An Endless Continuation?

In Monday Vatican of August 28, 2023, Andrea Gagliarducci notes the limits of such “pragmatism”: “It is well known that the Pope wrote Laudato si' to respond to a need and a request that arose above all in the political sphere, and he did so quickly so that this encyclical was ready for COP 25 in Paris.” [November 30-December 12, 2015. Ed.]

It wasn’t just a matter of attention to environmental issues. This current matter is different. Hence this question: “Can an encyclical be defined only to a contingent situation or a particular theme?”

Andrea Gagliarducci responds in a nuanced way: certainly the encyclical Laudato si' was "useful because it allowed the Holy See to enter into the debate, to the point that it circulated among United Nations officials, before the visit of the Pope Francis in 2015. In short, it was a practical necessity, a desire to respond to a challenge in the spotlight of public opinion.”

But “this pragmatism of Pope Francis, however, has its limits. Responding to a contingent challenge, the encyclical immediately appeared to have structural limitations.… the data that was used was, in fact, data that would no longer be valid in a few years. The narrative of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals had entered the Church.”

“However, the United Nations changes the Sustainable Development Goals every number of years, because they are based precisely on political decisions and data concerning the current situation. Furthermore, they are sometimes influenced by ideology. It is what Pope Francis denounces as ideological colonization.”

“So, there is the paradox of a pope who attacks ideological colonization but simultaneously uses some narratives of ideological colonization as authentic and valid. An almost cynical pragmatism allows the Church to be the center of the debate, but prevents the Church from being truly ‘different’ [from the dominant ideologies] in the discussion.”

The Roman Vaticanist here points out a form of ideological alignment in fact: “After Laudato si’, dioceses and ecclesiastical structures and others rushed to show attention to creation. The demonstration is practical: there are continuous reports of dioceses or local churches start a project with zero environmental impact, install solar panels, and dedicate themselves to renewable energy, highlighting the need to stop using fossil fuels.”

“They understand the danger of this practical alignment: the current Church is in the concert of nations; she no longer plays the right note, for fear that it will be considered a false note; she blends into an orchestra that she does not direct. She is in the world and more and more of the world.

Andrea Gagliarducci writes: “Pope Francis is pragmatic and uses his magisterium to respond to the challenges of the here and now. The outgoing Church, after all, is a field hospital Church, that is, a Church that responds to problems when they arise and as they arise. It is a Church in a state of emergency.”

“Pope Francis established that realities are more significant than ideas in Evangelii gaudium [November 24, 2013], and Laudato si’ is a practical example of this assumption. The problem, however, is that an encyclical should have a universal value.”

Hence this logical conclusion: “Writing a second part of Laudato si' means admitting that Laudato si' was an encyclical that responded only to the present time, which did not give a vision of the world that was also valid for the future.”

And more radically, the Pope’s “plan is precisely to look at concrete reality and be there where the world is today. The goal is to offer perspective, not to evangelize.”