Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment has gotten the cold shoulder from prominent Catholic Republicans, leading some in media to question whether these lawmakers are being selective in their appreciation for church authority.
However, a closer look at the space papal encyclicals occupy in Catholicism shows there’s more to this story than the press would suggest.
Jeb Bush, a Roman Catholic, provided a perfect example of the misunderstanding this week when he indicated he doesn’t feel compelled to be bound by Francis’ paper, “Laudato Sii,” which was formally released early Thursday morning.
“I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinal or my pope,” Bush said Tuesday. “I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm.”
An unfinished draft of the encyclical was leaked Monday by the Italian website L’Espresso.
As governor of Florida, Bush regularly cited the Holy Father as he dealt with issues regarding the state and human life, including the death penalty and euthanasia. His apparent dismissal of Francis’ encyclical has therefore left certain media figures confused.
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump suggested Wednesday that Bush’s remarks represent something of a double standard on matters concerning papal authority.
“There was a time when Jeb Bush was far more willing to involve the pope in politics,” Bump wrote.
“Jeb Bush’s opposition to addressing climate change won’t be moved by Pope Francis’s advocacy on the issue, as he made clear this week in New Hampshire,” he added. “When he was governor, though, his religion intertwined with his politics much more freely.”
ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd said more generally of conservative lawmakers, “[H]ere is what I don’t get: Conservative leaders quote the Catholic Church/Pope on social issues, but ignore it on poverty, war and climate.”
His remarks elicited a fervent “amen” from National Journal’s Ron Fournier.
Putting aside Dowd’s assertion that conservatives supposedly “ignore” the Catholic Church’s positions, it’s not inconsistent for a Catholic to claim church teaching on social issues, including its position on abortion, while also disagreeing with specific encyclicals.
Encyclicals are papal letters widely circulated within the church. Catholics are advised to give them serious consideration. Encyclicals are not, however, documents of official church doctrine. Catholics are not bound to observe them.
Encyclicals are not pronouncements made ex cathedra (“from the chair”) regarding faith and morals, which is why they are not presented by the church as official teachings.
A papal encyclical may contain statements that the church identifies as infallible, but the document itself is neither infallible nor is it binding. Contrary to widespread misconceptions, “Papal Infallibility” does not mean that the Holy Father’s every word is somehow “infallible.”
There are guidelines.
The church maintains that, “When the Pope intends to teach by virtue of his supreme authority on a matter of faith and morals to the whole church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called ‘infallible’ and the teaching which he articulates is termed ‘irreformable.'”
Francis has at no point claimed that his environment encyclical is infallible, nor has he presented it as a binding matter of faith. Rather, as a letter to the church, “Laudato Sii” is meant to start a dialogue. Faithful Catholics are not bound to observe the document as they would proclaimed church doctrine. Catholics are not called to observe the pope’s every thought. They are asked to give his remarks very serious consideration.
There is no real double standard, then, for Bush to cite the church’s teaching on life when discussing social issues, including euthanasia, while also dissenting from Francis’ environmental encyclical.
The Post is not alone in its confusion over the issue.
On Tuesday, the New York Times took a slightly different approach, suggesting that a failure to get in line with the Francis-authored document could pose a problem for Catholic 2016 GOP candidates.
At least five 2016 Republicans, including Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, could find themselves in a tough spot should they continue to ignore Francis and his apparent support for “established climate science,” the Times argued.
Curiously absent from many news reports is any mention the encyclical’s full-throated defense of life and its emphasis on the church’s teaching that all persons, especially the unborn, must be protected.
“Perhaps most problematic [in media’s coverage so far] is what was left out of reports on the draft,” LifeSiteNews.com’s John-Henry Westen told the Washington Examiner, referring to initial media reactions this week to the leaked draft. “For example, the pope referenced the ‘throwaway culture’ on multiple occasions — his normal language when talking against abortion. Mainstream outlets failed to mention that he said that one cannot justify abortion by appealing to protecting nature.”
“Likewise, Pope Francis criticized those who would turn nature into a god, and he went out of his way to note many animal rights activists are, hypocritically, unwilling to save human beings — neither of which made the majority of reports,” he added.
Rather than highlight Francis’ emphasis on the sanctity of life, many newsrooms have sought instead to highlight the supposed split between Francis and so-called conservative “climate-change denier[s],” as a Post article published Monday referred to them.
“[M]any outlets included Pope Francis’ use of climate science to decry wasting Earth’s resources — but they did not include his statement that he is not pronouncing definitively on the science which has not reached consensus, but only opening the debate,” Westen said.
