Jimmy Akin

The last two days I had a couple of posts responding to reader queries regarding non-infallible papal teachings and, in particular the fact that Ordinatio sacerdotalis is a non-infallible confirmation of what is, in fact, an infallible doctrine proclaimed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.

The response has been so voluminous that I simply cannot continue these discussions at present, and so–congruent to Rule 2–I am closing these discussions for now. As I mention in Rule 2, though, I am sure the topic will come up again in the future.

We all come to places in our lives where we simply do not have the resources to continue a particular matter, and I am at one of those places presently. I spend a great deal of time, energy, and resources attempting to make this blog an interesting and informative place for those who visit it. Frankly, I spend more time on it than I should. But I simply do not have the resources at present to continue that discussion.

I have closed the comboxes on those two posts because I deem that it would be irresponsible of me to simply retire from the discussion and allow contary arguments to pile up without responding to them. Folks visiting those two posts in the future would see the contrary arguments without responses and conclude–wrongly–that there are no answers to the claims being made.

In fact, there are rejoinders, I simply do not have the resources at present to conduct the kind of thorogoing review of basic principles that would be needed.

Allow me to therefore make a concluding basic summary even though I know that I am not able at present to conduct the kind of detailed response that would be required to address individually all the points folks might wish.

1. There is today a standard way for popes to make dogmatic defintions and thus engage their infallibility. This way involves the use of the verb "I define."
2. This method has not always existed in Church history and there are other ways in which a papal definition can be done. This is why I expressly alluded to the pope using other language that would make it "manifestly evident" that *he* was defining something even though he didn’t use the verb "I define."
3. The pope did not use such equivalent language. While he did use very strong language, he deliberately backed off rom the language that he himself–John Paul II–typically used in making both prior and subsequent definitions (i.e., his canonization of saints).
4. It is simply not accurate to portray the verb "I declare" as a substitute for "I define." The fact that they both begin with the letters D and E do not make the verbs equivalent in meaning or in force. "I declare" is a much weaker verb that simply does not indicate the presence of a papal definition.
5. I’m regret it if some individuals are disappointed, confused, or incredulous regarding this, but such papal utterances are very carefully worded, and their wording presupposes a basic (and, indeed, a technical) knowledge of the way in which ecclesiastical vocabulary is used. One cannot read one’s own preferences into these things. One has to honor the meanings and usages that have been adopted for these terms, and the fact is that "I declare" simply does not carry the same meaning or force as "I define." If one wishes to dispute this, one is simply in error.
6. John Paul II did indeed use very strong language in this and simlar utterances (i.e., the ones found in Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae). In these instances he ran right up to the edge of a papal definition–and then stopped. He put all of the elements one would typically expect in a definition on the table–except for "I define."
7. His purpose in doing this, apparently, was to affirm the truths in question in the most solemn manner possible short of making a definition.
8. He presumably did this because each time a pope makes a dogmatic definition (a definition of a dogma, as opposed to the canonization of a saint), it results in a convulsion for the Church, and in the present fractious environment, he wanted to try to send the strongest signal he could to kill the relevant debates without putting the Church through the agony of six or seven dogmatic definitions in the span of a few years. You can imagine the danger that this could have posed of open schism and mass defections from the faith.
9. In short, the by using the solemn language he did, the pope was trying to sail the bark of Peter between the Scylla of schism and the Charybdis of error. If he had used stronger language (i.e., if he had made new dogmatic definitions) he would have risked many members of the Church sliding into the former. If he had used weaker language, he would have risked further members of the Church sliding into the latter.
10. He also may well have been sending the message: "If y’all don’t knock it off on these subjects, the next step will be a definition."
11. The fact remains, though, that he did stop short of issuing definitions. If you take an utterance that sounds exactly like a definition except for the fact that you snip out "I define," you make it clear that you are running right up to the brink of a definition and then stopping just short of it.
12. This is clear from the established usages of language in these matters.
13. If you don’t want to take that from me, take it from the current pope, who repeatedly commented on ths fact–in one case in a Responsum approved by John Paul II himself.

Now, to clear up one additional item of confusion that seems to have troubled some:

1. I believe that the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men is a doctrine that has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church, just as JPII indicated.
2. An infallible statement is one that cannot be wrong, it can only be right. A fallible statement is one that could be right or could be wrong.
3. If I take a geometry test and get every question correct, that doesn’t stop my answers from being fallible in that I (not being gifted with infallibility in geometry) could have been wrong on them. I just wasn’t.
4. JPII’s statement in OS, however, was not an ex cathedra statement.
   It thus was not a definition. It thus was not infallible. Since this
   statement was not protected by the charism of infallibility, it was
   therefore a fallible statement.
5. Because it was a fallible statement, it could have been wrong, hypothetically speaking. It simply wasn’t.
6. Popes have indeed said erroneous things when not engaging their gift of infallibility, as when Pope Zachary condemned the idea that there were people living at the antipodes "with their feet turned toward ours." (Heads up: We today in North and South America are people living at the antipodes, as are the folks in Australia and the Pacific islands–all lands that were inhabited in Zachary’s day.)
7. The mere fact that, in this case, the pope was confirming a fact already infallibly proposed by the Magisterium does not make his confirmation of it a new exercise in infallibility.
8. For example: If you went up to the pope and you say, "Is Jesus Christ God?" and he says "Sure," that is not a new exercise in infallibility. It doesn’t matter if he adds, " . . . that was defined by the First Council of Nicaea" or "that was defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church" or even "I most solemnly assure and declare to you . . ."
9. Unless he adds "I define" or other language making it "manifestly evident" that he himself is issuing a new definition then he isn’t doing so.

I hope that is of assistance.

Ho-okay, folks! Yesterday’s post on non-infallible teachings set the cat among the pidgeons in a bigger way than I anticipated in regard to Ordinatio sacerdotalis (OS). I figgered some folks would take exception to what I said (I always figger that), but I didn’t anticipate the lengthy combox smash-’em-up derby that resulted.

In fact, I haven’t been able to read the whole thing, so I may miss addressing some points that folks have raised, in which case I’m sure I’ll get (nice and polite) emails asking for clarification.

Let’s start with the basics in approaching Ordinatio sacerdotalis. The basic presumption, on any Magisterial teaching, is that it isn’t taught with the charism of infallibility engaged until the contrary is shown. The Code of Canon Law provides:

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident [Can. 749 §3].

That means that, if you want to claim that OS defined a doctrine (as opposed to affirming that a doctrine had already been infallibly defined by the ordinary Magisterium) then it needs to be "manifestly evident" that OS defines it. Not "maybe, kinda, sorta, perhaps, boy-o-boy-I’d-sure-like-it-to-be" evident. Manifestly evident.

So how do we know when that’s the case? Well, some folks immediately head for Vatican II or even the Code of Canon Law to tell us when the pope engages his infallibility, but neither of these contain definitions of when the pope’s exercise of infallibility is engaged. The Code of Canon Law isn’t infallible, and neither are the documents of Vatican II since they attempted no new definitions, and certainly no new definition on this point. (His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will back me up on that.) While what the Code and Vatican II have to say on infallibility can be useful, it is not itself infallibly defined on this point.

I therefore prefer to go to Vatican I, which does contain an infallible definition of when the pope’s infallibility is engaged. To wit:

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [Pastor aeternus 4].

Let’s pull this apart. What we have is three nested statements here:

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals [Pastor aeternus 4].

The words in bold black are the council’s set-up to tell us what points they’re defining. The basic definition is in bold blue: "When the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA . . . he possesses . . . that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

Okay, so how do we know when he speaks ex cathedra? The answer is in bold red: He speaks ex cathedra "when, (1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (3) he defines (4) a doctrine concerning faith or morals (5) to be held by the whole Church."

Now let’s match that up to what JPII of happy memory said in OS:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful [OS 4].

How are the conditions laid out by Vatican I fulfilled or not fulfilled by this statement?

The easiest to get out of the way is condition 5. It is clear that JPII intended this "to be held by the whole Church" since he says the teaching on women’s ordination "is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful." Nuff said. Condition 5 fulfilled.

So are conditions 1 and 2. JPII said that he was undertaking this action "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren," which is a direct allusion to a Petrine text (Luke 22:32), meaning that he’s invoking his supreme apostolic authority (condition 2), which means that he’s also acting in his capacity as shepherd and teacher of all Christians (condition 1).

That condition 4 is fulfilled is (a) obvious on its face and (b) was confirmed by the Responsum ad dubium issued by the CDF a year after OS and approved by JPII. Thus the Responsum affirmed that the teaching on the ordination of women "is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith."

That leaves us with condition 3: "he defines."

Did John Paul II define the doctrine concerning women’s ordination in OS 4? No, he didn’t. He did say that the doctrine "is to be definitively held" but this phrase fails to specify why it is to be definitively held. It could be because he himself is defining it or because a prior pope defined it or because an ecumenical council defined it orbecause the ordinary and universal Magisterium has defined it. The basis on which the teaching is definitive is thus not locked in by the mere appearance of the word "definitive" in a papal text. It doesn’t mean that this pope is defining it this time.

The phrase that he would be expected to use to signal that he is making a definitive act would be the verb "I define." We would expect him to say "I declare and define," but he doesn’t say that. He simply says "I declare." Those aren’t the same thing.

Despite the desire some may have to equate them, they simply do not mean the same thing in ecclesiastical usage. Nor can "I declare" be construed as merely an "updating" of "I define." John Paul II said "I declare and define" more throughout his career–both before and after OS–than any other pope in history, because this is the formula used in canonizing saints. If JPII then avoided the verb "define" it wasn’t because he was shy of using it or wanted it updated to a new verb. It was because he didn’t intend to make his act a definition.

In fact, unless the pope accompanies a phrase like "is to be definitively held" by the phrase "I define" (as in "I define . . . therefore it is to be held definitively") then it would suggest that the basis for the definitive holding is something other than what he has just said.

Thus, despite conditions 1-2 and 4-5 being fulfilled, condition 3 simply is not. The pope avoided using the expected phrasing form making a definition, nor did he substitute new phrasing that made it "manifestly evident" that he did so.

Therefore, while the teaching on women’s ordination is infallible and definitively to be held, it wasn’t because John Paul II engaged his infallibilit in OS. The Church’s infallibility had already been engaged on this point, and he did now engage his own here.

Now maybe it’s just Jimmy Akin who says that.

‘Cept it’s not.

Y’know who else says that?

The pope!

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Benedict XVI, addressed this subject more than once. In the Responsum ad dubium, he wrote in his official capacity as head of the CDF (and the response being approved by JPII himself–and in 1995 no less, when he was still quite healthy, so no appealing to his later illness as meaning he was "out of it" when he approved this):

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

Now, I know giving a careful reading to Vatican documents can be tedious, so I’ve highlighted the main portions of what is here said. Ratzinger holds for the basis of definitive assent as the doctrine having "been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." In referring to John Paul II’s action, he refers to it as "a formal declaration"–not a definition.

Not clear enough for ‘ya?

Fine enough. Let’s look at the Reflections on OS that were published by Ratzinger at the same time the Responsum was released. In this document he says:

In the Letter [Ordinatio sacerdotalis], as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to "quod semper, quad ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens." In this case, an act of the ordinary papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

Want more? Gotcha covered! In the Ratzinger-written CDF Doctrinal Commentary On The Concluding Formula Of The Professio Fidei, he says:

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.

So. It ain’ just Jimmy Akin who interprets OS as a non-definitive act. It’s the pope. (Unless he’s had a change of heart since he wrote these things–a supposition for which we have no evidence.)

There are no "contortions"involved in coming to this conclusion. The pope simply didn’t use the word that he normally used in making definitions and he didn’t use other language making it "manifestly evident" that this is what he was doing. Therefore, he didn’t do it. I would have loved it if he did, but he didn’t, and it’s my job to be straight with folks about this fact.

A reader writes:

Is there such a thing as non-infallible church teaching?

Yes. In fact, as Cardinal Dulles points out in his book The Splendor Of Faith, most of the Church’s teachings are proposed non-infallibly.

If the Holy Father makes a statement in an encyclical or an apostolic letter is that considered infallible (for instance, the ordination of women is not possible).

Okay, this one isn’t so much a question as a sentence fragment. However, lemme answer what I think you’re asking: John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement. That means that he could be wrong about it since he didn’t say it under the protection of inallibility. I don’t think that he was wrong. I think he was right and that it has been definitively (and thus infallibly) settled by the ordinary Magisterium, but the pope’s mention of this fact without engaging his infallibility–by definition–does not a mount to an infallible exercise of his Magisterium.

How about everything contained in the Catechism… is that all infallible teaching of the Church?

Nope. SEE HERE.

This question comes about because I read an article in Commonweal magazine written by Charles Curran. He stated that it’s ok to disagree with non-infallible Church teaching. I’m not really sure what would fall into that category. From time to time I like to annoy myself by reading articles from these liberal "Catholic" publications. It also helps me to prepare my arguments in defense of the Magesterium.

Okay, Charlie Curran ain’t a reliable guide to what is and is not theologically "okay." That’s why he was stripped of his ability to teach Catholic theology.

The Second Vatican Council noted that

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking [Lumen Gentium 25].

There can, however, be circumstances in which a church man (even the pope) speaks in a way that does not engage his Magisterial authority, in which case the faithful are not bound to adhere to what he says because he is not engaging his authority and thus not making what he says authoritative.

There are also cases in which a non-infallible utterance can be found so problematic that a theologian (or a member of the faithful) may find himself unable to give assent to it, in which case a different set of conditions kick in. These are most fully articulated in THIS INSTRUCTION FROM THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH AND SIGNED BY THEN-CARDINAL RATZINGER.

These facts indicate that it is not simply "okay" to dissent from non-infallible (but still authoritative) teachings of the Church.

As far as finding out what falls in the infallible category, I generally recomment getting a copy of Ludwig Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOMA. Anything he lists with a theological note of sent. certa or above is probably infallible.