A Problem

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Let us say you have a philosopher. This philosopher is a Catholic, but he does not meet the requirements to be considered a theologian for the purposes of Donum Veritatis. Now let us say the Pope makes a non-infallible statement which requires submission of intellect and will. Let us say the philosopher should find some plainly sound proof that the statement is false, such that he knows with the greatest certainty which human reason can attain that the Pope was in error when he spoke.

If I currently understand Catholic doctrine correctly, this man is obligated, on pain of sin, to accept what he knows, with the greatest certainty human reason can provide, to be falsehood. What’s worse, he does not have the assurance of the Church’s infallible authority that the idea he is dissenting from is even true, so he has no rational justification for failing to dissent, merely a threat of hell (if failing to provide Obsequium religiosum when it is demanded is a mortal and not a venial sin.)

This, further, would mean the Church, and God himself, are in the business of requiring people to believe false things on pain of damnation. That seems obviously absurd. Can anyone see the flaw in my reasoning here?

 

[ynotzap]

It is my understanding that the pope when speaking from The Chair ( ExCathedra? spelling is in question) on matters of faith and morals exercises the power of infallibity guaranteed by Jesus when He promised His Spirit to guide the Church. “The gates of hell will not prevail against her, and I shall be with Her unto the consummation of the world” The Pope can make mistakes as a person and we can differ with him. He can’t impose his personal beliefs or opinions on the faithful. He can guide spiritually through encyclicals. In faith we believe that the Holy Spirit is truly active in the teaching body of the Church , We see her as the Guardian of Truth as she was appointed by Christ to be. And She is blessed with many brilliant scholars and saints.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

I think your conclusion is exactly the opposite of what your premises entail. Your post is a quite correct statement of church teaching, and you point out that in such a case the man is obligated not to believe the statement. How does this show that the church requires people to believe false things?

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Do you not know what Obsequium religiosum is?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Withholding assent

Donum Veritatis also allows that even if “not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments,” “some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies,” and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian “who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.” In such “even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions,” and is to “refrain from giving untimely public expression to them,” and “avoid turning to the mass media,” but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty “to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented,” with “an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.” prayerfully trusting “that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.”
In so doing it makes a distinction between dissent as in public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church and the situation of conscientious personal difficulties with teaching, and asserts that the Church has always held that “nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will,” while the Virgin Mary’s “immediate and unhesitating assent of faith to the Word of God” is set forth as the example to follow in submitting to Catholic teaching.
While the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, and Joseph Ratzinger (as Archbishop) taught that “over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else,” it is not “an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine,” and the Catholic is obliged to form it according to Catholic teaching.
-wiki!

 

[Kliska]

Let us say you have a philosopher. This philosopher is a Catholic, but he does not meet the requirements to be considered a theologian for the purposes of Donum Veritatis. Now let us say the Pope makes a non-infallible statement which requires submission of intellect and will. Let us say the philosopher should find some plainly sound proof that the statement is false, such that he knows with the greatest certainty which human reason can attain that the Pope was in error when he spoke.

If I currently understand Catholic doctrine correctly, this man is obligated, on pain of sin, to accept what he knows, with the greatest certainty human reason can provide, to be falsehood. What’s worse, he does not have the assurance of the Church’s infallible authority that the idea he is dissenting from is even true, so he has no rational justification for failing to dissent, merely a threat of hell (if failing to provide Obsequium religiosum when it is demanded is a mortal and not a venial sin.)

This, further, would mean the Church, and God himself, are in the business of requiring people to believe false things on pain of damnation. That seems obviously absurd. Can anyone see the flaw in my reasoning here?

Obviously this wouldn’t be a problem for protestants such as I, I might offer the outside analysis. I’d hazard a guess that while your argument here is logically valid, it would not be considered sound. In other words your logic is solid; however, that doesn’t speak to truth. Either one (or more) of your premises could be wrong, or the conclusion. So, perhaps you only believe you are right (however sincerely), but are not, perhaps you do meet the requirements for Donum Veritatis, etc… Just some thoughts.

 

[ynotzap]

the post by Kliska is very true. It is very prudent and humble to submit or withhold assent even though we feel certain or think we are certain we are right. Many schisms that have caused splits were caused by “an attitude of infallibility” This comes by many names- the moth that consumes, wood worm, vain glory and self righteousness. It is spiritual blindness and no one is exempt. I believe it stems from the effects of original sin. It is a deeply hidden pride in our soul. St. Paul had it, and it took “grace” a movement of Jesus, to enlighten him. When it did, Paul suffered great remorse for what he did to Christians. Only God is infallible and those He protects. This self-righteousness has caused great splits in Christianity. The Devil takes advantage of those who are good, it is called the sin of holy or good people. One who is affected , can,t be reached by reason, it takes God Himself to heal that soul. The world is plagued with this spiritual condition and needs healing Then Jesus desire ":that we become one "will come to be. Jesus gave us the greatest example of humility and obedience and love. Being God He became like us in everything but sin, even to the death of the cross. Satan couldn’t figure Him out because pride blinded him. Jesus roped a dope. Alleluia, and Deo gratias. I can’t help feeling so good when I think about what Jesus did for us.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Obviously this wouldn’t be a problem for protestants such as I, I might offer the outside analysis. I’d hazard a guess that while your argument here is logically valid, it would not be considered sound. In other words your logic is solid; however, that doesn’t speak to truth. Either one (or more) of your premises could be wrong, or the conclusion. So, perhaps you only believe you are right (however sincerely), but are not, perhaps you do meet the requirements for Donum Veritatis, etc… Just some thoughts.

This isn’t about me, this is a hypothetical. So long as it is possible for a person who does not meet the requirements to have an argument whose soundness is more certain than the truth of the doctrine, the problem persists.

 

[Kliska]

This isn’t about me, this is a hypothetical. So long as it is possible for a person who does not meet the requirements to have an argument whose soundness is more certain than the truth of the doctrine, the problem persists.

The “you” in question is a general “you,” not PuppyTurtle. Something that is “sound” is pretty much airtight; meaning, the form of the argument is deductively valid, and the premises are all true. If the truth of the argument stands directly against or opposed to the doctrine, then, yes, the problem persists from an individual’s perspective (if that individual is RC), at least IMO. The main debate in cases like that would probably be about the premises and who or what ultimately determines what is or is not true.

Of course there is always danger in hypotheticals, even of the logical kind.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

ThePuppyTurtle:

Do you not know what Obsequium religiosum is?

I just googled it, so yes, I do. But I tell you that if your reasoning has an honest and persisting problem with church doctrine that does not get resolved by discussing it with a priest or bishop, you are obligated not to believe it.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

I just googled it, so yes, I do. But I tell you that if your reasoning has an honest and persisting problem with church doctrine that does not get resolved by discussing it with a priest or bishop, you are obligated not to believe it.

But how is that to be reconciled with the idea of Obsequium religiosum? How can I be obligated not to believe something I am also obligated to give Obsequium religiosum to?

When you answer, I’d like you to cite a document confirming what you say if you can.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Sorry I can’t prove that the church teaches this, but I dont’ think it really needs proving since it’s just ridiculous to say you are obligated to follow something you honestly think is false.
I think obsequium religiosum is just for things where reason does not (appear to) contradict the church’s teaching. And certainly in such matters obedience is obligatory.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Then why is that right said to be exclusive to theologians?

 

[SentinelofTruth]

All catholics are theologians.

 

[ynotzap]

Paddy Walker covered "A problem " very well in her post A theologian is allowed to withhold accent but bound under the penalty of sin if he disobeys Church ruling. Like everyone he must obey his conscience, but submit in humble obedience to church ruling that were made for the spiritual being of the faithful. A theologian is familiar with church teaching, a logician no matter how accurate his logic may be is not qualified by just logic to deal in matters of faith, simply because its not just a matter of logic but a matter of belief and belief always supercedes logic It wasn,t by mans’ reason we come to believe, but by grace, by belief in Jesus Christ. The Church is wise in her guidance of the faithful. Jesus did not guarantee infallibility to a person, He guaranteed infallibility to the teaching body of the church with the Pope at its head. The Holy Spirit, the Soul of the churchand the Spirit of Truth was given to her by Christ. Jesus gave the church the right to make rules that are binding under penalty of sin. “Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven” Its impossible to please God without Faith.