By JOHN YOUNG
Many faithful Catholics are disturbed by some of the statements made by Pope Francis, and find themselves unable to agree with him. There’s need for clarity here, and the way to achieve clarity is to make the appropriate distinctions. So let us consider what distinctions need to be made in regard to the obligation of a Catholic to accept what the Pope says.
The Pope and the bishops have authority in matters of faith and morals. Christ said to His apostles, “He who hears you hears me”; and He made St. Peter the rock on which He would build His Church. But God the Son didn’t come from Heaven to teach science. As St. Augustine said, Scripture tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.
Pope and bishops are divinely guided in explaining divine Revelation, as found in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This guidance includes what is necessary for the explanation and defense of Revelation — for instance the Pope could declare a scientific theory false if it contradicts revealed truth. Also, he is infallible in canonizing a saint, because otherwise the faithful couldn’t be sure their veneration of the alleged saint was justified.
Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), n. 25, outlines the three ways in which the Church exercises her infallibility in teaching doctrine. She does this in the solemn definitions given by ecumenical councils, in ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope, and in the exercise of the ordinary universal Magisterium.
Despite what we often hear from liberal theologians, there are numerous infallible definitions, most of them given by ecumenical councils: Ludwig Ott’s book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (an excellent work) gives dozens of infallible pronouncements.
Then there are pronouncements made by the Church which fall short of infallibility, yet are to be accepted as true. As Lumen Gentium n. 25 says, when the Pope uses his teaching authority but without speaking infallibly his judgment must be adhered to. Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Humani Generis n. 20, had pointed out that these authoritative statements are covered by the promise of Christ: “He who listens to you listens to me.”
Even in human matters we accept what competent experts say, as when we believe our doctor or dentist.
But when it is a question of Pope or bishops making judgments on practical issues pertaining to faith and morals, there is not the same certainty. Examples of this are papal statements about war or capital punishment. As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said to the American bishops, when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Catholics may differ from the Pope as to whether a particular war is just, or whether capital punishment should be applied.
Economic questions are another example. General principles may belong to the moral order, yet with legitimate differences as to how they should be applied. The principle of subsidiarity is a case in point: the principle that if something can be done by a smaller group it should not be done by a higher group. If private enterprise, for example, can handle the matter, the government shouldn’t take over that activity.
It is a moral principle based in human nature, for we have intelligence and free will and therefore the government (and other bodies) should not interfere with our legitimate choices. But the application of the principle is another thing, and here there can be differences of opinion, with the Church unable to determine the right answer.
Take another case: the question of evolution. The Catholic faith requires that we believe a number of truths in this area, including the doctrine that Adam and Eve were real individuals of high intelligence, and that we are all descended from them. But the Church does not rule out all forms of theistic evolution, while not endorsing these either.
In this matter Pope John Paul II favored evolution, judging it to be “more than a hypothesis,” as he wrote in his famous message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. But here he was expressing a personal opinion, and we are free to disagree.
Pope Francis has stressed the evils associated with capitalism. Surely one would have to close one’s eyes to reality to deny very serious injustices in the capitalist system, but we need to make distinctions. Has the Pope gone too far here, failing to give due weight to the benefits of the current system?
Again, Pope Francis is very concerned with what he sees as the threat of global warming. In the encyclical Laudato Si, he has this to say about it: “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level” (n. 23).
Is he right? I believe there is strong evidence that he is wrong. Am I therefore being unfaithful to the Vicar of Christ, who is guided by the Holy Spirit and to whom Jesus Christ said, in the person of St. Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my Church”? No. This is a question for science. It is not a matter of faith or morals.
Laudato Si lays down truths belonging to faith and morals, and part of divine Revelation. The world is God’s creation and manifests His glory. We have an obligation to care for it, including safeguarding the environment. Injustice must be opposed, especially when it afflicts the weakest members of society, including the poor.
However, sound judgment as to what needs to be done, and what threats the world is facing, depends often on scientific and economic data. In this sphere there are conflicting views. Divine Revelation and the natural moral law give us the principles but not the existential facts.
Pope Francis points out, in various places in the encyclical, that it is not the Church’s office to decide these questions. In n.188 he states: “There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics.”
But we need to be cautious about criticizing the Pope’s statements and actions, both to avoid hasty judgments and because of the danger of being misunderstood — as when people who are unable to make the necessary distinctions may be led by our criticisms to doubt the Pope in matters of faith and morals.
+ + +
(John Young is a graduate of the Aquinas Academy in Sydney, Australia, and has taught philosophy in four seminaries. His book The Scope of Philosophy was published by Gracewing Publishers in England in 2010. He has been a frequent contributor to The Wanderer on theological issues since 1977.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress