Infallibility and view on Orthodoxy: how to reconcile "Pastor Aeternus" with Vatican II?

[CastillianRose]

Hello friends! Several interrelated questions:

1. How does a layperson know which pronouncements of the Catholic church / pope are considered infallible? Regarding the non-infallible pronouncements, is it considered a sin to disagree with them?
2. Would Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” be considered infallible? If yes, how does the Church reconcile its view of Orthodox churches (Chapter 1 Part 6: “If anyone says that…[Peter’s primacy] was a primacy of honor only and not of…jurisdiction…let him be anathema”) with Vatican II’s concept of “sister churches”?

 

[Sirach2]

Would Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” be considered infallible? If yes, how does the Church reconcile its view of Orthodox churches (Chapter 1 Part 6: “If anyone says that…[Peter’s primacy] was a primacy of honor only and not of…jurisdiction…let him be anathema”) with Vatican II’s concept of “sister churches”?

I’m not sure where you got this idea, but look closely at the wording used by V-II. It does not imply that there is unity between us, but that it “ought to exist,” and the wording expresses a hope that some day, reconciliation will occur. Pay close attention to the beautiful words in paragraph 15. It may help you to see that your question was formed with “misinformation.”

I. The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches
14. For many centuries the Church of the East and that of the West each followed their separate ways though linked in a brotherly union of faith and sacramental life; the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline. Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches.

1. These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.

Vatican source:

 

[CastillianRose]

1. These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.

Vatican source:

Thank you for the response! There is still something I do not quite understand: the word “anathema” means a curse, correct? How can someone who has been cursed by the church still remain in closest intimacy with it? I understand that the definition of “anathema” has been changed in the Revised Code of Canon Law in 1983, but at the time of both Vatican I and Vatican II, the word still retained its original meaning. Thanks again for any (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject

 

[Sirach2]

There is never a sense used by the Church to indicate that repentence is impossible, and anyone in the state of “anathema” is barred from God’s forgiveness. I understand it to mean that, while they are in the state of “exclusion from the faithful” because of their rejection of any point of doctrine or papal authority, they will remain *anathema *until they repent. Several encyclicals urge heretics and schismatics to return to the Church; therefore, anathemas can be reversed. That is the hope of the Church for these “sister churches” who have lawful succession and sacraments.

In the New Testament, anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paulfrequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (9:3) he says: “For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh”, i.e. “I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren.” And again, using the word in the same sense, he says in Galatians 1:9, “If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema **to **signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicaea to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: “If any one says . . . let him be anathema”.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

 

[yablabo]

Hello friends! Several interrelated questions:

1. How does a layperson know which pronouncements of the Catholic church / pope are considered infallible?

The way one knows which pronouncements of the Catholic Church/Pope are infallible is by the rule of faith as shown in the First Vatican Council, chapter 3, On Faith:

1. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

We are bound to believe by divine and Catholic faith all that God has revealed to us; these revelations which cannot possibly be in error, be revoked or be reformed. We find these revelations in several ways.

1. The combined source of Scripture and tradition is one way. It is a requirement that both sources, Scripture and tradition, reveal the teaching in a certain and true manner, the combination then revealing what must be held as certainly true in regard to the teaching being believed with divine and Catholic faith. In order to reach certitude, the proposition, given for consideration (as to whether the proposition is found in both Scripture and tradition), must be clearly revealed through the senses in a consistent, and therefore true, sense. Then one must determine if the doctrine is clearly revealed in Scripture by a licit (i.e., that does not violate common word usage) and valid (i.e., that makes a sense which is possible to effect in reality) interpretation. Likewise, it must be determined that an investigation of Catholic tradition reveals certain evidence of the doctrine, evidence that shows the doctrine found to be a manifestation of a true traditional teaching (i.e., in three diverse time periods in which two or more locations practiced the custom, must be verifiable by the senses, and not simply said to exist by what may well be pious legend). If it can be shown certainly true that the proposed doctrine is in both Scripture and tradition, then that doctrine must be held with certitude as binding on the assent of faith.
2. What has been proposed by the Church as divinely revealed in her solemn judgment is another way, that is, when the Roman Pontiff exercises his special magisterium ex cathedra, that is, “his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church” (First Vatican Council, Chapter 4, On the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Pontiff). This occurs within and without Ecumenical Councils and special Synods. When the Roman Pontiff teaches ex cathedra, in general, his definitions can extend beyond what has been divinely revealed to matters of what is called Catholic faith alone (such as in the case of Pope Leo XIII’s definition regarding priestly orders among the Anglicans) which are yet infallible, but not part of the divine revelation we call the deposit of faith. These truths of Catholic faith protect the divine deposit and are called “doctrines CONCERNING faith or morals.”
3. What has been proposed by the Church as divinely revealed in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is another way, that is, when the Ordinary (i.e., one’s own Bishop or the Pope) teaches a doctrine is divinely revealed in a way demanding religious assent (that is, not putting forth the opinion of an individual priest or theologian) combined with the Universal Magisterium teaching the same doctrine as binding on religious assent as seen in universality (for all times and places), antiquity (as taught by the Early Church, revealed by the Scriptures as an historical document or by the (Bishop) Fathers of the Church) and unanimity (was taught in the Early Church and is taught now) and never condemned by a solemn judgment.

– continued –

 

[yablabo]

Regarding the non-infallible pronouncements, is it considered a sin to disagree with them?

If by “pronouncements” you are talking about teachings which are bound on the faithful by religious assent, that is, under the ordinary teaching office of the Bishop or Pope, then one is bound under pain of mortal sin to assent. This ordinary teaching office (i.e., Ordinary Magisterium) is solely within the ordinary power of men to transmit Christ’s Gospel message and the truths surrounding it. Therefore, like all human powers, men teaching under the guise of the Ordinary Magisterium are subject to error. They can mis-speak, they can slip up and they can deceive or be deceived themselves. This does not mean that the Ordinary Magisterium necessarily teaches error, it means that the men who hold this teaching office can error. In the case that one finds a contradiction (or contrary article) to a defined article of divine and Catholic faith (or Catholic faith) one cannot possibly believe or assent to the teaching which appears to be coming from the ordinary teaching office. If one did try to believe it, although one perceived well the contradiction (or contrariness), one would sin.

– continued –

 

[yablabo]

1. Would Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” be considered infallible?

Pastor Aeternus contains infallible doctrine.

If yes, how does the Church reconcile its view of Orthodox churches (Chapter 1 Part 6: “If anyone says that…[Peter’s primacy] was a primacy of honor only and not of…jurisdiction…let him be anathema”) with Vatican II’s concept of “sister churches”?

Firstly, while the Second Vatican Council was, in fact, an Ecumenical Council. It was a solemn occurrence and was promulgated as such, but I will not accuse Pope Paul VI of being a liar and say that the Second Vatican Council promulgated any infallible doctrine.

Pope Paul VI stated at the close of the Council on 7 Dec. 1965, “Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. … But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force…” He then stated on 1 Dec. 1966, “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner and dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

The Second Vatican Council, as a work which appears to come from the Ordinary Magisterium, must then be judged in the light of what is infallibly defined.

That being said, the First Vatican Council (in The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) deals with what we must believe in regard to the Easterns which are separated from Rome and the Second Vatican Council deals with pastoral issues, how to reach out, (in Unitatis Redintegratio) in regard to the Easterns which are separated from Rome. The Second Vatican Council, while yet binding upon religious assent, does not stand on it’s own like propositions which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

– Nicole

 

[CastillianRose]

There is never a sense used by the Church to indicate that repentence is impossible, and anyone in the state of “anathema” is barred from God’s forgiveness. I understand it to mean that, while they are in the state of “exclusion from the faithful” because of their rejection of any point of doctrine or papal authority, they will remain *anathema *until they repent. Several encyclicals urge heretics and schismatics to return to the Church; therefore, anathemas can be reversed. That is the hope of the Church for these “sister churches” who have lawful succession and sacraments.

Thank you again for clarifying! A follow-up question (for my own benefit): how is it possible to have lawful sacraments and yet be cut off from the faithful? If we accept that the Orthodox church has lawful sacraments, then we acknowledge that it has Jesus in the Eucharist - the same Jesus Who is present in the Catholic Eucharist. If we say that both the Orthodox and Catholic churches have a valid Eucharist, are we not then saying that the communicants are all united to Jesus and, through Jesus, to each other? Thank you!

 

[CastillianRose]

1. What has been proposed by the Church as divinely revealed in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is another way, that is, when the Ordinary (i.e., one’s own Bishop or the Pope) teaches a doctrine is divinely revealed in a way demanding religious assent (that is, not putting forth the opinion of an individual priest or theologian) combined with the Universal Magisterium teaching the same doctrine as binding on religious assent as seen in universality (for all times and places), antiquity (as taught by the Early Church, revealed by the Scriptures as an historical document or by the (Bishop) Fathers of the Church) and unanimity (was taught in the Early Church and is taught now) and never condemned by a solemn judgment.

– continued –

Hello Nicole,

Thank you for taking the time ane energy to post all of this! Much appreciated. Regarding the third point above: doest this mean that bishops may pronounce teachings to be infallible, even if the pope has not done so?

 

[Sirach2]

A follow-up question (for my own benefit): how is it possible to have lawful sacraments and yet be cut off from the faithful?

You ask some very good questions.

I don’t know a great deal about Eastern Orthodox, but I do know that the matter separating us is their rejection of Papal Authority that goes back about a thousand years. Their ordinations (hence, valid succession) and sacraments are valid, but this is the issue that remains unresolved. Since the Eucharist and other sacraments are received lawfully, thus in my understanding, that makes them part of the Mystical Body of Christ - yet the difficulty remains concerning their schism. Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis is a good reference regarding the Mystical Body.

Please remember, too, that a baptized christian of any other denomination also admits these christians as being part of the Mystical Body of Christ, but there too, in an imperfect manner, since they have not the fullness of Catholic teachings, nor our sacraments, the most important being Holy Orders which bestows lawful succession. We believe they truly receive the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit at baptism, which is why we do not rebaptize converts to Catholicism.

I’m probably in over my head, so perhaps someone else can clarify this more perfectly.

 

[Sirach2]

Regarding the third point above: doest this mean that bishops may pronounce teachings to be infallible, even if the pope has not done so?

No. They have the obligation and commission to shepherd their own dioceses. For example, tomorrow is the Feast of the Assumption. Some bishops have dispensed the faithful from attending the Holy Day as an obligation binding under sin. Others may not have done this - and each is permitted to exercise this discipline as they deem proper.

You may remember that Vatican I defined the infallibility of the Pope in doctrinal teachings, but the Council was interrupted due to the war, so the issue of clarifying the role of Bishops was not completed until Vatican II. You may find some help in V-II’s document, Lumen Gentium, notably this section which explains their role. The document gives more detail on the hierarchical structure, but this is the important part, IMO.

1. But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.

For Our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.

This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them. This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

 

[yablabo]

Hello Nicole,

Thank you for taking the time ane energy to post all of this! Much appreciated. Regarding the third point above: doest this mean that bishops may pronounce teachings to be infallible, even if the pope has not done so?

Hi, CastillianRose,

And you are very welcome.

Bishops exercising their teaching office, that is, their Ordinary Magisterium do not have the same prerogative when teaching that the Roman Pontiff does. The Roman Pontiff alone was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven by habit, the charge to confirm the brethren, the charge to feed the lambs and sheep all in St. Peter. It is to him that all the Bishops point us since he is the rock on whom Christ founded His Church, he who is the foundation stone set in the foundation which is Jesus Christ, Our Lord, he for whom Christ prayed that his faith fail not.

One’s Bishop can teach that a specific pronouncement is divinely revealed and is thereby infallible, but that does NOT make that Bishop’s teaching protected by the Holy Spirit and infallible. One’s Bishop must first bind the faithful of his diocese under religious assent to his teaching and one must be able to determine that the Universal Magisterium has also held and taught the doctrine and done so in a way that has bound the faithful to submit their intellects and wills under the pain of mortal sin or minor excommunication (i.e., by religious assent). It is only by finding the pronouncement of the doctrine in the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium that one is bound to assent by faith (i.e., under pain of separation from the body, major excommunication) and by which one can be certain that the teaching IS infallible.

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium has long exposed and proposed to be divine revelation that which took time to propose explicitly in the solemn judgments of the Church, such as, the teachings on the Pope’s infallible Magisterium. However, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium contains nothing which is in contradiction (or is contrary) to the solemn judgments of the Church nor in contradiction (or contrary) to Scripture and tradition.

The point here is that it is not the singular Bishop nor the collective Bishops which have the prerogative of defining dogma (doctrines concerning faith and morals bound upon the assent of faith). They can point it out to us and bind us to it by their ordinary authority as successors of the Holy Apostles, that is, under the pain of minor excommunication/mortal sin. It is, however, only the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who can define dogma.

– Nicole

 

[CastillianRose]

It is not the singular Bishop nor the collective Bishops which have the prerogative of defining dogma (doctrines concerning faith and morals bound upon the assent of faith). They can point it out to us and bind us to it by their ordinary authority as successors of the Holy Apostles, that is, under the pain of minor excommunication/mortal sin. It is, however, only the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who can define dogma.

Hi Nicole,

As I am new to the Catholic faith, I am going to ask some pretty basic questions Actually, first I am going to try to rephrase what you said above to make sure I understand - please correct me if I am wrong.

When the pope exercises his title as Universal Magisterium in defining dogma, his teaching is infallible. Anyone who does not agree with this teaching is excommunicated from the Catholic church. When the bishop exercises his title as Ordinary Magisterium in matters of faith, his teaching may or may not be infallible. However, anyone who does not agree with the Bishop’s teaching has committed a mortal sin.

Questions:

1. If a person disagrees with the Universal/Ordinary Magisteriums, is their excommunication / mortal sin (respectively) automatic, or only if the preson is particularly vocal about his disagreement?
2. Can you give any examples where the bishop (as opposed to the pope) would use his power as Ordinary Magisterium in defining a matter of faith?
3. I do not know whether this is true or not, but I heard that minor excommunication is no longer recognized by canon law. Do you know if what I heard is correct?
4. So far, we have only talked about matters of faith/morals. What are the rules of obedience to the bishop in other matters - eg discipline or any other pronouncements which do not fall under the category of faith? (eg, if one disagrees, is there a higher authority one can appeal to, or is it a sin to disagree?)

Thank you! We might be getting a little off topic of my original question, but it would be a shame to pass up the opportunity for an answer on these points as well

 

[yablabo]

Hi, again, CastillianRose,

I don’t think anyone on the Catholic Answers Forum minds basic questions. You should ask whatever you need to here, but keep in mind that unless someone points you back to authoritative teaching “caveat lector”, that is, let the reader beware…

Firstly, I think I must have typed you something misleading at some point. The Pope’s infallible Magisterium is not refered to as the Universal Magisterium. Some call it the solemn magisterium or the extraordinary magisterium, some call it making solemn definitions or solemn judgments and some call it teaching “ex cathedra.” When the Pope exercises his infallible teaching authority as outlined in the First Vatican Council, he is teaching infallibly. Agreement is necessary in these matters, as well as assent (that is the use of the teachings by the faculty of the will, as the intellect believes them by the supernatural virtue of faith). It is not enough to SAY you believe, you must also ACT as if you believe.

Also, I disagree at least with the semantical use of the word “title” in your post. The Pope and Bishops, I would say, exercise their offices (that is, the proper place they are given in relationship to us from which they are given authority to act in specific ways above what they could act if they did not have the office).

It is a grave sin against the supernatural virtue of faith to reject or doubt the material of the infallible definitions of the Pope in regard to what has been divinely revealed. That is where the major excommunication stems from, the obstinate post-baptismal rejection or doubt of that which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith (Code of Canon Law, can.s 751 and 1364). However, it is a grave sin against the supernatural virtue of charity alone if one were to reject or doubt the material of the infallible definitions of the Pope in regard to matters of Catholic faith.

It is a grave sin, not necessarily a mortal sin, not to assent by virtue of religion to the binding/authoritative teachings of one’s Bishop. A mortal sin is only imputed to those who commit a grave sin with full knowledge and consent of the will.

Okay, on to your Questions:

If a person disagrees with the Universal/Ordinary Magisteriums, is their excommunication / mortal sin (respectively) automatic, or only if the preson is particularly vocal about his disagreement?

Taken separately, the Ordinary Magisterium (the teaching office of the Bishops and Pope) and the Universal Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church throughout history as seen in universality, antiquity and unanimity) can only bind upon the faithful doctrines by the virtue of religion, not the supernatural virtue of faith. If a person “disagrees” with the material of the doctrines handed down to us by the Ordinary Magisterium and Universal Magisterium, he would have to have good reason for doing so. Good reason would consist of an exposition of solemn judgment(s) which disqualify the material of these doctrines from being believeable. In absense of this, with-holding assent from these doctrines would be a grave sin, which, if done with full knowledge and consent of the will, would place the individual in the state of mortal sin. This is called a minor excommunication because while the person is not yet stricken from the Mystical Body of Christ while he is alive, if he dies in this state, he will certainly go to hell. This is not the same as a major excommunication by which one is stricken from the Mystical Body in life.

The mortal sin is imputed in an immediate fashion upon commission of the gravely immoral material with full knowledge and consent of the will. It makes no difference whether the act is occult (that is, internal and hidden from view) or public (that is, external and manifest for all to see).

Can you give any examples where the bishop (as opposed to the pope) would use his power as Ordinary Magisterium in defining a matter of faith?

I am sorry, but as I read this question, it is an invalid question. The Bishop does not define matters of faith. He teaches what Christ gave him to teach under the governance of the Supreme Pastor, Christ’s visible lieutenant, the Roman Pontiff.

I do not know whether this is true or not, but I heard that minor excommunication is no longer recognized by canon law. Do you know if what I heard is correct?

To my knowledge, the Code of Canon Law of 1983 makes no mention of minor excommunication. However, it is still a valid topic of discussion in regard to Moral Theology. I don’t see any issue in using it as a tool for discussion, as long as we both agree what it means.

So far, we have only talked about matters of faith/morals. What are the rules of obedience to the bishop in other matters - eg discipline or any other pronouncements which do not fall under the category of faith? (eg, if one disagrees, is there a higher authority one can appeal to, or is it a sin to disagree?)

In general, we are supposed to give our Bishop and our Pope obedience in all things that are not sinful. To violate this would be gravely sinful.

I hope you don’t feel shy about asking anything if you have any other questions…

– Nicole

 

[Sirach2]

In general, we are supposed to give our Bishop and our Pope obedience in all things that are not sinful. To violate this would be gravely sinful.

Nicole, I have a question…

What about a prominent “Catholic?” website that publicly denounces and castigates the entire body of bishops, as a whole, with calumnous statements? What if their affiliates promote this website on Catholic Answers? Do you have any thoughts about this? Is there a responsibility to protect the public, perhaps in a similar way that the Church has done in Her official letter of condemnation with regard to Fr. Feeney?

 

[yablabo]

Hi, Sirach,

What about a prominent “Catholic?” website that publicly denounces and castigates the entire body of bishops, as a whole, with calumnous statements?

To denounce (i.e., to speak against a person who is doing objective wrong, to speak against the objective wrong, or to speak against something which contains the objective wrong, such as a book) and to disobey (to refuse to bend one’s will to licit and valid commands of a person in authority over one) are not actions of equivalent meaning. To denounce a person or an action can be done in the spirit of charity (e.g., to protect weak brothers, children or those with infantile minds from poisonous errors and other harm). In that case, the denunciation would be neither quarrelsome (i.e., the vicious hurling of epithets and deceptive rhetoric for the purpose of “defeating” one’s opponent with no consideration of what is true or charitable) nor contentious (i.e., the vicious and false argument which seeks not to bring opposing sides into communion, but rather drive them further apart). One even has a duty to those under one’s authority to denounce those who may scandalize the weak brother among us. This includes even denouncing those in authority over us, even a Bishop. However, one must be VERY CAREFUL when undertaking such action to guard from rash or harsh judgment. Our Lord has commanded us to judge just judgment. This means not only on the one side, we cannot turn a blind eye on a person sinning gravely merely because he is in authority, but also on the other side, we cannot fail to judge with due diligence and care by merely jumping to conclusions on no firm ground of fact nor call what is only lightly sinful, gravely sinful. We must judge, but we cannot fail to judge justly.

We have a fine example of this in St. Paul’s letter to the Galations ch. 2 vs 11-21. St. Paul denounced St. Peter’s (the first Pope’s) actions to St. Peter’s face when St. Peter separated himself from the Gentiles in order to eat in this instance.

To answer your question more specifically, we know any use of calumny is a sin. Calumny is an intrinsically evil action, not a neutral action, by which one person maligns the good name of another person in speech or writing using falsehoods. It cannot possibly ever be made meritorious or good by one’s intent or the circumstances. The only question would be whether the action is gravely or only lightly immoral.

What if their affiliates promote this website on Catholic Answers? Do you have any thoughts about this? Is there a responsibility to protect the public, perhaps in a similar way that the Church has done in Her official letter of condemnation with regard to Fr. Feeney?

Keep in mind that I have no idea of who you’re speaking specifically, but am only speaking of your hypothetical in general. If they promote the website which calumniates anyone in a public forum (I think the actual sin would be called “libel” in this case not calumny due to the publication), my thought is that they would be promoting grave sin. To my understanding, to promote grave sin IS grave sin, but most of the time to speak out against such action, especially when one has no duty to do so, is imprudent. One can take action in mercy (i.e., do a spiritual work of mercy; to instruct the ignorant, to admonish the sinner, etc.), but it is very difficult on a forum such as this to do so without stirring up either a quarrel or contention. This is up to the administrators of the forum to moderate as they see fit, to my understanding of the rules of the forum.

There is a responsibility of the Bishop to protect the faithful under his care; ultimately he will have to stand before Christ in judgment and give an accounting of the administration of his duties which Christ gave him as a Bishop. This is a very grave institution in which Christ places the Bishops. However, earthly fathers also have a similar grave duty to their children, to form them and protect them.

I hesitate to honor the use of Fr. Leonard Feeney’s case as an example here… This is such a controversial case, it’s hard to find anyone who even knows the history, much less has read the official documents regarding him. The delegates of the Pope, who dealt with Fr. Feeney’s disobedience to the order of his superior to take a specific teaching position and the final disobedience to their order to come to Rome, must have been at the end of their rope to issue the judgment to inflict upon Fr. Feeney the sentence of a major excommunication. Excommunication IS a medicinal remedy in many ways: it severs a person from the Mystical Body which means the spiritual treasures of the Church are no longer applied to that person, there is a potential for his misery to become so great that he will then throw himself upon the mercy of the Church to bring him back into the one sheepfold; it also puts the person outside the Body in a visibly discernible way, so that others, seeing this person’s miserable state will fear to follow him; etc.

To my understanding, the Bishop is given the power to interdict and excommunicate in order to protect the faithful in his care, and in the hope that those under censure will return to communion with him, with Rome, with God. If the Bishop has need of exercising said power and fails to do so, not for reasons of prudential judgment, but rather out of neglect, he is failing in the charge given him by Christ.

– Nicole

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks, Nicole. You gave a lot of food for thought that I’ll need to mull over. Good post!