The Virtue of Charity

[gherkin]

I could say that of your smelling me 'naturalizing the faith' as well.

Actually, no, since you actually did so.

Ahem, I am not resisting the facts of the theological. I take them as a given but am more focused on their application in real concrete situations in life. For example, I've just been reading the encyclical Caritas in veritate (2009 Pope BenedictXVI) in which he addressed not just to Catholics but 'all people of good will'. In it he calls on those with the means to develop a global authority to serve the common good of all people of the world. This call justified by...

I'll put this frankly. You suffer to a certain degree from the dunning kruger effect. I'm sorry to be blunt, but theology and philosophy are very hard disciplines to do well, and you don't get "formed" in them by reading stuff on the internet. I recognize that you see yourself as here to provoke what you see as grumpy old men "trad" Catholics who don't get how the Holy Spirit is moving in Saint I mean Pope Francis. And I'm actually glad you're here. I'm sure you mean well. But when you try to do theology you are in over your head. The fact, for example, that you had no idea what I was talking about when I spoke of mystery is just one obvious example, as is your thought that what I've been saying here smacks of calvinism. Apart from your thinking that the Church teaches something about our Lord's blood type, etc.

The fact that you think Pope Benedict is somehow a witness against what I've been saying here is just another.

Bear in mind that my basic question was in regards to your claim that charity isn't charity without the infused grace of baptism.

Right, and as I have answered...it is not. Though of course pagans may be able to love.

[Doom]

Well, modern Christian thought is Peligian, and Arian, and a whole host of other heresies on top of that. You'll find precious few modern theologians or philosophers of any Christian persuasion who hold to anything resembling orthodoxy. Theistic personalism, open theism, process theology, universalism, these are only a few of the most common errors. Others popular errors include adoptionism (Jesus didn't know he was God, or didn't become God until he was baptized, I've heard this idea preached from the pulpit one more than one occasion), and annihilationism (taught even by the esteemed John Stott, about whom Time Magazine once observed, probably correctly, that "if evangelicals could elect a Pope, it would be John Stott").

With the evangelicals, the errors are usually the result of the increasing popularity of the idea that classical theism and traditional orthodoxy are all influenced by Greek philosophy, which is pagan, and you need to go back to the Bible alone, which is then read in an incredibly literalistic way, taking all of the anthropomorphic descriptions of God at face value refusing to see that religious language is always analogical and not literal, which is not consistent with the history of either Christian or Jewish thought. This is how you arrive at incredibly dumb ideas like William Lane Craig's idea that God is subject to time.

With Catholics, errors usually result from a strict reading of Church teaching which claims that there are "loopholes" that can allow for all sorts of crazy things justified by claiming that it "technically" isn't forbidden. This is how things like Balthazar's "Dare We Hope" thesis is justified.

[Doom]

I have to say this entire conversation is rather silly.

Faith Hope and Charity have traditionally been called the three "Theological Virtues" for a reason, they are not natural, only Christians have them as a result of infused grace.

The natural virtues are the Four Cardinal Virtues
Courage
Justice
Fortitude
Temperance

Even a popular writer like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" recognizes this distinction. It is the traditional Christian view.

[Stella]

I could say that of your smelling me 'naturalizing the faith' as well.

Actually, no, since you actually did so.

Ahem, I am not resisting the facts of the theological. I take them as a given but am more focused on their application in real concrete situations in life. For example, I've just been reading the encyclical Caritas in veritate (2009 Pope BenedictXVI) in which he addressed not just to Catholics but 'all people of good will'. In it he calls on those with the means to develop a global authority to serve the common good of all people of the world. This call justified by...

I'll put this frankly. You suffer to a certain degree from the dunning kruger effect. I'm sorry to be blunt, but theology and philosophy are very hard disciplines to do well, and you don't get "formed" in them by reading stuff on the internet. I recognize that you see yourself as here to provoke what you see as grumpy old men "trad" Catholics who don't get how the Holy Spirit is moving in Saint I mean Pope Francis. And I'm actually glad you're here. I'm sure you mean well. But when you try to do theology you are in over your head. The fact, for example, that you had no idea what I was talking about when I spoke of mystery is just one obvious example, as is your thought that what I've been saying here smacks of calvinism. Apart from your thinking that the Church teaches something about our Lord's blood type, etc.

The fact that you think Pope Benedict is somehow a witness against what I've been saying here is just another.

Bear in mind that my basic question was in regards to your claim that charity isn't charity without the infused grace of baptism.

Right, and as I have answered...it is not. Though of course pagans may be able to love.

Well that’s a lot of opinions. My formation has been through the life of the Church I’ve grown up in especially during the era of JPII. The old time theologians and philosophers that the internet has made available aren’t the primary source for that but the teachings of the Popes through homilies, Catholic speakers charged with imparting the teachings, retreats, the spiritual exercises, Catholic Scripture studies, discussions with family in religious life, long involvement with Catholic charities… lots of those things that a regular practicing Catholic have available to them in a lifetime. That’s the formation.

I would invite others to really embrace the social doctrine of the Church as per the vision of Vatican II and let that evangelise you. I suspect that’s an aching chasm in the faith of many Catholics fearing/hating the world around them.

[Stella]

I have to say this entire conversation is rather silly.

Faith Hope and Charity have traditionally been called the three "Theological Virtues" for a reason, they are not natural, only Christians have them as a result of infused grace.

The natural virtues are the Four Cardinal Virtues
Courage
Justice
Fortitude
Temperance

Even a popular writer like CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" recognizes this distinction. It is the traditional Christian view.

I'm making the distinction between natural charity and supernatural charity and how the most recent Popes have guided Catholics in the pastoral mission work of the Church.

[Doom]

I don't think you really understand recent Papal thought. That's not an insult, they are difficult to understand.

Especially difficult is John Paul II who is well nigh impossible to read, and his obscurity had always been one of the major complaint about his writing. Under Communism, he was allowed to publish freely because the communists figured no one could understand him anyway, they had a point. George Wiegel, when preparing his biography of the Pope "Witness to Hope" he interviewed several of his former students who admitted that they never understood his lectures, one student said "I thought he was the worst professor I ever had because I never understood a word he said.". To understand John Paul II, you need extensive commentary that is least 3 times longer than the actual text. Avery Dulles wrote a decent introductory text and you can buy annotated editions of his encyclicals, although they are expensive.

Similar things could be said about Benedict XVI. His book "Introduction to Christianity" is frankly incoherent. I read the print text and didn't understand more than half of it. Then I listened to by the audiobook and it was only slightly more clear. He is more cogent in his several books of interviews but much like John Paul II it is best to rely on a commentary. Aidan Nichols wrote a decent one.

Now Pope Francis is a unique case because unlike the previous two popes, he is neither a theologian nor a philosopher by training therefore unlike the other two his problem is not incoherence it is that he doesn't know the proper vocabulary, and unlike previous theologically unsophisticated Popes (such as Pius XI and XII) he insists on writing his own writings rather than relying on a ghost writer. And then you have the fact that much like Trump (and Joe Biden) he tends to speak off the cuff and when he does he tends to say incredibly bizarre things that make his advisors embarrassed and make them scramble and try to explain away what he said, and so the official transcripts tend to carefully edit his words to make them less offensive, just like the White House does with Joe Biden. I wish I could recommend a commentary on his thought but unlike with the two previous Popes none exists, or at least I'm not aware of any..

What I am getting at is that you can't just read a Papal encyclical or whatnot like a novel from beginning to end and actually come away with a correct understanding of what it means, and certainly not understand how to fit it into the broader context of the history of Catholic thought since the Fathers.

I'm sure plenty smart and you mean well but you're not giving yourself a chance. These topics require serious thought and not just a glance at a few recent encyclicals l.

[Stella]

I find it hard to accept that a simple mother or father is incapable of passing on the fullness of faith to a child. That every person has to get a western university education in philosophy or theology to have any missionary ability, it goes against so many testimonies of Saints and Scripture. I can't buy into that.

[Doom]

Wow! A fantastic straw man that!

And it is especially remarkable given that you are the one who is arguing that you somehow know better than people who are trained in this subject matter.

gherkin is a philosopher, I don't know what his area or topic of specialization is, but he seems to be knowledgeable about Thomism. Thomism is by no means the only acceptable Catholic philosophy and there are plenty of non-Thomist Catholic philosophers out there, but Thomas Aquinas does have a pride of place among Catholic philosophers even if, at the end of the day, we aren't required to agree with everything he said. But it is certainly a bizarre criticism of gherkin to accuse him of "Calvinism" when all he is doing is quoting St Thomas, especially since Catholic thought is nowhere near as hostile to Calvinism as you seem to think.

Obi-Wan is a priest and as such has had all the seminary training that entails, and unlike many priests I have encountered over the years, he seems to have had some good instruction in seminary, he knows what he is talking about.

Instead of putting your own flawed understanding against everyone else, why don't you take it as an opportunity to learn rather than insist that you are right and everyone else wrong?

[gherkin]

I find it hard to accept that a simple mother or father is incapable of passing on the fullness of faith to a child. That every person has to get a western university education in philosophy or theology to have any missionary ability, it goes against so many testimonies of Saints and Scripture. I can't buy into that.

As Doom said, this is a complete straw man, but indicative of what I mean when I speak of the difficulty of philosophy and theology. It's actually quite hard to engage in those theoretical disciplines, and requires focused, technical training. That has nothing to do with the vocation of the mother or father passing on the Faith to their children. You don't need a university "education" to raise holy kids or to be a holy person. St. Thomas writes at some length, for example, about a kind of connatural knowledge of things Divine had by the "ignorant" that far surpasses the grasp of many theologians. But he's not talking about the ability of the uneducated to deal with technicalities of the Faith. The uneducated lack that technical capacity due to their lack of intellectual formation. It's not that I am downplaying nature here, it's that you are. You don't recognize the reality of the need to train the mind. You're trying to do technical theology, but you can't do it because you haven't been trained. This is not an opinion, it's an observation.

Like I said above, I'm really glad you're here and I appreciate your posts. But I don't take especially kindly to ignorant suggestions that I'm preaching calvinism.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

May I recommend one of two books by Frank Sheed? Theology for Beginners or Theology and Sanity. If you don't want to be a beginner, that's fine, but it will give you some good background on the terminology that the pickle is using.

It doesn't take a theological degree to pass the faith along to children. One of my teachers in seminary reminded us that the pious lady in the back of church may be much holier than us highly-trained people at the front. But I've spent 15 years working in schools, one way or another, and I have observed that even kids who came from good families and good Catholic schools can believe some awfully weird stuff.

[Stella]

May I recommend one of two books by Frank Sheed? Theology for Beginners or Theology and Sanity. If you don't want to be a beginner, that's fine, but it will give you some good background on the terminology that the pickle is using.

It doesn't take a theological degree to pass the faith along to children. One of my teachers in seminary reminded us that the pious lady in the back of church may be much holier than us highly-trained people at the front. But I've spent 15 years working in schools, one way or another, and I have observed that even kids who came from good families and good Catholic schools can believe some awfully weird stuff.

To be honest I’m not interested in that level of discussion (theologians and philosophers) and didn’t pose the question expecting it. The sub forum brief says “Think of this as an online RCIA session” and I was more interested in how the Church regards virtue in those she engages with in today’s environment. We do regard non Christians/secular society in a different way than we have in the past and we do actively recognize good that can be dialogued with in a modern missionary way and that’s all part of recognizing Gods image in everyone. I can’t find the writing of Pope BXVI that says this, but I remember it saying something like Christian charity needs humility and that we recognize that those we help are also helping us. Those little things stick in my memory and form my understanding. Anyway.

[gherkin]

To be honest I’m not interested in that level of discussion (theologians and philosophers) and didn’t pose the question expecting it. The sub forum brief says “Think of this as an online RCIA session” and I was more interested in how the Church regards virtue in those she engages with in today’s environment.

That's not one question. There's not virtue. There's (at least) the natural virtues and the theological virtues. You asked about a theological virtue, and the theological virtues are not found in non-Christians, period, full stop.

We do regard non Christians/secular society in a different way than we have in the past and we do actively recognize good that can be dialogued with in a modern missionary way and that’s all part of recognizing Gods image in everyone.

Who told you that we didn't recognize God's image in everyone in the past? It's completely bogus. There's literally no truth in it. I could point you to the many passages where St. Thomas, just to pick one example, discusses at length what the image of God is in human beings (all of them). Or I could point to the fact that in his writings, apart from St. Augustine and Dionysius and other Christians, you'll find Aristotle mentioned perhaps most often as a quasi-authoritative source. Also Jews like Maimonides and Avicebron, Muslims like Averroes and Avicenna, and other pagans like Cicero. You have been taught a bunch of bosh about the history of theology. That's not really your fault, but it's in there, poisoning your thinking about all this stuff.

[Tired]

I would invite others to really embrace the social doctrine of the Church as per the vision of Vatican II and let that evangelise you. I suspect that’s an aching chasm in the faith of many Catholics fearing/hating the world around them.

Can I ask what your reasoning is for this request/invitation? I know you offered an opinion ("I suspect..."). But where does this really come from? Why would you suggest this instead of, say, the vision of Trent or any other council?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I would invite others to really embrace the social doctrine of the Church as per the vision of Vatican II and let that evangelise you. I suspect that’s an aching chasm in the faith of many Catholics fearing/hating the world around them.

One wants to be careful in making uncharitable assumptions about the motives of others.

[Stella]

To be honest I’m not interested in that level of discussion (theologians and philosophers) and didn’t pose the question expecting it. The sub forum brief says “Think of this as an online RCIA session” and I was more interested in how the Church regards virtue in those she engages with in today’s environment.

That's not one question. There's not virtue. There's (at least) the natural virtues and the theological virtues. You asked about a theological virtue, and the theological virtues are not found in non-Christians, period, full stop.

No I wasn't asking about the theological virtue. I was asking about the natural charity present in philanthropy and non Christian acts in general. Scripture makes much of the acts of the Good Samaritan and even presents him as an example for Christians.

Who told you that we didn't recognize God's image in everyone in the past? It's completely bogus. There's literally no truth in it.

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious.

Hence, the social order and its development must invariably work to the benefit of the human person if the disposition of affairs is to be subordinate to the personal realm and not contrariwise, as the Lord indicated when He said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.(6)

This social order requires constant improvement. It must be founded on truth, built on justice and animated by love; in freedom it should grow every day toward a more humane balance.(7) An improvement in attitudes and abundant changes in society will have to take place if these objectives are to be gained.

God's Spirit, Who with a marvelous providence directs the unfolding of time and renews the face of the earth, is not absent from this development. The ferment of the Gospel too has aroused and continues to arouse in man's heart the irresistible requirements of his dignity.

27. Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity,(8) so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.(9)

In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40). - Gaudium et spes Dec 7 1965 Pope St Paul VI

[Stella]

I would invite others to really embrace the social doctrine of the Church as per the vision of Vatican II and let that evangelise you. I suspect that’s an aching chasm in the faith of many Catholics fearing/hating the world around them.

Can I ask what your reasoning is for this request/invitation? I know you offered an opinion ("I suspect..."). But where does this really come from? Why would you suggest this instead of, say, the vision of Trent or any other council?

Vatican II is the Church's vision/guidance for the contemporary world. Why would a Catholic not embrace that Council?

[Stella]

I would invite others to really embrace the social doctrine of the Church as per the vision of Vatican II and let that evangelise you. I suspect that’s an aching chasm in the faith of many Catholics fearing/hating the world around them.

One wants to be careful in making uncharitable assumptions about the motives of others.

Is that true for everyone or just for some people? I ask because I've experienced some upsetting attacks from a member of this site in the past who I would no longer engage with, but it didn't seem to be an issue then?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It is an issue with him, and I have spoken to him about it in the past. Perhaps I should have done so again.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

May I ask what the "social teaching" of Vatican II is? I don't recall the Council touching heavily upon what we'd now regard as social teaching. There is the Universal Call to Holiness in the Church, and there are calls to work for the betterment of the world in Gaudium et Spes (neither being new with the Council, BTW). But I'm not coming up with much else.

[gherkin]

No I wasn't asking about the theological virtue. I was asking about the natural charity present in philanthropy and non Christian acts in general. Scripture makes much of the acts of the Good Samaritan and even presents him as an example for Christians.

Stella, look at the title of this thread. It is about the Virtue of Charity. The virtue of charity, in Catholic thought, is an infused theological virtue.

Who told you that we didn't recognize God's image in everyone in the past? It's completely bogus. There's literally no truth in it.

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable.

That's not actually relevant. First, it doesn't say that we didn't recognize God's image in everyone in the past. It says there's a "Growing awareness." More importantly, it's a bogus claim, if it means anything at all. The conciliar documents are not especially well or clearly written in general, and this particular reference to a "growing awareness" is wholly valueless. Growing, compared to what? If you read this to say that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were more or less unaware of the dignity of the human person, you are reading it glaringly wrongly. What's the way to read it correctly? It's so hard to say. These documents, again, are very poorly written. But it would be manifestly uncharitable to read them as saying grotesquely false things, like that through the whole history of the Church, the dignity of man has failed to be recognized. Think about how insane that claim would be.

This is actually a pretty perfect example of the poisoning I spoke of. You have bought into a common but utterly baseless narrative about the Church. Things were so bad, so narrow, so negative, so hateful, up until the wonderful opening of the windows at the glorious council of councils, which tells us all that we now need to know (unless we don't like it--then it needs to be changed, of course, like the affirmation of the centrality of Latin in the liturgy of the Latin rite). The thing is, this kind of thing is generally said by people who have no idea what things were actually like in the Church prior to the council. And then there's the additional complication--and this is a point I've made to you before--that one's historical glance must take in much more than a few years to matter. So that even if (contrary to fact) it were the case that Catholic thought in the years leading up to the Council had this or that detriment, it wouldn't follow that Catholic thought in the hundreds of years prior to the Council had that same detriment.