LAUDATO SI' -- Enironmental Encyclical - COMMENTARY FOR PARISH USE - Mrs. Don-o - [CATHOLIC CAUCUS]

My own fevered brain | July 30, 2015 | Mrs Don-o

[Mrs. Don-o]

LAUDATO SI’
A letter from Pope Francis
on the Care of our Common Home

“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. 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. 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. 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. 4. It is murder to knowingly or negligently deny someone nutrition/hydration in such a way that it causes or hastens their death.

5. 5. It’s wrong to expose people to pathogens or poisons in their drinking water.

6. 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. 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).

8. 8. Market forces cannot be the sole determinant in fundamental matters such as water supply; the common good takes precedence over private profit, short-term public budgetary savings, political manipulation or military advantage.

9. 9. Access to critically needed water can involve aid or trade between nations. Enforceable, global accords should ensure that highest-bidder market processes or government /regulatory power-plays do not leave whole populations of helpless people suffering ruinous drought or dying of thirst.

10. 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.

• • #1 is inerrant because it is Scriptural Revelation.

• • #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.

• • #9 is a prudential judgment, i.e. it falls under the category of international diplomacy, trade, and public policy. It is not Magisterial per se. However different options must be carefully compared, as to costs and benefits, competing risks and goals, sheer do-ability, to see which is the best way to carry out the requirements of justice.

“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

[Mrs. Don-o]

I promised my pastor, Fr. Pete, that I'd write a series on Pope Francis' Laudato Si for the parish, and then sent a month-and-a-half worrying, fretting, procrastinating, sighing, cussing, etc.

After 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".

I didn't get into a robust critique of the substantive problems with the "prudential judgments" because it would take a much longer article, and also because the Parish Newsletter isn't the place to do that. You would need an honest-to-God panel discussion to do it justice.

If this proves useful to any of you at the parish (or other) level, I shall think my efforts justified.

Everyone has my permission to reprint, if it pleases you, in whole or in part.

I'd value your comments and critique.

[RBStealth]

This might be an enlightening article as any:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/july-24th-2015/why-christian-leaders-are-really-going-green/

---

The key to understanding the environmental push is the Holy Father’s priority on the Church in mission. If the Church goes green, it is to improve the cultural climate for evangelisation. In this, Pope Francis’s pastoral strategy is to join an effort that has been underway for decades in both Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, as it became clear in both Constantinople and Canterbury that their respective communions were becoming increasingly marginal players in their own cultures, a conscious decision was taken to move environmental issues to the forefront of their public witness.

Indeed, the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate describes Bartholomew as the “green patriarch”. The environmental evangelical strategy supposes that cultural elites who welcome the Church’s endorsement of their environmental policies will be more open to the heart of the Christian Gospel.

The day after Laudato Si’ was released, Bartholomew and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, jointly authored a column in The New York Times, promoting a recent climate change report in The Lancet, a medical journal, with the fervour Christian preachers once reserved from the Gospel itself.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Pope Francis is embracing Marxism and a One World Government. It is about as simple as that. In typical fashion the Church is trying to bury that fact by generating reams of circuitous text.

Being in Pittsburgh I have some mutual acquaintances with Archbishop Wuerl. He has supposedly been tasked with positively spinning the encyclical for American audiences. I do not envy him. It’s an impossible task.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think this is a dogs-dinner of an encyclical, larding together true moral principles with false prudential judgments. Meaning: on the principles he's OK; with the facts-on-the-ground he is seriously in the wrong.

I talked with my pastor about this. I did not hesitate to use the word "totalitarian".

However, for a parish newsletter, you can't come out swinging at the Pope --- all you can do is honestly elucidate that the doctrinal parts are Biblical, traditional and right in line with the Prophets of Israel and the Fathers of the Church...

... and as for the non-doctrinal parts, "Each of you get into your respective corners, and let the fighting begin!"

But let me ask you this: how would you handle it in your parish?

[detective]

“a book (over 40,000 words) addressed, Pope Francis says, to “every person living on the planet.””

Not surprisingly, no priests in my parish have even mentioned it. I have heard nothing from the pulpit or in private conversation. Very few parishioners mentioned it either. Those few that did are the most educated and knowledgeable in the parish. Their comments were all extremely negative.

While this received much recognition in the media and is addressed to “every person living on the planet”, I sincerely doubt more than a handful of lay Catholics will read it.

Pope Francis’s approval has dropped coincident with the encyclical.

There was enormous enthusiasm among Catholics when Pope John Paul II came to America. There is no enthusiasm for Pope Francis even though he will be in our area in less than two months. I have been asked to volunteer to help with his visit. I have declined. I have no interest in being a part of his visit.

[sitetest]

Good essay. Much worthier than the subject it treated.

[Buckeye McFrog]

You can come out swinging at the Pope, or you can argue against him gently. So far as official Church doctrine is concerned they are both the same thing, as he cannot be “wrong”.

That is obviously absurd, so I’d elect to take the Donald Trump approach. Come out swinging and let the chips fall where they may.

It’s a major reason we are now hemorrhaging membership to Evangelical churches.

[don-o]

I think this is a dogs-dinner of an encyclical ........

You have done a masterful job of unpacking this tangled mess. Your use of the "water justice" scenario is brilliant.

I hope that Catholics here will help it get a wider audience.

[RitaOK]

I think for peace to hold, in a parish discussion, that one could only cherry pick through certain short sentences uttered by Pope Francis, wherein something recognizable as remotely “Catholic” might exist, if they can be found.

[RitaOK]

I like your style. The times call for it! Honesty, without ambiguity and drivel, is a rare commodity.

[Buckeye McFrog]

My late uncle was a Jesuit who served many years in the mission fields. He had long told us that the Church hierarchy was going to face a future rebellion because they did not seem to realize that they could no longer party like it was 1399 anymore.

Their flock was no longer made-up of illiterate European peasants. It was increasingly well-educated, able to read the Bible and to think for itself. It would not continue to sit passively by and be told what to think in very condescending ways by a bunch of clerics in pointy red hats. Apparently they have still not made this adjustment, and the Church is suffering for it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Interesting. I wonder if your parish is typical? Or are you more on the conservative side?

I had a half hour meeting with my pastor about the extremely negative implications of papal diplomacy on this one. He heard me out respectfully (we've got a mutual respect thing going on) and did not disagree. But he holds his cards pretty close to the vest.

I've heard nothing yet from the JPIC committee (Justice, Peace, and "Integrity of Creation" --- the parish Peace & Greenies.)

Anyone else wanting to report what's going on --- if anything--- at the parish or diocesan level?

Watching and waiting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

:o/

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So far as official Church doctrine is concerned ...he cannot be “wrong”"

I'm sorry, dear Buckeye, but the entire theme of my analysis was that this is not the case.

Pope Francis himself repeated and explicitly disavowed the proposition that this is a binding encyclical. He's essentially invented a new thing: the "encyclical as dialogue platform".

[M Kehoe]

Good afternoon.

Anyone else wanting to report what's going on --- if anything--- at the parish or diocesan level?

I have asked our pastor face to face. He said "they" are working on it. We called the Bishop's office. We were informed that his Excellency is working on it.

I think you know, but for disclosure purposes, St. Pete.

5.56mm

[detective]

“I wonder if your parish is typical? Or are you more on the conservative side?”

It is about 2000 families and somewhat diverse(Hispanics, Africans, Asians). It is not so much conservative as not willing to put up with any liberal, politically correct nonsense. No homosexual priests, no pro-choice messages, no attacks on America.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I, myself, would love to have a parish panel discussion. There's no reason to go mealy-mouthed when talking about the substantive "prudential judgments."

I don't mind plainly disagreeing with nearly every scientific "fact," and every economic policy recommendation in the encyclical; and I think the pope's political/diplomatic push on this is even "worse in practice than in theory": it's just god-awful.

The greenies are even now lobbying the Appalachian-region bishops, and that includes mine:

http://catholicphilly.com/2015/07/news/national-news/catholic-appalachian-group-asks-bishops-to-be-strident-on-laudato-si/

They need to be refuted -- ah--- soundly. But they, unfortunately, at present, have the bullhorn.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"No homosexual priests, no pro-choice messages, no attacks on America."

Well, yeah. We're talking about 'Catholic' parishes here.

Our problem here is too much o' nothin'. Not much doctrine in the homilies. Lots of mercy without the Fear of God.

[shurwouldluv_a_smallergov]

Very perceptive analysis- thank you!

I have not heard much at my parish yet, but it is summer in South Florida, so nothing much happens now anyway.

I have not read the encyclical, but I have read parts of it. In discussions with GW alarmists and libertarians, both camps claim the Pope says more than he does in the encyclical.

Perhaps that is spin from other sources; headlines and articles. Popes are usually very precise in wording encyclicals, and it seems to me that a lot of people claim it says things that it does not.