There was a time when Papal encyclicals were models of clear, cautious formulation. The writing shone with the effort of competent and prudent thought. A guiding concern for the spiritual well-being of the intended hearers and readers was unmistakeable. Above all, Papal encyclicals could be relied upon for their fidelity. Past authorities may have been interpreted in a new way, but they were neither contradicted nor ignored.
With Pope Francis, a sloppier approach has taken over. Important documents from his Vatican sometimes read as if they were put together in a hurry, in the English translations, at least. Often enough, one is left wondering if the theological argument can be relied upon. Three encyclicals will serve as illustrations: Amoris laetitia (2016) and Fiducia supplicans (2021), which address different aspects of marriage and family life, and Traditionis custodes (2021), which establishes new regulations for the celebration of the pre-conciliar Old Rite of the Mass in Latin.
Certain passages in Amoris laetitia concerning the admission of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to the Sacraments seem to stand in contradiction to previous Catholic teaching. In 2016, five senior cardinals saw themselves duty bound to submit to the Pope a number of Dubia, or requests for clarification. These went so far as to postulate an incommensurability between Amoris laetitia and previous teaching of Pope John Paul II on absolute moral norms. Although terms such as ‘theological error’ and ‘heresy’ were studiously avoided, there can no doubt that Francis was being summoned to defend his encyclical coram publico against these very serious charges.
In Fiducia supplicans, Pope Francis attempted to remove a stumbling block in the ministry of the Church to homosexual persons by providing a framework for the priestly blessing of same-sex couples. Praised by some for its compassion, this encyclical seems to others to again contradict established Catholic teaching. One leading theologian, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, has located the nub of the contradiction in a new concept of clerical blessing, hitherto unknown to the Church, which can be bestowed even on circumstances contrary to the Gospel. For Cardinal Müller, Fiducia supplicans has the illicit object of the foundation of a concept of blessing wide enough to encompass the intentional union of a same-sex couple. Unavoidably, the blessing would then be given to the sinful physical act by which that union is presumed to be constituted.
In Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis overturned a solemn order of his immediate predecessor, Benedict XVI, which had restored to full use in the Church of the 1962 Missal under the designation ‘Extraordinary Rite’. Claiming to share Benedict’s concern for ‘ecclesial unity’ and to follow relevant surveys of dioceses around the world, Francis places severe restrictions on the use of the old Latin Mass, abrogates all norms previously valid and forbids the establishment of new groups of the faithful dedicated to its celebration. A more blatant contradiction of the intention and act of his predecessor can hardly be imagined.
The authors of the earlier Dubia never received a reply from Pope Francis, in private or in public. In effect, the Pope has left the objections in place as if they were of little importance. At the time of writing, it seems probable that Cardinal Müller’s objections will receive the same treatment. Likewise, criticisms of Traditionis custodes that take issue with the intransparent nature of the surveys it claims to rely on and with the speciousness of its references to previous Catholic teaching are simply ignored.
Perhaps the Pope and his drafters simply do not realise how bad their texts are. Perhaps there is consternation as the clangers and howlers in their supposedly learned texts are pointed out. If there is, it is well hidden. It is not unimaginable that the Vatican scriptoria have now joined the world it once stood apart from in the reliance on text-generation software and other forms of artificial intelligence. If this is the case, future papal enyclicals might eventually read like pop-up advertisements for diet supplements or assembly instructions for cheap furniture.
It is entirely possible that the tolerance of the Vatican for low standards of behaviour among its Curial staff has simply expanded to include the quality of official teaching.
