Laudato Si

[Thomas_White]

Can I totally disregard our Pope’s encyclical if it does not regard faith and morals and remain a true Catholic?

Perhaps this very interesting discussion would be refocused by returning to the OP’s original question. I think the question should be addressed directly and honestly. What follows is my understanding of the issue:

“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to the teachings made by him…” –Lumen Gentium, no. 25

The dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium is one of the principle documents of the Second Vatican Council. Prior to Vatican II, it was virtually unheard of for any Catholic (who would remain a Catholic) to question the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Only following the 1968 promulgation of Humanae Vitae was there wide dissent, and even defiance, in response to the teachings of a papal encyclical. Ironically, a number of Catholic theologians and members of the celergy questioned the validity of Humanae Vitae and its magisterial teaching authority by citing the spirit of Vatican II. Despite the very plain and clear language of Lumen Gentium, Catholics were often told they were free to follow their consciences.

By undermining the teaching authority of the Church, this error had enormous and disastrous repercussions for the Church and created extreme confusion among the laity which persists to this day. Authority once having been undermined, defiance among theologians became a common theological response to magisterial documents. A later tactic was to predict than an encyclical would simply be ignored.

Laudato Si’ addresses faith and morals, and as I understand it a Catholic must at a minimum give silent internal assent to its teaching. IMHO, what that teaching is would be a proper topic for discussion.

 

[lynnvinc]

Perhaps this very interesting discussion would be refocused by returning to the OP’s original question. I think the question should be addressed directly and honestly. What follows is my understanding of the issue:

“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to the teachings made by him…” –Lumen Gentium, no. 25

The dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium is one of the principle documents of the Second Vatican Council. Prior to Vatican II, it was virtually unheard of for any Catholic (who would remain a Catholic) to question the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Only following the 1968 promulgation of Humanae Vitae was there wide dissent, and even defiance, in response to the teachings of a papal encyclical. Ironically, a number of Catholic theologians and members of the celergy questioned the validity of Humanae Vitae and its magisterial teaching authority by citing the spirit of Vatican II. Despite the very plain and clear language of Lumen Gentium, Catholics were often told they were free to follow their consciences.

By undermining the teaching authority of the Church, this error had enormous and disastrous repercussions for the Church and created extreme confusion among the laity which persists to this day. Authority once having been undermined, defiance among theologians became a common theological response to magisterial documents. A later tactic was to predict than an encyclical would simply be ignored.

Laudato Si’ addresses faith and morals, and as I understand it a Catholic must at a minimum give silent internal assent to its teaching. IMHO, what that teaching is would be a proper topic for discussion.

It would be interesting to know why anyone would not want to turn off lights not in use and the myriad of other things one can do to reduce their environmental harm.

It’s not like a woman with 6 kids deciding to start using artificial birth control, thereby going against Church teachings, even tho mitigating env problems does take some thought and in some cases up front money (such as buying LED lights), but most are economically as well as environmentally wise choices. And most solutions help mitigate a broad range of environmental problems from resource depletion to local pollution to global warming, so one does not have to necessarily accept that global warming is real to implement the solutions.

So I ask the original poster, why is it you would like to ignore or disregard this encyclical?

Maybe a good stand for those who have serious doubts about global warming would be to say (and do), “I’ll mitigate it to my utmost, esp in ways that save me money or don’t cost, and esp those things that also mitigate other problems, but I have serious doubts about some of the problems mentioned in the encyclical.”

That would at least make me happy

 

[meotwist]

Hello. Just curious if anyone out there has any examples of roman catholic hierarchy dissent from the latest encyclical, Laudato si? Priests, bishops, or laypeople all included please.

Not looking to promote heresy or a debate about the encyclical, nor defenses of it. Simply dissenting views from hierarchy and laypersons.

Thanks muchly

 

[Elizium23]

Laudato si’: Well-intentioned, Economically Flawed

 

[Neal76]

Our parish priest had his AC on when I stopped by this afternoon. It was about 30C outside and he’s an older fellow, but I wrote an email to our bishop denouncing him anyway. If he isn’t united with the pope, he isn’t Catholic.

 

[Elizium23]

Our parish priest had his AC on when I stopped by this afternoon. It was about 30C outside and he’s an older fellow, but I wrote an email to our bishop denouncing him anyway. If he isn’t united with the pope, he isn’t Catholic.

 

[corsair]

Surely you jest, Neal.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Let us define some terms.

“Hierarchy” refers to bishops, not priests or laypersons. Encyclicals are often merely pious opinion, not doctrine or dogma. Disagreement with opinions in an encyclical does not constitute dissent.

I encourage all to read Laudato Si. It is not a long or difficult read. More than 90% of it is non-controversial.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Let us define some terms.

“Hierarchy” refers to bishops, not priests or laypersons. Encyclicals are often merely pious opinion, not doctrine or dogma. Disagreement with opinions in an encyclical does not constitute dissent.

I encourage all to read Laudato Si. It is not a long or difficult read. More than 90% of it is non-controversial.

It is interesting to read similar statements - that encyclicals are only opinions and not doctrine nor dogma - referring to ‘Humanae Vitae.’ Are people correct in both instances?

 

[Corki]

It is interesting to read similar statements - that encyclicals are only opinions and not doctrine nor dogma - referring to ‘Humanae Vitae.’ Are people correct in both instances?

Encyclicals are not themselves proclamations of dogma, but they may contain doctrinal and dogmatic teaching. Both Laudato Si and Humanae Vitae contain statements of dogmatic truth - stewardship of the earth and married love/sexuality respectively.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It is interesting to read similar statements - that encyclicals are only opinions and not doctrine nor dogma - referring to ‘Humanae Vitae.’ Are people correct in both instances?

Of course, “encyclicals are only opinions and not doctrine nor dogma” is not what I wrote.

The teachings on human sexuality in Humanae Vitae are the consistent Christian teaching since the Apostles. Even though he was much criticized at the time; in retrospect, Paul VI was truly prophetic. I encourage you to read it.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Of course, “encyclicals are only opinions and not doctrine nor dogma” is not what I wrote.

The teachings on human sexuality in Humanae Vitae are the consistent Christian teaching since the Apostles. Even though he was much criticized at the time; in retrospect, Paul VI was truly prophetic. I encourage you to read it.

I have read it, Paul, many times. Thank you. What I find interesting, though, is that for decades now, almost all friends, colleagues, etc who are Roman Catholic, have used the same words in dismissing the document that are being used now by more conservative Catholics in the US regarding Laudato Si. As someone who is non-Roman, it makes me smile a bit. I guess we all have concerns that are important to us and rationale for defending/decrying them.

I am not taking a stand on either side, you know. Just standing back and listening, and trying to honor the beliefs.

 

[Elizium23]

Let us define some terms.

“Hierarchy” refers to bishops, not priests or laypersons.

“Hierarchy” refers to bishops, priests, and deacons.

 

[Operalan]

As someone who is non-Roman,

Don’t sweat it–most of us aren’t Italian. Most of us are, however, Catholics and come from many different International locales.

 

[meotwist]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut all. Please remember I stated I simply wanted examples of dissent, not a debate about the encyclical. Any more examples?

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m wondering if EWTN dissented in some round about way (perhaps in a way that didn’t seem like dissenting). I don’t have access to TV these days, but I know EWTN has expressed somewhat anti-environmental and climate change denialist views over the years, mainly in subtle ways.

 

[Corki]

I’m wondering if EWTN dissented in some round about way (perhaps in a way that didn’t seem like dissenting). I don’t have access to TV these days, but I know EWTN has expressed somewhat anti-environmental and climate change denialist views over the years, mainly in subtle ways.

Expressing climate change “denialist” views does not necessarily mean dissent. If someone at EWTN actually said that IF the climate was changing and IF it was because of human action that it was ok to ignore it and to make it worse, that would be dissent.

 

[drforjc]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut all. Please remember I stated I simply wanted examples of dissent, not a debate about the encyclical. Any more examples?

You need to better define what you mean by “dissent.”

 

[meotwist]

You need to better define what you mean by “dissent.”

How about any examples of refutations?

 

[lynnvinc]

Expressing climate change “denialist” views does not necessarily mean dissent. If someone at EWTN actually said that IF the climate was changing and IF it was because of human action that it was ok to ignore it and to make it worse, that would be dissent.

I think the issue is that they did sow seeds of doubt about anthropogenic climate change just BEFORE the Encyclical came out – I was at home then and saw it on TV. They had a fossil-fuel funded guy with his degree in Poli Sci claim it wasn’t happening. That is REALLY BAD, bec EWTN reaches so many people, and people trust it, even more than Fox TV.

I’m thinking even if they sow seeds of doubt about ACC, that is extremely bad, since it would make people think they are off the hook for doing anything about it. They would be feeding into the death and destruction from ACC, and abetting tipping the earth systems into a life-inhospitable state.