Pope’s new encyclical ignores previous social teaching

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
167,138
56,573
Woods
✟4,731,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How much longer can sensible Catholics maintain that Pope Francis is merely trying to develop— rather than to change— the teachings of the Catholic Church?

With the release of Fratelli Tutti this week we have seen a pattern of media coverage that is now familiar. First there are headlines suggesting that the Pope has written something new and radical. Then the more sober analysis, arguing that this new papal statement is in line with Catholic traditions. The analysts who issue such reassurances are always arguing uphill— not only because the original media headlines leave a lasting impression, but because the papal text itself contains so much evidence of the Pope’s wish to promote change.

Yes, there is solid, traditional Catholic teaching to be found in this encyclical. But there are also troubling passages in which Pope Francis appears clearly to be repudiating the statements and writings of his predecessors. Moreover, the most significant statements are floating on such an enormous sea of verbiage— amid 43,000 words of puzzling, speculative, and irrelevant commentary— that even the most determined reader must wonder what message the Pope really does want to convey.

An encyclical is, in theory, a letter from the Roman Pontiff to the churches of the world. But in Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis is addressing not only his fellow Catholics but the world at large. So he cannot assume that his readers will be familiar with the genre of the papal encyclical. Nor does he do anything to remind readers that this document is in any way different from any other commentary on world affairs. (The fact that the authoritative version is written in Italian, a language with no special status in Catholicism, is just one stylistic indication of his approach.)

These problems with the presentation of the encyclical— its sheer length, the absence of focus, the lack of a clear sense of audience— contribute to the difficulties of interpretation. It is a challenge for even an expert to separate the metal from the dross, and all too easy for the opportunistic reader to find some nugget that seems to support his own favored ideology.

To be candid, the same problems of interpretation have become common in magisterial teaching, stretching back at least to— and certainly including— the documents of Vatican II. Liberal interpreters find passages that seem to support their views, suggesting that Church teachings have changed. Conservatives insist that these passages must be understood in the larger context of Catholic tradition. But when the context is unclear, and the key passages are undeniably at odds with previous magisterial statements, proponents of the “hermeneutic of continuity” seem to be fighting a hopeless rear-guard battle against the inevitable.

In the current pontificate, I submit, it has become simply impossible to square the Pope’s statements with those of his predecessors. This problem became acute with the release of Amoris Laetitia; it is exacerbated in Fratelli Tutti. Take just a few noteworthy examples:

Continued below.
Pope’s new encyclical ignores previous social teaching
 

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,313
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
This makes me want to ask on something like "What does it take to be antipope?" I spoke on message boards 2005-2010 like Catholic Answers, some of the folks their mentioned that Popes were suppose to have commitment to the past teaching much like Orthodox concepts of Tradition. And a Pope that went too far in some dogmatic way could be considered antipope even if he was initially ordained/consecrated etc. in the regular manner (not like medieval antipopes installed by various Europeans lords etc.).
 
Upvote 0