I read the recent article in Catholic World Report on Amoris Laetitia by Christian Brugger and Fr. Peter Ryan, S.J. with interest. Pedro Gabriel has written a detailed and convincing response to the criticisms of Amoris Laetitia provided by Brugger and Ryan.
In the present article, I don’t intend to repeat the points raised by Dr. Gabriel. Instead, I would like to respond to some of the ecclesiological questions raised at the end of the Brugger-Ryan article. I should first note that in their final two paragraphs Brugger and Ryan confuse “ordinary and universal teachings of the magisterium” with ordinary teachings of the Magisterium. In footnote 61, they refer to no. 10 of the 1998 Doctrinal Commentary of Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone, which follows John Paul II’s 1998 apostolic letter, Ad Tuendam Fidem.
The ordinary and universal Magisterium is one of the ways a teaching can be set forth infallibly as revealed by God or taught in a definitive and infallible manner (see Doctrinal Commentary, nos. 5, 6, and 9). No. 10 of the 1998 Doctrinal Commentary refers to “all those teachings—on faith and morals—presented as true or at least sure—even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (italics in original). It’s clear that no. 10 in the Doctrinal Commentary is distinguishing the ordinary Magisterium from the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This might seem like a minor point, but it’s not. This is because it involves the distinction between infallible teachings and teachings that are authoritative but not per se infallible.
The question then is whether teachings of the ordinary Magisterium can contradict infallible Catholic doctrine. To their credit, Brugger and Ryan in footnote 57 state that “someone might be mistaken in thinking that the noninfallibly proposed papal or ecclesial teaching cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrine; indeed, it seems far more likely that this would be the case than that the teachings really are inconsistent with each other.” They are also correct that sometimes a Catholic theologian might decide that he or she cannot give assent to a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium when, after due diligence, it is judged to be incompatible with more authoritative teaching. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) acknowledges this as a possibility in no. 31 of its 1998 document, Donum Veritatis, but it also says that the theologian “has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the issue.”
What I find problematic is the suggestion that a magisterial teaching that is judged to be untrue might not be magisterial. Brugger and Ryan only raise this as a question: “And if it [the teaching] is not true, would we want to hold that it is magisterial?” The suggestion that a magisterial teaching ceases to be magisterial when private individuals determine it to be untrue is a dangerous proposition. Unfortunately one well-respected theologian, Fr. Thomas Weinandy, OFMCap, actually has endorsed this problematic position.
Responding to the DDF document, Fiducia Supplicans, Fr. Weinandy writes:
The pope or a bishop may be, by virtue of his office, a member of the magisterium, but his teaching, if it contradicts the received previous magisterial teaching, is not magisterial. Such false teaching simply fails to meet the necessary criteria. It possesses no ecclesial authoritative credentials. Rather, it is simply an ambiguous or flawed statement that attempts or pretends to be magisterial, when it’s not.
The obvious question is: who determines whether a teaching of a pope or bishop contradicts the received previous magisterial teaching? If a Catholic believes a bishop is in error, the matter can be brought before the Holy See. If a Catholic believes the pope is in error, then he or she could ask for clarification, and the matter could possibly be clarified or even revised. It is extremely dangerous, though, to give private theologians—or any Catholic—the right to determine whether or not a magisterial teaching of the pope is or is not magisterial. Fr. Weinandy’s proposal has been rightfully challenged.
Canon 1404 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that “the First See is judged by no one.” Pope St. Nicholas I in 865 wrote that “it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one” (Denz.-H, 641). This does not mean that ordinary teachings of the pope are per se infallible or irreformable. It does mean, however, that they are worthy of religious submission of intellect and will according to the Roman Pontiff’s manifest mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25 and the CIC, 752).
Dr. Brugger and Fr. Ryan also raise the question of a heretical pope, and in footnote 59 they write: “Prominent theologians from the 16th and 17th centuries such as Cajetan (De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, cap. 20 et 21), Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30), Suárez (De legibus, lib. IV, cap. 7, 3-10), and John of St. Thomas (De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, disp. II, art. III) have addressed the question of how the Church should deal with a heretical pope. We are not addressing that matter. Our point, rather, is that the Church has no explicit teaching or policy on how to deal with erroneous teaching.”
I think it’s important to note that both Bellarmine and Suárez believed that divine providence would protect that Church from ever having a heretical pope (and they were both aware of the cases of Honorius I, John XXII, etc.). In Book 4, chapter 3 of De Summo Pontifice, Bellarmine states that “without doubt” (sine dubio) the privilege has been handed down to Peter’s successors, which insures that “in his chair there would never be found someone who would teach contrary to the true faith” (in sede ejus numquam inveniretur qui doceret contra verum Fidem).
In Book 4, chapter 6, when speaking of the Pope as a particular person, Bellarmine maintains that “it is probable and can piously be believed that the Supreme Pontiff not only cannot err as a Pontiff, but also that as a particular person he cannot be a heretic, by obstinately believing something false contrary to the faith.”
Bellarmine then provides two proofs for this position. First, “because the gracious disposition of divine providence seems to require it. For the Pontiff not only should not but cannot preach heresy, but also should always teach the truth, and without doubt he will do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brothers” (Nam Pontifex non solum non debet nec potest haeresim praedicare, sed etiam debet semper veritatem docere et sine dubio id faciet, cum Dominum illi juserit confirmare fratres suos). The second proof is from the events of the past (ab eventu): “Because there has never been a heretical pope up till now, or certainly it cannot be proved that any Pontiff was a heretic. Therefore, this is a sign that it cannot happen.” (ergo signum est, non posse esse).
In the official relatio of Vatican I, Bishop Vincent Gasser specifically says that the Council is endorsing the position of Bellarmine in Book 4, chapter VI of De Summo Pontifice (see Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, trans. Rev. James T, O’Connor, Ignatius Press, 2008, p. 59).
The Jesuit theologian Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) agrees with the position of Bellarmine. On whether a pope could fall into heresy, Suárez says: “For although God is able to prevent a heretical Pope from harming the Church, nevertheless it is more agreeable to the way of divine providence that—since God has promised that the Pope would never err in his definitions—He would insure that there would never be such a heretical Pope. And since up till now there has never been one in the Church, it should consequently be thought that, by the ordination and providence of God, there cannot be one.” De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, no. 10: Opera Omina, Vivès ed. Vol. XII, 319.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787) agreed with Bellarmine and Suárez, and he writes: “We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic.” (Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (Turin, 1848) Vol. VIII, p. 720).
Brugger and Ryan in footnote 59 write that “the Church has no explicit teaching or policy on how to deal with erroneous teaching.” I don’t believe this is entirely true. As Brugger and Ryan know, the CDF, in Donum Veritatis (DV) allows theologians to communicate their difficulties with certain magisterial teachings to the Magisterium itself. DV 31, though, also states that “if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.” The reason why the Church has no official teaching or policy with how to deal with perceived erroneous papal teachings is because she trusts in divine providence, and she trusts that “truth will ultimately prevail.” This is the confidence in divine providence that theologians like Bellarmine and Suárez possessed. This is the confidence of Vatican I when it states that the “charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors” according to the promise of Christ to Peter in Luke 22:32 (Denz.-H, 3071).
Vatican I was not articulating a novel position. It was affirming what the Church has consistently taught. This is why Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, of Vatican I states:
For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose a new doctrine by his revelation, but rather that, with his assistance, they might reverently guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the Apostles. Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held and the holy orthodox Doctors reverenced, fully realizing that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of the disciples: “But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32) [Denz.-H, 3070] (emphasis added].
Brugger and Ryan believe “it is essential that theologians take up and propose appropriate solutions to these questions.” I think the solution is already provided by Vatican I. The Church teaches that every successor of St. Peter has the “charism of truth and never-failing faith.” This is established Catholic teaching, and it is the basis for the indefectibility of the Apostolic See, which protects the Roman Pontiff from teaching grave error or heresy.
Popes can sin and make prudential mistakes. They can also teach something in their ordinary Magisterium that is subject to future clarification, development or revision. Difficulties with teachings of the papal Magisterium, however, do not make them non-magisterial. To claim that papal teachings become non-magisterial when one believes they contradict previous magisterial teaching is a dangerous position. It renders magisterial teachings non-authoritative on the basis of private judgment, and it allows one to ignore any papal teaching that one privately determines to contradict prior teaching. This position also undermines legitimate doctrinal or disciplinary development. Private individuals could decide whether or not the pope is contradicting some unchangeable teaching or practice. If they decide he has, then they are free to resist him. The Roman Pontiff then loses his teaching authority because anything he teaches can be judged to depart from Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately, all too many papal critics trust in their own authority more than the Magisterium. The problem is very serious when Catholic theologians propose that private judgment can determine whether or not papal teachings are magisterial.
If Catholics really trust in the promise of Christ to Peter and his successors in Luke 22:32, then they would be far more careful about deciding, on their own authority, that Pope Francis has implicitly contradicted divinely revealed truths. I don’t doubt the sincerity of Dr. Brugger and Fr. Ryan. I hope, though, that they will consider the serious implications of the suggestion that a papal teaching becomes non-magisterial when private individuals judge it to be erroneous.
Images: Vatican Media/ChatGPT
Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. is Professor of Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, MI. He is a former president (2014–2016) of the Mariological Society of America; a member of the theological commission of the International Marian Association; and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Marian Academy International.
Popular Posts