Apologists, Infallibility and Church Teaching

Nathan, one of my subscribers, asked me to touch upon misconceptions apologists have about infallibility.

Fr. Robert, I know it’s a bit unrelated, but you mentioned infallibility. Could you touch upon misconceptions apologists have about infallibility? From what I understand, it’s rarely been invoked as it’s a new concept?

I realized that I don’t read many of the apologists because I understand that they are good at reciting rules but not good at teaching how to put them into practice. The reason is that many apologists study what the Church teaches but they are not in active pastoral ministry, so they do not have the opportunity to help others put the teaching into practice in their particular sitz em leben—situation in life.

I think the easiest thing for me to do in that case is to define what infallibility is and what it is not.

The definition of papal infallibility comes from the First Vatican Council in the 1870’s in the Dogmatic Council 1 on the Constitution of the Church. The principal behind it is simple, Peter received from Jesus Himself

before the other apostles, whether individually or all together, . . . the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction by Christ

Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K., eds. (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.; p. 452). B. Herder Book Co.

It is to Peter alone He gave the keys to His kingdom. He declared that he is rock and upon that rock He will build His Church and commanded Peter alone to feed His lambs. Therefore, Peter and his successors hold a special role led by the Holy Spirit and guided by Him. In this way, when the pope speaks ex cathedra which means from his chair which is literally the seat of his power, he is not infallible because he is pope but infallible because his proclamation is guided by and protected by the Holy Spirit.

So, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra he is declaring infallibly as dogma a teaching because this is what the Church teaches with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

However, this dogma must not be created ex nihilo. It has to be rooted in scripture, sacred tradition and is part of the divine revelation that was complete with the death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

So, for example, the pope cannot exclaim as dogma that aliens are in fact demons because there is no scriptural and/or Catholic tradition understanding behind this. However, he can say that hiring someone under the table to benefit your bottom line is immoral, because that is part of the deposit of faith in divine revelation.

Consider the pay of the workers who reaped your fields: it has been misappropriated by you; it cries out. And their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of hosts.—James 5:4 (CPDV)

Infallibility also comes when all the bishops agree on a point of teaching. That too is infallible teaching. I do not know of any instance this has officially been evoked. All other teaching is still part of the deposit of faith and is in the hierarchy of truths. This means these teachings are true. Not being infallible does not mean they are expendable. We must also accept them and when that is not possible, we bring our questions and doubts to prayer and study.

The reason some apologists and influencers define all Church teaching as infallible (ironically, except Vatican II) is due to the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

He who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches

Thomas Aquinas. (n.d.). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.; Vol. 9, p. 81). Burns Oates & Washbourne.

This becomes the problem because the Church teaching is not by default infallible as it is. This is the error of some apologists and influencers, they believe that it is by default infallible. Granted it is a wisdom that we can accept is greater than our own wisdom. We also must leave room for the development of doctrine. This is something both Aquinas and Augustine taught among others including Newman.

Our understanding of revealed truths evolve. What we comprehended one way in the fifteenth century; we may understand to a deeper level in the twenty-first century. The doctrine will not be supplanted but will be more deeply understood.

The Catholic Church determined under Pope John Paul II that the death penalty although declared licit by the Church for centuries, is no longer a legitimate form of state punishment. This is the fruit of a deepening of doctrine. The Church never required in order to be a Catholic one had to support capital punishment although going by Aquinas’ quote one could assume that he or she must. The Church only stated that she did not proscribe states from implementing it. The reason for punishment by the state is to maintain order and over the last century, it was determined that states can do this without resorting to the death penalty.

Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.—Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae

Pope Francis declared it no longer licit, during his pontificate. This sets people to say the pope is wrong. They say he erred because they maintain that the death penalty should remain. They follow a strict interpretation of Catholic teaching that does not give room for development of doctrine. This is where the clash happens. I would maintain it is the same foundation for promoting doctrine found in fundamentalist circles and even more the hard nose religious cultures found in the Seventeenth Century Europe and America.

The change in the teaching on the death penalty is because of a development of both doctrine and technology. This combination makes that the raison d’etre for it—to maintain civil order, no longer exists. It is an extreme that goes beyond what is required to maintain order while not losing sight that even most vile criminal is a child of God.

In certain circumstances, when hostilities are underway, a measured reaction is necessary in order to prevent the aggressor from causing harm, and the need to neutralize the aggressor may result in his elimination; it is a case of legitimate defence (cf. Evangelium Vitae, n. 55). Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion. In fact, when the death penalty is applied, people are killed not for current acts of aggression, but for offences committed in the past. Moreover, it is applied to people whose capacity to cause harm is not current, but has already been neutralized, and who are deprived of their freedom. Letter Of His Holiness Pope Francis To The President Of The International Commission Against The Death Penalty

Infallible teaching ex cathedra has only been declared by the pope twice:

There is no set list of infallible church teachings, but that’s because only two have been proclaimed ex cathedra, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).—U.S. Catholic Is there a list of infallible teachings?May 18, 2011

So the Church does not tell us that the other teachings are up for grabs but that we use them to make a well-formed conscience and follow them as best we can. When we cannot, the Church offers us the tools of prayer and the sacraments to always guide us towards God’s default—mercy. Also remember, our relationship with God is interactive. As many saints often taught, we are surrounded by grace like a fish is surrounded by water.

The issue with the apologists is that they will teach the letter of the law. Jesus called us to live the spirit of the law. Those who simply recite rules do not help the faithful to follow them because that is not their ministry. How many influencers counsel people at a parish? Hear confessions? Counsel others personally online? I would assume it is not the majority. Remember there is a difference between a priest who works in an upper class section of Washington, DC and one who works in the poorest section of Chicago and an apologist who teaches theology at a small Catholic college in North Dakota. (I know of none so I am not obliquely referencing any institution in my hypothetical example.) They will help parishioners from each respective place understand Church teaching in their respective sitz em leben which may not have any connection between the three locales.

The students of the North Dakota professor may be appalled when the professor calls those who do not have documents, whom modern parlance calls illegals, mortal sinners. He may even cite Aquinas, Augustine, Moses and Church teaching. Meanwhile, the monsignor in Washington, DC may call them sinners but not mortal sinners and may hesitate as well so as not to raise the ire of the diplomatic class in the capital city while he cites Aquinas, Augustine, Moses and Church teaching. Finally, the Chicago priest may not call them sinners at all and stand with them as he also cites Aquinas, Augustine, Moses and Church teaching. Each one is applying Church teaching based on how they understand it within the situation in life of their students or parishioners in trying to bring Christ to each person. Christ also addressed the poor and rich, the uneducated and the pharisee differently without comprising the law. After all, did he not say to the pharisees that the prostitutes and the tax collectors are getting to Heaven before they are. (Mt 21:31)

The pharisees and Jesus lived a simple divide. The former taught the letter of the law and Jesus taught the spirit because he embodied it.

And again, he entered into the synagogue. And there was a man there who had a withered hand.
{And they observed him, to see if he would cure on the Sabbaths, so that they might accuse him.
And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Stand up in the middle.”
And he said to them: “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbaths, or to do evil, to give health to a life, or to destroy?” But they remained silent.
And looking around at them with anger, being very saddened over the blindness of their hearts, he said to the man, “Extend your hand.” And he extended it, and his hand was restored to him.
Then the Pharisees, going out, immediately took counsel with the Herodians against him, as to how they might destroy him. (Mark 31-5) CPDV

This is the issue with the influencers and infallible teaching. Only two teachings are infallible, both about Mary. The rest are truths that have a likewise scriptural basis developed by tradition. As a pastoral minister, my role is to help people live those truths in the real world. This is why I focus on prayer. Prayer is us in dialog with God seeking to become what He is forming us to be. In prayer, we learn to do our best to live the wisdom behind Church teaching, to trust in divine grace, to understand all that Jesus Christ did for us on the cross and continue to live our lives with that focus. Notice how rarely the influencers speak on prayer and you will see why they do not always give a life-giving message.

So rarely is teaching infallible, the other teachings are part of the deposit of faith but they must be understood and lived in the real world by the guidance of the spirit. He offers us the many tools through the Church to deepen our understanding of the truths behind the rules. Those who just cite those teachings and tell people to follow them or they will go to Hell are neither being true to the teachings or to Christ himself.

Finally, it is through our living the faith and doing it as a church that those teachings develop and we deepen our understanding of the truths behind them. This is our call as servants of Christ.

Thank you Nathan for your question, I hope my answer helps.

Remember to everyone, questions and or comments are welcome below.

Fr. Robert J Carr is chaplain for two hospitals in Brockton, Massachusetts

His Patreon Page is patreon.com/catholicaudiomedia

He is the author of several books including: Christ in Your Humanity