Category: Theology

This is something I’ve been meaning to blog about for some time, but things have been hectic.

You remember how, just before the election, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP) published a book called the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC)?

Because of the potential bearing of a work like this on the Catholic Answers voters guide, I had a copy hotfooted over to us from Europe (the document–for some reason–not being available on the Vatican web site and not being published yet in America).

It took longer to get here than advertised. In fact, it was after the election before I got it.

But still, I’m one of the first people in America to have one. So here’s an early report from someone who actually has a copy of the work in question.

There’s something funny going on with respect to this work.

It’s the "baby" of the late Vietnamese Cardinal Van Thuan, who was head of the PCJP. When the work was first announced, it was claimed that the body would be producing a "Catechism of Social Doctrine" paralleling the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)–see, for example, the Zenit story archived here. This was one of many stories touting the document as a parallel "Catechism," in Cardinal Van Thuan’s words.

This was a source of concern to for those worried about the recent emphasis in many circles on "social teaching" over basic the basic doctrines of the faith. The announcement of a social doctrine "Catechism" seemed to further the placing of "social teaching" (about which Jesus and the apostles had to say little) on the same level as dogmatic theology (on which they had to say much). Indeed, the very use of the word "catechism" was disturbing, as a catechism is intended to teach the basics of the faith, not just one area only contingently attached to the doctrines of the faith.

If the new document was truly to be a parallel for the CCC then one would expect it to have similar authorization.

To authorize the CCC, Pope John Paul wrote an apostolic constitution (the highest form of papal writing, superior even to an encyclical) in which he personally discussed his authorization of the process of drafting the text, which involved all the world’s bishops, and referred to the Catechism as "a sure norm for teaching the faith" [SOURCE.] The CCC did not have changed the doctrinal notes attached to particular teachings (see a forthcoming post of mine), but it’s hard to ignore an apostolic constitution from a pope stressing the worldwide collaboration of bishops that went into a document and indicating that–as a whole–it is a reliable guide.

Nothing like this happened in the case of the CSDC.

First, proximate to Cardinal Van Thuan’s death in 2002, a document was released by the PCJP that seemed to correspond (minimally) to the description of the promised "Catechism." In actuality, it was a collection of quotations from various other Church documents having a bearing on social doctrine, but nothing more than this. At the time, I downloaded a copy, but have not been able to locate it. (If anyone can provide a copy, please let me know.)

UPDATE: A kindly reader points out that the document in question was The Social Agenda, ONLINE HERE. Collective brainpower rocks!

At the time, I thought, "Okay. They’ve severely downgraded the expectations for the document. This is what they’re releasing, and that’ll be the end of it."

But it wasn’t.

They eventually announced that this year another document would be coming out–the "Compendium" issued by the PCJP under its new head, Cardinal Martino.

This could have been a document parallel to the Catechism–if it carried similar authorizations to the Catechism–but it didn’t.

First, it didn’t have an apostolic constitution up front of it. This, of itself, was a severe downgrade from the Catechism. In fact, it didn’t have any papal document up front of it. What it did have was a letter from Cardinal Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state.

Second, this letter did not indicate any special authorization from the pope. Indeed, the closest it comes to a papal endorsement is the following sentence:

The Holy Father, while hoping that the present document will help humanity in its active quest for the common good, invokes God’s blessings on those who will stop to reflect on the teachings of this publication [no. 5].

That’s about as tepid as it gets.

Nothing here about the Compendium being a "sure norm for the teaching of the faith." It’s just something that the pope "hopes" "will help" humanity and "blesses" those who "consider" what it says. This is not the language of definiteness and obligation; it is the language of tentativeness and conjecture. And the message was delivered by a subordinate, not by the pope himself.

Add to this the fact that the central descriptor of the work has been downgraded from "Catechism" to "Compendium" and we are looking at a severe lowering of expectations.

The Compendium thus seems to be a project that the Vatican may intend to be buried in silence. It is in no way a parallel document to the Catechism. It may be something its originators hoped would be a parallel to the CCC (hence the language they used to describe it in the beginning), but as time went buy, the folks in authority in the Vatican decided that it would not be prudent to issue such a parallel document (if they had ever contemplated it to begin with). They thus progressively sent signals downplaying the document relative to the Catechism, and in the end we have a document proposed for the reflection of the faithful that carries only very restricted weight, and that derived only from the force of the documents it quotes.

Soon I’ll provide a look at the contents of the Compendium, but for now I wanted to provide some overall perspective on its origin and level of authority.

This is something I’ve been meaning to blog about for some time, but things have been hectic.

You remember how, just before the election, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP) published a book called the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC)?

Because of the potential bearing of a work like this on the Catholic Answers voters guide, I had a copy hotfooted over to us from Europe (the document–for some reason–not being available on the Vatican web site and not being published yet in America).

It took longer to get here than advertised. In fact, it was after the election before I got it.

But still, I’m one of the first people in America to have one. So here’s an early report from someone who actually has a copy of the work in question.

There’s something funny going on with respect to this work.

It’s the "baby" of the late Vietnamese Cardinal Van Thuan, who was head of the PCJP. When the work was first announced, it was claimed that the body would be producing a "Catechism of Social Doctrine" paralleling the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)–see, for example, the Zenit story archived here. This was one of many stories touting the document as a parallel "Catechism," in Cardinal Van Thuan’s words.

This was a source of concern to for those worried about the recent emphasis in many circles on "social teaching" over basic the basic doctrines of the faith. The announcement of a social doctrine "Catechism" seemed to further the placing of "social teaching" (about which Jesus and the apostles had to say little) on the same level as dogmatic theology (on which they had to say much). Indeed, the very use of the word "catechism" was disturbing, as a catechism is intended to teach the basics of the faith, not just one area only contingently attached to the doctrines of the faith.

If the new document was truly to be a parallel for the CCC then one would expect it to have similar authorization.

To authorize the CCC, Pope John Paul wrote an apostolic constitution (the highest form of papal writing, superior even to an encyclical) in which he personally discussed his authorization of the process of drafting the text, which involved all the world’s bishops, and referred to the Catechism as "a sure norm for teaching the faith" [SOURCE.] The CCC did not have changed the doctrinal notes attached to particular teachings (see a forthcoming post of mine), but it’s hard to ignore an apostolic constitution from a pope stressing the worldwide collaboration of bishops that went into a document and indicating that–as a whole–it is a reliable guide.

Nothing like this happened in the case of the CSDC.

First, proximate to Cardinal Van Thuan’s death in 2002, a document was released by the PCJP that seemed to correspond (minimally) to the description of the promised "Catechism." In actuality, it was a collection of quotations from various other Church documents having a bearing on social doctrine, but nothing more than this. At the time, I downloaded a copy, but have not been able to locate it. (If anyone can provide a copy, please let me know.)

UPDATE: A kindly reader points out that the document in question was The Social Agenda, ONLINE HERE. Collective brainpower rocks!

At the time, I thought, "Okay. They’ve severely downgraded the expectations for the document. This is what they’re releasing, and that’ll be the end of it."

But it wasn’t.

They eventually announced that this year another document would be coming out–the "Compendium" issued by the PCJP under its new head, Cardinal Martino.

This could have been a document parallel to the Catechism–if it carried similar authorizations to the Catechism–but it didn’t.

First, it didn’t have an apostolic constitution up front of it. This, of itself, was a severe downgrade from the Catechism. In fact, it didn’t have any papal document up front of it. What it did have was a letter from Cardinal Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state.

Second, this letter did not indicate any special authorization from the pope. Indeed, the closest it comes to a papal endorsement is the following sentence:

The Holy Father, while hoping that the present document will help humanity in its active quest for the common good, invokes God’s blessings on those who will stop to reflect on the teachings of this publication [no. 5].

That’s about as tepid as it gets.

Nothing here about the Compendium being a "sure norm for the teaching of the faith." It’s just something that the pope "hopes" "will help" humanity and "blesses" those who "consider" what it says. This is not the language of definiteness and obligation; it is the language of tentativeness and conjecture. And the message was delivered by a subordinate, not by the pope himself.

Add to this the fact that the central descriptor of the work has been downgraded from "Catechism" to "Compendium" and we are looking at a severe lowering of expectations.

The Compendium thus seems to be a project that the Vatican may intend to be buried in silence. It is in no way a parallel document to the Catechism. It may be something its originators hoped would be a parallel to the CCC (hence the language they used to describe it in the beginning), but as time went buy, the folks in authority in the Vatican decided that it would not be prudent to issue such a parallel document (if they had ever contemplated it to begin with). They thus progressively sent signals downplaying the document relative to the Catechism, and in the end we have a document proposed for the reflection of the faithful that carries only very restricted weight, and that derived only from the force of the documents it quotes.

Soon I’ll provide a look at the contents of the Compendium, but for now I wanted to provide some overall perspective on its origin and level of authority.

A reader writes:

Hello Jimmy

I heard this for the first time last night and do not know the answer.

I was told that the Catholic Church teaches that John the Baptist was Born without original sin, is this the teaching of the church if so can you please explain why.

This is not something that the Catholic Church teaches, but it is what may be called a pious and probable belief among Catholics.

The reason is that in Luke 1:13-15, when an angel prophecies the birth of John the Baptist, he says:

Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your
prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you
shall call his name John.
And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;
for he will be great before the Lord,and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

It is commonly understood that the Holy Spirit does not fill those who are still in a state of original sin. As Catholics use the term, "original sin" refers to the privation of the sanctifying grace which unites us with God. A soul filled with the Holy Spirit seems unquestionably to be united with God and thus not deprived of sanctifying grace. Hence, it has not original sin as the term is commonly used among Catholics, just as every person who has been baptized or otherwise justified has not original sin as Catholics use the term.

(N.B., Protestants have a different and more expansive definition of the term "original sin," which includes the corrupt nature we inherit from Adam and which remains with us after we are justified. Consequently, it would sound very improbable to them that any person in this life does not have original sin, but this is because of the way the term is used in their circles, not because of a substantive theological difference.)

(N.B.B., If it is granted that John the Baptist was freed from original sin before birth, it does not follow that he was immaculate, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is firstly because he may have been freed of original sin after his conception and before birth, whereas Mary was preserved from her conception from contracting original sin. And it secondly is because Mary was not only free of original sin, as is posited in the case of John the Baptist, but also utterly free of the stain of original sin, which includes more than just the deprivation of sanctifying grace. It also includes, for example, the later tendency to sin–concupiscience–to which we are subject in this life.)

A reader writes:

Can you give us some guidance on your blog regarding the new Compendium [of the Church’s social teachings] that came out this week?

How do we answer critics who say that it elevates lesser social issues to a position on par with pro-life issues?

I am very reluctant to comment on a text without having the chance to examine it firsthand. This is why I haven’t commented on the Comendium thus far. For an unknown reason, it doesn’t seem to have yet been posted online, and although I put in a request to have a hardcopy shipped to us extra-expedited, it hasn’t yet arrived (probably will arrive late this week or early next), and I’ll be in a better position to comment at that time.

Despite this, the question that you pose is one that I can comment on at least briefly, as follows:

It would be almost inconceivable, given the stress that the Holy See has placed on abortion and related pro-life questions (euthanasia, embryonic stem cells, etc.), that the text would elevate lesser social issues to the point that they are on the same level as these.

Basically, people who are saying that it does this (a) are commenting on the text without having read it themselves and (b) commenting on it in a particularly brain-dead way, as it would be completely contrary to the way that Rome has been speaking about the relative gravity of these issues.

HERE’S A STORY THAT ALSO MAY BE USEFUL.

AND HERE’S ANOTHER.

SDG here with yet more proof of the inability of mainstream media reporters ever accurately to report on a story involving religious doctrine.

“Wheat-allergic girl denied Communion”, blares the headline at CNN.com.

Actually, technically, that’s true.

An unnamed Catholic priest who attempted to celebrate Mass with a rice wafer containing no wheat did indeed deny communion to 8-year-old Haley Waldman, who suffers from celiac disease.

He did so by attempting to celebrate Mass with invalid matter. Because non-wheat grains are invalid matter for the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, what the girl received was not the Body and Blood of Christ, but an untransformed wafer.

So, yes, the girl was denied communion, by a priest who doesn’t know his sacramental theology.

That’s not what the headline means, though.

It means that the mean old bishop of Trenton has (correctly) declared the girl’s communion invalid and has (also correctly) refused to authorize the use of rice wafers for her consumption in subsequent communions.

Yet the article itself admits, a few grafs down, that the diocese has not “denied” the girl communion at all. It admits that the diocese has told Haley’s mother that her daughter may receive Christ’s body and blood under the species of wine alone, as well as offering her low-gluten hosts.

The article adds that Haley’s mother “rejected the offer” of low-gluten bread, “saying her child could be harmed by even a small amount” of gluten. Apparently she has also rejected the offer of receiving under the species of wine alone, though the article doesn’t say why.

The misleading headline (flat-out wrong headline, in the sense intended by the author) isn’t the only error in the story. CNN.com also reports that “For alcoholics, the church allows a substitute for wine under some circumstances, however the drink must still be fermented from grapes and contain some alcohol. Grape juice is not a valid substitute.”

Wrong. Unfermented grape juice (or “mustum”) is a valid substitute, and permission can be obtained from competent church authority for its use in specific circumstances (cf. the “Norms For Use Of Low-Gluten Bread And Mustum”). It’s not ordinarily a licit substitute, that is, it isn’t normally allowed by church law, and cannot be licitly used without episcopal permission.

But liceity and validity are two different things. Liceity has to do with disciplinary rules established by the Church, which the Church is at liberty to rescind or suspend. Validity has to do with absolute sacramental rules established by divine authority, which the Church has no authority or power to alter or suspend, ever, under any circumstances.

That communion hosts must be unleavened is a matter of discipline, just as that a candidate for Holy Orders must be unmarried is a matter of discipline. The Church can make exceptions to either rule, and indeed in the Catholic Churches of the East those rules don’t apply at all. However, that communion hosts must be made of wheat rather than other grains is a matter of sacramental necessity, just as that a candidate for Holy Orders must be a man and not a woman is a matter of sacramental necessity.

Obviously, Haley’s mother is as unclear on this point as the reporter. “How does it corrupt the tradition of the Last Supper? It’s just rice versus wheat,” she complains. Yes, and Jesus used wheat and not rice at the Last Supper, just as he taught his disciples to baptize in water and not milk, and as he ordained men and not women. These are precedents the church has no authority to break. The Church has no more power to change a rice wafer into the Body and Blood of Christ than to turn a Dorito into a Wookiee; by the same token, she has no more power to ordain a woman than to pronounce the Archangel Gabriel and Mother Theresa man and wife. (And there, once again, is one of those sentences that has never before been constructed in the history of the universe.)

Haley’s mother has actually gone so far as to write a letter to the Pope and to Cardinal Ratzinger requesting a change in the rules. “This is a church rule, not God’s will,” she wrote in the letter, “and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith.” Hopefully at some point, someone will carefully and clearly explain the truth to her.

Of course, it may be that someone already has, and she’s just being stubborn. The article reports that the pastor of St. Denis Catholic Church in Manasquan correctly refused to allow a substitute when the family first approached him, at which point they went to the other pastor who, presumably out of misguided compassion, agreed to use a rice wafer. I hope the first pastor carefully and compassionately explained the reasons for his refusal and immediately offered to allow Haley to receive communion under the species of wine, and that diocesan officials she’s been dealing with have been as clear and as sympathetic as they possibly could be. Perhaps Haley’s mother is simply stubborn, but inadequate catechesis and/or pastoral insensitivity can also sometimes be a factor in such situations.

The story adds that “Haley’s Communion controversy isn’t the first. In 2001, the family of a 5-year-old Massachusetts girl with the disease left the Catholic church after being denied permission to use a rice wafer.” That anyone would leave the Church over such a thing (or over anything else for that matter) is a terrible tragedy. Pastors and other church leaders need to do all they can to be sure that if and when it does happen, it’s not because of a failure to respond sensitively and compassionately to people’s needs.

The Collaboration of Men and Women represents a step forward in the Catholic discussion of gender relations, but only a step.

The document takes issue with the common feminist critique of “patriarchy” and “male-domination” which suggests that “women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men.” It also takes issue with the fact that “In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. . . . This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”

It is good that the Vatican is taking issue with these destructive threads in contemporary culture. The sexes need to get along harmoniously, not be pitted against each other, and we need to recognize the differences between them and that these differences are in part innate rather than simply cultural or a matter of personal selection. Men and women both can better flourish if they honor the gifts that God gave them rather than trying to downplay, deny, or resist these gifts. They also flourish better through recognizing and honoring the gifts that God gave the other gender.

The document does not offer a sustained critique of the above-mentioned aspects of feminism on their own terms. Instead, it turns to Scripture for an extended discussion of the theme of gender in Scripture and then seeks to apply these insights to the modern world (with the obligatory references to promoting world peace).

What the document says about the genders is correct, but it does not offer sustained argument for the positions it takes–at least not the kind of argument that many feminists are likely to find persuasive. The document appeals more to the biblical vision of womanhood than to natural law considerations. The latter could serve as common ground (or at least potential common ground) with those attracted to feminism but likely to dismiss scriptural considerations as the product of a past culture. Natural law considerations are not absent from the document, but they are not its focus.

The document has a very restricted scope. It is not a full-orbed articulation of the meaning of manhood and womanhood and how the sexes should relate. Indeed, there is virtually nothing said in the document about the biblical or natural meaning of manhood. The document speaks much of “feminine values” and their importance in society and the Church, but there is no parallel discussion of “masculine values” or their importance.

It also passes over some questions that may be most on the mind of people reading it. Though it states that women should be present in the workforce but also should have the freedom to be full-time mothers without suffering social sigma as a result, it does not address how we should view the headship passages in the New Testament.

These kinds of questions are ones that have to be dealt with as part of developing a comprehensive view of the sexes and how they should relate. Consequently, while the document takes a step in the right direction by rejecting some of the most harmful aspects of contemporary feminism, the document’s limited focus means that there are still many more steps to take.

Okay, I’ve read the new document and it is not, as advertised, a fire-breathing denunciation of feminism. How does The Guardian get away with so grossly mislabelling stories (“Pope warns feminists” as a headline when the pope didn’t write the document and it isn’t addressed to feminists, or “Bishops told to take hard line on issue of gender”–sheesh!).

In the same vein, Kurt Barrigan notes:

A short item on the new document appears in today’s Daily Telegraph under the headline “Pope Attacks Feminism.” The word feminism does not appear anywhere in the 7000 word letter and the word feminist appears only once (in criticizing “a certain type of feminist rhetoric”). Far from being an attack on feminism, the letter is an outline of the Christian understanding of our identity as men and women. I hope that this wider purpose of the letter is not obscured by eye-catching headlines.

The document, as usual, has a ponderously long title that badly needs to go on a diet before it develops vascular disease:

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

Now, just how are we supposed to refer to that?

“Letter to the Bishops”? No, there’s been about a bazillion of those.

“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church”? No, that’s getting too long, and virtually all of the aforesaid letters to bishops were written to Catholic bishops, so that doesn’t decrease the number appreciably.

“Letter on Collaboration”? No, there was already one of those a few years ago (in that case, about the collaboration of the laity and priests).

Note to anyone in Rome who might hypothetically be reading this: I know that y’all used to have emperors with overgrown names like Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, but people didn’t call them that very often. When people wanted to talk about Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, they called him Claudius. People need to have concise ways to refer to things, so when you write letters, could you throw us a bone, here? Maybe a couple three words in Latin from the beginning of the document or something? Pretty please? With sugar on it?

Also, if you’re taking requests at the moment, could you maybe, possibly not recapitulate the entire biblical history of every theme you mention? By all means do talk about the biblical basis for Catholic teaching. If there’s a passage in the Bible that clearly supports a particular teaching, definitely note it. But if not, could you–y’know–tighten it up a bit?

I appreciate the desire to show that the teaching of Scripture is organically connected, but laboriously noting all of the connections starts to read like the lyrics of Dem Bones (“The foot bone’s connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone’s connected to the shin bone, the shin bone’s connected to the knee bone: Now hear the word of the Lord!”). This kind of connection-noting bogs down the document, so fewer people will read it, and fewer people will be helped by it.

Sorry if I’m a little out of sorts at the moment, but I’m sleep-deprived. Given the time difference between Rome and San Diego, y’all released this thing in the middle of the night my time (and on a Saturday–when nobody is paying attention to the media–and on the last day of July–just before the Vatican shuts down for the traditional August vacation, so you won’t be around to answer questions; curious timing, guys!), so when I woke up too early this morning, I found I could’t get back to sleep because I was curious about what the document said.

Okay, enough grousing.

Analysis next.

If this report is accurate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is about to (as in: within the next 12 hours) release a new document critiquing feminism.

Fireworks ahead.

Early analysis soonest.

It seems that this is the day for me to comment on the relative weight of magisterial statements. A reader writes:

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.”

I took a look at the piece, and would like to read the book that the Vatican has released about the Inquisitions, but since I haven’t yet done so, I can’t comment that directly on the excerpts that are cited on Mark’s blog since I don’t know the context in which they were written.

However, regarding the discussion in the comments box, I would say the following: I don’t think that the reader can fairly accuse Cardinal Cottier (as he did) of having made a heretical statement on the basis of Exsurge Domine. The proposition you mention regarding the burning of heretics is indeed among those repudiated by Leo X in the bull, but he cannot be shown to have referred to it as heretical. Here are the censures that he applied to the rejected propositions:

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth [source].

As the relevant conjunctions indicate, the pope was applying these censures to the respective condemned propositions as a group, without assigning particular censures to particular propositions. Thus one cannot say that the proposition regarding burning heretics is censured as heretical or as something else. It could be censured merely as offensive to pious ears (which just means “badly phrased” and does not even imply its falsity). I don’t think the latter is what the pope likely had in mind, but from the way the formal censure is written, one cannot associate particular censures with particular propositions, and thus one cannot use the document to accuse Cardinal Cottier of having made a heretical statement when he said “The Church does not ask forgiveness for the Inquisition as a whole. She asks forgiveness for the fact of the violence employed during the Inquisition.”

That is a separate question from whether the use of the death penalty for heresy at the time was justified. The Church’s traditional teaching has acknowledged that the state has a right to use the death penalty for grave offenses against society (cf. CCC 2266 with 2267, though these are not exhaustive statements of the Church’s traditional teaching). It also acknowledges that religious liberty may be curbed when it interferes with the common good (CCC 2109).

In the judgment of the pontiffs of the time (and in the judgment of their Protestant opponents who persecuted Catholics), the use of capital punishment was seen as a proportionate and necessary means for dealing with the harm being done to the common good by the spread of heresy. In the judgment of many modern churchmen, they were wrong about this, but one should be careful in forming such an assessment of the times in which they lived. We know less about their time and what were the possible and effective ways of dealing with a situation than those who were living in the time itself. We are able to say with abundant confidence that such means should not be employed in our time, but one must proceed with caution in forming such judgments about other times, particularly in view of the biblical precedent on this matter.

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.