The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

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 ยง3).

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.

Two Instances Of Papal Infallibility?

I don’t normally read political sites and blogs, but this weekend I was surfing around the Web and ran across an exchange between several folks (Stephan Kinsella, Scott P. Richert, Thomas Storck, Thomas Fleming, and Thomas Woods) regarding different economic theories and the extent to which they correspond with authentic Catholic social teaching.

In the course of the discussion, one of the participants (Stephan Kinsella) claimed that the others believed papal encyclicals on economics are infallible. This provoked and objection and a subsequent retraction of the claim. So far so good. They’re not infallible. In fact, the subject matter of such encyclicals is only indirectly related to the deposit of faith, and thus they have less relative weight compared to encyclicals whose contents are directly related to the deposit of faith.

Unfortunately, in the course of the discussion one one of the participants (Scott P. Richert) said the following:

Papal infallibility is widely misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950. That’s it: Leo XIII, in Rerum novarum, and Pius XI, in Quadragesimo anno, did not invoke it [source].

It is certainly true that papal infallibility is widely misunderstood, but I regret to say that this statement falls into a common misunderstanding of it: namely, the idea that it has only been exercised twice. This claim is commonly made by dissident Catholics who wish to minimize the practical impact of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the claim has been so commonly made that even many orthodox Catholics have absorbed it and repeat it in good conscience.

But it isn’t true.

Papal infallibility has been exercised far more than two times. In fact, it had been used many times prior to 1870, when it was defined by the First Vatican Council. This was the clear understanding of the council, as shown–for example–by reading the later Archbishop Gasser’s relatio to the council fathers. This was a briefing given to the bishops at Vatican I to ensure a common understanding of the proposals regarding papal infallibility they were voting on. It is reprinted in the excellent book The Gift of Infallibility (which is the best book on the subject), and in the course of the relatio, Gasser alludes to the numerous times papal infallibility had been used before the Council.

Papal infallibility continues to be widely used. In fact, the current pontiff has used it more than any of his predecessors. The reason is that papal canonizations of saints are infallible. In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption thus are not the only two exercises of papal infallibilty in history. They are arguably the only two dogmatic definitions (i.e., definitions of dogmas; saint canonizations being definitions of what are known as dogmatic facts rather than dogmas per se) in the last hundred and fifty years, but they are far from the only two in history.

A Courageous Iraqi Priest

I was reading the EWTN newswire when I encountered a headline that made me perk up: IRAQI PRIEST CONDEMNS ARAB TERRORISTS.

Fr. Nizar Semaan, a pastor in Mosul (that’s “MO-sul”, not “mo-ZOOL”), a major Catholic city in northern Iraq, has condemned Arab terrorism. Three cheers for him!

What may not be obvious is what an act of courage this is. For an American, I know more than my share of Middle Eastern Catholic priests, including multiple Iraqi priests (in fact, the town I live in has a population that is 10% Iraqi Catholics). One thing I have learned from my interactions with them is that they are very aware of the violent, oppressive nature of Islam, but they are also are extremely concerned that remarks they make as Catholic priests could be used against the Catholic people back home in Iraq by Muslim extremists. Even priests here in America are fearful that remarks made here in safety could be used as a pretext to harm or kill Christians in Iraq.

It is instructive to talk to them and see the depth of this concern. They will say many things in private that they dare not say publicly for fear of triggering persecution. This is all the more impressive because Middle Easterners are a strong-willed and hot-tempered group of people, and when their leaders fall silent in public, it speaks volumes about the centuries of persecution they have had to endure as dhimmi.

Dhimmi (“them-ee”) are “protected” people under Muslim law. This means that they cannot be killed as long as they stay quiet and “in their place”, but they can be oppressed, treated as second-class citizens, unfairly taxed, converted to Islam, and killed if they try to convert anyone to Christianity.

Fr. Semaan’s condemnation of Arab terrorism (including his note that Muslim leaders fail to condemn it with him) is an outstanding act of courage, made on the frontlines of Muslim terrorism.

Let us pray for his safety and for the safety of the Christian people of Iraq and all the hidden Christians within the Muslim world.

Time Keeps On Slippin', Slippin', Slippin'

daliclockYou know those Salvador Dali surrealist melting clocks? Well, somebody’s done gone and invented a real-world version.

A design firm named Normal has come up with a digital clock that looks like it’s melting. The clock doesn’t actually change form (dang!), but it is soft to the touch. You can read more about it here (go to “Other Projects” and scroll down to the bottom of the list; you will need Flash to view this).

Now if somebody could come up with a real flexi-clock.

Time Keeps On Slippin’, Slippin’, Slippin’

daliclockYou know those Salvador Dali surrealist melting clocks? Well, somebody’s done gone and invented a real-world version.

A design firm named Normal has come up with a digital clock that looks like it’s melting. The clock doesn’t actually change form (dang!), but it is soft to the touch. You can read more about it here (go to “Other Projects” and scroll down to the bottom of the list; you will need Flash to view this).

Now if somebody could come up with a real flexi-clock.

New Method Offers Info On "Biological Clock"

In our age in which people are marrying later and delaying having children, many women find themselves in the painful situation of feeling that their reproductive years are slipping away from them without having the children they want to have. Part of the problem is that how many reproductive years a woman has is uncertain. It varies from woman to woman.

Now a new method offers the possibility of assessing how many years a woman has before her “biological clock” runs out.

The method involves measuring the size of the ovaries by ultrasound (they shrink as a woman approaches menopause).

The method does not work on women who are on the Pill, which prematurely shrinks the ovaries.

Unfortunately, if the method works, it will be used to push some women toward using illicit reproductive techniques, but for other women it will have the opposite effect. Those with more (rather than fewer) reproductive years will know that it is still worth trying to conceive naturally, and even those women who are committed to using moral means to conceive but have fewer reproductive years left will know to try to conceive sooner and more earnesly.

New Method Offers Info On “Biological Clock”

In our age in which people are marrying later and delaying having children, many women find themselves in the painful situation of feeling that their reproductive years are slipping away from them without having the children they want to have. Part of the problem is that how many reproductive years a woman has is uncertain. It varies from woman to woman.

Now a new method offers the possibility of assessing how many years a woman has before her “biological clock” runs out.

The method involves measuring the size of the ovaries by ultrasound (they shrink as a woman approaches menopause).

The method does not work on women who are on the Pill, which prematurely shrinks the ovaries.

Unfortunately, if the method works, it will be used to push some women toward using illicit reproductive techniques, but for other women it will have the opposite effect. Those with more (rather than fewer) reproductive years will know that it is still worth trying to conceive naturally, and even those women who are committed to using moral means to conceive but have fewer reproductive years left will know to try to conceive sooner and more earnesly.

Privacy Expert Exposes MTV

In an ironic move, privacy expert Lauren Weinstein has exposed MTV’s private plans to do a fraudulent debate show whose purpose is to humiliate its guests.

Weinstein, who was invited on the show, did some checking before accepting. Here is what he found:

Not really a debate at all, the show is actually a program for Comedy Central (yes, an MTV/Viacom network) called “Crossballs” — and its sole purpose is the embarrassment and humiliation of the expert guests who are brought on expecting a legitimate discussion program.

Crossballs is a rigged “reality” show, where real guests, who have been kept in the dark about the show’s real format, are paired off against actors (playing the debate opponents) for the amusement of the live audience. The stories I read from persons recently on the show included descriptions of crude, sexually-oriented verbal attacks (and worse, like being handed various sexual “apparatus”) and concerns that their reputations would be ruined once the shows aired [source].

While we can all agree that this is a shameful abuse of the talk-show format, what I want to know is: How is this any different (except in degree) from regular news shows?

I’ve done enough TV interviews to know that guests are regularly set up by news organizations for purposes of humiliating them and ridiculing their points of view.

(WARNING: I found the Weinstein story through another site that only linked the relevant page, which I have linked, but I wouldn’t go poking around on the site unless you want to see lots of disturbing Iraq prisoner abuse photos elsewhere on it.)