Attacking and criticizing the pope -- how sinful is it?

[DavidJoseph]

So often I hear Catholics openly and severely blaming the Holy Father (mainly John Paul II) for allegedly not doing anything to reign in heretics, dissenters, pedophiles, etc. That infuriates me, as while no pope is perfect, they all deserve respect. At any rate, is criticizing and attacking the pope a venial sin or mortal sin? Also, how would you respond to those who make such claims?

 

[BillP]

In the first place there is a difference between “criticizing” and “attacking”. I hear this a lot here, anytime someone questions or disagree’s it defined as “attacking”. It ain’t .

Second. Why should criticizing the Pope be a sin? He’s just as imperfect as the rest of us.

As far as deserving respect, the OFFICE of the Papacy deserves respect, the man occupying the office may or may not (although in JPII’s case he obviously did). In the second place, there is nothing inherently disrespectful about legitimate criticism. There can be disagreement without disrespect. The man isn’t God after all.

 

[DavidJoseph]

BillP:

In the first place there is a difference between “criticizing” and “attacking”. I hear this a lot here, anytime someone questions or disagree’s it defined as “attacking”. It ain’t .

Second. Why should criticizing the Pope be a sin? He’s just as imperfect as the rest of us.

If you’ve heard some of the angry, sarcastic, vehement attacks on the pope I’ve heard, you’d know it goes beyond constructive criticism (which is NOT what I had in mind when I referred to criticism of the pope in this thread’s title).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

DavidJoseph:

If you’ve heard some of the angry, sarcastic, vehement attacks on the pope I’ve heard, you’d know it goes beyond constructive criticism (which is NOT what I had in mind when I referred to criticism of the pope in this thread’s title).

You’re right, they only pull up short of accusing him of heresy and of being an anti-pope.

As for the spectrum of criticism to attack, well, an actually physical attack on the pope results in automatic excommunication if the attacker is a Catholic.

 

[BillP]

DavidJoseph:

If you’ve heard some of the angry, sarcastic, vehement attacks on the pope I’ve heard, you’d know it goes beyond constructive criticism

I never said the criticism had to or even should be “constructive”. And if people are angry, sarcastic and vehement its because they love the Chruch and think there’s a problem. I repeat the man isn’t anything special just because he’s the Pope. He’s just as big a sinner as the rest of us, he’s not above questionning or criticism.

 

[DavidJoseph]

JKirkLVNV:

You’re right, they only pull up short of accusing him of heresy and of being an anti-pope.

As for the spectrum of criticism to attack, well, an actually physical attack on the pope results in automatic excommunication if the attacker is a Catholic.

Thanks … but as for attacks, I was only referring to verbal attacks. I already knew about physical attacks.

 

[BillP]

JKirkLVNV:

You’re right, they only pull up short of accusing him of heresy and of being an anti-pope.

Some of them don’t even do that do they? So?

JKirkLVNV:

As for the spectrum of criticism to attack, well, an actually physical attack on the pope results in automatic excommunication if the attacker is a Catholic.

Is there any specific teaching that would define criticism of the Pope a sin purely because of his status as Pope? That is, is there any instance where one could say “X” about a Pope and have it be a sin when it wouldn’t have been a sin if the same “X” had been said about Joe Blow?

 

[DavidJoseph]

BillP:

And if people are angry, sarcastic and vehement its because they love the Chruch and think there’s a problem.

But it’s not very charitable to criticize in that manner. Besides, the pope hasn’t seen fit to tell the rest of us Catholics why he’s done or hasn’t done certain things.

 

[BillP]

DavidJoseph:

But it’s not very charitable to criticize in that manner.

Absolutely! And folks who do that may well have committted the sin of … well, whatever sin “uncharity” is. But I was responding to your question about whether criticizing the Pope was in and of itself sinful either venially or mortally.

DavidJoseph:

Besides, the pope hasn’t seen fit to tell the rest of us Catholics why he’s done or hasn’t done certain things.

Since people have an obligation to obey him I think they are owed an explanation as to WHY a particular issue was resolved the way it was. They might not agree with the explanation, and they are still bound to obey, but I think he is morally obligated to offer his explanantion, if for no other reason than to increase compliance/obedience.

That being said, I can’t actually think of any case where the Pope has made a pronouncement and NOT expressed WHY he made it. Encyclicals are usually absolutely replete with the whys.

 

[1ke]

DavidJoseph:

So often I hear Catholics openly and severely blaming the Holy Father (mainly John Paul II) for allegedly not doing anything to reign in heretics, dissenters, pedophiles, etc. That infuriates me, as while no pope is perfect, they all deserve respect.

The office of Pope deserves respect from and obedience by all Catholics. This in no way disallows criticism of actions or (perceived) inactions by the Pope. However, criticism is not the same as “an attack”.

The *person * of the Pope may or may not deserve respect depending upon his personal character. This also does not preclude criticism, many have certainly deserved the criticism they have received.

DavidJoseph:

At any rate, is criticizing and attacking the pope a venial sin or mortal sin?

“Criticism of the Pope” is not a sin. Sins might include uncharitable speech, calumny, slander, etc. It is not the object of criticism which might make it sinful but rather the manner in which the person criticizes another.

DavidJoseph:

Also, how would you respond to those who make such claims?

I would discuss the criticism on its merits, or lack thereof.

 

[Eileen_T]

Pope, {I]Il Papa = Father
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.”

CCC2199 It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors.

We have the free will to decide whether or not to be obedient to the teachings of the Holy Father, to be in communion with the Catholic Church or not. We do not have the right to be disrespectful in how we voice our disobedience or criticism.

It is easy for us to say “The Holy Father should have done this…” or “The Holy Father shouldn’t have done that…” But we don’t (Deo gratias) have the tremendous responsibilities he has, nor do we have to have the spiritual attacks he has to live with.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

I agree with the comments about criticizing and attacking. Criticism by itself is not inherently sinful, but attacking is.

Second Criticism of the Pope on faith and morals which have been clearly defined (such as in the catechism) by catholics is sinful in making their criticizer’s creeds dishonest and their Holy Communions sacreligious.

Criticism done without respect of the office is also sinful. Remember that a lot of what the Vatican does is not known to the general public including private rebukes, etc.
All criticism should allow for the aspects of the Papal office that we do not see and should be respectful and helpful. Just complaining does not help, but suggesting a feasible (within Church law) solution may be helpful.

Also be careful to whom you criticize and how you do it, as there are many who will twist your words and misquote you to make a different point or emphasis than they one you were trying to make.

 

[Liberian]

DavidJoseph:

At any rate, is criticizing and attacking the pope a venial sin or mortal sin? Also, how would you respond to those who make such claims?

David Joseph,

I don’t think there is a special sin attached to attacking and criticizing the pope. Thinking that one could have done a better job that His Holiness is probably a specific manifestation of the sin of pride, but since I do not look into people’s hearts I am in no position to tell.

Some popes, like Alexander VI, have criticism and attacks coming. I don’t think it’s a sin at all to criticize Alexander VI as long as it is done properly (not out of a spirit of hatred or pride, for example).

To people who criticize John Paul II I would say the following:

(1) He was largely responsible for the downfall of Communism.

(2) He started mobilizing the Church against the culture of death.

(3) He made Catholicism “cool” for young people again–and young people are the future of the Church (or anything else).

(4) The dissident and “progressive” Catholics are aging and dying off without passing their message on. This is one way to deal with dissent. Just because John Paul didn’t use your preferred method (although I would argue that he used God’s preferred method) does not mean that he did it wrong.

(5) With everything John Paul did, why is it so bad that he didn’t get around to your pet project? Are these other things less important?

I hope this helps.

• Liberian

 

[AndyF]

DavidJoseph:

I agree.

This manifestation is due in my belief to the exposure by Catholics to Protestantism.

However the Pope is allowed to express his own opinion. That is, opinions that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic, has you correctly state, must show respect due to his office has the appointed Apostle of Christ It is every Catholic’s duty and promise to bind himself to the teachings of the Church defined in De Fide dogma and other sources officially declared by the Holy See.

You are correct in stating some wordings these people make are horrible, and some are a sacrilege, and that depends on what is said or thought.

On the other hand I see people label heresy to those who make a trivial comment that is simply a milestone on the way to enlightenment. True heresy I believe calls for work. It calls for a podium of sorts for vocal protest and a media to plant the seed to others, and an all out war against the Magisterium.

The correct way to tell is to talk about it in a collected constructive way. One can receive appointments with a priest. Some parishes have informative discussion groups and “Parish Alive” programs by similar names. But the golden rule must always apply, the Authority has the final say and there is no other way and stay Catholic.

In my view, most opinions by lay Catholics who are not hostile and have no vendetta against their Church and are receptive to change, and the viewpoint is mildly irritating but not offensive are simply conveying the category *opinio tolerata. *But to a well “armed to the truth” informed devoted Catholic listener, such words hold no threat. A verbal attack on the very Authority of the Church, pretty well shows that the person is on the outer precipace of his Faith, and needs a lifeline quickly.

You may if you wish remain silent or respond when prompted: “I disagree”, but that depends on the circumstances.

Andy

 

[mlchance]

From the CCC:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of *detraction *who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them; - of *calumny *who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

2507 Respect for the reputation and honor of persons forbids all detraction and calumny in word or attitude.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Eileen_T]

DavidJoseph:

So often I hear Catholics openly and severely blaming the Holy Father (mainly John Paul II) for allegedly not doing anything to reign in heretics, dissenters, pedophiles, etc.

Maybe he was allowing the tares to grow with the wheat until the time comes for the harvest.

 

[librtee3]

AndyF:

DavidJoseph:

I agree.

This manifestation is due in my belief to the exposure by Catholics to Protestantism.

However the Pope is allowed to express his own opinion. That is, opinions that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic, has you correctly state, must show respect due to his office has the appointed Apostle of Christ It is every Catholic’s duty and promise to bind himself to the teachings of the Church defined in De Fide dogma and other sources officially declared by the Holy See.

You are correct in stating some wordings these people make are horrible, and some are a sacrilege, and that depends on what is said or thought.

On the other hand I see people label heresy to those who make a trivial comment that is simply a milestone on the way to enlightenment. True heresy I believe calls for work. It calls for a podium of sorts for vocal protest and a media to plant the seed to others, and an all out war against the Magisterium.

The correct way to tell is to talk about it in a collected constructive way. One can receive appointments with a priest. Some parishes have informative discussion groups and “Parish Alive” programs by similar names. But the golden rule must always apply, the Authority has the final say and there is no other way and stay Catholic.

In my view, most opinions by lay Catholics who are not hostile and have no vendetta against their Church and are receptive to change, and the viewpoint is mildly irritating but not offensive are simply conveying the category *opinio tolerata. *But to a well “armed to the truth” informed devoted Catholic listener, such words hold no threat. A verbal attack on the very Authority of the Church, pretty well shows that the person is on the outer precipace of his Faith, and needs a lifeline quickly.

You may if you wish remain silent or respond when prompted: “I disagree”, but that depends on the circumstances.

Andy

Hi Andy:

This manifestation is due in my belief to the exposure by Catholics to Protestantism.

I agree, protestants seems to think that the catholic churc is a democrasy like ther own.

 

[michaelmac]

Hi all any Catholic can Attack and Criticize the Pope if the Pope is an heretic and those who have held the office of Pope for the last 200 years,have been the same , why i say this is simple ,if your a Christian you follow Gods laws not a churchs ,yours michaelmac ps just because some one says ours is the true church of God does not make it so

 

[johnq]

1Tim.5

[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
[18] for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
[19] Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[20] As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

 

[AndyF]

1Tim.5

[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
[18] for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
[19] Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[20] As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

and your point is?

Andy