What are the popes' powers in canon law?

[fakename]

Some Questions:

(1) the pope can infallibly determine natural law? But is this really a power of the popes’ since after all, any layman can infallibly determine the natural law (the natural law is found by reason, laymen have reason, so they possess the sufficient condition for getting at an infallible understanding of the natural law {we know the understanding is infallible because understanding gathers truth and truth is unchanging and eternally valid}).

(2) The pope can disregard all evidence about a certain thing before taking action. But doesn’t this allow the pope to morally act immorally,that is, with foolhardiness ?

 

[DavidFilmer]

(1) the pope can infallibly determine natural law?

No. The Pope’s teaching authority is limited to matters of faith and morals. And infallibility is also a negative protection - it prevents the Pope from teaching error. It does not mean that a Pope will teach what needs to be taught, when it needs to be taught.

(2) The pope can disregard all evidence about a certain thing before taking action. But doesn’t this allow the pope to morally act immorally,that is, with foolhardiness ?

In theory, yes. If a Pope wanted to fornicate but not deal with the moral repercussions, he could simply (in theory) declare that fornication is morally OK. This is where the “bad Popes” actually are useful in apologetics - there have been fornicators and scoundrels on the Chair of Peter, but NONE of them have ever tried to justify his actions in such a manner.

 

[fakename]

No. The Pope’s teaching authority is limited to matters of faith and morals. And infallibility is also a negative protection - it prevents the Pope from teaching error. It does not mean that a Pope will teach what needs to be taught, when it needs to be taught.

In theory, yes. If a Pope wanted to fornicate but not deal with the moral repercussions, he could simply (in theory) declare that fornication is morally OK. This is where the “bad Popes” actually are useful in apologetics - there have been fornicators and scoundrels on the Chair of Peter, but NONE of them have ever tried to justify his actions in such a manner.

(1) I didn’t mean that pope was always going to teach in the appropriate context, just that whatever he does teach will be perfect. I suppose laymen can’t do the same, when one puts the answer as I have now put it, but I guess nonetheless a layman could come up with an infallible truth. Or am I wrong about that?

(2) If a pope does have the ability to interpret natural law in a way that is arbitrary (that is, according to his caprices) then there would be no natural law would there, since there would be no standard and all laws are standards. However, perhaps you mean that since a pope is infallible, he could not interpret the natural law in such a way that he would be wrong?

But also, perhaps you are saying that a pope can disregard the evidence that he is being a fornicator? Again, does he not do this due to infallibility (I doubt you mean this) or again, how does he avoid the immorality of rash or imprudent judgment?

 

[motoeric]

(1) I didn’t mean that pope was always going to teach in the appropriate context, just that whatever he does teach will be perfect. I suppose laymen can’t do the same, when one puts the answer as I have now put it, but I guess nonetheless a layman could come up with an infallible truth. Or am I wrong about that?

(2) If a pope does have the ability to interpret natural law in a way that is arbitrary (that is, according to his caprices) then there would be no natural law would there, since there would be no standard and all laws are standards. However, perhaps you mean that since a pope is infallible, he could not interpret the natural law in such a way that he would be wrong?

But also, perhaps you are saying that a pope can disregard the evidence that he is being a fornicator? Again, does he not do this due to infallibility (I doubt you mean this) or again, how does he avoid the immorality of rash or imprudent judgment?

1. I’m not sure if I’m following you correctly, but the Pope is only protected from error when teaching about faith and morals and (if I’m remembering accurately) proclaims that he is doing so.

He could teach a class on how to make great smoked ribs, suggest that they be parboiled and be absolutely wrong.

1. No, as the Pope is fallible like any other human being.

Eric

 

[DavidFilmer]

(1) I didn’t mean that pope was always going to teach in the appropriate context, just that whatever he does teach will be perfect. I suppose laymen can’t do the same, when one puts the answer as I have now put it, but I guess nonetheless a layman could come up with an infallible truth. Or am I wrong about that?

I guess I am still not clear on what you are asking.

If you describe “natural law” as the laws of nature (ie, science) then the Pope has no authority whatsoever in this regard. The Pope cannot speak (or authoritatively formulate) with regard to the Laws of Thermodynamics, or the Gas Law, or Einstein’s equivalence principle (or quantum gravity or the Grand Unification Theory).

There is another “natural law” which is in regard to HUMAN nature (our “natural” (as a species) understanding of love, morality, justice, etc) - things that science cannot quantify or measure. We share this HUMAN nature with Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the Pope DOES have authority in defining our roles and obligations in this regard.

When you speak of “natural law,” do you refer to the laws of nature (as can be quantified by science) or our “human nature” (whose properties cannot be quantified by any scientific equation or apparatus)?

Please clarify your term.

 

[fakename]

1. I’m not sure if I’m following you correctly, but the Pope is only protected from error when teaching about faith and morals and (if I’m remembering accurately) proclaims that he is doing so.

He could teach a class on how to make great smoked ribs, suggest that they be parboiled and be absolutely wrong.

1. No, as the Pope is fallible like any other human being.

Eric

(1) I’m not sure if I’m “getting” what you’re saying either. I’m just saying that all truth is universal and unchangeable, and could never be other than it is. But this description is equivalent to infallible and so all truth is infallible. Now any man can find some truth through reason and so any man can find at least one infallible truth (an axiom or logical theorem for instance). So there are people who are not the pope and yet also are infallible.

(2) But then how can it even be possible for the pope to declare that fornication was right or that he does not have enough evidence to prove that he was fornicating. In case one, wouldn’t he have a power that even God does not have (to change the essence of the laws of nature)? And in case two, wouldn’t this mean that the pope has a “hall pass” if you will to act imprudently?

 

[MPat]

(1) I’m not sure if I’m “getting” what you’re saying either. I’m just saying that all truth is universal and unchangeable, and could never be other than it is. But this description is equivalent to infallible and so all truth is infallible. Now any man can find some truth through reason and so any man can find at least one infallible truth (an axiom or logical theorem for instance). So there are people who are not the pope and yet also are infallible.

No, “infallible” and “true” are not synonymous. “Catholic encyclopedia” (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) says infallibility is “*n general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure”.

Let’s put it so: a statement can be true or false, but by itself it cannot be “infallible” or “non-infallible”. It can be “taught infallibly”, but not every true statement is. Let’s say, I here declare that “Two and two is four.”. That is a true statement, but infallibility wasn’t used, because, if I wanted, I could have said something false instead. Now Papal infallibility means that, under some conditions, the Pope is not able to proclaim anything that is false. That is, he couldn’t even if he tried.

We don’t really know how exactly infallibility is “implemented”, but, for all we know, it might be that the Pope would die if he tried to teach some falsehood ex cathedra. Or maybe he would be distracted by something, lose his pen, or something…*

 

[fakename]

No, “infallible” and “true” are not synonymous. “Catholic encyclopedia” (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) says infallibility is “*n general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure”.

Let’s put it so: a statement can be true or false, but by itself it cannot be “infallible” or “non-infallible”. It can be “taught infallibly”, but not every true statement is. Let’s say, I here declare that “Two and two is four.”. That is a true statement, but infallibility wasn’t used, because, if I wanted, I could have said something false instead. Now Papal infallibility means that, under some conditions, the Pope is not able* to proclaim anything that is false. That is, he couldn’t even if he tried.

We don’t really know how exactly infallibility is “implemented”, but, for all we know, it might be that the Pope would die if he tried to teach some falsehood ex cathedra. Or maybe he would be distracted by something, lose his pen, or something…

If infallibility means exemption from error, then every true thing is infallible. I do and did agree that a layman does not have the infallibility ability to teach or to reach the truth but I suppose that if a layman produced a valid argument of true premises then clearly he must have produced an infallible argument and thereby he must’ve been infallible. And again, axioms can be discovered by man and yet axioms can never be false. So as far as a man knows these axioms, he can never be wrong and to never be wrong is to be infallible.

That is,exactly to the extent a person reaches any truth whatsoever that person can be said to have some infallibility. It’s just that the pope clearly has more in more ways.