Wednesday 7 October 2020

What authority does Pope Francis's new encyclical have?

SHARE

'This was the week Pope Francis chose to issue a left wing pamphlet, which being pope he was able to dignify with the status of papal encyclical.' 
Damian Thompson, until this year editor of the Catholic Herald, on Fratelli Tutti.
The new encyclical "Fratelli Tutti" is basically an ode to Fraternity, in the French revolutionary concept of the word

He doesn't mention the word "abortion" but defends the lives of the unborn in the context of a "throwaway society".


'Neoliberalism is, in fact, a very Catholic set of beliefs....The Pope says that he fears that the world is becoming deaf, incapable or unwilling to listen to the complexities of others. But that’s nothing to do with liberal economics. Indeed, it is the market that allows us to listen, see, hear, and reach out. Its flourishing has been the most incredible force for good that humanity has ever seen.'  
Matt Kilcoyne in the really excellent Unherd (it's free, by the way). 

Personally, I associate Catholicism rather with feudalism than neoliberalism or social democracy, but I know this is out of date and not in line with modern European values.

Do Catholics have to accept what the Pope teaches about economics, politics and climatology? 

The first Vatican Council, the one conservatives like, said in Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, n.7.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all.
That does not mean Catholics always have to agree with the Pope. They certainly don't, as the great Mgr Alfred Gilbey told me, but Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis says:
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 heareth you, heareth me"; 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.

But what exact authority do these words in Humani Generis have? It's something of a circular argument.

The Syllabus of Errors was an annex to the encyclical Quanta cura and condemns socialism and modern civilisation. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannia,


As the errors listed had already been condemned in allocutions, encyclicals, and other apostolic letters, the Syllabus said nothing new and so could not be contested. Its importance lay in the fact that it published to the world what had previously been preached in the main only to the bishops, and that it made general what had been previously specific denunciations concerned with particular events. Thus perhaps the most famous article, the 80th, stigmatizing as an error the view that “the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization,” sought its authority in the pope’s refusal, in Jamdudum Cernimus, to have any dealings with the new Italian kingdom.

The Pope's latest encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, was greeted with very much less deference than encyclicals by previous popes, but then when Pope Pius IX promulgated the Syllabus of Errors Twitter had not been invented.

Catholic Twitter made much of these words of the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmed al-Tayyeb, who is quoted several times and praised by the Pope as his inspiration in the encyclical.
 
"The four schools of law all concur that apostasy is a crime, that an apostate should be asked to repent, and that if he does not, he should be killed." 

The Imam does not share the Pope's view on the death penalty, nor can a Muslim, but criticism of him for approving of it for apostasy is unfair. The Imam has to believe in his religion or convert, just as popes are supposed to believe in theirs.
By the way, did you know the Chief Rabbi of Italy converted to Catholicism in February 1945, partly because of his admiration for Pope Pius XII? 
Let us hope the Imam follows this excellent example.
A liberal theologian very active on Twitter called Massimo Faggioli says that the Church is changing and changed in the past, over for example her teaching on war and usury. I thought the teaching on usury had not changed but been politely ignored. 

Now the Pope admits to changing teaching on capital punishment and seems to make other changes. It is confusing for us laymen with busy lives and disquieting. 
But it sounds like Professor Faggioli, who seems to think liking Donald Trump incompatible with Catholicism, is saying what many others think: that the Church since the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s is not the same Church as the one before.

5 comments:

  1. Indeed, it is the market that allows us to listen, see, hear, and reach out. Its flourishing has been the most incredible force for good that humanity has ever seen.

    The market can be a force for good or a force for evil.

    A good analogy would be cars. Cars can be a force for good. They have made life much better in many ways. They have also contributed to the destruction of traditional communities. And cars do kill people. So they can be force for evil. If there were no laws at all regulating the use of cars then cars would kill a lot more people and cars might well then be, on balance, a force for evil. If car usage is strictly regulated then, on balance, they are a force for good.

    Strictly regulated markets can certainly be a force for good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One hallmark of leftist publications is making assertions that upon examination are revealed as false or, at best, half-truths kitted out in the livery of obvious popular wisdom (vox populi). One such example in Frutti Tutti, there are many, is Francis' assertion that the Church has never considered ownership of property to be an inviolable right. This is from paragraph 15 of Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII: "Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found."

    Of course, Francis prefers to cite his earlier writings more than the writings of his predecessors and Scripture - one supposes he places greater faith in the former than the latter two.

    Another hallmark of leftist authors is to pull out of context phrases that support their expressed point of view (aka Cherry Picking) but that turn out not to do so when examined in context. See Francis' use of Aquinas on private property or John Paul II on capital punishment.

    The third and most common technique in leftist composition is projection, that is, ascribing to others the very thinking that they do themselves. See Francis' reference to the manipulation of words - democracy, liberty, freedom, etc. - to impose ideological conformity and delegitimize contrary points of view.

    And, Frutti Tutti is verbose, unstructured, lacks any discernible stylistic quality and if it has a voice, it is a whining garble mixed with a mumble punctuated by hectoring shouting.

    In my not so humble opinion.

    Yours, Ed S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much, Ed, I agree.

      I found this on the net and liked it.

      St. Francis was not a champion of “dialogue.” Pope Francis begins the encyclical by championing the way of St. Francis of Assisi, presenting the Poverello as a modern ecumenist, with no desire to convert others (1-4). This is simply untrue. St. Francis went to the Holy Land with one purpose: to convert Muslims. We can understand the Saint’s true attitude by his embrace of the first Franciscan martyrs, who were killed trying to convert Muslims in Morocco.



      Religious Pluralism reigns. When this encyclical was announced last month, I was worried it would endorse the religious pluralism of the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which stated that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions…is willed by God.” Fortunately, that statement was not repeated, but sadly, it wasn’t repudiated, either. And religious pluralism is still present in Fratelli Tutti. Near the end of the encyclical, Francis notes that “The Church esteems the ways in which God works in other religions, and rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions” (277). He then notes the importance of Christians living the Gospel. But then there is a curious sentence: “Others drink from other sources.” What does this mean? The next sentence says, “For us the wellspring of human dignity and fraternity is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” which seems to imply that there are other legitimate sources for people to drink from other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m sure there will be Catholics who will try to explain this away, but the plain reading of the text is that Pope Francis believes (and teaches) that there is more than one source to fulfill man’s religious desires.

      https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2020/10/initial-impressions-fratelli-tutti.html

      Delete
    2. Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis says:
      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 heareth you, heareth me"; 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.

      But what exact authority do these words in Humani Generis have? It's something of a circular argument.

      The Syllabus of Errors was an annex to the encyclical Quanta cura and condemns socialism and modern civilisation. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannia,


      As the errors listed had already been condemned in allocutions, encyclicals, and other apostolic letters, the Syllabus said nothing new and so could not be contested. Its importance lay in the fact that it published to the world what had previously been preached in the main only to the bishops, and that it made general what had been previously specific denunciations concerned with particular events. Thus perhaps the most famous article, the 80th, stigmatizing as an error the view that “the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization,” sought its authority in the pope’s refusal, in Jamdudum Cernimus, to have any dealings with the new Italian kingdom.

      This suggests that the Pope repeating what he previously said is saying nothing new and therefore cannot be contested. But I thought he was infallible either when enunciating dogma or when preaching what the Church had preached at all times and in all places, not when he repeats himself. Do you know more? I am sure you do know much more.

      Delete