St Thomas More: a question

[Lief_Erikson]

Dear JReducation,

You raise some interesting points that I would like to consider. At the same time, my deepest interest is to know more specifically the answer to my question about infallibility. We are clear now that the principles, “The ends do not justify the means” and “it is always wrong to violate human dignity” are infallible. These are the principles on the basis of which, from what you’ve been saying, it is believed that religious freedom is infallible. I’m interested in the question of whether this belief does flow logically from those principles, which is the issue your most recent post focuses on, and I’m definitely planning to look into that. But before I really go into that, would you please help me get rid of this nagging question that remains without (to my understanding) a clear answer? If a future Pope said that using law to prohibit the spread of heresies among Catholics does not violate the two infallible principles stated above, would Catholics be at liberty to believe what he says on the matter? Does the infallibility of religious freedom come entirely from those two principles or is it “self-contained,” as it were, like a dogma . . .

When a dogma is defined, the wording is infallible. We don’t believe dogmas because we believe they logically follow from infallible principles – we believe them because they are themselves infallible definitions. If a Catholic tried to prove that a dogma did not follow from certain infallible principles on which the dogma is supposed to be based, his action would show an unacceptable lack of faith. All Catholics are obliged to give dogmas not only religious submission of intellect and will, but the assent of faith as well. All Catholics have to give dogmas the assent of faith. If a Catholic believes that the dogma does not follow logically from premises that the Church says it flows from, and that it therefore is untrue, that Catholic is wrong and we can say that as a certain statement of faith.

From what you’ve been saying, though, I’m getting (possibly mistakenly) a somewhat different picture of moral teachings that are believed to be infallible. These teachings, if I’m not mistaken, are logical but fallible conclusions based on infallible principles. In the case of religious freedom, these infallible principles would be, “the ends do not justify the means,” and, “it is always wrong to violate human dignity.” Based on these infallible premises, the Magesterium has a flow of reasoning on which religious freedom is based. If the flow of reasoning is solid, then religious freedom is necessarily infallible. If the flow of reasoning contains flaws, then religious freedom is not necessarily infallible – that possibility exists because the reasoning is not infallible. Only the premises are. With dogmas, on the other hand, infallibility is always present not just as a logical conclusion from infallible premises (dependent infallibility) but because the dogma’s statement and wording are themselves independently rendered infallible through the power of the Holy Spirit operating through the Magesterium.

Is this a correct understanding of how infallibility exists in the case of moral teachings, and of how these teachings differ in the nature of their infallibility from dogma?

If the reasoning and conclusions of the Church’s moral teachings, in addition to their premises, are (like dogmas) infallible, I would very much like to know.

 

[JReducation]

Let me begin with the most fundmental truth. Moral teachings are very complex.

First, the Church cannot teach moral error. Therefore, the Church does not have to invoke infallability on moral statements. It’s a given. Moral statements are not like the Immaculate Conception, where there was room for debate and dialogue. A moral teaching is a statement of law. This is morally right and that is morally wrong and the Holy Spirit will not let the Church teach error.

Second, yes the principles that you mention above are unchangeable. They are absolute and revealed truth. “The ends does not justify the means” and “human dignity flows from God. Therefore, it cannot be violated.”

Third, now we get into the tricky area, religious freedom. What the Council did was to pull forward from old teachings that religious freedom is a given, not a logical conclusion to a syllogism. Think of it as a postulate in math. It is not a dogma, because it falls into the are of morals. Dogmatic teachings and moral teachings are not the same thing, but both are infallible.

Fourth, because the Church elevated the question of religious freedom to a moral question, the answer falls into the category of a moral statement. Therefore, when the Church says that religious freedom cannot be violated and to do so is a grave sin, she is making a moral statement. Moral statements need not be declared infallible. Look at statements on abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and others.

Fifth, there is another school of thought, but it’s a little bit left of center. There is a school of thought that agrees that the Lord promised the Church that she would not err on matters of faith and morals, but that the promise does not always apply. These theologians have developed a list of criteria that they use to determine whether there is the coverage by the Holy Spirit or not. They have concluded that birth control, abortion, same-sex intercourse, and several other behaviors are not covered under infallibility, because they do not meet the criteria. The criteria is that they see these statements as conclusions, not as free standing.

Here is a conflict with John Paul and Benedict. They view their positions on these issues not as conclusions, but as part of the on-going belief of the Church. Therefore, the statement on religious freedom is not news. It is simply a clarification of what has always been present in the deposit of faith.

When you put it this way, if it hs always been present in the deposit of faith, then it is not changeable. Religious freedom is an absolute, not a conclusion. The question would be how to secure religious freedom and how to tell the difference between religious freedom and abuse of freedom. That’s not out of the question here. Man can and does abuse his freedoms.

That’s the dialogue that the Church is having with the SSPX and other theologians. The Church holds that religious freedom is a doctrinal point that can never be changed, but that there have to be rules that keep people from going over the edge and abusing it.

As to your question about the hypothetical pope, I cannot see a way around that. Maybe some Doctor in Moral Theology can. I’m not a Doctor of Moral Theology. My area is Mystical and Ascetical Theology. Based on the moral theology that I do have under my belt, which is only three years (not much compared to a moral theologian), my take is that there is way that a future pope can say that we can outlaw heresy, apostasy and so forth, UNLESS there is an abuse of the freedom. Remember the decree on religious freedom does specify that it’s a gift from God, not a man made law. Man cannot give himself attributes that God has not given to him.

There is another issue here. That’s the word heresy. There is such a thing as heresy. Don’t get me wrong. But only Catholics are guilty of heresy. A Protestant is not guilty of heresy and can never be called a heretic. He was born into that faith. A Catholic who suddenly says that the Eucharist is only a symbol, commits heresy. A Lutheran does not. Becaues Lutherans inherited this teaching from their forefathers. Luther was a heretic, but his spiritual sons and daughters are not. I bring this up, because your hypothetical pope and situation raises an interesting question. Who would be the so called heretics? It could only be Catholics.

The law would have to say that any Catholic who teaches heresy can be fined or thrown in jail or whatever. It cannot say that any Lutheran who teaches heresy would get the same consequences, because for Lutherans these are not heresies and the Church believes that they are not guilty of heresy. They are in error, but not heretics. There definition of heretic does not apply to them.

I’m finding this hypothetical situation difficult, because if a Catholic believes it is heresy. If a Lutheran believes it, it is error not heresy. I wish that I could give you a better answer. I would be lying if I pretended to know more than this.

If you find a good Doctor of Moral Theology, ask and let me know. But go to a STD on moral theology, not some parish priest or a book. The parish priest has the same training that I do. And the book is subject to your interpretation. Ask an expert who does this every day and let me know what you find out.

I know one priest who is an STD in moral theology. He’s on vacation. But he’ll be back in 1 0 days. If I remember, I’ll pose this question to him. It’s an interesting one. Now you have me thinking about this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank-you, that last post is much clearer in its response to my questions.

I don’t know if I have enough contacts to find a moral theologian, but I’d be delighted to talk to yours, when he gets back after his vacation. I would like to ask him for more detailed information about the infallibility of the Church’s moral teachings, and possibly one or two sources so I can read on it further on my own. I’m very interested in this.

You’ve given me a lot of help. Thank-you so much! This is a lot of new information for me to digest. I’ll contact you if (or probably when) I have any more questions on the matter.

I’m going to mull it over further, praying about it and investigating it more deeply. Especially the infallibility part. I’m very glad the popes contradict the views about infallibility of those left-of-center theologians that have revolted against the Church’s authoritative moral teaching. It gives me some relief also to hear that we have infallible moral teachings, even though they have not been made dogmas, and that these teachings are not fallible conclusions made off of infallible premises. For if the Church’s conclusions on morals were fallible, our Church would be in little better a position than Protestantism, which takes certain infallible premises (the written text of the Scripture) and comes up with a vast variety of different conclusions as to what it means. The way Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI see it is so much more stable and clear. It is a much more beautiful structure than that believed in by those who would diminish and change the Church’s teaching and identity.

Oh, I do have one more question that occurs to me immediately. What do our theologians say about the Old Covenant Law’s commands to stone Israelites that worship idols? On the surface, that looks like a case where the infallible Word of God commands a grave sin.

 

[JReducation]

A couple of things. First, thanks for your kind reply.

Second, remember what I said. I’m not a moral theologian. This is as far as my legs can carry me. Your hypothetical pope stumped me. So I’m interested in knowing the answer too.

Third, the good thing about Catholicisim and Orthdox Christianity is that morality is not up for grabs, even though some people think it is. It is what it is. This is right and that’s wrong. There are situations that can change the rules of how things are done, but they don’t change the truth. For example, we no longer need capital punishment. We have the resources to create good systems to keep criminals inside and innocent people outside. We just need to get off our butts and make it happen. That’s an example of how something can change. What is really changing there is how we deal with crime. No one is saying that we give criminals a free pass. Do you see what I mean by changing with the times? We don’t change the truth. We change how we execute it. But it remains the same moral law.

Fourth, on the question regarding the OT. There were many cases in the OT where the punishment for different things was stoning or other harshe measures. There are two things that come to my mind right away. One is that while God’s law does not change, God’s people do change. The people of that time did not have that full understanding of truth as we do today. Remember that it is only through the life, death and resurrection of Christ that truth is fully revealed. What they had was what God revealed to them at the time. That brings me tot he second pout. God revealed to them what they could handle. Jeus made a reference to this when discussing divorce. Remember how he said that Moses allowed them to divorce because they had stony hearts, but now he was going to give them a new law?

Jesus brings the law to its fulfillment by completing or supplying the missing pieces. What is in the OT is truth. But if we take it alone, without the teachings of Jesus, it’s only part of the truth. It only makes sense with the teachings of Jesus. The OT said stone the old lady if she gives you grief. Jesus comes and says don’t you dare stone the old lady, you have to learn to deal with it and I will show you how. There is the other part. Jesus will show us how to deal with the old lady. They did not have the benefit of Jesus at the time of the OT. Does that help?

I’m tired and it’s late so I’m rambling here. I’m sorry if I’m not too clear at this time of night.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yes, that helps a lot with that question. Bringing up Moses and divorce was a good Old Testament corroborating example showing a case where God authorizes something bad because He’s dealing with people where they are and they aren’t ready for better and higher things yet.

I’ll wait for your moral theologian for the answer to my hypothetical pope question.

In the meantime, I have another couple questions. Are those relativistic Catholics and liberal theologians who defy the Church on various moral teachings, like contraception, heretics, if they rebel in these ways with sufficient knowledge of their error? For they reject infallible teachings.

Another question is: What is the wording of the Church’s infallible statement about religious freedom? I’m be very eager to know this.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, that helps a lot with that question. Bringing up Moses and divorce was a good Old Testament corroborating example showing a case where God authorizes something bad because He’s dealing with people where they are and they aren’t ready for better and higher things yet.

I’ll wait for your moral theologian for the answer to my hypothetical pope question.

In the meantime, I have another couple questions. Are those relativistic Catholics and liberal theologians who defy the Church on various moral teachings, like contraception, heretics, if they rebel in these ways with sufficient knowledge of their error? For they reject infallible teachings.

Another question is: What is the wording of the Church’s infallible statement about religious freedom? I’m be very eager to know this.

I can answer your first question. Any Catholic who embraces error is embracing heresy. At what point do you call the person a heretic? That’s another question. I don’t know that a clear answer has ever been given. But I’ll ask around.

My guess is that all of us can embrace a heresy at one point or another, because we are truly convinced that it works or that it is correct, without throwing out everything that we believe. In that case, we would not be heretics. We’re guilty of error on very specific points, not we have not parted company with the Church. I’ll tell you why I am making that guess. The Church tries very hard to meet people where they are at and to separte the error from the person making the error. It is not the intent of the Church or her desire to push people out the door, but to bring them back. Again, I always use the example of the SSPX.

There were points that they made that were definately in error. But they never through out the baby with the bath water. So today the Holy Father speaks about the need for them to assent on some doctrinal maatters. I’m not sure that we know which ones he’s speaking about. But that’s not as important as the fact that he does not view them as heretics, but does see some of their positions as being in conflict with some doctrinal points. I guess the key word here is “some”. The same was true with Father Hans Kung and Father Charles Curran. Neither were ever suspended from priestly ministry, because neither is accused of being a heretic. Yet, both had their licence to teach Catholic theology revolked, because they taught some heresies. Not everything that they taught was heresy. I’M GOING TO GUESS. To be condemned as a heretic by the Church one would have to go futher than dissenting on isolated points. Remember, don’t take this to the bank. I’m guessing.

As to the document on religious freedom, the answer to that is tougher, because there is the original document itself and there have been many papal statements that followed that document which refer back to it and also add more to it. I guess what would be good is if the entire document was re-edited to include the original text and that satements that followed so that we can see how it is cearly a moral teaching and therefore, it is an infallible teaching.

The way that the document is worded, some readers see it as a moral statement. Others see it as a pastoral statement. We have to look at what the Church has said after the document referring back to it. Everything that has been said by Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI places it in the moral department, not the social teaching or pastoral department. We know that moral laws are not fallible. Only the means to implement them are fallible.

I wish that I could help more. If I see more, I’ll share it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Way back in post 7, before the thread got a tad sidetracked. Brother JR told us that one can be (and St Thomas was) BOTH a professed secular Franciscan (or whatever the terminology was in his day) AND an oblate attached to a particular Benedictine monastery - the two aren’t incompatible.

You responded to that post - I’m surprised you don’t remember

Is this allowed now?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Does the Church have any infallible teaching regarding freedom of the press?

 

[JohnDamian]

Does the Church have any infallible teaching regarding freedom of the press?

The only ex cathedera infallible declarations are on the hypostatic union, the dual will of Christ, the pre-judgement beatific vision, the condemnation of Jansen and Jansenism, the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.

Furthermore, nothing declared in Ecumenical councils or by the Magisterium on the matter of the free press has been held to be infallible.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The only ex cathedera infallible declarations are on the hypostatic union, the dual will of Christ, the pre-judgement beatific vision, the condemnation of Jansen and Jansenism, the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.

There are hundreds of dogmas. Here’s a probably incomplete list: jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

In addition to these, there are also many infallible moral teachings the Church has given. These aren’t dogmas, but they still are infallible, from what I’ve just been told. Religious freedom is one of them. Because religious freedom is one, I was wondering if press freedom might be another, and I would be curious also how a valid freedom of the press is defined by the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, nothing declared in Ecumenical councils or by the Magisterium on the matter of the free press has been held to be infallible.

Not dogmas, certainly, but I was wondering whether they are considered moral teachings or not. If so, they too would be infallible.

 

[JReducation]

Moral teachings are always without error, therefore infallible. The Church cannot teach moral error.

I guess whatever moral statements that Church makes about the use of the press would be what you’re looking for. As far as I know the Church has published several statements on the moral duties of the press and other means of social communication. These statements are usually in broader statements about the good that the press can achieve or is called to achieve in society.

A lot of times the Church will teach morality while speaking about something else. It’s a particular style of speaking. While you’re speaking about the good that the press can do for society, just take the time to mention the moral duties and pitfalls involved in this type of service.

Moral teaching is always infallible, because the Church cannot teach moral error. Let us always remember, that there is a difference between a decree that is made Ex Cathedra and this. The one is not more binding than the other. This is one of the mistakes that people often make. They often believe that if it’s not Ex Cathedra, is fair game to dissect and choose to follow it or not. That’s not true at all and has never been the case. In matters of morals, the teachings of the Church need not be declared from the Chair of Peter to be infallible and binding. Why not? Christ promised that the Church cannot teach error. A great example of this are the moral teachings found in the epistles. Most of them were taught by Paul and a few other writers. Peter only wrote two letters. Even though these moral teachings do not come from the Chair of Peter, they are infallible and binding.

Do we teach that Paul was infallible? No. That gift was for Peter alone. But the Church is infallible. When she teaches, she cannot teach moral error.

She can make mistakes in issues of law, discipline, rituals, rubrics, social assessments and other non moral and non doctrinal matters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Old_Medic]

There has been only ONE statement of infallible teaching in the entire history of the church.

You are teaching error on these forums, by leading people to think that you know what you are talking about.

There is absolutely NO infallible statement from the Church concerning contraception. Pope Paul VI wrote an paper in which HE condemned it, but he did NOT publish it as a matter of faith and morals for all Roman Catholics.

In fact, various people in the church can teach error, and have on many occasions throughout the ages. One very obvious example was the “selling of indulgences”, which directly led Martin Luther to rebel against the church. In effect, the Church was teaching that the rich could buy their way into heaven (directly contradicting the teachings of Jesus by the way).

During the middle ages, when the Borgia’s controlled the Papacy, there was error all over the place. Many of those Popes had mistresses and children all over the Vatican, they favored their families over the body of the church and they taught error left and right.

To attempt to claim that the Church can never teach error is silly. It can, and it has from time to time.

What it can NOT do is teach specific errors about Faith and Morals. That is the ONLY area where the Church as a whole is infallible, as is the Pope as spokesman for the whole Church. Contraception was NOT made a matter of faith and morals. Neither is the issue of married clergy, female clergy, etc. Those are issues on which the Church, and the Pope, can be very wrong indeed.

As an example, Jesus chose 12 men to be his specific Apostles. At least 11 of those men were married (they do not know if Judas was for certain). So, was Jesus in error when he chose married men to be his BISHOPS (the Apostles were the first Bishops after all), or is the Church in error to prevent married men from becoming Priests?

The same goes for women. Jesus chose Mary Magdalene as one of his disciples, and she played a very important part in his ministry. So, who are the Church leaders to deny that women have the capability to become Priests?

Originally, virtually no Priest or Bishop would have been single, because to do so was to thwart several commands from the Old Testament. Only those that chose to become Hermits would have automatically been single. It was only in later years that the concept of “Emulating Christ” by remaining single came into being.

How about truly emulating Christ, and choosing married men to become Priests? After all, he could have chosen only single men, had he wished his Apostles to be single. He did not, so it makes no theological sense for his successors to claim that being single makes you closer to God, or more capable of working your ministry full time. In fact, very few Priests actually are available “full time”, as most of them take at least one, and many two, days off each week.

My grandfather was a Minister for 55 years. He was also married, and the father of 3 children that lived to adulthood (7 children were born to them). He had no problem being available to his flock 24/7, and he also had no problem being able to tell the difference between property of the church and his own property (which was one of the major reasons why the Church imposed Celibacy).

And what does all of this have to do with St. Thomas More? You have totally highjacked this thread, turning it into your version of the theology of the Church.

Just to let you know, I have my Ed.D in Rehabilitation Counseling, and I have a Masters in Theology, both through the University of San Francisco.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

And what does all of this have to do with St. Thomas More? You have totally highjacked this thread, turning it into your version of the theology of the Church.

The OP asked on post 27 for more information about whether or not Thomas More ordered that heretics be burned. It’s only natural that a discussion of religious freedom has followed.

Though I agree with you that my questions, and the answers JR has been very kind to provide, as well as the OP’s question about Thomas More’s attitude toward religious freedom on page 2, are all not directly related to the OP’s first post.

There is absolutely NO infallible statement from the Church concerning contraception. Pope Paul VI wrote an paper in which HE condemned it, but he did NOT publish it as a matter of faith and morals for all Roman Catholics.

“[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14).

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

The Church clearly teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil and that this teaching is definitive and irreformable – infallible.

In fact, various people in the church can teach error, and have on many occasions throughout the ages. One very obvious example was the “selling of indulgences”, which directly led Martin Luther to rebel against the church. In effect, the Church was teaching that the rich could buy their way into heaven (directly contradicting the teachings of Jesus by the way).

Show me where a Pope taught that it is a matter of morals to believe that the Church can sell indulgences.
The Old Medic:

During the middle ages, when the Borgia’s controlled the Papacy, there was error all over the place. Many of those Popes had mistresses and children all over the Vatican, they favored their families over the body of the church and they taught error left and right.

I would need to see where the Pope taught that it is a matter of morals to believe that these behaviors are valid. As far as I’ve seen in history, they never taught that their actions were right. They gave no teachings to the faithful about these personal sins they were committing, trying to refute their sinfulness. They made a bad example, but they never taught the Catholic faithful that their immoral practices were in fact moral.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The Old Medic:

What it can NOT do is teach specific errors about Faith and Morals. That is the ONLY area where the Church as a whole is infallible, as is the Pope as spokesman for the whole Church. Contraception was NOT made a matter of faith and morals. Neither is the issue of married clergy, female clergy, etc. Those are issues on which the Church, and the Pope, can be very wrong indeed.

As an example, Jesus chose 12 men to be his specific Apostles. At least 11 of those men were married (they do not know if Judas was for certain). So, was Jesus in error when he chose married men to be his BISHOPS (the Apostles were the first Bishops after all), or is the Church in error to prevent married men from becoming Priests?

The rejection of marriage in the clergy is a matter of Church discipline, not infallibility, as far as I’ve read. The Church has the authority to permit priests to marry, or to restrict that permission. She chose this as a discipline but not an infallible law.

Taking women into the priesthood, on the other hand, is impossible. Pope John Paul II said, “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
The Old Medic:

The same goes for women. Jesus chose Mary Magdalene as one of his disciples, and she played a very important part in his ministry. So, who are the Church leaders to deny that women have the capability to become Priests?

Of course women can play an important part in Christ’s ministry. That doesn’t mean they can become priests. Mary was made Queen of Angels, Empress of Heaven and Earth in union with Christ, and yet she was never made a priest. The scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments, never provides an instance of a woman being a priest, but instead always refers to the priests and bishops being men and assumes that they will be men through the structure of the language. When it refers to presbyters and bishops, it always says, “he,” never “he or she,” or anything to even suggest women could be ordained, much less explicitly saying it.
The Old Medic:

Just to let you know, I have my Ed.D in Rehabilitation Counseling, and I have a Masters in Theology, both through the University of San Francisco.

I don’t care what your credentials are, if you contradict the Pope. He is my chief shepherd on Earth, not you.

 

[JReducation]

The rejection of marriage in the clergy is a matter of Church discipline, not infallibility, as far as I’ve read. The Church has the authority to permit priests to marry, or to restrict that permission. She chose this as a discipline but not an infallible law.

This is absolutely correct. Disciplinem, morals and doctrine are not the same things. Celibacy is both a discipline and a gift to the Church. One must also understand that there are certain conditions in which celibacy is actually essential. For example, you cannot have religious life without celibacy. There is not option here. Celibacy is only an option for secular men who want to be ordained. It has never been an option for the consecrated lfie. That’s where the term consecrated celibacy first came from.

When secular priests began to adopt celibacy and consecrate themselves to living a celibate life, as religious have done since before Christ, the term carried into the secular sphere. As history would have it, consecrated celibacy became part of the priesthood in the Roman Church. It is a discipline, not a dogma. But the discipline is very much a part of the Roman priesthood, unlike the preisthood in the other 21 Catholic Churches united to us.

Taking women into the priesthood, on the other hand, is impossible. Pope John Paul II said, "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)** I declare **that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

There is absolutely no way that the Apostolic Churches can ever ordain women. They all agree on this. The 22 Catholic Churches and the many Orthodox Churches all agree that this is a infallible truth that has been handed down to us from Christ through the Apostles and that the Church does not have the authority to change it.

While it is true that there were women who were involved in the proclamation of the Gospel, as is the case today, there have never been ordained women.

I also bolded the words from John Paul’s satement. In matters that have been established by Divine Revelation, such as moral matters, sacramental matters and other truths of the faith, the pope need not declare from the Chair of Peter. The matter is already a belief of the Church. The pope simply has to declare that the entire Catholic community is bound to that belief. If we look a the end of that sentence by John Paul II, he’s not making an observation. It’s a command.

The same wording is used in Evangelium Vitae regarding abortion. He invokes the autority of Peter and declares that the discussions on abortion are now and forever closed. There is never an exception to the moral rule, because the moral rule is infallible.

What happens in matters of morals is that the popes look to what has been revealed by God. They point to it.

There is a very good interview with Archbishop Thomas Wenski on these questions. He points out that the Church has the right and the authority to point to the moral right.

The errors that Medic claims were never teachings of the Church. They were actions by Churchmen. That’s not the same. Ask the great saints to wrote that we should not commit sin, but we must always obey what the Church teaches and commands. In fact, our Holy Father Francis put it into his admonitions under pain of grave sin. He made it a double sin, so to speak. If you disobeyed the Church’s commands, you not only broke Church law, you also disobeyed him personally. To disobey him can be excommunicatable offense, depending on which part of his rule and mandates you violate. We make a solemn vow to obey him until death, by vowing to obey the rule that he wrote.

Yes, there are many moral absolutes that are not up for discussion. The explanation can be discussed and their execution too.

Going back to Thomas More, this is why he was in a bind. The indissolubility of marriage is both a doctrinal and moral absolute. But there is also another moral abosolute in which he was caught. He had made an oath to the crown as Lord Chancellor. Justice demanded that he fulfill that oath, but that he not contradict Church teachings.

More is the perfect example of a citizen caught between fidelity to the faith and allegience to the state. He died because he would not violate his fiedlity to the Church for the sake of the state. But many people do not know is that More was both a Benedictine Oblate and a Secular Franciscan. In the Rule of St. Francis there is a prohibition concerning putting the state before the Church. The Secular Franciscans have always been bound to put the Church before the state. Because they solemnly promise to live the Gospel in the maner of St. Francis. Not in their own manner or according to their understanding, but according to Francis’ understanding. Francis demanded that all of us, friars, nuns, and seculars, follow his understanding and application of the Gospel under obedience.

More was caught. There was nothing else that a good Catholic, faithful son of St. Francis and obedient son of St. Benedict could do, but to die. Otherwise, he would not have been faithful.

In all of the above matters: birth control, abortion, women’s ordination, celibacy, etc. we are bound to be faithful to the Church. Saints like Thomas More have set the standard of fidelity. You are faithful, even if it costs your life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

JReducation, I’ve prayed about and studied this issue of religious freedom for more than two years now. I didn’t believe in it, according to the understanding of the Church, but praise God, through you, He has shown me the truth on this matter! Knowing about the infallibility of this teaching was what ended the whole issue for me. Then the logic fell into place.

I also thought about the fact that God even allowed Satan to tempt Eve, and He allows demons to tempt all of us and try to deceive us with false beliefs and evil actions. If He even gives such liberty of religious expression to the demons, what right have we to deprive it from one another?

The justice points you brought up also brought this home for me. We can’t look into heretics’ souls to see whether or not they are culpable for the sin of the false teachings they are spreading. Therefore if we punished them, we could easily be doing an injustice. We would be punishing many people for an accident, and that is never just. As you pointed out, the ends do not justify the means.

It also stands out to me that for the first millennium of Christian history, the Church did not support encroachments on religious freedom. Only in the second millennium did some popes support those encroachments, and that happened principally because lawyers dug up the old Roman laws and started bringing them back. This and the powerful heresies, like the Cathars, drove their willingness to open the door to violent means of suppressing falsehoods.

For me, learning about the infallibility of moral teachings is what really ended this issue for me. Learning about that is such an eye-opener! I also love this truth because it gives so much magnificent poise and clarity to the Church’s teaching. It leaves no room for legitimate dissent. Dissenters’ only grace would be that they are not always culpable for their faults, if they don’t have sufficient knowledge of the Church’s teaching. But those that do have sufficient knowledge and stray are all obstinate heretics (as opposed to material heretics – a highly valuable distinction Thomas Aquinas makes). It is beautiful that we have infallible and constant moral teachings, as well as infallible dogmas, and that these moral teachings can guide us always away from error. These are not up for dispute.

Just to let you know, because this issue has been such an important one to me, I double-checked what you said with my spiritual director, who also is a priest and theologian, and he confirmed everything you said. So being sure about the infallibility of moral teachings finishes the issue for me.

As St. Augustine put it, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.”

Having any difference of opinion from our last two popes, who I have greatly respected, has been a real heartache to me. Having this matter completely resolved for me now is a great gift!

Thank-you so much!

God bless you.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m still eager to see sources saying that whenever the Pope teaches on morals, it’s infallible. I’ve spent a while tonight looking for sources clearly backing up what you’ve told me, JR, and I haven’t found any so far. So if you could direct me to some further information showing me that:

a) The Pope’s moral teachings are always infallible.

and

b) The papal statements about religious freedom are moral teachings.

I’m pretty sure (b) will be easy to find support for, but I’d still like a source or two on it. And I’m particularly interested in finding more information about (a).

 

[JReducation]

This may help you. It’s a little wordy, but it’s helpful.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

• The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

• Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.

• Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

An Ex-Cathedra decree is more formal and more complex. But does not negate the infallibility of other statements on faith or morals, made by the pope as pastor and teacher of the universal Church and in which it is his intention that this teaching be observed by the entire Church.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

The problem that you’re raising is not a problem with papal infallibility, but a problem with contemporary Catholic culture. Contemporary culture suddenly requires that the Church prove herself. The difficulty for modern man arises when the Church cannot produce documents or legal decrees to support a belief that has been part of her identity since her foundation by Christ and the Apostles.

Another way of saying this is that Peter’s morals was never questioned. Therefore, there was never any reason to create a law or a set of rules to decide when Peter was teaching morality infallibly and when he is not. Even in the famous case between Peter and Paul, the question was not a moral question, but a question of discipline. We have to be very careful. Many contemporary Catholics mistakenly use this case to support their dissent from papal teachings. But the truth is that Paul was not dissenting on a moral question. The question on the table was one of tradition with a lower case “t”. I pose this just to make sure that we do not try to use that as an example of moral dissent. It is not.

I will also add that this tendency to require proof every time that we say that this or that moral law must be observed by all Catholics is an American and European tendency. This tendency is actually viewed very poorly by the rest of the Church. It seems to rear its ugly head more among Romans than it does among Oriental Catholics. They look at Romans as having taken a step in secularism and approaching the Church with the same magnifying glass that they would approach a secular system of government. This assessment is rather interesting and important. It should say something to us about how and why we scrutinize the teachings of the Church.

While your questions are good and I enjoy helping find the answers, as a Franciscan, I have a moral duty to point out that we be cautious not to cross the line of propriety and common sense. If we begin to subject the Church and her moral and doctrinal teachings to the tools and methods that we employ on secular systems, we are going to talk ourselves into a corner where we will do damage to our personal faith, not to the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

JReducation:

I will also add that this tendency to require proof every time that we say that this or that moral law must be observed by all Catholics is an American and European tendency. This tendency is actually viewed very poorly by the rest of the Church. It seems to rear its ugly head more among Romans than it does among Oriental Catholics. They look at Romans as having taken a step in secularism and approaching the Church with the same magnifying glass that they would approach a secular system of government. This assessment is rather interesting and important. It should say something to us about how and why we scrutinize the teachings of the Church.

While your questions are good and I enjoy helping find the answers, as a Franciscan, I have a moral duty to point out that we be cautious not to cross the line of propriety and common sense. If we begin to subject the Church and her moral and doctrinal teachings to the tools and methods that we employ on secular systems, we are going to talk ourselves into a corner where we will do damage to our personal faith, not to the Church.

I definitely agree with this, and thank-you for reminding me. I need to be reminded, sometimes.

The Scripture says very concisely what you’re pointing out. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3). We must treat the Church, our Mother, and Jesus’ voice speaking through her, our Father, as children should treat their parents, with deference, with loving obedience and faith. If we do not become like children toward our Parents, we will, through our own choice, abandon their house forever.

Obedience to the bishops and the Church, and faith in Jesus and His Body, have never been optional.

This is why my difference from the Magesterium over religious freedom has never been an issue I can let go until we are united. I’ve been continually discerning it ever since I converted and have never settled for the belief that the Magesterium changed its teaching on this point and is now teaching error about people having a supposed right to religious freedom. I haven’t been able to “settle” for this because division and intellectual uncertainty that remains for me between my Papa and myself on the matter. I cannot be happy with division. This is something that is very different between myself and a very knowledgeable Catholic I met who shared my lack of belief in religious freedom. He was settled in his view, sure in his disagreement with the Magesterium, and comfortable with that difference. I cannot be comfortable with any division from my Papa, but must always seek unity, and when my difference is with our Magesterium rather than with Protestants, I must seek unity submissively. It is impossible for me to do anything else.

I’m trying to fully unite with our Church, and I’m not going to stop trying.

Historically, it looks to me very much as though the Magesterium did change her teaching on religious freedom at times. In the first millennium, there seems to have been a general belief in religious freedom in the Church, but in the second millennium, the reverse seems to have been true. So the fact that the Magesterium has now gone back to the first millennium view has left me with the impression that it can and has changed its views on this before, which leaves the decision about what I will believe more with me, for lack of an authoritative and binding belief. There are authoritative commands, such as that religious freedom must be supported and enshrined in Constitutions, and Catholics cannot try to suppress it through laws. These commands must be obeyed. But are there authoritative and binding beliefs about religious freedom too? If religious freedom is an infallible teaching, then yes, there certainly is! I want to know that.

Knowing that the Church has given an infallible teaching on this would wipe out all difficulties for me instantly. And this issue is an important one to me! That’s why I’m really trying to hunt down the sources for this one and make sure that religious freedom has indeed been infallibly taught.

I hope you can still help me with this and have some patience with me, in my intellectual difficulties. I will think about what you said about giving presumption to the Church. I will do that as best I can.

I also want intellectual answers, if I can get them . I very much appreciate all your willingness to help.

When the Franciscan moral theologian of your community returns from vacation, would you be willing to ask him for me how exactly we know that religious freedom is an infallible moral teaching, just to add his mind to ours? I’m guessing he’d have some pretty thorough information on the issue, or could get it, seeing as this is an aspect of moral theology.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have some questions for you about the quote you made from New Advent.

The section you brought up is describing the conditions of an ex-cathedra decree. The conditions you listed come directly after the following statement, “infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:”

So as I read the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, all the conditions you just listed are the conditions under which a teaching is ex-cathedra, and infallible. Are you saying that the Pope’s moral teachings are all ex-cathedra? Because if so, then these conditions would all apply to them, as they are the conditions “required for ex cathedra teaching [as] mentioned in the Vatican decree.”

If you are saying all Papal moral teachings are ex-cathedra, I have a couple questions about the conditions for infallibility too, in relation to religious freedom.

One of the conditions is:

“Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.”

Could you tell me where in the Decree on Religious Freedom, or subsequent statements, it’s been made clear that the Pope has made a final statement on religious freedom with the fullness and finality of his apostolic authority? It is clear from the Pope’s statement about contraception and the ordination of women that these were made with the fullness and finality of the Pope’s Apostolic Authority, but I haven’t seen religious freedom treated in a clearly “absolutely final and irrevocable way,” personally, and I would be very glad to see where you think (or the Church teaches) this happened.

Another condition is that this teaching must be binding on all Catholics, “to demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck.” I didn’t see anything so insistent in the Decree on Religious Freedom. Could you clarify this for me?

I’m very eager to become sure of the degree of authority this teaching is taught with.