Magisterial Authority Down the Ladder

[blackforest]

I’ve been in the Church long enough to feel a little embarrassed for asking this, but could somebody walk me through a facet of how Magisterial authority works?

Although we are one bread, one body, we are obviously a diverse Church, with bishops and priests spanning a wide ideological spectrum on theological and social justice issues. I’m hoping that somebody can help me determine how exercise discernment within this chaos.

Obviously, it’s strongest at the top of the totem pole, i.e. Vatican-level. As we move down into the lower rungs of Church hierarchy, it gets more confusing. Let’s suppose that there’s a controversy over . . . . . whether or not to hold and cuddle cute and fuzzy bunny rabbits. (I need an absurd example, so work with me here! To keep the thread focused, please avoid references to specific hot button controversies. )

There’s nothing in the Catechism about these big-eared critters, and the Pope hasn’t addressed the matter one way or the other. One bishop considers the bunny-holding morally licit. A cardinal calls it “diabolical.” A priest tells his parish that bunnies are generally OK but shouldn’t be kept as pets. Meanwhile, a committee of bishops releases a formal statement saying that these bunnies are lonely and need human companionship in any form we can offer.

When theological matters get (ahem!) fuzzy like this, to what extent is authority from the “lower rungs” Magisterial? And what is the best way, (i.e. better than just checking in with inveterate personal biases), for faithful Catholics to go about this process?

 

[tafan2]

I understand the desire to discuss this sans hot button issues, but it’s hard to do in the abstract.

 

[ioannes_pius]

When you have a situation like this, it wouldn’t be on a Magisterial level unless all the bishops throughout the world somehow taught it in union with the Pope, and even then there are varying degrees of the assent that must be given it, it’s weight, etc.

If this were the case, it might be profitable to refer to possible teachings of past theologians on the matter of cuddling fuzzy bunny rabbits for insight, and form an opinion based on those.

 

[blackforest]

Prolific, at any rate.

When you have a situation like this, it wouldn’t be on a Magisterial level unless all the bishops throughout the world somehow taught it in union with the Pope, and even then there are varying degrees of the assent that must be given it, it’s weight, etc.

This is a good explanation.

Let me tell you what puzzles me. Somebody here on CAF made a moral claim about a controversial issue.

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend the CAF member said, “It is a sin to put toilet paper on the roller in the under-hand position. All Catholics should position toilet paper to be pulled down from the overhand position.” So I asked, “What do Church authorities say on this matter? Do you have a link?” He cited a priest who wrote a book articulating the same position, namely that all Catholics hanging toilet paper in the under-hand fashion are sinning and need to confess.

I’m editing here to add that I was then admonished for not heeding/respecting the position of the priest.

In another thread, I made a case for under-hand toilet paper and cited a statement from bishops stating that all Catholics had an obligation to hang TP in said position. Somebody replied (paraphrased), “Oh yea? I disagree with the bishops. Because prudential judgment, that’s why.”

So when not clear-cut articulated by the Vatican, are matters “Magisterial” when they confirm our biases and “prudential judgment” when they challenge them? Surely it must be more complex than that . . .

I think it’s important to approach our faith in an intellectually honest manner. We all like to think that Cafeteria Catholicism applies to other people . . .

 

[ioannes_pius]

Surely it must be more complex than that . . .

It is indeed much more complex than that, which is why a straight, concise answer cannot really be given.

Neither of the things you described would amount to the level of Magisterial. Instead, you would be able to hold your position, while the other catholic in the scenario would be able to maintain his position. Both the stances on this issue are coming from what I like to call “approved catholic sources,” and they do not either conform to or deviate from previous Magisterial teaching. Basically what’s going on here is a theological dispute, and these have certainly happened before in the history of the Church. It is possible for faithful Catholics to come to different conclusions regarding unsettled matters.

 

[Genesis315]

“Magisteirum” simply means teaching authority (older texts sometimes refer to it as the ecclesia docens–the teaching church). It is exercised by each and every bishop. Curial offices are to assist them in this. Every bishop of the Church who teaches exercises the Magisterium, individually or in groups. The bishop of Rome does so in a special way, being the chief teacher in the Church.

Everyone has to give religious submission–in respect of that divinely conferred authority–to his own bishop (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Bishops should attempt to coordinate among themselves to provide a united voice, but if there is disagreement, it ultimately belongs to the Pope to give the final say. The whole reason we have a Pope is to serve unity, especially the unity of faith. That’s his job.

Sometimes it can take time for these things to get vetted. The Pope is not omniscient, so it may also take time for him to give the final answer. Even in such definitive judgments that carry the mark of infallibility, it can take time to get there (as St. Francis de Sales said on the topic, the Holy Spirit leads, He does not carry).

In general, how the Magisterium works is summed up in Lumen Gentium 25:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html