Infallibility in Ethical Perspective

Infallibility in Ethical Perspective
By John M. Swomley

[Dr. John M. Swomley lives in Kansas City, Missouri. He is a graduate of Dickinson College and holds M.A. and S.T.B. Degrees from Boston University and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Colorado. A Phi Beta Kappa keyholder, he was Professor of Christian Social Ethics at Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City from 1960 to 1984 and is now Professor Emeritus. He is a frequent contributor to Christian Ethics Today.]

The doctrine of papal infallibility has been under attack by some Roman Catholic theologians since its proclamation by Pius IX and the First Vatican Council in 1870. The most extensive recent critical examination of it is Hans Kung`s 1972 book, Infallible? An Inquiry. Yet it is not the subject of the ecumenical dialogue which has been taking place as a result of the Second Vatican Council. Protestant theologians and church officials have tended to be silent. An ethical critique from a Protestant perspective seems all the more timely.

The original definition of infallibility which appears in Chapter 3 of the dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, of July 18, 1870, declares excommunicate anyone who states that "the Roman Pontiff has the office only of inspection or of direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world; or that he has only a principal part and not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, both over all and individual Churches and likewise over all and individual pastors and faithful."[i]

Vatican I also amplified the definition with such general statements as "this the Holy See has always held" and "this the perpetual usage of the Church confirms."[ii]

Chapter 4 of the Constitution seemed to limit infallibility to the pope`s speaking ex cathedra when "he defines with his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals…and therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves." (and not from the consent of the Church.)[iii]

However, "faith and morals" can be stretched to cover all kinds of actions, including wars and politics such as papal pronouncements against separation of church and state and those forbidding Catholic legislators to vote against positions held by the Church.

The first ethical casualty of "infallibility" is freedom within the church to disagree or dissent with respect to papal teaching or pronouncements. The only recourse of those who dissent is silence or disobedience. Disobedience has led to punishment of dissidents in various countries, including officially silencing them or forbidding them to teach in Catholic universities and even excommunication. These verdicts are handed out by what used to be called the Holy Office of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Hans Kung, who was forbidden to teach in a Catholic university, wrote, "No one is burned at the stake anymore but careers and psyches are destroyed as required."[iv]

Since the doctrine of papal infallibility was intended to solidify papal power and prevent its erosion by dissent, the failure to stifle dissent required new and harsher methods. Therefore, according to a 1989 report in the National Catholic Reporter, a new fidelity or loyalty oath must be "taken with hands on a Bible, requiring teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals" as well as pastors, deacons, seminary rectors, and rectors of universities to do so, and is binding also on diocesan officials.

The oath requires obedience to whatever may issue in the future from the Vatican or bishops as well as what has already been proclaimed. One of the sentences in the oath says, "I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive."

Another sentence in the oath says, "With Christian obedience I shall associate myself with what is expressed by the holy shepherds as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith or established by them as the Church`s rulers."[v]

The doctrine of infallibility has consequently become a totalitarian obedience to or thought control by the monarch. When the pope decides that a position he takes on morals, such as opposition to birth control or abortion, must not only be obeyed by the Catholic faithful, but legislated by the state, as he has done in the Untied States, he goes beyond control over a subordinated church, to seek theocratic control over citizens who do not accept his leadership or subscribe to his religious doctrines. Therefore the second ethical casualty of infallibility is that church doctrine becomes political ideology. That in turn tends to alienate non-Catholics as well as Catholics who believe the mission of the Church is persuasive, non-partisan, and service oriented.

A third ethical casualty of infallibility is recognition of the fact that no one, whatever his position of authority, is immune from error. Even a leader supported by an entire church hierarchy makes serious mistakes. Individual church members as well as theologians ought to exercise their own judgment instead of blindly accepting "infallible" teaching. A German theologian, W. Kasper, wrote, "For faith is essentially an act of free assent; as an act that is wholly and entirely human, it does not exclude but includes intellectual responsibility. No one can or may delegate this responsibility in a blind obedience to the official church and her teaching office."[vi]

Among the many mistakes made by the papacy are those listed by Hans Kung as follows: the excommunication of Photius, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantiople and of the Greek Church, which made formal the schism with the Eastern Church, a schism which is now almost a thousand years old; the prohibition of [charging] interest at the beginning of modern times;…the condemnation of Galileo and the measures adopted as a consequence of this action, which are essentially responsible for the estrangement between the Church and the natural sciences (not yet overcome today); the condemnation of new forms of worship in the Rites controversy, which is one of the main reasons for the large-scale breakdown of the Catholic missions of modern times in India, China, and Japan; the maintenance up to the First Vatican Council of the medieval secular power of the Pope, with the aid of all secular and spiritual means of excommunication, which in large measure rendered the papacy incredible as a spiritual ministry."[vii]

Kung goes on to list other errors and concludes, "The errors of the ecclesiastical teaching office in every century have been numerous and indisputable."[viii] Kung emphasizes the error of Pope Paul VI`s encyclical against birth control. His reference to birth control is in the context of papal commissions appointed by Paul VI during Vatican II to study the question of changing the Vatican position on contraception. Although a majority of both lay and clergy commissions voted, after two years of study, to accept contraception, the minority report prevailed. A portion of the minority report follows, as translated by A.B. Hasler:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti connubi was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XII`s address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address to the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for half a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.[ix]

Hasler concludes, "Thus, it became only too clear that the core of the problem was not the pill but the authority, continuity, and infallibility of the Church`s magisterium."

The errors of the popes are not confined to these illustrations. If killing and torture are moral issues, as most would admit, the record of papal endorsement or sanction of such action has continued from the time of the Crusades through the Inquisition to the support of Croatian and Spanish wars for fascism, and the present pope`s collaboration with the United States in Central American wars as well as with the Argentine military in the numerous "disappearances" of suspected leftists. The present pope has acknowledged, still without apology, the involvement of the papacy in the events of the Holocaust.[x]

So the lessons of history with respect to papal error condemn the doctrine of infallibility to a mere attempt to maintain and expand clerical power, when moral leadership was wanting.

Still another ethical problem of the doctrine of infallibility is that it interferes with the church`s mission. The mission of the church on which faith depends is to proclaim the gospel afresh as situations change in a rapidly changing universe. When infallible teaching is proclaimed which prevents the church from dealing with new situations, the mission and faith of the church is damaged.

The two Vatican dogmas of Mary, the Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption into heaven, are illustrations of dogmas not required by necessity but, as Hans Kung put it, "for reasons of piety and propaganda."[xi]

Still another illustration is found in Vatican instructions on sex, procreation, birth control, and abortion. The Vatican seriously opposes abortion on a right-to-life basis of the fetus, even if the woman carrying the fetus must die as a result. Father Patrick A. Finney in his book, Moral Problems in Hospital Care, states the dogma in question-answer form:

If it is morally certain that a pregnant mother and her unborn child will both die if the pregnancy is allowed to take its course, but at the same time the attending physician is morally certain that he can save the mother`s life by removing the inviable fetus, is it lawful for him to do so?

No, it is not. Such a removal of the fetus would be a direct abortion.

This placing women`s lives or health in danger because of an infallible teaching will not satisfy either women or loving husbands or children already in the care of the mother doomed to die by church dogma. Is this what the gospel is about in this generation? Apparently the church`s hierarchy is prepared to defend its dogma at the risk of all Christian beliefs. Cardinal O`Connor made this clear in April, 1992 when he said, "The fact is that attacks on the Catholic church`s stance on abortion, unless they are rebutted effectively, erode church authority on all matters, indeed the authority of God himself."[xii]

He also said in his publication, Catholic New York, "Abortion has become the number one challenge for the Church in the United States because…if the Church`s authority is rejected on such a crucial question as human life…then questioning of the Trinity becomes child`s play, as does questioning the divinity of Christ or any other Church teacher."[xiii]

This is precisely the problem. If church dogma against science is all-important, why should scientists accept other teachings? If the life of a fetus is more important than the lives of women, what does this say to many women or their husbands? In other words, papal infallibility is pitted against the more important teachings of the Bible, or ethical insights derived from the New Testament, such as opposition to legalism. Faith, of course, is not dependent on dogma, but it suffers if those who proclaim the faith subordinate it to the authority or dogma of the administrative and spiritual leaders of the church.

Numerous other questions can be raised about infallibility, such as whether the papacy can be guided by the Holy Spirit when it is responsible for so many errors. Or, why not dispense with the idea that the Vicar of Christ is immune from error when speaking ex cathedra, and let church councils or commissions seek a consensus on issues applicable to new developments that affect religion? Or, why does the papacy insist government action contrary to infallible teaching must be changed or the validity of the teaching is threatened? In other words, why should not the Vatican forego the theocratic impulse to enact into secular civil and criminal law what the pope insists is his religious certitude about women, sex, medicine, and other issues on which he has made infallible statements?

Neither the Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint[xiv] nor the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism[xv] issued by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity even hints that such subjects might be open for discussion. Instead, John Paul II asserted in Ut Unum Sint that "He can under very specific conditions laid down by the First Vatican Council declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith. By thus bearing witness to the truth he serves unity."[xvi] In other words, papal infallibility is not open for discussion but is a prerequisite for unity with Rome.

Is this also the assumption of Protestant participants in ecumenical dialogue? It is certainly not what many progressive European and American Catholics want.

Infallibility of course is not simply a Catholic or ecumenical problem. Protestant fundamentalists claim infallibility or inerrancy for the Bible, and various other religions have their infallible sources as well. The problem with all who claim infallibility is that this is their bottom line, making dialogue difficult and both ecumenical peace and authentic Christian brotherhood virtually impossible.

Endnotes
——————————————————————————–

[i] Hans Kung, Infallibility? An Inquiry (Garden City, NY, Image Books, Doubleday, 1972) 85

[ii] Ibid., 107

[iii] Ibid., 89

[iv] National Catholic Reporter, October 11, 1985

[v] National Catholic Reporter, March 17, 1989

[vi] W. Kasper, The Church`s Road From Vatican I to Vatican II, cited in Kung, 120

[vii] Kung, Infallibility?, 29-30

[viii] Ibid., 30

[ix] A.B. Hasler, How the Church Became Infallible, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1981) 270

[x] James Carroll, "The Silence," New Yorker, April 7, 1997

[xi] Kung, 133

[xii] The Wanderer, April 23, 1992

[xiii] Catholic New York, April 9, 1992

[xiv] Et Unum Sint (Boston, St. Paul Books and Media) 1995

[xv] The Directory, U.S. Catholic Conference publication No. 658, 1992

[xvi] Et Unum Sint, 101, 102

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us