G
Geremia
Guest
In your opinions, what are the currently most unheeded encyclicals in the Church?
- Status
A
Ace86
Guest
The ones before Vatican II.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I knew someone would beat me to it. For starters the following.
The Oath Against Modernism
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
Praestantia Scripturae
The Syllabus Of Errors
The Oath Against Modernism
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
Praestantia Scripturae
The Syllabus Of Errors
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I would suggest Humanae Vitae.
At the time it was issued several priests in Philadelphia (?) refused to accept it and were promptly suspended by their bishop. They appealed to Rome, were reinstated, and the bishop was advised to be more pastoral and less of a disciplinarian. Those who had hopes of becoming bishop quickly got the word and *pastoral *has been a key factor in choosing bishops ever since. Catholics quickly flocked to priests who were pastoral rather than disciplinarian in the Confessional.
Many got upset when bishops applied the same rules of pastoral vs disciplinarian to priest guilty of abusing minors, but I haven’t seen that it had much effect on the bishops involved. Cardinal Law is the only case I have seen of a bishop getting his fingers slapped for this.
Many [most?] of our leaders continue this pastoral approach to politicians who support abortion and other anti-church teaching issues.
Noting that encyclicals are the Word of God, one should consider Psalm 95
At the time it was issued several priests in Philadelphia (?) refused to accept it and were promptly suspended by their bishop. They appealed to Rome, were reinstated, and the bishop was advised to be more pastoral and less of a disciplinarian. Those who had hopes of becoming bishop quickly got the word and *pastoral *has been a key factor in choosing bishops ever since. Catholics quickly flocked to priests who were pastoral rather than disciplinarian in the Confessional.
Many got upset when bishops applied the same rules of pastoral vs disciplinarian to priest guilty of abusing minors, but I haven’t seen that it had much effect on the bishops involved. Cardinal Law is the only case I have seen of a bishop getting his fingers slapped for this.
Many [most?] of our leaders continue this pastoral approach to politicians who support abortion and other anti-church teaching issues.
Noting that encyclicals are the Word of God, one should consider Psalm 95
and Hebrews 3
Note that we hardened our hearts fourty years ago last July. The last 12 months may indicate that God has tired of waiting for us to repent.
S
Shin
Guest
Well, that about sums it up.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
P
puzzleannie
Guest
Humanae Vitae which is not coincidentally also the most prophetic encyclical of modern times. There are priests and bishops who will burn in hell, or serve long terms in purgatory, for misleading their flock about the issues this encyclical addresses, in the name of “being pastoral”.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
Not being well versed in the various encyclicals, except for some of the more recent ones, I would have to go with the ones that seemed to be the most controversial. Obviously *Humane Vitae *has to be Number One, since millions of Catholics ignored it. It was probably the biggest mistake the Church has made in the past 50 years (or perhaps second to ignoring for too long the clerical sex scandals).
The encyclical of Pius IX which gave us the Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura, which shocked Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and was generally not received well, would have to be on the list. I think it reflected more on the mental state of Pius at that time than it did on the conditions that were being addressed.
Some have mentioned Modernism and the encyclical which addressed that issue, which I believe was Pius X’s Pascendi. Based on my readings, it would not list that encylical as one of the most “unheeded”, at least not during the years immediately following its issuance. It seems that the encyclical and the document listing the modernist propositions were abided by throughout the church, such as in seminaries and in publications. The effect may have worn off over time, but it doesn’t appear that there was wholesale disobediance of it, unlike with Humane Vitae.
I am not familiar with some of the other encyclicals mentioned, so will defer to others as to whether they were heeded or not.
The encyclical of Pius IX which gave us the Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura, which shocked Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and was generally not received well, would have to be on the list. I think it reflected more on the mental state of Pius at that time than it did on the conditions that were being addressed.
Some have mentioned Modernism and the encyclical which addressed that issue, which I believe was Pius X’s Pascendi. Based on my readings, it would not list that encylical as one of the most “unheeded”, at least not during the years immediately following its issuance. It seems that the encyclical and the document listing the modernist propositions were abided by throughout the church, such as in seminaries and in publications. The effect may have worn off over time, but it doesn’t appear that there was wholesale disobediance of it, unlike with Humane Vitae.
I am not familiar with some of the other encyclicals mentioned, so will defer to others as to whether they were heeded or not.
K
Kook
Guest
Do apostolic constitutions count? If so, then Veterum Sapientia has to be #1.
I’ll go with Quas Primas as #2.
I’ll go with Quas Primas as #2.
Y
yinekka
Guest
*Obviously Humane Vitae has to be Number One, since millions of Catholics ignored it. It was probably the biggest mistake the Church has made in the past 50 years *
Why do you consider that the promulgation Humanae Vitae was a mistake?
Why do you consider that the promulgation Humanae Vitae was a mistake?
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
This encyclical, and the one prior to it about priestly celibacy, showed to the world a church at odds with itself. It highlighted the debate over the concentration of Papal powers. It exposed a church that valued unchanging doctrines more than growth and revelation through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. It effectively destroyed much of the good will and positive PR for the Church that came out of Vatican II.
Since the issue of birth control affected millions of Catholics, this one received the most publicity. Concerned about what changes the Vatican II Council would make on this issue, a commission was set up to study the issue and make recommendations. Here is what Paul said in *Humanae Vitae *about it:
A key part of the above is the last line: “**not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting.” ** Many people, Catholics, other Christians, and people of other faiths, were energized by what came out of Vatican II, and expected a new openness in the Catholic Church and a greater responsiveness to the needs of the faithful.
It was apparent that the Commission (or at least a majority of its members) came up with a schema that was not acceptable to the Pope and the Curia. This is how Paul VI described it in the encyclical (underlining is mine):
One question that some people ask is if Paul made the decision he did because he could truly not agree with the Bishops and the Commission, or because the change threatened the power of the Papacy, since prior Popes had clearly condemned any form of artificial contraception? Or perhaps Paul did not want to be remembered as the Pope who allowed all these progressive changes to occur on his watch? Or was he being pressured by his inner circle at the Vatican? In any case, we find one person, the Pope, who unilaterally decided an issue differently than the Council of Bishops or his own Commission would have decided it.
Not only did this put the Church in a bad PR light as far as internal disagreements and closed mindedness, but it also caused people to question the organization of the church itself, and the concentration of power in the hands (and mind) of one man. Was the Spirit of God working through just one human being, rather than the entire Church? Or was the Spirit working through the entire Church but being thwarted by one man who could not admit that a decision made by a predecessor in the Chair of Peter should actually be changed?
Then end result was the spectacular failure of the encyclical, which was ignored by some Bishops, many Priests, and the great majority of Catholic couples. And where for a few wonderful moments we had seen the windows and doors of the church opened to allow the Spirit to descend like a dove carrying truth and enlightenment to the faithful, those doors and windows were closed once again by the “Pharisees and Scholars of the Law”, who consider rules, tradition and Papal hegemony more important than the teachings of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
M
manualman
Guest
Short Version: I didn’t get the sexual license I had expected to, so I’m mad.
The above post is an excellent (if tragic) representation of the thinking in those who rejected Humanae Vitae. Some holes in the argument to ponder:
The above post is an excellent (if tragic) representation of the thinking in those who rejected Humanae Vitae. Some holes in the argument to ponder:
- Has the widespread rejection of HV had positive or negative effects on the culture in which it occurred? Have the rejectors noticed the changes and pondered the glaring correlation?
- What has been the contrasting effect in the lives of those who chose to submit to this teaching of the Church, not just in slavish obedience but in understanding and conformance of conscience?
- What assumptions lurk unexamined in the presuppositions held by those who were “shocked” by the teaching of Humanae Vitae?
- Notice the presumption of ill will and outright malice for Paul VI’s motives. No chance that he actually believed that Divine Revelation was right on the issue for all these centuries. Oh no, the Kinseyites MUST be correct. They’re scientific!
It must be power lust and bureacracy that motivated him…
M
manualman
Guest
On reflection, I just realized I ommitted THE largest question for the HV rejectors to ponder: What is the purpose of the papacy? Is it just a nice ceremonial office (like ‘King of England’) or did Christ give a special assignment to Peter which persists in his office? Personally, I think Scripture is as clear as Tradition when it shows Peter resolving the question of circumcision and later of ‘unclean’ foods. He clearly was the final arbiter of whether these where obsolete Mosaic law issues or eternal morality issues when controversy tore at the faithful. The rejectors clearly think that the mass of the faithful is ‘good enough’ to safeguard the deposit of the faith. I wonder if they ponder the experience of the Church during the Arian heresy years? Or perhaps they figure that what’s good enough for politics is good enough for the faith?
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
Considering we are talking about married Catholic couples, “sexual license” was not the issue.
Thank you for the compliment. Yes, *Humanae Vitae *was tragic (I know that is not what you said).
Some holes in the argument to ponder:
- Has the widespread rejection of HV had positive or negative effects on the culture in which it occurred? Have the rejectors noticed the changes and pondered the glaring correlation?
- What has been the contrasting effect in the lives of those who chose to submit to this teaching of the Church, not just in slavish obedience but in understanding and conformance of conscience?
- What assumptions lurk unexamined in the presuppositions held by those who were “shocked” by the teaching of Humanae Vitae?
- Notice the presumption of ill will and outright malice for Paul VI’s motives. No chance that he actually believed that Divine Revelation was right on the issue for all these centuries. Oh no, the Kinseyites MUST be correct. They’re scientific!
- Don’t know if that can be measured or ascertained. The results would likely have been the same no matter what the Pope decided.
- Not sure about this one either, but would be interested to learn more (about both 1 & 2).
- Don’t recall anyone saying they were “shocked”, since it was not new doctrine. Dismayed, disappointed and confused would be more accurate descriptions of the reactions.
- Of course there was a chance Paul believed in the doctrine, which was inferred in his disagreeing with the commission, as one of several possibilities. And Paul may have had more than one of those reasons in mind when he made his decision and wrote HV. Divine Revelation on this issue is questionable, at best. Interpretation of Divine Revelation would be more accurate.
I know of a young couple who were married shortly after HV was promulgated. This couple went for pre-marital counseling with the priest of their parish (much different process than today). The bride-to-be was already taking the pill (not for the reason you would assume, but as prescribed by her doctor due to menstrual cycle problems she was experiencing). This couple asked the priest what they should do, since if she stopped taking the pill, they would have a very difficult time using NFP due to her messed up cycles. The Priest discussed it with them, and gave his “blessing” to continue using the pill.
Who was the “Christ-bearer” here, this Priest or the Pope?
And I know of other wives who would have been risking their lives having more children. What were they to do? Give up sexual intimacy with their husbands, since every form of sex other than procreative was forbidden, and as they didn’t want to use other forms of contraception?
The Pope is the “defender of the Faith” but he is ALSO the “shepherd of the faithful”. It would have been nice if he (and others in his position) would have paid more attention to the heartfelt pleas of their flock rather than just to doctrine carved in stone. (See comments by Jesus on the burdens imposed by Pharisees and Scholars of the Law).
T
Timothysis
Guest
Of course not! They should continue to use birth control with full knowledge and consent that the Church has defined such actions as intrinsically evil. If pregnancy occurred, well why not just have an abortion instead of “risking their lives having more children?” After all, if birth control is intrinsically evil and yet, one can still use it without conscience and be ok with it (according to your logic), then why not abortion, too?
You obviously have a lot to learn.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
Yes, I am always learning and hope to continue to improve my understanding of God every day for the rest of my life. But I am having a difficult time understanding exactly what you are saying, or if YOU understand what I am saying.Of course not! They should continue to use birth control with full knowledge and consent that the Church has defined such actions as intrinsically evil. If pregnancy occurred, well why not just have an abortion instead of “risking their lives having more children?” After all, if birth control is intrinsically evil and yet, one can still use it without conscience and be ok with it (according to your logic), then why not abortion, too?
You obviously have a lot to learn.
First, you equate any kind of birth control with abortion. I would think that very few people do that, since there is no connection. One is used to prevent or reduce the chances of conception, the other is the killing of another human after conception. I personally have known very many Catholic couples and none of them would ever say that if they had an unplanned conception (which some have had) they would have an abortion.
**You say that birth control is “intrinsically evil”, which I would strenuously disagree with. It may be unacceptable in the eyes of official Church teaching, but there is a huge difference between something that is defined as “wrong” by certain people and something that is generally considered “evil”. I would bet everything I own that if you polled Christians in general and theologians in particular, that the great majority would say that birth control is not “evil”. **
Just because a Church doctrine or teaching says something is true or should be followed does not make it so. If “proclaiming something as truth makes it so” is the structure on which the Catholic church is basing its authority, the church is built on a very shaky foundation. This lesson has been taught many times in the history of Christianity and should have been learned many centuries ago, but the Church persists in the idea that any doctrine, once proclaimed, is immutable.
The other belief the Church seems to hold that I think affects this and other similar issues is that revelation is a thing of the past and that guidance by the Holy Spirit is limited to a few “chosen” people (mostly the hierarchy of the Church). I think both assumptions are wrong. God gave us the ability to learn, to grow in understanding and knowledge. And we should use that God given ability to learn more about Him, to improve our understanding of His Gospel. But in the minds of the Church that understanding is frozen in a time 2000 years ago, despite that fact that God has revealed so much more to us about Himself and His creation since that time.
The Spirit can and does speak and work through normal, everyday people. You may recall that there was an intinerant preacher in a backwater of a desert country, called Galilee, who many centuries ago proclaimed the “Good News”. Very few accepted His Word, and those who fought it the most were the leaders of the church, the Temple Priests, the Pharisees and the Scholars of the Jewish Law. Their doctrine and practices were immutable, and what was this uneducated, troublemaking son of a common workman doing in trying to tell THEM what God expected of us? But the poor, the sinner, the downtrodden, the centurion, the Samaritan, the fishermen and the tax collectors, they heard and understood His message. The Spirit was speaking TO and THROUGH them, not through the “Fathers of the Church”.
Ah, we have come so far but have learned so little.
G
Geremia
Guest
Natural Family Planning (NFP), the only morally permissible form of birth control, is not contraception.
Do you mean the Pope should have listened, solely in the name of unity, to some of his flock’s pleas that he legitimize their sins against chastity?
It seems you assume Peter, the first Pope, was a Pharisee. Was he?
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
NFP, which is still a form of contraception by definition (since it’s purpose is to control or prevent when conception occurs), does not work well for some women with irregular cycles and other issues, as I pointed it out in an earlier post.
No, he should have listened to the Holy Spirit, who may have been speaking through the Council and the Commission, and even perhaps through the people who were his flock. The question of whether certain forms of contraception are a “sin against chastity” was at issue here, and Pope Paul didn’t like the answers he was getting from the Bishops and from various learned Catholics. He would have been wise to step back a bit, consider what he was hearing, take a little extra time to pray over it, and perhaps would have come up with something better than his disastrous encyclical. Otherwise, Paul VI was a wise and effective Pope, an evangelist for the faith, and made the Papacy a moral force in the world. A wonderful Pope, except for this one (unfortunately big) mistake.
Not quite, although he did try to make Gentiles fall under Judaic law regarding the need to be circumcised, prompted by the “Pharisees who had become believers” (ACTS 15). But the Apostle Paul (with a boost from the Holy Spirit) convinced him to CHANGE HIS MIND (imagine that!) and instead of having a Christianity that remained a small sect of Judaism in the desert, we have the universal Church of today. Amazing what one little change in DOCTRINE can do! Perhaps Pope Paul should have used that bit of scripture to guide him.
No, my reference was more about later Church leadership, to the present time. Sadly, many churches have become exactly what Jesus preached about regarding the religious leadership of His time. My conclusion is that if Jesus were standing amongst us today, he would be saying the very same things that he said to and about the Pharisees and Scholars of the Law in Judea and Galilee, but he would be pointing at Rome, as well as at the leaders of fundamentalist churches and others who preach the hierarchy of rules and doctrine made by man over the importance of leading a life of Christian mercy and love.
- Status