Christmas break reading

For a spring semester class, a new text to prepare: Ellwood and McGraw, eds., Many People, Many Faiths: Women and Men in the World Religions, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005.

For background: Roggema, Poorthuis and Valkenberg, eds., The Three Rings: Textual studies in the historical trialogue of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Thomas Institut Utrecht/Peeters Leuven, 2005.

Christopher Dawson--1937

From the eminent historian's "Essay on War"--

But any peace propaganda which shuts the eyes to realities is worthless and may even increase the danger which it sets out to combat. It has been the fault of both pacifism and liberalism in the past that they have ignored the immense burden of inherited evil under which society and civilization labor and have planned an imaginary world for an impossible humanity. We must recognize that we are living in an imperfect world in which human and superhuman forces of evil are at work and so long as those forces affect the political behavior of mankind, there can be no hope of abiding peace.

ISG #2

Of course, WE, the Americans and the "coalition of the willing" must decide that we will stand fast to the convictions with which we entered (a) the war on terror and (b) Iraq. Parties have so muddled the reasons for this intervention in Iraq that many are quite confused at this point. At times it seems the current Administration itself is confused--at least its spokespersons (plural!) aren't very clear in articulating their and our purposes. I think this is an important part of the problem.

Secondly, WE have to decide what, or whom, we care about. Do we care about a vision of peace for the Middle East? Further, do we care about the survival of the state of Israel? Make no mistake: the radical Islamists have the massacre of Israel's Jews and the elimination of "the Israeli entity" as their first priority.

• How do we know this? They say so repeatedly.
• Do they mean what they say? We can't afford to take the chance they don't--can we?

I know it's probably not fair to use the Holocaust as an equivalent example here, but it's a dreadful fact of history that Hitler meant what he said. If we had understood in the 1920s what we knew in May of 1945, would we, the Germans, the Europeans, have behaved differently? If we had understood in the early '60s what we understood about Southeast Asia after the last helicopter left "Saigon" and after the Pol Pot came to power in Cambodia, would we have chosen differently?

The ISG Follies

The President is not obligated to adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. He has the opportunity to do so, and thereby absolve himself partially from recriminations that will follow from the resulting chaos. It seems that, based on press reports, what the committee is suggesting will have the effect of "kicking the can down the road"--of delaying an eventual confrontation with the ideologues of the Middle East, now entering their ascendancy. It may be possible to delay the fragmentation of Iraq and its radicalization by Iran and Syria by maintaining some kind of presence on the borders, the no-fly zone, strict surveillance, economic sanctions, etc. There will at some point come a showdown with these power-hungry parties. It may be that the no-war coalition in the U.S. will be the ones in power when it happens. Then, they will be forced to do as FDR did, as JFK did, and become the party of war. If the current "hawks" were to act in the most cynical manner possible in order to assure their eventual return to power, they would implement the ISG's recommendations in short order and enthusiastically. I'm not sure that this is acceptable as a moral option, but it surely is politically alluring.

Upon Reflection

Meant to post Wednesday, but time has run away with me this week. At any rate:

The election was almost exactly as predicted by the center group of pollers and pundits. My first thought is that the Republicans did this to themselves. They got themselves into a couple of scandals, couldn't show unity on important issues, and had the dynamic duo of Frist and Hastert as leaders. It's a wonder they didn't lose more seats. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Rummy's departure is only a mild surprise and disappointment. He is a hard-edged gentleman of great drive and integrity, but perhaps stubborn, and done in by the shenanigans of the CIA, who hate him and the Defense Department. And we get a CIA man as replacement. . . .

Friendship inherent in creation

Why its logically consistent to understand that we're made, in some fashion, resembling the Creator--

1. To have friendship with the Creator, who sees the divine goodness reflected back to God through the character of the unique human person;
2. To allow humans to maintain friendship with one another, because friendship is of its essence a mutual reflection of the good that humans delight in and treasure. Without that reflection even the possibility of friendship is mitigated because humans generally aren't close to perfect.

Election Reflection

We voted early. Now I don't have to listen to all that (from either side).

I think the 6-year elections are unique, because they provide an opportunity for shaking out the old mistakes, reevaluating and planning for the real decisions in two more years. Both Republicans and Democrats should learn something, in theory, from what the voters decide and from the campaign and its issues. If the lessons aren't learned, there will be new dangers all around. I do trust the people as a whole. I think it was part of the Founders' vision to allow for "the people" to be the teachers to the politicians, that some sort of practical political wisdom would come out of a more reciprocal and equal relationship between the governed and those who govern. In our system, "the mob" has been replaced by the voting public. The office-holders and candidates are presumed to either win the respect of the people or to be humbled by them.

Einstein's advice

At least, I've seen this attributed to him:

"Insanity is making the same choice repeatedly, expecting a different result."

Moral thinking IS objective and experiential.

Thinker in Trouble

See here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2385684,00.html

Whatever support can be given to this teacher should be given. There's simply not an excuse for saying that he ought to have shown more restraint, etc. The debate should be open: Is what he says truthful? When Islam as a whole begins to deal with its historical self--as the other great traditions have--these radical elements can be seen for what they are.

Reading List for Grownups

Hal asked what to read. There's not a simple answer to how to get at truth nowadays. A few things to rely on:

• Read the papers, but read carefully--be sure you read what is given in reply to accusations made by the press and by partisan hacks on both sides; I try as time allows to check the news in the local paper, Time Magazine, the web news on Drudge and Lucianne, who is partisan but often finds stuff no one else has.
• Victor Davis Hansen is a wonderful scholar, applying lessons from antiquity, especially military history of the Classical period to today's events. You can find his columns at several locations, including his own website.
• If you haven't, read the 9/11 Report.

I'll add a bigger job that will take you a longer time--check out the reading list for the liberal arts program at the University of Dallas. I believe it's still posted at their website--http://www.udallas.edu/academicprograms/core2.cfm.

I'll add more specifics about what I've read lately, later.

Spectacle of Stupid

Hugo and Muhammad. Can you believe it? If your eyes didn't roll at that completely clueless display, then you must have thought the General Assembly session the Democrat convention for '08.

These are not statesmen, but self-caricaturing buffoons. Unfortunately, they are dangerous ones, who will be used by the world's manipulators to achieve dreadful ends. Neither has the good sense and intelligence to avoid a path that will lead to self-destruction and tragedy for their nations, in the long run.

And one more point....

One of the reasons that Pope Benedict's address has gotten so much attention is that his idiom is that of crystal clear Roman philosophical legalism--in the very finest sense of that word. We average laypersons--including, apparently the press--can at least get a sniff of the significance of his words, even though we are likely without some context and scholarly background to distort it to our own venal purposes. The press did figure out that something was up within that Regensburg lecture. They never did get the first clue about Pope John Paul's meanings unless some authority came out and explained it like they were six year-olds, and so missed a lot of the good stuff. Benedict trumps the press-canonized interpreters and speaks directly to the generally cultivated mind. Figure it out, folks, or you--not the Pope--and you motives will be exposed.

And speaking of gentlemen...

The Pope has apologized--for being right. Why won't moderate Muslims step up and say that the apology was NOT necessary, that the violent and ignorant reactions of their co-religionists were what was wrong.

Those who fear Reason the most will exhibit the most vile responses to rational discourse. Dialogue is what they DON'T want.

Eventually, the world will be forced to discern who the "they" are. Better the Muslim community, the Ummah, should accomplish this first, and do so publicly, and deal with it.

Watching "The Elephant Man"

Merrick recites the 23rd Psalm, to the astonishment of Treves and the hospital administrator. Treves asks, "Why didn't you tell me you could read?" Merrick replies, "I was afraid to....I'm sorry." Did he need to apologize? Why didn't he ask, "Why did you, Treves, assume that I couldn't?"

For one thing, he truly is a gentleman--taking the weaker part, even though he has the stronger moral position.

Benedict's words

Why do the jihadists ALWAYS insist on misreading words and events in the non-muslim world? Now, this misreading has led to bloodshed, the murder by "Islamic radicals" of a nun in Africa. Any person who took a little while to read Pope Benedict's address to the academics at Regensburg would know perfectly well that the point was to critique the weakness of western society, in view of its having lost the priority on Reason--of the broad sort, which includes the view of the whole found in theological and philosophical studies.

I'll add a thought: There is a message to Muslims here. Put down the bombs; come prepared to dialogue. As Ibn Rushd advocates in a famous and widely read passage, all should use the mind given to us by God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

Memorial Day

I watched the ceremony and the speeches at Arlington National Ceremony. General Pace, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, spoke with sobriety and realism about the soldier's life. He commented that all soldiers feel real human fear in situations of danger. He also discussed another kind of fear that influences our forces: the fear of dishonoring the ethos to which he and his fellow soldiers and sailors have committed themselves.

The choir sang "The Mansions of the Lord"--a hymn of incredible power.

The Commander in Chief spoke of being "in the presence of greatness," in the place "where valor sleeps." He urged honor for those "who saw a dark shadow on the horizon and went to meet it." Shades of Lord of the Rings, but the right sentiment, I think. And, it's objective. The world does face the dark shadow of the terrorist fanatics, not because they are Islamists, as they happen to be today, but because the 20th century loosed a dishonorable hatred of life, peace and freedom into the world in the form of militant ideologies. These perverse warriors may well take on other guises when "Islamism" either runs its course or is defeated. As the President promised a long time ago, the war on terrorism will be a long one. We fool ourselves to think that it's only about Islam and Jihad and to focus support or anger about the conduct of this conflict simply on that.

Socratic Epigram

If there's nothing to argue about, there's nothing to learn.

Ideological Test

Something that's been making the rounds.

This is a one-question, multiple-choice examination. Complete the analogy:

undocumented worker : U.S. citizen :: __________ : homeowner

Answer choices--

a. guest

b. burglar

The theory is that your answer to this question tells where you stand on the issue of immigration policy. Probably this could use some refinement. Probably the fallacy is that the whole truth falls on one side or the other. Probably there is a maddening amount of hypocrisy and posturing among our politicians on this issue.

It seems to me that good analysis on this issue begins with facts. Here are a couple of facts: law that governs citizenship and immigration is a fact; 12 million undocumented immigrant laborers are also a fact. There are more, but that's a good start.

Lyric

Just saving this:

"And passion seems to promise more
Than friendship can endure..."

Greg Brown, "Dream Cafe"

Immigration

Update 4/28/06:

Archbishop DiNardo of Houston, in the local interfaith press conference of 4/24/06, laid out these priorities for "reform that secures our borders, leads to quicker family reunification, and makes it possible for those who want to come to this country to work to be treated with respect and human dignity." Later in the same remarks he changes the order, but says that needed legislation "maintains our ideals as a nation of immigrants, restores the rule of law, and protects the homeland." It seems that common sense leads all minds to the same rough set of conclusions. It is to be hoped that the faith-based groups are sincere about all the priorities, however, and not using lip-service to the "justice" to obtain the "mercy." Both are needed in the writing of good laws.

4/14/06:

Here are the needs that an immigration bill should address:

• First, there is a very legitimate concern about national security. One of these moments, something bad will happen because of the inattention to basic monitoring, if not control, of what's happening on the northern and southern borders. What exists now is not acceptable, and the U.S. apparently has no stomach to enforce existing law.
• Second, the 12-plus million human bsings here need some way to be regularized. Those who wish to become citizens need a path to citizenship. A responsible immigration agency must have the same kind of information about these workers that the government has, constitutionally, on citizens. They should pay taxes, and if they do, folks won't object to the benefits they receive as a matter of human concern and compassion.
• Third, a good assessment needs to be made of the nation's labor needs in order to determine future immigration policy. The latter should be keyed to the former, so that some equilibrium is established. A nation with 4.7% unemployment will have legitimate needs for imported labor.
• Fourth, the situation in Mexico needs to be addressed by the Mexican government. It isn't unfair to say that immigration to the U.S. provides the safety valve to release pressures that would otherwise destabilize and radicalize that nation. The Mexicans must address their corrupt government. If they don't, we'll find our soldiers there building a society instead of in the Middle East. I'd rather be fighting the bad guys on the other side of the world rather than a few hundred miles from my front door.

OK, politicians, now you have the program. I think there's something here for every side. Get to work.

Focus group legislation

Good grief, what's wrong with these folks? No, I don't mean the immigration demonstrators and the opportunists trying to create a niche for their own interests regarding this issue. I do mean the D.C. legislators, especially the Senate. When they bump into an issue that "cuts both ways" they lose their moral compass entirely, because they can't find a position that will please everyone. Some issues are like that. When the fence's posts are too pointy, you can't sit on it. Politicians of integrity have known for millenia that it's better to earn the anger of the opposition than the contempt of principled allies. Leadership with backbone always earns respect. Too many senators of both parties are now dancing on the griddle because they are apparently too stupid and gutless to figure out where to alight on this issue. This fall's elections will provide some interesting chaos if this doesn't get sorted out soon.

Children of a Clever God

(Sunday afternoon, late winter. Al is at the copy machine in the teachers' work room. Enter Peg, also a teacher.)

Al: Well, well--this is a surprise. You usually finish your progress reports early. What brings you here?

Peg: Oh, I am finished with those things. I exported them Friday, or whatever you call that business. I came in because I've got these study packets on supply and demand for the econ classes and I didn't want to stand in the Monday morning copier line.

Al: Good choice, I'd say.

Peg: So, you're not finished with your reports? I won't say "as usual."

Al: Be prepared for a surprise, madam, for I am done with reports, and they're only due tomorrow. I'm just printing a set for my file.

Peg: I'm truly impressed.

Al: Yeah, yeah. Here, I'm done. The copier's all yours.

Peg: Is anyone else in the building?

Al: I know Shari's still here, and I saw light at the end of the hall in coach Byron's room. Ann and Delia were here earlier, but Delia was picking up Ann to go to Bible study.

Peg: Really? I thought Delia was Catholic.

Al: So?

Peg: So, I thought Catholics didn't do that sort of thing.

Al: What sort of thing--go to Church?

Peg: No, silly, Bible study.

Al: Once again, milady, be surprised. It happens in this modern world. In fact, the Church in this archdiocese has a model program for adult Scripture study.

Peg: You learn something every day, I guess. So, Catholics do read the Bible?

Al: I think we'd both be surprised at how many. I know among converts, there are lots of us. Back in the day, whatever day that was, there wasn't much encouragement for Catholics to read Scripture because there weren't good modern English editions. And at Sunday Mass and the other sacraments and rituals the Bible came to life. Even visual things like church architecture were called "the Gospel in stone." But now any bookstore sells editions of the Bible for Catholics to study or just read.

Peg: How do you know about all that?

Al: I led some Scripture studies in my parish after I was received into the Church.

Peg: Hmm. You know, my family is Methodist, but we didn't really go to church that much, and we certainly didn't sit around and read the Bible. I have an older one that I've picked up a few times and started reading, but I got frustrated and set it down.

Al: Let me guess: you stopped in Leviticus.

Peg: That book is slow reading, and kind of dull.

Al: It sure is: a lot of picky social laws and rules for worship and temple design. Not too many folks are building 10th-century B.C. temples these days.

Peg: I thought you'd disagree and try to convince me that it was the best stuff ever written.

Al: It is part of the greatest story, just not the most scintillating part for moderns like us to enjoy and appreciate.

Peg: So I could skip over those parts?

Al: Who ever said otherwise? At Sunday worship, we pick essential parts rather than read from beginning to end.

Peg: When I was growing up it was kind of a "don't touch" attitude--like you had to have some sort of procedure or training to get into the Bible.

Al: No more or less than it takes to get into any other mature sort of writing. Just like literature, or for that matter the newspaper, what you find there depends on what you bring with you.

Peg: Now that's news that's been hiding from me all these years.

Al: I think people are scared off because the Bible is a big book and some parts are definitely intimidating, and strange to us. It's not all the same kind of reading, either.

Peg: I figured that out when I got to Leviticus. Suddenly I was swimming at the deep end. What good are all those rules and building-design codes?

Al: This is where you have to bring something to the table. First of all, like a swimming instructor would say, don't swim at the deep end until you've accomplished a few other skills.

Peg: Like what?

Al: Well, let's see.... How about deciding how you're going to think about this big book in the first place? You could start by forgetting it's a book at all.

Peg: What do you mean by that? Of course, it's a book. Just look at it. It's not a hot-air balloon or a toaster.

Al: Calm down. What I mean is that it's a library of writings--an intentional one, like a very selective or specialized library, but still a library. Actually, its name means that. One commentary I looked in says the word "bible" means "the books" or "the book of the books." It's a collective term.

Peg: I suppose in the ancient world we'd be thinking of a group of scrolls.

Al: A whole wagon-load of them, and large ones at that.

Peg: So, really, a collective name that would describe them all, since they're obviously different, as I'm discovering, wouldn't be very specific.

Al: True enough. Sometimes you just can't say things real simply and be accurate. So that would be lesson one: the Bible is a library.

Peg: OK, what's lesson two?

Al: I'd say this: many of the books are anthologies themselves--skillfully edited collections of writings that cluster around important persons and themes.

Peg: That doesn't sound encouraging: not only a big book with many parts, but the parts have parts. What you're saying is that we're not dealing with a single writer even in each book.

Al: We've reached a grown-up sort of truth: It's not one writer, not one storyteller, not one tradition, not one editor, but a number of each, and probably a significant number.

Peg: Al, that's not any less intimidating than my original idea. I thought you were going to help me along, here.

Al: I think this is something that the literate adult believer has to understand. What we have in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is a theologically inspired, brilliantly edited archive of the oral and written wisdom representing all the complexities of a human culture over a span of 1500 years. That's a long time for things to evolve, so the whole is going to be a little bit complicated, even though many of the parts are very simple.

Peg: But cultures change over time. America today is different from America of the founders and America of the early colonial period.

Al: You're onto something there, but what about continuity also? Isn't there something recognizable as "American" even from the start?

Peg: Sure; beginning with the Mayflower Compact, we have the agreements that showed that these people had a special and unique way of shaping public life, a republic. That didn't happen anywhere else--not even France.

Al: Well, now...

Peg: Oh, oh. Al, you've done it again!

Al: Huh? What's that?

Peg: You've walked me to the edge of seeing something differently, then let me dive in head first.

Al: How so?

Peg: Don't be so coy. We started off with my thinking that Scripture is a single story that I'm supposed to be able to read like a novel. And I got stuck because of that idea., and wondered how anyone could see anything profound in this book. You used my disorientation to suggest a new idea, that the Bible is a library. This came as news to me, but it makes perfect sense how that I think about the books in the Old and New Testaments.

Al: Then?

Peg: Just when I begin worrying about how this vast collection can have any unity at all if it's not a novel, you slyly get me to be the one to say exactly what it is that brings this library together.

Al: Now, I couldn't possibly be that smart, but I am amused. Give yourself some credit.

Peg: OK, credit accepted--but it is the agreements, isn't it? Seems like I remember from pre-law that covenants are agreements, and so are testaments, in the legal sense.

Al: Sure.

Peg: So this Bible library is an archive relating to these two agreements, the Old and the New, between a human culture and God and the stories and traditions, including the picky rules, are evidence related to them.

Al: Perfect. It's a record of all sorts of dealings and events, positive and negative, over many centuries--but don't take that word "agreements" in too narrow a sense. Now give yourself a lot of credit: what you grasped in a few minutes of cognitive dissonance took me years. But it helps me to know that the enormous diversity of the Scriptures is the record of a wide variety of persons and groups taking the risk of living out a relationship with God.

Peg: So God is part of that unifying theme, too. That makes sense, since two parties make a covenant.

Al: I think that's what they mean by "inspired writing." The collectors and editors found and worked with those materials that spoke of the presence of God and the real struggle of God's people to deal with that presence.

Peg: Hmm. That's a lot to think about.

Al: Good. Let's quit there. I need to get a quiet evening in before school starts for the week.

Peg: Now that my copying job is done, I need to get home, too. I may thumb through that old Bible again. See you later, Al.

Al: See you in the morning.

For the record: Archbishop Chaput on Catholic pols and voters

The place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for what that person does as a legislator or as a judge? And the answer is yes, because we are in some ways materially -- we use the word 'materially' -- cooperating in that person's activity because we've given [him or her] the platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we responsible for that? Well, if we didn't know they were going to something wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways. The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So it's not 'if you vote this way, should you go to confession?' The question is, 'if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?' Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. There's a more sophisticated thing here: it's not so crude. The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. It's issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscience and remote material cooperation or proximate material cooperation is cooperation, and it's important for Catholics to know that, to be sophisticated in their judgments.

It's about the appropriateness of involvement, on part of individual Catholics and on part of the Church community. And the importance of forming one's conscience intelligently and in an involved fashion on the major moral issues of the day. Now, you know, it is true that the Church sees abortion as the foundational issue of our time. It is. There is no way around it. There is nothing more foundational than the right to life.

You know some moral issues, all moral issues are moral issues, and it's good to be on the right side of them all the time, but some are dependent on the basic principles of human life. The dignity of human life. You never violate it. Whether it's the creation of embryos for embryonic stem cell research or abortion, are violations of the dignity of human beings, from our perspective. And you can never justify it. You can sometimes justify going to war. You may think that the Iraq war is horrible, but there may be sometimes when you can justify [going to war]. It doesn't have the same moral weight. And, it's not calculating 40 million abortions against 40,000 deaths in Iraq. That's not how you do the calculus. The calculus is on the intrinsic act itself. You know, and abortion is never, ever, ever right. And so to elect someone who has no respect for unborn human life or has a--what kind of respect?--a kind of respect that is wobbly; it doesn't make any sense. Why would you trust someone with your life, if that person is willing to let unborn babies die?

I think Catholics have to grapple with the fact that their moral positions impact their relationship with the Church. And they haven't often thought of that, you know? 'I know abortion is wrong, but if I vote for abortion, that doesn't have any impact on me. Well the Church says, 'Like heck it doesn't. It means you're not a Catholic and you shouldn't receive communion, if you are in favor of abortion.' They don't think they connect. And, now that some people have been making a very clear connection between the position and one's relationship to the Church, people have gotten angry, they've gotten nervous, they've gotten mad, they've threatened to take their money away, they've threatened to join other churches.

Leo XIII--Wealth and Poverty

These [social] teachings [of the Church] could diminish the distance that pride is pleased to maintain between the rich and the poor, but simple friendship is still too little. If we obey Christianity’s precepts, union will be brought about through fraternal love. On both sides, people will know and understand that absolutely all human beings have come forth from God, their common father; that God is their common and only goal, and that God alone is able to communicate perfect and absolute happiness to angels and to human beings. In addition, all have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and restored by him to their dignity as children of God, and thus a true bond of fraternity unites them, whether this be among themselves or to Christ their Lord, who is “the first-born of many brothers.” (Rom 8:29) Finally, they will know that all the goods of nature, all the treasures of grace belong in common and indiscriminately to the whole human race, and that only those who are unworthy will be disinherited of the heavenly goods. “If you are children, you are heirs as well: heirs of God, heirs with Christ.” (Rom 8:17)

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 21

Creators and creations

Do we remember Hamlet because of Shakespeare or Shakespeare because of Hamlet? Without the characters he created, Shakespeare would be one more impresario in the long and glorious history of English theater. Therefore, who is the greater being: Hamlet or Shakespeare? Hamlet continues to this day to give Shakespeare life and relevance. And for his part, Shakespeare has given us Hamlet and others who reveal not only their maker's amazing thoughts, but who reveal to us the universe within ourselves. Has Shakespeare made him or conjured him? What was Shakespeare's relationship with this character? Was he changed by the encounter?

This is not to single out Shakespeare. Other notable artists have done likewise. Plato gave us the very troubling Socrates. The anonymous authors and editors of the great story traditions that are quilted together in the Jewish Scriptures give us a very extraordinary G*d. At the very least, isn't it fair to raise as an ambiguity, purely on naturalistic terms, who makes whom? How were these storytellers and their faithful listening community, who would hold dear the stories, changed by the character of G*d?

Deus Caritas Est

Some thoughts about this new document, upon a first, fast reading:

The reasoning and the language are clear and simple. John Paul's works always seemed to have a rich abstruseness and density of reasoning that made one take them in small bites in order to get the gist. Benedict's work so far is much more in the "Latin" or "Roman" way of thinking--logical, gradually building, aimed more evidently at communication rather than meditation. To me this is the most evident contrast between the current pontiff and his predecessor, visible in his shorter messages and now in the encyclical letter.

Benedict seems to have a love for the Classical world and its wisdom. This reflects the sense of many of the Church Fathers that the core of Classical philosophy was the second way by which the world was prepared to receive the Christian message. The way of reason has a universal appeal that may prove (once again, we may hope) to be an effective outreach to the world. No one can say it's too obscure, too "Catholic" (in a pejorative sense, as a sort of closed club whose thinking doesn't compel belief from the secular minds out there). Is it St. Justin Martyr who said that Christianity is "the true philosophy"?

He really boils the heart of the Gospel down to a kernel of belief: "God is love." The opening paragraphs are breathtaking in their directness.

The paragraphs on the Church's duties of love toward the world, love built on justice, emphasize direct action and help. It's not the Church's duty to wait until the government does something to help the poor, suffering and hurt. The Church doesn't exist to build a "utopia" of material good, but rather to help the poor, starting with the poorest. Government's job is to create the conditions where these works of justice may flourish. The Church's political theory is to be the model of love and the first to get its hands busy with the works of love. All else follows, including political advocacy. I think Pope John Paul, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin would concur. And as the saints' lives testify, this work itself is plenty controversial.