Encyclicus Maculatus: Eco-Encyclical To Undergo Revision

The Radical Catholic ^ | May 13, 2015 | The Radical Catholic

[ebb tide]

According to Vaticanist Sandro Magister, Pope Francis has decided to postpone the publication of his long-awaited encyclical on the environment. The reason, according to Magister, is that the Pope realized that the document in its current state had no chance of receiving the approval of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under the leadership of Cardinal Gerhard Müller. If it seems somewhat improper for a Cardinal to be telling a Pope what he can and can't write, don't fret, gentle reader: the text wasn't written by Pope Francis at all. The ghostwriter behind the heavily discussed encyclical is one Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández of Tiburnia, a native of Buenos Aires. Archbishop Fernández, who belongs to Pope Francis' inner circle in the position of most trusted theological adviser, was already heavily involved in the writing of Evangelii gaudium, and spent the Summer of 2013 in Rome for that purpose. Last March, as Pope Francis set about to compose his Eco-Encyclical, Archbishop Fernández was again flown in to do the heavy lifting. The close working relationship apparently stretches back to the time when Pope Francis was still Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, with Fernández working largely behind the scenes, drafting the future Pontiff's important speeches and letters.

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández (Notice the pectoral cross. Look familiar?) However, it seems that Archbishop Fernández has let the influence he enjoyed over papal affairs go to his head. In an interview published in Corriere della Sera last Sunday, he took the current wave of Ultramontanism to new heights, implying that the Curia and the entire body of Cardinals are non-essential to the government of the Church - which, while technically true, is Vaticanese for "we will push ahead, with or without the Cardinals' blessing." He also felt safe enough to criticize Cardinal Müller's recent comments that his job as Prefect of the CDF is to give the Pope's magisterium theological structure:

I have read that some say that the Roman Curia is an essential part of the mission of the Church, or that a Prefect in the Vatican is the sure compass preventing the Church from falling into ignomy, or that this Prefect guarantees the unity of the Faith and facilitates serious theology from the Pope. But Catholics know from reading the Gospel that it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment - and not to a Prefect or some other structure. When one hears such things, one could almost get the impression that the Pope is merely their representative, or one who has come to disturb and must, therefore, be monitored. [...] The Pope is convinced that what he has written or said cannot be treated as an error. Therefore, all these things can be repeated in the future, without having to fear receiving a sanction for it. We don't know how Cardinal Müller reacted to these sharp words, or whether, as Giuseppe Nardi surmises, he spoke directly with Pope Francis regarding the encylical, but Magister relates that sources inside Santa Marta are reporting that the Pope will not be publishing Archbishop Fernández' already completed text, and has - for the time being - tabled the entire project. It's clear that he can't let it disappear entirely without a tremendous loss of face in the public arena; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, apparently moonlighting as a Vatican spokesman, has announced that the encyclical is set to appear in June of this year. But who will be behind the next incarnation of the encyclicus maculatus is anybody's guess.

(NB: I would like to acknowledge the work of the tireless Giuseppe Nardi, without which this article could not have been written. See his treatment, in German, here.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. "

Don't you even read what you write? You accused Pope Francis of seeing Genesis as a "fairy tale."

Pope Francis explicitly rebuts any fairy tale element ("magician," "magic wand") and you act like the said the opposite.

There's nothing there that says God can't do everything. Do you think the Pope is denying God's omnipotence? Seriously? He says God doesn't use magic. You know, like in a fairy tale.

[Mrs. Don-o]

LOL. Guess you don't care much for "Astrophysics and Space Science" either.

"The Physical Universe, 15th Edition: Konrad Krauskopf ... www.amazon.com › ... › Astrophysics & Space Science"

Don't be evidence-resistant. It is not the most effective way to argue.

"Which "universe" did/does Jesus Christ live in? Was He in your "universe" at Mass today? Was it spiritual, or physical, or both? Which universe does your guardian angel exist in?

First question is easy: Jesus is God and God is everywhere.

As for my Guardian Angel, he (or it) is a spiritual creature and does not have a a body, nor sex, nor physiological processes. The angel is "in" the Universe if, by Universe, you mean "all created things."

But the Universe cannot contain God.

[ebb tide]

He implied God wasn’t able to do everything. We know no magician can, but why would Francis even imply God can’t either?

Also, why would Francis imply Christ faked anger in the Temple? Or imply that the Blessed Mother felt betrayed at her Son’s Crucifixion?

It seems Francis has no respect for the accuracy of the Bible. Very protestant, if you ask me.

[ebb tide]

Do you think the Pope is denying God's omnipotence?

Yes! I absolutely am stating that.

Francis keeps speaking about the surprises the Holy Ghost has in store for us. I truly think the "surprises" are what he, Kasper, Maradiaga, et al. have up their sleeves. What other Pope has claimed to be a prophet about upcoming "surprises" from the Holy Ghost?

When was the last time the Holy Ghost did surprise us, Mrs. Don_O?

IMHO, Francis thinks that he, not God, is in control of the Church now. Not very humble, if you ask me, nor obedient.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Imply" "imply" "imply" --- a word you used 3 times in 2 sentences. Your interpretation is very good example of eisegesis. You read into the pope's remarks what you expect to find there. And when he didn't precisely say it, you claim he "implied" it.

Like some (not all) of our polemical non-Catholic brethren and sistren here --- I won't name them because I don't want to ping them into the discussion --- you give the impression of "Papal Worst-ism": the insistence that no matter what he actually said or did, he MUST have meant it in the worst possible way.

[ebb tide]

Do you not admit that Francis is very ambiguous in many, if not most, of his “statements” and sermons?

To this date, I don’t think he has ever rectified any of the confusion he is causing. And Lombardi, another Jesuit, has done a terrible job trying to clean up Francis’ mess.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

‘...and thrown away by a fallible human fool.”

The Pope is that...

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree that Francis is way too casual, off-the-cuff and imprecise. (I miss Benedict!!!) And Lombardi is terrible (in my opinion.) What a hack.

[RitaOK]

“what the Holy Father puts in the encyclical is a different matter”. ———

—

If the pope is as you say, way too casual, off the cuff remarking, and imprecise, but he puts it in writing, stamps it as ENCYCLICAL, we are bound to suffer it to be ex cathedra, on matters of faith and morals?

I don’t remember learning that encyclicals had the force of scripture, especially when the proposed contents of the encyclical is scientifically disputed, but which has proved to be of utilitarian advantage to the forces of population control, (birth control) and global abortion initiatives.

There must be competing encyclicals.

Someone please explain obligation and allegiance to a faulty message, should it be stamped with the word, “Encyclical”.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"[If the Pope] puts it in writing, stamps it as ENCYCLICAL, we are bound to suffer it to be ex cathedra, on matters of faith and morals?"

In a word, no.

No everything said in an encyclical is considered infallible. LINK. You have to distinguish between a theological opinion (theologoumenon), Ordinary Magisterium, and Universal Magisterium.

I realize this seems technical, and it is. But the simplest way to put the point, is that only some part of a document which is specifically a solemn definitions concerning faith or morals, and which are not merely contingent or prudential, not temporary or local, but meant to be binding on the whole Church for all time, are infallible.

As an example of an encyclical having real moral authority but not being infallible, there's "Mit Brennender Sorge," ("With Burning Anxiety") the encyclical Pius XI wrote against the German regime in 1937. It was authoritative (locally) but not directly applicable to situations outside of Germany in the mid-20th century.

Infallible statements are flagged with introductory words of the utmost solemnity, like,

Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity...by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord...We declare, pronounce, and define that this doctrine is revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful... Hence, if anyone shall dare to think otherwise, let him know that he has separated from the unity of the Church...

Or words similarly expressing infallible intent.

Unfortunately, if ignorant people assume that Pope Francis' media interviews and off-the-cuff remarks are intended to be part of the Magisterium, they're going to think that even moreso of an encyclical unless it's written (I am speaking foolishly) in 6 different colors of ink, with pale cantaloupe signifying "scientific advisors' best guesses" and Gothic-lettering-and-gold-leaf signifying "Universal and Catholic with a Capital C".

[RitaOK]

That is a relief! Thank you. I really appreciate the detail.
Especially this part (and the marvelous humor with it, in the “C”):

“Unfortunately, if ignorant people assume that Pope Francis’ media interviews and off-the-cuff remarks are intended to be part of the Magisterium, they’re going to think that even moreso of an encyclical unless it’s written (I am speaking foolishly) in 6 different colors of ink, with pale cantaloupe signifying “scientific advisors’ best guesses” and Gothic-lettering-and-gold-leaf signifying “Universal and Catholic with a Capital C”.

(Wish I could have dragged the “C” up, into this reply.)

Actually, this is a very important point by itself, from start to finish, that observers do not realize. Sometimes I realize the simplest things that even I still don’t know, but catechesis being what it is, some things don’t come up.

Thank you very much.

“

[RitaOK]

That is a relief! Thank you. I really appreciate the detail.
Especially this part (and the marvelous humor with it, in the “C”):

“Unfortunately, if ignorant people assume that Pope Francis’ media interviews and off-the-cuff remarks are intended to be part of the Magisterium, they’re going to think that even moreso of an encyclical unless it’s written (I am speaking foolishly) in 6 different colors of ink, with pale cantaloupe signifying “scientific advisors’ best guesses” and Gothic-lettering-and-gold-leaf signifying “Universal and Catholic with a Capital C”.

(Wish I could have dragged the “C” up, into this reply.)

Actually, this is a very important point by itself, from start to finish, that observers do not realize. Sometimes I realize the simplest things that even I still don’t know, but catechesis being what it is, some things don’t come up.

Thank you very much. Rita

“

[sitetest]

Dear cyberstoic,

“I will leave the church because the moral authority of the church will have been squandered and thrown away by a fallable human fool.”

For myself, I would never let some idiot pope rob me of my Catholic faith.

sitetest