Encyclicus Maculatus: Eco-Encyclical To Undergo Revision

The Radical Catholic ^ | May 13, 2015 | The Radical Catholic

[ebb tide]

According to Vaticanist Sandro Magister, Pope Francis has decided to postpone the publication of his long-awaited encyclical on the environment. The reason, according to Magister, is that the Pope realized that the document in its current state had no chance of receiving the approval of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under the leadership of Cardinal Gerhard Müller. If it seems somewhat improper for a Cardinal to be telling a Pope what he can and can't write, don't fret, gentle reader: the text wasn't written by Pope Francis at all. The ghostwriter behind the heavily discussed encyclical is one Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández of Tiburnia, a native of Buenos Aires. Archbishop Fernández, who belongs to Pope Francis' inner circle in the position of most trusted theological adviser, was already heavily involved in the writing of Evangelii gaudium, and spent the Summer of 2013 in Rome for that purpose. Last March, as Pope Francis set about to compose his Eco-Encyclical, Archbishop Fernández was again flown in to do the heavy lifting. The close working relationship apparently stretches back to the time when Pope Francis was still Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, with Fernández working largely behind the scenes, drafting the future Pontiff's important speeches and letters.

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández (Notice the pectoral cross. Look familiar?) However, it seems that Archbishop Fernández has let the influence he enjoyed over papal affairs go to his head. In an interview published in Corriere della Sera last Sunday, he took the current wave of Ultramontanism to new heights, implying that the Curia and the entire body of Cardinals are non-essential to the government of the Church - which, while technically true, is Vaticanese for "we will push ahead, with or without the Cardinals' blessing." He also felt safe enough to criticize Cardinal Müller's recent comments that his job as Prefect of the CDF is to give the Pope's magisterium theological structure:

I have read that some say that the Roman Curia is an essential part of the mission of the Church, or that a Prefect in the Vatican is the sure compass preventing the Church from falling into ignomy, or that this Prefect guarantees the unity of the Faith and facilitates serious theology from the Pope. But Catholics know from reading the Gospel that it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment - and not to a Prefect or some other structure. When one hears such things, one could almost get the impression that the Pope is merely their representative, or one who has come to disturb and must, therefore, be monitored. [...] The Pope is convinced that what he has written or said cannot be treated as an error. Therefore, all these things can be repeated in the future, without having to fear receiving a sanction for it. We don't know how Cardinal Müller reacted to these sharp words, or whether, as Giuseppe Nardi surmises, he spoke directly with Pope Francis regarding the encylical, but Magister relates that sources inside Santa Marta are reporting that the Pope will not be publishing Archbishop Fernández' already completed text, and has - for the time being - tabled the entire project. It's clear that he can't let it disappear entirely without a tremendous loss of face in the public arena; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, apparently moonlighting as a Vatican spokesman, has announced that the encyclical is set to appear in June of this year. But who will be behind the next incarnation of the encyclicus maculatus is anybody's guess.

(NB: I would like to acknowledge the work of the tireless Giuseppe Nardi, without which this article could not have been written. See his treatment, in German, here.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

If he announced that -— and I actually saw this, heard it in English and not in The Onion —— I would assume he was out of his mind. Or that I was.

[ebb tide]

I exaggerated the part about against the Martians’ will, but Francis did say this, “That was unthinkable. If – for example - tomorrow an expedition of Martians came, and some of them came to us, here... Martians, right? Green, with that long nose and big ears, just like children paint them... And one says, ‘But I want to be baptized!’ What would happen?”

How would Francis know these Martians had souls or suffered the stain of original sin, since Adam and Eve were not Martians?

>>Pope Francis is not the first one to hint at alien baptism. Vatican scientist Guy Consolmagno suggested in 2010 that aliens might have souls and could be baptized if they asked for it.<<

>>”Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul,” Consolmagno said in a talk preceding the British Science Festival in Birmingham.<<

[Mrs. Don-o]

I started thinking about this (a tiny bit) when I was homeschooling my boys, and I was trying to explain the three kinds of persons (Divine, angelic and human). What makes a "person" a person --- as opposed to a brute animal or an adroid or other type of machine? As I understand it, it has to be a being that possesses intelligence and free will.

The Divine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) possesses uncreated, unlimited, unconditioned, and absolute intelligence and free will. Angelic persons possess, in a created way, a limited and conditional intelligence and free will superior to that of other creatures. Human persons possess a created, a limited and conditional intelligence and free will inferior to that of the angels.

With me so far? Metaphysics isn't necessarily my strong point (to say the least), but I think I've got that part right.

Now, what if there were other created entities in the Universe who also possessed intelligence and free will, but were neither angels nor descendants of Adam and Eve? It's possible.

Would they be affected by Original Sin? Not as descendants who have received a ruined human nature from our First Parents; and yet we know that the whole Universe was trashed; the whole of Creation was messed up, somehow, by humanity's sin.

In Genesis 3 we read:

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:17-19)

In Romans 8 we read:

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8:18-22)

So it's --- I won't say certain, but --- plausible, that a race (or races) of alien persons would have had their natures somehow messed up by sin. Maybe that of Adam and Eve, or maybe that of their own personal ancestors: LGM progenitors on another planet who paralleled our own First parents.

The questions for theologians would be:

• Are they persons? (We'd have to evaluate their intelligence and will, and determine that they were neither brutes nor machines)

• And --- are they fallen? (We'd have to know whether they'd marred the dignity of their original personhood.)

• And --- does Christ intend to save them, as He does us? (One can't doubt that, being All-Good, He wants to; and being All-Knowing, He knows how to; and being All-Powerful, He can. But what has He done? Or how is His will in this made manifest?)

Those are real questions, I think.

To continue the "supposal", now what if some of these entities requested Baptism? What if they were supernaturally instructed to ask for it? Wouldn't their position be analogous to those Jumani Indians of New Mexico and Texas who were visited in the 17th century by the bilocating Abbess Mary of Agreda and instructed to seek out Spanish priests and request Baptism?

It wouldn't be crazy for Pope Francis to discuss this, though it doesn't seem he has done so very extensively or with depth.

If some extraterrestrial entity requested Baptism, though, I think itt be wrong to deny it any consideration.

[pbear8]

Since you are a life long Catholic like me, you know why you are in the Church. You believe in one God, the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ His only Son, Our Lord. You will not allow a human being to take that away from you.

The Church is a divine institution which is run by human beings, many merry mix ups ensue. This, too, shall pass. If this encyclical is ever issued, it can be given all due consideration (none) since it is not an infallible teaching. You know your history, during many periods the Church has had, um, different types of earthly leaders. The faithful may have rolled their eyes but they remained faithful to Our Lord. In the end He is all that matters. He gave us the Holy Mass as the perfect prayer, you always want to be near that. The great saints suffered through bad times too, can we do any less?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If the Pope publishes a global warming encyclical that supports the global warming lies and agenda, then I am done."

With all due respect, this is a serious mistake and I would urge you to reconsider.

The pope can make all manner of errors, including publishing erroneous opinions in an encyclical, without changing by one iota the faith and morals, doctrine and dogma, mission and ministry of the Church.

The Church was founded by Jesus Christ, and it is worth you time to look again at just what the "mission" is, and the promises made by Christ to see that it is accomplished:

Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the world.”

Two things: First, the mission is baptizing and making obedient disciples of all nations, and second, Jesus has the authority and power to accomplish this, and promises He will be with us always. Yes, He ascended into heaven; but no, He ain't left and He ain't leaving.

If you will look into the 265 popes preceding Pope Francis, you will see that some of them have been great saints of extraordinary wisdom and holiness; many of them have been merely adequate, mediocre, or barely effective; and a handful have been outright scoundrels and Judas Priests.

A deeper immersion in the history will sober and steady you, because it is apparent that Jesus is faithful to everything He said. The Church is a great deal more than the Papacy, and the Lord will use the office of the Pope to advance His cause, and/or protect us from the human errors of the man in office.

For the Church, these are dangerous times: but as St. Teresa of Avila said, "All times are dangerous times."

It's not even possible to have a doctrine of the Church on the subject of "climate change," since that is simply a category error: "climate change" is a topic for physical scientists and secular policy makers, not for the Magisterium.

You can't help yourself OR the Church by leaving it, any more than you could pilot the Ark by jumping overboard.

The protection of the Church depends not on the competence of men, but on the promises of Christ.

[ebb tide]

Now, what if there were other created entities in the Universe who also possessed intelligence and free will, but were neither angels nor descendants of Adam and Eve? It's possible.

Angels aren't baptized. Why would one think Martians should be?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Angels are not part of the physical Universe. They neither beget nor are they begotten. They were not spiritually affected by the Fall of Man. Or, not that we know of.

As for Martians, Vulcans, Ferengi and miscallaneous theoretical ET's and LGM's -- they are a part of the Universe, which Scripture says was to some degree or in some way corrupted and "subjected to futility" by the Fall of Man. I don't know if this would be because they are related genetically to our race somehow, or if there is some other way entities become corrupted (that's all rather mysterious, isn't it?) ---- but IF they somehow lost spiritual gifts with which they would otherwise have been endowed, and they are, like us, a fallen race, then they would clearly need a Savior.

This is all speculation. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Madeleine L'Engle all dealt with these themes to some extent in their Faith-influenced imaginative works. They didn't know either, but they thought about it.

[ebb tide]

Angels are not part of the physical Universe.

I don't agree. An angel visited Mary at the Annunciation. An angel instructed and prepared the Fatima children for Holy Communion and he administered It to them (on the knees and on the tongue by the way).

They were not spiritually affected by the Fall of Man. Or, not that we know of.

Another false statement, I believe. Were not one third of the angels condemned to damnation due to the fall of man, thanks to Lucifer?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The fact that angels came to Bethlehem and Jerusalem and Fatima and many other places, does not mean that they are part of the physical universe. They are 100% spiritual entities.

The rebellion of Satan and his allies apparently happened after the creation of Earth, but before the sin of Adam and Eve. It was not "due to the fall of Man," nor was it caused by or preceded by the Original Sin of our first parents.

As I understand it.

[ebb tide]

They neither beget nor are they begotten.

How do you know if Martians or Vulcans either beget or are begotten? You're beginning to sound like Francis and the resident wacko astronomer, Guy Consolmagno (another Jesuit by the way): "Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul." If Cocoa, the signing monkey, signed for baptism would Francis baptize it?

God created Adam, in His own image. God breathed a soul into Adam.

Both Francis and Guy seem to blow off Genesis as fairy tales ( with their support of evolution and all that "stuff"). Do you do so, also?

Where in Genesis did got create your Martians and Vulcans? Or do you, Francis, and Guy think the Holy Ghost left us an incomplete Bible?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I said ANGELS do not beget nor are they begotten. I have no idea about LGM’s.

[ebb tide]

What’s your definition of the “physical universe” as compared to the “universe”? I’ve never heard the former term used term before.

What happened to the one prayer that Christ taught us: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is Heaven?”.

No mention of Mars, is there?

[ebb tide]

What’s an LGM? And do believe in them? How about your Martians and Vulcans, do you believe in them?

[ebb tide]

I said ANGELS do not beget nor are they begotten.

But for some reason you brought that fact up in the discussion on whom may be baptized. I don't understand why you did so.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I was responding to what you said about angels:

" Angels aren't baptized. Why would one think Martians should be?"

[Mrs. Don-o]

"What’s an LGM? And do believe in them? How about your Martians and Vulcans, do you believe in them?

LGM stands for "Little Green Men." As far as I know, there's no LGM's, Mars does not have any life forms --- at least none more complex that maybe bacteria -- and Vulcans are a fictitious race invented by the writers of StarTrek.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If
you define Universe as meaning "ALL created things," --- in other words, a synonym for "Creation," ---then in addition to the material universe there are also angels -- spiritual entities --- in the Universe.

So when I am not referring to angels, I make that limitation clear by using the term "Physical Universe."

The term "Physical Universe" is commonly used in this sense (LINK)

If
you define "Universe" as being limited to "all MATERIAL created things," then the term "physical" universe would not be needed, it would be be redundant.

---

"What happened to the one prayer that Christ taught us: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is Heaven?”...No mention of Mars, is there?"

The use of the phrase "on earth" neither includes nor excludes the possibility of other inhabited planets.

It's as if one were to pray, "Thy will be done in my household" or "Thy will be done in my heart" --- it doesn't imply that there are no other households or no other hearts.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"God created Adam, in His own image. God breathed a soul into Adam."

True.

"Both Francis and Guy seem to blow off Genesis as fairy tales ( with their support of evolution and all that "stuff"). Do you do so, also?"

I haven't seen anyplace where Pope Francis "blows of" Geneesis as "fairy tales." Could you give me a link?

"Where in Genesis did got create your Martians and Vulcans?

Genesis doesn't say anything about Martians or Vulcans. It also doesn't say anything about the Polar Ice Caps, the shifting tectonic plates, barometric pressure, pygmies, the pineal gland, the Assumption of Mary, or the Western Hemisphere. The fact that something is not mentioned in the Bible is not dispositive proof that it doesn't exist.

"Or do you, Francis, and Guy think the Holy Ghost left us an incomplete Bible? "

If you mean "incomplete" in the sense of "does not mention every fact in the Universe," you're being silly. It doesn't even say everything about Jesus. St. John says:

John 21:25
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

And again, in 2 John 1:12 and 3 John 1:13--

2 John 1:12
"Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete."

[ebb tide]

I don't consider Google or Wiki as legitimate resources. When the three of you refer to two different types of "universes", y'all lose any sense of credibility with me.

Which "universe" did/does Jesus Christ live in? Was He in your "universe" at Mass today? Was it spiritual, or physical, or both? Which universe does your guardian angel exist in?

[ebb tide]

I haven't seen anyplace where Pope Francis "blows of" Geneesis as "fairy tales."

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

God can't do everything?