Ordinary Magisterium and the Authority of Encyclicals

Introduction

The encyclical Laudato Si is coming out tomorrow. Personally, I have no intention of commenting on the text until I see the official release and the official translation. But many are up in arms based on the text of the draft, unofficially translated, as if the media reports—always inaccurate thus far—have reported the nuances of the final version accurately. It seems to me that such objections are to miss the point of what an encyclical is and what it is for.

This seems to stem from a gross misunderstanding on the part of some Catholics on the matter of what is binding and what is not. One of the greatest errors going about is the misunderstanding on what manner the Church uses to teach authoritatively. Many have expressed the view that the only thing that binds Catholics is an ex cathedra teaching when the Pope formally defines something declared to be held by all the faithful. The problem is, this is an extraordinary (done outside the normal means) method, normally used in cases where a serious need make a teaching clear.

Ordinary Teaching Authority

But when you have extraordinary decrees, it implies that there is an ordinary means which the Church teaches to inform the faithful as to how the teachings of the Church are to be applied—what must be done, and what must not be done.

Then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in an official SCDF document explained the difference between ordinary and extraordinary magisterium this way:

23. 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.

 

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.

 

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. [Donum Veritatis #23]

In other words, while the ordinary magisterium does not intend to teach things in such a way that we accept it as “divinely revealed,” they do require us to offer the submission of our will and intellect and accept these moral teachings as binding us to obedience. The document goes on to label as dissent (#33) the idea that teachings that are not ex cathedra can be ignored:

33. Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms. With such critical opposition, he would even be making a contribution to the development of doctrine.

Dissent is opposition to the lawful teaching authority to the Church—often “justified” by offering spurious arguments that say the teaching authority has not made (or does not have the right to make) a binding teaching in a certain case or area of human activity. So, to call a spade a spade, to disobey the Church in a matter which is not ex cathedra when she teaches on the Christian obligation, is dissent, and thus, contrary to the obligations of a faithful Catholic

Where Do Encyclicals Fit In?

An encyclical is an expression of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church. The 1887 Catholic Dictionary describes an encyclical as:

encyclical (literœ encyclicœ). A circular letter. In the ecclesiastical sense, an encyclical is a letter addressed by the Pope to all the bishops in communion with him, in which he condemns prevalent errors, or informs them of impediments which persecution, or perverse legislation or administration, opposes in particular countries to the fulfilment by the Church of her divine mission, or explains the line of conduct which Christians ought to take in reference to urgent practical questions, such as education, or the relations between Church and State, or the liberty of the Apostolic See. Encyclicals are “published for the whole Church, and addressed directly to the bishops, under circumstances which are afflicting to the entire Catholic body; while briefs and bulls are determined by circumstances more particular in their nature, and have a more special destination.” [William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co., 1887), 290.]

In other words, the encyclical does intend to teach the whole Church about matters of faith and morals in situations affecting the Church or the world in the time it is written—it is not an opinion piece written by a Pope that we can ignore. It is a teaching by the successor of Peter. Many of the teachings listed in Denzinger come from encyclicals, showing this is not a new claim about their authority, usurping the true teaching of the Church. Indeed, Ven. Pius XII had taught in 1950:

20. 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. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. [Humani Generis]

So, we cannot exclude an encyclical from what we are called to obey—the very nature of an encyclical shows that the Pope intends to pass judgment on a matter, and obedience to these teachings are not optional.

Moreover, Vatican II (Lumen Gentium #25) tells us...

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.

…so we can see that the type of document or the frequent reputation of the teaching shows that a Pope is making his will known as head of the Church.

Denying Ordinary Magisterium Can Bind Is Cafeteria Catholicism

So, given that the ordinary magisterium of the Church binds, and given that an encyclical is a way of expressing the ordinary magisterium of the Church, it logically follows that the moral teaching of an encyclical requires assent. But if one chooses to refuse assent, he or she is guilty of dissent, refusing to do what is required as a member of the faithful. So let’s stop with the illusion that one can ignore the teaching of an encyclical as being not binding. It is quite clear that it is binding, and if one is not faithful in small things (Luke 16:10), he or she will not be faithful in larger matters.

Quick Quips: Faithfulness, Messy Church, Failure to Respond

I thought I would try something different today. Instead of trying to create a long article out of one of the ideas bouncing around in my head and losing much of the other ideas in the process, I thought I’d try posting some short reflections under the heading of Quick Quips. 

Whoever is Trustworthy in Small Matters...

Our Lord has some things to say which seem especially fitting for our time and the attitude of rebellion which we are facing. In Luke 16:10, He tells us, “The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones.”

I was struck by this passage the other day when seeing a large number of Catholics on Facebook objecting to Pope Francis’ upcoming encyclical Laudato Si. One of the objections which was voiced was the complaint that, “Why is the Pope focussing on something so insignificant, compared to all the other issues out there?” Some have gone so far as to say that the Pope is neglecting souls while speaking about the environment.

But instead of cataloging and refuting every objection that is made, I’d like to point out one thing here. If you think that the moral obligations towards the environment is an insignificant matter compared to other issues that trouble you more, why not just seek to be faithful in these “small matters” instead of using your belief that it is “unimportant” as a justification to ignore the moral teaching an encyclical involves?

After all, if a person is faithless in what they see as a small matter like heeding the moral obligations of Catholics in regards to the environment, then why should he or she be seen as trustworthy when it comes to teaching the faith in greater matters? If a dissenter sees you rejecting the authority of the Church in a matter you disagree with and find unimportant, then why should this dissenter respect the authority of the Church in a matter he or she disagrees with?

Now I don’t mean we have to hold to a scrupulous or pharisaical legalism, in obedience. But, when the Pope says “We have this obligation,” why not say “OK,” instead of looking for ways to justify disobedience?

The Church is a Mess? Why do you say this like it is Something New?

Dissenting Priests, whacko nuns, bishops who seem weak in the face of sin, corruption and defiance. Such things do scandalize the Church today. But, when you read the unabridged Lives of the Saints, a history, or other works from the past—back before Church teaching was considered debatable—you can see that the Church was always a mess because the Church is made up of people who see things differently on how things should be done, even when they are acting out of good faith.

Sometimes a saint was opposed by a person who misunderstood their calling. Sometimes a person dissuaded a saint from something they wanted to do to keep them on track. Sometimes opposition was rooted in heresy or schism. Sometimes it was rooted in natural disagreements. But when you read the lives of some saints in past centuries, the situations they faced sound remarkably similar to the situations of today.

But there’s a myth today that back in the pre-Vatican II Church, the Vatican stopped every dissent and disobedience cold. Actually, no. Heresies lasted for hundreds of years, kings tried to impose their will on the Church in their realms, people took a lax view towards their faith, and allegations about the immorality of clergy circulated as widely then as now. That’s why the Church back then needed saints who were preachers and confessors in the nations who had formerly embraced the faith.

But I think we need to ask ourselves a couple of things here—Are we willing to answer the call (as opposed to waiting for someone else to do it)? And are we willing to work with the Church (as opposed to treating the magisterium as an adversary)?

What Can Separate Us From the Love of Christ? Nothing—But that Doesn’t Mean We Won’t Fail to Respond.

I was reading Romans 8 this morning and was struck by a thought. When St. Paul was speaking about not fearing the trials and tribulations, it struck me that he was talking about the fact that in the battle for our souls, nobody is going to defeat Our Lord and steal us away from Him against His our will. It’s not going to be a case of Our Lord being left defeated on the battlefield, scratching His head and wondering, “How did that happen?"

So if this is the case, how do people go to hell? I would say that the devil works by convincing people that they don’t need to fight and don’t need to change. Whether he does this by persuading people to reject religion, or to practice religion in a way which is focussed on the self instead of God, he deceives us by having us put our own will first while making what God calls us to be a secondary matter,  Our Lord’s words on straining the gnat and swallowing the camel (Matthew 23:24) come to mind here. We focus on things that may be good in themselves, but do it in a way which neglects the bigger picture—like focusing on liturgy and neglecting social justice; or focussing on social justice while neglecting the moral issues.

In other words, when we make adherence to only part of God’s teaching while choosing to ignore the rest, we are failing to respond to God’s love as we are called.

Thoughts On Bigotry and Bigoted Defenders of "Tolerance"

Read more »

Thoughts on the Preemptive Dissent Against Laudato Si

Read more »

A Little Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing: Reflections on an Anti-Christian Meme

Read more »

TFTD: I Am the King of America! A Reality Check on "Self-Identity" Claims

Read more »

"...To Which All Are Compelled To Assent..."

(See: Failing to Make the Moral Case for Marriage | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views)

It has been a common tactic by those dissatisfied with how the bishops are handling the case of the judicial diktats against our religious obligations is to accuse them of retreating from the moral teaching of the Church to the issue of religious freedom. The argument basically runs along the line of saying that the point of religious freedom has failed so far to persuade people and uses the hypothesis contrary to fact to claim that things would be different if the bishops would just make their case to the morality of the issue.

I think that such an argument, while it recognizes that we need to keep in mind the big picture of the culture war we are in, tends to miss the point about the current battle we are in, assuming a “one size fits all” approach to our opponents. The problem is, as I see it, we are facing an opponent who believes that our moral beliefs are rooted in ignorance and intolerance. In other words, they believe our religious beliefs themselves are “immoral.” As a result, they will not listen to explanations about why certain actions are always wrong—if we don’t share their views, we are just seen as trying to “explain away our bigotry."

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Contra Gentiles, wrote about the problem of disputing with groups who reject our sources of authority for assessing the truth, pointing out that we need to start by appealing to where we agree:

it is difficult to refute the errors of each individual, for two reasons. First, because the sacrilegious assertions of each erring individual are not so well known to us, that we are able from what they say to find arguments to refute their errors. For the Doctors of old used this method in order to confute the errors of the heathens, whose opinions they were able to know, since either they had been heathens themselves, or had lived among heathens and were conversant with their teachings. Secondly, because some of them, like the Mohammedans and pagans, do not agree with us as to the authority of any Scripture whereby they may be convinced, in the same way as we are able to dispute with the Jews by means of the Old Testament, and with heretics by means of the New: whereas the former accept neither. Wherefore it is necessary to have recourse to natural reason, to which all are compelled to assent. And yet this is deficient in the things of God. [Sum. Cont. Gent. 1.2]

We are dealing with a Court of Law which seems bent on denying that laws based on the Judaeo-Christian moral beliefs have any constitutional standing—and therefore such laws affirming the nature of marriage as between one man and one woman are considered a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.” Under such (spurious) principles, government employees and business owners are denied the right to refuse to do what is contrary to their moral obligations in the eyes of God.

So, we have to start with a common reference. Because the Constitution is being held up as the standard to which these attacks are being made. The argument is that laws against “same sex marriage” violate the rights of a segment of the population, so that is where this particular battle has begun, and we have to address the attacks being made there. It does make sense to appeal to the people of good will who may not recognize the truth about sexual morality but do want to seek the right thing. Of course, we cannot stop there. We have to show why our teachings are true. But first we have to get them to listen.

St. Justin Martyr recognized this concept when he wrote his First Apology. In writing to the Emperor, he started by appealing to the shared value between Christianity and the Stoics—justice and doing right:

Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right. Do you, then, since ye are called pious and philosophers, guardians of justice and lovers of learning, give good heed, and hearken to my address; and if ye are indeed such, it will be manifested. For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers, or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

 

[Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin” Chapter II, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 163.]

However, just because we have to start there, in this battle, does not mean we have to remain there. St. Justin Martyr started his defense of Christianity by pointing out that justice forbids punishing a man just because he is a Christian, pointing out that punishment must only be meted out for the wrongdoing. He establishes this point before attempting to show the righteousness of the Christian faith. He knows that Christianity, as a persecuted religion, has no standing in the eyes of the rulers of the empire. 

I think it is safe to say that in the eyes of lawmakers and judges, Christianity has no standing, and its teachings—or, rather, the misinterpretations of Christian teachings—are seen as repugnant. So, we must start with the values they claim to recognize (in this case, the Constitution) and show that the actions they are taking go against these values. St. Justin Martyr would point out that if those who he addressed refused to do what was just, they would betray what they stand for. Ultimately, that is what we must do when those in authority are hostile to us. We must point out that if they truly value the Constitution, they must respect it when it comes to the freedom of religion, and not treat our religious obligations as contrary to the Constitution.

As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out when it came to using reason, this is deficient in the things of God. Likewise, merely reaching out to them at the level of the Constitution is deficient. We do need to go beyond the issue of the Constitution when it comes to preaching the Gospel and explaining why we must avoid certain acts. The Church does do this. But I think that the people who charge that the bishops are “retreating,” need to realize that those who refuse to listen to our teachings must be reached out to in ways where they might listen.

If they don’t (and it happens—there’s a reason that we refer to St. Justin as “St. Justin Martyr”), then it means we will have the harder task of evangelizing under a soft persecution, where the courts and lawmakers determine that they can set aside their laws arbitrarily. But, we certainly should reach out to people of good will beginning with the grounds they have in common with us. If we don’t, then we will be retreating.

"Those Who Cannot Remember the Past..."

The old quote of Santayana goes, Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. That certainly seems to be the case here where, in the name of equality, the secular society has invented virtues for itself which matches what they think their society should be. Historically speaking, whenever a society identifies with their self-invented virtues, they tend to be very hostile towards groups that exist within their society which already has virtues they refuse to give up. In fact, such groups tend to be viewed as the enemy of the state and are targeted because they refuse to surrender their beliefs.

Once upon a time, America recognized the freedom of such groups to do what they felt morally obligated to do and limited the power of the state to dictate behavior that went against the moral obligations of the person. In short, when a religious group held, “I must not do this,” the state recognized that it had no right to force a member of this group to do what he believed was morally wrong. This was in contrast with other nations where the government could compel membership in one religion and forbidding membership in a different one (the State Church of England for example), or the attempt to control a religious denomination’s schools and appointed ministers (the Kulturkampf of Germany). To drum up support for the attacks, the state would focus on the behavior of members of the Church who were living scandalously and seek to transfer the disgust over their behavior into an indictment of the whole Church.

America recognized those behaviors by government as something condemnable and, even if a majority of the population disapproved of a religion, it never directly sought to control what religious behaviors were acceptable, dictating to the Church what beliefs could be followed or not. That’s why what is happening to America today is so tragic. In seeking to promote certain “virtues,” the government is seeking to force the disagreement by members of certain religious bodies out of the public square and into a ghetto of “freedom to worship.” But Freedom of Religion ≠ Freedom to Worship.  Freedom to Worship is part of the Freedom of Religion, but the Freedom of Religion is far more than worship.

America has a rather ugly tendency nowadays to deny the freedom of religion to individuals who run a business or work for the government. Such people are told that their wish to refuse to do certain things that they believe are morally wrong is a violation of the civil rights of others. To justify their position against religious freedom, people dredge up the segregation in the South, with the “Whites Only” establishments, separate drinking fountains etc. It is argued that the religious faith of business owners and government employees that forbids them to do something is the same motive used by segregationists to bar non-whites from their establishments.

But this is a false analogy. The appeals to religious freedom by the business owner or government employee is not rooted in a prejudice against a certain subset of people. It is rooted in the belief that We may not participate in something we believe to be morally wrong—not at all the same thing. That is apparent by those targeted businesses which say they are perfectly willing to serve a person whose moral behavior they believe is wrong in the normal course of business—but they are not willing to have their business cause scandal by appearing to approve of something the business owner thinks is morally wrong.

In other nations, priests and even bishops were imprisoned or even martyred because they would not compromise with what was wrong—a virtue widely recognized even here except when it comes to the Catholic Church living that way. Then it is labeled as a case of being “rigid” or “bureaucratic” or “hateful.” But that is just propaganda aimed at encouraging people to think of the Church as harmful and needing to be opposed.

America claims to remember the lessons of history. Yet the behavior exhibited here shows that our nation seems to be doomed to repeat the mistakes other nations have made—mistakes it spoke out against in other contexts.

"You Have Cast Off the Weight; Beware, Lest the Sand Overwhelm You"

Let’s consider a Bible passage from Matthew 9:9-13...

⁹ As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him. ¹⁰ While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples. ¹¹ The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” ¹² He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. ¹³ Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

From what we know about what Jesus taught, there is one thing we can never forget:

• Major Premise: Jesus came to call the sinners, not the righteous.
• Minor Premise: Jesus came to call us.
• Conclusion: Therefore, We are sinners. 

If we forget this fact, then we run the risk of becoming like the Pharisees, looking upon others as sinners, but giving no thought to our own sins. If we give no thought to our own sins, how can we repent of the evil done? The fact is, there are two types of sinners out there—those who acknowledge what they do is wrong, and those who do not acknowledge what they do is wrong. Jesus was calling the Pharisees to conversion as well. But the Pharisees did not acknowledge their own sinfulness. Instead, they assumed that because they kept the law strictly and did not commit the sins of the tax collectors, they were righteous before God. But actually, they merely committed different sins and still need the attitude of metanoia—the change of heart—which means they regret the wrong they did and turn back to seek God. If they did this, they would receive God’s grace.

Likewise, if we think our own religious practices and the fact that we do not commit notorious sins to make us righteous before God, we are behaving in the same way as the Pharisees did. Let us consider the words of St. Augustine in his Commentary on Psalm 40...

Who is there can calculate the number of the hairs of his head? Much less can he tell the number of his sins, which exceed the number of the hairs of his head. They seem to be minute; but they are many in number. You have guarded against great ones; you do not now commit adultery, or murder; you do not plunder the property of others; you do not blaspheme; and do not bear false witness; those are the weightier kind of sins. You have guarded against great sins, what are you doing about your smaller ones? You have cast off the weight; beware lest the sand overwhelm you.

 

[Augustine of Hippo, Psalm 40, #21, in Saint Augustin: Expositions on the Book of Psalms, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 126.]

St. Augustine raises an excellent point here. Let us not think that just because we may not have notorious sins on our conscience that we are free of sin. We can be damned by a multitude of sins that we dismiss as unimportant compared to the sins of others. This is why we must not rest on the assumption that our actions are good enough, compared to the sins of others. The saints sought the grace of God and struggled against their sins out of love for Him. We must go and do likewise.

The Deadliest (Logical) Error

Read more »

Thoughts on Growing Radicalism and Our Responsibilities

Read more »

Thoughts on the Love of Truth vs. Sophistry

Read more »

Thoughts on Church Teaching Encountering Politics and Business

Read more »

"At Long Last, Have You Left No Sense of Decency?" Reflections on the Anti-Francis Mindset

(See: Cardinal Kasper Backpedals on Papal Endorsement of Controversial Proposal | Daily News | NCRegister.com)

I’ve often had to defend Pope Francis from the charge that he intends to change Church teaching. To me, it was obvious that what the Pope actually had to say about marriage and family was nothing like what his detractors accused him of. But his detractors continued to speak against the Pope, ignoring what he did say and relying on partial quotes. When they were shown to be in the wrong, the result was to claim the Vatican was “issuing more clarifications,” implying that the Church was involved with damage control, and that the Pope was in the wrong.

In other words, the Pope was blamed for saying what he did not say, and for not saying what he actually said. People relied on biased sources, whether secular news sources with whom a person agreed with ideologically, or from religious oriented blogs who have a strong hatred of the Pope and, because of that hatred, portray what he does in a negative spin. While the sources of these distorted presentation will no doubt bear responsibility for grossly misrepresenting the Pope, that does not excuse the members of the faithful from learning the truth about a claim before repeating it to others. Rash judgment is a sin.

The latest bit of shame involves the response that came in response to the interview of Cardinal Kasper where he was forced to admit that his proposals did not ever have the support of the Pope:

ARROYO: Well you did say, and the quote is: “Clearly this is what he wants,” and the Pope has approved of my proposal. [To admit the divorced and remarried to Communion] Those were the quotes from the time …

CARDINAL KASPER:  No … he did not approve my proposal. The Pope wanted that I put the question [forward], and, afterwards, in a general way, before all the cardinals, he expressed his satisfaction with my talk. But not the end, not in the … I wouldn’t say he approved the proposal, no, no, no.

This was a point where opponents to the Pope constantly bashed him, accusing him of intending to change Church teaching (contrary to all evidence), and it turns out that it was all relying on a fabrication. The Pope had expressed an interest in finding out how to better reach out to Catholics estranged from the Church, but he never said anything about permitting the divorced and remarried to receive the Eucharist.

That hasn’t changed anything when it comes to the anti-Francis crowd. I’ve seen some call this “a clarification.” I’ve seen others accuse the Pope of telling Kasper to be the Fall Guy. They won’t admit the fact that the Pope never was guilty in the first place. They still accuse him of being a Marxist or a Modernist or a Heretic. Personally, I see these antics and am reminded of the Psalms:

¹⁹ You give your mouth free rein for evil; 

you yoke your tongue to deceit. 

²⁰ You sit and speak against your brother, 

slandering your mother’s son. 

²¹ When you do these things should I be silent? 

Do you think that I am like you? 

I accuse you, I lay out the matter before your eyes

(Psalm 50:19-21)

It is time for the “super Catholics” to consider the consequences of their actions. In being so certain of their righteousness and refusing to consider the possibility of error on their part, they cause division in the Church and disturb the peace of the faithful (cf. Acts 15:24). They have to ask themselves whether they will trust God and follow the Church, or whether they will trust in themselves and disobey the Church. The first choice leads to salvation, the other to ruin.

Why Do I Remain A Catholic?

Some blogs I know have taken up the question of, Why Do You Remain a Catholic? I guess depending on the attitude, it could be anything from a sneer to a request for information. Certainly at this time, the anti-Catholic forces in this country are on the rise and they do have good ammunition due to certain members of the Church dropping the ball or causing a scandal through their personal behavior.

But I find these issues to be irrelevant when compared to the reason I remain a Catholic—Because I am convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ and that God continues to protect His Church from teaching error even when individuals within the Church do wrong.

So, if we know that God is with His Church, having given the Church the authority and the responsibility to carry out His mission, we can trust Him to make sure the Church does not mislead us and we can trust Him to protect His Church from attacks from the outside as well. That doesn’t mean the Church won’t face suffering—in fact Our Lord warned us that the world will hate us too (John 15:18-25). But the attacks against the Church will not defeat the Church.

So my remaining in the Church is not based in Papolatry (as the Protestants call it) or in Ultramontanism (as the traditionalists put it). I personally think Pope Francis is a good Pope, but he is not the reason for my faith. I trust in God to guide him so when he teaches in a way which requires assent, I trust God will prevent him from teaching error.

Thoughts On the Growing Injustice Against Christianity In America

We’re told that judges have no right to refuse to impose laws they feel to be unjust, civil servants have no right to refuse to participate in a state sanctioned activity they feel is unjust, pharmacists and doctors are denied conscience protection and businesses have no right to refuse to do something which goes against the moral convictions of the owners. But, they do not apply this to themselves. Thus, we’ve seen governors and attorney generals who refused to defend/enforce the laws defending the traditional concept of marriage.

Americans seem to be so blind to the fact that the these arguments are only applied in one direction, denying religious freedom to Christians with a moral conviction that a law is wrong, while giving license to any other group (ethnic, gender, religion, sexual preference). What we have is the replacing the rule of law with diktats aimed at favoring the allies of politically approved ideas and harming those opposed to these ideas. The sad thing is, in the past we have lionized people who stood up to the state and said, “I will not comply with an unjust law.” These heroes in American history recognized when a judicial ruling or a law was unjust because it forbade them doing what they felt morally obligated to do.

The common tactic to justify this injustice is to try to link their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. For example, proponents of “same sex marriage” try to point to segregation laws in the 19th and 20th centuries and claim that the belief that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman is the same thing as oppressing African Americans. But that is a false analogy. The two sides are not equivalent. One can affirm that a person has rights as a human being without indulging a moral behavior believed wrong. But the Civil Rights movement existed because the laws of the time denied the fact that African Americans had certain rights as human beings.

In fact, the banning of interracial marriage (so often equated with the defense of traditional marriage) was a legal invention that invented an artificial barrier between male and female on the basis of determining that one ethnicity was inferior to another. That intention to discriminate is not present in the defense of traditional marriage. The defense of marriage recognizes that male and female runs across all national, ethnic and religious lines and those categories do not change what marriage is. 

But “same sex marriage” does change what marriage is, by denying the complementarity of the genders as what marriage is intended to accomplish. The concept of “same sex marriage” reduces marriage to a legally recognized sexual relationship—something we do not accept as a valid definition of marriage, and something we will not cooperate with.

However, rather than actually try to discuss our concerns, the tactics today are very much similar to the attacks on Christianity in the times of Pagan Rome…making false accusations about what Christians believe in our opposition to what is morally wrong. Then, like now, Christians were charged with “hatred.” In that case, the charge was “hatred of the human race.” Here, it is “hatred” of the people who benefit from something we call morally wrong. The fact that we deny the charge is ignored—just as it was ignored in Roman times. If we will not do what those in authority want, we can expect to suffer whatever people can get away with inflicting on us (even when the Imperial government of Rome did not persecute Christians, many times governors and mob rule did).

Christians were accused of false crimes like cannibalism and incest in the times of Pagan Rome. We are accused of hating women and people with same sex attraction. Then and now, we deny these charges are a part of our belief. If anyone who professes Christianity committed such crimes, they would be acting against what the Church teaches. The fact is, while loving a person means treating them with all the dignity which belongs to being a person, this love does not require us to do for them what we believe is morally wrong.

Note this distinction. Contrary to accusations, we reject the claim that we support the mistreatment of people because of their actions and reject the claim that our refusing to support what we believe is morally wrong is rooted in hatred. We also reject the antics of extremists who invoke the name of Christian while actively doing things our religion forbids against those we believe do moral wrong.

America has a choice to make. Either our nation can act like the Roman Empire (except using lawsuits, fines and prison instead of lions) unjustly persecuting us because we refuse to do what we think is morally wrong, or it can act like what our Founding Fathers intended in limiting the government—forbidding it to interfere with our moral obligations to do good and avoid evil.

"We Had to Disobey the Church In Order to Be Faithful." The Irony of Defenders Turned Dissenters

Irony: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result. Also, literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

Introduction

As we get closer to the projected release date of the Pope’s encyclical on the environment, a certain group of Catholics is growing more and more hostile to the Holy Father’s teaching authority. At the same time, the same group of Catholics are decrying the decline in the obedience to Church teaching in general. This is a good example of irony in both the standard and classical meanings of the word. It is incongruous to be offended at others being disobedient to the teaching of the Church, while also being disobedient to the Church—one would expect a person concerned with disobedience to be obedient. It is also something they seem to be unaware of doing even though others can see the contradiction plainly.

But the irony is not humorous, but tragic, because this is not something which is outside of one’s control. It is something which one can do something about—by examining one’s own behavior against what is an authority in assessing what is moral and immoral about our behavior. Since, as Catholics, we recognize that humanity is inclined towards sin and that the Church is given the authority to bind and loose by Christ (cf. Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, John 20:21-23), it is reasonable to expect that Our Lord will protect that authority from binding us into error or loosing truth. Once we recognize this, it becomes clear that the teaching authority (as opposed to the comments made which are not teaching—like interviews) of the Church is more trustworthy a guide than our own judgment.

The Replacement of Obedience With “Happening to Agree"

For the longest time, Catholics who identified with being faithful to the Church on how to live, recognized this obligation. When certain Catholics sought to justify disobedience to the moral teaching, the response was to show that this teaching was binding and to disobey Church teaching was to put oneself at odds with Our Lord (cf. Luke 10:16). People took this stand in defending the Church teaching on contraception, abortion, same-sex genital acts and other things. St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were staunchly defended by Catholics seeking to be faithful.

But it seems that this fidelity was simply because they were in favor of the teaching of the Church anyway. Flashing forward to the pontificate of Pope Francis, we see that many of these defenders of Papal authority are suddenly becoming dissenters. The Pope, experiencing injustices during his life that we in the Western nations can’t imagine, pointed out that the Catholic teaching went beyond the teaching on sexual morality—that we could sin against God and our fellow man through unjust economic situations and political regimes. This isn’t a new situation. The Church has had to stand up against all sorts of oppressive regimes throughout history, and not only against the ones where the rulers committed sexual sins. Our Popes have spoken out on economic injustice on both sides of the capitalist-socialist debates. They recognized that just because one of two factions was condemned outright, it did not mean that the other side was free of flaws. For example, Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical against atheistic communism, Divini Redemptoris, also wrote:

38. It may be said in all truth that the Church, like Christ, goes through the centuries doing good to all. There would be today neither Socialism nor Communism if the rulers of the nations had not scorned the teachings and maternal warnings of the Church. On the bases of liberalism and laicism they wished to build other social edifices which, powerful and imposing as they seemed at first, all too soon revealed the weakness of their foundations, and today are crumbling one after another before our eyes, as everything must crumble that is not grounded on the one corner stone which is Christ Jesus.

In other words, even though socialism and communism were condemned, the Church recognizes that if nations had not neglected their obligations, these errors never would have gotten a foothold in the first place.

Former Defenders Become Dissenters Because the Church is Not What They Want it to Be

Unfortunately, too many people have not taken the Church teaching fully, instead using them in a partisan manner as if a condemnation of one was an endorsement of the other. The result is, when the Church speaks against the problems of the other side, it is presumed that the Church is endorsing what it previously condemned. So, when Pope Francis warns about the abuses in capitalism, people take it as support for socialism. This mindset leads one to forget that there can be more than two options to consider, and that the Church teaching may actually consist in rejecting both options.

The irony of Church defenders turned dissenters appears in another way as well—that the arguments which were used by dissenters against sexual morality are the same arguments that are used to justify dissent against Pope Francis. The arguments which were once rejected are now embraced—because the arguments suit dissent regardless of what the disliked teaching happens to be. 

Of course, we need to recognize something. Remember, those dissenters who want to change the Church teaching on sexual morality also deny that the Pope is teaching in a binding manner. The question is, are they justified in their reasons for refusing to obey the Church? If they are not, then neither are dissenters who want to deny the Church teaching on social justice. But if the people who oppose Pope Francis want to justify their dissent, they can’t deny the other dissenters—and that’s exactly the situation which they decried in the 1960s-1990s.

So the defender turned dissenter creates the same problem as the usual dissenter that we had from Church teaching on moral issues. A counter-magisterium is set up which tells the faithful that it is OK to disobey certain things. Whether the dissenter is rejecting the teaching on sexual morality or whether the dissenter is rejecting the teaching on social justice, they are rejecting the authority which Christ gave the Church. While they invoke a greater "truth (whether the liberal invokes [their interpretation of] “compassion” or the conservative invokes [their interpretation of] “tradition”), they are faithless in the smaller things. But Our Lord tells us that “The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones (Luke 16:10)."

In other words, there are no cases of “What I do isn’t as bad as what they do.” If a person puts themselves and their preferences above the teaching authority of the Church, they are doing wrong and cannot claim their behavior is compatible with the Catholic faith.

Conclusion: What We’ve Lost Is Obedience

Many Catholics bemoan the fact that the Church was stronger and more respected in past times. They compare it today and try to find a cause to explain it. Vatican II is blamed. Popes are blamed. Bishops are blamed. The charge is, if the Church hadn’t made changes, people would still respect her. But I believe this argument is false. What the Church had in times when she was stronger and respected was obedience. People recognized her as the “barque of Peter” who was tasked with teaching the faith which kept us in right relationship with God. But now, whether the dissent is modernist or traditionalist, obedience is no longer present. It is assumed that the individual knows better than the whole Church, and "if the Church doesn’t teach what *I* want, then I won’t follow what she says!"

But as Catholics, we believe that the Church has the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18) and to forgive sins or hold them bound (John 20:23). If God gives her that authority and the responsibility to go out to the whole world (Matthew 28:19), it follows that those who become part of that Church have the responsibility to obey what the Church intends to teach (Luke 10:16).

If we reject the teaching of the Church, if we spend time looking for excuses about why we are justified to disobey teachings for which we are required to give assent, we are not faithful Catholics—We are destroying what we claim to defend, just like the old statement “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Some tactics are incompatible with building the Church, and disobedience is one of those incompatible ones. 

So let’s be clear about what we are doing and what we are fighting for. If we profess to believe in God and we profess to believe that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church, then let us carry out that belief by trusting God to protect His Church from teaching error when it to things that require our assent. Then let us show our faith in God’s protection by obeying the magisterium when they teach,

The Church Will Survive...But We Have Work To Do

Read more »