Catholic progressives often criticize “creeping infallibility” and discount the authority of Church’s ordinary magisterium when it comes to sexual morality. Galileo is often cited. This approach has been used for other purposes.
Pius XI repeatedly condemned Nazi and Fascist racism, culminating in the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.
The Italian fascist official Robert Farinacci went to the Nuremberg rally in 1938.
Emma Fattorini in Hitler, Mussolini, and the Vatican, writes that
Farinacci on that occasion countered the pope’s attack on the recent fascist racial manifesto by invoking the pope’s non-infallibility regarding scientific and terrestrial topics; just as the Church had erred in the case of Galileo, so it was mistaken regarding racial theory.
The German Jesuit eugenicist Hermann Muckermann took a similar approach when Pius XI condemned eugenics in Casti Connubii. Muckermann thought that the pope had no competence in scientific matters, and the Vatican would eventually realize that eugenics was scientific and valid.
My point: it is dangerous to dismiss constant Church teachings when one is influenced by contemporary attitudes that, in retrospect, are deeply pernicious. The incidents cited above should be a caution to those who dismiss every non-infallible teaching as essentially having no authority.
True, but the recent recommendations in th statement on the economy was not offered as teaching, but as suggestions for dialogue. The teaching document itself is a guide to the level of authority, and Vatican offices have precious little to begin with, unless they are restating the authoritative.
The purely ‘scientific’ approach always leads to errors. Science can only tell us what we can perceive through or senses. It can not tell us what is morally right or wrong. Many ideas, like eugenics look good on the surface, but the way these ideas played out in real life was horrible. Indeed, modern seclar science needs to relearn the lesson of the tower of Babel, namely that to exalted human wisdom above God’s law is folly.
I wasn’t thinking about the statement on the economy – obviously there has been no long-standing tradition of church teaching on global finance, because global finance is itself a modern phenomenon.
But my caution would apply here as well – ecomomics has a moral dimension, and the Vatican is trying to remind us of that. As to specifics – I have notived that regulations supposedly designed to help the poor almost always end up benefiting the establishment.
Leon, you are entirely right that it is dangerous to take a “pop goes the magisterium” approach and discount everything the ordinary magisterium says, waiting for some infallible proclamation.
However, it is also dangerous to believe things that appear to be “constant teachings of the church.” If you go back and read what the church was saying in the 10th through the 15th centuries about the power and authority of the papacy, you would think that Vatican I was liberal nonsense. Back in those days they basically gave the pope every conceivable power over everything.
Again, if you were to read what the “ordinary magisterium” said about usury, you would be shocked and appalled by what the church says today about economics.
The hard truth is that there is no easy answer. It’s not safe to trust the ordinary magisterium, but it’s not safe to discount it either.
Back when I hoped there might be an answer, I wrote this, which I’ve posted here before.
http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol1No3/dulles.html
You are right; often there is no easy answer. Although Catholics often think that have infallible guidance in all important moral and doctrinal matters, their position is really not all that different from the one Protestants find themselves in.
In general, it is a good idea to sentire cum ecclesia, but sometimes it is difficult to discern who is the eccelesia: the popes who preached the crusades or Pope Bnedict who condemned them and all religious violence?
>Although Catholics often think they have
>infallible guidance in all important moral and
>doctrinal matters, their position is really not all
>that different from the one Protestants find
>themselves in
That’s exactly right. It’s different, but it’s not “all that different.” Of course Catholic apologists make a living out of saying the oppositte.
My undersatanding with regards to the non-infalible magesterium, is that the Catholic should rule out the probability, but not the possibility of error. I’ve also understood the Catholic is supposed to assent to teaching on this level unless s/he has (an) objectively grave reason(s) not to do so (for example, a given teaching contradicts Scripture, earlier teaching, right reason, etc.).
Of course, there’s also a whole realm I’ve heard described as “Secondary Tradition”. This includes beliefs and interpretations of Church teaching that are widely accepted and preached, but never actually formally taught by the magesterium. One example is a favorite of nasty (or just insensitive) priests and nuns; telling children their pets don’t go to Heaven. The fact of the matter is that neither Father or Sister have any bl***y idea! Fransiscan theologians have argued that at least some animals may very well be included in the kingdom. This opinion has never been condemned by the Church. Certainly a lot of anti-semetic ideas fit in this category.
When evaluating “teaching” on current affairs from the “ordinary Magisterium,” one should ask several questions:
1. Is the “ordinary Magisterium” speaking within or outside of its area or level of expertise?
2. Is the subject it approaches broad or relatively narrow?
3. What does the Vatican as a geopolitical entity hope to gain by such a statement?
4. How does the statement reflect the Vatican’s own geopolitical agenda, as opposed to Catholic theology (they’re not necessarily the same, as many people — especially Catholics — fail to realize)?
5. How does the statement reflect intellectual currents pervading Europe (such as the emphasis on centralized authority)?
6. What are the statements’ practical applications and moral consequences (even unforseen)? What problems could arise from that statement? What questions does it not address?
It helps to remember that the Vatican and the Catholic Church are not the same! Just look at any secular history of the papacy, and you’ll see that the Vatican often doesn’t even follow Catholic theology and moral precepts!
Leon, there’s a big difference between teaching about genetics (or eugenics) and economics. The basic underpinning of eugenics is to cull the human herd of “inferior” individuals (arbitrarily designated as such by whoever has the power to do so) to produce a “stronger” species. It’s nothing but breeding along lines of race and class, which negates the God-given value and rights each individual has.
That’s far different from economics, which is far more complex and harder to make decrees about with any certitude (just look at Marxism or Distributism, which are essentially academic treatises). The only firm decree that makes sense would be condemning totalitarian force to impose an economic system — which, again, would negate the individual’s God-given value and rights.