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
It was a typo. It’s Jeremiah 30:24 and had you read verse 24 you would have seen it.
At this point, I will leave this thread.
Ping to an interesting discussion.
Should our parish run low on bathroom tissue, I might be able to find a good use for Laudato Si.
It’s a tough business. I don’t like to speak ill of the Pope. But my first reaction these days, more often than not, is—what a jerk. Even when he says something perfectly harmless, he always seems to be thinking about himself, and how he can make a good impression. Yet, one should speak respectfully of the Pope and his office, or keep one’s mouth shut.
If any Protestants read this, they should keep in mind that the world will be a better place if the Pope doesn’t go off the rails. Just as Catholics should keep in mind that the world will be a better place if Protestant pastors and leaders stick to the Bible and basic Christian principles.
If the Pope is a jerk, that shouldn’t make anyone happy.
The parts Pope Francis cribbed from "Religions United" and "Agenda 21" would compost suitably with some additional nitrogen sources.
And compost produces CO2, which is a nice touch.
Send me a Private Message with your e-mail address and I’ll get it right into your in-box.
Oft thought but ne’er so ell expressed.
If the Pope wanted to open discussion, he would have chosen another vehicle. If you disagree, you are hit over the head with “encyclical”. My priest compared Francis to the prophet Amos! Could I have a second helping of hubris? We need a Pope who is a little less Jesuit in his opinion of his own wisdom, and maybe a little more humble when it’s not for show.
Pride is less about wearing Prada or Gucci and more about thinking you’re the smartest and holiest guy in the room.
"So, anyhoo, that's my two cents' worth. YMMV. What do the rest of you guys think? Sincerely, Sr. J. Bergoglio."
That would have been welcome, I agree with you. There’s a danger of schism from this.
Perhaps more than a positive spin, the intent of having given the bishop the responsibility of sorting out the facts of the entire document in context, rather than listening to the fodder from the MSM. His writings as a whole are actually very good. I can’t believe people actually think his desire is to rule the world.
Aye! There's the rub!- as Mr. Shakespeare said. Do people really think for themselves today? This is not the era of Huntley/Brinkley, or Cronkite. It's all full of opinion and slant. Universities teach secular philosophies over the classical. Kids come out of college with all sorts of ideas: they are "taught to think critically" but how much is their own thought, over that of their professors?
Few people will read the actual document. They are satisfied with the MSM speculation which existed long before the document was promulgated. Most people will not bother to read it. They will just be reeds in the prevailing wind. Then shoot their judgements from the hip.
Catholic ping!
I think you are much wiser than you give yourself for: prayer, especially to the Holy Ghost, is the best answer of all!
Look at (24): the entire paragraph is based on the assumption that CO2 is pollution. "Carbon dioxide pollution" is named in the 5th sentence, and in (25) is singled out again: "here is an urgent seen that... the emision of carbon dioxide be drastically reduced..." In (51) the encyclical deplores "gas residues which have been accumulating for two centuries" -- from the context, that must be combustion products of fuels that have been burned since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, from around 1800 with the conversion from charcoal to coke/coal and the use of steam engines.
So yeah, this is a lament against all the fossil fuels that have powered industrial progress for the last 200 years, and lifted vast numbers of people from destitution.
From a practical point of view, one of the essentials needed for poor people to achieve a dignified life with adequate food and fuel year-round, is cheap energy. That's fossil fuels or nuclear. There's simply no way around it.
Pope Francis doesn't seem to know that Julian Simon won the famous Ehrlich-Simon wager. Nor does he, apparently, understand why.
"We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions."<> We do not know this. It is an assumption of a certain hypothesis, one whose evidence is failing, but which is simply stated as fact as a (non-Magisterial) judgment in the encyclical.
Though looking at the paragraphs you cited, like 51 does not leave any wiggle room: “The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries”...
I'll probably not bother reading the entire thing; there are too many other encyclicals I'd rather read. That's another reason to appreciate your fine analysis- thanks again!
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.