Thought I would point out another problem regarding the Magisterium in the same discussion regarding economic theories and Catholic teaching.
In commenting on the discussion, one gentleman (Al Gunn) wrote the following:
[T]he teaching on Just Wage (that it cannot be left to market forces alone to set) since it is framed in terms of justice and scripture, would seem to be Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is infallible. There are several points in Pius XI where the phraseology is separate and definitive, and John XXIII also invokes a definitive formulation in Mater et Magistra [source].
Mr. Gunn’s remarks are not as clear as one might desire (understandably, giving the nature of on-line commenting), but it would be very difficult to sustain the claims from a theological perspective.
It would appear from the above quotation that Mr. Gunn thinks that the Church’s just wage teaching is infallible on the grounds that it is “framed in terms of justice and scripture” and thus a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. If so, the argument he offers is based on a false premise. Just because a position is defended by citing Scripture and considerations of justice does not suffice to make it a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
Here is Vatican II’s discussion of the conditions under which the ordinary Magisterium teaches infallibly:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held [Lumen Gentium 25].
This sets forth a number of conditions required for the exercise of infallibility when the bishops are not gathered in an ecumenical council: (1) the bishops are teaching while “maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter”, (2) they are “authentically teaching matters of faith and morals”, and (3) “they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”
If one applies these conditions to the just wage doctrine, it does not appear that the conditions are met, even when the teaching is construed in the minimal form that Mr. Gunn gives it (i.e., that a just wage “cannot be left to market forces alone to set”). The reason is that the third condition does not obtain.
It cannot be clearly established that the bishops have even entertained in their authoritative teaching the question of whether the just wage can be reached by market forces alone, much less that they have determined that the rejection of this proposition is definitively to be held by all the faithful. It would be possible to say that many bishops would be skeptical of this proposition and even possible to speak of a skeptical consensus on this point. But it would not be accurate to say that this skeptical consensus has resulted in the bishops requiring the faithful to definitively reject the idea that market forces can protect the goods meant to be ensured by the Church’s just wage teaching.
Consequently, it cannot be maintained that there is an infallible teaching here, for as the Code of Canon Law states: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident” (CIC 749 §3).
Mr. Gunn’s argument that “[t]here are several points in Pius XI where the phraseology is separate and definitive, and John XXIII also invokes a definitive formulation in Mater et Magistra” involves an appeal to the papal magisterium rather than the ordinary magisterium. It is also inaccurate. If Mr. Gunn specified the passages of which he was thinking, it would be possible to examine their particulars, but suffice it to say that nothing in these encyclicals even approaches the level of force needed to qualify as a definitive statement.
Having said this, I want to stress that confusion in this are is understandable given the technical nature of what counts as a definition and the general confusion that has been spread concerning it, and so Mr. Gunn’s remarks should be read with charity. Still, it should not be represented that the Church’s teaching on the just wage has reached a definitive formulation or that it has been invested with the force of infallibility.
Jimmy:
Care to comment on the discussion taking place below in Mark She’as blog:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to the entry titled “Just the other day, the press was casting this report as a Vatican puff piece on the Inquisition designed to exonerate the Church:” on June 25.
In the “Comments” section, I argue that it is a divinely revealed doctrine, taught by the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium for CENTURIES, that the Catholic State does have a right to limit the activities of heretics, inlucing prosecution, up to an including the death penalty.
Thus, the Inquisitions, while subject to abuses, were in totoal conformity with Catholic teaching, past and present.
However, in light of the crrent Magisterium’s guidance, even in the Catholic state the death penalty would be employed whenever absolutely necessary. Other punishments (i.e. fines, imprisonment, exile) should be employed first.
And of course, this does not apply to a non-Catholic state, which has no right to perseucte heretics, unless their teachings contradict the natural law (i.e. polygamy or abortion).
What do you think? I cited not only the Ordinary Magisterium, but Leo X’s Bull “Exurge Domine,” where he declares it heresy to say that “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”
Consequently, it cannot be maintained that there is an infallible teaching here, for as the Code of Canon Law states: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident” (CIC 749 ¬ß3).
Based on the context of the canon law in that section, it is pretty evident that 749§3 refers to definitions Jimmy, not all infallible teachings in toto. I explain this distinction in several places on the web including HERE. Any other interpretation would seem to result in serious problems reconciling the other texts which speak also of definitive doctrinal teachings.
In short, while you are correct that there is no definition of faith, there is still the possible infallibility of the ordinary magisterium involved: an infallibility that (if present) would not require particular formulations of words to be adequately manifested.
Leo X never says that it is a heresy to say “”That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”