Pope's first encyclical on love and sex is lost in translation

POPE BENEDICT XVI’s first important pronouncement has been delayed by an unprecedented tussle over the final wording between key Vatican departments and the Pope’s German household staff.

Vatican officials said that the delay in publishing the encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, on the subject of love, was because of the Pope’s busy schedule over Christmas.

Other Vatican sources said, however, that the reason was a disagreement over the translation of the final 50-page draft into various languages, inclu- ding English and Italian. The official language of encyclicals is Latin.

Andrea Tornielli, the Pope’s biographer, said that Pope Benedict had put the finishing touches to the text only late on Tuesday.

There had been “unheard- of tension” over the wording between the German section of the Secretariat of State, or Vatican Prime Minister’s office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pope’s German entourage, headed by Sister Ingrid Stampa, his housekeeper, and Father Georg Gaenswein, his secretary.

Sister Ingrid, 55, is regarded as the Pope’s confidante rather than merely head of his household. A member of the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary, she shares his interests in music and literature and has been his “right-hand woman” for 15 years.

Vatican sources said that tensions had been exacerbated because the Pope had written the first part of the encyclical in German during his summer break and the second part was an adaptation of a document left behind in Polish by the late John Paul II. It had been passed to Vatican specialists for further revision but remained unfinished at the time of John Paul’s death ten months ago. The two parts had had to be “harmonised”.

The Pope, responding to growing speculation about the delay, told pilgrims at his weekly audience yesterday that the release of the text, originally planned for early December, had been delayed until next Wednesday.

An encyclical is the most authoritative doctrinal statement a Pope can issue and this one has been eagerly awaited because the first from each Pope is seen as a particularly important guide to his thinking. Pope Benedict said that it would discuss the concept of love “in its various dimensions” from “the love between man and woman to the love that the Catholic Church has for others in its expression of charity”. He added: “In today’s terminology, ‘love’ seems very far from what a Christian thinks about when he speaks of Christian charity. I want to show that it is about one single movement with different dimensions.” He noted the difference between “eros” — love between man and woman — and the Greek concept of “agape” or spiritual love.

This week the Italian press carried purported leaks from the text focusing on the concept of eros. Vatican officials, however, said that some of the quoted passages were inaccurate or speculative. The Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, which will issue the encyclical, said that it had still not received the final text.

Pope Benedict will visit the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls, the traditional venue for ecumenical celebrations, next Wednesday.

He said that the focus of his encyclical was not ecumenism, “but let us say the big picture is the ecumenical theme, because the love of God is the foundation of Christian unity and the condition for peace in the world”. According to Italian media reports, the Pope says in the encyclical that eros risks being degraded to mere sex if it does not have a balancing component of spiritual love.

In an unusual move, the encyclical will be the subject of a Vatican-sponsored conference next week involving Liliana Cavani, the film director, and James Wolfensohn, the former head of the World Bank. Signora Cavani is best known for The Night Porter and Ripley’s Game but is valued in the Vatican for an earlier film on the life of St Francis.

The late Pope John Paul II issued 14 encyclicals. The Vatican’s recent instruction banning homosexuals from the priesthood was also delayed for months because of disagreements over the wording.

Papal encyclicals: a brief history

special to CWNews.com

Jan. 18 (CWNews.com) - The encyclical Deus Caritas Est, scheduled for release on January 25, is the first such letter by Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news). But it is the 294th in a long list of encyclical letters by Roman Pontiffs dating back to Benedict XIV, whose pontificate stretched from 1740 to 1758.

Shortly after his election to the Chair of Peter, on December 3, 1740, Pope Benedict XIV released Ubi Primum, an encyclical on the ministry of bishops. Since that time, other Popes have used the same form to teach on a host of theological, ecclesiastical, and social topics.

The term "encyclical," drawn from the Greek word meaning "circular," refers to a letter that is meant to circulate among the bishops of the world (or, occasionally, some particular part of the world), providing instruction that is also usually addressed to the clergy, the Catholic faithful, and often to other "men of good will" outside the Catholic Church. The form of the encyclical letter allows the Pope a great latitude in choosing his subjects and his approach.

The title of an encyclical is always taken from the first words of the opening sentence. (Thus, although the text has not been released, it is now common knowledge that the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI begins with a quote from the Epistle of St. John: "God is love"-- Deus Caritas Est.) The official version of an encyclical is promulgated in Latin, except in those rare cases when the Pope is writing to a single nation, and uses the vernacular of that land.

Encyclicals have been used primarily for teaching, occasionally for cautionary messages, and in a few cases for condemnations. An encyclical might analyze current theological or social problems and propose remedies, or hold up exemplary figures like the Virgin Mary for the emulation of the faithful. But an encyclical is not the vehicle for proclaiming new dogmas.

Every recent Pontiff has produced encyclicals, with the single exception of Pope John Paul I, whose 33-day pontificate did not give him the opportunity for such a writing project. Pope John Paul II (bio - news) produced 14 encyclicals, marked by their length as well as their philosophical depth. But it was Pope Leo XIII (1878- 1903) who produced the greatest number of encyclicals: a remarkable 86 such documents during his own long pontificate. (That output is not quite as astonishing as the number might suggest. Many of the letters of Leo XII were quite short, and today would probably be classified as apostolic letters of simply as pontifical messages.)

Pope Piux XII (1939- 1958) was also a prolific author, producing 41 encyclicals. Other major contributors to the total of 293 papal encyclicals already in print include Popes Pius IX (1846- 1878) with 38, Pius XI (1922- 1939) with 32, Pius X (1902- 1914) with 16, and Benedict XIV, the author of the first encyclical, who eventually produced a total of 13. Among the most recent Roman Pontiffs, Pope John XXIII (1958- 1963) wrote 8, and Paul VI wrote 7.

Among the most memorable encyclicals are Rerum Novarum, in which Pope Leo XIII decried the conditions facing modern laborers in an industrial society. That document, published in 1891, is regarded as the foundation of modern Catholic social teaching, and the first in an important series of "social encyclicals." In fact several subsequent Popes have echoed the message of Rerum Novarum in their own encyclicals, sometimes publishing them on the anniversary of that first document. These major "social encyclicals" include Quadrejesimo Anno, published by Pope Piux XI some 40 years after Rerum Novarum; Mater et Magistra, written by John XXIII in 1961; and two encyclicals by John Paul II: Laborem Excercens (1981) and Centesimus Annus (doc) (1991)-- the latter dedicated to the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum. The important encyclicals on social issues also include Pacem in Terris, the 1963 on world peace by John XXIII; and Populorum Progressio, the 1967 document by Pope Paul VI on economic inequalities and development in the poor countries.

Many papal encyclicals have been produced to analyze and correct important errors in contemporary thought. In 1775 Pope Pius VI deplored the rise of atheism and the excesses of Englightenment philosophy in Inscrutabili Divinae Sapientiae. In 1864 Pope Pius IX warned against the errors of philosophical modernism in Quanta Cura, an encyclical that is remembered most vividly for its appendix, the Syllabus of Errors, which listed and condemned 80 propositions of modernist ideology. The Syllabus ended by deploring the notion that "the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."

In 1884 Pope Leo XIII condemned Masonic associations and other secret societies in Humanum Genus. And Pope Pius X, in 1907, repeated the condemnation of modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

A few encyclicals have addressed political problems in a particular country. In his 1870 letter Respicientes ea Omnia, Pope Pius IX decried the entry of Italian troops into Rome, bringing an end to secular power of the Pontiff as ruler of the papal states. And Pius X, in Vehementer Nos (1906), lamented the new French law establishing a strictly secular state.

The bloodshed of the 20th century also provoked condemnation in encyclicals. Pope Benedict XV, in 1914, wrote Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum Principis to call attention to the brutality of World War I. In 1937, with Mit Brenneder Sorge, Pope Pius XI warned the German people against the pagan and racist Nazi ideology. And in 1939, at the outset of World War II, Pope Pius XII proposed a Christian approach to peace in Summi Pontificatus.

Many papal encyclicals have been concerned with matters internal to the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII dedicated 11 different encyclicals to the Virgin Mary and the Rosary. Pope Benedict XV address missionary work in Maximum Illud (1919). Pope Pius XII wrote on liturgical music in Musicae Sacrae (1955). And Pope John Paul devoted Ut Unum Sint (doc) (1995) to the cause of ecumenism.

Perhaps the most controversial of all papal encyclicals, and certainly the one that provoked the most widespread public dissent, is Humanae Vitae (doc), the prescient 1968 letter in which Pope Paul VI upheld the traditional Christian teaching against the use of artificial contraception.

Definitiveness depends on the way something is stated, not the document in which it is contained. A papal bull can be very definitive or can deal with routine business.

Some encyclicals weren't even addressed to the entire church but to the bishops of one country and were written in German or Italian or Spanish rather than Latin(Mit Brennender Sorge, for instance). They can't have infallible or universal authority.

You can tell something is definitive and infallible if the passage announces that it intends to lay to rest a controversy definitively and invokes the authority of the Petrine office and ancient unbroken tradition (and in Evangelium vitaa, natural reason) solemnly, definitively.

Get a copy of Evangelium vitae and look at nos. 57, 62, and 65. Here he makes three infallible pronouncements: that all taking of innocent human life is without exception evil, that abortion (62) and euthanasia (65) are indeed instances of the evil denounced in # 57. Because some people have tried to argue that, while taking innocent human life is always wrong, abortion and/or are not instances of that--that's why he had to make 3 pronouncements rather than one. In each case he was making a definitive statement about something that, despite previous statements, Catholics in particular had continued to insist had not been definitively ruled on. They were stupid to make such claims, but such claims were being made, so, he obliged them with this extremely definitive language.

He builds up to this with a strong case for value of human life, even guilty human life (hence the permission to take guilty human life in war and capital punishment but only in very limited circumstances), then the total prohibition of taking innocent life in # 57.

In each of the three pronouncements he grounds the declaration both in (1) Holy Scripture and the unbroken teaching of the Church from Scripture and (2) in human reason accessible to everyone--to avoid people saying, your position is merely a sectarian religious position. So he believes he is merely confirming what should be obvious to everyone who can think and doubly obvious to Christians and Catholics who have revelation on top of reason.

In each case he invokes the formal language of Lumen Gentium # 25 where Vatican II reasserted Vatican I on papal infallibility. JPII preferred to invoke Luke 22:32 "Strengthen your brethren" as the fundamental text for Petrine infallibility.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the ordination of women is different. It is not an encyclical but it is a definitive and infallible declaration. But here he uses primarily the fact of Jesus's direct institution of the priesthood (institution of episcopacy, of which priests are adjuncts) and the Church unbroken factual action of ordaining only men. He confirms this practice as just, right, Christ-intended and by confirming it while invoking the language of Lk 22:32 (if I recall correctly) shows his "definitive intention." In effect he confirms a negative: in the face of dominical institution and unbroken continued practice, if a pope were to claim to make a change in this, now, after 1900 years, he would be claiming to do what he cannot do. In other words, papal infallibility cannot be used arbitrarily to overturn centuries of unbroken practice stretching back to Christ without implicitly denying that any real papal authority exists. The present-day pope cannot simply declare 1900 years of practice and the claim of original dominical instutition of the priesthood to have been a mistake without destroying the very authority by which he would be claiming to make such a declaration. It would be simply self-refuting, incoherent.

Not everyone was convinced that OS was infallible so they sent a Dubium (query) to the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith as to whether OS was intended to be infallible (intended to be definitive, to lay to rest, the controversy). The CDF said, yes it was and the pope approved the CDF response. The silly dissenters then said that the CDF doesn't have the authority to decide which papal statements are infallible or not--but they were at that point talking through their hats. If the CDF had come back saying, no, it was not infallible and definitive, I bet the people who sent the Dubium would have rejoiced at the CDF response and cited it as absolutely authoritative regarding how authoritative OS was.

The Pope doesn't hang "infallibility" seals on his declarations. We're supposed to be able to figure it out from how things are stated and were supposed to obey even the non-infallible teachings. If people persist in refusing to see the definitive language of a document, the only thing the pope does is to issue another, more definitive statement--as in Evangelium Vitae. But the language simply can't get any more definitive than that used in EV. And, in practice, I think the Catholic pro-aborts don't waste any breath anymore claiming that the pope has not spoken infallibly on abortion. They either say that the pope never speaks infallibly or insist Catholics are free to dissent from what he thinks he's taught infallibly (which amounts to the same thing). That he understood himself to be teaching infallibly in EV, I don't think any can really deny--the language there is as definitive as it gets, so it's a good way to learn how to recognize such language, keeping in mind that it can be stated more subtly as in OS.

In each case he invokes the formal language of Lumen Gentium # 25 where Vatican II reasserted Vatican I on papal infallibility. JPII preferred to invoke Luke 22:32 "Strengthen your brethren" as the fundamental text for Petrine infallibility.
The Pope doesn't hang "infallibility" seals on his declarations. We're supposed to be able to figure it out from how things are stated and were supposed to obey even the non-infallible teachings. If people persist in refusing to see the definitive language of a document, the only thing the pope does is to issue another, more definitive statement--as in Evangelium Vitae. But the language simply can't get any more definitive than that used in EV.

That he understood himself to be teaching infallibly in EV, I don't think any can really deny--the language there is as definitive as it gets, so it's a good way to learn how to recognize such language, keeping in mind that it can be stated more subtly as in OS.

Thanks for your reply. But the doctrine of Papal Infallibility wasn't formalised until Vatican I, obviously it needed to be formalised or else nothing prior to that would necessarily be considered infallible. The fact that we are meant to rely on the clarity of the statements rather than formal pronouncements seems to leave the door wide open for misinterpretation. This forum has incuded Catholics who disagree on just what exactly constitutes an infallible pronouncement. Perhaps the Vatican can continue to deal with things on a case-by-case basis, but it seems to me that eventually they are going to have to come up with a process or code of what has been declared infallibly Ex Cathedra.

Well, yes and no. The doctrine of infallibility was formulated long before Vatican I, it just wasn't as definitively formulated!

Look, the Orthodox are already mad at us for having an itchy trigger finger regarding defining stuff, pinning stuff down. They get along with even less defining (because, I've argued, they've had fewere unity-threatening divisions since they handled the big ones in the first six or eight centuries). Your uneasiness is understandable, but if the popes had tried to tie everything off absolutely neatly they would only have succeeded in further angering the Orthodox and die-hard dissenters would still find something to pick nits over.

The solution cannot simply lie in the pope doing all the heavy lifting. A chief can't be an effective chief if his brave followers won't follow. That's why some of the weight rests on our shoulders--to be willing to recognize definitiveness when it's there and to heartily accept even the stuff not so definitively stated. With a bit more obsequium from the heart of the Catholic faithful, there'd be no problem. Troublemakers and contrarians and dissenters will always arise. The more and more precise definitions are for them.

Yes, I know that Protestants taunt us because we have no infallible list of infallibly taught dogma. We have unofficial lists compiled by scholars like Ludwig Ott, we have official assemblages of official teaching like the Catechism but without specifying which lines are de fide and infallible and which are merely "normal" Catholic doctrine.

But see, this is what distinguishes a Catholic from a pseudo-Catholic. A Catholic accepts the entire Catechism. He reads and follows as best he can, the entire text of Evangelium Vitae, not merely three passages. There's really good stuff in the rest of the encyclical--about how to live out the gospel of life, how to employ it's principles in democratic societies, how to read the Bible properly etc. A true Catholic accepts it all and strives to live according to it. A fake Catholic nitpicks over just how much of it he can ignore and how much he can't ignore. Such a Catholic is one step away from the maw of Hell.

From time to time the pope does respond to queries where previous definitive teaching has not yet managed to penetrate the thick skulls of the cafeteria Catholic pro-aborts or feminists. But if he did this everytime some moonbat dissenter asks, "did you really mean that," he'd never get anything else done.

Parents recognize this attitude in children: did you really mean that, Mommy? Are you sure? Pretty please, Mama, just this one time, please, whine, whine, whine, whine. We tolerate it in children because they are immature and we try to teach them to outgrow it and grow up.

The pope treats Catholic faithful like adults, not like children. That alone ought to be sufficient answer to your whiny fake Catholic moonbat friends.

Nuff said?

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.