[defconw]

Encyclicals are binding? I think not!

[piusv]

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears me";[6] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII

[Mrs. Don-o]

More accurately, encyclicals are teaching documents, and therefore they can be expected to contain papal teachings n faith and morals, which are binding as part of the Ordinary Magisterium.

There are most definitely parts of LS which deal directly with faith and morals, and constitute a part of the Church's magisterial teachings.

However, less than half of this particular encyclical deals with "faith and morals" and therefore less than half of it is part of the magisterium. More than half of it deals with prudential judgments, the physical sciences, the social sciences, public policy proposals, and other non-Magisterial material.

I don't blame anyone for being confused.

The encyclical itself states, more than once, by way of a disclaimer, that the Church has not got the authority nor the intention of replacing science and politics. Amen to that, brother./

Nevertheless, I think it was a kind of category error on the part of the Pope to lard so much non-magisterial material in there, to begin with.

[Elsie]

Therefore; they are a waste of time.