Catholics must learn to resist their popes — even Pope Francis

The Week ^ | 05/06/2014 | By Michael Brendan Dougherty

[SumProVita]

This article smacks of a divisive spirit to me.

[Talisker]

A Catholic must measure everything they see and hear, regardless of where it comes from, by comparing it to the Catholic faith, which naturally includes scripture as that is a crucial part of the Tradition of the Church. But, ultimately, we are called to look at the entire history of the Church and all that she has pronounced, not just the most recent comments. That is the problem with so much we see and hear today. It is all about looking at the Church as only being governed and informed by one Church Council, and the most recent popes. Not so at all. As a matter of fact, real Catholic faith rests in seeing and hearing all of these recent events and teachings as being limited and constrained by all that came before and has been believed from the beginning. Without that we would be no different than any reformed church which moves with the whims of their leaders. Popes are Catholic not because they define Catholicism, but because they are defined by it.

LOL, it's not nearly that simple. While Catholics might be "called to look at the entire history of the Church and all that she has pronounced," it is a matter of Catholic doctrine that the ultimate interpretation of those issues resides with the Church, and not the laity. So Catholics can research, study, and opine all they want - but when the Church pronounces doctrine, that's it - and the pronouncement of that doctrine is headed by the Pope. Bluntly put, no matter what a Catholic believes, to remain Catholic is to obey the Pope. It is not a democracy.

[Alex Murphy]

Pope Francis has a funny way of naming and shaming certain tendencies in the church, using insults that are inventive, apposite, and confounding. His ear is finely tuned for the way the Catholic faith can be distorted by ideology. And I'd like to imitate his example when I say this: Most Catholics are completely unprepared for a wicked pope. And they may not be prepared for Pope Francis either. They are more loyal to an imagined Catholic party than to the Catholic faith or the church.

IB4TPWMA

[cothrige]

So Catholics can research, study, and opine all they want - but when the Church pronounces doctrine, that's it - and the pronouncement of that doctrine is headed by the Pope. Bluntly put, no matter what a Catholic believes, to remain Catholic is to obey the Pope. It is not a democracy.

There are several problems with what you say. One is it is not internally consistent. You are right when you say we must "obey the Pope" but obedience is not the same as saying that all opinions regarding theology that a person has must automatically be correct, even if they contradict what has always been believed by the Church. My children must obey me, but that does not mean that I am always right.

Also, to use your phrase, it is just not that simple. Church teaching is not just a declaration to be regurgitated endlessly without any understanding. And, if any Church teaching is to be understood then the hearer must look not just to what has just been said, but to all that it builds on. This is because Catholicism, even more than most other such belief structures, is one of tradition. The Church never teaches without placing it in the context of the historic faith which she has received. If a pope expounds on salvation outside of the Church, for instance, he does so by looking to the historic and constant teaching of the Church, and it is by placing any teaching into this framework that the hearer can properly understand it and act on it. This is what Pope Benedict XVI called a hermeneutic of continuity rather than rupture.

Just look at this thread. People are arguing that it is not possible to disagree with the theological opinions of a pope without ceasing to be Catholic. Is that a Catholic teaching? No, and it never has been. It is the opinion of people who are threatened, for whatever reason, with the possibility that a pope may not be 100% right at all times whatsoever. Perpetual personal papal infallibility is not a teaching of the Church, and yet it comes up over and over again. Why? Because people have no grasp of the historical teachings of the Church. So who is promoting democracy of faith? Those who ignorantly promote these false ideas which have never been part of the faith, or those who know what the Church has always taught and remain faithful to it?

[Talisker]

The problem is that you are arguing as if laity opinion is equal to the clergy’s decisions and teachings, and within the Catholic Church, they are not.

That’s why it’s simple, within its complexity. Whatever the laity believes or decides for whatever reasons, they are simply not authorized to decide upon doctrine. They are issued doctrine, and expected to study, understand and obey it. There is a very strict hierarchical division between laity and clergy in Catholicism, and this is the underlying dynamic in this entire issue. Under the guise of research and learning, an implicit claim of authority is being made by (mostly) American Catholics to decide doctrine. This claim of laity authority, implicit or not, quite simply, is not valid within the Catholic Church.

Laity can offer their understandings to the clergy, yes. But the doctrine of the Church is that the clergy will review any such understandings and issue a pronouncement of either conformity and acceptance, or error and correction. And the flow of power is one way - from the top down.

I understand that a lot of people don’t like this situation, especially Americans who grew up with ideas of freedom and democracy. But the Catholic Church is also a vehicle of penance, of spiritual humility and obedience. And it will never, ever surrender its claim to absolute authority in matters it deems its jurisdiction and under its auspices of control. Because without that it would not longer be the Catholic Church.

It’s not the middle ages. If people don’t like it, they can leave. But people who want to stay in the Church in order to challenge its teachings have motives ulterior to being “good Catholics.” The presumption of the Church is that the clergy are more learned and particularly blessed to interpret the true doctrines of Jesus Christ. Accepting that authority is what it means to be Catholic.

[steve86]

"Dude, this Pope is a Pope. To Catholics, that invokes a fair amount of that obedience thingy. Just sayin'."

There can be (and have been) bad popes and the theoretical possibility exists that a given pope is not a legitimate occupant of the See. One would not want to blindly obey either of these.

[Talisker]

There can be (and have been) bad popes and the theoretical possibility exists that a given pope is not a legitimate occupant of the See. One would not want to blindly obey either of these.

I agree. That's one of the reasons I'm not Catholic.

But for those who choose to be Catholics, that choice includes obedience. And from the Catholic Church's point of view, IF "a given pope is not a legitimate occupant of the See," the clergy will let the laity know, and what to do about it. Otherwise, it is the role of the laity to obey - period. And because the clergy is watching over them, the Catholic Church does not consider this "blind obedience," but rather humility, discipline and obedience before God.

It ain't a democracy, and it doesn't pretend to be.

[Kenny Bunk]

There are good monarchs and bad monarchs.

That doesn't mean that one can opt out of being a subject. Of course, you can honorably choose to be a subject in exile, or whatever.

There are Christians who are happy with the Pope. There are those who are not happy with any Pope. The Pope cannot tell you you are not a Christian. And vice versa.

In any family with a lot of children, there are always children who are not talking to, never mind obeying, father or mother. Doesn't mean they are not family.

The above is where this present, very radical Pope may be trying to come from. Meet him in Heaven.

[Talisker]

Ah yes, the “once you’re in, you can never leave” argument.

Interestingly, it’s the same position the Mob takes.

Good thing I don’t believe it represents God’s will.

I won’t get in to what I think it actually represents.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Changing the constant teachings on marriage and divorce smacks of a divisive spirit. If they go through with these radical changes, there WILL be a schism and the fault of it will be firmly on the churchmen who initiated the changes.

[redgolum]

I have seen posters do that here.

There was an old FReeper, now banned, who would contradict himself often by saying that things have never changed. This was about the time of the Great Flame War on the Religion forum.

[redgolum]

And from the Catholic Church's point of view, IF "a given pope is not a legitimate occupant of the See," the clergy will let the laity know, and what to do about it. Otherwise, it is the role of the laity to obey - period.

Except that after Vatican I, there is no mechanism for the clergy to declare a Pope in error. It used to be the Cardinals or the University of Paris had some say, but that is gone now.

So if the Pope declares that divorce and remarriage is no ok, Catholic's pretty much have to pretend it was always ok.

[BlatherNaut]

So if the Pope declares that divorce and remarriage is no ok, Catholic's pretty much have to pretend it was always ok.

That would be to deny Christ, which is not within the purview of any man, including the pope.

---------------------------

"Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

[9] Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living."

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

[redgolum]

Except that isn’t how Catholicism works.

If the Pope says it, you have to follow it. There is little choice if you wish to remain Catholic. That is the great strength, and the great weakness, of Catholicism. It becomes a situation where you have to follow the Pope.

In the Catholic religion, he is the Vicar of Christ. In other words, he is the King’s representative. He may be wrong, but in the old Imperial Roman law, you HAVE to do what he says. No matter what. There was no appeal process once the vicar (or regent) has spoken other than to wait for the real King/Emperor to return.

[Kenny Bunk]

nterestingly, it’s the same position the Mob takes.

And the IRA.
"You. You do as you're told, and we; we take care of it with The Big Guy. Hai capito? ....

....and just because you left home, don't think we, and our friends, haven't got our eye on you."

[Mrs. Don-o]

One would have to define "edict."

The level of authority behind any papal statement--- whether it's something as weighty as an Apostolic Constitution of Encyclical, or something as everyday as a weekday Homily from Domus Sta. Martae or remarks at a Papal Audience --- depends on the teaching's dogmatic history, and the intention of the pope.

Not everything the pope says is an "edict." Not even everything he says in an encyclical is an "edict."

Fortunately, in the history of the Church, when we have had really bad popes (8 or 9 of them, really wicked, by my quick and inexpert count) they were generally not interested in doctrine. That is to say, the truly criminal and startlingly crappy popes were interested in raiding their neighbor's castles, embezzling revenue, selling benefices, coddling their mistresses, and ennobling their nonmarital offspring.

We have NOT had bad popes --- so far! ---who were "into" heretical theology, just damned filthy conduct. For which, Deo gratias.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Foundational to this article is the concept that a Catholic could hold a theological opinion that differs from the Pope."

This concept is not in opposition to Catholic teaching. A pope may hold theological opinions which are debatable or even erroneous. What matters is not whether he "holds" these opinions, but (1)whether they are heretical (not just questionable) and (2) whether he intends to impose them on the Church with the full authority of his office.

Francis is our 266th pope. It is unreasonable to suppose that ALL the theological "opinions" of ALL the previous popes were or are considered normative for the whole Church. That's simply impossible.

[steve86]

Otherwise, it is the role of the laity to obey - period.

It has never been mandatory to obey anything that endangers your faith.

IF "a given pope is not a legitimate occupant of the See," the clergy will let the laity know

Except that a great number of the clergy would be expected to take the wrong side. Reference "bishop against bishop" prophecies.

[BlatherNaut]

Except that isn’t how Catholicism works. If the Pope says it, you have to follow it. There is little choice if you wish to remain Catholic.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI):

"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."

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

[Mrs. Don-o]

I saw this good comment by Arthur MccGowan on a different thread, and I'm taking the liberty of posting this here, as my (borrowed) contribution to good Catholic sense:

"Popes do not issue marching orders daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly. No person who is well-instructed in the Catholic Faith, and is sincerely practicing it, needs to follow the Pope’s doings and sayings. A Catholic is at liberty to like or dislike any Pope.

"If he dislikes a Pope, he should try to remain unaware of the day-to-day news about the Pope. The notion that all Catholics must “heed the call” of the Pope to conversion, or spiritual renewal or growth, etc., and must therefore read all of the Pope’s interviews and daily homilies, is silly. The call to all those good things is in Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church."