Reading Fratelli Tutti on Mars Hill

Pope Francis point us to the ways of peace on earth, but he does not announce the gospel of the kingdom or proclaim the good news that this kingdom has already been opened to man through the saving work of Jesus Christ.

"St. Paul Preaching at Athens" (1515) by Raphael [WikiArt.org]

The Abu Dhabi Declaration, last year’s ”Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” has been a notorious source of controversy in the Catholic Church. It is backed now by Pope Francis’s new encyclical, Fratelli tutti, in which is pursued the pontiff’s hope that the aspiration to universal fraternity and social friendship will be reborn among people of good will.

The Declaration itself features prominently in the encyclical’s concluding section, where it is reiterated that “a journey of peace is possible between religions.” To that claim is added another: that the journey’s “point of departure must be God’s way of seeing things” (§281). This welcome addition will by no means quell the controversy, however, for it would seem to imply that God’s way of seeing things, at least as regards the fundamentals of peace, is accessible to humans generally; indeed, that religions unenlightened by the covenant between God and man in Jesus Christ – even religions that reject that covenant – are nonetheless capable of grasping and conveying God’s way of seeing things and of acting on what they see. The only proviso is that “without an openness to the Father of all, there will be no solid and stable reasons for an appeal to fraternity” (§272).

In support of that proviso, Francis invokes Caritas in veritate, where at §19 Benedict XVI remarks that “reason, by itself, is capable of grasping the equality between men and of giving stability to their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish fraternity.” It must be observed, however, that Benedict, for his part, has already anchored his appeal for fraternity in the charity that arises through grace. “Its source is the wellspring of the Father’s love for the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Love comes down to us from the Son” (CV 5). And Benedict adverts to this again in the paragraph in question (CV 19).

In Fratelli tutti there is no such christological anchor. The appeal is strictly to God’s work as maker and sustainer of the world, and not at all to his eternal generation of the Son or to the gift of the incarnate Son as a man among men, through whom knowledge of the Father and of God’s way of seeing things is mediated. That most crucial text of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 11:27 and parallels – the text so powerfully expounded by the entire Gospel of John – does not appear in the encyclical. The word “Son” itself does not appear. Neither does the divine Name, the triune Name used in baptism, though the words “Trinity of love” appear, at the very end, in “An Ecumenical Christian Prayer” that follows a universal “Prayer to the Creator.”

Consideration of “the fraternity that our common Father asks of us” (§46), then, is left entirely to the order of creation without attention to the incarnate Son who is at the centre of that order, through whom it is also redeemed (Col. 1:15ff.). In Fratelli tutti “the splendid secret that shows us how to dream and to turn our life into a wonderful adventure” is not the secret of the Father’s knowledge of the Son and of the Son’s unique – and otherwise inaccessible – knowledge of the Father. It is a common property of man qua man even without reference to Jesus Christ. “Let us dream, then, as a single human family, as fellow travelers sharing the same flesh, as children of the same earth which is our common home, each of us bringing the richness of his or her beliefs and convictions, each of us with his or her own voice, brothers and sisters all” (§8).

The encyclical does refer us to Jesus, but only as a teacher and model. We are reminded, for example, that “Jesus never promoted violence or intolerance.” (Curiously, his cleansing of the temple with a whip goes unmentioned, while his saying “not peace, but a sword” is carefully explained.) The pope’s own namesake is likewise offered as a model, albeit in a fashion that has rightly been criticized as misleading. As Samuel Gregg observes, the uninformed reader would never guess the real nature of St Francis’s encounter with Sultan Malik-El-Kamil, which in the opening paragraphs of Fratelli tutti is not presented as the bold and extremely risky missionary venture it was, but rather as an illustration of conflict-avoidance through “fraternal subjection.”

It will be pointed out that this social encyclical (which, like the previous one, is addressed formally to no one and materially to everyone) should not be held to the standards of encyclicals devoted directly to the Church. If it inspires “people of good will” in their search for peace on earth, has it not done its proper work? Yet a consensus seems to be forming that this lengthy encyclical sums up the entire project of this pontificate. The rejoinder will come: Really? Does Francis himself see it in that light? He denies, after all, that he is attempting “to offer a complete teaching on fraternal love;” he seeks only to consider its universal scope, its openness to every man and woman” (§6). Then again, perhaps that is the project of his pontificate: to say and to demonstrate that authentic fraternal love is nothing if not both particular and universal, both local and global.

If that is the case, what shall we say of this Franciscan project? Like Paul among the pagans on Mars Hill, Francis speaks of the fact that all men are in some sense “God’s offspring” (Acts 17:29), who ought therefore to be respected and treated as such. Anyone open to God will see that he must try to do just that. Unlike Paul, however, Francis does not go on from there to speak of the fact that God’s own solicitous care for man is aimed at uniting human beings to himself in Jesus Christ. Nor, in the present encyclical, are we given any hint at all that God, having previously “overlooked the times of ignorance…, now commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man he has appointed” (Acts 17:30f.). Francis point us, sometimes quite eloquently, to the ways of peace on earth, but he does not announce the gospel of the kingdom or proclaim the good news that this kingdom has already been opened to man through the saving work of Jesus Christ. He does not, like Paul, undertake to explain or present the Christ.

Francis does speak of the Christian gospel as the source of his own convictions. “Others drink from other sources. For us the wellspring of human dignity and fraternity is in the gospel of Jesus Christ. From it, there arises, ‘for Christian thought and for the action of the Church, the primacy given to relationship, to the encounter with the sacred mystery of the other, to universal communion with the entire human family, as a vocation of all’” (§277). But, in doing so, he is content to leave aside the actual content of this gospel and to construe its public implications in these highly abstract terms – terms that would certainly have puzzled Paul, who like St. Peter thought the gospel “more precious than gold,” even the political gold of social friendship and human fraternity that ameliorates life in this vale of tears. I have little doubt that this abstraction would have puzzled Leo XIII as well, the founder of the modern social encyclical tradition who doesn’t merit a single mention in more than 40,000 words; for his part, Leo was always dropping christological anchors (as at Rerum novarum 21ff., for example).

Since every bishop, and the bishop of Rome above all, shares with the apostles a divine office for the purpose of making “the Word of God fully known” (Col. 1:25), we are right to ask whether it is even possible to prescind from the task of offering a more or less complete teaching on fraternal love in order to focus only on its scope, its universality in principle. If indeed Fratelli tutti is delivered us by way of recapitulation, not only of the Abu Dhabi Declaration but also of the teaching ministry of this pontificate, we must enquire as to whether we have received thus far only the first half of it. May we expect a sequel in which the apostolic task is completed by a thorough account of the love and justice and power of God in Jesus Christ, a sequel in which the scandal of particularity reappears? Or must we concede that the impression left by the encyclical’s concluding “Prayer to the Creator” is the impression Francis means to leave, and is content to leave, as a more or less final impression? Surely not! For in that case the Bishop of Rome would seem merely to be echoing Adolf von Harnack’s message in What is Christianity? – the message that, at its core, Christianity, is simply a form of life that expresses the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man.

Let those who take the opposite view, supposing that the pontiff would do very well to leave things as they now stand, recall that Harnack, the esteemed professor in Berlin who helped transform Protestant Christianity into a social program for peace on earth among people of good will, is the very same man who helped draft Kaiser Wilhelm’s speech of 4 August, 1914, on the eve of the First World War. From that disastrous choice, thankfully, this one good came: his former student, the young Karl Barth, was horrified enough to rouse himself from his own “dogmatic slumbers” and to lead a vital portion of the Protestant world to “begin again all over again at the beginning, with Jesus Christ.” It was in honor of his labors to that end that Barth was invited, some fifty years later, to become an observer at Vatican II, though ill health prevented him from doing so.

More than a few Catholics would like to see Pope Francis, despite his age, following Barth’s lead, so to say, rather than Harnack’s. Some would even like to see him emulate Jesus by using a whip to cleanse the Vatican precincts of all those who have exchanged the gospel of Jesus Christ for another gospel or by their way of life denied the Lord who bought them. There may be little reason now to expect such developments, despite the recent dismissal of Cardinal Becciu. But sooner or later there must be such developments, for Catholic Christianity is not and cannot be a religion of the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man – not without the christological and eschatological qualifications supplied by Paul on Mars Hill and by Augustine in The City of God. For there are in the saeculum two cities, not one, two fraternities, not one. To pass over that (as I pointed out when Caritas appeared) is not to build fraternity but to bake bricks for Babel.

Catholic Christianity is the religion, precisely the religion, propounded by Paul on Mars Hill: a generous and welcoming and solicitous religion, yes; a religion of peace and readiness for dialogue, a religion that cooperates with divine providence in the care of peoples and nations; but ever and always also a religion that proclaims, openly and without hint of embarrassment, that what the peoples of the world most require to know is that Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

This is what every Mass attests. This is what Paul told the Stoics and Epicureans. This is what St Francis told the Sultan and what Pope Francis should tell the Grand Imam, if he hasn’t already. This is what we should tell our neighbors, as well as show our neighbors. For there is no other way to be anyone’s brother or sister, Christianly speaking, except by both showing and telling. If the global and the local, “universal fraternity and social friendship,” are “two inseparable and equally vital poles” (§142), so likewise, both locally and globally, are showing and telling. Here too – here far more certainly! – we must say that “to separate them would be to disfigure each and to create a dangerous polarization.”

Why? Because, as Gaudium et Spes insisted, putting down its own christological anchor at §22, “the truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light.”

Editor’s note: This is the sixth of several CWR essays on Fratelli Tutti and related topics. The other essays are:
• “Fratelli Tutti is a familiar mixture of dubious claims, strawmen, genuine insights” (Oct. 5, 2020) by Samuel Gregg
• “An encyclical filled with tensions and omissions” (Oct. 8, 2020) by Paulo Futili
• Fratelli Tutti and its critics” (Oct. 9, 2020) by Larry Chapp
• “Culture, dialogue, religion, and truth in Fratelli Tutti (Oct. 9, 2020) by Eduardo Echeverria
• “Brothers without Borders: Pope Francis’s Quasi-Humanitarian Manifesto” (Oct. 10, 2020) by Daniel J. Mahoney


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Dr. Douglas Farrow 15 Articles
Douglas Farrow is Professor of Theology and Christian Thought at McGill University, and the author of several books including Theological Negotiations: Proposals in Soteriology and Anthropology (Baker Academic, 2018) and a new commentary on Thessalonians (Brazos, 2020).

21 Comments

  1. I, for one, do not believe that this Tutti Fruiti document is authentically Christian. Christ is my Savior and it is Him and Him alone who I will proclaim as Savior of ALL mankind. And I reject the notion that I worship the same God as the Muslims, Hindus, Gaists, Pachamamma Amazonians or Buddhists do.

    • Pope Francis, is an objective seer. His objective truth will one-day be appreciated by theologians and laities. Genesis 1. 27 Man is creted in the image of God. Genesis 2.7 Man is alive through the breath of life of God. Matthew 4.4 what sustain man’s life is not food, but the breath of life of God. At death, irrespective of faith in God or not, let alone in Christ, the breath of life of God in man goes back to God (Ecclesiastes 22:7).

      Thus Pope Francis knows that prayers to God addressed through the name of any saint, or dead parents will connect the man with the Ultimate Spirit of the life causation (Genesis 1.2b).

  2. With Dr. Farrow, we read from Fratelli tutti: ““Let us dream, then, as a single human family, as fellow travelers sharing the same flesh, as children of the same earth which is our common home, each of us bringing the richness of his or her beliefs and convictions, each of us with his or her own voice, brothers and sisters all” (§8).

    Might we simply suspect, here, an inept effort to both serve as MEDIATOR between the “brotherhood” of Freemasonry and the “brotherhood” of Islam, AND to graft the Gospel to a salt-free “integral ecology”?

    Surely, the CALLING and TEACHABLE MOMENT is to be more than a harmonizer—-more steadfast, and twofold: (1) continue to clean house, e.g., Becciu, plus more than private “concern” over the “binding synodal path” in Germania/Europia, and (2) above the cultural/religious “pluralism” of the Islamic [!] Abu Dhabi Declaration, a more substantive “dialogue.”

    Perhaps with questions such as these:

    FREEMASONRY. Of the “integral ecology” and one-world Freemason illuminati, this non-delusional (and almost-Islamic: fatalistic?) biblical insight: “You have no idea what your life will be like tomorrow . . . (you should say) ‘If the Lord wills it, we shall live to do this or that’” (James 4:14-15).

    ISLAM. What if Muhammad had heard of the real Incarnation of Christ rather than the Nestorian or homegrown mutations (the hanifs), as near the end of his life when HE remarked: “If the merciful had a son, I would be the first to adore him” (Q43:81).

    And, what of Muslim philosopher-theologian EL AKKAD (1956): “It all comes down to knowing WHETHER one should hold strictly to the fundamental religious values which were those of Abraham and Moses, on pain of falling into blasphemy—-as the Muslims believe; OR whether God has called men to approach him more closely, revealing to them little by little their fundamental condition as sinful men, and the forgiveness that transforms them and prepares them for the beatific vision—as Christian dogma teaches” (quoted in Jean Guitton, The Great Heresies and Church Councils, 1965, p. 117.)

    And to both (a) the FREEMASONS who would be God, and to (b) stillborn ISLAM which claims only to rest in Qur’anic “dictation” from Allah—-and to (c) FRATELLI TUTTI (truncated [!] as Dr. Farrow explains)—-this from the witness St. John: “We have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as savior of the world. Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God REMAINS IN HIM and HE IN GOD” (1 Jn 4:14-15).

  3. ” Do you think that I have come to bring peace into the world? No, not peace, but division.” — some guy whose name I can’t remember.

  4. Arguments are all good Dr Farrow Dr Beaulieu hit all the right points consistent with the majority of assessments. Both highlight Fratelli’s prologue manifesto, “Let us dream, then, as a single human family, as fellow travelers sharing the same flesh, as children of the same earth which is our common home, each of us bringing the richness of his or her beliefs and convictions, each of us with his or her own voice, brothers and sisters all” (§8). King’s I have a dream speech comes to mind, as is the worrisome term “fellow travelers” first applied by Trotsky, the poputchik who follows the same path adopted in Am for the philosophically inclined. What then can I contribute to a horse beaten unto death? Manifesto? We have the eminent Cardinal Müller dutifully affirming Fratelli’s orthodoxy, as he well might because it is, at least understood as incorporated in the document. As it was in Amoris. Within the text if read critically eyes wide open a grand vision of togetherness within which Christ’s fiery call is absent. A challenge to the reader of Fratelli is the demand, if whether he’s an incense scented Roman Catholic, obstinate, unconvinced of New Paradigm morality, or is he a poputchik

  5. The statue incidents and all help us to see how the Lord’s Name has been
    ‘ blasphemed ‘ among the ‘gentiles ‘ – that could include the baptized as well as the promise to love God , with all mind and heart often not grasped for what it truly means …the accumulated debt from same having made many thirsting for more ..

    God , having foreseen our times , having prepared the remedy long ago , revealed and shared more in our times , through many , having chosen one with a first grade education to reveal its simple yet profound and satisfying banquet ; glad to have come across the site below that explains same well enough , to also help to read through the F.T . , with the heart of a true brother , in The Mother , as in invite to live in the ‘ Francis Times ‘ , as the Father’s Time , in the fullness of The Son ‘s desire to bring all , to give glory to The Father –

    https://dsdoconnor.com/sure-ways-to-live-in-the-divine-will-2/

    Blessings !

  6. Look no further than Jeremiah to explain this document.

    Jeremiah 2:13
    13 “My people have committed two sins:
    They have forsaken me,
    the spring of living water,
    and have dug their own cisterns,
    broken cisterns that cannot hold water.

    It takes a lot of effort to say so little in so many words. This document has more words than the book of Jeremiah, which happens to be the longest book in the Bible, and yet doesn’t contain 1/10000000 of the Truth.

  7. And just how does Bergoglio have access to “God’s way of seeing things”? Wouldn’t having such access exclude precisely the kind of religious relativism that Bergoglio otherwise proposes?

  8. Prophecy of Fulton Sheen coming to fruition in our midst.

    “[Satan] will set up a counter church, which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church … It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. We are living in the days of the Apocalypse, the last days of our era. The two great forces — the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of the anti-Christ — are beginning to draw battle lines for the catastrophic contest. The false prophet will have a religion without a Cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit church.

    Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church will be one; and the false prophet will create the other. The false church will be worldly, ecumenical and global. It will be a loose federation of churches and religions, forming some type of global association. A world parliament of churches. It will be emptied of all divine content, it will be the mystical body of the anti-christ. The Mystical Body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot, and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from our bishops.

    The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise, he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes him, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himself as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.”

    Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather, is he described as an angel fallen from Heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no Heaven, there is no Hell; if there is no Hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge; and if there is no judgment, then evil is good, and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect — and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect.

    How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion? The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the great humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty, not as means to lead us to God but as ends in themselves.

    The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion or a politics which is a religion — one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s. In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret, which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God.

    Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counter church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all its externals resemble the mystical body of Christ.”

  9. The theologian Bernard Lonergan develops the idea of “inverse insight,” or the “AHA moment” when a light goes on….While it still does not satisfy, might critics like myself consider whether Fratelli tutti (with its naturalistic omissions noted above) can also be seen as simply an effort to “leaven FROM WITHIN” (Pope John XXIII)…

    Perhaps as expressed by a Quaker missionary in exactly 43 words rather than 43,000? “I shall pass this way but once: any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being; let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again” (Etienne de Grellet (1773-1855).

    THEN, from the interreligious angle, we also can consider Islamic “fitrah” which is defined by Sufis (e.g., al Azhar University) as guidance or a predisposition FROM WITHIN, yet more than an instinct, and leading to a truthful life for those who have a longing soul (“those who have faith and do righteous deeds,” a quote appearing some fifty times in the Qur’an). Various translations of fitrah are “natural disposition, constitution, temperament, e.g., what is in a man at his creation, a sound nature, natural religion (and) the germ of Islam.”

    In terms of universal “friendship,” maybe LESS the exclusive germ of “Islam”—-a natural religion where fitrah is conflated with alleged revelations? And MORE as the inborn and universal “human nature” as such—-which is then confirmed and elevated by the distinct and “divine nature” in the Incarnation? That is, the redeeming Christ as the grounding for a truly durable “friendship” in what is, after all, a fallen world?

    The proposed universal friendship of Fratelli tutti? Might modest “interreligious” dialogue focus LESS on what are in fact incompatible theologies than on philosophy—-that is, MORE on the congruence between (conflated) Islamic fitrah and (the Western distinction of universal) “natural law”? This CLARITY rather than the Abu Dhabi Declaration’s overlaid pluralism of “religions”?

  10. What if Salt loses its savor? Christ poses the question that underscores Dr Farrow’s critique. A textual analysis shows a radical difference in messaging seen in the coercive feature, my contribution to the discussion of the Gospel v the evanescent tone of Fratelli. Analysis requires definition, coercive understood as required acquiescence given freely. Required for salvation, freely given in accord with free choice [Liberum arbitrium in Aquinas]. An Open World Ch 3 Love is unique love is open love integrates. Three defining features of love compared to love as taught by Christ. Whereas the Pontiff defines that uniqueness to social justice as opposed to greed, love is revealed by Christ as God’s love for us in his Son, that it is He who loved us first. This redline between love revealed by the divinity, love that first of all effects in us love of the divinity, is separate from love undergirded by the values of communal justice, the latter more Marxist the former divine. Whereas divine love infused by the Holy Spirit effects love of its source and definition, that requires repentance, and interior, personal, moral formation – communal love begins with ideology. “Some believers think that it consists in the imposition of their own ideologies upon everyone else” Ad 92. In repudiating the feature of coercive revelation, we repudiate the same Christ who commands us. And relegate Kerygma to questionable ideology. We repudiate Christ the Word who is both beloved and Truth, who makes clear, “And if they do not receive you, or listen to you, when you leave, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them. Truly I say to you It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city” (Mk 6:11). A person’s personal moral sanctity justifies him before God. And with Grace the gift of the Holy Spirit prepares him to love his neighbor free from ideology, and free from any larger agenda such as global unity. His motives are purified by divine love, by the Word alive within us and free from any self indulgent interest whatever that may be. In other words, although unity and brotherhood are good, those interests do not determine the purity of his interior motive, love of the divine Word who is love itself to love his neighbor. This purification of motive, that is of the will, distinguishes Christ’s revelation from all ideology and sets the groundwork for unity founded on that exceptional love of neighbor for whom we are prepared to lay down our life, rather than an ideologized unity achieved by universal external standards, whether consistent with Natural Law, because the divinity exceeds anything found in human nature, or such as we have within Marxist oriented socialism. Anthropology then is not distinguished by a created ideology of brotherhood. Rather it is determined by the divinely ordered nature of Man and his teleological end in God. Revealed exclusively in His Son.

    • Agreed. Totally. My lesser point was simply that grace perfects–does not annihilate–nature. As for the nature of nature, so to speak, Catholic theologians struggled mightily toward their final rejection of a theoretical “pure nature” (“pure” in the sense of being totally devoid of divine grace in some sense).

      My comment allows for all the rest to be added, if those in dialogue first agree to at least leave their complete and predisposing arsenals at the door. Is such a pause a Western-style “ideology,” or is it more like the more original Truce of God which finds a place in the history Christianity, and a counterpart in Arabia and then Islam–and occasionally on both sides during the Crusades?

      Yes, as you say better than I, this rudimentary pause and sorta-“natural” step is considerably less than what is ultimately needed–the kind of love which is charity (one of the three “theological” virtues).

  11. Pope Francis evidently views the Trinity as a stumbling block in the development of friendship. Does he also embrace the pelagian idea that man can be his own savior? Perhaps Bergoglio was correct, after all, to refuse the papal title ‘Vicar of Christ.’

  12. Chief Red Coat, of the Native American Indians in way said it best. The Native Americans never argued about who had the right God, they All Called the Great Spirit. They knew of the Great Flood, general Bible Stories that was known before the White people came and ASSUME they originally thought, assume they came all knowing.
    What we read here, is NOT Catholic of mind, in JUDGEMENT of others.. Assuming all knowing of who God has reveled himself to..

    Its always a good question to ask the all knowing experts, how did the Catholic church exist for 500 years till the Catholic church itself put the Bible together, so they could read and figure it all out?
    For the Catholic Church originated on Tradition, and still does today, Under God.. Not the Bible alone, the Church put together.
    Judging the Pope, Real Catholics see as guided by God, is very interesting. As Judging the Islamic is also interesting, in the realization the United States exterminates them by Genocide this very hour, Murders them for Wealth for a few.
    Yet not a single Catholic leader dares to stand against the worst atrocity in World history, inflicted on Man, by Man, the USA..

    • Your thinking is disorganized and irrational. Please edit your writing carefully for wording, flow, and clarity. Editing out the ridiculous anti-American biases in your thinking might strengthen your argument somewhat.

  13. What a noticeable difference there is between Fratelli Tutti and the declaration Dominus Iesus. Recourse to the latter would be helpful in light of the points made by Douglas Farrow.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Reading Fratelli Tutti on Mars Hill - Catholic Mass Search

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*