Below are excerpts from Mark Lowery, Ph.D.'s Infallibility in the Context of Three Contemporary Developments .


1) The ordinary papal Magisterium consists in Popes teaching "authentically," usually in documents such as encyclicals or apostolic exhortations. These documents may contain truths that are taught infallibly, but the documents as a whole are not infallible. [snip] Hence, the evil of contraception can be said to be taught infallibly . In sum, non-infallible documents can contain items that are infallibly taught or defined.

2) The Catechism of the Catholic Church. paragraph 2035 notes that the charism of infallibility (no further distinctions) extends to the realm of morals (and in 2036 to the realm of the natural law). One may conclude that since moral matters are not taught infallibly by the extraordinary episcopal or papal magisteria, they must be taught infallibly by the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium .

3) Matters that are defined infallibly usually were taught infallibly prior to the extraordinary definition. Often what causes a matter to be raised to the level of an infallible definition is some type of crisis requiring a more official definition. It is always a question of prudence as to whether or not to define a matter that is already infallibly taught by the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium.

4) Hence, we find a clear statement (a reminder) that these moral matters are taught (not defined) infallibly. Any other moral matters that have infallible status are taught, not defined, infallibly by the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium. Other examples [in addition to the sanctity of human life] are those issues rooted in the Church's teaching on the nature of the conjugal act as unitive and procreative, such as homosexual acts, adultery and fornication, contraception and sterilization, autoeroticism, and certain new birth technologies.

5) Following the promulgation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, there was an official request for clarification and a response (Responsum ad Dubium) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). [snip by jb] It made clear that the teaching [re: women's ordination] belonged to the deposit of faith and must be assented to de fide. It said that that teaching has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.


6) Another question on those matters that do belong to the infallible deposit of faith is, "why doesn't the pope just clearly define teachings on the male priesthood, on abortion, on contraception and the like infallibly?" In other words, why is there any need for the somewhat hazy category of the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium?

If the extraordinary Magisterium were to define several matters of morality, it would give the impression that the other matters of morality left undefined were not taught as decisively. For instance, if the pope had defined the truths on abortion and euthanasia in Evangelium Vitae, he could very well have given the impression that the truths about contraception and homosexuality, not to mention a variety of other matters, were taught less decisively . In a word, it seems prudent to reserve matters of morality to the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Counterpoints?

pax,
jb

This presents some problems for those trying to draw distinctions re: the level of authority and the degree of obedience due the teaching on abortion vs other moral issues?

Personally, I indeed think that most, if not all, moral issues are taught with the same level of authority, including abortion, requiring the same degree of obsequium religiosum. Ergo, where I disagree with most traditionalists is not that the same level of authority is used or invoked by the Magisterium but rather WHICH level is actually being used and HOW much obsequium is due. IOW, in my view, morals are not taught dogmatically or definitively but rather authoritatively.

I also adamantly disagree regarding the teaching authority's lack of acknowledgement of a parvity of matter, de facto placing garment of life issues on the same footing as sexual sins, and, for that matter, placing all sexual sins on the same footing. Abortion gains its distinction by virtue of the gravity of the intrinsic evil involved and our response to the teaching, for me, gets differentiated, not by the respective level of authority, which I give all due deference anyway, but, moreso, by the moral principle of avoiding not only the actual evil but even the danger of the evil, and most significantly, in this case, a grave and serious evil.

I think there is some truth that the Church could actually trivialize the natural law and diminish its view that it is accessible to all people by making infallible pronouncements about this evil and not about that evil or by equivocating regarding the relative seriousness of different evils. In fact, it has already diminished its authority on abortion by not invoking parvity of matter vs sexual sins, as I discussed already.

pax,
jb

I'll slow down. Don't want to get overbearing

pax,
johnboy
Herman's Hermit

My spiritual director follows this all quite strictly. I find that helpful because I still struggle to reach my moral ideal.

The Kohlberg scale of moral development was helpful to me in seeing that I have progressed in my life through the first four stages and my spirit is reaching for the higher two of the six stages.

Jesus taught one law- the law of love. The Spirit is flexible and skillful enough to reach us at whatever stage we are at

I've spent far too much time beating myself up for trying to measure up and falling short.

I'm greatful that some authority, fallible or infallible is seeking to provide moral guidance and an absolute standard, although I do not envy their task, I support what they are striving for...

caritas,

michael

<*))))><

Ugh . . . big, big topic . . . very difficult to treat.

I think the Vatican II documents did a good job of spelling out the criteria for infallibility. My understanding is that any such teaching must:
a. be affirmed by the ordinary magisterium (the bishops)
b. accepted by the faithful (sensus fidelium)

Re-stating some of what JB has already posted: what's implied by the Doctrine of Infallibility is that no teaching can be affirmed to be infallible if the Church does not already actually believe it. IOW, the Pope does not generate infallible teachings through his unique office, but calls attention to certain teachings at times that have attained such status. When and why a Pope would choose to do this is another matter; it has happened only twice in the history of the Church.

Nevertheless, as JB noted, there are many teachings that probably ought to be considered infallible because they have been affirmed consistently through the centuries and seemingly enjoy a large consensus of consent from the faithful.

From my reading on this topic, I see difficulties applying the doctrine of infallibility to specific behaviors and to teachings rooted in natural law morality. E.g., the principles by means of which the Church condemns slavery haven't changed, but there was indeed a time when the Church didn't condemn certain forms of slavery (now any form is condemned). Same goes for usury -- the principles used to condemn the practice haven't changed, but there came a time when it was recognized that the practice might well be motivated by other principles that benefit the poor as much as the lender. It doesn't take too much imagination to posit a time when the same will be done for birth control -- the unitive and procreative dimensions of human sexuality could be affirmed (in a marriage between man and woman), but requiring every sexual act to embody both would no longer be required (as not even NFP satisfies such and it is allowed). Perhaps even a change in the abortion teaching could happen if our understanding of the beginnings of human life would change.

I can see times when the Pope's exercise of this charism could very well be in the service of Church unity -- as when the Church was becoming seriously divided over an issue. A trust in the Spirit's work through this special charism given the Pope could help the Church to re-focus its energies and heal. Perhaps that's was was being done in Responsum ad dubium, which closed the discussion on women and orders (at least for now). I don't know, but I'm willing to trust in the Spirit's guidance through this charism.

Obviously, in an age of political correctness and ethical pluralism, the docrine of infallibility isn't very popular in some circles.

JB wrote: Personally, I indeed think that most, if not all, moral issues are taught with the same level of authority, including abortion, requiring the same degree of obsequium religiosum. Ergo, where I disagree with most traditionalists is not that the same level of authority is used or invoked by the Magisterium but rather WHICH level is actually being used and HOW much obsequium is due. IOW, in my view, morals are not taught dogmatically or definitively but rather authoritatively.

Excellent point.

See this article and this one. The latter makes it clear that the encyclicals on birth control, for example, ought to be considered authoritative, but requiring a different kind of consent than infallible teachings. Good distinctions, and from a very conservative web site!

Thank you Phil,

I am greatful that you care to take the time to
share about this. I can find scriptural support for most of what you have posted.
The Body of Christ does possess and have access to the Mind of it's High Priest. You could say that it's one of the Christian Mysteries.
Basil Pennington, one of the founders of the Centering Prayer movement, is something of an expert on Cannon Law.
There is a great deal of Scripture about those who despise authority and create division and false teachings. I choose to trust the wise elders and when in doubt, to take it on faith

thanks again.

michael

<*))))><

I agree, Michael. Without a few beliefs that transcend my own desires in importance, I'm convinced my life would have imploded into an ongoing drama of egocentricity. The gift of a teaching authority is that it helps one come to clarity concerning where to hang one's head . . . and heart.

---------

I'd like to address briefly the idea of "creeping infallibility" raised with regard to certain teachings. This can mean either:
a. A teaching once regarded as authoritative has been reaffirmed so frequently and consistently by the popes and bishops that it is seeming to approach level #3 described on this page.
or
b. A teaching once regarded as authoritative is proclaimed ex cathedra by a pope.

As example b is a rarity, let's look at example a, especially with regard to topics like the teaching on birth control and the ordination of women. What's happened during the past 26 years (that's how long JP II has been Pope) is that he has appointed many, many bishops around the world, replacing a considerable number who had attended Vatican Council II. It's been reported in many places that one of the considerations for choosing a new bishop is his stand on birth control, priestly celibacy, and the ordination of women. So what we've had is a proliferation of bishops who show strong agreement with Pope John Paul II's beliefs and priorities concerning these topics, thus strengthening the reality of bishops around the world proposing teachings on these topics that agree with the Pope.

The problem, here, is that if one re-winds the clock to the late 1960s, when the teaching on birth control was published, it's doubtful that there was anything close to a strong consensus of bishops in agreement with the teaching. The Birth Control Commission, comprised mostly of bishops, cardinals, and conservative theologians, had already voted overwhelmingly to allow for a change in the teaching. Entire conferences of bishops around the world met after the issuing of the teaching on birth control and issued documents nuancing the teaching to emphasize the importance of conscience formation and the rights of Catholics to follow their conscience in this matter. Some conferences of bishops actually seemed to come close to dissenting from the teaching! To make matters worse, an overwhelming number of married Catholics disagreed with the teaching and, to this day, dissent from it at the levels of both belief and practice. In short, it would have been difficult to say that the teaching on birth control had been accepted by the Church.

Something similar was beginning to happen in the late 70's with regard to the possibility of ordaining women. Numerous Protestant traditions had opened the issue for discussion and some had even gone ahead and begun to allow women to enter seminary training. The Vatican commissioned a study to see what Scripture might have to say on this topic, and the scholars' report indicated that Scripture could not be used to either endorse or condemn the practice. Theologians began to openly explore possibilities for ordaining women; conferences were meeting to rally support for this development. Granted, there were many in the pews who opposed all this for various reasons, not to mention traditionalist theologians who were arguing strongly against women and orders from the standpoint of Tradition. As though anticipating a situation similar to birth control/late 60's-early 70's, Pope John Paul II threw icey cold water on the trend before it could pick up much steam. Using the authority of his office and coming as close as possible to formulating a teaching without calling it ex-cathedra, he stated that not only was it not possible for the Church to ordain women, but that all discussion of the matter should be closed.

So here's where creeping infallibility comes in. It's true that, at this time in history, a strong majority of bishops are in agreement with the Pope concerning the teachings on birth control and the ordination of women, but what does that mean--especially when most clergy and laity are in disagreement with the magisterium on these issues? Well, the most tempting response is that this is a political phenomenon--that the bishops agree with the Pope on these matters, and they wouldn't be bishops if this were not the case. We have, then, a situation, now, where a strong consensus of bishops in union with the Pope can hold out certain teachings as having obtained infallible status, even though an overwhelming majority of the faithful are in disagreement on these matters. That the faithful are made to feel that they are somehow naughty or in serious sin for their views and practices further complicates the situation! Perhaps creeping infallibility is just as naughty? (Did I really say that? JB made me do it! )

Phil, that was well said and instructive. Below is a contribution I made to another forum that addresses the issue from another angle.

It is called Prophetic Shock Associations and is very much about creepy infallibility .


Almost everyone is familiar with these two maxims: "For the triumph
of evil, nothing is needed but the inactivity of the good." by John
Ruskin, and "When evil men combine, the good must associate, else
they will perish singly ignoble victims in an ignominious struggle."
by Edmund Burke.

Few people likely stop to make the distinction between which of our
personal and societal ills come from our finitude and which from our
sinfulness? Nevertheless, we can be assured that we will similarly
perish as ignoble victims in ignominious struggles if good people
don't actively associate to help transcend our finitude in the same
way that we strive to triumph over evil. Such active associations
just might correspond to what Jacques Maritain called "prophetic
shock minorities" and, although Maritain was discussing democratic
societies, in general, some have mused about the roles such groups
might play in the Church, in particular.

A prophet courageously critiques the way things are such that
religion does not get diluted by any accommodations to any
contemporary culture or ethos. One peril a prophet might face is the
temptation to fight a culture or ethos on its own terms thereby,
ironically and sadly, diluting the prophetic voice with a subtle but
insidious accommodation of its own.

How can such an accommodation and dilution be avoided?

For guidance, we can turn to another maxim, that of St.
Augustine, "In necessariis unitas, in dubiiis libertas, in omnibus
caritas," which gets variously interpreted as "In necessary things,
unity; in doubtful things, freedom; in all things, charity." or
as "In essentials, unity; in accidentals, diversity; in all things,
charity."

St. Augustine's maxim offers us wisdom to know when to accommodate
or when to confront, when to resort to prophecy or when to engage in
dialogue. It even gives us guidelines for when the moral law must be
codified as civil law. Prophecy and confrontation are needed to
ensure that necessary and essential and core religious doctrine and
general, formal moral realities are preserved over against the
zeitgeist. Accommodation and dialogue are necessary as we probe and
clarify the doubtful and accidental and peripheral aspects of faith
and specific, complex moral realities that arise in a given era's
intellectual, moral, and cultural climate.

Toward the end of preserving the vibrancy of our Church's prophetic
voice in the current day and age, there may be no more critical a
role for a "prophetic shock association" than to confront those who
would, however inadvertently, dilute the essential Gospel message
that we are to herald. Howso dilute the Gosepl? By their conflation
of the necessary with the doubtful, the essential with the
accidental, the core with the peripheral faith realities, by their
fusing of the general and formal with the specific and complex moral
realities.

Such conflations and fusions can occur either by a clouding of the
levels of teaching authority, or by a blurring of the degrees of
obedience due the various levels of authority, ranging from
deference to assent. Such conflations and fusions, clouding and
blurring, can precisely become a de facto caving in to the
temptation to fight the prevailing zeitgeist on its own terms, which
is, nowadays, naked power. There is perhaps no more pressing a need
in our post-postmodern milieu than to save the faithful from such a
scandal as could ensue from an unnecessary and unfortunate erosion
of the reliability, credibility and authoritativeness of the Church
as Gospel Herald. Such an erosion could occur should Church
positions on doubtful and peripheral realities get overturned,
especially in those matters of either faith or morals that
manifestly lack a sensus fidelium but which have been
mischaracterized by some as closed to dialogue.

As we consider this dynamic in others, at the same time, any
prophetic shock association must mindfully resist the same
temptation, must purposefully eschew playing the same silly yet
treacherous game of power politics. Thankfully, St. Augustine's
maxim covers this angle, too, exhorting us to charity in all things.

God Bless the PSAs,
johnboy sylvest

The following explicit statement was implicitly included by the manner my argument was constructed: Such an erosion could occur should Church positions on essential and core realities (realities that exist in a hierarchy of truth) get diluted, especially in those matters of either faith or morals that manifestly possess a sensus fidelium but which have been mischaracterized by some as open to dialogue.

IOW, conflation and fusion, clouding and blurring, is a two way street traveled by those who'd make accidentals essential as well as those who'd make essentials accidental.

How might one travel the streets of dialogue, sucessfully navigating the shoals, on one side, of any insidious indifferentism, facile syncretism, false irenicism, on the other side, of any creeping infallibilism or ecclesiocentric exclusivism? One might find this Tao by steering the Middle Path (an asceticism not a religion) with the Buddha, which is to say by using a Christocentric model that is both intrinsically theocentric and pneumatocentric in what is one trinitarian economy of salvation and thus, we end, as we live, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I think that I have properly gathered that some who are passionately
committed to dialogue have said that, if we begin from a strictly
theocentric perspective, let's say to dialogue with the Wise Wo/Men
of the East, using only a normative Christology or even a bracketed
Christocentrism, we will all, neverthess, inevitably find ourselves
on bended knee in front of a manger in a stable in Bethlehem. Or, if
we begin from a strictly pneumatocentric perspective, let's say to
dialogue with the philosophers of the West, again using only a
normative Christology or even a bracketed Christocentrism, we will
all, nevertheless, inevitably find ourselves with knees bent, heads
bowed and tongues proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, our earthly
wisdom confounded by the heavenly wisdom in the folly of the Cross.
Or, maybe a Christocentric inclusivism should never yield to a
theocentric pluralism, even as nuanced above? At any rate, this can
all leave me scratching my head as to who, in the final analysis,
really has the highest Christology?

It seems to me that liberal Protestantism has come up with some
remarkably low Christologies. Contrastingly, the closer one looks at
the body of work of Jacques Dupuis, SJ, the more firmly convinced
one might become that, contrary to any superficial reading, his
Christology might be remarkably high.

In Christ,
johnboy

This was somewhat of a follow to the prophetic shock thread,
specifically re: traveling the streets of dialogue.


pax,
jb

If there is a force or personality of Evil opposed and insanely jealous of God's creation, it would concentrate the attack on sexual and family well being and anyone who would encourage same.

All the sex surveys I have seen, personal experience and happy situations I have witnessed confirm that religious conservatives (of any kind) are the happiest and healthiest in this regard.

While we can expect some more liberals rising in the hierarchy of the church in the generation to come, it will be more than offset by
growing representation from south of the equator, where Conservative Catholicism is the norm.

One of my favorite "infallible" statements:

"Jesus is more than a wise man like Socrates, a prophet like Muhammed or enlightened like the Buddha. He is the One True Mediator between God and man. -- John Paul II

caritas,

michael,

<*)))><

Michael, I agree that your quote by JPII indicates a distinction between Christianity and other world religions. Your points on human sexuality and the family are also well-taken.

JB, I'm hearing you decrying the flattening of distinctions between different levels of teaching as you emphasize the importance of ongoing dialogue within the Church and with those from other religions. In a way, infalliblistic teachings are helpful unto the latter, as they make it clear where the Church really stands on certain issues. Are you trying to say, however, that infallible teaching negates dialogue? Not sure I'm following.

------

Continuing the reflection on creeping infallibility, I'd like to point briefly to a contrary phenomenon, which I shall call creeping secularism in the body of the faithful. What, specifically, I'm referring to is the manner in which increasing percentages of Catholics hold beliefs on important issues of faith and morals that seem more influenced by the secular culture than by proper reflection on Scripture and Tradition. I don't think, for example, that declining opposition to legal abortion among Catholics has much to do with people intelligently disagreeing with Church teaching as it does with our growing accommodation to the reality of abortion. Surveys have also shown that shockingly high percentages of Catholics don't really believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and my guess is that a high percentage would also think that Arianism is a better way to understand the uniqueness of Christ (we still haven't shaken that one off). Just as JPII's designation of like-minded bishops leads to an unfair measure of the mind of the Magisterium, so, too, this creeping secularism gives no indication of the sense of the faithful.

I think this creeping infallibility in the teaching office and the creeping secularism among the laity presents a forumla for contention and divisiveness in the Church. Traditionalists tend to react to creeping secularism and take refuge in the secure certainties of the magisterium; liberal Catholics enamored, in part, with secularism's ethics of political correctness, react strongly to almost any authoritative teaching, complaining that these are rigid and heavy-handed. Both sides have a point, of course. Meanwhile, the middle-ground shrinketh.

re: Are you trying to say, however, that infallible teaching negates dialogue?

I think authentic dialogue requires one to be upfront about one's true position, which in our own hierarchy of truths places the Creed WAY up there. The doctrine of infallibility serves that end well. Even in matters of infallibly declared dogmas, I'd recognize a hierarchy of truths that would place, for instance, the Marian dogmas in a second tier.

Re: creeping infallibilism and secularism, you make some excellent points. It is a two-way street, to be sure, that gets traveled in the dilution of teachings re: faith and morals. The Catholic Church holds both human reason and church authority in very high esteem without clear guidelines for how to mediate between the two. The tendency is to resolve this tension in favor of authority, paying more credence to the Spirit at work in the ordinary magisterium and less to the Spirit at work in all people of goodwill, who are able to access the natural law, no less guided by the same Holy Spirit. It can look like a raw power play to arrogate the Spirit to the hierarchy versus the anawim.

quote:

I don't think, for example, that declining opposition to legal abortion among Catholics has much to do with people intelligently disagreeing with Church teaching as it does with our growing accommodation to the reality of abortion.

From the Ecumenism site: While some may interpret the change as positive growth in faithful moral understanding, others may judge it as easy compromise or rank failure.

I suppose that's one for the sociologists to sort out.

Andy Greeley claims that a Catholic anti-abortion vote and an ongoing Catholic political realignment are both myths that have gotten resurrected for every election for at least the last seven presidential election cycles he's been surveying.

Look at the converse side of this picture though. There are quite a few buzzwords like secularism, hypermodernism, relativism and individualism that are used by evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics, alike, finding some of their only common ground in moral absolutism and moral statism. Does this necessarily reflect people intelligently agreeing with Church teaching? Isn't there the slightest possibility that it is precisely an increase in critical thinking and not rather a decrease or caving in to the zeitgeist that produces more nuanced positions? Not that Janet Smith hasn't well documented how Paul VI's prophecies in Humanae Vitae have played out! [which is BALONEY] Could it be, rather, that it is precisely because of the heavy-handedness of Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor coupled with the ineptitude of the clerical abuse crisis that there is an overall erosion of authority accompanied in no small measure by more people thinking for themselves and claiming ownership of their conscience formation as well as a primacy of conscience? I think this is a way overdetermined situation and difficult to sort through but I suppose I'd be willing to concede, however cynical it may sound, that there is a general dearth of intelligent, depthful moralizing all the way around (not speaking of the Magisterium and theologians, just the hoi polloi). And, if that is the case, I'd recommend that people had better start engaging the Magisterium even more (including those who simply assent), failing to do so placing their conscience formation in grave peril.

As for the fidelium in sensus fidelium, I conceive of same as the entire People of God, ALL practicing Christians. While the creeping secularism might indeed create certain problems in discerning the sense of the faithful, at the same time, a more ecumenical outlook when it comes to doing moral theology might help us draw clearer distinctions between those teachings that have been received or not and why, based on authentic spiritual intuitions. And even such an ecumenism requires nuancing for one would want to probe the spiritual intuitions of those other Christian faiths whose theological reflections most harmonize with our own catholicity, which is to suggest that I would exclude fundamentalistic groups.

Speaking of the the Arian crisis, it was precisely the sensus fidelium that prevailed over the hierarchy (the majority of the Bishops in the East withdrew from the "one in being" formulation of the Council of Nicaea).

pax,
jb

Why there is no sensus fidelium between evangelicals and conservative Catholics, even if there are some shared moral positions: COMPARING THE BELIEFS OF ROMAN CATHOLICS & CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS.

In surfing around looking for the most promising ecumenical undertakings, such as between the Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans, for instance, I came across these Ecumenical documents and this one, in particular: The Ecumenical Dialogue on Moral Issues.

The project I'd propose is to define a sensus fidelium, at least among those Christian denominations that are closest doctrinally on matters of faith, then to probe them for a sensus re: major moral issues, this toward the end of discerning how much of any pluralism is merely a creeping secularism as opposed to a more genuine lack of constancy or lack of a general, formal recognition of moral realities where more specific, complex realities are accepted as being in play.
The following excerpt speaks well to the complexity of the issue:

quote:

We cannot deny three facts:

First, Christians do share a long history of extensive unity in moral teaching and practice, flowing in part from a shared reflection on common sources, such as the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes.

Second, divided Christian communities eventually did acquire some differences in ways of determining moral principles and acting upon them.

Third, these differences have led today to such a pluralism of moral frameworks and positions within and between the ecclesial traditions that some positions appear to be in sharp tension, even in contradiction. The same constellation of basic moral principles may admit of a diversity of rules which intend to express a faithful response to biblical vision and to these principles. Even the explicit divine commandment "Thou shalt not kill" receives conflicting applications; for example, yes or no to the death penalty as such or for certain crimes.

quote:

Within the history of the Church, Christians have developed ways of reflecting systematically on the moral life by the ordering of biblical concepts and images and by rational argument. Such methods intend to introduce clarity and consistency where divergences of discernment threaten to foster confusion and chaos.

For example, one tradition suggests different levels of moral insight and distinguishes between first-order (and unchanging) principles and second-order (and possibly changing) rules. Or more recently, the language of "hierarchy of values" distinguishes between those core values at the heart of Christian discipleship and those other values which are less central yet integral to Christian morality. By emphasizing the "first-order principles" or the "core values", Christians can discover how much they already share, without reducing moral truth or searching for a least common denominator.

quote:

Christians in dialogue should not ignore or hide evidence of change in moral teaching or practice. Churches do not always welcome such openness, despite their emphasis on human finitude and sin in the historical development of teachings and practices. Moreover, the interpretation of change in moral teaching is itself a source of disagreement and tension. While some may interpret the change as positive growth in faithful moral understanding, others may judge it as easy compromise or rank failure.

I suppose we could say, IT DEPENDS ...

pax,
jb

So, in defense of secularization ...

Here is a link to a timely website: Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society

quote:

First, how did secularization come about in the West? What is it that distinguishes Western civilization from all the other great civilizations that, in fact, have contributed to the making of the West? I think there are four or five principles or traits some of which have perhaps always been present in Western civilization at least ever since the Greeks which eventually led not only to secularization but to the development of those values and principles that we call Western.

quote:

Sir Ernst Gombrich asks why the West, after the end of the Middle Ages, so rapidly overtook the great civilizations of the East, and then answers ... Hmmmmmmmm

quote:

Unbelief is not by any means the only cause of secularization. Thus, attempts by orthodox apologists to establish religion on a secure, rational basis often had an unintended secularizing effect .......

quote:

A free market in some opinions became a free market in all opinions... Christian conscience was the force which began to make Europe 'secular;'

quote:

West has this uncanny ability for self-reflection, self-criticism, an inward gaze that enables it to reflect on its mistakes, its goals, and weaknesses, and to try to remedy them.

Now, speaking of Islam:

quote:

Any religion that requires total obedience is not likely to produce people capable of CRITICAL THOUGHT; people capable of independent thinking. Such a situation again is favourable to the development of a powerful "clergy" and is clearly responsible for the intellectual, cultural and economic stagnation of several centuries..

That's Islam we were speaking of ....

pax,
jb

quote:

One must have some theory as to why this [secularization] happens. I say that the dogmatic, magisterial structure of Catholicism prevents it, while the individualism and private judgment of Protestantism not only doesn't prevent it, but encourages it by an interior logic.

The individualism in turn evolves into subjectivism and privatization, and there we are: back to some of the important contributing factors of secularization. So the second two revivalistic traditions contained the seeds of later trouble: the holiness movements spawned from Wesleyanism led to some pentecostal groups which were non-trinitarian and other groups which became so isolated, pietistic, and fundamentalist in the anti-intellectual, a-cultural sense, that they ceased to become salt to the society.

But then it can be disputed whether the break-offs were consistent with the original movement (development) or corruptions of it. I tend to think they are corruptions where Wesley is concerned; not so much regarding Finney, from what I hear about his errors.

Edwards and Whitefield seem to have fared better, in historical retrospect, except where the extremes of some aspects of Calvinism with regard to predestination caused a backlash, whereby people overreacted and went to deism, Unitarianism, and transcendentalism in New England (Schaeffer wrote that Harvard was controlled by Unitarians as early as 1802).

There is a "Golden Mean" somewhere in all this confusion. For my money, it exists in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and classical (doctrinally-orthodox as originally determined internally) Reformed, Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican traditions. Of course, as a Catholic and an apologist, I go on to critique all Protestant systems as fundamentally-flawed in principle, but in terms of secularism, the Christian traditions above do best at opposing it, with the Reformed doing the best among Protestant choices, in my opinion.

The above is taken from Thoughts on the Historical Causes of Secularization by Dave Armstrong, who has an opinion on everything and always makes for a good read.

I think that there are some aspects of Catholicism, itself, that contribute to secularization but in a good sort of way --- our esteem for human reason, for the natural law, for natural theology, for securing religion on sound, rational foundations, for primacy of conscience, etc Perhaps this has led, in the wake of Vatican II, to the laicization of much of the clergy but this has been the fertile soil that has grown the clericalization of the laity . Still, we honor the Golden Mean that Armstrong speaks of, something to guard against extremes and backlashes. The Catholic Analogical Imagination, charged through and through with an incarnational perspective, does not allow the rational to crowd out the sacred, does not buy into a compartmentalized spirituality but channels reason, informed by faith, making intelligible the Incomprehensible, seeing all of creation as sacred, enchanted, mysterious and charged through and through with the Glory of the Creator. No, it is not just an affirmation of the rational that leads to a secularization run amok but the rational coupled with a dialectical imagination, leading then to one epistemology for faith (fideism, quietism and pietism) and another for reason (rationalism and encratism), rather than an integral, epistemological holism that is radically catholic, wholly universal.

pax,
jb

JB, that's a lot of good nuancing, and I definitely agree that a superficial assent to magisterial teaching is no greater virtue than affirming a contrary, secular viewpoint for shallow reasons. Also, I should clarify that my post above was not intended to be critical of secularism outside the Church (which I view as necessary, considering the wide variety of religions in the culture), but of Catholics whose dissent from magisterial teaching is more influenced by the values of the secular world than by Scripture and Tradition. I was saying that I don't think it proves anything that, for example, a growing number of Catholics favor legal abortion--a point that some will make as though there is some kind of new wind from the Spirit blowing in the Church on this point. Etc. I'm sure you follow.

Shifting gears just a little . . . I would like to make several additional points about infallibility.

1. As with any spiritual charism, it is primarily oriented toward the life of Christian faith and practice--i.e., its concern is with the Christian community, and only secondarily with the larger culture.

2. As with any spiritual charism, it doesn't really become activated until there is some kind of precipitating event. This would most likely mean a teaching needing special emphasis to help nourish the life of faith and moral development.

3. The formal development of the doctrine in Vatican I by Pius IX need not imply an insecurity on his part concerning his authority, as so many critics have maintained. It could very well have been an anticipation by the Spirit of a time in the decades ahead when the Church would benefit from this charism for various reasons, none the least of which would be what I have called creeping secularism. Calling attention to the charism and the way it functions in the Church would be needed in anticipation of its use.

4. Infallibility existed prior to Vatican I (19th C.). There are scores of doctrines to which anathemas are attached, and these could very well be considered binding, ofen to a very strong degree.

Noting all of the above, it ought to be clear that infallibility is fundamentally oriented, first and foremost, toward the good of the Christian community. Philosophers and theologians have a role to play in mining the riches of revelation and the natural world, but they do not have the responsibility for guiding the Church that popes and bishops have. There are sure to be times when the work of Magisterium and the intellectual community come into apparent conflict, but, if one is truly Catholic, one will give the benefit of the doubt to the Magisterium and respond as the level of teaching in question requires. I don't think this means that theological inquiry ought to be shut down, in such situations, unless specifically indicated by the teaching. Nor does it mean that one cannot question the teachings to better understand them and to form one's conscience in light of them. Dissent is another matter, however, and a complicated one, as there are levels of dissent, the most extreme being defiance, which might sometimes warrant excommunication.

All I can say is thank you and amen That piece is describing very much where I am finding myself currently. I am beginning Fancis Schaeffer's True Spirituality and just finished several of his other books this week.

Before that last week my experience was A.W. Tozer, who is much more mystic-freindly. I am reaching back to my roots and preparing for another push forward. I really do believe I am recieving guidance and strength around here

again, thank you,

michael,

<*))))><

On one hand:

quote:

A gospel that doesn't unsettle,

a Word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin,

a Word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of the
society in which it is being proclaimed,

what Gospel is that?

Archbishop Oscar Romero
+++ +++ +++


OTOH:

quote:

Here the master [Lombard] is wrong; it is better to die excommunicated than to violate the conscience.

Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Fourth Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard.

+++ +++ +++

quote:

My next keynoter is Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ In his Presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America, he said that Vatican II "implicitly taught the legitimacy and even the value of dissent." Dulles conceded "that the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff had fallen into error, and had unjustly harmed the careers of loyal and able theologians." He mentioned John Courtney Murray, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, and Yves Congar. Dulles said that certain teachings of the hierarchy "seem to evade in a calculated way the findings of modern scholarship. They are drawn up without broad consultation with the theological community. Instead, a few carefully selected theologians are asked to defend a pre-established position..." Dulles aligned himself with those theologians who do not limit the term magisterium to the hierarchy. He spoke of "two magisteria-that of the pastors and that of the theologians." These two magisteria are "complementary and mutually corrective." The theological magisterium may and indeed must critique the hierarchical magisterium. Dulles concluded: "we shall insist on the right, where we think it important for the good of the Church, to urge positions at variance with those that are presently official."

Cardinal Dulles was only two thirds right. There is a third magisterium, the sensus fidelium, the experience-rich wisdom of the faithful. Catholic theology at its healthiest said the search for truth rests on a tripod: the hierarchy, the theologians, and the wisdom of the faithful. Again Paul's words: "In each of us the Spirit is manifested in one particular way, for some useful purpose." (I Cor. 12:7) Historically, none of them has turned out to be infallible. At times each has led.

Daniel C. Maguire, Marquette University

Phil wrote: Also, I should clarify that my post above was not intended to be critical of secularism outside the Church (which I view as necessary, considering the wide variety of religions in the culture), but of Catholics whose dissent from magisterial teaching is more influenced by the values of the secular world than by Scripture and Tradition. I was saying that I don't think it proves anything that, for example, a growing number of Catholics favor legal abortion--a point that some will make as though there is some kind of new wind from the Spirit blowing in the Church on this point. Etc. I'm sure you follow.

There are no doubt folks whose dissent is not legitmate, who are responding more to secular values. The growth in the number of faithful who favor legal abortion may be due, in part, to secular accomodations.

Let me characterize my counterpoints, through the whole of this thread, as merely set over-against generalizations. Assigning weight to how much dissent (or assent) is intelligent or unintelligent, legitimate or illegitmate, is driven by the spirit of the zeitgeist or by the Spirit of God, is a very problematical issue, not just because it requires sociological analysis but because it involves a type of judgment of other souls.

Accordingly, I think I have demonstrated how not all pro-choice Catholic politicians are necessarily alike, how one can honestly give obsequium without taking the position that such should require civil sanctioning. Assuredly, one can look at the entire legislative record of a politician and better guage his or her consistency and coherence, or even defiance. Where the abortion issue is concerned, I think it is clear that there is a sensus fidelium among even the Christian and nonChristian traditions about the intrinsic evil of abortion as being a recognized formal, general moral reality. I think it is also clear that, even within Catholicism, much less within the fidelium of the Catholic-Orthodox-Anglican-Lutheran-Methodist cohort, there is no sensus, therein, whereby abortion, as precisely defined by the Catholic magisterium, has been recognized without such qualifications as necessarily arise from specific, complex moral realities. And I don't refer only to double-effect theory in this regard (such as where the health of the mother is more broadly conceived) but also to the ambiguities surrounding ensoulment, conception, implantation, twinning, pre-cerebral embryos, etc

Now, when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt to the magisterium, I think that is critical for conscience formation and a sure signal of one's catholicity, especially if we are talking in terms of magisteria per Danny Maguire. This involves also giving the benefit of the doubt to the People of God who are doing the marrying and raising of children and families, not without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Now, to the extent that that part of the magisteria that is occupied by the hierarchical church, the pastors, in recent church history, has so often set itself up over against the other magisteria, both of the theologians and of the faithful, especially in those matters of interpretation of the natural law where the faithful manifestly exercise the most competence, then how one extends one's benefit of the doubt to the Magisterium requires some nuancing, eh? The hierarchy clearly has an approach that recognizes an apparently seamless garment of sexual-conjugal-life ethic. I can see the reasoning there. These are intricately intertwined issues. However, the hierarchy makes no distinctions between core and peripheral moral realities, which is to say invokes no parvity of matter in this entire range of issues, characterizing all such offenses as grave matter and sanctioning all such offenses with mortal sin, even if excommunication (less of an eternal problem than mortal sin) is reserved only for abortion and the divorced & remarried. This hierarchy, through convoluted jesuitry and sophistry, finds distinctions between NFP and nonabortifacient birth control as moral objects. This hierachy takes no heed of the married vocation as being both unitive and procreative in the relationship taken as a whole but rather legalistically invokes these values for every sexual act, actively interfering in the distribution of condoms by the UN and other entities in the global fight against the spread of AIDS. Clearly, it is not only the spirit of the zeitgeist that fuels dissent against such biologistic-physicalistic natural law interpretations?

There is an overall failure to nuance the moral realities of the sexual-conjugal-life ethic, whether spatio-temporally/physicalistically, whether re: parvity of matter, even as hairs are split to draw distinctions between the moral objects of NFP and ABC.

Is it just barely possible that no too few are legitimately and prophetically calling into question the positions of the teaching authority on abortion as part of a broader calling into question of the magisterium re: natural law interpretations on the sexual-conjugal-life ethic, this as opposed to a simple accomodation to the zeitgeist only re: abortion? Maybe there is a new kind of wind blowing in the Spirit on the entire sexual-conjugal-life ethic, even for some pro-life-hyphenated-pro-choice Catholics calling for better nuancing of the abortion issue, notwithstanding that many others may be caving in to the zeitgeist. Trying to figure out just how many are taking this position versus that, in response to the world, the self, the devil or the Holy Spirit, is an exercise I find to be a little off-putting, though I know we both concede a healthy measure of b.o.d. re: exculpability to both the creeping infallibilists and the creeping secularists. Without digging deeper into the sociological and ecclesial reality, however, invocation of creeping this vs creeping that amounts to no more than a tu quoque fallacy. What is really going on likely includes both an unhealthy secularization but also a rising tide of prophetic protest. I trust the spiritual intuitions of the Catholic laity at large and am quite certain that critical thinking is a rising tide independent of any selfish, reckless dissent. I trust them on unitive sex. I trust them on procreative sex. I trust them on child-rearing and catechesis. I trust them on marriage and divorce. I trust them on just war. I trust them on the death penalty. I trust them on euthanasia. I trust them on abortion. These are my neighbors and fellow parishoners. They're doing a heaven of a good job!

pax,
jb

jb,

Your tripod concept has a certain symmetry which reminds me of the Buddhist taking his refuge in the
Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. One could say in
Jusus, his teaching and the Body of Christ. or the executive, the judicial and the legislative.(The founders of the U.S. got this all from Samuel Rutherford, who of course got it from the bible...

I admire Romero, but most emphatically do not endorse liberation theology. Still, it is unfortunate to see the church in the U.S. selling out to the wealthy and the powerful. Surely orthodoxy and a hundred old testament prophetic passages scream out against corruption and exploitation. The RCC has usually taken up for the poor. They have some allies among Baptists, Methodists and others, but the clergy in the U.S.
seems to lack the testicular force to peach it

As far as human sexuality, new scientific discoveries about how we best function will eventually prove that Christianity was (mostly) right all along.

I do have one question. Was there not a time in church history when the Bishop of Rome was just another bishop, who eventually became a spokesman
and then more and more central authority was abrogated? Maybe Phil is the one to ask.

It must be the envy of General Motors and the Army that any group of a billion persons could function with efficiency on only five levels of organization.

caritas,

michael
<*))))><

re: Was there not a time in church history when the Bishop of Rome was just another bishop, who eventually became a spokesman and then more and more central authority was abrogated?

Alas, church history, something I'll need to take up moreso in earnest one day. I defer and demur to Phil. However, you did mean to say arrogated, huh?

pax,
jb
Nuncio of the Nunciature of Nuance

Yeah, arrogated. I thought about that after I posted, then decided that if someone arrogated, then someone else abrogated.

Religions are, among other things, political
institutions. The eastern religions were fresh and new to me, as a new love affair might be. Then I learned more about Buddhist infighting and conflict.
Hindus have also faught bloody wars over the faith.
Ditto for Muslims, Protestants and even the Jews are making the list. Japanese religion seems to have emerged from centuries of conflict. Same for China.

People do what people do and people can cause alot of trouble. Even His Holiness, The 14th Dalai
Lama (one of my favorite people), it turns out, has been on the CIA payroll for decades, and does them occasional favors. I'll probably find out something I don't like about Father Keating, too.

Still, I should trust (even if I get burned once in awhile). I would rather live my life that way I've had people build me up into something I was not and become disappointed later. Humility
is being just another Bozo on the bus. I remain greatful for the world's more gifted Bozos who have the courage to get out there and lead, get their nose bloody and make a few mistakes. Their experiences are passed on to future generations, that wisdom may grow. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs

The Christian Church has broken quite a few, yet in God's eyes it is his perfect, unblemished bride, all dressed up in white Nothing can ever separate us from LOVE.

caritas,

michael


<*))))><

Good reflection, mm, on the concept of religion as institution, for that is surely one characteristic. And our faults and foibles, sins and finitude, are indeed another inasmuch as we are a "pilgrim" church.

I want to add a thought re: sensus to nuance it as neither a feeling nor a theological reflection but instead as a spiritual intuition that has flowered into a lived, inner conviction.

This does not in any way diminish the epistemic significance of sensus. I suppose it would be fair to claim it can share the characteristics of common sense and wisdom, or even of Maritain's intuition of being, for example, in the manner that it contributes to human knowing and doing (orthopraxis authenticating orthodoxy re: personal and societal transformation). It doesn't proceed via formal logic and demonstrable proofs, so to speak, essentialistically. It is more of an existential orientation not unlike the manner in which we reject solipsism, nihilism and radical skepticism, which is a combination of empiricism and pragmatism, which is to say a discovery through experience of what works to attain our aspirations, meet our goals, fulfill our obligations. Whatever the case, it is a form of intelligence that I would not disparage over against theological reflection or other types of assent. I would thus be as reticent to dismiss all moral proclivities of so-called fundamentalists as irrelevant as I would be to dismiss the spiritual intuitions of the so-called "literate guild." We have a sticky widget in the concept of sensus fidelium, IOW. There is what they call an "existential warrant" that can lay claim to this or that type of faith and this should be distinguished from a fideism that is devoid of all rational-intuitive content.

pax!
jb

Well, I guess we could spend countless hours debating the many kinds of questions and ambiguous issues relevant to the issue of infallible teachings, but none would invalidate the value of the charism, in my opinion. I think the long and the short of it is that it ought to be exercised in a spirit of humility and in a context of dialogue with theologians and the experience of the faithful. It seems that what's most problemmatic in some of the tough issues raised on this thread is that there is a perception that humility and dialogue are often lacking with regard to its exercise, and that's a problem, to be sure. The trite rejoinder by Catholic traditionalist to the effect of "the Church is not a democracy" is not helpful, to say the least.

With regard to the special place of the Bishop of Rome, it goes far back in the Tradition. Certainly, Peter , Linusand Clement didn't view themselves as Popes in the modern sense, but even in the early Church -- before the end of the first century, deference was paid to the Bishop of Rome in settling disputes among the communities. Peter, being first among the Apostles, set the precedent and died in Rome. That Rome was also the political center of the Mediterranean world also lent prominence to the office. By 180, when St. Irenaeus was writing "Against Heresies," he speaks of a lineage from Peter to his time and states, "In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." The later denial by some Protestants that early Christianity had no Popes who were leaders of the Church is blatant historical revisionism.