 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
‘Recent theological observations on magisterial documents and
public dissent’, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58,
September 1997, pp. 509-515. Republished with permission of the editor.
Sullivan is the leading theological authority on the magisterium. He
wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist,
1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents
(Paulist, spring 1996).
The writer raises questions about some opinions expressed by
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, in an article that originally appeared in the December 20, 1996
edition of L'Osservatore Romano. He focuses on Bertone's views on the doctrinal
weight that should be attributed to a papal declaration that a particular
doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium.
L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO for December 20, 1996, carried a long article by
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Secretary of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), with the title: "A proposito della recezione dei
Documenti del Magistero e del dissenso pubblico."(FN1) A translation of this
article has been published in the weekly edition in English of L'Osservatore
Romano for January 29, 1997, under the heading: "Theological Observations by
Archbishop Bertone."(FN2) While Archbishop Bertone is second in charge of the
CDF under the Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, his article cannot be described as
an official document issued by the congregation. On the other hand, when the
Secretary of the CDF publishes "theological observations" concerning the
doctrinal weight of recent documents of the Roman magisterium, one can hardly
ignore the likelihood that his views represent an understanding of the matter
that is shared by the Cardinal Prefect and other members of the CDF. If this is
the case, it would not be surprising if official documents emanating from Rome
in the future were to give magisterial authority to opinions expressed in this
article by Archbishop Bertone. Hence, his article deserves a careful reading.
In this Note, I focus on what he says about the doctrinal weight of a papal
statement affirming that a particular doctrine had been taught infallibly by
the ordinary universal magisterium.
It is well known that such an affirmation has been made by the CDF in
its Responsum ad dubium concerning the doctrine that the Church has no
authority to ordain women to the priesthood.(FN3) To my knowledge, this is the
first time that the Roman magisterium has ever declared that a specific
doctrine was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. When Pope
Pius IX insisted that Catholic theologians must give their assent of faith not
only to defined dogmas, but also to doctrines that are "handed on by the
ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world as
divinely revealed," he did not name any specific doctrine as falling in that
category.(FN4) Nor did the First Vatican Council do so, when it declared that
the assent of "divine and Catholic faith" must be given to doctrines which are
proposed by the Church "by its ordinary and universal magisterium as divinely
revealed and to be believed as such."(FN5) Vatican II spelled out the
conditions under which the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium would
be infallible, but it did not specify which doctrines had been so
taught.(FN6)
Private theologians have not been so reticent. When they wrote manuals
for the use of students, they usually assigned a "theological note" to each of
their theses. While the note de fide definita was attached to "defined dogma,"
the note de fide without definita could mean that, in the judgment of the
manualist, the doctrine was taught as of faith by the ordinary universal
magisterium. More recently, some Catholic theologians have claimed that the
wrongfulness of the use of artificial means of contraception has been taught
infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium.(FN7) William E. May extended
such a claim to the "core of Catholic moral teaching," when he wrote: "Vatican
II definitely teaches that the magisterium does teach infallibly on questions
of morality when specific conditions are met, and I submit that these
conditions have been met with respect to the core of Catholic moral teaching
concerning the inviolability of innocent human life, the evil of adultery and
fornication and similar issues."(FN8)
Catholic moral teaching concerning the inviolability of innocent human
life received its most authoritative statement thus far in the encyclical
Evangelium vitae, when Pope John Paul II said: "Therefore, by the authority
which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the
Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing
of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon
that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart
(cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture , transmitted by the
Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium."(FN9) In that same encyclical, Pope John Paul declared that the
Church's doctrines on abortion and euthanasia were likewise "transmitted by the
Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium."(FN10) This formula was followed each time by a reference to the
section of Lumen gentium no. 25 which explains the conditions under which the
teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium is infallible. However, the
encyclical does not say that these doctrines were taught infallibly, nor did
Cardinal Ratzinger, in his press conference concerning it, say that Catholics
must now regard these three moral doctrines as having been taught infallibly by
the ordinary universal magisterium.(FN11)
I repeat, then, that to my knowledge the Responsum ad dubium issued by
the CDF in 1995 is the first official document of the Roman magisterium that
has ever declared that a specific doctrine was taught infallibly by the
ordinary universal magisterium. While Pope John Paul II approved the
publication of the Responsum and, as Cardinal Ratzinger has said, "actually
wanted this text,"(FN12) it is still a statement of the CDF and not a papal
declaration.
With this as background, we come to the recent article by Archbishop
Bertone. Reaffirming the judgement expressed by the CDF in its Responsum, he
describes the doctrine of Ordinatio sacerdotalis as "definitive and
unconditionally binding." He then adds: "The same criterion must also be
applied to other doctrines regarding universal moral norms: the killing of an
innocent human being is always gravely immoral; abortion is always gravely
immoral; adultery or slander is always evil, etc. These doctrines, although not
yet declared by a solemn judgment, nevertheless belong to the Church's faith
and are infallibly proposed by the ordinary, universal Magisterium."(FN13) As
we have seen, when Pope John Paul said in Evangelium vitae that the Church's
doctrine on the killing of an innocent human being was taught by the ordinary
universal magisterium, he did not say "infallibly." Archbishop Bertone not only
describes that doctrine as infallible, but declares the Church's doctrine on
adultery, slander, and presumably other moral doctrines (indicated by "etc.")
to be infallibly taught as well. Furthermore, it would seem that in his
opinion, what Pope John Paul II has said in Veritatis splendor and
Evangelium vitae is equivalent to a papal declaration affirming that the
Church's doctrine on these moral issues has indeed been infallibly taught by
the ordinary universal magisterium. Here is Bertone's statement that leads me
to this conclusion. "It must be stressed then that in the encyclicals Veritatis
splendor and Evangelium vitae and in the apostolic letter Ordinatio
sacerdotalis, the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to
confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching
of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and
irrevocable way."(FN14)
Since the faithful are obliged to hold in an irrevocable way only
doctrine that has been infallibly taught, I conclude that, in Bertone's
opinion, in all three of those letters Pope John Paul intended to declare that
certain doctrines had been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal
magisterium. The Pope's approval of the Responsum of the CDF makes it clear
that this was in fact his intention in Ordinatio sacerdotalis. If this
was his intention in Evangelium vitae with regard to the doctrines on
murder, abortion, and euthanasia, one must admit that he did not make this as
clear as Bertone evidently holds it to be. And as far as Veritatis splendor is
concerned, one can only ask which of its doctrines Bertone thinks the Pope
intended to confirm and reaffirm as belonging to the ordinary, universal
teaching of the magisterium, and as therefore to be held in a definitive and
irrevocable way.
The fact is that none of these documents contains an explicit papal
declaration that a specific doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary
universal magisterium. However, since Archbishop Bertone is convinced that they
do, he goes on to discuss the doctrinal weight that ought to be ascribed to
such a papal declaration. At this point I think it best to quote the pertinent
section of his article, before offering my comment on it.
‘ The ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as
definitive because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and
transmitted by the ordinary universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the
charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition,
but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets
forth with his formal pronouncement of confirmation and reaffirmation
(generally in an encyclical or apostolic letter). If we were to hold that the
Pope must necessarily make an ex cathedra definition whenever he intends to
declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it
would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and
infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a
Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II,
which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary,
universal Magisterium.’
‘The particular nature of a teaching of the papal Magisterium
that is meant merely to confirm or repropose a certitude of faith already lived
consciously by the Church or affirmed by the universal teaching of the entire
Episcopate can be seen not in the teaching of the doctrine per se, but in the
fact that the Roman Pontiff formally declares that this doctrine already
belongs to the faith of the Church and is infallibly taught by the ordinary
universal Magisterium as divinely revealed or to be held in a definitive
way.’
‘ In the light of these considerations, it seems a pseudo-problem
to wonder whether this papal act of confirming a teaching of the ordinary,
universal Magisterium is infallible or not. In fact, although it is not per se
a dogmatic definition (like the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea, the Christological
dogma of Chalcedon or the Marian dogmas), a papal pronouncement of confirmation
enjoys the same infallibility as the teaching of the ordinary, universal
Magisterium, which includes the Pope not as a mere Bishop but as the Head of
the Episcopal College.’ (FN15)
Here is my comment on what Archbishop Bertone has said here.
If it were already evident that the Catholic bishops throughout the
world were in agreement in proposing a particular doctrine as definitively to
be held, no doubt the papal teaching of the same doctrine would participate in
the infallibility of such an exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium.
However, if it were not otherwise evident that there was such a consensus of
the whole episcopal college, would a papal declaration suffice to establish
that fact, and would such a papal declaration, though not an ex cathedra
definition, be an infallible act of papal magisterium?
If I understand him correctly, Archbishop Bertone would answer both of
those questions in the affirmative. However, in my opinion there are good
reasons to answer them in the negative.
Canon law states that no doctrine is understood as infallibly defined
unless this fact is clearly established (nisi id manifeste constiterit).
Although canon 749.3 speaks only of doctrine that is infallibly defined, the
same requirement would hold for the claim that a doctrine had been infallibly
taught by the ordinary universal magisterium, since the consequences for the
faithful are the same in either case.(FN16)
The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a
matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be "manifestly
established." What must be "manifestly established," when the claim is made
that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal
magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops
as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged
to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal
declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish
this fact.
Archbishop Bertone insists that while such a papal declaration would
not have the character of a papal definition ex cathedra and hence would be an
act of ordinary papal magisterium, it would "enjoy the same infallibility as
the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium." It is important here to
distinguish two quite different acts of papal teaching authority. One is had
when the pope teaches a point of doctrine about which it is clear and certain
that not only the pope, but all the bishops as well, are teaching the same
doctrine as definitively to be held. In this case, the papal teaching shares
the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium.
The other case is when, in teaching a point of doctrine as definitively
to be held, the pope declares that this doctrine is infallibly taught by the
ordinary universal magisterium. Here the pope is saying: "Not only do I teach
this doctrine as definitively to be held, but all the other Catholic bishops do
so as well." I do not see how such a declaration, which would be an act of
ordinary papal magisterium concerning a question of fact, can be said to meet
the conditions laid down by Vatican I for an exercise of papal
infallibility.
Another questionable point in Bertone's article is the way he describes
the object or matter about which the Church can teach with infallibility. He
says, "In order to speak of the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium,
it is necessary that the consent between the Bishops have for its object a
teaching proposed as formally revealed or as certainly true and undoubted, such
that it calls for the full and undeniable assent of the faithful."(FN17) Here
the phrase "or as certainly true and undoubted" is clearly intended to describe
the secondary object of infallibility, i.e. matter that is not in itself
revealed but can still be taught with infallibility. However, for this it is
not enough that a doctrine be "certainly true and undoubted"; it must also be a
matter of faith or morals, and be so closely connected with revelation that the
Church needs to be able to speak definitively about it in order to be able to
defend or explain some revealed truth. Bertone's phrase would enormously expand
the object of infallible teaching.
A third point in Bertone's article which deserves critical comment is
an assertion he makes regarding the consensus of the whole episcopate that is
required to meet the conditions laid down for infallible teaching of the
ordinary universal magisterium. He says, "It is also worth noting that the
agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter
about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial
practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur
in a later era."(FN18)
It seems to me that this statement does not sufficiently attend to the
possibility, which has actually been verified on a number of issues, that a
doctrine on which there was a consensus in the past, no longer enjoys such a
consensus. In other words, what was at first a dissenting opinion, has
sometimes become the more common, and even the official, doctrine. One obvious
example is the consensus that existed until the 15th century about the absolute
necessity of explicit Christian faith for salvation. In the light of the
discoveries made in the 15th and 16th centuries about vast populations that had
had no possibility of coming to Christian faith before the missionaries
arrived, theologians began to reconsider the question, and the Church gradually
came around to what is now the teaching of Vatican II on the possibility of
salvation for those who, without fault on their part, lack Christian faith.
Hence it can happen, and it has happened, that what was at first dissent from
common teaching, has subsequently been accepted as the doctrine of the Church.
One could name several other issues, such as the Church's judgment on the
morality of owning and using human persons as slaves, on the taking of interest
on loans, on religious liberty, and on non-Christian religions, where what was
at first a dissenting opinion has become the doctrine of the Church. An
interesting example of this can be found even in the encyclical Evangelium
vitae. It would not be difficult to show that for many centuries popes and
bishops, following the teaching of Pope Innocent III that "the punishment of
original sin is the lack of the vision of God,"(FN19) were agreed in teaching
that infants who died without baptism would not enjoy the beatific vision. Even
as recently as 1954, William A. Van Roo published a scholarly article,
demonstrating the strength of the sensus ecclesiae on this question.(FN20) And
yet, in Evangelium vitae, addressing himself to women who have had an
abortion, Pope John Paul II says, "The Father of mercies is ready to give you
his forgiveness and his peace in the sacrament of reconciliation. You will come
to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will also be able to
ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord."(FN21)
The history of Catholic doctrine suggests the need of great caution in
claiming that something has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal
magisterium, if there is reason to judge that a position on which there was a
consensus in the past no longer enjoys such a consensus. In such a case, it
would be wise to put off any peremptory declaration until it becomes clear
whether a question has been raised that obliges the Church to look at an old
problem in a new light and perhaps come up with a better answer to it.
Francis A. Sullivan SJ
FOOTNOTES
1. L'Osservatore Romano (December 20, 1996) 1, col. 5-6; 5, col.
4-6.
2. L'Osservatore Romano [English ed.] (January 29, 1997) 6-7.
3. Acta apostolicae sedis 87 (1995) 1114; Origins 25 (November
30, 1995) 401-3.
4. Tuas libenter, December 21, 1863; text in H. Denzinger and A.
Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum ..., 34th ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1967) no.
2879 (hereafter cited as DS).
5. DS no. 3011.
6. Lumen gentium no. 25.
7. Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May,
"'Every Marital Act Ought to be Open to New Life,': Towards a Clearer
Understanding," The Thomist 52 (1988) 365-426, at 417.
8. "Catholic Moral Teaching and the Limits of Dissent," in Vatican
Authority and American Catholic Dissent, ed. William W. May (New York:
Crossroad, 1987) 87-102, at 92-93.
9. Evangelium vitae, English ed. (Vatican City: Vatican Press,
1995) no. 57, 100-102; Origins 24 (April 6, 1995) 709.
10. Ibid. nos. 62, 65 (pp. 112, 119); Origins 24 (April 6, 1995)
711-12.
11. Origins 24 (April 13, 1995) 734.
12. He is reported to have said this during a Vatican press conference
held on January 24, 1997; see The Tablet [London] 251 (February 1, 1997)
152.
13. L'Osservatore Romano [English ed.] (January 29, 1997) 7, col.
1.
14. Ibid. 6, col. 2.
15. Ibid. 6, col. 3.
16. I have explained the grounds of this assertion in a previous note,
"The 'Secondary Object' of Infallibility," Theological Studies 54 (1993)
536-50, at 549-50.
17. L'Osservatore Romano [English ed.] 7, col. 1.
18. Ibid. 6-7.
19. Letter Maiores ecclesiae causas of the year 1201; DS no. 780.
20. "Infants Dying without Baptism: A Survey of Recent Literature and
Determination of the State of the Question," Gregorianum 35 (1954)
406-73.
21. Evangelium vitae no. 99; Origins 24 (April 6, 1995) 723. One
could also compare what is said in the Roman Catechism issued by St. Pius V in
1566 (II.ii.35), with what is said in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
issued by John Paul II in 1992 (no. 1261).
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!