I don't know how many encyclicals on average any one Pope typically issues, and frankly it probably wouldn't be a fair question to start with, given the 2,000 year existence of the office. It seems like Pope Francis has issued a lot of them, but maybe he hasn't. At any rate, he just issued a new one, that being Fratelli tutti.
Or is it a new one really?
Well, of course it is. But in some ways, to the extent I've scanned it, it's a summation of his prior views.
Conservative Catholics, by which to at least some extent we mean simply orthodox Catholics, have britled to varying degrees on Pope Francis' writings and indeed on his Papacy. They have, by and large, gone from cautious, or even not so cautious, optimism to horror or even disdain for a variety of reasons, although not all to the same degree. Even middle of the road American orthodox Catholics tend to have at least some reservations towards the current Pope, while trying always to keep in mind a Catholic's duty to honor the office and occupant of Peter's chair. Others, of more radical bent, don't seem to try that.
The first writing that started to get conservatives in at least the United States rolling was the Pope's Laudato si'. Like a lot of Pope Francis' other writings it was unfortunately muti topic and long. Doing this tend to cause the documents to take on a certain manifesto quality and it also tends to lead to some confusion. Laudato si' not only addressed economics, but it also took on the environment and other topics. In contrast, Pope Leo XVIII's Rerum Novarum, which was short, took on one topic. . . economics.
I note Rerum Novarum as that May 15, 1891 encyclical took on capitalism and socialism. People seem to forget that the Papacy has been on record about its concerns on capitalism back that far. FWIW, Pope Pius VIII issued a writing expressing his concerns all the way back in the early 1840s, prior to Karl Marx writing The Communist Manifesto.
Anyhow, when I read Laudato si' I didn't take it to be terribly radical in that regard, but some people I new surely did and that was when murmurs of "the Pope is a Socialist" began to be heard.
Real concern amped up enormously, and very understandable, with Amoris laetitia, which raised all sorts of questions about at the sacraments and the people in irregular unions. The imprecision of the discussion opened all sort of doors in that area that have been left partially opened and partially shut. Orthodox Catholics were, in my view, justified in their disconcertion over the document and orthodox Bishops who issued dubias regarding it were acting properly. The storm started by Amoris laetitia has never abated and it seems clear that Pope Francis doesn't intend to try to quiet it down. It's issuance began a frightening open rift in the Church between conservatives and liberals that has not only not closed, it continues to open.
Following this the Pope, in 2018, caused a change in the Catechism which brought the death penalty off of the list of things the Church could sanction in terms of criminal penalties. A singular Catechism is actually something the Church has not had for a long time, actually, and dates back only to St. Pope John Paul the Great. Prior to that, to discern Catholic doctrine, you have to mine the various Magisterial documents to figure out what the Church's precise position, if it had one, was.
Pope Francis' position on the death penalty didn't strike me as revolutionary as St. Pope John Paul II had almost gone that far himself. The basic position he held is that he didn't see a situation in which the death penalty could be justified in modern times, not that it wasn't justified at any point in human history. That doesn't seem really radical but it cemented conservative opposition to the Pople in some quarters with some maintaining that the change is not Magisterial. I don't have an opinion on this but I was opposed to the death penalty in the first place, so its' not big deal to me.
After that came the Amazonian synod and an encyclical that followed it, much like Amoris laetitia being associated with the Synod on the Family. Going into that synod there were real fears that Pope Francis was going to open the door to some things, just as there was real fear that he was going to do so with the Family Synod. In neither case did that prove to be the case. The fear in the latter examples was that he was going to open the door to married priests, although I frankly think, even though I'm an orthodox Catholic, that this is merited. We didn't always have unmarried Latin Rite priest and priests in the Eastern Rites are married right now. Anyhow, that didn't happen.
Goings on at that synod, however, were sufficient to shock even some Catholics who almost never make negative comments about a Pope. The following document that was issued mostly was met with s shrug by most and has gone on to not really receive much attention. It seemed to call for close attention to local cultures, but in a very long format. Most people would support that, but the very long format was problematic for the message.
Now comes Fratelli tutti.
My prediction is that this will not be well received.
For one thing, it's way too overlong and it addresses way too many questions. There will be debate on the extent to which any of these are regarded as having moral imperative nature to Catholics, which means that many will be regarded as probably not having them. And, as an encyclical that touches upon a bunch of the prior ones, at least to some extent a person has to ask why this was issued. Indeed, without taking the point to far, it has a bit of an appearance of being a summary theological testament, which tends to be something that people might issue when they don't expect to issue any more.
Which causes me to pose this hypothetical. Is Pope Francis preparing to step down?
I seriously wonder.
If not, does he expected to pass on soon?
To take this further, I really think this is a final theological testament from this Pope. He might issue more writings, but this will be the last significant one.
It'll also be controversial, and as one covering too many topics, I suspect in the future, to at least some extent, it'll be regarded as personal to this People, rather than as a ground breakign document.
In some ways its a long lament and condemnation of the way societies are acting in general. A lot of hte document deals with human relations and local cultures. I'm not going to try to go into any of that here, and it seems to me that it explores a topic Pope Francis has already explored. As has been noted by commentators, it decries globalization and capitalism to a degree, noting in regard to the former:
With
the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, we do not ignore the positive advances made in
the areas of science, technology, medicine, industry and welfare, above all in
developed countries. Nonetheless, “we wish to emphasize that, together with
these historical advances, great and valued as they are, there exists a moral
deterioration that influences international action and a weakening of spiritual
values and responsibility. This contributes to a general feeling of
frustration, isolation and desperation”. We see “outbreaks of tension and a
buildup of arms and ammunition in a global context dominated by uncertainty,
disillusionment, fear of the future, and controlled by narrow economic
interests”. We can also point to “major political crises, situations of
injustice and the lack of an equitable distribution of natural resources… In
the face of such crises that result in the deaths of millions of children –
emaciated from poverty and hunger – there is an unacceptable silence on the
international level”. This
panorama, for all its undeniable advances, does not appear to lead to a more
humane future.
In today’s world, the sense of belonging to a single human family is fading,
and the dream of working together for justice and peace seems an outdated utopia.
What reigns instead is a cool, comfortable and globalized indifference, born of
deep disillusionment concealed behind a deceptive illusion: thinking that we
are all-powerful, while failing to realize that we are all in the same boat.
This illusion, unmindful of the great fraternal values, leads to “a sort of
cynicism. For that is the temptation we face if we go down the road of
disenchantment and disappointment… Isolation and withdrawal into one’s own
interests are never the way to restore hope and bring about renewal. Rather, it
is closeness; it is the culture of encounter. Isolation, no; closeness, yes.
Culture clash, no; culture of encounter, yes”.
In this world that races ahead, yet lacks a shared roadmap, we
increasingly sense that “the gap between concern for one’s personal well-being
and the prosperity of the larger human family seems to be stretching to the
point of complete division between individuals and human community… It is one
thing to feel forced to live together, but something entirely different to
value the richness and beauty of those seeds of common life that need to be sought
out and cultivated”. Technology
is constantly advancing, yet “how wonderful it would be if the growth of
scientific and technological innovation could come with more equality and
social inclusion. How wonderful would it be, even as we discover faraway
planets, to rediscover the needs of the brothers and sisters who orbit around
us
As an aside, quoting a Grand Imam will not win Pope Francis any fans among those who have noted that Islam continues on it its 1600 year war against Catholics and Orthodox in the Middle East. More on something related to that in a moment.
On capitalism, it does address the failures of capitalism, which isn't something new for the Popes. It doesn't really do that in a radical way, however. It does discuss property in a semi radical way, and its my prediction that, while nothing he says is shocking in this regard, that it will bring a firestorm of criticism from American conservative Catholics. What the documents states in this regard is:
RE-ENVISAGING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PROPERTY
118.
The world exists for everyone, because all of us were born with the same
dignity. Differences of colour, religion, talent, place of birth or residence,
and so many others, cannot be used to justify the privileges of some over the
rights of all. As a community, we have an obligation to ensure that every
person lives with dignity and has sufficient opportunities for his or her
integral development.
119.
In the first Christian centuries, a number of thinkers developed a universal
vision in their reflections on the common destination of created goods. This
led them to realize that if one person lacks what is necessary to live with
dignity, it is because another person is detaining it. Saint John Chrysostom
summarizes it in this way: “Not to share our wealth with the poor is to rob
them and take away their livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but
theirs as well”. In
the words of Saint Gregory the Great, “When we provide the needy with their
basic needs, we are giving them what belongs to them, not to us”.
120.
Once more, I would like to echo a statement of Saint John Paul II whose
forcefulness has perhaps been insufficiently recognized: “God gave the earth to
the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding
or favouring anyone”. For
my part, I would observe that “the Christian tradition has never recognized the
right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the
social purpose of all forms of private property”. The
principle of the common use of created goods is the “first principle of the
whole ethical and social order”;it
is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others. All
other rights having to do with the goods necessary for the integral fulfilment
of persons, including that of private property or any other type of property,
should – in the words of Saint Paul VI – “in no way hinder [this right], but should
actively facilitate its implementation”. The
right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right,
derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. This
has concrete consequences that ought to be reflected in the workings of
society. Yet it often happens that secondary rights displace primary and overriding
rights, in practice making them irrelevant.
Rights without borders
121.
No one, then, can remain excluded because of his or her place of birth, much
less because of privileges enjoyed by others who were born in lands of greater
opportunity. The limits and borders of individual states cannot stand in the
way of this. As it is unacceptable that some have fewer rights by virtue of
being women, it is likewise unacceptable that the mere place of one’s birth or
residence should result in his or her possessing fewer opportunities for a
developed and dignified life.
122.
Development must not aim at the amassing of wealth by a few, but must ensure
“human rights – personal and social, economic and political, including the
rights of nations and of peoples”. The
right of some to free enterprise or market freedom cannot supersede the rights
of peoples and the dignity of the poor, or, for that matter, respect for the
natural environment, for “if we make something our own, it is only to
administer it for the good of all”.
123.
Business activity is essentially “a noble vocation, directed to producing
wealth and improving our world”. God
encourages us to develop the talents he gave us, and he has made our universe
one of immense potential. In God’s plan, each individual is called to promote
his or her own development, and
this includes finding the best economic and technological means of multiplying
goods and increasing wealth. Business abilities, which are a gift from God,
should always be clearly directed to the development of others and to
eliminating poverty, especially through the creation of diversified work
opportunities. The right to private property is always accompanied by the
primary and prior principle of the subordination of all private property to the
universal destination of the earth’s goods, and thus the right of all to their
use.
Anything really shocking?
Well, no. But the statement "that “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property”." has come to be contrary to the right wing American civil religion, and that's going to result in all sorts of criticism.
Going on, in the same section, the document states:
The rights of peoples
124.
Nowadays, a firm belief in the common destination of the earth’s goods requires
that this principle also be applied to nations, their territories and their
resources. Seen from the standpoint not only of the legitimacy of private
property and the rights of its citizens, but also of the first principle of the
common destination of goods, we can then say that each country also belongs to
the foreigner, inasmuch as a territory’s goods must not be denied to a needy
person coming from elsewhere. As the Bishops of the United States have taught,
there are fundamental rights that “precede any society because they flow from
the dignity granted to each person as created by God”.
125.
This presupposes a different way of understanding relations and exchanges
between countries. If every human being possesses an inalienable dignity, if
all people are my brothers and sisters, and if the world truly belongs to everyone,
then it matters little whether my neighbour was born in my country or
elsewhere. My own country also shares responsibility for his or her
development, although it can fulfil that responsibility in a variety of ways.
It can offer a generous welcome to those in urgent need, or work to improve
living conditions in their native lands by refusing to exploit those countries
or to drain them of natural resources, backing corrupt systems that hinder the
dignified development of their peoples. What applies to nations is true also
for different regions within each country, since there too great inequalities
often exist. At times, the inability to recognize equal human dignity leads the
more developed regions in some countries to think that they can jettison the “dead
weight” of poorer regions and so increase their level of consumption.
126.
We are really speaking about a new network of international relations, since
there is no way to resolve the serious problems of our world if we continue to
think only in terms of mutual assistance between individuals or small groups.
Nor should we forget that “inequity affects not only individuals but entire
countries; it compels us to consider an ethics of international relations”. Indeed,
justice requires recognizing and respecting not only the rights of individuals,
but also social rights and the rights of peoples. This
means finding a way to ensure “the fundamental right of peoples to subsistence
and progress”, a
right which is at times severely restricted by the pressure created by foreign
debt. In many instances, debt repayment not only fails to promote development
but gravely limits and conditions it. While respecting the principle that all
legitimately acquired debt must be repaid, the way in which many poor countries
fulfil this obligation should not end up compromising their very existence and
growth.
127.
Certainly, all this calls for an alternative way of thinking. Without an
attempt to enter into that way of thinking, what I am saying here will sound
wildly unrealistic. On the other hand, if we accept the great principle that
there are rights born of our inalienable human dignity, we can rise to the
challenge of envisaging a new humanity. We can aspire to a world that provides
land, housing and work for all. This is the true path of peace, not the senseless
and myopic strategy of sowing fear and mistrust in the face of outside threats.
For a real and lasting peace will only be possible “on the basis of a global
ethic of solidarity and cooperation in the service of a future shaped by
interdependence and shared responsibility in the whole human family”.
The Pope's comment that "what I am saying here will sound wildly unrealistic" shows that he is cognizant of the criticism he frequently takes. Really, the comments in this section aren't "wildly unrealistic", but in some quarters they surely will not be well received.
He makes an interesting comment about modern communications, something many have widely observed to be an odd modern problem.
THE ILLUSION OF COMMUNICATION
42.
Oddly enough, while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others are on the
rise, distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to the point that the
right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has become a kind of spectacle to
be examined and inspected, and people’s lives are now under constant
surveillance. Digital communication wants to bring everything out into the
open; people’s lives are combed over, laid bare and bandied about, often
anonymously. Respect for others disintegrates, and even as we dismiss, ignore
or keep others distant, we can shamelessly peer into every detail of their
lives.
42.
Digital campaigns of hatred and destruction, for their part, are not – as some
would have us believe – a positive form of mutual support, but simply an
association of individuals united against a perceived common enemy. “Digital
media can also expose people to the risk of addiction, isolation and a gradual
loss of contact with concrete reality, blocking the development of authentic
interpersonal relationships”. They
lack the physical gestures, facial expressions, moments of silence, body
language and even the smells, the trembling of hands, the blushes and
perspiration that speak to us and are a part of human communication. Digital
relationships, which do not demand the slow and gradual cultivation of
friendships, stable interaction or the building of a consensus that matures
over time, have the appearance of sociability. Yet they do not really build
community; instead, they tend to disguise and expand the very individualism
that finds expression in xenophobia and in contempt for the vulnerable. Digital
connectivity is not enough to build bridges. It is not capable of uniting
humanity.
Shameless aggression
44.
Even as individuals maintain their comfortable consumerist isolation, they can
choose a form of constant and febrile bonding that encourages remarkable
hostility, insults, abuse, defamation and verbal violence destructive of
others, and this with a lack of restraint that could not exist in physical
contact without tearing us all apart. Social aggression has found unparalleled
room for expansion through computers and mobile devices.
45.
This has now given free rein to ideologies. Things that until a few years ago
could not be said by anyone without risking the loss of universal respect can
now be said with impunity, and in the crudest of terms, even by some political
figures. Nor should we forget that “there are huge economic interests operating
in the digital world, capable of exercising forms of control as subtle as they
are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of
the democratic process. The way many platforms work often ends up favouring
encounter between persons who think alike, shielding them from debate. These closed
circuits facilitate the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting
prejudice and hate”.
46.
We should also recognize that destructive forms of fanaticism are at times
found among religious believers, including Christians; they too “can be caught
up in networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums
of digital communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped,
defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical standards and
respect for the good name of others can be abandoned”. How
can this contribute to the fraternity that our common Father asks of us?
Information without wisdom
47.
True wisdom demands an encounter with reality. Today, however, everything can
be created, disguised and altered. A direct encounter even with the fringes of
reality can thus prove intolerable. A mechanism of selection then comes into
play, whereby I can immediately separate likes from dislikes, what I consider
attractive from what I deem distasteful. In the same way, we can choose the
people with whom we wish to share our world. Persons or situations we find
unpleasant or disagreeable are simply deleted in today’s virtual networks; a
virtual circle is then created, isolating us from the real world in which we
are living.
48.
The ability to sit down and listen to others, typical of interpersonal
encounters, is paradigmatic of the welcoming attitude shown by those who
transcend narcissism and accept others, caring for them and welcoming them into
their lives. Yet “today’s world is largely a deaf world… At times, the frantic
pace of the modern world prevents us from listening attentively to what another
person is saying. Halfway through, we interrupt him and want to contradict what
he has not even finished saying. We must not lose our ability to listen”. Saint
Francis “heard the voice of God, he heard the voice of the poor, he heard the
voice of the infirm and he heard the voice of nature. He made of them a way of
life. My desire is that the seed that Saint Francis planted may grow in the
hearts of many”.
49.
As silence and careful listening disappear, replaced by a frenzy of texting,
this basic structure of sage human communication is at risk. A new lifestyle is
emerging, where we create only what we want and exclude all that we cannot
control or know instantly and superficially. This process, by its intrinsic
logic, blocks the kind of serene reflection that could lead us to a shared
wisdom.
50.
Together, we can seek the truth in dialogue, in relaxed conversation or in
passionate debate. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of
silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the broader experience of
individuals and peoples. The flood of information at our fingertips does not
make for greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick searches on the internet
nor is it a mass of unverified data. That is not the way to mature in the
encounter with truth. Conversations revolve only around the latest data; they
become merely horizontal and cumulative. We fail to keep our attention focused,
to penetrate to the heart of matters, and to recognize what is essential to
give meaning to our lives. Freedom thus becomes an illusion that we are
peddled, easily confused with the ability to navigate the internet. The process
of building fraternity, be it local or universal, can only be undertaken by
spirits that are free and open to authentic encounters.
Going on, a section already being misinterpreted is his section on war and the death penalty, which he oddly links. That section starts off:
WAR AND THE DEATH PENALTY
255.
There are two extreme situations that may come to be seen as solutions in
especially dramatic circumstances, without realizing that they are false
answers that do not resolve the problems they are meant to solve and ultimately
do no more than introduce new elements of destruction in the fabric of national
and global society. These are war and the death penalty.
Most people aren't keen on war. The Pope comments on it, as numerous Popes have before. This is already, in my view, being misinterpreted. In that section he states:
The injustice of war
256.
“Deceit is in the mind of those who plan evil, but those who counsel peace have
joy” (Prov 12:20). Yet there are those who seek solutions in war,
frequently fueled by a breakdown in relations, hegemonic ambitions, abuses of
power, fear of others and a tendency to see diversity as an obstacle. War
is not a ghost from the past but a constant threat. Our world is encountering
growing difficulties on the slow path to peace upon which it had embarked and
which had already begun to bear good fruit.
257.
Since conditions that favour the outbreak of wars are once again increasing, I
can only reiterate that “war is the negation of all rights and a dramatic
assault on the environment. If we want true integral human development for all,
we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and peoples. To this end,
there is a need to ensure the uncontested rule of law and tireless recourse to
negotiation, mediation and arbitration, as proposed by the Charter of
the United Nations, which constitutes truly a fundamental juridical norm”.The
seventy-five years since the establishment of the United Nations and the
experience of the first twenty years of this millennium have shown that the
full application of international norms proves truly effective, and that
failure to comply with them is detrimental. The Charter of the United
Nations, when observed and applied with transparency and sincerity, is an
obligatory reference point of justice and a channel of peace. Here there can be
no room for disguising false intentions or placing the partisan interests of
one country or group above the global common good. If rules are considered
simply as means to be used whenever it proves advantageous, and to be ignored
when it is not, uncontrollable forces are unleashed that cause grave harm to
societies, to the poor and vulnerable, to fraternal relations, to the
environment and to cultural treasures, with irretrievable losses for the global
community.
258.
War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian,
defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of
information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly
“justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of
the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military
force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral
legitimacy” have
been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this
potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even “preventive”
attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders
graver than the evil to be eliminated”. At
issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,
and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have
granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent
civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself,
yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”.We
can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably
always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very
difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier
centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!
259.
It should be added that, with increased globalization, what might appear as an
immediate or practical solution for one part of the world initiates a chain of
violent and often latent effects that end up harming the entire planet and
opening the way to new and worse wars in the future. In today’s world, there are
no longer just isolated outbreaks of war in one country or another; instead, we
are experiencing a “world war fought piecemeal”, since the destinies of
countries are so closely interconnected on the global scene.
260.
In the words of Saint John XXIII, “it no longer makes sense to maintain that
war is a fit instrument with which to repair the violation of justice”. In
making this point amid great international tension, he voiced the growing
desire for peace emerging in the Cold War period. He supported the conviction
that the arguments for peace are stronger than any calculation of particular
interests and confidence in the use of weaponry. The opportunities offered by
the end of the Cold War were not, however, adequately seized due to a lack of a
vision for the future and a shared consciousness of our common destiny.
Instead, it proved easier to pursue partisan interests without upholding the
universal common good. The dread spectre of war thus began to gain new ground.
261.
Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of
politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the
forces of evil. Let us not remain mired in theoretical discussions, but touch
the wounded flesh of the victims. Let us look once more at all those civilians
whose killing was considered “collateral damage”. Let us ask the victims themselves.
Let us think of the refugees and displaced, those who suffered the effects of
atomic radiation or chemical attacks, the mothers who lost their children, and
the boys and girls maimed or deprived of their childhood. Let us hear the true
stories of these victims of violence, look at reality through their eyes, and
listen with an open heart to the stories they tell. In this way, we will be
able to grasp the abyss of evil at the heart of war. Nor will it trouble us to
be deemed naive for choosing peace.
262.
Rules by themselves will not suffice if we continue to think that the solution
to current problems is deterrence through fear or the threat of nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons. Indeed, “if we take into consideration the
principal threats to peace and security with their many dimensions in this
multipolar world of the twenty-first century as, for example, terrorism,
asymmetrical conflicts, cybersecurity, environmental problems, poverty, not a
few doubts arise regarding the inadequacy of nuclear deterrence as an effective
response to such challenges. These concerns are even greater when we consider
the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that would follow
from any use of nuclear weapons, with devastating, indiscriminate and uncontainable
effects, over time and space… We need also to ask ourselves how sustainable is
a stability based on fear, when it actually increases fear and undermines
relationships of trust between peoples. International peace and stability
cannot be based on a false sense of security, on the threat of mutual
destruction or total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a balance of power…
In this context, the ultimate goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons
becomes both a challenge and a moral and humanitarian imperative… Growing
interdependence and globalization mean that any response to the threat of
nuclear weapons should be collective and concerted, based on mutual trust. This
trust can be built only through dialogue that is truly directed to the common
good and not to the protection of veiled or particular interests”. With
the money spent on weapons and other military expenditures, let us establish a
global fund that
can finally put an end to hunger and favour development in the most
impoverished countries, so that their citizens will not resort to violent or
illusory solutions, or have to leave their countries in order to seek a more
dignified life.
I've seen commentary already that the Pope has abrogated the "Catholic doctrine of just war". That doesn't appear to be the case to me, and it wasn't a "Catholic doctrine" to start with. Rather, it's a very well respected Theological view.
Going on, this statement is being noted:
In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!
Statements like "Never again war" must read better in other languages than in English, or at least in the Romance languages, as in English this is ineffectual and seems oddly stated. That aside, we'll have to wait for clarification on this, but frankly the rational criteria for just war is just as possible to imagine as it ever was when we're considering defensive war.
Indeed, in my view, this statement suffers from the modern assumption that war now is more horrific than ever before, when in fact war is getting less lethal, at least when conducted between modern nations. Moreover, we live in the most peaceful era in human history. If just wars of some sort were justified mid 20th Century, when war was at its destructive apex, they certainly must be now, when they are at their destructive basement, and going lower. And the reference, as is so often made, to chemical, biological and nuclear war imagines a world that really pinacled in the 1960s. Modern armies may have these weapons, but they don't use them as there's no point. We oddly live in an era when technology has rendered our most destructive weapons obsolete by their precision, and accordingly their reduced lethality.
Offensive war is something that the Popes have decried for a long time. I can't say that its been completely ruled out due to nuances in what constitutes an offensive war, but it seems clear that by and large this isn't really much of a change. The Pope isn't endorsing, it seems to me, pacifism, but rather resort to war to settle international disputes. If I'm correct, this isn't a change. In other words, if Poland is invaded by Russia, Poland, a Catholic country, is still entitled to resist, it seems to me.
I really question, however, whether Pope Francis should have gone into this at all. While wars are increasingly rare, in recent years where they have existed they've often pitted Islam in aggressive violence against Christians in general and the Catholic and Orthodox in particular. It's easy to be against war of any kind for Europeans or those living in the New World. It might not be if you are facing the Islamic State on the Lavant.
I also don't' think the new writing changes Catholic doctrine on the death penalty, as some seem to be stating, where it states:
The death penalty
263.
There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed not at countries but at
individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John Paul II stated clearly and
firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no
longer necessary from that of penal justice. There
can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that “the
death penalty is inadmissible” and
the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.
264.
In the New Testament, while individuals are asked not to take justice into
their own hands (cf. Rom 12:17.19), there is also a
recognition of the need for authorities to impose penalties on evildoers
(cf. Rom 13:4; 1 Pet 2:14). Indeed, “civic
life, structured around an organized community, needs rules of coexistence, the
wilful violation of which demands appropriate redress”.[249] This
means that legitimate public authority can and must “inflict punishments
according to the seriousness of the crimes” and
that judicial power be guaranteed a “necessary independence in the realm of
law”.
265.
From the earliest centuries of the Church, some were clearly opposed to capital
punishment. Lactantius, for example, held that “there ought to be no exception
at all; that it is always unlawful to put a man to death”. Pope
Nicholas I urged that efforts be made “to free from the punishment of death not
only each of the innocent, but all the guilty as well”.During
the trial of the murderers of two priests, Saint Augustine asked the judge not
to take the life of the assassins with this argument: “We do not object to your
depriving these wicked men of the freedom to commit further crimes. Our desire
is rather that justice be satisfied without the taking of their lives or the
maiming of their bodies in any part. And, at the same time, that by the
coercive measures provided by the law, they be turned from their irrational
fury to the calmness of men of sound mind, and from their evil deeds to some
useful employment. This too is considered a condemnation, but who does not see
that, when savage violence is restrained and remedies meant to produce
repentance are provided, it should be considered a benefit rather than a mere
punitive measure… Do not let the atrocity of their sins feed a desire for
vengeance, but desire instead to heal the wounds which those deeds have
inflicted on their souls”.
266.
Fear and resentment can easily lead to viewing punishment in a vindictive and
even cruel way, rather than as part of a process of healing and reintegration
into society. Nowadays, “in some political sectors and certain media, public
and private violence and revenge are incited, not only against those
responsible for committing crimes, but also against those suspected, whether
proven or not, of breaking the law… There is at times a tendency to
deliberately fabricate enemies: stereotyped figures who represent all the
characteristics that society perceives or interprets as threatening. The
mechanisms that form these images are the same that allowed the spread of
racist ideas in their time”.[This
has made all the more dangerous the growing practice in some countries of
resorting to preventive custody, imprisonment without trial and especially the
death penalty.
267.
Here I would stress that “it is impossible to imagine that states today have no
other means than capital punishment to protect the lives of other people from
the unjust aggressor”. Particularly serious in this regard are so-called
extrajudicial or extralegal executions, which are “homicides deliberately
committed by certain states and by their agents, often passed off as clashes
with criminals or presented as the unintended consequences of the reasonable,
necessary and proportionate use of force in applying the law”.
268.
“The arguments against the death penalty are numerous and well-known. The
Church has rightly called attention to several of these, such as the
possibility of judicial error and the use made of such punishment by
totalitarian and dictatorial regimes as a means of suppressing political dissidence
or persecuting religious and cultural minorities, all victims whom the
legislation of those regimes consider ‘delinquents’. All Christians and people
of good will are today called to work not only for the abolition of the death
penalty, legal or illegal, in all its forms, but also to work for the
improvement of prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of
persons deprived of their freedom. I would link this to life imprisonment… A
life sentence is a secret death penalty”.
269.
Let us keep in mind that “not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and
God himself pledges to guarantee this”. The
firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to
recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or
she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of
criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone the possibility
of sharing this planet with me, despite all our differences.
270.
I ask Christians who remain hesitant on this point, and those tempted to yield
to violence in any form, to keep in mind the words of the book of Isaiah: “They
shall beat their swords into plowshares” (2:4). For us, this prophecy took
flesh in Christ Jesus who, seeing a disciple tempted to violence, said firmly:
“Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by
the sword” (Mt 26:52). These words echoed the ancient warning: “I
will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by
man shall his blood be shed” (Gen 9:5-6). Jesus’ reaction, which
sprang from his heart, bridges the gap of the centuries and reaches the present
as an enduring appeal.
The Church already was taking the point that it was hard to find an area, in modern times, when the death penalty was morally justified.
The encyclical touches on much more than this, indeed on darned near everything, but will it hit the mark? I doubt it.
By this point I think that conservative Catholics in many places are pretty much ignoring the Pope directly and are more likely to listen to Catholic pundits who share their own views or who ratify their own suspicions. And part of that is due to Pope Francis' failure to address their concerns. In parishes where the seminary failures of the 50s, 60s and 70s produced unorthodox clergy and, worse yet, priests with disordered inclinations who preyed on some parishioners, that failure looms larger. With a young Church that's much more orthodox than the Church of their parents, older Boomer clergy that keeps on keeping on is something that draws more attention. Wars and economics are real problems, to be sure, but so is the legacy of the Boomer influx. Actions speak the loudest of all and action seems to have been lacking that can be appreciated. Dealing with the spectre of war, which doesn't touch most Catholics today, is one thing, but dealing with a rebellious German church, which touches all Catholics to some degree, is another matter.
