In the current climate of confusion and debate over the contents of Amoris laetitia, I recently re-read Veritatis splendor, the 1993 encyclical letter of Pope St. John Paul II on moral theology, which is cited in three of the five dubia relating to Amoris laetitia.
It is not my purpose to enter here into any of the controversies surrounding Amoris laetitia. My theological specialization centers around issues of magisterium, authority, and infallibility (dissertation On the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium from Joseph Kleutgen to the Second Vatican Council due to be published Dec. 31, 2017), and so my first thought while re-reading Veritatis splendor was: are any doctrinal points being proposed infallibly here?
It is generally taken for granted that Veritatis splendor is an exercise of the authentic but not infallible magisterium, requiring therefore a religious submission of will and intellect (CIC, 752) but not a definitive assent (CIC, 750). However, I also recalled that Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of the CDF under the Prefecture of Cardinal Ratzinger, had spoken of Veritatis splendor together with Evangelium vitae and Ordinatio sacerdotalis as examples of formal papal confirmations of doctrines infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium (L’Osservatore Romano, Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent).
Now Bertone himself denies that these three documents contain any solemn infallible definitions even while asserting that the doctrines proclaimed in them are irreformable. But the reasons he gives for not regarding them as solemn definitions in their own right rest on two false presuppositions:
First, his argument implicitly assumes that only definitions of dogma count as solemn definitions ex cathedra; that is, only definitions that propose a doctrine as one that must be firmly believed as contained in divine revelation. This is a very common misunderstanding, but the fact is that the pope also speaks ex cathedra when he defines secondary truths of Catholic doctrine; that is, when he proposes a doctrine as one that must be definitively held as pertaining to divine revelation.
Secondly, his argument assumes that a doctrine cannot (or at least should not) be infallibly taught by the Church more than once. That is, he argues from the fact that a certain doctrine has already been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium, to the conclusion that it would be impossible (or at least inappropriate) for the same doctrine to be infallibly defined by the extraordinary magisterium (e.g. by a solemn definition ex cathedra). This misunderstanding is also fairly widespread today, but there is no justification for it in any of the magisterial texts dealing with the question; and in fact, there is much evidence to the contrary.
Now being already firmly convinced myself that Ordinatio sacerdotalis and Evangelium vitae do contain solemn infallible definitions ex cathedra, it occurred to me to wonder whether Veritatis splendor did as well, seeing that Bertone had treated the three documents together as bearing (at least in his mind) a similar magisterial weight.
Three criteria for papal infallibility
The First Vatican Council teaches that the pope speaks infallibly when: “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” There are three essential conditions given here as can be clearly seen from the Official Explanation of this text given at Vatican I by Bishop Gasser (a must-read for anyone who really wants to understand papal infallibility), and from the reformulation of the doctrine by Vatican II. Lumen gentium states that the pope speaks infallibly when: “as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.” In brief, the three essential conditions are:
- On the part of the subject: The pope must be acting as head of the universal Church (not as a private person or even merely as the local bishop of the diocese of Rome).
- On the part of the object: The pope must be teaching about a matter of faith or morals (as opposed to legislating about matters of government or discipline).
- On the part of the act: The pope must propose the doctrine in a definitive way.
What does it mean to ‘define’ doctrine?
The first two conditions are generally quite easy to verify. The third can be confusing, and attempts to explain it often confuse the issue further. In order to understand it rightly we cannot do better than listen to Bishop Gasser as he explains it to the fathers of the First Vatican Council prior to their final vote approving the text:
Not just any manner of proposing the doctrine is sufficient even when he is exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher. Rather, there is required the manifest intention of defining doctrine, either of putting an end to a doubt about a certain doctrine or of defining a thing, giving a definitive judgment and proposing that doctrine as one which must be held by the Universal Church.
Further on, Gasser summarizes the same point as follows:
The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment.
After Gasser’s speech, there was still some confusion amongst the fathers of the council about the meaning of the word defines, and so Bishop Gasser took the floor again to explain how this word is to be understood in reference to papal infallibility:
Now I shall explain in a very few words how this word ‘defines’ is to be understood according to the Deputation de fide. Indeed, the Deputation de fide is not of the mind that this word should be understood in a juridical sense so that it only signifies putting an end to controversy which has arisen in respect to heresy and doctrine which is properly speaking de fide. Rather, the word ‘defines’ signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff.
When does the pope ‘define’ doctrine or ‘proclaim it by a definitive act’?
- When he manifestly intends to put an end to a doubt about a certain doctrine;
- When he gives a definitive judgment and proposes a doctrine as one which must be held by the Universal Church;
- When he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
- When he directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence in such a way that we may know for certain that a given doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff.
Does Veritatis splendor ‘define’ doctrine?
Does John Paul II do this in Veritatis splendor? There are indeed some good reasons for thinking that he does not only teach but actually defines (in the sense outlined above) the central doctrinal point of the entire encyclical: namely, that there are universal and immutable moral laws prohibiting intrinsically evil acts.
1. The pope explicitly invokes his apostolic authority with reference to this reaffirmation: “Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter” (115).
2. He explicitly states that this teaching is based on Sacred Scripture: “In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: ‘Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God’ (1 Cor 6:9–10)” (81).
3. He repeats his condemnation of the error opposed to this truth twice in the space of four paragraphs at the very center of the encyclical (79, 82). This is highly unusual and cannot but give added force to the condemnation.
4. He makes use of the language of obligation (by means of the predicative gerundive) and chooses the forceful term “respuenda est,” which literally means, “it must be spit out, spewed out, rejected.”
5. He specifically identifies the condemned thesis as erroneous. In the technical language of theology, the denial of a dogma is described as heretical, the denial of a definitive truth of Catholic doctrine is described as erroneous, and the denial of authentic Catholic teaching is described as rash, or presumptuous. Hence, to condemn a thesis as erroneous is to propose the contradictory proposition as a definitive truth of Catholic doctrine.
The Reality of Intrinsically Evil Acts
Here is the double condemnation at the heart of Veritatis splendor:
79. One must therefore reject (respuenda est igitur) the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species – its “object” – the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.
82. For this reason – we repeat – the opinion must be rejected as erroneous (ut erronea respuenda est) which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.
Uh…yes. AL was designed to be the anti-VS. They can’t both be true.
“Pope St. John Paul II”
Come on 1P5, you guys are the like one of the last places of sanity.
You contest that he’s a saint? Last I checked, the church invokes infallibility when it canonizes someone.
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/74-infallability-of-canonizations.html
Look it up elsewhere if you disbelieve me you heretic.
And yet, when asked if he believed that his canonizations of JPII and Paul VI were infallible, Bergoglio replied that he didn’t believe canonizations were infallible. I hope he was as wrong about this as he seems to be about most things.
Can a heretic/anti-pope like Bergoglio legitimately canonize a saint?
Lucius III beatified Charlemagne in 1165. The legitimate Pope was Alexander III (1159-81). Like some other acts of antipopes, this is deemed valid by virtue of its non-rejection, and positive reception, by the Church. So any canonical defects in V2 or in post-1958 Papal acts can be resolved in the same way.
So we’re stuck with V2 and Amoris Laetitia, as well?
The Church cannot, at this very late date, say V2 was not an Ecumenical Council. Too much depends on it. Why the action agst Abp Lefebvre and the SSPX if V2 was not an EC ? 4 Popes have continually taught and acted as though V2 were an EC, and so have the other bishops, 1000s of them. That a Pope is the rightful Pope is a Dogmatic Fact – that is, a reality that cannot be false if dogmas logically dependent on it are to be true. And the same applies, if one is to be consistent, to the assertion that Council X is an EC. So if V2 is not an EC, the Popes sinned by treating it as such – another reason to regard P6 and JP2 as non-Saints. Saints do not require a non-EC to be accepted by the SSPX as an EC, because Saints do not tell massive lies, which they would be doing, if they required that acceptance by the SSPX of that Council. Canonisations are also Dogmatic Facts BTW.
If V2 is not an EC, several Popes are liars and persecutors, and false teachers. They are no more infallible, or Saintly, than my cat. Basically, they are bigger snake-oil salesmen than any lying televangelist scumbag – if V2 is not an EC.
The Church cannot now unsay V2. It has been recognised as an Ecumenical Council by all Popes since JP2, and by all generations of the hierarchy since 1962, and by the whole Church since then. It has had a massive effect on the Church’s life in every way – on the Liturgy, theology, doctrine, practice, faith and morals of the CC, in all Catholic Rites. It is also the most representative of the ECs, with about 2,600 Fathers present, not including observers from other Christian bodies.
If it is not an EC, the 20 earlier ones have even less right to be called ECs.
And if it were unsaid, this would make absolute nonsense of the CC’s insistence that it must all of it be accepted. If three Popes – 4, if Mueller is right – were wrong to require that the SSPX accept it, what else did those Popes get wrong ? To unsay V2 would be to expose those Popes as liars, fools, incompetents, or non-Popes.
And why in tarnation should any sane non-retarded Catholic believe a word the Popes say, if they could not get a simple detail like the status of a Council right ? These ppl are supposed to be the final authorities on stuff of that kind. They cannot claim what they do about themselves, and then make an unholy mess of their job – they have left themselves no room to plead that they have no clue what they are doing, because their doctrines and law exalt their competence, authority, power, uncontradictableness, infallibility, finality, blah-blah-blah, to teach, bind, etc. Sorry Popes – you lot do not get an out, ever. Don’t like having to match your advertising ? You brought it on yourselves, so can the whining !
Assertions that Francis is an anti-pope will get you banned from commenting at 1P5. Please delete this comment.
Alrighty… but is it okay to call him a heretic? Or is that prohibited to?
Thanks for understanding and for your otherwise excellent comments on the site. Steve has written several articles detailing that PF teaches heresy; e.g. his article on the death penalty.
Paul VI has not been canonized. Pope John XXIII was canonized along with Pope John Paul II.
Thank you for the correction, Donna.
It’ll happen 🙁
JP2 was a far from orthodox liberal. A Saint does not legalise sacrilege, deny the Uniqueness of the CC, or practice panreligionism and indifferentism. Nor would a Saint legalise the abuse of having altar girls. He did every one of these things, and others. Like including his opinion of the DP in the CCC. This is the “Saint” who regarded that utter scoundrel Maciel as a model for youth, and who refused to investigate him. Or to do anything about the paedo scandals. Very Saintly.
According to Cardinal Burke at a talk he gave Malvern retreat canonization of Saints can be done in error.
“For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II to be Saints and we enroll them among the Saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church.”
A “Saint ” cannot make any mistakes with regards to the faith. And these two Popes made many mistakes.
St. Pope John Paul II simply echoed forth Sacred Tradition,
Didache
“. But the Way of Death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boastfulness.
2. Persecutors of the good, haters of truth, lovers of lies, knowing not the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to the good nor to righteous judgment, spending wakeful nights not for good but for wickedness, from whom meekness and patience is far, lovers of vanity, following after reward, unmerciful to the poor, not working for him who is oppressed with toil, without knowledge of him who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of God’s creatures, turning away the needy, oppressing the distressed, advocates of the rich, unjust judges of the poor, altogether sinful; may ye be delivered, my children, from all these.”
My favorite encyclical. Liberals hate it.
See CCC 2036: “The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.”
See CCC 2035: “The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.”
Very well done! Thank you! Here are a couple of my favourite Veritatis Splendor quotes, out of literally 10K words of favourite quotes!
VS 103 “It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question”. But what are the “concrete possibilities of man” ? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption.”
VS 120 “Nor does she [Mary] permit sinful man to be deceived by those who claim to love him by justifying his sin, for she knows that the sacrifice of Christ her Son would thus be emptied of its power. No absolution offered by beguiling doctrines, even in the areas of philosophy and theology, can make man truly happy: only the Cross and the glory of the Risen Christ can grant peace to his conscience and salvation to his life.”
THIS contradicts, refutes and nullifies the many statements of Francis about the moral law being only an “ideal”.
Our Lady is not the Holy Spirit, so she has no power to prevent people being deceived. If she could, why did she not prevent this happening at V2 ? If the Popes disagree *on matters of faith and morals*, it is irrational and immoral to treat them as reliable guides. And if V2 is not an Ecumenical Council of the CC, then the Church has been deceived and in error for over 50 years, so it is impossible for it to be infallible. Some of us still value logic and consistency and honesty, even if the Papacy does not.
Hi, James. Through the centuries God has used Mary as destroyer of heresies, God ‘raises the lowly and casts the mighty from their strongholds’, and He will use her to destroy
Modernism too.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-be-agents-of-marys-immaculate-heart-to-combat-diabolical-for?utm_content=buffer4602b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Another interesting quote, from VS 115:
In one sentence this invalidates the two most common approaches to rationalizing away the universal objectivity of moral standards: (1) the crafting of a supposed doctrinal-pastoral dualism in which invincible ignorance becomes the eighth sacrament, and (2) appeals to ambiguous or even outright incorrect ‘respectable’ vintage theological opinions in arguing for moral subjectivism/relativism.
Excellent article ! I wonder, would the writer consider Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI to be an infallible doctrine to be held by the whole Church, definitively? I believe that it does hold the necessary hallmarks of an infallible teaching. Many disagree.
Which teaching of Mortalium animos are you thinking of in particular?
Ok! Specifically? What is the overall theme of Mortalium Animos? In as much as it proscribes against the modern movement of ecumenism, it appears clear. I agree that interspersed with dogma Pope Pius makes many personal observations and assumptions regarding the state of the world and the reasons why Christian unity is desirable in the minds of many non Catholics and a number of misguided Catholics. But throughout the encyclical the theme is clear,It is forbidden for Catholic to engage in the ecumenical movement.
“So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24] ”
“This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by “witnesses preordained by God,”[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man’s life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life.”
Now after 50 years of ecumenism, where we witness, Catholics taking part in assemblies of non-Catholics. Where we witness the hierarchy, from the pope down, telling non-Catholics to stay where they are for the sake of ecumenism, when they request to enter the Church. Further, we see the pope embracing Protestant women clerics on the sanctuaries of the Catholic Church, seemingly endorsing women priests. We continually witness the Catholic Church adopting Protestant -Catholic Praxis and liturgies, whilst ignoring the great differences between the Catholic faith and the Protestant heresies. Are these examples of pan-Christian practices that Pope Pius XI infallibly forbade.
Well, not having considered the matter deeply before, I will just offer my initial reactions. Firstly, the prohibition against participating in the ecumenical movement seems to be in the realm of legislation rather than doctrine, and infallibility only applies to matters of doctrine. To be sure, the pope gives a doctrinal basis for the prohibitions, but does he propose any of these doctrines as divinely revealed or definitively to be held? A case could perhaps be made for the condemnation of pan-Christianism in para. 7, since he speaks of refuting a false opinion and defending a divinely revealed truth. So if there is an infallible definition there, it would seem to be that the unity of the Church is a present and permanent reality (not an unrealized goal).
Is this post supposed to be on, “Is Veritatis Splendor infallible?,” . . . or, “Does Veritatis Splendor contain infallible teaching within it?” What is Mr. Joy’s — “Doctor Joy'” by now, hopefully –point?
As for the first: I would say, “no” — and, indeed, it would well nigh impossible to claim that a whole document of the Magisterium were infallible. But, as for the second, I would say: “yes.”
But, as for the overall argument (which I must assume): SO WHAT?
Hi Matthew,
Sorry for the misleading title. As I hope the post as a whole made clear, my interest was in whether the document contains an infallible definition – not whether the document as a whole is infallible.
VS does not satisfy the conditions set out in Pastor Aeternus. Besides, if definitions defining X as infallible truth in Document Y are repeated verbatim in Document Z, that means that the quotation in Z expresses infallible truth, not that Z is meant to be an (infallible) definition. Nor is a document confirming a definition in another document infallible, as though by osmosis.
Which condition set out in Pastor Aeternus does it fail to satisfy? I’m open to arguments against VS containing an infallible definition, but I’d like to see an argument and not merely an assertion.
To your latter point, of course a confirmation or reaffirmation of a doctrine already taught infallibly by the Church NEED NOT be in itself also infallible. But Bertone and others seem to think that it CAN NOT be in itself infallible. That is the point against which I object. One cannot judge that an act of magisterial teaching was not infallible merely on the grounds that it repeats or confirms something already infallibly taught by the Church.