Falibly Infallible

[Peace]

Sometimes I will get into an argument with a (political) conservative, and point to the stance that the USCCB has taken on various issues, such as immigration, welfare, health care, etc.

In response, the conservative will say something like - I am not bound to follow the example of the Church on those matters. The Church has not required that I believe or follow Her guidance with respect to those issues.

And that is right I think. Although the Church seems to support Universal Health Care, for example, there is not an infallible decree somewhere that states that this is the proper model of health care that Catholics must advocate. People are free to disagree with Her example here. (And yes, I realize that some would also argue that She has not set an example of advocating for Universal Health Care - that is another debate).

The question is - what is stopping you or me from taking that same stance towards other, more commonly held teachings of the Catholic Church? 

For example, Justice Scalia and some other Catholics flat-out reject paragraph 2267 of the Catechism (dealing with the death penalty), based on their own private interpretation of what the Church "historically has taught" concerning the death penalty.

Can they do that? I think so. I don't think that what is written in paragraph 2267 has been infallibly defined.

But it seems that there are a host of other commonly understood teachings of the Church that have also not been formally defined (perhaps Her teachings concerning the use of contraceptive devices outside of marriage, IVF, cloning, etc.).

What would stop a Catholic from taking the same stance concerning other teachings of the Church that while well understood, have not been formally defined?

Can we just pick and choose to follow the Church on the things on which we agree with Her, as long as the things for which we disagree have not been formally bound upon us?

[Nihil Obstat]

Can we just pick and choose to follow the Church on the things on which we agree with Her, as long as the things for which we disagree have not been formally bound upon us?

Does that sound like a safe plan to you, given the high stakes here?

[Peace]

Does that sound like a safe plan to you, given the high stakes here?

LOL. That was more of a rhetorical question, you know.

But no, it does not sound like a safe plan to me, nor one that I advocate.

If we should follow the Church concerning contraception, for example, should we not also follow Her when it comes to the death penalty, health-care, welfare, etc.?

My position has been that we should try to follow Her guidance on all issues, but there does seem to be a form of "Cafeteria Catholicism" whereby some folks choose to ignore Her guidance on some of those issues, because they are not strictly bound to follow it. . .

[Gabriela]

If a person refuses to follow or even to seriously consider any Church teaching just because it hasn't been declared infallibly, is that person really "Catholic"?

It sounds to me like the real issue you're dealing with here isn't the reasons people are giving for why they refuse to follow Church teaching, but the fact that their hearts are so hard that they refuse to follow Church teaching—period.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Gabriela

[Ice_nine]

 private interpretation of what the Church "historically has taught" concerning the death penalty.

I object to the word  "private" here.

I'm not a traditionalist per se, but I have traditionalist sympathies. If the church teaches something for centuries and all of the sudden something comes along that seems to outwardly contradict that, it's rather dismissive to gloss over their concerns.

Case in point, the death penalty, which you brought up. I don't begrudge people who are against the dp but it doesn't seem right to me that a Catholic would be disparaged as "not trusting the church" for maintaining a position that is grounded in centuries of moral philosophy and theology of the church.

[Nihil Obstat]

The Catechism itself clearly and explicity allows the death penalty at least in principle. So bad example there.

[Amppax]

In b4 debate table.

Anyway... There is something to discuss here. The issues you list, Peace, as being possible to dissent from have often been addressed at the highest levels of Church governance. I'm thinking specifically of a number of CDF documents which unfortunately I don't have the time to find. These documents carry magisterial weight in a way that actions of the USCCB  can't.  This ties back into earlier discussions (I'm thinking a couple months back) of the varying levels of assent owed various teachings.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

The thing is, if you pay attention and know how to look, the Church Herself teaches which teachings require what level of assent. Not all are created equal. But those that do require some level of assent, you are in bad company when you start to pick and choose.

[Amppax]

The problem here, I think, is that people error in both directions. On the one hand, plenty have an attitude that we are only bound to infalliblely taught dogmas, "and aren't there only like 2 of those or something?" On the other hand, there's a maximalist approach that raises everything to the level of infallible dogmas, which is equally an error, though perhaps more admirable in its intent.

Lost a post I'd typed, oh well. 

The point I was going to make is that distinguishing levels of assent isn't easy, which is probably why it isn't really taught (except to nerds like me). But it is frustrating to deal with these two extremes. 

[Not The Philosopher]

Things typically tend to become formally defined if they are at the center of a major controversy that threatens the unity of the Church, or if the situation were otherwise such that it would be fitting to do so. The consubstantiality of Christ with the Father was defined by Nicaea because of the threat Arianism posed. The Resurrection has not, however, to my knowledge been formally defined, because it's already very explicit in Scripture, and there hasn't been any substantial intra-Church controversy about it. But you'd nevertheless be a heretic if you denied it.

Anyway, like Nihil and Ammpax have said, there are differing levels of teaching and assent required. The Church teaching on contraception isn't quite at the same level of centrality as the Resurrection, but it would still be wrong to dissent from it, as it flows from the Church's understanding of human nature and sexuality which is part of the Deposit of Faith which has been passed on, and which deals with issues that are immensely important to human life.

Political/economic questions involve a degree of contingency which questions related to life and marriage do not, and so there can be differing opinions about how Catholic principles of social justice and whatnot can be best applied (i.e., what form of healthcare would be best for it) but it would be wrong to dispute the principles themselves.

[Socrates]

Sometimes I will get into an argument with a (political) conservative, and point to the stance that the USCCB has taken on various issues, such as immigration, welfare, health care, etc.

Oooh! Those awful conservatives!

Only way to deal with those nasty reactionary miscreants is to forcibly ship them off to a re-education camp directed by Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry.  That usually causes their heads to explode.

[Peace]

The Catechism itself clearly and explicity allows the death penalty at least in principle. So bad example there.

Why exactly is a bad example? I quoted the Catechism section on the DP so obviously I read it before writing my post.

To clarify - it is not this part that some people disagree with:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,

It is this part that people disagree with:

if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

I object to the word  "private" here.

I'm not a traditionalist per se, but I have traditionalist sympathies. If the church teaches something for centuries and all of the sudden something comes along that seems to outwardly contradict that, it's rather dismissive to gloss over their concerns.

Case in point, the death penalty, which you brought up. I don't begrudge people who are against the dp but it doesn't seem right to me that a Catholic would be disparaged as "not trusting the church" for maintaining a position that is grounded in centuries of moral philosophy and theology of the church.

I am not sure why it is not a private interpretation. If you explicitly state that you reject paragraph XYZ of the Catechism do you not have your own interpretation that differs from that of the Magisterium?

As for whether "the church teaches something for centuries" - I think the question here is - who gets to decide what the Church has taught for centuries? Are we all just free to grab the history books ourselves and declare for ourselves what the Church's historical teaching on a matter is, or do we go to our current Pope, our Bishops, our local priests? On any given issue I am sure that they know a whole lot more about it than you, me or Justice Scalia, and generally, I think this is one of the big reasons why we have them - so that we can look for them to guidance as to what the Church teaches (and has taught).

Heck - I may as well do my own "historical research" and conclude that although the Catechism prohibits pre-marital sex, I am free to sleep with anybody I want because based on my own reasearch and intepretation of scriputure and tradition, the Catechism is wrong on the point and the "historical teaching of the Church allows it".

I think that is what you end up with if you take the attitude that you can ignore certain sections of the Catechism, or your pastor, etc. . .

[Peace]

The thing is, if you pay attention and know how to look, the Church Herself teaches which teachings require what level of assent. Not all are created equal. But those that do require some level of assent, you are in bad company when you start to pick and choose.

That's cool. How do you figure out what level of assent is requried - on a "teaching by teaching" basis, if you will?

Oooh! Those awful conservatives!

Only way to deal with those nasty reactionary miscreants is to forcibly ship them off to a re-education camp directed by Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry.  That usually causes their heads to explode.

LOL. Funny. I am much more likely to vote for Rubio or Kasich than I am for Pelosi or Kerry. I am generally inclined to vote against any pro-choice candidate unless I have otherwise compelling reasons to do so.

You see "Cafeteria Catholicsm" by both liberals and conservatives (and I am guessing that you can see it among a moderate such as myself as well). "Cafeteria Catholicism" by liberals is often discussed, but I think that there is also a form of it among conservatives, which should be discussed more. I think that Ross Douthat touches on it a bit in that book he wrote a few years ago.

Carry on.

[Amppax]

Oooh! Those awful conservatives!

Only way to deal with those nasty reactionary miscreants is to forcibly ship them off to a re-education camp directed by Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry.  That usually causes their heads to explode.

Do you ever contribute anything to discussions? Or do you only know how to whine about how everyone picks on conservatives? 

[Nihil Obstat]

That's cool. How do you figure out what level of assent is requried - on a "teaching by teaching" basis, if you will?

Not quite. It is not like there is a footnote at the end of each encyclical saying "you have to believe this this much." There are a lot of factors, which can make it more difficult. Not impossible certainly, but difficult, and there is still some room for disagreement at some points. Just basic guidelines, an encyclical and a motu proprio do not have the same level of authority, and both have less than an apostolic constitution. A memo from the USCCB or the CDF has very little authority in and of itself, but they might (or might not) draw from teachings that do have authority. The Catechism itself is not an enormously authoritative document, again in and of itself, but most of its teachings are drawn from other sources which do have great authority, much of it requiring assent.
If something is taught unanimously by the Church Fathers then we consider it infallible. If Encyclical X repeats Doctrine A which was unanimously held by the early Fathers, then we consider Doctrine A infallible even if Encyclical X as a whole is not strictly infallible.

Stuff like that. You get the picture.