I don't like to parse the encyclicals of popes, but it may be that Mr. Weigel is right, and part of this document was actually written by Pope Benedict, while other parts were written by the “Justice and Peace” crowd and left in to appease the dopes in the audience.
I am told that encyclicals technically aren't made ex cathedra, and therefore the possibility exists of doctrinal error - in addition to the possibility of political and economic errors. I have been told that there have only been a handful of ex cathedra statements in the history of the Church (remembering that infallible teachings must by definition be on dogma and doctrine), and if I'm right, this ain't one of them!
I'm glad to see that one of the FRCatholics has the guts to question the more egregious recommendations made here. I'm afraid that all too many Catholics push their admiration of the Pope into idol worship, believing that the Pope speaks impeccably in all matters. As one FReeper explained it to me years ago, "papal impeccability is not a Catholic dogma."
An encyclical can be used to give an infallible statement, but popes make lots of encyclicals, and exceedingly few infallible statements.
But keep in mind, an encyclical can make an infallible statement (whether by reiterating a de fide teaching of the Church or defining something infallibly for the first time), but that doesn't make the encyclical as a whole infallible.
Thus, one can look at an encyclical like Humanae Vitae, which continues the Church's 2,000 year old teaching that artificial contraception is morally evil. In that the Church has always and everywhere taught this, it was unnecessary for Pope Paul VI to explicitly add the note of infallibility. It is an infallible teaching.
But Humanae Vitae’s arguments are not, to my own mind, especially compelling. Pope Paul argued against the acceptability of artificial contraception in part by telling of its consequences. He got a lot of it right; his voice was prophetic. Nonetheless, it's a weak argument, logically, to say that something is intrinsically evil because it may cause bad effects down the road. It's the fallacy of consequentialism.
For years, this was a stumbling block for me. I'd ask, how can this teaching be true when it is so poorly argued? What eventually helped me was to review the many other times the Church had taught against artificial contraception. First, I found the force of argument more persuasive from other teaching documents, and second, I could see that this wasn't some new teaching that had sprung up in 1968, and was just some old man being stubborn about things.
But something else helped me, and that was to learn that the central teaching of an encyclical can be right even if much of the rest of the encyclical is wrong. Even if the encyclical makes errors of fact, errors of logic, etc. The Holy Spirit guides popes to teach what is true (even at the level of teaching below that of infallibility), and the pope's teachings must always be accorded respect and a docile reception. But the Holy Spirit does not make the pope logical, clear, coherent or correct in the assertion of facts in support of his teachings.
“I have been told that there have only been a handful of ex cathedra statements in the history of the Church (remembering that infallible teachings must by definition be on dogma and doctrine), and if I'm right, this ain't one of them!”
There are a significant number of infallible teachings, but only a few have come directly through the infallible teaching office of the papacy. Thus, the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the doctrine of the Theotokos, these are all infallible, de fide (of the faith) teachings, but they were declared so by Ecumenical Councils, not directly through the pope's charism of infallibility. Although, as I understand it, an Ecumenical Council's teachings are marked by the charism of infallibility only insofar as they are accepted and confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff.
However, the pope could make infallible statements concerning economic issues, in that the Church's infallibility extends to all matters concerning faith and morals. In that there are many moral considerations related to economic behavior, it is within the scope of the Church's teaching authority to teach on them.
“I'm afraid that all too many Catholics push their admiration of the Pope into idol worship, believing that the Pope speaks impeccably in all matters.”
No, to speak “impeccably” in all matters would mean that the pope would speak personally free from any sin. That's almost an incoherent statement.
But there is a tendency for Catholics, especially devout Catholics, to permit a bit of “scope creep” of the pope's charism of infallibility.
sitetest