The November editorial encouraging union with the Pope in the light of controversial goings-on in the Vatican generated a certain amount of reaction, both positive and negative. I would like to return to the theme once more to give a theological justification for the things I wrote there, to outline the solid theological under-pinnings for our union with the Pope. It is important to remind ourselves that our relationship with the Vicar of Christ on earth is before all else a theological, not emotional one: it makes no real difference if we are thrilled by a Pope (in the way the Catholic world was so enamoured of the undeniable holiness, charisma, courage and charm of St John Paul II) or whether he is not “our cup of tea” humanly speaking.
First of all we, as Catholics, owe the Pope reverence for purely spiritual reasons: he is the Vicar of Christ (the validity of his election can only be doubted at the expense of becoming schismatic), and it is principally in and through him that the Church participates in the very infallibility of God himself. Without this gift of infallibility there is no way the Church could avoid quickly falling into serious deviations and confusion regarding the true faith. Putting it simply, the Pope – whoever he may be – is the rock preventing us from falling into error in faith and morals.
It might be useful to recall that the Magisterium of the Church is the teaching dimension of the Church and its task is “to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (CCC890) and that this infallible character resides principally in the Pope.
The Magisterium, or teaching dimension, of the Church presents its teaching at three levels: firstly those truths, such as the articles of the creed, the Christological dogmas, the Marian dogmas, and Christ’s institution of the sacraments, which are divinely revealed and must be believed as such. If we were to obstinately deny the truth of such teachings we would fall into heresy.
At a level below this there are those truths which, while they are not directly revealed by God, follow necessarily from directly revealed truths. Examples of doctrines of this second category are the legitimacy of the election of a Pope, the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints and the reservation of the priesthood to men. These like the previous level of truth, must be believed on faith, and obstinately not to do so would undermine our communion with the Church. Incidentally, neither of the above levels of truths require extraordinary or “ex cathedra” pronouncements. The Pope (and the bishops in union with him) can teach in a way which is meant to be definitive, though not given in the form of a dogmatic definition. A very clear example of such an “ordinary” and yet definitive or universal teaching is Pope John Paul II’s clarification in the 1994 Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the priesthood is reserved to men: “… 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”.
At a level below this again are to be found in the “merely” ordinary – not “ordinary and universal”– Church teachings on faith and morals. These do not require, unlike the previous two levels, an assent of faith (“I believe…”) but rather a “religious submission of will and intellect” – also termed “religious assent”. That the Pope is teaching in this way (and not just expressing personal opinions) is clear “either by the type of document, or by the frequent proposal of the same teaching, or by his manner of speaking” (Lumen Gentium 25). While such teaching is not the last word on the matter in question, and is still subject to theological clarification or even correction, it should not be presumed incorrect, and should be seen as a reliable guide on a matter still under investigation.
The correct attitude to such teaching is not a merely external acquiescence or obedience, as if such teaching concerned merely disciplinary matters governing behaviour rather than doctrinal truth itself. The attitude here is one of a readiness to accept such teaching, especially since also at this lower level of teaching the Magisterium of the Church is receiving the assistance of the Holy Spirit. At least as of yet, these are not recognised as unchangeable truths of faith but they are reliable approximations to truths of faith, even though they might someday require some correction or re-formulation. It is this kind of non-definitive teaching which makes it possible for the Church to pick its way through a world which is constantly presenting new problems and challenges, and also insights, where there is nothing explicit in revealed faith to guide us. It is not clear from the primary truths of revelation how we should react to new political movements, to developments in medical practice, to environmental sensitivities etc. The ordinary Magisterium of the Pope and bishops leads the Church safely, albeit tentatively, through such uncharted waters.
Nevertheless a theologian may find that he has reason for disagreeing with the teaching itself, the manner in which it is framed etc., and yet this does not mean that he withdraws reverence for the teaching. In such a situation that theologian must find a way to discretely communicate his misgivings on the subject to its framers. He or she does not use the methods of applying pressure through public opinion, as Cardinal Ratzinger clarifies in the relevant document, Donum Veritatis: “for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth”. This latter clarification is very important and relevant now: it is not for theologians to form pressure groups to convey disaffection with the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope through the mass media (and we could now add social media). Cardinal Ratzinger goes on in the same document to point out “the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups”.
If you would like to study this matter more deeply I recommend the reading of Donum Veritatis, the 1990 Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian.
Finally I would like to wish all our readers a very happy and holy Christmas!