Catholics must learn to resist their popes — even Pope Francis

The Week ^ | 05/06/2014 | By Michael Brendan Dougherty

[redgolum]

I actually know the quote.

And to be honest (as I suspect you know) it isn’t that way in the trenches. I know of people who got in a lot of hot water with their priest over the Iraq war because of statements made by the Pope.

Also, those topics aren’t the same as what is being talked about here. A better example (if not remarriage and receiving communion) would be if a Pope came out and said that abortion is ok in situations where there was not a clear and present danger to the life of the mother. The Catholic church as pretty much always been against abortion (and remarriage after divorce). It has not always been against capital punishment.

[redgolum]

“Bishop against Bishop” prophecy?

If you could be so kind, what one was that? (Honestly just curious).

[Talisker]

It has never been mandatory to obey anything that endangers your faith.

As I said, I personally agree with you. It's just that Catholics are by definition cut off from being arbiters of determining what is endangering their faith, if the subject is the Catholic Church itself. In fact, such people are mocked as "cafeteria Catholics," among other things - including, traditionally, "heretics."

Except that a great number of the clergy would be expected to take the wrong side. Reference "bishop against bishop" prophecies.

Yep.

[Talisker]

I saw this good comment by Arthur MccGowan on a different thread, and I'm taking the liberty of posting this here, as my (borrowed) contribution to good Catholic sense:

"Popes do not issue marching orders daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly. No person who is well-instructed in the Catholic Faith, and is sincerely practicing it, needs to follow the Pope’s doings and sayings. A Catholic is at liberty to like or dislike any Pope.

"If he dislikes a Pope, he should try to remain unaware of the day-to-day news about the Pope. The notion that all Catholics must “heed the call” of the Pope to conversion, or spiritual renewal or growth, etc., and must therefore read all of the Pope’s interviews and daily homilies, is silly. The call to all those good things is in Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church."

Arthur MccGowan believes this, and obviously you believe this.

But does the Pope believe it?

And if he doesn't, where is your authority as a Catholic to disagree with the Pope? As a human being, sure. But as a Catholic? I see no authority at all.

[BlatherNaut]

I offered that quote as an illustration of the principle rather than the particulars. The bottom line is that Catholics may legitimately differ with a pope on some theological matters, since “not all moral issues have the same moral weight”.

The Pope, like everyone else, is subject to Divine Law (upon which the consistent teachings of the Church are based). If a pope suddenly announced that abortion is permissible, he would be condoning murder, a mortal sin, and thus would excommunicate himself latae sententiae.

[Mrs. Don-o]

With all due respect, Talisker, you seem to conflate papal opinion with the Papal Magisterium. These are two very different things.

The Church has never taught that the Pope is an all-purpose oracle. The level of authority behind any papal statement--- whether it's something as weighty as an Apostolic Constitution or an Encyclical, or something as mundane as a weekday Homily from Domus Sta. Martae or remarks at a Papal Audience --- depends on the teaching's dogmatic history, and the intention of the pope.

Not everything the pope says is an "edict." Not even everything he says in an encyclical is an "edict". Sometimes it's just a pastoral reflection, sometimes a passing opinion, sometimes even an off-balance, fragmentary and garbled verbal output worthy of "edit" or "delete".

I think Francis would be the first one to admit this. One of the men he just canonized, St. Pope John XXIII, once said, "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".

I love pope who can handle a nimble tautology.

[Old Yeller]

If the Pope says it, you have to follow it. There is little choice if you wish to remain Catholic. That is the great strength, and the great weakness, of Catholicism. It becomes a situation where you have to follow the Pope.

I prefer following Jesus.

[cothrige]

I run across these ideas all too often, and they are promoted with zeal, but never backed up with Church teaching. For instance, consider Canon 212, section 3, from the Code of Canons, which reads as follows: "They [i.e. the laity] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals." And then, of course, we could look at the example of such great saints as Catherine of Siena, obviously not a cleric, who criticized the clergy and even had the audacity to instruct the pope. Did the Church condemn her for this gross error? No, she was instead elevated to Doctor of the Church. And there is also St. Thomas Aquinas who advocated "fraternal correction" of one's superior, which he rightly saw as a work of mercy.

It really is unfortunate that so many modern Catholics have so lost their way and adopted these very uncatholic notions as factual. And it is in great measure because they do not look to their own history, and no longer see it around them. There are, however, still examples of the real Catholic approach to be found out there. The Franciscans are such, and in that order there is no authoritative distinction between priests and non-clerical brothers. They do not allow priests in their orders to even distinguish themselves from the other brothers in any outward way. When meeting Franciscans you would never know whether one is a cleric or not. And Franciscan priests must be obedient to the authority of their superior who may not be a cleric himself.

At one time this was not unusual in the Church in terms of teaching and spiritual development. Religious brothers and sisters were given their appropriate reverence and respect, and it was never suggested that somehow they would be more authoritative as teachers if they were priests. Abbots were ordinaries of their communities, and likewise Abbesses were of immense authority and influence, though they could obviously never be clerics. And the Desert Fathers were by and large not clergy and yet their teachings have come down to us as anything but of a second class nature. But, now, people push their clericalism and tell us it is not only requisite, but even sometimes go so far, as you have, to claim it is what actually makes us Catholic. Not even close. We are Catholic because we hold the Catholic faith, whole and entire, and that has nothing to do with being ordained. Arius, the arch heretic, was a priest. I promise you that any orthodox Catholic lay person's opinion was of more value and authority than were his.

[Talisker]

With all due respect, Talisker, you seem to conflate papal opinion with the Papal Magisterium. These are two very different things.

Actually what I am addressing is who gets to determine the difference. It is my understanding that the Catholic laity is not authorized to make such decisions, and that they are told by the clergy what the applicablelevel of authority and interpretation of any Church teaching, or Papal action or statement, is. So in a functional sense it doesn't really matter what the laity thinks of the difference between Papal opinion and magisterium, because they don't have the authority to implement their decisions on the subjects.

[Talisker]

As you say, the laity can “make their views known” to the clergy. They cannot, however, follow their conscience. For after making their views known (which presumably represent their consciences), they must receive a judgement or teaching or instruction regarding them, and then obey them - despite what they might still believe on their own.

I’m not slighting it, I’m just acknowleging it. Catholicism is based on obedience to Papal and Clergy authority, and the laity is simply not authorized to make decisions about their own faith. Opinions are one thing, obedience is another. Catholics accept this state of affairs as central to their Catholicism. I’m just noting its existence. And I’m also noting the difference between a non-Catholic and a Catholic having opinions about doctrine - the former follows their own opinions, the latter cannot. So there is a fundamental, yet unacknowledged difference between the two in the use of the concept of “opinion.”

As for Catherine of Siena and Thomas Aquinas instructing the Church, you’ll note they are Saints. There are many in the history of the Church who also sought to instruct the Church who were not acknowledged as Saints, and thus were excommunicated, burned, or otherwise erased. I’dd say that’s a pretty high bar for insisting on one’s own opinion as a Catholic, and not very supportive of an argument that Catholics are free to follow their own minds.

[dsc]

“Except that isn’t how Catholicism works. If the Pope says it, you have to follow it.”

Others have already taken issue with this. I just want to add my “Sorry, but that’s not correct at all. Not even a little.”

[dsc]

“This would be a direct opposition to the belief that the Church has primary authority”

What century are we talking about, here? I have always been taught that God has primary authority, and that the Bible is His word.

“and would presuppose that the individual has the moral obligation to judge the morality of the current ecclesiastical teachings.”

Well, yeah. The Church holds that God gave us reason so that we could use it.

“I would ask a challenge question in response.”

Asked and answered.

Prima scriptura (scripture is the first and foremost authority).

[cothrige]

Catholicism is based on obedience to Papal and Clergy authority, and the laity is simply not authorized to make decisions about their own faith.

I get the distinct impression you aren't Catholic. Am I right? No Catholic would say or believe this. It is not what "Catholicism is based on" and isn't even a part of our ethos. This strikes me as some outsider's prejudiced assumption about what we do and believe.

Opinions are one thing, obedience is another.

In this you are right. Which is why it is so strange that you keep talking about obedience when I have been discussing opinions.

Catholics accept this state of affairs as central to their Catholicism.

No, we do not accept anything like what you are describing as central to anything. I promise you that. No Catholic I have ever known in my life would accede to the strange notions you have laid out as being what they practise. Not even close.

As for Catherine of Siena and Thomas Aquinas instructing the Church, you’ll note they are Saints.

Exactly, and when were they given that honor? Was it at birth so that they could behave in ways that, you say, the Church does not allow? What a strange idea, and also entirely not one which could ever be confused with Catholicism. But, no, that is not how it has happened. They were just Catholics during their life, but were then recognized as saints specifically because they lived lives worthy of recognition. In other words, they were thoroughly Catholic and models of behaviour, not aberrations as you seem to think. And, even more to the point, St. Thomas Aquinas was a teacher and what I referred to was something he taught others in the Church, and that teaching is held up by the Church as definitive.

There are many in the history of the Church who also sought to instruct the Church who were not acknowledged as Saints, and thus were excommunicated, burned, or otherwise erased.

Oh yeah, you aren't Catholic. This is just Dan Brown fiction. None of what you are arguing is true. The Church is founded on truth, not power. Your model is one of force, but that is just what you want to believe. The Church teaches the true faith, and has done so from the beginning. It calls the faithful, all the faithful, to live according to the truth and to instruct the ignorant wherever or whoever they may be. Your notions are as foreign to us as the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So in a functional sense it doesn't really matter what the laity thinks of the difference between Papal opinion and magisterium, because they don't have the authority to implement their decisions on the subjects."

Thank you for that clear explanation; now I understand your point, and it's an important one.

The infallibility manifested (on rare occasions) by a pope is not really the "Pope's infallibility" (as if it were a personal characteristic) but rather the Church's infallibility being exercised in its --- by far --- least common instance.

As the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Vat II) expresses it, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. The papal (or conciliar or episcopal) magisterium depends on this, since anything "divinely revealed" has to be derived from what was handed on to us by the Apostles.

So there's a 2,000 year record out there for all to see, which shows what we are convinced has been derived from this Apostolic (not solely papal) authority. And also out there for all to see, is 2,000 years of conversation, sometimes serene, sometimes contentious, about the extent and limits of what can be derived from this single source (the Apostles' teaching.)

We apply what Pope Benedict XVI called the "Hermeneutic of Continuity" --- we're looking for those teachings which are directly taught or reasonably inferred (maybe, logically demanded) from the faith of the whole Church from the earliest centuries, as knowable from writings as well as from practice, e.g. Sacred Liturgy.

Realize that every person in the Church has the authority, and of course the duty, to "Obey God rather than men."

So, cut to the chase, how would I, non-cleric, non-scholar, pew-sitter Catholic, react if the pope, professing some level of authority, proclaimed something that was a departure, a rupture, from what we know Christ taught us through the Church an ages past? What if he said Jesus Christ is not God; or man is but a brute, a mutant ape; or Christian marriage makes no durable bond; or intentionally killing an innocent human being is not murder? (My husband and I have discussed this)

I would conclude one of the following:

• the alleged document is fraudulent
• this 'teaching' is null because the pope is out of his mind
• this is not the pope, it's an impostor
• "He was misquoted!"
• this isn't happening, I'm hallucinating.

Under no circumstances (God aiding me) would I conclude that this deranged papal pronouncement was an authoritative teaching--- no, not even if every bishop in the world concurred with it.

Of interest: John Henry Newman's "Development of Doctrine," which invokes internal consistency/continuity as the way to tell true development from either corruption or innovation.

For your amusement and edification: How to Explain Papal Infallibility in Two Minutes (YouTube Link)

[nanetteclaret]

If one reads the encyclicals of previous Popes, one finds that they are based upon previous Popes’ encyclicals, i.e., Church teaching is strengthened, confirmed, and further clarified (not changed). Pope St. Pius X wrote in 1907 in his encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” about the heresy of Modernism, which he described as “the synthesis of all heresies.” It has seeped into the Church and now we see that statements of the current Pope are not building upon statements of previous Popes, i.e., they are at odds. The key idea of Modernism is “that may be true for you, but it isn’t for me,” leading to the thought, “if everything is true and nothing is false, then who am I to judge,” ergo, “all beliefs lead to salvation.” One has only to read the writings of previous Popes to know that this one hasn’t.

[cothrige]

I certainly agree that it is necessary for Catholics, all Catholics, to look to the history of Church teaching and thought for context and constraint rather than simply taking some new instruction or clarification entirely on its own. So many people seem eager and ready to do this these days, and we see it when we hear discussions about how the pope should change this or that teaching. That demonstrates a complete failure to consider the reality of doctrine. It just isn’t a Catholic way of looking at it.

[Talisker]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, and your explanation of the historical continuity of Catholic teachings.

Concerning your theoretical example of being challenged by a Papal teaching which you simply could not accept, even if it was supported by bishops, what then? Do you become, at that moment, apostate in the eyes of the Church? A heretic if you still insist on being a Catholic?

It is my understanding that that is exactly what would happen under such conditions. And it would happen because the Church does not accept your authority to disagree with its teachings.

While I am pleased for you that this has not occurred for you, I do point out that it has occurred for many. That’s why I remind people that the Church is not a democracy. This often makes Catholics angry or offended or defensive, they feel provoked. But there are no reasons for such feelings. Catholicism is a discipline, and always has been. Even Pope Benedict said he would rather see a smaller Church that conformed strictly to the teachings.

I left the Church for my own reasons, but I don’t hate the Church. Rather (and in my personal opinion, of course), I believe that there are many paths to God, and that God chooses certain people for the discipline of Catholicism.

Thus I also believe that the broad application of Catholicism is a mistake. I simply don’t think it can be achieved without fundamentally changing the Church. And I think that’s why there are so many “cafeteria Catholics” these days. Personally, I could not morally choose that route.

[Talisker]

Your rejection of the obligation of Catholics to obey the teachings of the Church over their own personal spiritual opinions demonstrates a level of ignorance about your religion that is to low for me to continue a discussion with you on this subject.

Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

[oldbrowser]

I therefore postulate that the scriptures would be the primary means of guidance, in that anything taught by the Pope would have to align with scripture in order to be accepted as “right”. IOW, prima scriptura (scripture is the first and foremost authority)

Based on whose interpretation of the scriptures?
That's the whole point isn't it?

[taxcontrol]

Yes, that is the exactly my point.