A reader has a question about encyclicals

He writes:

Thanks for your “Questions About Magisterial Failures” article; it was very thought-provoking.

A commenter, Steve Lauhoff wrote in part, ” I have gotten into many, many discussions with Protestants and atheists who equate a papal encyclical with infallible teaching.“

An encyclical is *authoritative* teaching and may (though typically does not) contain an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium in which the pope “declares, pronounces, and defines” a dogma ex Cathedra.  Insofar as it contains the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church, it remains infallible since the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

That said, I think almost all the focus on “infallibility” is a gigantic red herring.  The habit of progressives is to appeal to “primacy of conscience” to blow off any teaching of the Church that discomforts them.  The habit of conservatives (especially with this pope) is to appeal to “prudential judgment” as the excuse for blowing off any teaching of the Church that bothers them.  And both of them use “Hey!  He’s not speaking *infallibly* as their rationale for doing so.  The thing is, he *is* speaking very knowledgeably as somebody who has done serious homework with the best minds available, whether question is the Pelvic Issues that irk Progressives or the Environment/Money Issues that obsess conservatives.  The pope is the only person on earth we Catholics routine demand infallibility of before we will listen to what he says.  We never demand it of our doctor, garage mechanic, or plumber.  I think that’s silly–and dangerous.  Lumen Gentium says:

Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25)

My reader continues:

My understanding is that a Papal Encyclical intended as a doctrinal teaching document addressed to all the faithful, whereas a Papal Bull, at least by the time of Nicholas V, was more an ad hoc instrument directed to a particular concrete issue, time & locale specific.

I’m not sure of the distinction myself, so I can’t speak to that.

Even granting for the sake of argument that Nicholas V was giving carte blanche for chattel slavery to the Portuguese kings (and I’m not doing so), wouldn’t the fact that the instrument was a Bull instead of an Encyclical remove the issue from the realm of magisterial teaching?

Again, I’m not sure of the distinction and so can’t say.

Also, are you aware of any Encyclical where the Holy Father taught (what we have subsequently come to realize was) error? This question is all the more interesting in light of the upcoming Encyclical on Climate Change, whatever its contents.

Well, the Letter of Clement takes for granted the existence of the Phoenix, so there’s that.  But I’m no student of the history of encyclicals, so I couldn’t really answer this intelligently either.  I see no particular reason an encyclical would have to be inerrant on all statements of fact outside the faith and morals of the Church.  But then again, I think the Church’s habit of prudently using the best of human knowledge and wisdom from disciplines outside its field of competence generally stands it in good stead over the long haul.