For example, Commonweal’s Margaret O'Brien Steinfels’ described Paul Ryan like this: “sure, like the rest of us he is a Cafeteria Catholic.” In other words , Rep. Ryan proposing a budget that some members of the USCCB criticized is like a Catholic supporting abortion in spite of the teachings of the Magisterium. William McGurn rightly took her to task for this false equivalency, on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, but it seems to me that one of the reasons that O'Brien Steinfels’ argument works is that most of the people talking about this are trying to score partisan points.
So here, from a Catholic (rather than a partisan) perspective, is what the Church actually teaches about when it is, and isn’t, okay for a Catholic to disagree with a Church teaching. Everything I’ll cite to is from a Church Council or pope, who I trust we can agree aren’t going around making Magisterial statements in the hope of winning U.S. presidential elections.
I. Vatican II, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the Order of Truths
Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.Now, as the context suggests, this was targeted towards Catholic theologians dealing with non-Catholics in ecumenical dialogue. And the point appears to be that a religious group that denies the Trinity is less Catholic than one that believes in the Trinity, but denies the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Not all Catholic teachings are equally central. Of course, this does not apply directly for Catholics: we must, by definition, believe in both the Trinity and the papacy. But a similar order of truths exists for Catholics, as well.
In 1998, Pope John Paul II referenced this when he added three paragraphs to the Profession of Faith made by those teaching the Catholic faith. He explained that these additions were “intended to better distinguish the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.” Accompanying this was a lengthier explanation of the changes from Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It’s well worth the read.
In it, Ratzinger explains that there are three distinct levels of Magisterial teaching, signified by each of the three paragraphs: (1) those truths which are divinely revealed, (2) those which are definitively proposed, and (3) those which belong to the authentic ordinary Magisterium.
1. Divinely Revealed
The highest of these three, of course, are those truths which are divinely revealed. Ratzinger summarized what these beliefs were:
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.
Pace O'Brien Steinfels, a Catholic who supports abortion isn’t a “cafeteria Catholic.” Rather, we rightly call that person a “heretic,” as Ratzinger explains:
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.
These are the absolute core of the teachings of the Catholic Church. You simply cannot deny them and remain “Catholic” in good standing. Or put another way, there’s no such thing as “Catholics for Choice.”
2. Definitively Proposed
The second tier of teachings are “those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.” That definition is confusing, but Cdl. Ratzinger’s examples explain what is meant: he uses the examples of the validity of papal elections and councils, as well as the invalidity of Anglican orders (as explained by Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae).
These three areas are all ones in which truths which we know are not Divinely revealed are still necessarily true. Put differently, Jesus didn’t say, “Benedict XVI is the pope,” “Vatican II is a valid Ecumencial Council,” and “Anglican orders are invalid,” but the truths that He revealed necessarily lead us to these conclusions. If Catholics denied the validity of Benedict’s papacy, just because Jesus didn’t tell us who the 265th pope would be, the Church would fall apart. Also on this list are canonizations of Saints. Since these individuals lived after the time of Christ, Jesus and Scripture are silent on the matter, but given what the Deposit of Faith reveals about what it takes to be a Saint, we can know infallibly that certain individuals are in Heaven.
The difference between truths of the first and second tier are that we can say for certain that the truths of the first tier are Divinely revealed. Given this, some of the truths in the second tier may belong in the first tier, once they are dogmatically defined. This has already happened at least once, with papal infallibility: there was a dispute over whether papal infallibility was divinely-revealed, or simply the necessary consequence of Divine revelation: Vatican I settled that dispute. Ratzinger notes that another doctrine appears to be going through the same transition:
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
In addition, Ratzinger raises another teaching, the prohibition against euthanasia, going through a similar process. Unfortunately, this is a teaching increasingly relevant to the political realm, as at least one state already has legal “assisted suicide.”
These truths, like those in the first tier, simply must be believed:
With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).
So both the first and second tier teachings require total assent: the only difference is whether we believe based upon the authority of the Word of God, or on the authority of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium. But since both the Second and Third Person of the Trinity are God, we need total faith on these issues.
3. Authentic Ordinary Magisterium
The third tier of teachings are those arising from the “Authentic Ordinary Magisterium.” Basically, this is everything else worthy of being called Catholic teaching. These teachings are not infallible. Since this is a broad category, the teachings require different degrees of assent:
As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.
In the document, Ratzinger does not given any examples of what these other areas are, but elsewhere, he does:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
I can’t make that any clearer than he already did. On some issues, like the death penalty and the justness of a specific war, we’re relatively free to disagree with one another, and even with the pope. But on other issues, there is one, and only one, legitimate Catholic opinion.
II. The Implications for Catholic Voters
Viktor Vasnetsov, Judgement Day (1896) |
The biggest risk facing Catholic voters isn’t that they’ll elect the wrong guy. It’s that they’ll ignore or compromise their faith when it’s politically expedient, effectively selling their souls for the sake of a political party. It’s an odd irony in American culture, that politicians are lambasted as dishonest and slimy, and yet they’re the ones who Catholics seem to be tuning in to for moral guidance, rather than the Church. It’s as if our nation damns the mass of politicians to Hell, and then willingly follows their lead. It simply makes no sense, yet plenty of voters (of all political affiliations) do this.
The two traps that Catholics often fall into when talking about politics is: (a) acting as if their own candidate is immaculate, or (b) acting as if all the candidates are equally bad, from a Catholic point of view. Neither of these are true. Every candidate is flawed, but some flaws (like support for abortion and euthanasia) are objectively worse, and simply indefensible.
Having said all of that, I should emphasize that the points I raised here apply well outside of the realm of voting: if you’re a Catholic who argues against original sin, or for women’s ordination to the priesthood, or for euthanasia or abortion, you’re guilty of heresy, and need to repent. My concern here is less with how you fare on Election Day, and more concerned with how you fare on Judgment Day.
0 comments:
Post a Comment