives or welfare checks.
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  15. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    953
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    I am still processing this encyclical, but, if it truly contains a few small poison pills, then they cannot be balanced out by a large mass of otherwise good text... It may actually be a clever trick to state a wicked claim by padding it before and after with thick expressions of common platitude... in this I was edified by a patristic phrase, mirrored (actually) by another Pope in the 1800s:

    “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord”
    (Leo XIII
    http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-x...ts/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html)
     
  16. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    605
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I have observed that unjust wars are often claimed to be just (the citizens are 'sold a bill of goods'). Attacking or invading some other nation should never be lightly undertaken or easily justified.

    I've read that the Armenian Christians are once again fighting for their lives, defending themselves in their own country, against attacks by Azerbaijan (the latter is supplied with military weapons and assistance from Turkey). From Armenia's perspective, it is a just war. From Azerbaijan's and Turkey's perspectives.... well, surely they tell themselves (and any who will listen) that they are justified.
     
  17. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I am unclear as to why you would use this descriptor. Historically the term Antipope was used to describe those who claimed the see of Rome as rivals to those who had been duly appointed.

    ListOfAntipopes.jpg
    Whilst the is a group within the latin communion who wish to declare sede vacantus, there is not a viable alternative claim to the pontificate, and if there were that person would be the antipope, not Francis 1.

    If however you were simply wanting to engage in the politics of division and derision, then may I commend the encyclical to you.
     
  18. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Actually you can see the sede vacante groups using the term "Antipope" to refer to Francis:
    https://novusordowatch.org/2020/10/fratelli-tutti-highlights/

    "Antipope Francis: Encyclical Letter “Fratelli Tutti” on Human Fraternity (Oct. 3, 2020)"

    The reasoning is: to be a valid Pope, aka a Bishop of Rome, there are several criteria to satisfy. The RC world will have several criteria of their own, but even for Christians outside of the Roman communion there will be some criteria in order for a person to be seen as the the Bishop of Rome, namely, that one has to be an orthodox and catholic Christian.

    There are several arguments which have been made by people that Francis, in having promoted several heresies publicly and pertinaciously, no longer is a Christian in the normative meaning of that term, and someone who isn't a Christian, can't really be a Christian bishop.

    The same increasingly applies to Justin Welby -- the public statements he has made increasingly give grounding to those who say that the See of Canterbury is empty, currently, because the official who is currently occupying it may not be entirely Christian.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  19. Ananias

    Ananias Member Anglican

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    49
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Welby strikes me very much as a mediocrity who is in way over his head. I don't mark him as a True Believer (in either the Christian or the Leftist Social Justice sense of the word). He's the kind of person who's just going to stand around and wait for things to resolve themselves.
     
  20. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    We cover not ourselves in anything useful when we engage in division and derision.

    203. Authentic social dialogue involves the ability to respect the other’s point of view and to admit that it may include legitimate convictions and concerns. Based on their identity and experience, others have a contribution to make, and it is desirable that they should articulate their positions for the sake of a more fruitful public debate. When individuals or groups are consistent in their thinking, defend their values and convictions, and develop their arguments, this surely benefits society. Yet, this can only occur to the extent that there is genuine dialogue and openness to others. Indeed, “in a true spirit of dialogue, we grow in our ability to grasp the significance of what others say and do, even if we cannot accept it as our own conviction. In this way, it becomes possible to be frank and open about our beliefs, while continuing to discuss, to seek points of contact, and above all, to work and struggle together”. Public discussion, if it truly makes room for everyone and does not manipulate or conceal information, is a constant stimulus to a better grasp of the truth, or at least its more effective expression. It keeps different sectors from becoming complacent and self-centred in their outlook and their limited concerns. Let us not forget that “differences are creative; they create tension and in the resolution of tension lies humanity’s progress”.​