There has been no shortage of error on the subject of the Church's Magisterium from even reputably orthodox sources over the years. I have addressed parts of the subject
where it was warranted to do so; however, in all prior cases, I only went as far as was needed at those particular times. As a result, the subject by itself had up to now never received a truly comprehensive treatment. Due to the particular circumstances of recent years, I finally decided to tend to that lacuna and the result is what you have before you now. As there is plenty to get to, let us do so without any further delay.
The Catholic Church's Magisterium is an institution of authority and to all institutions of legitimate authority, a certain degree of deference is owed. The Bible outlines the importance of obedience in not a few places. To note one from each testament, we have the Prophet Samuel telling King Saul after Saul sinned by disobedience that "obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams. It is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey" (1 Samuel xv,22-23). And St. Paul instructed the Romans in his epistle to "[l]et every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation." (Rom xiii,1-2). When considering the importance of obedience as outlined in divers parts of the Bible, it seems appropriate to begin any treatment on the magisterium with the subject of obedience.
So with that in mind, let us define the concept of obedience and consider some of the particulars involved. For that purpose, let us consult the
online portal. To wit:
Obedience is viewed not only as an isolated act but also as a virtue. It is perhaps the most efficacious counter to the capital sin of pride. Jesus' entire earthly life was one of obedience from his time as a young boy to Mary and Joseph (cf. Luke i,52) throughout his public ministry. When speaking, Jesus did not do so on his own initiative but instead through the commandment of the Father who sent him who told what to say and speak (cf. John xii,49). So perfect was his obedience that Jesus was obedient to death on the cross (cf. Phil ii,8). Obedience in other words is a virtue that Jesus viewed as being of no small importance. And obedience has been a frequent theme in the writings of the Catholic spiritual tradition as well.
As an entire book could be filled with examples of obedience within the writings of the Catholic spiritual tradition, I will limit myself at this time to three examples only. The three Doctors of the Church whose words on this subject I will focus on are St. John of the Cross, St. Francis de Sales and St. Catherine of Siena. Let us start with some words of St. John of the Cross:
Similar sentiments can be found in the writings of St. Francis de Sales:
And finally, we have some words of St. Catherine of Siena to consider:
Now certainly this far from exhausts the well of what saintly men and women have written on this subject over the centuries.{2} However, what is posted above suffices to establish the importance of obedience in the eyes of God.
We have now considered the importance of obedience courtesy of some writings from key doctors of the Church. Let us move on to establish the nature and scope of the obedience owed to the Magisterium of the Church by those who would claim to be faithful Catholics.
Part II
The Nature and Scope of the Magisterium: Faith and Morals
We have identified the importance of obedience and considered this subject in the light of some writings from Doctors of the Church. Let us move forward now and establish the nature and scope of obedience owed to the Church's Magisterium. From the ever helpful
Catholic Encyclopedia, we find this helpful explanation on the issue:
Faith means the speculative doctrines of revelation; morals, the practical doctrines of revelation. Faith is what we have to believe, morals what we have to do, in order to obtain eternal life.{3}
Faith and morals embrace both speculative and practical: what is to be believed and what is to be done.
On A Brief History of Understanding Magisterial Concepts
It is well worth the time to consider the historical view of popes and ecumenical councils on the magisterial authority of the popes as a pretext for any discussion on the present subject matter. With that thought in mind, some sections for this work were drafted for inclusion but upon review, it was decided in the revising of this writing not to go into those subjects in detail here. (Lest the present work become longer than would be prudent.) I have however posted those sections as separate sources for reader perusal if interested at the following links:
On Ecumenical Council Statements of Papal Authority (circa February 19, 2020)
At this point, it seems appropriate in the present exposition to reflect on the
history of magisterial concepts as well as the
nature and degrees of magisterial interventions. As a rule, anything in church history admits of some development in understanding of more complex subject matters. Where the present subject is concerned, as we will show, it does not deviate from that norm.
What has
not shown development in understanding over time however is the attitude of those who find themselves on the wrong side of church authority. The latter not infrequently seek to minimize the assent owed to the latter if they even acknowledge it at all. If anything, there has been an arrestment of development by many of those folks including not a few who consider themselves
More Faithful Than Thou. I noted this factor during a
Lenten Reflections thread early last year in the following words:
It is true that not every statement is of equal weight and there is room for divergent views in different areas to certain extents. But the seeming attitude of many is that if the pope has not spoken infallibly on dogma that it means something is up for grabs. I guess that means at Nicaea only the divinity of Christ was required belief and everything for the first 325 years was optional. That is not how it works and the so-called "paragons of faithful orthodoxy" should know that if they are what they claim.{4}
Unfortunately, this problem is not one that is new but is one that I have long observed and even put into writing in different forms in the past. To cite a few examples, here are three references from writings published nearly twenty years ago where the germ of this idea currently being fleshed out was put forward:
[T]he pope sets the rules on these matters and we follow. Whether we liked it or not we would have to comply or else the authoritative Magisterium as we speak of it to Protestants would be nothing but a dead letter.{5}
The context for that statement was an essay responding to Cardinal Alphons Stickler in a piece he wrote on the Tridentine Latin Mass. The phenomenon of seeking to diminish the ordinary teaching authority of the Church has been presented in a variety of ways and I noted the following in an essay response to Fr. Chad Ripperger published a few months after the previously referenced essay:
There is far too much casual disregard for the Teaching Authority of the Church in all quarters. The impression is given that obedience is somehow contingent on infallibility or prudence of a given directive...{6}
And in a piece written on the subject of the
Syllabus of Errors published not long after the latter writing, I made the following observation:
The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
Interestingly enough, most self-styled 'traditionalists' often act as if they agree with proposition twenty-two above.{7}
I have continued to notice this problem over the years except with the present pontificate, many of those who did not act this way in prior pontificates{8} now seem to regularly do so. But this is not how the Magisterium of the Church envisions a faithful Catholic acting.
Now it is certainly true that terms like
ordinary magisterium, ordinary and universal magisterium, and
extraordinary magisterium are of more recent vintage. Nonetheless, they clarify with greater precision than was once the case the nature of various Magisterial interventions. The first use of the term
ordinary magisterium was in an apostolic letter sent by Pope Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. It was written as a response to a gathering of Catholic theologians organized by Ignaz von Dollinger. The pope had gotten word that an opinion was being floated at the aforementioned gathering that Catholic theologians were only bound to hold truths of faith which were solemnly defined.{9} Pope Pius IX responded to this position in the following way:
We want to persuade ourselves that they do not wish to limit the obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are bound only to those things which have been proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all. And we are persuaded that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adherence to revealed truths which they acknowledge to be absolutely necessary for the genuine progress of science and for the refutation of errors can be had if faith and assent is given only to the expressly defined dogmas of the Church. For even if it is a matter of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith, it must not be limited to those things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must also be extended to those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the Church scattered throughout the world as divinely revealed and therefore are held by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.{10}
This position was later reiterated in the
Syllabus of Errors when it paraphrased the above passage from
Tuas Libenter as follows:
The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.{11}
The teaching from the Apostolic Letter
Tuas Libenter later found its way into the Dogmatic Constitution
Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council where it was formulated in the following way:
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.{12}
With the above formulation from the First Vatican Council, the first explicit usage of
ordinary and universal magisterium makes its appearance in print. Also making a debut of sorts was the first reference somewhat obliquely of what is now referred to as the
extraordinary magisterium.{13}
Despite this delineation, the error continued to be propagated in some quarters that consent was not required when the popes were not exercising their supreme or extraordinary teaching authority. Pope Pius XII reproved this error as it pertained to encyclical letters in
Humani Generis with these words:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.{14}
The principle enunciated above found its way in an even fuller form into the Dogmatic Constitution
Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council in its section on the hierarchial structure of the Church. Speaking of the
authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff in toto{15}, this is how the matter was framed in the Council text:
[R]eligious 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.{16}
The formulation in
Lumen Gentium capped off roughly a century of development on the matter of magisterial interventions.{17} The end result is quite clear and unambiguous: the position of the Magisterium itself as to the assent owed to its teachings is
not that one can ignore anything that is not an ex cathedra or solemn pronouncement.
Rather, all teachings require assent though the nature and degree of the assent owed from case to case could vary.
With that in mind, it now is time in this examination to explain what these different levels of magisterial teachings involve. Furthermore, what kinds of assent is owed to magisterial interventions and how does this affect magisterial interventions in the prudential order. Finally, in what areas if any is there the right to differ from statements issued by the Teaching Authority of the Church.
Part III
On Extraordinary Matters of Faith
In undertaking an examination of the subject of magisterial interventions, we will begin by considering what has become known as the
extraordinary magisterium. This is the least controversial part of the magisterium among Catholics so it will not get as extensive a treatment as the others. The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued an important Instruction to theologians on their ecclesial vocation which speaks of the
extraordinary magisterium in the following way:
When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.{18}
The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had updated the Profession of Faith (Lat.
Professio Fidei) in the prior year{19} and included this passage in the text:
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.{20}
And of course when the Code of Canon Law was updated to more precisely conform to the new
Professio Fidei, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a doctrinal commentary. The paragraph in footnote twenty was explained in the commentary as follows:
The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.
These doctrines are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgement as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium...{21}
The
extraordinary magisterium is an area which virtually all who claim to be faithful Catholics understand for the most part.{22} For that reason, what is covered above is sufficient and we can move onto more controversial matters.
On Ordinary Matters Pertaining to Faith
We will now consider what is referred to as the
ordinary magisterium or at times referred to as the
ordinary and universal magisterium. This is not usually{23} an issue for most of those who consider themselves
More Faithful Than Thou though we will get to their areas of difficulty in due time.
With this aspect of the Church's Magisterium, what is not usually understood well is that the infallibility of the magisterium is not limited to the deposit of faith. The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope Paul VI explained this in an important but often overlooked Instruction as follows:
According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded.{24}
These matters include a number of factors that are required by logical extension for upholding the deposit of faith. In referring to this secondary realm of infallibility, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) published the following as part of the most recent
Professio Fidei which is required for anyone holding a teaching position in the Church:
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.{25}
This is a general term but it covers a number of areas. In an important Instruction published by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope John Paul II, church theologians{26} were advised as follows:
When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.{27}
Among these truths to note a couple examples are matters such as
"the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council."{28} Also worth noting are
"the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)"{29} and others which for the sake of economy of prose will be omitted at this time. There are those among the self proclaimed "traditionalist" wing of the Church who deny these truths but they are an outlier and probably not even a majority within their own faction. The CDF makes it quite clear however that
"[w]hoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church."{30}
On the Authentic Magisterium
We now come to a point in our examination where no shortage of folks who claim to be
More Faithful Than Thou show themselves to be fugazis. The
authentic magisterium embraces the lion's share of the teachings of the Church's Magisterium. Yet to observe most folks these days from the self proclaimed "conservative" or "traditionalist" wings of the Church{31}, this aspect of the magisterium might as well not exist. Why do I say this? Because most of these folks so blatantly ignore or downplay it with Pope Francis that they are
scarcely any different than the very liberals they whined and complained about for years. And it should go without saying that those who have regular failings in this area have
literally no credibility whatsoever when they complain about anything. Scripture is clear when it comes to folks like this when Jesus says
"[t]hou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (Matthew vii,5) and as St. Paul said
"[w]herefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest" (Romans ii,1-2).
What are the duties owed by a faithful Catholic to the teachings of the authentic magisterium? The very
Professio Fidei that has been mentioned a few times in this text is pretty clear:
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.{32}
As for specifically how this should affect the attitudes and actions of the truly faithful Catholic in the pew, as usual, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been useful in pointing these matters out to us:
When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.{33}
We covered the impulse of obedience to the faith earlier in this exposition with the writings of St. John of the Cross, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Catherine of Siena. While not exhaustive, these nonetheless are comprehensive insofar as they represent a pretty unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church on the matter in question.{34} The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its doctrinal commentary explained obedience to the
authentic magisterium in the following words{35}:
The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act".
To this paragraph belong all those teachings – on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgement or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with those truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore 'tuto doceri non potest'.{36}
There is scarcely a supposedly traditionalist website out there where the
More Traditional Than Thou folks do not flat out ignore this requirement on a whole plethora of issues. And in the era of the pontificate of Pope Francis, this has also become an ever increasing problem with a lot of those who try and present themselves as
More Faithful Than Thou conservative Catholics. In a nutshell:
most who claim to be faithful Catholics are regularly and habitually disobedient in this area.
We will shortly touch in brief on matters of church discipline and church government as well as what is and is not magisterial in the various and sundry statements put out by the Vatican. However, before getting to that, let us briefly revisit the subject of obedience by considering some words of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. He wrote on the aforementioned issue to counter the caricature of Catholics as mind numbed robots subservient to the Pope in all things.{37} In discussing the obligations owed by Catholics to the Pope, Newman framed the subject in the following way:
It is the rule of Christ's providence, that what His Vicar does in severity or in mercy upon earth, He Himself confirms in heaven...[I]n his administration of Christ's kingdom, in his religious acts, we must never oppose his will, or dispute his word, or criticise his policy, or shrink from his side?...Our duty is...to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God...{38}
Considering everything that is outlined above, it should be glaringly evident that the orthodox attitude towards the
authentic magisterium is one that is sorely neglected today. It is also conspicuous in its near absence by the lions share of
supposedly faithful Catholics. As not much more needs to be said than that, I will end this section now and move on.
Part IV
On Matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline and Government
Because the present exposition has become longer than I intended, this section will be briefer than it could be. (For this same reason, the subject of
magisterial interpretation has been
dealt with elsewhere.) The position of the Church's Magisterium on matters of
ecclesiastical discipline and government can be summed up in the writings of four popes -three of whom had pontificates in the decades prior to the Second Vatican Council. Without further ado:
[We cannot] pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that 'without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.' But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.{39}
Pope Pius IX did not have any patience with those who would claim to find some clever sophism for evading the judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See on matters of ecclesiastical discipline and government. Nor was he unique in this regard:
[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them...
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge.{40}
Pope Leo XIII would not accept the argument that someone could choose to hold onto a past directive and shun his authority to loose it and bind another in its place. Instead, he viewed such actions as
"not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them." His method was simple:
when there were differing directives, the one to assent to is the present one while disregarding ones from the past. And in his encyclical published against Modernism, one of the tactics of the Modernists according to Pope Pius X was to
"try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself."{41}
As for how the Church has viewed these matters since the Second Vatican Council, consider these words from Pope Paul VI. They were published in the context of an encyclical treatment on the Church in general and dialogue in particular:
[T]he very exercise of authority becomes, in the context of this dialogue, an exercise of obedience, the obedient performance of a service, a ministry of truth and charity. By obedience We mean the observance of canonical regulations and respect for the government of lawful superiors, but an observance and respect readily and serenely given, as is only to be expected from free and loving children.
By contrast, a spirit of independence, bitter criticism, defiance, and arrogance is far removed from that charity which nourishes and preserves the spirit of fellowship, harmony, and peace in the Church. It completely vitiates dialogue, turning it into argument, disagreement and dissension-a sad state of affairs, but by no means uncommon. St. Paul warned us against this when he said: "Let there be no schisms among you." (1 Cor 1. 10.){42}
And sadly, what Pope Paul VI wrote decades ago has become far too common today -including by folks who consider themselves
Paragons of Faithfulness.
On What is Not Magisterial
It helps to remember at the outset of treating on this subject matter that
"a simple sentence, even spoken by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the Magisterium; we know that all statements have different degrees of authority."{43} So those who conflate airplane interviews{44}, purported statements of non-dogmatic fact{45}, speeches on geopolitical matters{46}, or musings on economics particulars{47} are going outside what the Church requires. This also applies to those who make too much out of statements about historical events,{48} personal opinions on various subject matters from papal exhortatory comments,{49} as well as papal empirical surmises.{50} The following advice from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is very helpful in addressing these sorts of matters as well as other matters of the prudential order:
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question.{51}
That
"[n]ot all moral issues have the same moral weight"{52} and
"[t]here may be a legitimate diversity of opinion"{53} in some areas peripheral to the Church's Magisterium has long been recognized. This applies to
"matters in which without harm to faith or discipline...there is room for divergent opinions"{54} as well as other areas I previously mentioned.{55} But in the process, it is important to remember that
"no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline."{56} This problem happens not infrequently with various
pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who in many cases run afoul of what the Church teaches on these matters.
As I have outlined in previous sections, there is no shortage of flagrant disobedience by supposedly orthodox Catholics who consider themselves
Paragons of Faithfulness when it comes to showing
"neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself"{57} if not downright ignoring as Pope Pius XI wrote
"the teaching authority of the Church...which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him."{58} I include a section such as this one rather reluctantly for that reason but it is unfortunately a required antidote for certain presumptuous overly judgmental
pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who brazenly and ignorantly treat any disagreement with the popes whatsoever --no matter the subject or context-- as a matter of "dissent from the True Faith."{59} One can accurately assert that true faithfulness requires a generous and even one might say,
habitual attitude of assent to the judgments and directives of the popes and those bishops who teach in communion with him.{60}
But this requires balance and moderation and not the dressing up of one's particular subjective whims in cloaks of authority that they do not actually possess.
On Handling Personal Difficulties Versus Dissent
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in their Instruction Donum Veritatis provides the following advice for theologians in dialogue with the Magisterium on difficult issues:
In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-363 ). For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.{61}
The above advice if followed by all Catholics with a presence in the public square would be of no small benefit to the Church at large. For as we have outlined in previous sections of this writing, the Church does not look kindly on those who engage in dissent. Referring again to the Instruction
Donum Veritatis, here is what the CDF had to say{62} on the subject of dissent:
The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia, Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called "dissent", which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple...
[A]rgumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement... Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.
The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology.{63}
To summarize the prior two sections in syllabus form: there is in the mind of the Church's Magisterium
no right to dissent among faithful Catholics from magisterial teachings or ecclesiastical disciplinary directives. There are however
other areas sometimes intertwined with these areas where there is a diversity of opinions allowed. Furthermore, there are
Vatican approved ways of approaching personal difficulties individuals may have from time to time. There are often problems in accurately distinguishing between these areas. And unfortunately, few supposedly faithful Catholics do this correctly if they even concern themselves with these matters at all.
Conclusion
The problems outlined above have to varying degrees existed to an increasing extent in recent decades. However, they seem to have reached epidemic proportions during the current pontificate. And they have most notably subsisted among those who often had criticized it in the actions and statements of so-called liberals during prior pontificates. I diagnosed the problem among self proclaimed traditionalists in a previous writing and its general applicability to both them as well as presumptively conservative Catholics is quite apropos:
One of the problems that permeates "the diseased and rebellious mindset of not a few of the so-called 'traditionalist' wing of the Church"[...] is their general bitterness. This is one of several indications that their zeal is not genuine. True zeal and charity are intertwined[...] and habitual failure of some of these folks to manifest even the most rudimentary characteristics of charity[...] presents a strong probability that they are in the words of St. Paul "as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."{64}
It is my hope that what is written in this exposition can help folks in coming to grips with difficulties that they may come across from time to time to with greater ease navigate the variegated waters of magisterial matters. That way, if they are of good will, such folks will ultimately show as the Second Vatican Council says in one of its Dogmatic Constitutions a proper obedience with
"religious submission of mind and will...to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra...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."{65}
"Those therefore who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once 'Rome has spoken', they cannot carry on regardless, even for reasons of good faith." [Holy Office: Protocol Suprema Haec Sacra (circa August 8, 1949) in Denz. 3869-72]
Notes:
{1} Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article
Obedience (
circa 1913)
{2} Many more examples of quotes from saints on the subject of obedience can be found at
this link from where the above examples were taken.
{3} Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article
Theological Definition (
circa 1913)
{4} Excerpt from the
Rerum Novarum Note
On Certain Pharisee Parallels Amongst the "More Faithful Than Thou" Crowd (
circa March 21, 2019)
{5} Excerpt from the Writing
Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' (
circa April 20, 2001)
{6} Excerpt from the Writing
Distinctions of Outlook (
circa August 30, 2001)
{7} Excerpt from the Writing
The 'Counter-Syllabus' Canard (
circa November 15, 2001)
{8} Or at least did not seem do so with the degree of regularity that has become a pattern in recent years.
{9} This has to a certain extent become the defacto position of many who call themselves
Traditional Catholics in recent decades to say nothing of not a few who consider themselves
Progressive Catholics. It is also is one recently embraced by not a few who consider themselves
Conservative Catholics, Faithful Catholics, or some similar delineation thereof.
{10} Pope Pius IX: Apostolic Letter
Tuas Libenter (
circa December 21, 1863)
{11} Pope Pius IX:
Syllabus of Errors Condemned Proposition #22 (
circa December 8, 1864)
{12} First Vatican Council: Excerpt from the Dogmatic Constitution
Dei Filius §3,8 (
circa April 24, 1870)
{13} The expression used in
Dei Filius to refer to the extraordinary magisterium is that of a
solemn judgment.
{14} Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter
Humani Generis §20 (
circa August 12, 1950)
{15} And not just on the matter of encyclical letters as
Humani Generis had done.
{16} Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution
Lumen Gentium §25 (
circa November 21, 1964)
{17} The sources above span from 1863 to 1964.
{18} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Donum Veritatis on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §23 (
circa May 24, 1990)
{19} Circa January 9, 1989, See
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) 81
{20} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Excerpt from the
Profession of Faith (circa July 15, 1988) as Posted to the Vatican's Website (
circa May 18, 1998)
{21} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Excerpt from the
Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formulary of the Professio Fidei §5 (
circa June 29, 1998)
{22} Well, except for sedevacantist heretics who deny this dogma defined by the
extraordinary magisterium at the First Vatican Council:
[I]f anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself ... that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church...let him be anathema.
{23} One area where some of these folks have shown some straying from the orthodox Catholic position is in the area of canonization of saints -a subject I go over here in some detail:
On the Infallibility of Papal Canonization of Saints (circa May 7, 2019)
{24} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Mysterium Ecclesiae in
Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day §3 (
circa June 24, 1973)
{25} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: From the
Professio Fidei (circa January 6, 1989)
{26} And by logical extension, anyone of lesser rank than licensed theologians as well.
{27} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Donum Veritatis on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §23 (
circa May 24, 1990)
{28} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: From the
Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei §11 (
circa June 29, 1998)
{29} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: From the
Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei §11 (
circa June 29, 1998). See also the material in footnote twenty-three.
{30} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: From the
Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei §6 (
circa June 29, 1998)
{31}
"It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as 'profane novelties of words,' out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics...There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." [Pope Benedict XV:Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §24 (circa November 1, 1914)]
{32} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Excerpt from the
Profession of Faith (circa July 15, 1988) as Posted to the Vatican's Website (
circa May 18, 1998)
{33} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Donum Veritatis on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §23 (
circa May 24, 1990)
{34} Seriously, the sorts of examples used earlier in this writing could be indefinitely multiplied if I had used words from all the Doctors of the Church.
{35} Minus the footnotes which I excised from the text.
{36} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: From the
Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei §10 (
circa June 29, 1998)
{37} Incidentally, the same accusation made today by not a few so-called
Traditionalist Catholics who are ignorant of how much they sound like the anti-Catholic William Gladstone!
{38} St. John Henry Cardinal Newman:
On the Obedience Owed to the Pope From
Rerum Novarum in the
Points to Ponder Series (
circa October 13, 2019)
{39} Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter
Quanta Cura §5 (circa December 8, 1864) as Quoted in the Writing
The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard (
circa January 14, 2004)
{40} Pope Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter
Epistola Tua (circa June 17, 1885) as Quoted in the
Rerum Novarum Note
On Correcting the Pretentions "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (
circa May 14, 2019)
{41} Pope Pius X: Encyclical Letter
Pascendi Dominici Gregis §42 (circa September 8, 1907) as Quoted in the
Rerum Novarum Posting
On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd (
circa December 5, 2019)
{42} Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter
Ecclesiam Suam §115 (circa August 6, 1964) as Quoted in the Writing
On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (
circa December 16, 2003)
{43} Cardinal Dario Castrillo Hoyos: Excerpt from his
Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay (
circa April 5, 2002)
{44} While I would not necessarily dismiss the entirety of a papal plane interview, the off the cuff questions about various issues would inexorably result in far more material that would
not fit the criteria of magisterial teaching than material which would.
{45} Except for non-dogmatic statements of fact. Some examples of purported statements of fact would be Pope John Paul II's statements in the encyclical letter
Evangelium Vitae that the
Didache was
"the most ancient non-Biblical writing" which is a matter of scholarly debate. Another example is the aforementioned pontiff's opinion in the same encyclical letter about the presumptive improvements (or lack thereof) of modern penal systems. A third example of a purported statement of fact is Pope Benedict XVI's claim in his encyclical letter
Caritas et Veritate that prior to Pope John Paul II's anniversary commemoration of Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter
Populorum Progressio that
"[u]ntil that time, only Rerum Novarum had been commemorated in this way" when actually, Pope Pius XII in the encyclical letter
Divino Afflante Spiritu had previously commemorated in the same manner Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter
Providentissemus Deus.
{46} For example, Pope Gregory XVI's hostility towards non monarchial government forms and Pope Pius IX's support for the Confederacy in the American civil war and Catholics voting in Italian democratic elections. I could also mention Pope Pius X's position on the establishment of a nation of Israel or specifics pertaining to Pope Benedict XV's proposals for peace to end the First World War. Also worth noting here is
any papal statements in a homily or speech about
specific historical military tactics or
the presumptive justness or lack thereof of any given war. According to the
Catechism of the Catholic Church "the evaluation of...conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good" (
§CCC 2309) a reference which in context applies to
"public authorities" (§CCC 2310,§CCC 2311). General moral and ethical principles are one thing, specific adaptations are another matter altogether. Whatever Spirit-led guidance is present in the former should not rashly be presumed to similarly pertain to the latter.
{47} Apart from the sorts of general moral and ethical principles which must inform any faithful Catholic's approach to economics matters of course.
{48} See the examples in footnotes forty-four, forty-five, and forty-six. Also worth noting are examples such as Pope Pius XI's statement
"did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?" in the encyclical letter
Mortalium Animos. The early Church
never had a conception of papal primacy that involved an overly centralized papal bureaucracy that sought to insert itself into an ever increasing number of minute matters. As that became the practice of the papacy in recent centuries; ergo, such errors of anachronism are hardly ones which can be used to compel any Catholic's assent. (The late Reverend Archimandrite Robert F. Taft SJ was far more accurate when he
stated in his usual blunt fashion
"[w]hat we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy.") A similar example could be noted in
Mortalium Animos with its advocation of a theologically flawed and historically suspect ecumenism of return which while far from unique to it was also a problem in various writings of popes from Pope Leo XIII's
Satis Cognitum to Pope John XXIII's
Ad Petri Cathedram. (When addressing the subject of divisions amongst various Christian groups, most notably the Churches of the East.)
{49} What could be noted here are a number of examples insofar as they do not directly involve matters of faith and morals. I will only briefly point out two examples here. The first is Pope Pius XII's musings on the world of cinema in
The Ideal Film. The second is Pope Paul VI's desire to prop up the western discipline of clerical celibacy by engaging in a seeming diminishment of eastern disciplines viz married priests in
Sacerdotalis Caelibatus §38-41. These sorts of matters come up most notably and frequently in mediums such as homilies, speeches, and ordinary letters.
{50} Such as Pope Francis' claims about the supposedly very solid scientific consensus on matters of the nebulously labeled climate change environmental issue in
Laudato Si and various corollary issues pertaining to it respectively.
{51} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Donum Veritatis on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §24 (
circa May 24, 1990)
{52} Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: From his Memorandum
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion -General Principles (
circa July 2004)
{53} Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: From his Memorandum
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion -General Principles (
circa July 2004)
{54} Pope Benedict XV: Excerpt from his Encyclical Letter
Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §23 (
circa November 1, 1914)
{55} See footnotes forty-four through fifty and the parts of the text above to which they refer.
{56} Pope Benedict XV: Excerpt from his Encyclical Letter
Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §23 (
circa November 1, 1914)
{57} Pope Pius XII: Excerpt from his Encyclical Letter
Humani Generis §18 (
circa August 12, 1950)
{58} Pope Pius XI: Excerpt from his Encyclical Letter
Mortalium Animos §9 (
circa January 6, 1928)
{59}
"There is no small problem with those who approach magisterial texts with the same lack of discernment as fundamentalists do with the Bible." [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Note On Veritatis Splendor, Gaudium et Spes, and Intrinsic Evil (circa July 27, 2019)]
{60}
"They are easily aroused to eager enthusiasm for the highest ideals, but it is most important that they learn prudence, self-restraint, and obedience to authority." [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §123 (circa June 29, 1959)]
{61} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Donum Veritatis on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §26-28 (
circa May 24, 1990)
{62} I removed the footnotes from the text.
{63} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Donum Veritatis on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §32,§38 (
circa May 24, 1990)
{64} Excerpt from the
Rerum Novarum Posting
On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd (
circa December 5, 2019)
{65} Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution
Lumen Gentium §25 (
circa November 21, 1964)
