Make Conservatives Catholic Again (part III)

“We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.” (Pope St. Paul VI, June 29, 1972)

 
[Part II of this series is here.]

Once up on a time (in a galaxy far far away, it sometimes seems), Pope Paul VI – not exactly a “champion of orthodoxy” in the eyes of many traditionally minded Catholics – pleasantly surprised those same Catholics with the release of an encyclical titled Humanae Vitae, declaring artificial contraception to be intrinsically immoral. Needless to say, this teaching ran in stark contrast with public opinion (and even with the opinion of the commission set up by Paul to advise him on the matter). But the declaration was not made during an interview on an airplane. The teaching came in the form of an official letter from the pope and, thus, bore great weight.

Then began the squabbling...

On the one hand, you had so-called liberal Catholics (and “moderates”) wanting to point out that this teaching was not defined infallibly and, therefore, could be ignored as dubious, essentially. On the other, you had conservative Catholics, insisting that this teaching must be followed because it came in the form of an encyclical. And, if you’re Catholic, you don’t just “brush off” formal teaching by the pope. You have to listen to it, whether it’s infallible or not.

Fast forward six decades to another controversial, formal declaration from the pope, this time on the meaning of blessings. Curiously enough, some conservatives have chosen to co-opt a liberal argument and insist that, because Fiducia Supplicans is not an infallible declaration, it can be ignored. But we noted in both part I and part II of this series that papal teaching doesn’t work that way.

“ALL ACTS of the magisterium derive from the same source,” then Cardinal Ratzinger taught us in Donum Veritatis 17, “that is, from Christ who desires that His people walk in the entire truth.” (Emphasis mine) In essence, every formal statement to the universal Church issued by the pope (an apostolic constitution, an encyclical, a decree, etc.) (and this includes formal teaching by all of the dicasteries that the pope signs off on – such as Fiducia Supplicans) is protected from substantive error.

There is no guarantee that every formal thing the pope says is going to be worded the best way it can be, nor that it will be timed well, nor that it will make perfect sense to all or at least most of its readers. None of this is guaranteed by what we call the “charism of safety.” What is guaranteed is that it is protected from substantive error. (“Substantive” as opposed to minor errors such as the Holy Father mistakenly attributing a comment from one Saint to another, or perhaps suggesting that something was said in 1883 when, in reality, it was said in 1983 or something to that effect.)

Church law is very clear. According to canon 752, "Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it." Must be given. Not can.

Many, these days, are familiar with canon 212, which states that the faithful have a right and even a duty at times to make known their opinions on various going’s-on in the Church. But what some of them miss is that the canon specifies that we must express those opinions, “without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals.” Meaning, our opinions have to take into consideration how theology works. They must respect the fact that it is the magisterium that has the final say on matters of faith and morals and the magisterium alone.

It’s one thing for the faithful to say, “Rather than a eucharistic revival, what we really need right now is a revival of the sense of sin first.” It’s quite another to say, “That thing you just formally decreed in an apostolic exhortation, Holy Father, is not acceptable to us. You need to retract it.” The Catholic faith simply doesn’t work that way.

Canon 212 also insists that the faithful offer their opinions “with reverence toward their pastors.” Needless to say, calling the pope by his legal last name, as some traditionalists are wont to do these days, rather than by the respectful title of “supreme pontiff” or “vicar of Christ” or “His Holiness” or just plain “Pope (Francis in this case)” violates canon law.

Further, while many are aware of canon 212, far fewer seem to be aware of canon 1373 which declares that, “A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.”

Dear papal opponents, Catholic defenders of Orthodoxy and even Protestantism rather than orthodoxy, note this very well.

Dear patrons and followers of those who oppose the pope, heed carefully the admonition of Pope St. Pius X:

“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments… then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.” (Allocution of May 10, 1909)(Emphasis mine)

Three years later, Pius would add, “This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.” (Allocution of Nov. 18th, 1912)

In conclusion:

“The faith of the whole Church should be one, according to the precept (1 Cor. 1:10): ‘Let all speak the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you’; and this cannot be observed save on condition that questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church, whose sentence must consequently be accepted without wavering. And hence to the sole authority of the supreme Pontiff does it pertain to publish a new revision of the [creed], as also to decree all other matters that concern the universal Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, 23) (Emphasis mine)

When Rome has spoken (officially), the matter is settled...

Part IV in two weeks. In the interim, dear conservative Catholic critics of the pope, return to being fully Catholic again.