There’s been a lot of controversy in the Catholic blogosphere lately over comments made by Pope Francis. Some of his comments seem to conflict with positions expressed by previous Popes: Benedict XVI and John Paul II. Some of his comments conflict with the understanding of the Catholic Faith held by liberals, or by conservatives. The response to this conflict has been various (and hilarious).

Some Catholic commentators claim that the media must have taken Pope Francis’ comments out of context, or must have misreported what he said. Another common response is to radically re-interpret the Pope’s comment, so that it can be reconciled with these commentators’ own views. They assume that no Pope would ever express any idea with which they themselves disagree; otherwise, he’d have to be a heretic, right? Certain Catholics falsely assume that every idea about Catholicism — held as a correct idea in their own minds — is absolute irreformable inerrant truth. Their every thought and opinion on religion is treated as Divinely-revealed dogma. So if anyone contradicts any such idea, he must have gone astray, they assume.

Moreover, certain ultra-conservative Catholics assume that any idea or person that is labeled as “liberal” must be heresy or a heretic. And that is why they are having fits at Pope Francis’ liberal but orthodox comments about the Faith.

But the truth about Catholicism is that not every idea is a dogma. The infallible teachings of the Magisterium are dogmas; they are required beliefs under pain of heresy. But only certain teachings of the Magisterium are infallible and irreformable; all other teachings are non-infallible, and subject to a limited possibility of error and reform. Then there are open theological questions where the Magisterium has no infallible or non-infallible teaching.

The infallible teachings require the full assent of faith, which is called theological assent (or sacred assent). The non-infallible teachings require a lesser degree and different type of assent: the religious submission of will and intellect, which is called religious assent (or ordinary assent). An open question allows the faithful to hold any opinion that is consonant with faith and reason.

Since infallible teachings cannot err, the faithful are required to believe all that is infallibly taught. But since non-infallible teachings can err, to a limited extent, some limited faithful dissent is possible from non-infallible teachings. Why should we be allowed to disagree, to a limited extent, with non-infallible teachings? It is because those teachings can err. Why should we be required, beyond the limited possibility of faithful dissent, to give our adherence to teachings that could err? It is because those teachings are very useful to our path of salvation AND then can never err to the extent of leading us away from the path of salvation.

In addition to Her spiritual (teaching) authority, called the Magisterium, the Church has temporal authority, which includes discipline, rules, rulings, Church law (when those laws are not direct expressions of faith or morals), and judgments of the prudential order. The exercise of this temporal authority by the Pope and the Bishops is generally fallible (except for dogmatic facts).

But a common error has arisen among many Catholics today. They speak as if all ideas in Catholicism were infallible dogma. They don’t distinguish between infallible and non-infallible teachings — or they mistakenly think that there is no practical difference, as if faithful dissent were not possible. They don’t acknowledge that a faithful Catholic can disagree with a judgment of the prudential order by the Pope.

The result is sometimes hilarious. In my previous post, I discuss assertions by Fr. Scanlon, supported by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, on this subject. First, Fr. Scanlon speaks as if no faithful dissent is possible from non-infallible teachings. Then he cites a non-infallible teaching of the U.S. Bishops, and he emphatically dissents from it. Am I the only one that sees the humor here? These priest bloggers are in effect saying: “No faithful dissent is possible from non-infallible teachings!” and “The teaching of the U.S. Bishops on licit theological dissent is wrong!” Do their readers not notice the blatant hypocrisy here?

As a result of this error of not acknowledging the differences between infallible teachings, non-infallible teachings, theological opinion on open questions, and judgments of the prudential order — and of not admitting that faithful dissent from non-infallible teachings, papal opinions, and papal judgments is possible — some Catholics become dismayed and confused when Pope Francis says something that conflicts with their own opinions or with a judgment or opinion by a previous Pope.

Don’t Panic

There is no problem when one Pope has a different judgment on a matter of discipline than a previous Pope. There is no problem when one Pope has a different personal theological opinion on an open question pertaining to faith or morals or salvation than a previous Pope. And when the disagreement pertains to a non-infallible teaching, it may be that one Pope has erred; it may be that a development of doctrine is underway, so that a subsequent Pope improves on or corrects the non-infallible teaching of a previous Pope.

But don’t be fooled by those foolish narrow-minded commentators who offer elaborate arguments to try to reach the conclusion that all Popes have the same ideas in non-infallible teachings, open theological questions, and matters of discipline. It simply is not true. Not every idea in Catholicism is an absolute inerrant unchangeable dogma.

In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.

When Pope Francis eventually publishes his first encyclical — one written by him, not by Pope emeritus Benedict — there will be mass confusion among those commentators who have badly misunderstood the distinctions between infallible teachings, non-infallible teachings, theological opinion, and judgments of the prudential order. And those foolish Catholics who have decided that their own limited understanding and misunderstanding of Catholicism is entirely inerrant will likely reject Pope Francis and his teachings outright, because he dares to teach something that contradicts their own ideas.

This is true of many among liberals as well as conservatives. They can’t imagine that they themselves might err on any topic in religion. They don’t really treat the Pope the Ecumenical Councils and the Church as their Teacher. Instead, they act as if they were the judges over every Pope and Council and the body of Bishops dispersed in the world. And then they say that no faithful dissent is possible. They mean that the Pope cannot faithfully dissent from their own ideas. But that is not the way of Christ.

[Matthew]
{16:17} And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven.
{16:18} And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
{16:19} And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.