Non-Infallibility: The Papacy And Rahner
by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap.
The Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), No. 25, that
Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.1
Most people would probably agree that this statement means that the faithful must submit to the judgment of their local bishop, if he teaches in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Others, perhaps, would add that this submission to bishops also includes adhering to the decisions of the Vatican congregations.
The Council was even more specific about submitting to the Pope. The Council stated:
This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to the decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.2
Karl Rahner, however, stated that this teaching in No. 25 of Lumen Gentium " . . . is not to be propounded in such a way that in practice an absolute assent is still demanded or that there were no instance in which one might withhold assent."3 When applying this teaching to a case in which a person had conscientiously decided to use contraception, against the decision of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, Rahner commented: "Such a Catholic need not fear that he has incurred any subjective guilt or regard himself as in a state of formal disobedience to the Church's authority."4 Moral theologians, Ronald Modras and William May, have pointed out that Karl Rahner meant that one could "dissent" from the ordinary decisions of the pope on matters of faith and morals.5
So, Karl Rahner believed that one could licitly dissent from the faith and moral decisions of the ordinary magisterium of the popes. Rahner's belief, that the popes had made errors when teaching from their ordinary magisterium, was the most likely basis for his thinking. After all, how could the Church require people to give a submission of will and intellect (assent) to the ordinary decisions of the popes on faith and morals if the popes could err in these matters?
Karl Rahner implied (among other allegations of papal error) that the altered judgments of the Pontifical Biblical Commission over the past years were proof that the papal magisterium had made errors in doctrinal matters. Rahner thought that the Pontifical Biblical Commission's " . . . exegetical decisions had the same authority as other Roman doctrinal pronouncements."6
Let us first discuss the theological character of the documents issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and then the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission
The mind of Pius X when establishing the Pontifical Biblical Commission must be viewed in light of what his predecessor, Pius IX, stated about the nature of the authority of these papal congregations and the nature of the assent due to their decisions. In a letter to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising concerning the policies of German theologians, Pius IX stated:
We wish to persuade Ourselves that they (the theologians) did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of the faith to be believed by all.7
But, the Pope continued, "it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical congregations" even though those who fail to do so "cannot be called heretical."8 Thus, the Pope demanded that theologians give a submission of mind and will to the decisions of the congregation as practical directives regulating writing and teaching. And, in the absence of anything to the contrary one must assume that this was also the mind of Pius X when he established the Pontifical Biblical Commission.7
Raymond E. Brown, S.S., stated about the Pontifical Biblical Commission's decrees that "they are prudential decisions on practical problems . . . (which) . . . require obedience at the time they are issued but are subject to revision." 10 That these judgments were not a matter of defined faith and morals was certainly clear to the Pontifical Biblical Commission itself. On at least two occasions the Commission explained its own judgment by saying that its past decision "was by no means intended to hinder Catholic writers from investigating the case more fully" and that its decision was "in no way opposed to further and truly scientific examination of these problems." 11
The popes certainly intended theologians to be "absolutely bound" by the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commissions until the Commission itself changed these decisions. But, the particular official judgments of this Commission implied that its propositions as speculative judgments were non-infallible and as practical directives were liable to change. Consequently, a theologian, who disagreed with a proposition of a Pontifical Biblical Commission, could still subject his mind and will to the proposition as a practical judgment without sacrificing correct reasoning. After all, unity, order, and harmony in the Church are greater goods (more important spiritually) than scientific progress.
The Non-Infallible Expression Of The Papal Magisterium
It would seem that the documents of Vatican congregations, which have been approved for publication by the Roman Pontiff, share in the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has stated:
The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this congregation expressly approved by the pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.12
But there can also be documents of the prudential order which are not personally approved or signed by a pope, as was the case with the decision affecting Galileo in 1616. This decision was made by the Congregation of the Index and "received papal approval only in forma communi."13 Now, it is possible to find deficiencies in these expressions of the papal magisterium. Again, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states:
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies.14
Since these documents of the Vatican congregations can contain "deficiencies," it is clear that these documents are non-infallible. By permitting Vatican congregations to publish their documents, a pope is merely permitting the congregation to publish their own judgment on a theological matter. The theological judgment is that of the congregation and it is the pope's judgment to permit its publication. But, the pope cannot delegate his charism of infallibility to a Vatican congregation. Thus, the papal magisterium manifestly intends or understands the decisions of these Vatican congregations to be non-infallible. So, the character of the documents issued by a Vatican congregation is that they share in the non-infallible expression of the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
Now, John Paul II has stated: "With regard to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25)."15 Again, in the absence of anything to the contrary, one must interpret John Paul II's above statement consistent with the interpretation given to this matter by Pius IX and Pius X. This would mean that theologians and laity are bound by these Pontifical congregation statements merely with regard to writing and teaching.
Once more, since the Pope states that these Vatican congregational propositions are non-infallible, they can possibly be in error. And, if these propositions can be in error, then it is possible for a theologian to know that they are in error. It is absurd, however, to think that God, the Author of Truth, would bind a person to submit in will and mind or intellectually assent to a speculative judgment which is an error for the sake of his salvation. One can only be bound to intellectually assent to a proposition, or a speculative judgment, that is true and certain.
So, this religious submission of will and mind, which John Paul II says must be given to non-infallible statements of the papal magisterium means, first of all, that the theologian must submit his will and mind (assent) to the decisions of the Vatican congregations "conformably with his (the pope's) manifest mind and intention." But, since it is the expressed intention of the papal magisterium that these propositions of the Vatican congregations are non-infallible, as speculative judgments in themselves, one must assume that the pope does not intend that Catholics and theologians be bound to give a submission of will and mind (an assent) to the propositions, themselves, as speculative judgments. He only intends Catholics and theologians to give a submission of will and mind (an assent) to these proposals as the practical judgment of the Pontifical congregations.
One might ask further: how does a theologian relate to a Vatican congregation when he or she disagrees with a Vatican congregation's "non-irreformable judgment?"16 The Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith states that
Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.
For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer but with the certainty that if the truth really is at stake it will ultimately prevail.17
So, while external or public questioning and dissent in verbal or written form is never permitted, internal questioning, along with further investigation and discussion of the matter with a Vatican congregation, is permitted. Otherwise, possible error or discrepancies on either side would never be discovered and rectified.18
In this discussion about judgments made by a Vatican congregation, it should be pointed out that the discussion above refers only to those decisions made by a Vatican congregation about matters not previously defined by a pope or ecumenical council, nor taught in Sacred Scripture. It is often the case, however, that a Vatican congregation's decisions are judgments, which repeat or reinforce doctrines of faith and morals previously defined by the Church or taught in Sacred Scripture. In this latter case, obviously, the theologian is bound to give a submission of will and mind to the proposition of the congregation, in itself (i.e., an assent to both the practical and speculative judgment of the congregation). This is done, however, not because of the non-infallible authority of the Vatican congregation, but because of the infallible authority of Church doctrine and Sacred Scripture.
Finally, what about Karl Rahner's claim that papal error was involved in the altered judgments of the Pontifical Biblical Commission over the past years? About this matter Dr. Germain Grisez stated that Karl Rahner " . . . made much of this argument but failed to consider the status of these decrees.19 Basically, Rahner failed to distinguish the intention of the popes when they exercised their ordinary magisterium. He failed to realize that the judgments of the Pontifical Biblical Commission were prudential and disciplinary rather than doctrinal in nature. Any alleged error by the Pontifical Biblical Commission has no bearing whatsoever on the question of the inerrancy of the ordinary teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith or morals, primarily because it would have been the judgment of the Commission, itself, and not the pope!
Notes
1. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, No. 25, Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Vol. I, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, New York: Costello Pub. Co., 1992), p. 379. My emphasis.
2. Ibid.
3. Karl Rahner, "Magisterium," Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi, edited by Karl Rahner (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), p. 877.
4. Karl Rahner, "On The Encyclical 'Humanae Vitae,' Theological Investigations, Vol. II (New York: The Seabury Press, 1974), 285.
5. Ronald Modras, "Karl Rahner: Moral Theology," Theology Digest, 31 (Winter 1984), 341; William May, "Conscience formation and the teaching of the Church," Homiletic & Pastoral Review (October 1986), 12.
6. Karl Rahner, "On Non-Infallible Pronouncements," New Blackfriars 51 (November 1970), 507.
7. Pius IX, Tuas Ubenter, Enchiridion Symbolorum. No. 1683, 30th edition, Denzinger: The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. by Roy J. De-ferrari (St. Louis: B. Herder BK. Co., 1957), p. 427. My emphasis.
8. Ibid., No. 1684, pp. 427-428.
9. Pius X, Praestantia scripturae. Ibid., No. 2113, p. 543; E. F. Sulcliffe, S.J., "The Replies to The Biblical Commission," A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Toronto: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953), pp. 67-68.
10. Thomas Aquinas Collins, O.P., and Raymond E. Brown, S.S., "Church Pronouncements," Jerome Biblical Commentary, 72:3 (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 625. My emphasis.
11. Holy Office, "Joannine Comma," June 2, 1927, Official Catholic Teaching: biblical interpretation, edited by James J. Megiven, No. 688 (North Carolina: McGrath, 1978), p. 302; Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Letter of Pontifical Biblical Commission to Cardinal Suhard Concerning the Time of the Documents of the Pentateuch and Concerning the Literary Forms of the First Eleven Chapters of Genesis," January 16, 1948, Official Catholic Teaching: biblical interpretation. No. 798, p. 350.
12. Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian," June 26, 1990, No. 18, Origins: CNS documentary service, 20:8 (July 5, 1990), 122.
13. J. J. Langford, "Galileo Galilei, "New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, pp. 253-254.
14. Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian," No. 24, p. 123. My emphasis.
15. John Paul II, "Relating Truth and Freedom," Origins: CNS documentary service, 18:21 (November 3, 1988), 348.
16. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, No. 28, p. 123.
17. Ibid., No. 31, p. 123.
18. Ibid., Nos. 30-31, p. 123.
19. Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus: Christian Moral Principles, Vol. I (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983), p. 900, 916 ad.
Reverend Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., a native of Pittsburgh, Pa., is a member of the Mid-Atlantic Province of the Capuchin Franciscan Order. After ordination to the priesthood in 1972, Fr. Regis received a master's degree in systematic theology from Washington Theological Union (D. C.). Since that time he has been involved in parish and retreat work, and has taught in high school. Now he is living in Denver, Colo., and he works in the chancery office of the Archdiocese.
© Catholic Polls, Inc. 1994.
This item 4210 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
