In a private conversation with a graduate of Franciscan University, who was dismayed at the school’s decision to honor an advocate of torture, preemptive war, and militarism in general, I stated that Republican Catholics were replicating what Democratic Catholics have long done, selectively rejecting aspects of Church teaching. But when I thought about it, I realized I was wrong. What conservative Catholics are doing is far worse.
No one ever thought that the various dissidents of the Left are faithful on doctrinal matters. Those who hold that abortion is a morally acceptable option or that homosexual marriage is not an ontological impossibility are unlikely to hold orthodox opinions on matters of theological faith. If very religious, they are likely crusaders for women’s ordination and other theological errors and their praxis is unlikely to include much that is traditional. Even their Christology is likely to be suspect.
The most visible dissidents, like Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, are unlikely to even give such things much thought. It is evident to anyone that they are mere cultural Catholics, ones who are practical secularists.
But Rick Santorum and his legion of conservative Catholic fans, or the Franciscan University of Steubenville? Or Fr Sirico or Congressman Paul Ryan? They do hold to orthodox opinions about theological matters, and are apparently sincere in their devotion. I’m sure I could have a conversation with Mr Santorum or his ilk about the sacraments, or Christology, or abortion and find little to argue about. FUS prides itself on its fidelity to the Church.
And that is why they are so dangerous.
First, they give the impression to those outside the Church that their aberrant opinions on war and torture are acceptable among Catholics. This harms the credibility of the Church, already weakened by years of scandal.
Of course, we should be able to count on our bishops to correct such misunderstandings. Unfortunately, among those bishops who are not themselves Republicans, too many are testically challenged and say nothing. Or they are so flattered that someone is using Catholic terminology, so pleased to have been included in the conversation, that they just grin and wet themselves.
Second, priests and politicians who, however much they may use language from the tradition, dissent on social teaching confirm Catholics in error. When a priest like Fr Sirico portrays his individualistic capitalist ethos as somehow the epitome of “subsidiarity”, or Congressman Ryan promotes his proposed budget, which rewards the rich and punishes the poor and does not touch military spending, as somehow directly flowing from his study of St Thomas, there are too many who are only too happy not to question them. When Franciscan University honors a career militarist, one who vigorously defends torture, too many Catholics are only too willing to use this to justify what their nationalism predisposes them to favor.
Particularly tragic are the number of converts to Catholicism who take in their mentors’ aberrant politics with their sound theology. I know several people who came to faith while studying at any number of small conservative Catholic liberal arts colleges. Converts are in a teachable mode, and when their teachers mouthed right wing ideology they took it in as if by osmosis. It was only later, when they read the social encyclicals for themselves that they realized they had been misled.
I know that dissidents of the Right insist that the things they reject, when they are honest enough to admit that they reject them, are not infallible, not de fide. In this they echo the dissidents of the past. But a Catholicism that held only to strictly defined dogma would hardly be recognized as Catholicism at all. The Church insists that even the ordinary Magisterium be respected.
Those on the Right who defend torture, preemptive war, free market capitalism, and the rest are in fact guilty of grave errors.
They are guilty of consequentialism, the idea that the morality of an act is measured by the good that it attains. This has always been condemned by the Church.
And they are guilty of allowing nationalism, in the name of American Exceptionalism, to trump the obedience they owe to Christ and His Church. And American Exceptionalism is really only Americanism, which was condemned as a heresy in the 19th century.
It remained a heresy in the 20th.
And it remains one today, in the 21st.
Respecting the ordinary Magisterium and accepting what they say are two different things. Lets get that straight. It’s in the dogma of Catholicism that people become transformed all pastoral life proceeds from this. So it totally possible to have a Catholicism that is strictly defined by dogma.You don’t need the ordinary Magisterium to tell you that most things are wrong like torture or some of the other things you mentioned. I don’t see how someone in their right mind and follows Jesus Christ (dogma) could water board another human being. Respecting and being docile to our bishops does not mean we have to agree with them.I’m not saying I disagree with some of the ideals that you represent. However, there will always be room to (reject) the ordinary Magisterium and history shows they have been dead wrong many times. Before you say we should hope they are being led by the Holy Spirit think about the many documents that have suppressed Eastern Catholics and even do today. Many of the teachings of the past have been invalidated since the second Vatican council but there are some that remain alive today. As a Byzantine Catholics myself I (reject) the ordinary Magisterium in everything that suppress Eastern Catholic traditions.
A few Examples of many that have come from the ordinary Magisterium:
From Allatae Sunt: —A magisterial document for missionaries that came to our lands demonstrating that our traditions are not valid without Rome and became a foundation for Latinization:
“These examples show clearly that the Apostolic See has always forbidden ceremonies to the Greeks, (even if they already were prevalent among them), whenever it saw that these ceremonies were already or were in danger of becoming evil and destructive
From OMNEM SOLLICITUDINEM”:—).”–In this document we find the pastoral actions that helped us to become roman catholics with byzantine liturgies:
“11. Liturgical innovations of this nature proposed for the purpose of purifying the Oriental rites and (restoring them) to their pristine integrity are a pretext and therefore invalid. Indeed the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, (always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See.” “If variations have occurred in this liturgy in the course of time, (they have been instituted after consultation with the Roman Pontiffs) and for the express purpose of freeing such rites from any taint of heresy or schism and expressing Catholic teaching more correctly and clearly for the preservation of the faith and the good of souls.”
Not to mention Cardinal Leonardo Sandri recent comments that reminded us of that good old magestarium document Ea Semper: “The cardinal urged care in helping young people discern their vocation, “maintaining formation programs, integrating immigrant priests (and) embracing celibacy in respect of the ecclesial context” of the United States where mandatory celibacy is the general rule for priests.”
Eastern Catholics have been and are still treated as second rate citizens of the kingdom of God thanks to the ordinary Magisterium. I will always reject this!!! Thanks to the ordinary Magisterium there remains fuel to keep Orthodox and Catholic divided.If that is not application of heresy I don’t know what is.
Well said friend.
Mr. Ballard,
The examples you cite are all disciplinary, which, since they have to do with norms or practices or laws formed by the Church, can not be infallible. They are not teachings but disciplines. The term that would apply here would be impeccability, for which the magisterium has no guarantee.
As for teaching, the ordinary magisterium is not necessarily infallible. The ordinary magisterium is infallible, when it is universal — that is, when pope and the bishops universally hold that a teaching is binding on the faithful or reiterate a teaching in an authoritative manner. This can occur when the pope issues a teaching in a manner that indicates its authoritative character and the bishops of the world at least acquiesce in that teaching by receiving it and not (in their capacity as bishops) disputing it. It can occur when the pope reiterates traditional teaching as the witness of tradition, and the bishops receive the reiteration. An example of the first is the teaching on women’s ordination. An example of the second is the teaching on artificial contraception, as found in Humanae Vitae.
Not everything in the social doctrine is authoritative in this sense. But, I think, certain things are — such as the worker’s right to a just wage. This has been reiterated multiple times by a succession of pontiffs from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI. It has clearly been received by the bishops, for they have not officially, in their capacity as bishops, disputed it. To reject this teaching, therefore, would be grave dissent from the teachings of the Church.
This is what I hear from you Christopher, ignore the bishops when they instruct us how to live our faith but not the teaching on social issues. Telling someone what to believe and how to practice it is more than a discipline. When we are told that we are heretics and need to change this is not a discipline. When we are told we can’t practice and aspect of our tradition because the roman one is more correct this is not a discipline. Sorry David for the overkill I know this strays away from your content. I tried to delete after I vented.
I really hate this auto correct feature it works only have the time and when it does it gives the wrong words. Sorry Daniel.
Mr. Ballard,
I said nothing about ignoring the bishops when they teach us how to live our faith — how you gleaned this from what I wrote, I am at a loss to say. I only made a distinction between teaching and discipline and described the various levels of ordinary magisterial teaching.
Telling someone what to believe certainly falls under the category of teaching — it is what the Catholic and Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have been doing for centuries. Telling someone how to act may be too, if it is expressed as a universal moral norm. The Church may suppress certain liturgical practices without condemning them as heretical. The terms “taint of heresy or schism” or “dangerous” very likely here are not condemnations of the content of the rites but of what was perceived as their context — that is, that they could draw the Byzantine churches away from communion with Rome. Too, Omnem Sollcitudienem is not directly condemning any rites but merely ratifying a decision made by others to remove them, *if* they were done for certain expressed reasons and with consultation with the pope. You will note the statement in OS begins with “if” — there is much meaning in “if.”
The examples you cited, even if they contained teaching, are not examples of the universal and ordinary magisterium but, at best, of the simple ordinary magisterium, which may be reformed. But they are not teaching but disciplinary direction which, I agree, were wrongheaded.
And instead of finding people who are “Fiscally liberal and morally conservative” if we have to use such incomplete terms, we find in our culture the exact opposite, and therefore terrible on every position: fiscally conservative, morally liberal.”(isnt this the cry of the libertarians?) Often where we find these moral conservative and fiscal liberals(i.e. catholic,put simply) are in the Byzantine Catholic church of all places.Radical individualism and once saved always saved theology leads to a moral permissiveness.This is the protestant influence and has nothing to do with catholicism and never did.*Sigh*
I completely agree- that is indeed the cry of both the libertarians and progressives. And we find them not only in the Byzantine Church, but also throughout the whole Church in America- including SSPX, FSSP, and NO parishes, on both the left and the right.
You only think this because you attend the Byzantine cathedral of one of the few bishops, east or west, who has courage. Bishop John Michael Botean is one of the very few who witnesses consistently for both peace and unborn life. I assure you that elsewhere Byzantine Catholics are as likely as any other kind to embrace moral inconsistency. Heck, I got thrown off the Byzantine Forum by the (neocon) administrator for thought crimes!
Mr Ballard, One must distinguish between the divinely ordained magisterium- the Apostolic teaching authority- and mere human, bureaucratic constructs within the Church.
I often describe myself as on the Orthodox end of the Byzantine Catholic spectrum. That is, aside from the rather central issue of the Roman primacy, I find myself on the Orthodox side of most contentious issues. So I share your view on Latin attempts to stifle our legitimate traditions.
But those are not to be confused with the ordinary magisterium; they are matters of discipline and policy, and do not share in the gift of infallibility that is the Church’s. Even the papacy does not always share in this gift, aside from teaching on faith and morals.
Sometimes the bureaucratic human constructs even contradict the ordinary magisterium. For example, the ordinary magisterium teaches that marriage is indissoluable, but the diocesan tribunal, which is not part of the divine structure of the Church, but a human bureaucracy, often contradicts this by issuing annulments freely.
Catholic social teaching does have authority because it is a matter of faith and morals, not mere human discipline or policy.