Full text: Laudato Si

[Vouthon]

It reads like a teenager’s diary or an internet forum post. There’s too much to critique substance yet. The style is awful to for an encyclical, though.

I disagree completely. I think it is articulately, accurately and engagingly written. It perfectly encapsulates Pope Francis’ spirit: informed, well-written but not “archaic” and “distant”. Its readable quality is precisely what will ensure that it gains a very broad readership - which alas cannot be said for some historic encyclicals.

I have heard of atheists waiting patiently to read this encyclical, which was amazing to me. Who would have thought they’d be interested in the words of a Pontiff!

You are fully entitled to have problems with the premise of the encyclical but I cannot sympathise with your efforts to castigate the writing style of the Holy Father and his drafters. That is just juvenile, no offensive intended but if you feel you have to critique it then please do so with reference to the ideas contained within it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Agreed. There are some passages where it appears the encyclical is endorsing certain scientific theories as correct…more so than any encyclical ever endorsed evolution, or the Big Bang. Some sentences read as statements of fact.

I already see anti-Catholics posting with glee in other forums, as they use the encyclical’s language for their own political purposes. (I note that they do not use the encyclicals with which they disagree.)

Even if I assume that everything turns out to be 100% perfect, when properly understood, after several readings…it will be tedious dealing with the attacks from the 99% of the people who will have no desire to properly understand it or even read it. These attacks will be harmful. Seems like better issues could have been tackled at this time.

I saw poor Fr. Johnathan Morris on TV this morning trying to explain to Stewart Varney (an Episcopalian) how this is really not an adoption of a political position on the part of the Pope. Varney wasn’t buying it, and even poor Fr. Morris, who is otherwise a stalwart defender of the Church, had to admit he couldn’t agree with some of the assertions in it.

It wasn’t pretty.

 

[SWolf]

I disagree completely. I think it is articulately, accurately and engagingly written. It perfectly encapsulates Pope Francis’ spirit: informed, well-written but not “archaic” and “distant”. Its readable quality is precisely what will ensure that it gains a very broad readership - which alas cannot be said for some historic encyclicals.

I have heard of atheists waiting patiently to read this encyclical, which was amazing to me. Who would have thought they’d be interested in the words of a Pontiff!

You are fully entitled to have problems with the premise of the encyclical but I cannot sympathise with your efforts to castigate the writing style of the Holy Father and his drafters. That is just juvenile, no offensive intended but if you feel you have to critique it then please do so with reference to the ideas contained within it.

It is awful writing, and more importantly, wrong. Ayheists want to read it because it is a hammer they fan use against the faithful.

Technology is said to be ineffective in helping the environment. Completely untrue. Most of the progress in reducing waste has been because of increases in technology and efficiency.

It is written like people are indiifferent or evil corporations want just profits. Nowhere does it describe how heavy regulations hurt the poor.

It reads like something that would come from a Captain Planet episode, and matches the intellectual depth.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is awful writing, and more importantly, wrong. Ayheists want to read it because it is a hammer they fan use against the faithful.

Technology is said to be ineffective in helping the environment. Completely untrue. Most of the progress in reducing waste has been because of increases in technology and efficiency.

It is written like people are indiifferent or evil corporations want just profits. Nowhere does it describe how heavy regulations hurt the poor.

It reads like something that would come from a Captain Planet episode, and matches the intellectual depth.

Wow, I guess Pope-bashing is what is required to make you a ‘good Catholic’ these days. Disgusting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I disagree completely. I think it is articulately, accurately and engagingly written. It perfectly encapsulates Pope Francis’ spirit: informed, well-written but not “archaic” and “distant”. Its readable quality is precisely what will ensure that it gains a very broad readership - which alas cannot be said for some historic encyclicals.

I have heard of atheists waiting patiently to read this encyclical, which was amazing to me. Who would have thought they’d be interested in the words of a Pontiff!

You are fully entitled to have problems with the premise of the encyclical but I cannot sympathise with your efforts to castigate the writing style of the Holy Father and his drafters. That is just juvenile, no offensive intended but if you feel you have to critique it then please do so with reference to the ideas contained within it.

What I read is, of course, a translation. One assumes it accurately reflects what the Pope intended to say, though I have sometimes suspected in the past that the translators into English have 'spun" things just a bit to hit partisan idiomatic expressions in the English language.

But I am not inclined much to think so in this case. The MMGW and “wealth redistribution” parts of it are just too voluminous to believe peculiarities of translation could have done very much.

Parenthetically, it is no surprise to me if atheists were anxious to read this encyclical. I think many enemies of the Church probably were.

 

[stinkcat_14]

But I am not inclined much to think so in this case. The MMGW and “wealth redistribution” parts of it are just too voluminous to believe peculiarities of translation could have done very much.

I missed the part where he called for redistribution of wealth. He did call for a better distribution of wealth, but that is a very Catholic idea, since we voluntarily redistribute our wealth to help the poor.

 

[Vincent_N]

Vouthon:

I disagree completely. I think it is articulately, accurately and engagingly written. It perfectly encapsulates Pope Francis’ spirit: informed, well-written but not “archaic” and “distant”. Its readable quality is precisely what will ensure that it gains a very broad readership - which alas cannot be said for some historic encyclicals.

I have heard of atheists waiting patiently to read this encyclical, which was amazing to me. Who would have thought they’d be interested in the words of a Pontiff!

You are fully entitled to have problems with the premise of the encyclical but I cannot sympathise with your efforts to castigate the writing style of the Holy Father and his drafters. That is just juvenile, no offensive intended but if you feel you have to critique it then please do so with reference to the ideas contained within it.

There’s nothing juvenile in style critique. I say what I see. If you think the writings of our previous Popes were archaic and distant, too bad. I disagree with you and that’s that.

 

[Vouthon]

There’s nothing juvenile in style critique. I say what I see. If you think the writings of our previous Popes were archaic and distant, too bad. I disagree with you and that’s that.

I did not once say that our previous Popes were “archaic and distant”. I was implying that for those of us not heavily acquainted with ecclesiastical writings and theology (ie the general public), this might be the impression they took from some past encyclicals. Leo XIII’s were very engaging and widely read, as were John XXIII’s. There is also nothing wrong with a more archaic-sounding style, I always enjoyed this from the encyclicals of Pius XII but you cannot expect every pope (and his retinue) to write alike, as if they were robots. Francis has been fostering an engaging “common man” approach to his pontificate from the get-go. If you do not wish to appreciate the distinctiveness of each pope and in particular the Holy Father we have now, that is fine by me. However at least deal with the weighty issues addressed in the encyclical rather than critiquing the style in which it is written, which serves nothing and helps nobody except to demean our Holy Father and his abilities (as well as those of his aides who drafted much of the encyclical).

 

[Joe_5859]

There’s nothing juvenile in style critique. I say what I see. If you think the writings of our previous Popes were archaic and distant, too bad. I disagree with you and that’s that.

It’s one thing to critique the style. But comparing it to a “teenager’s diary or an internet forum post” seems deliberately insulting rather than an actual critique. If you have problems with the writing style, there are better ways to articulate it.

Just sayin’.

 

[Vouthon]

It’s one thing to critique the style. But comparing it to a “teenager’s diary or an internet forum post” seems deliberately insulting rather than an actual critique. If you have problems with the writing style, there are better ways to articulate it.

Just sayin’.

It is patently offensive to the Holy Father and reflects far more a “teenager’s diary” and an “an internet forum post” which it of course is, than anything the Pope has written IMHO.

 

[tomarin]

It’s one thing to critique the style. But comparing it to a “teenager’s diary or an internet forum post” seems deliberately insulting rather than an actual critique. If you have problems with the writing style, there are better ways to articulate it.

Just sayin’.

Anyway, criticizing the style (I thought it was par for the course for an encyclical, myself) seems to miss the point.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I missed the part where he called for redistribution of wealth. He did call for a better distribution of wealth, but that is a very Catholic idea, since we voluntarily redistribute our wealth to help the poor.

If you read paragraphs 51 and 52, one does not come away thinking “voluntary” distributions of wealth are what he’s talking about. When one expresses it in terms of countries, that is more redolent of compulsion.

 

[Vouthon]

Anyway, criticizing the style (I thought it was par for the course for an encyclical, myself) seems to miss the point.

Yes, I’m not saying one cannot criticize the style as you have done but to compare it to a teenager’s diary is simply ridiculous and needlessly insulting to the Pope.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If you read paragraphs 51 and 52, one does not come away thinking “voluntary” distributions of wealth are what he’s talking about. When one expresses it in terms of countries, that is more redolent of compulsion.

I don’t see anything there that is any different than other popes have said. For example, Pope John Paul II called for wealthier nations to forgive the debts of less developed nations.

 

[tomarin]

Yes, I’m not saying one cannot criticize the style as you have done but to compare it to a teenager’s diary is simply ridiculous and needlessly insulting to the Pope.

I wasn’t criticizing the style, just saying it was pretty much what I expected from an encyclical. I think you were mistaking me for someone else in the thread.

 

[Vouthon]

I wasn’t criticizing the style, just saying it was pretty much what I expected from an encyclical. I think you were mistaking me for someone else in the thread.

Oops, I did. Apologies my friend

 

[MarkR]

It is patently offensive to the Holy Father and reflects far more a “teenager’s diary” and an “an internet forum post” which it of course is, than anything the Pope has written IMHO.

The entire subject of the encyclical is something out of a teenager’s diary. They’re the only ones, in the U.S. anyway, who care about this, aside from the punitive regulations being imposed–teenagers, the Left and Europeans, i.e. those who get nothing right, ever and have no interest in the Church at all. The Faithful he leaves twisting in the wind. Ask the African church how important this subject is to them. What do they know though (as they’re being butchered).

Good show Pope Francis. In 10 or 20 years (or less), we’ll have to wear this encyclical as an albatross.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The entire subject of the encyclical is something out of a teenager’s diary. They’re the only ones, in the U.S. anyway, who care about this, aside from the punitive regulations being imposed–teenagers, the Left and Europeans, i.e. those who get nothing right, ever and have no interest in the Church at all. The Faithful he leaves twisting in the wind. Ask the African church how important this subject is to them. What do they know though (as they’re being butchered).

Good show Pope Francis. In 10 or 20 years (or less), we’ll have to wear this encyclical as an albatross.

Wow, I guess Pope-bashing is what is required to make you a ‘good Catholic’ these days. Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[MarkR]

Btw, this isn’t his second encyclical, as stated above. Benedict wrote the first (you can tell. It had substance and clarity), and Pope Francis signed it with minor, meaningless additions. This is his very first encyclical–the hug a tree, hug a leftist and stick it to the Gringos (who are fighting for their lives across the board) encyclical…

Thanks again F1

 

[J_Peterson]

Btw, this isn’t his second encyclical, as stated above. Benedict wrote the first (you can tell. It had substance and clarity), and Pope Francis signed it with minor, meaningless additions. This is his very first encyclical–the hug a tree, hug a leftist and stick it to the Gringos (who are fighting for their lives across the board) encyclical…

Thanks again F1

You don’t read a lot of Franciscian writings do you? I don’t know if St. Francis ever hugged a tree but it wouldn’t surprise me. He certainly hugged a wolf.