Posted on 07/30/2015 11:08:14 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
“Praise be to You” (“Laudato Si”) – Pope Francis’ environmental letter --- is a different kind of encyclical, and invites a different kind of response from most of its predecessors. In this essay I hope to put the spotlight on the ways this encyclical is unprecedented, and also selectively highlight its positive contributions to Catholic Social Thought.
Historically, encyclicals were any official teaching letters concerning Catholic doctrine on faith and morals. They were sometimes addressed to bishops in a particular area, or sometimes to the bishops worldwide. Usually written in Latin, their titles were taken from the opening words of the letter.
The term "encyclical” acquired a more specific meaning when Pope Benedict XIV wrote a letter titled "Ubi Primum" (1740). which is is generally regarded as the first modern-sense encyclical: an official document responding to a theological controversy, and addressed to bishops, patriarchs, primates, and archbishops in communion with the Holy See. Its theological declarations are considered part of the Ordinary Magisterium, which means that they are authoritatively settling a dispute. It is not that its statements are infallible, but, as Pope Pius XII explained in Humani generis, “…usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter [of the faith], it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.”
The Magisterium (the role of Church as Teacher) pertains to matters of faith and morals, which is the special competence (area of authority) of the Bishops as successors of the Apostles and interpreters of the Apostles’ doctrine. The pope would usually quote Sacred Scripture and then summarize what other popes, plus Councils, synods, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, had written on the topic. He would confirm these, giving them a sort of ‘stamp of approval’. Only then would he add his own authoritative judgment. This is in accordance with Peter's appointed office and duty, given to him by Our Lord, to “Confirm the brethren” (Luke 22:32) The common slogan after Peter’s Successor weighed in on a matter, was “Roma locuta, causa finita”: “Rome has spoken: case closed.”
It is here that I can speak of the “different” nature of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si , in three areas:
1. Audience:LS is not a letter written to the bishops of the Catholic Church, but rather, a book (over 40,000 words) addressed, Pope Francis says, to “every person living on the planet.” While Pope John XXIII in his Peace Encyclical “Pacem in Terris” (1963) similarly called upon “the Catholic world” and “all men and women of good will, ”Francis takes this a step further in by assuming his readers may “reject the idea of a Creator”, consider faith to be “irrelevant or irrational,” or marginalize the religious as being, at best, “a subculture to be tolerated.” He is making his pitch to people who do not regard themselves as fellow believers. (Para 62). He speaks as if joining a panel discussion, and not invoking his position as a sovereign of ecclesiastical subjects.
2. Subject matter: In previous encyclicals, popes have focused on areas in which they have a unique competence: teaching faith and morals as these truths are sourced from the Apostles and applied to contemporary conditions. Laudato Si’ does this in about half of its text. The other half of the text deals heavily with Prudential Judgments or Non-theological subjects.
Prudential judgment means a practical choice between two or more competing goods in which none of the choices is a sin. It’s simply a matter of practicality: weighing costs and benefits. Political policy questions commonly fall under this category.
Non-theological Subjects: these are opinions or conclusions based on, usually, the natural and social sciences. This includes physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, diplomacy and politics. These assertions may be true or false, they may or may not have an impact on contingent questions, but in themselves they do not form part of the Magisterium.
3. Level of Authority. Unlike Pope Pius XII, who said in Humani Generis that he wished to provide closure on a topic previously considered “a question of free discussion among theologians.” Pope Francis aims for the opposite: he is writing to kick open a topic for discussion,
This unsettling idea of "encyclical as dialogue platform" is an innovation, because there has never been a precedent, an encyclical which was manifestly NOT meant to be authoritative. But here you have it, in Pope Francis' own words (paragraph numbers provided):
(14 )“I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue … We need a new conversation…raising awareness of these challenges…”
(15) “I will advance…proposals for dialogue and action…”
(16) “[This is] the call to seek other ways of understanding… the need for forthright and honest debate…”
(19)”Our goal is… to become painfully aware [of] what is happening to our world…”
“Dialogue,” “conversation,” “proposals,” “debate,” awareness-raising --- these words establish that the papal intent here is to spark a discussion, not to define some new doctrine.
“On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion” Laudato Si’ (61).
This disavowal of an authoritative tone is perhaps an experiment with the concept of Church as one voice in a symposium of many voices. Humble and realistic as such a disavowal is, it opens up a new kind of difficulty.
As I mentioned before, almost half of this encyclical is concerned with “faith and morals,” and therefore is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. The parts which pronounce a moral judgment of ideologies as true or false, a moral evaluation of policies as good or evil, a moral critique of behavior as right or wrong, are, and necessarily have to be, authoritative. This means they are binding.
The assertions of scientists and economists can volley back and forth over a decade-- and politicians’ views reverse themselves from one news cycle to the next --- but the fundamental truths about true and false, right or wrong, God and man, do not change. They surely develop; they may branch out and deepen; but they do not dissolve.
Pope Francis unfortunately does not color-code his paragraphs, and consequently it can be difficult to make a determination on what is binding here as a matter of doctrine, and what is not. In public discussion, some parts of it which are non-Magisterial (e.g. matters of science, economics, and public policy) are being opportunistically trumpeted as the Gospel Truth (“our marching orders!” as one commentator put it) ---and other parts which are eternal truths-with-a-capital-T from the prophets of Israel and the Fathers of the Church --- even from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself – are wrongly relativized as personal preferences, or even set aside as a kind of sentimental churchtalk which has no relevance in the Hard-Headed World of money, power, and Realpolitik.
"Blessed the one whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord, his God,
The maker of heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them,
Who keeps faith forever.”
Psalm 146
First, we must to make a distinction between Magisterial and non-Magisterial teaching; second, within the Magisterial teachings, a distinction between different levels of authority.
Consider this example relating to “Water Justice”.
1. "Blessed the one whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord, his God,
The maker of heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them,
Who keeps faith forever,
secures justice for the oppressed (Psalm 146:5-7)
2. God made and owns all the water on the planet. He created food and drink for the good of all His creatures. (Ibid.) (Psalm 145:16 - “You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.”)
3. When the Son of Man comes, He will judge us on criteria such as "When I was thirsty, you gave Me to drink: for whatever you do to the least of My brethren, you do unto Me." (Matthew 25:31-46)
4. It is murder to knowingly or negligently deny someone nutrition/hydration in such a way that it causes or hastens their death.
5. It’s wrong to expose people to pathogens or poisons in their drinking water.
6. To protect drinking water from pathogens, water suppliers often add a disinfectant such as chlorine. However, chlorine itself produces byproducts which are poisons and may pose health risks.
7. Water suppliers have a moral responsibility to provide protection from pathogens while simultaneously minimizing health risks from chlorine byproducts. Safe drinking water must be provided in amounts adequate for basic human needs (at least, preventing people dying of thirst).
Or, alternatively, tough international “enforcement” of water accords could lead to international tension and war. Perhaps every nation should prioritize self-sufficiency in their basic water supply.
As you can see, these statements all deal with water and a judgment between right and wrong. However they do not bear the same authority.
• #2 and #3 are faith/moral doctrines directly and necessarily derived from inerrant Revelation.
• #4 is Moral Law based on Divine and Natural Law, authoritatively expounded by the Catholic Church.
• #5 is a moral reflection, but not absolute as stated: it is contingent and partially a prudential judgment, as you can see when you look at #6 and #7.
• #6 is a scientific statement of fact. As such it is not part of Magisterial teaching. But it has an important impact on #5, as well as on #7 - #9.
• #8 is part of the long-accepted Social Teaching of the Church, and is necessarily derived from both Divine and Natural Law.
Divine Revelation shows us what God considers just behavior:
(Psalm 36:7) "Your justice is like the highest mountains; your judgments, like the mighty deep; human being and beast you sustain, Lord." -- the Lord's justice sustains life;
(Proverbs 31:9) "Open your mouth, judge justly, defend the needy and the poor!" --- public authorities' first duty is justice, and that includes defending life, even for helpless people who at the time can't pay for its necessities.
“I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.” (14)
Bottom line, what are we supposed to do? Does every person have to decide what is and is not called for in Laudato Si’? Won’t that lead to a lot of arguments?
People will certainly be volleying opinions back and forth for quite some time. It is necessary, though, to recognize basic guidelines which can make discussions fruitful.
First: respect for Pope Francis. He is the Successor of Peter and the temporal head of Christ’s Church on earth. He is both the supreme Pastor (Shepherd) and a real philosopher. You respect a Shepherd by following him. You respect a philosopher by arguing with him.
Second: the hierarchy is competent to rule on faith and morals, the proper content of theology; they are not authoritative on other matters such as molecular biology, party platforms, small engine repair or weather forecasting.
Third: in a social encyclical, one finds statements of general principles.
These are the most authoritative. One also finds various analyses of particular political, economic, and social situations. These involve judgments of a prudential sort that are not binding in either the “de fide” or the authoritative sense. They still merit respectful attention, as coming from the supreme earthly shepherd of the Church.
For example, the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity; the right to own private property and the limits on the exercise of that right; the centrality of Holy Marriage and the Natural Family as social institutions; God’s intent that the poor and generations yet unborn should have access to Earth’s resources; the goodness of Creation in itself and not just as an industrial “raw material” --- these are highly authoritative. But the more one descends to particulars, the less one is dealing with “binding doctrine” and the more one is dealing with practical guidance or even political opinion, which is as good as your plumber’s opinion, neither necessarily better or worse.
Fourth: parts of Laudato Si’ are poetic, prayerful, touching and lovely. Pope Francis uses words like “generosity” and “tenderness” in an ecological context which you never hear from anybody else. Now’s a good time to look up St. Francis of Assisi’s wonderful Canticle of the Sun (the theme of this encyclical) first set to music by St. Francis himself. Try YouTube: (first type http://tinyurl.com/ and then type the word Canticle and the letter.)
Canticle-A An original arrangement, and the pictures are especially nice
Canticle-B With music by Maurice Jarre
Canticle-C Orchestral setting by Kenneth Fuchs (23 minutes)
Canticle-D Contemporary Praise-chorus-type (“O Praise Him”) background
Canticle-E Could you call this the hippie version ? (Francis of Assisi-like, kinda)
…and just for fun, here’s Celtic Thunder singing “All God’s Creatures Got a Place in the Choir
http://tinyurl.com/Place-In-The-Choir
.
As I mentioned on Page 4, Pope Francis did not color-code the paragraphs of his encyclical!. But I made an (unofficial) attempt to do so. To receive a free copy of Laudato Si by e-mail, highlighted to indicate different subject matters and thus levels of authority, please request your copy by sending an e-mail to Disciple editor at jlw509@embarqmail.com
Saving features: (1) he does admit that this is just "discussion", not "doctrine" (although in tone he's by turns dialoguing and pontificating), and (2) it's so internally twisty-tailed around I don't think it's going to get a wide readership.
As far as I can see, it's basically a hash of "United Religions" and "Agenda 21".
Being used by the Left? To the hilt, and apparently that's OK by him.
God save Pope Francis.
God save the Catholic Church.
I loved Benedict XVI. There was holiness in the man that was deep and wide and he brought the Church up, not down.
He was a teaching shepherd who tried to repair from V2.
Devout Catholics want to be led and taught. There are 2000 years to learn and to apply. There is no time for an administrative gadfly, we need a great shepherd who will fight Satan on his knees and take us through the battle with the Sacraments fully embraced and administered.
I appreciate your hard work, the effort you put into this, and your conclusions. I will contemplate your critique and if any specific comments or questions come to mind, post them.
Thank you and God bless you.
*8After some last-ditch prayers, I finally settled on an approach that I think is fully honest and makes sense to me. It focuses on the fact that less than half of this encyclical is actually part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and one must discern carefully between magisterial teachings and (ahem) the more debatable “prudential judgments”.**
Excellent approach.
Amen Times Ten.
Thanks. I had to sweat bullets over it. :o}
Adept (and tactful) analysis. Well done.
This is the sign of the Holy Spirit's presence.
Psalm 85:11
Love and truth will meet; justice and peace will kiss.
I had thought that Pope Francis was trying to make a misguided "missionary pitch" to the Left/seculars --- and that's part of it --- but now I see it is part of his pitch to the Orthodox and the Anglicans.
I am convinced this is strategically wrong, because nothing can be "strategically right" if it is dubious as per its practical judgments. In terms of papal diplomacy, this is disastrous, in my view --- especially if it succeeds --- because it will succeed in a destructive way, and for the wrong reasons.
I still credit the Pope with good intentions. I think he loves Our Lord. I fear he is (unintentionally, obliquely) helping the Left use God ---as if this were possible--- as an organizing tool.
God save Pope Francis.
God save the Church.
- but now I see it is part of his pitch to the Orthodox and the Anglicans.
I am not that involved, but you misread the article. His pitch is to the secularists through environmentalism(reaching the Godless and pagan). According to the article he is copying the Orthodox and Anglicans.
Thanks for the correction.
P.S. Pope Francis said once that for the Church to act like a NGO was "demonic". His word, not mine.
The problem here is not that we disrespect the authority of the successor of St. Peter, the problem is that he does not respect it.
So now we have faithful Catholic data mining this document for theological or moral truth, like digging through a manure pile looking for a shiny quarter.
You did the best you could and it was respectfully done. This paper (hesitating to call it an encyclical) has all the earmarks of a committee product with its internal inconsistencies — both substantively and in style. The Pope told us it was Turkson’s “team” on the first draft and, later, unnamed theologians on the third draft. Color coding? Not a bad idea; you could have colors for The Good, the Bad, and the Silly.
Overall the document is clearly buying into man-made global warming and in the background are the themes of liberation theology. The hands are the hands of Francis but the voice is the voice of Leonardo Boff (e.g., the “cry of the earth” is in the title of one of Boff’s books). This paper cites the Rio conference of 1992: that’s where they sang, “Were You There When the Crucified the Earth?”
After reading this far on this thread I can only think of one thing:
Let us pray.
Everyone is too busy thinking and talking and analyzing and —well, pontificating.
Let us pray.
Sometimes I am grateful that I am not learned. It gives me my best excuse for falling back on prayer in every time of doubt and need for spiritual discernment.
Jeremiah 30:28
Let us pray.
You cited Jeremiah 30:28. Jeremiah 30 just has 24 verses. Is this a typo? Please re-recommend that verse, I'd like to look it up.
It's half "Laudato Si" (and dedicated to God) and half "Mr. Bergoglio's Environmental Manifesto." He seemingly both doesn't want, and does want, the authority of the Laudato to bleed into the Manifesto.
What a hash. And it will have the longer-range effect --- I can see it now --- of undermining the dignity of the papacy.
What could a subsequent pope do about this? Repudiate it? Sort it into two piles and repudiate half of it?
And poor Benedict must be wringing his hands.
How I miss Benedict.
Its essence is anti-Catholic, with a few strategic fig leaves scattered throughout the eco-socialist rhetoric to assuage the credulous Catholic reader.
This paper cites the Rio conference of 1992: that’s where they sang, “Were You There When the Crucified the Earth?”
Disgusting.
There's no doubt this thing bifurcates on authors and on authority. (I like what you said about the hands vs the voice, like Esau/Jacob.) Not that I am an expert on the background documents--- I'm not --- but what I'm thinking is that the "business" end was written by somebody like Jeffrey Sachs and he just cut and pasted chunks from "Religions United" and "Agenda 21".
Why not? Pope Pius VI condemned an entire synod.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.