Weigel’s Attempt at Source Criticism Continues to Get Well-Earned Derision

George Weigel’s preposterous attempt at subjecting the new encyclical to JEPD exegesis continues to garner all the plaudits it deserves from people who are not dedicated to hacking away at it until it says what NRO wants it to say. From early notices which hail his deeply respectful assessment of the encyclical as “duck-billed platypus” as “arrogant“, to later assessments like “Shorter George Weigel: The only parts of the Pope’s new encyclical that really matter are the ones that line up neatly with the Republican Party’s political agenda; all the rest is incomprehensible and quite possibly stupid” the kudos are coming in fast and thick.

For a serious, not to say methodical (as in in “not one stone left standing on another”) takedown of Weigel’s attempt at subjecting the encyclical to Jesus Seminar methodologies of color-coding the text according to R and JP sources, I have not read anything better than this.

And finally, a reader notes something I’ve often noticed too:

Just once in my life I hope to read something like this: “Through careful dispassionate objective analysis, I have divided this great authoritative text into the Genuine Authentic Authoritative Original parts and the Spurious Late Additions of Ignorant Editors. And doggone it, it turns out all the genuine stuff is in irreconcilable conflict with my opinions, while I find I totally agree with all the Spurious Additions. There must be something wrong with me!”

It’s like Calvinists. How is it that every single Calvinist I’ve ever met just happens to be one of the winners of the Cosmic Lottery that made him elect? I’ve never met a Calvinist who is absolutely certain of his damnation by the sovereign will of Almighty God.

Anyway, I still have no comment on the encyclical itself for the simple reason I’ve had no time to read it. Maybe this weekend.