Edward Feser
February 25, 2024
Popes speak infallibly when they either proclaim some doctrine ex cathedra, or reiterate some doctrine that has already been taught infallibly by virtue of being a consistent teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church for millennia. Even when papal teaching is not infallible, it is normally owed “religious assent.” However, the Church recognizes exceptions.
The instruction Donum Veritatis, issued during the pontificate of St. John Paul II, acknowledges that “it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies” so that “a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions.” Donum Veritatis explicitly distinguishes such respectful criticism from “dissent” from perennial Church teaching.
The clearest sort of case where such criticism would be justifiable would be if a pope himself says something that appears to conflict with the Church’s traditional teaching. This has happened a handful of times in Church history, the clearest examples involving Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII. The Church has always acknowledged that in these rare cases, it can be justifiable for the faithful respectfully to reprove a pope. I have written on this matter elsewhere (here and here) and direct the interested reader to those articles.
Several documents issued during the pontificate of Pope Francis have, according to his critics, exhibited “deficiencies” of precisely the sort Donum Veritatis says can be criticized in this way. There is, for instance, Amoris Laetitia, which appears to allow, in some cases, absolution and Holy Communion for those in invalid marriages who are sexually active and lack firm purpose of amendment. There is the 2018 revision to the Catechism, which gives the impression that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong when it characterizes it as “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” Most recently, there is Fiducia Supplicans, which allows for blessings for same-sex and adulterous couples. In these particular respects, these documents appear to conflict with the traditional teaching of the Church.
I have written on these controversial documents elsewhere, and what I want to address here is a different issue. Suppose one or more of these magisterial statements is indeed problematic in just the ways the critics allege. It seems that what we would have in that case is magisterial teaching that is, to borrow the language of Donum Veritatis, “deficient.” But in a recent article at The Catholic Thing, Fr. Thomas Weinandy has proposed what appears to be an alternative interpretation. Commenting on Fiducia Supplicans, he suggests that such deficient teaching is not truly magisterial after all, and for that reason not binding on the faithful. Here is the relevant passage:
St. John Henry Newman provides criteria for judging what is true and what is erroneous doctrinal development (a “corruption”)… Newman presumed that all pontifical teaching or teaching from bishops concerning doctrine and morals is magisterial. I propose that any pontifical teaching or teaching from bishops that overtly and deliberately contradicts the perennial teaching of previous councils and pontiffs is not magisterial teaching, precisely because it does not accord with past magisterial doctrinal teaching.
The pope or a bishop may be, by virtue of his office, a member of the magisterium, but his teaching, if it contradicts the received previous magisterial teaching, is not magisterial…
If it seems bold to say that the Church can in some cases attempt a magisterial act and yet fail, it is worth pointing out that there is a sense in which Fr. Weinandy’s thesis is actually less bold than what Donum Veritatis itself says. For again, Donum Veritatis says that it is possible for “magisterial documents” and “magisterial interventions” to be “deficient” even with respect to their “contents,” and not just their form or timeliness, and for that reason open to legitimate criticism by theologians. This seems to imply that a thesis can be genuinely magisterial and yet nevertheless mistaken and open to correction by the faithful. Fr. Weinandy’s positon, by contrast, implies that a genuinely magisterial act cannot be mistaken or open to such correction. Whatever one thinks of his position, it is hard to see how it is in any way less respectful of magisterial authority than Donum Veritatis is.
“Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” – Gustav Mahler, paraphrase of St. Thomas More
We, his critics, drawing strength from
Catholic Tradition, have never ceased
praying for the Pope, but he doesn’t seem to
recognize true friendship. So we keep
trying and cannot stop.
Catholic Critique 