LAUDATO SI' -- Enironmental Encyclical - COMMENTARY FOR PARISH USE - 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.

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…”

(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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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-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

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

This is a really good piece and I appreciate the emotional detachment with which it was written.

There are a couple of points that I'd address. One I'll discuss below and, perhaps, will address more later on.

First, the issue of the encyclical's Chapter 4 (Integral Econology).

First, the concept itself. The term "integral ecology" was initially termed by Dr. Hilary Moore in his 1958 book Marine Biology, where he defined it as the merger between synecology and autecology. However, it was popularized in Ken Wilber's originally described in his 1995, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (and summarized in his 2000 book, A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality).

Wilber is known as the father of Integral Theory, where he attempts to merge Eastern Religious Philosophy with Western philosophical constructs. With the fully predictable results.

Sadly, in Chapter 4 of LS, this vision of nature espoused by Wilber seems to be fully engrained.

Contrast Caritas in Veritate with Laudato Sì:

CV (50): Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world's population. On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God's gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”.

You will note that the tone of this passage is stewardship.. Nature is God's gift to man...all men. And thus it is man's responsibility to steward nature so that the gift will be available to all men and to all of our descendants.

LS (138-139): 138. Ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment in which they develop. This necessarily entails reflection and debate about the conditions required for the life and survival of society, and the honesty needed to question certain models of development, production and consumption. It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. Time and space are not independent of one another, and not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation. Just as the different aspects of the planet – physical, chemical and biological – are interrelated, so too living species are part of a network which we will never fully explore and understand. A good part of our genetic code is shared by many living beings. It follows that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality.
139. When we speak of the “environment”, what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it. Recognizing the reasons why a given area is polluted requires a study of the workings of society, its economy, its behaviour patterns, and the ways it grasps reality. Given the scale of change, it is no longer possible to find a specific, discrete answer for each part of the problem. It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature.

You will note that this talks about man being simply another part of nature. A distinctly different tone than I, personally, have read in any other formal papal document. And, disturbingly, one that sounds like it could have come out of Ken Wilber's mouth.

Just for reference, let us examine some extraordinary Magisterium on the subject:

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

I'd say that this is fairly clear.

Later in Chapter 4, he cites Principle 4 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, even going as far as to quote from it: The protection of the environment is in fact “an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it”.

Here is the full text of that principle: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

You will note the term sustainable development. (the term is also cited later on in Chapter 4...paragraph 159)

The term "sustainable development" has some very, very troubling implications. Since we were talking about the Rio Declarations, let's look at Principle 8:

To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

Guess what the UN means when talking about appropriate demographic policies? Included in those policies:

5.12. Awareness should be increased of the fundamental linkages between improving the status of women and demographic dynamics, particularly through women's access to education, primary and reproductive health care programmes, economic independence and their effective, equitable participation in all levels of decision-making.
United Nations Environmental Programme, Demographic Dynamics and Sustainability

The other thing is, in general, statements that are directly contradictory to the already extant Magisterium. For example, he repeatedly decries inequality. Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, and John Paul II directly contradict him. I can work examples, but I'm sure you're already familiar with them.

Yes, I recognize that this document is mostly in the realm of prudential judgment and even testifies of itself in that fashion, but most with agendas will not make that distinction and, frankly, we can't expect most Catholics (your Joe Six-Pack in the pew) to appreciate that difference. And I have a very hard time believing that Francis wouldn't have known that going in.

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.

=:o/