T.More,
What are people’s thoughts? It is hard to see Cajetan’s view as being correct given the likes of Alexander VI.
Cajetan is correct, if one understand the greater context of Catholic teaching on the matter. I think one ought to distinguish between ordinary universal teachings formally promulgated by the pope as opposed to other less formal instructions or actions of the pope. To be sure, one is alway bound to obey their superiors (Heb 13:17) unless the directive violates higher authority.
If merely a directive of the ordinary magisterium (formal teaching of a bishop given to those within his jurisdiction … the bishop is also called the “ordinary”), one ought to discern if there is a higher authority, e.g., direct Divine revelation, solemn magisterial teachings (ex cathreda papal pronouncements and certain councilar decrees), ordinary universal magisterial teachings (catechisms, councilar pronouncements, papal encyclicals, etc.), which contradicts it. If one* is not* in immediate peril by obeying a doubtful directive, they are bound to either obey it or consult higher authority on the matter. If one
is in immediate peril by obeying a doubtful directive, that are not bound to obey it as necessity provides dispensation.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, in regard to obedience to the law, he states, “
it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful.” (ST, II, 96, 6). Instead, he asserts “
those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.” Dispensation is certainly appropriate in times where it would be perilous to obey the law: “
If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” Nevertheless, “
if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.”
You asked:
other [papal] teachings and instructions are open to doubt, right?
Not necessarily. One is bound by canon law to give their religious submission to ordinary universal teachings of the magisterium and the assent of faith to solemn teachings (de fide) teachings of the magisterium. Instructing a mistress is not a magisterial act, just as Pres Clinton’s interactions with his mistress were not Presidential acts. One must be clearly acting in the capacity of the office for which they hold. Neither was the instruction by Alexander VI a universal teaching. It would not qualify as “binding” under canon law.
Contrary to what you have heard, Catholics are bound by more than just *de fide *dogmas. They are bound by Divine Law (immutable *de fide *dogmasand direct Divine revelations), Ecclesiastical Laws (non-immutable Church law), and Civil Law, in that order. The binding force of the latter is only insofar as it does not violate the former. Ecclesiastical laws, however, can never be contrary to Divine Law.
