Posted on 08/18/2017 7:27:19 AM PDT by ebb tide
Fr Aidan Nichols said that Pope Francis's teaching had led to an 'extremely grave' situation
A prominent theologian has proposed reforming canon law to allow a pope’s doctrinal errors to be established.
Fr Aidan Nichols, a prolific author who has lectured at Oxford and Cambridge as well as the Angelicum in Rome, said that Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia had led to an “extremely grave” situation.
Fr Nichols proposed that, given the Pope’s statements on issues including marriage and the moral law, the Church may need “a procedure for calling to order a pope who teaches error”.
The Dominican theologian said that this procedure might be less “conflictual” if it took place during a future pontificate, rather as Pope Honorius was only condemned for error after he had ceased to occupy the chair of Peter.
Fr Nichols was speaking at the annual conference in Cuddesdon of an ecumenical society, the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, to a largely non-Catholic audience.
He said the judicial process would “dissuade popes from any tendency to doctrinal waywardness or simple negligence”, and would answer some “ecumenical anxieties” of Anglicans, Orthodox and others who fear that the pope has carte blanche to impose any teaching. “Indeed, it may be that the present crisis of the Roman magisterium is providentially intended to call attention to the limits of primacy in this regard.”
Fr Nichols has written over 40 books of philosophy, theology, apologetics and criticism. In 2006 he was appointed to Oxford University’s first lectureship since the Reformation in Catholic theology.
He has not publicly commented on Amoris Laetitia until now, but was a signatory to a leaked letter from 45 priests and theologians to the College of Cardinals. The letter asked the cardinals to request a clarification from the Pope to rule out heretical and erroneous interpretations of the exhortation.
In his paper Fr Nichols mentioned some of the same concerns as the letter: he noted, for instance, that Amoris Laetitia could seem to imply that the monastic life was not a higher state than marriage – a view condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent.
The exhortation has also been interpreted as meaning that the divorced and remarried can receive Communion without endeavouring to live “as brother and sister”. This contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church, reaffirmed by Popes St John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Fr Nichols said that this interpretation, which Pope Francis has reportedly approved, would introduce into the Church “a previously unheard-of state of life. Put bluntly, this state of life is one of tolerated concubinage.”
But Fr Nichols said the way in which Amoris Laetitia argued for “tolerated concubinage” (without using the phrase) was potentially even more harmful. He quoted the exhortation’s description of a conscience which “recognizes that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security…what for now is the most generous response.” Fr Nichols said this seemed to say “that actions condemned by the law of Christ can sometimes be morally right or even, indeed, requested by God.”
This would contradict the Church’s teaching that some acts are always morally wrong, Fr Nichols said.
He also drew attention to the statement – presumably referring to attempts to live continently – that someone “may know full well the rule yet…be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin”. Fr Nichols noted that the Council of Trent had solemnly condemned the idea that “the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace.” Amoris Laetitia seemed to say that it is not always possible or even advisable to follow the moral law.
If such general statements about moral acts were correct, Fr Nichols said, “then no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed.”
He said that it would be preferable to think that the Pope had been merely “negligent” in his language, rather than actively teaching error. But this seemed doubtful, given the reports that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had suggested corrections to Amoris Laetitia, and was ignored.
Cardinal Raymond Burke has publicly discussed making a formal correction of the Pope. However, Fr Nichols said that neither the Western nor Eastern Codes of Canon Law contain a procedure “for enquiry into the case of a pope believed to have taught doctrinal error, much less is there provision for a trial.”
Fr Nichols observed that the tradition of canon law is that “the first see is judged by no-one.” But he said that the First Vatican Council had restricted the doctrine of papal infallibility, so that “it is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church that a pope is incapable of leading people astray by false teaching as a public doctor.
“He may be the supreme appeal judge of Christendom…but that does not make him immune to perpetrating doctrinal howlers. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly given the piety that has surrounded the figures of the popes since the pontificate of Pius IX, this fact appears to be unknown to many who ought to know better.” Given the limits on papal infallibility, canon law might be able to accommodate a formal procedure for inquiring into whether a pope had taught error.
Fr Nichols said that bishops’ conferences had been slow to support Pope Francis, probably because they were divided among themselves; but he said that the Pope’s “programme would not have got as far as it has were it not the case that theological liberals, generally of the closet variety, have in the fairly recent past been appointed to high positions both in the world episcopate and in the ranks of the Roman Curia.”
Fr Nichols said that there was “a danger of possible schism”, but that it was unlikely and not as immediate a danger as “the spread of a moral heresy”. The view which Amoris Laetitia apparently contains would, if it passed without correction, “increasingly be regarded as at the very least an acceptable theological opinion. And that will do more damage than can easily be repaired.”
He concluded that the law of the Church will live on, because of those who “give the law life by faithfulness in love”.
For example the Eastern Church, and the Protestant churches are at odds with a fairly recent (1854) Catholic proclamation about a new Catholic doctrine called "the immaculate conception" which is generally regarded to be unscriptural.
Because of the Pope claiming to speak for God, such anomalies can't easily be corrected. It is one of the sticking points against the reunification of the Roman Church with the Eastern Church, after the schism of 1054.
That's not an accurate description of the extraordinary Papal magisterium at all. An ex cathedra dogmatic definition is not a "message from God". Technically, neither a dogmatic definition by the Pope nor one by an ecumenical council "have the force of Scripture". They are preserved from error -- a merely negative claim -- while Scripture is inspired, a higher claim of authority which means that Scripture says precisely what God wished to be said.
For example the Eastern Church, and the Protestant churches are at odds with a fairly recent (1854) Catholic proclamation about a new Catholic doctrine called "the immaculate conception" which is generally regarded to be unscriptural.
Who is this "generally" of whom you speak? The Orthodox and Protestants reject the Immaculate Conception, although for almost opposite reasons. So what?
Even at the first Council, the statement "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" does not make the claim that this is a God-mandated ruling here for all people at all places and times.
Not even the rarer-than-a-full-eclipse "infallible" statements are purportedly justified as, or presented as, a "personal message" from God to the Pope.
**this is not a claim made by the Catholic Church nor by any Pope or Council.**
BTTT!
In any organization it is prudent to have a mechanism that allows for correction of official policy, such as the U.S. Constitution which has an amendment process.
As for the validity of any particular dogma, there have been hundreds of published volumes with pros and cons of each and they would be a better source for those interested in the topic than an Internet blog.
I certainly respect all those who believe this particular dogma, and I am in no position to judge anyone. Lord knows I have more than enough on my own plate.
That's why the correct understanding of infallibility is so important. "Infallibility" does not mean anything positive, like "the Pope is guaranteed to teach the right thing at the right time in the right manner." It is a negative guarantee: that the Pope is not going to be able to impose an error and declare it binding "de fide" on the whole Church.
It's essentially a protection against wackadoo papal opinions.
But dogmas are a different story. Properly speaking, dogmas, like diamonds, are forever.
Nichols has thought this through. I like his use of the term “tolerated concubinage.” Must remember that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.