Teaching with Authority

How to Cut through Doctrinal Confusion & Understand What the

Church Really Says
 Jimmy Akin

Teaching with Authority

How to Cut through Doctrinal Confusion & Understand What the
Church Really Says
© 2018 Jimmy Akin

All rights reserved. Except for quotations, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, uploading to the
internet, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.

Published by Catholic Answers, Inc.

2020 Gillespie Way
El Cajon, California 92020
1-888-291-8000 orders
619-387-0042 fax
catholic.com

Printed in the United States of America

Cover design by ebooklaunch.com

Interior design by Russell Graphic Design

978-1-68357-094-3
978-1-68357-095-0 Kindle
978-1-68357-096-7 ePub
Dedicated to the memory of Cardinal Avery Dulles, who went out of his way to
help me, and in gratitude for the teaching ministry of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope
Benedict XVI.
Special thanks to Fr. Hugh Barbour, Mark Brumley, and Professor Janet Smith
for assistance with various aspects of this manuscript.
Contents
Introduction
1. Authority to Teach
2. The Magisterium and the Bishops
3. Bishops Teaching Together
4. The Pope and the Holy See
5. Doctrines and the Realm of Belief
6. Disciplines and the Realm of Action
7. Sources of Church Teaching
8. The Documents of Bishops and Popes
9. Curial and Other Documents
10. Reading Church Documents
11. Key Principles of Interpretation
12. The Spectrum of Authority
13. Non-Doctrinal Statements
14. Non-Infallible Doctrines
15. Understanding the Church’s Infallibility
16. Identifying Infallible Teachings
17. Theological Opinion
18. Understanding Doctrinal Development
19. Difficulties with Doctrinal Development
20. Difficulties with Church Teaching
21. The Papal Rumor Net
Bibliography
Glossary
Introduction
There has never been a peaceful time in the history of the Church. From the
ministry of Jesus straight through to today, Christians have had to deal with
doctrinal conflict, heresy, and dissent.
Throughout the storm, the Holy Spirit has guided the Church and its pastors,
providing a clear voice so that the Church serves as “the pillar and bulwark of
the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Yet few people understand their Catholic faith or know how to navigate the
complex world of Church documents and teachings.
As part of my professional work, I’ve lived in that world for more than twenty-
five years. On a daily basis, I work with the details of Church documents and
teachings, and I’ve long wanted to write this book to share the principles that
scholars use as they carefully analyze and interpret what the Church says.
We’ll begin by looking at where the Church gets its teaching authority, the
Magisterium of the bishops and popes. We’ll cover the different kinds of
doctrine and discipline that regulate Christian life, the sources of Church
teaching, and the many different kinds of documents the Magisterium uses. A
key issue is how to read and interpret these documents, and special attention will
be devoted to the question of how to accurately assess the weight of individual
statements and identify when they are infallible. Finally, we will look at how the
Church’s teaching develops over time, how to deal with difficulties, and how to
cut through the rumors that abound today.
May God bless you as you study the teachings of the Church as the Holy Spirit
continues to guide it “into all the truth” (John 16:13).
— Jimmy Akin
July 3, 2018
Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle
Abbreviations
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
CDF Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
CIC Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici)
D Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum (early editions)
DH Denzinger-Hunermann, Enchiridion Symbolorum (current English edition)
DS Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum (common prior editions)
ITC International Theological Commission
NT New Testament
OT Old Testament
PBC Pontifical Biblical Commission
ST Summa Theologiae
 PART I
The Church as Teacher
 CHAPTER 1

Authority to Teach

How Jesus Taught

1. The Gospel of Mark tells us that, during Jesus’ ministry, the people “were
astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not
as the scribes” (1:22).
Why would people be astonished at Jesus’ authoritative manner of teaching?
How was it different from the way Jewish scribes taught? We gain an insight
when we look at the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus declares:
You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to
you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed
adultery with her in his heart (5:27–28).
The prohibition on adultery is one of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14;
Deut. 5:18), but in this passage Jesus indicates that it doesn’t only apply to
committing the outward act of adultery. We are called not only to be pure in our
outward actions but in our hearts as well. To look at a woman with deliberate
lust violates this commandment.
The striking thing is the way Jesus makes this application. He does so on his
own authority. He takes what “you have heard” and then extends it by declaring,
“but I say to you.” He does not cite any authorities to justify his claim. He says it
as if his word alone is sufficient. This dramatic statement is far from alone. In
the Sermon on the Mount, he repeatedly upends common understandings of
God’s law on his own authority (see Matt. 5:21–22, 31–32, 33–34, 38–39, 43–
44).
How Scribes Taught
2.The scribes were legal experts, and like modern lawyers, they didn’t simply
announce their own views as authoritative. They cited legal precedents. Today a
lawyer might cite a learned jurist, he might appeal to different schools of legal
thought, or he might reason from the wording of a text. The scribes and their
successors did all of these things, as we see in the Mishnah—a collection of
Jewish oral traditions that were compiled around A.D. 200.
 Thus the Mishnah cites learned legal authorities from the past:
Simeon the Righteous was one of the last survivors of the great assembly. He
would say: “On three things does the world stand: on the Torah, and on the
Temple service, and on deeds of loving kindness” (m. Abot 1:2).
The Mishnah contrasts the views of different schools of thought, as when it
compares what the followers of the sages Shammai and Hillel said concerning
the order of prayers at dinnertime:
The House of Shammai say, “One recites the blessing over the day then one
recites the blessing over the wine.”
But the House of Hillel say, “One recites the blessing over the wine and
then one recites the blessing over the day” (m. Berakhot 8:1).
The Mishnah also reasons from the words of the biblical text, as when it
discusses how much a person who has stolen must pay in restitution:
The rule covering twofold restitution applies to something whether animate or
inanimate. But the rule covering fourfold or fivefold restitution applies only
to an ox or a sheep alone, since it [Exod. 22:1] says, “If a man shall steal an
ox or a sheep and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four
sheep for a sheep” (m. Baba Qamma 7:1).
The traditional author of the Mishnah—the scholar Judah ha-Nasi—studiously
recorded the legal traditions of which he was aware, but he and other sages did
not teach in the authoritative fashion Jesus did, as if they personally had the
authority to settle an issue.
What Does Teaching Have to Do with Authority?
3. We live in an age skeptical of authority. “Think for yourself” is a standard
piece of advice, and slogans like “Question authority” appear on bumper
stickers, buttons, and T-shirts. Following crises like the Vietnam War,
Watergate, Iran-Contra, and other scandals, trust in government officials is at a
historic low.
In the twentieth century, an age of radical individualism began, and even if
1960s sayings like “Do your own thing” have passed from the scene, the idea
that individuals should make up their own minds about what they should do and
believe has remained. The rise of modern science contributed to the
antiauthoritarian attitude of our day. Scholars are not supposed to just tell us
what to believe. Instead, they should provide evidence supporting the views they
endorse.
Between science, individualism, and scandals involving authority figures,
moderns are skeptical of authority, and that includes the connection between
authority and teaching. People today hold that if a teaching is true, we should be
able to produce reasons for it and should not simply accept it on someone’s
“authority.”
Teaching and Evidence
4. This reasoning works in many fields. In mathematics, a teacher needs to prove
what he says. Indeed, in math the standards of proof are higher than in any other
field. Mathematics students must “show their work,” and if a teacher is covering
propositions from Euclid’s Elements of Geometry, he needs to provide the same
rigorous geometrical proofs Euclid did. Science teachers also need to provide
proof, but of a different kind. Science is built on observation and experiment,
and these play an important part in every science class. Even in fields like
history, teachers can’t simply announce their own views to students. They need
to cite historical evidence, such as eyewitness accounts and archaeological
remains.
Authority to Teach
5.Yet in all of these areas there is still a role for authority. Teachers are expected
to be “authorities” on the subjects they specialize in, and every field has
outstanding scholars and researchers who are considered high-level authorities.
The authority these figures have is a function of their expertise. It’s not that they
don’t need evidence for what they say; it’s that they have such a mastery of the
evidence that they can speak on the subject with authority. Consequently, those
who are less familiar with the evidence owe them a certain deference.
The Importance of Teaching Authority
6. People don’t always need a high level of expertise for us to accept what they
say. We form beliefs based on what ordinary people tell us every day. If we’re in
a windowless office and a coworker tells us that it’s raining outside, that the boss
is in a bad mood, or that there is hot coffee in the break room, we take him at his
word—unless he’s a practical joker or known to be unreliable. In each case we
adopt a belief based on the trustworthiness of the person, which is a form of
authority.
In these situations, our coworker is acting, at least in a limited way, as a
teacher. He is telling us something we previously didn’t know. We do the same
thing whenever we tell other people things they didn’t know. Such encounters
are so common that we don’t usually think of them as involving teaching
authority, but they do. In fact, most things we know are ones we’ve been taught
and have accepted on the authority of others. C.S. Lewis explains:
Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only
means believing them because you have been told them by someone you
think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed
on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it
myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a
place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man
believes in the solar system, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood
on authority—because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the
world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or
the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you
prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who
did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A
man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion
would have to be content to know nothing all his life.1
That we accept teaching authority—whether of a highly credentialed expert in
a technical field or an ordinary person describing his own experience—is vital.
Our lives would be immensely impoverished if we tried to be systematically
skeptical of every claim we encounter. In fact, to live in a human manner—or to
live at all—we have to accord others a basic level of trust. We couldn’t live if we
constantly thought people were about to attack us or that our food was poisoned,
no matter what they said. Paranoid delusions ruin people’s lives, revealing how
important it is we trust what others tell us—i.e., what they teach us.
Of course, what others tell us is not always correct, and sometimes our trust in
what they say is misplaced. However, a basic respect for what others teach us—
either formally in a classroom or informally in everyday life—is essential. A
nation would be thrown into chaos if its people systematically distrusted what
others told them. That society simply would not be able to function.
Governing Authority
7.Teaching authority is not the only kind that exists. Another is the authority to
make and carry out decisions—what we might call governing authority. It also
can be exercised formally or informally.
Every group needs organization, even just a group of friends planning an
evening’s entertainment. Though they have no formal authority, certain people
are natural leaders and assume it informally. They help the group figure out what
it wants to do by moving the discussion along, asking questions (“What kind of
food do we want to eat?”) and making suggestions (“This movie has good
reviews; we could see it”). In small, informal settings, nobody needs to be
appointed leader, and the group doesn’t need formal rules. But this changes in
groups with definite purposes. Even small social clubs have presidents,
secretaries, and treasurers—as well as bylaws and rules about how the club will
operate.
As the size of the group increases, so does the need for organization, from
small towns to giant nation-states, and leaders take on specialized roles:
legislators have the authority to make laws, judges have the authority to rule on
how the laws should be applied, and executives have the authority to carry out
(execute) these laws and rulings.
It’s desirable that officials be skilled in their jobs, and in a democracy, elected
officials try to persuade voters they have the needed skills. Even appointed
officials are supposed to be well qualified for their positions. However, it’s not
an official’s expertise that gives him authority. Even an incompetent or corrupt
official has the authority his office carries. Officials can make mistakes, take
bribes, show favoritism, and otherwise abuse their authority. Modern societies
have procedures for removing incompetent and corrupt officials, but society
would descend into chaos if nobody had governing authority. It, like teaching
authority, is essential for human welfare.
Authority in Religion
8.Despite our culture’s antiauthoritarian streak, we recognize the value of both
teaching and governing authority. A fundamental rejection of either would have
dire consequences. We thus shouldn’t be scared of their role in religion. Instead,
we should expect them to perform their functions in this domain as well.
The role of governing authority in religion is straightforward: a religious group
needs organization as much as any other. That means it needs leaders, rules by
which it operates, etc. However, the role of teaching authority in religion is
unique.
Teaching authority in religion differs from other fields because of the data
religion uses. In other disciplines—physics, chemistry, biology, history—experts
study a particular kind of information about the natural world, which we can
observe using our senses. However, religion deals with the supernatural world
that lies behind and beyond nature, and we can’t observe it with our senses. If
we could—if we could observe and study angels the way we study lions and
gazelles—then theology would be an empirical science alongside biology and
the others.
For us to have information about the supernatural world, that world must make
contact with ours. God or an angel has to tell us about it. Thus the prophets
experienced visions, dreams, and so on, in which information about the
supernatural world was revealed to them. We refer to this kind of information as
divine revelation, and it is what makes theology different from other fields of
study.
However, teaching authority also has similarities to other fields. Precisely
because they have no natural access to the supernatural world, human religious
leaders can’t simply pronounce their own views as facts. This is why Jewish
scribes cited precedents for their views. It is why pastors, theologians, and
apologists pose arguments drawn from Scripture. Not even the prophets could
simply declare things on their own authority: they were tasked with bringing
people the word of the Lord. Like authorities in other area, religious ones are
expected to have a basis—evidence—for what they say; it’s just that the nature
of their evidence is different.
But not all religious authorities are the same.
Jesus’ Unique Authority
9. Jesus Christ founded a community—a Church—and during his earthly
ministry he served both as its teacher and its leader, exercising both teaching and
governing authority. However, he displayed a unique sense of authority that
went beyond that of the scribes and even the prophets, who were limited to
announcing God’s will with formulas like “Thus says the Lord” (cf. Isa. 7:7, Jer.
2:2, Ezek. 2:2, Amos 1:3, Mic. 2:3, etc.). Jesus took the authority of the Lord on
himself, contrasting the popular understanding of a matter (“you have heard”)
with his own, definitive understanding (“but I say”).
He was able to settle matters this way because he was God made flesh. As
John’s Gospel tells us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God” (1:1). Jesus was, uniquely, the Son of God (1:14)
and “the way, the truth, and the life” (14:6). Further, he had been sent as God’s
Messiah, allowing him to declare, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to me” (Matt. 28:18).
Jesus Shares Authority with the Church
10. Although Jesus’ authority as the Son of God is unique to him, he chose to
associate human beings with his mission and gave them a share of authority.
Thus when he appoints the Twelve, we read:
And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over
unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity
(Matt. 10:1).
The authority he shared was not just that to work miracles. The twelve
disciples were his students (that’s what “disciple” means), and he prepared them
to become teachers and sent them on preaching missions:
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the
Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven
is at hand’” (Matt. 10:5–7).
Later, when sending out an even larger group, he underlined the teaching
authority he had given them, stating:
He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who
rejects me rejects him who sent me (Luke 10:16).
Jesus also gave the Twelve the authority to govern his Church. He first gave
Peter the authority “to bind and loose” (Matt. 16:19), and later he shared this
with the other disciples (Matt. 18:18).
As the Church grew, authority to teach and govern was transmitted to others in
the local churches. Thus Paul writes, “God has appointed in the church first
apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28; cf. Eph. 4:11). It is
because of its teaching function that the Church serves as “the pillar and bulwark
of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Similarly, there are those with governing authority in
the Church. The letter to the Hebrews exhorts Christians to “obey your leaders
and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will
have to give account” (Heb. 13:17; cf. 1 Thess. 5:12). Teaching and governing
authority are therefore intrinsic to the structure of the Church.
 PART I
The Church as Teacher
 CHAPTER 2

The Magisterium and the Bishops

The Concept of the Magisterium

11. The Church has a special term for the teaching authority it was given by
Christ. This term, magisterium, is based on the Latin word for “teacher”
(magister). It is used in a number of senses, two of which parallel the way the
English word authority is used: it can refer to the power to make decisions (as in,
“He has the authority to do this”) or it can refer to those who have this power (as
in, “He is an authority”). Similarly, magisterium can refer to the authority to
teach (“The pope exercised his magisterium”) and to those who have authority to
teach (“The Magisterium teaches this”). A third use occurs when the word refers
to a body of authoritative teachings (“This teaching is found in the magisterium
of Paul VI”).
12.One sometimes encounters references to the universal magisterium. This
phrase refers to all the bishops of the world, teaching in union with the pope. It
contrasts with the personal magisterium of an individual bishop or pope and the
“particular magisterium” of a bishop, pope, or group of bishops.
13. More commonly, one encounters references to the ordinary magisterium and
the extraordinary magisterium. The former includes things like a bishop giving a
homily or the pope writing an encyclical letter. These forms of teaching take
place on a regular basis, making them ordinary.
However, sometimes an extraordinary act of teaching occurs. This happens
when a pope infallibly defines a teaching. Ecumenical councils can also make
infallible definitions, and so both of these are referred to as acts of extraordinary
magisterium. There is some ambiguity about the way this term is used. Some
authors apply it only to cases where a teaching is infallibly defined. Others use it
to refer to papal definitions and anything an ecumenical council teaches, whether
infallible or not.
Regardless of how extraordinary magisterium is understood, one should not
assume an act of extraordinary magisterium is needed for a teaching to be
infallible. As we will see in future chapters, the Church’s ordinary and universal
magisterium can teach infallibly.
14. A final term we should mention is authentic magisterium. In Church
documents, the word authentic is frequently used to mean “authoritative.”
Something counts as authentic magisterium if it is an authoritative teaching or an
authoritative act of teaching (§267).
The Mission to Teach
15.In the broadest sense, all Christians are called upon to proclaim the faith to
others—and thus to teach. In this sense, St. Peter says, “Always be prepared to
make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you,
yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15). Similarly, St. Paul tells his
readers: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one
another in all wisdom” (Col. 3:16). This universal teaching role is based on the
fact that ordinary Christians have a share in the prophetic office of Christ. As the
Second Vatican Council stated:
Christ conferred on the apostles and their successors the duty of teaching,
sanctifying, and ruling in his name and power. But the laity likewise share in
the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own
share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the
world (Apostolicam Actuositatem, 2).
16.Despite this, the role ordinary Christians have in teaching is limited. Thus St.
James warns: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know
that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).
The reason some individuals have a greater teaching role is because of their
spiritual gifts (Greek, charismata). Paul states:
Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if
prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who
teaches, in his teaching (Rom. 12:6–7).
There is thus a charismatic gift of teaching. This is true of both men and
women. Thus we see Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, giving private
instruction to the evangelist Apollos (Acts 18:24–28; cf. Titus 2:3–5).
17.In addition to the charismatic gift of teaching, some offices convey a teaching
role. According to the Old Testament, “The lips of a priest should guard
knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the
messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 2:7). The New Testament similarly
recognizes the teaching function of the Church offices:
 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate,
sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher (1 Tim. 3:2).
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in preaching and teaching (1 Tim. 5:17).
In the first century, the titles for offices were fluid, and “bishop” (Greek,
episkopos) and “elder” (Greek, presbuteros) could be used interchangeably.
They were so fluid even apostles could apply them to themselves. Peter referred
to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), and Paul referred to himself as a
“deacon” (Greek, diakonos; Eph. 3:7). However, by the end of the first century
the titles had stabilized, and St. Ignatius of Antioch could state that, without the
threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons, “there is no church” (Letter
to the Trallians 3).
Since episkopos meant “overseer” (epi-, “over,” skopos, “one who sees”), it
naturally became associated with the highest of the offices, and so the Church
recognizes that the authority to teach is vested in a special way in its bishops.
Yet priests and deacons also have teaching roles. According to Vatican II:
[Priests] labor in word and doctrine, believing what they have read and
meditated upon in the law of God, teaching what they have believed, and
putting in practice in their own lives what they have taught (Lumen Gentium,
28).
It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him
by competent authority . . . to instruct and exhort the people (ibid., 29).
Apostles, Bishops, and Theologians
18. The apostles were the original members of the Church’s Magisterium. When
they passed from the scene, this role passed from them to the bishops. Because
the bishops are “the successors of the apostles,” some have the idea bishops are
simply apostles under another name, but this is not the case.
If they were, the later and less prestigious term bishop would never have been
coined or displaced the earlier, more prestigious term apostle. Also, the New
Testament indicates apostles had qualities no bishop meets. To be a member of
the Twelve, one had to be an eyewitness to the ministry of Christ (Acts 1:21–
26), and even later apostles like Paul needed to have seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1).
Thus the Doctrinal Commission at Vatican II stated:
The parallel between Peter and the rest of the apostles on the one hand, and
between the supreme pontiff and the bishops on the other hand, does not
 imply the transmission of the apostles’ extraordinary power to their
successors (Lumen Gentium: Preliminary Note of Explanation, 1).
Similarly, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has observed:
There are some elements in the original apostolic charism—such as being
eyewitnesses to the risen Lord—that episcopal consecration cannot transmit.
But the college of bishops inherits the teaching office that the apostolic
college once carried (The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop, 3).
Some have proposed that apostles—unlike bishops—had a personal gift of
infallibility and could individually define doctrines the way the pope does today.
This view was expressed at the First Vatican Council by Bishop Vincent
Gasser.2 That view is a matter of theological opinion rather than a Church
teaching, but it illustrates historic awareness that the two offices are different.
19. As the centuries progressed, new teaching roles developed through the work
of apologists, catechists, and theologians. The latter became prominent with the
rise of the university system in the Middle Ages. Colleges came to be staffed
with theological experts, many of whose names are still famous today (e.g., Sts.
Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Anselm of Canterbury). The appearance of a
large number of theological experts who were not bishops raised the question of
how the two classes should relate.
The bishops had the authority to teach by virtue of their apostolic succession,
but what about the theologians? Did they have some kind of teaching authority
based on expertise? In some texts, Aquinas spoke of two magisteria: the bishops’
magisterium of the pastoral chair (Latin, magisterium cathedrae pastoralis) and
the theologians’ magisterium of the teacher’s chair (Latin, magisterium
cathedrae magistralis).
In subsequent centuries, the term magisterium came to be used only in the first
sense, and today “the Magisterium” refers to the bishops teaching in union with
the head of the episcopal college, the pope.
Despite this, there has been an attempt to revive the other usage, and some
authors speak of a magisterium of theologians. This effort has been led by
dissidents who reject aspects of Church teaching and wish to present the
magisterium of theologians as an alternative to the ecclesiastical Magisterium.
In 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith commented:
Dissent is generally defended by various arguments, two of which are more
 basic in character. The first lies in the order of hermeneutics. The documents
of the Magisterium, it is said, reflect nothing more than a debatable theology.
The second takes theological pluralism sometimes to the point of a relativism
which calls the integrity of the Faith into question. Here the interventions of
the Magisterium would have their origin in one theology among many
theologies, while no particular theology, however, could presume to claim
universal normative status. In opposition to and in competition with the
authentic magisterium, there thus arises a kind of “parallel magisterium” of
theologians (Donum Veritatis, 34).
It went on to say:
The notion of a “parallel magisterium” of theologians in opposition to and in
competition with the magisterium of the pastors is sometimes supported by
reference to some texts in which St. Thomas Aquinas makes a distinction
between the magisterium cathedrae pastoralis and magisterium cathedrae
magisterialis (Contra Impugnantes, c. 2; Quodlib. III, q. 4, a. 1 (9); In IV.
Sent. 19, 2, 2, q. 3 sol. 2 and 4). Actually, these texts do not give any support
to this position, for St. Thomas was absolutely certain that the right to judge
in matters of doctrine was the sole responsibility of the officium praelationis
[office of the prelacy; i.e., of Church prelates] (Donum Veritatis, fn. 27).
This doesn’t mean theologians don’t have an expertise-based “authority” like
experts in any field, but it is fundamentally different from the divinely given
authority of bishops. The International Theological Commission observes, “The
Magisterium derives its authority from sacramental ordination, which along with
the task of sanctifying confers also the tasks of teaching and ruling.” On the
other hand, “Theologians derive their specifically theological authority from
their scientific qualifications” (The Ecclesiastical Magisterium and Theology,
thesis 6).
In fact, canon law requires that theologians teaching in academic settings
obtain special recognition from their bishop:
Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies
whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority
(CIC 812).
In light of all this, the International Theological Commission has been prepared
to speak of a magisterium of theologians only in a qualified sense:
 There is indeed in the Church a certain “magisterium” of theologians, but
there is no place for parallel, opposing or alternative magisteria, or for views
that would separate theology from the Church’s Magisterium (Theology
Today, 39).
Although theologians have made valuable contributions, they do not have the
teaching authority of bishops. Consequently, the term Magisterium is used in
Church documents—and in this book—to refer to the teaching role of bishops.
The Personal Magisterium of Bishops
20.Every bishop has theological training, and they are capable of teaching as
private theologians. However, they also have the ability to teach authoritatively.
The Second Vatican Council stated:
Bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they
are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ,
who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and
put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They
bring forth from the treasury of revelation new things and old, making it bear
fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops,
teaching in communion with the Roman pontiff, are to be respected by all as
witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the
bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their
teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (Lumen Gentium, 25).
A bishop’s individual teaching authority, as well as his body of teachings, is
known as his personal magisterium. We can unpack this concept by looking at
several of its aspects.
Its Basis
21. The teaching authority bishops possess is given to them at their episcopal
ordination. According to Pope John Paul II:
At his episcopal ordination, each bishop received the fundamental mission of
authoritatively proclaiming the word of God. Indeed, every bishop, by virtue
of sacred ordination, is an authentic teacher who preaches to the people
entrusted to his care the faith to be believed and to be put into practice in the
moral life. This means that bishops are endowed with the authority of Christ
himself (Pastores Gregis, 29).
 Its Audience
22. Although the college of bishops as a whole is capable of addressing the entire
Church, a bishop acting singly can only authoritatively teach his own flock. John
Paul II states:
The individual bishops, as teachers of the faith, do not address the universal
community of the faithful except through the action of the entire college of
bishops. In fact, only the faithful entrusted to the pastoral care of a particular
bishop are required to accept his judgment given in the name of Christ in
matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a religious assent of soul
(Apostolos Suos, 11).
The flock a bishop is tasked with teaching includes more than active
churchgoers. The Congregation for Bishops notes:
The bishop’s mission to evangelize is not restricted to his concern for the
faithful, but it also reaches out to those who have abandoned Christian faith
or practice, or who do not believe in Christ. He should direct the efforts of his
co-workers toward this goal and should never tire of reminding everyone of
the blessing and the responsibility of working with and for Christ in
missionary activity (Apostolorum Successores, 119).
Its Subject Matter
23. The classic phrase used to describe the subjects on which the Magisterium
can teach authoritatively is “matters of faith and morals” (Latin, res fidei et
morum; cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Individual bishops have the responsibility to
address both. The Congregation for Bishops states:
The bishop has a personal obligation to preach often, proposing to the
faithful, in the first instance, what they are to believe and do for the glory of
God and for their eternal salvation. He proclaims the mystery of salvation
accomplished in Christ, so as to demonstrate that our Lord is the one Savior
and the center of the lives of the faithful and of all human history.
It is also the bishop’s task to proclaim always and everywhere the moral
principles of the social order, in this way announcing man’s authentic
liberation, brought about through the Incarnation of the Word (Apostolorum
Successores, 120).
Its Exercise
24. The way a bishop exercises his personal magisterium can take many forms
(homilies, pastoral letters, etc.). Regardless of the means he uses, he needs to
teach faithfully and effectively:
The word of God should be proclaimed with authority, since it proceeds not
from man, but from God himself; it should be preached with conviction,
never watered down to make it more palatable; and it should be presented
attractively, as doctrine not only preached, but also practiced. So the bishop
takes care that his preaching is firmly anchored in the doctrine of the Church
and rooted in Scripture (Apostolorum Successores, 121).
John Paul II noted that the effectiveness of a bishop’s magisterium also
depends on his manner of life:
The witness of his life becomes for a bishop a new basis for authority
alongside the objective basis received in episcopal consecration. “Authority”
is thus joined by “authoritativeness.” Both are necessary. The former, in fact,
gives rise to the objective requirement that the faithful should assent to the
authentic teaching of the bishop; the latter helps them to put their trust in his
message (Pastores Gregis, 31).
Its Authority
25. Though the bishop’s teaching authority comes from God, how much authority
he can individually exercise has not been fully explored. In general, the Church
has discerned two concrete levels of authority its teachings can have: they can be
definitive (infallible) or non-definitive (non-infallible). The Church
acknowledges that non-definitive teachings have different degrees of authority,
but thus far it has not developed a way of objectively classifying these.
Except for the bishop of Rome, individual bishops cannot issue definitive
teachings on their own. However, when bishops teach in concert with one
another, the results have greater weight, and when the whole body of bishops
teaches in union, it can exercise infallibility.
Its Response
26. According to Vatican II, “in matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in
the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it
with a religious assent” (Lumen Gentium, 25). It goes on to clarify that this
“religious assent” involves a “religious submission of will and intellect” (Latin,
religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium).
We will explore this in more detail in future chapters, but for now it is
sufficient to note that the degree of religious assent that is called for is
proportional to the weight a teaching has been given. Therefore, if a teaching is
found only in the magisterium of a single bishop and is not taught more broadly,
it has a lower order of weight and calls for a correspondingly lower level of
religious assent.
When Bishops Disagree
27. What happens when an individual bishop teaches something in his personal
Magisterium that is not taught by other bishops?
In previous centuries, people did not travel much and had little contact with
other dioceses. Most were not literate and were not aware of the teaching of
other bishops. However, today the situation is very different due to the global
rise of literacy, publishing, news media, and the internet. The faithful have much
greater awareness of what bishops in other areas are teaching, and recent years
have seen the media filled with stories about bishops disagreeing with one
another. How are the faithful to respond?
There is an obligation to give due assent to the teaching of one’s own bishop.
Although this deference is real and not to be underestimated, it also is not
absolute. There can be situations, particularly when there is known disagreement
among the bishops, when members of the faithful may legitimately disagree (see
chapter twenty).
28.Yet such situations are contrary to the will of Christ. The faithful should not
be put in a position where they feel compelled to disagree with their legitimate
shepherd, and the Church is sensitive to this. Thus the U.S. bishops’ Committee
on Doctrine states:
Although the bishops must use the disciplines of theology and philosophy as
well as personal religious insights in their teaching, they are to teach finally
not theology, not philosophy, and not their personal religious insights, but the
unchanging faith of the Church as it is to be understood and lived today (The
Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop, 5).
It puts the matter succinctly when it writes:
Each bishop has the duty to teach the Faith in his diocese, conscious that his
doctrine is not simply his own (cf. John 7:16) (ibid., 8).
Because bishops are to faithfully proclaim the doctrine of the Church on settled
matters, their unique, personal contributions are likely to concern new questions
or those that have not yet been settled by the universal magisterium. In 1998,
John Paul II addressed this matter. Although he discussed it in terms of how
bishops’ conferences operate, the same principles apply to individual bishops:
In dealing with new questions and in acting so that the message of Christ
enlightens and guides people’s consciences in resolving new problems arising
from changes in society, the bishops assembled in the episcopal conference
and jointly exercising their teaching office are well aware of the limits of their
pronouncements. While being official and authentic and in communion with
the Apostolic See, these pronouncements do not have the characteristics of a
universal magisterium. For this reason, the bishops are to be careful to avoid
interfering with the doctrinal work of the bishops of other territories, bearing
in mind the wider, even worldwide, resonance which the means of social
communication give to the events of a particular region (Apostolos Suos, 22).
The U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has sought to strike a balance on this
question, stating:
In our age of almost instant communication, the unity of the bishops’ teaching
can be greatly enhanced. Individual bishops have greater and more rapid
access to their brother bishops as well as to the Holy See in the process of
discernment and discussion. The unity of teaching can be thus greatly
enriched by the capacities for communication in our own age. This
development, however, can be harmful if it leads bishops to abdicate their
own inherent teaching authority in a concession toward an excessive
centralization or to defer to the statements of a regional body without
personal commitment or assent. If teaching is done only at the regional or
universal level, the Church may be weakened by its loss of the varied
contributions of individual bishops and the churches they serve (ibid., 6).
It also said:
The college of bishops should be of immense support to the teaching of the
individual bishop. A manifest continuity in Catholic teaching results when the
position of one bishop is confirmed by the teaching of his brother bishops.
Moral unity in teaching has been normally a sign of its authority (ibid.).
This brings us to the subject of how bishops achieve that unity. It is often done
through councils, conferences, and synods.
1 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1980), 62.
2 James T. O’Connor and Vincent Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of
Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986), 21–22.
 PART I
The Church as Teacher
 CHAPTER 3

Bishops Teaching Together

Councils
29. A church council is a meeting called to discuss doctrinal and disciplinary
matters. Although councils may involve priests, deacons, and laity, it is the
bishops who ultimately preside. Councils let bishops consult and formulate their
teaching in a more authoritative and united manner.
The practice of holding councils dates to the Apostolic Age. Acts 15 reports the
first church council, which dealt with the question of whether Gentiles need to
be circumcised. St. Paul indicates this council was prompted by the Holy Spirit
(Gal. 2:2), and the council recognized that the Holy Spirit authenticated its
results (Acts 15:28). It was the prototype for future councils.
There are different types of councils. The 1908 edition of the Catholic
Encyclopedia lists seven:
1. Ecumenical councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to
vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumenē) under the presidency
of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal
confirmation, bind all Christians. . . .
2. The second rank is held by the general synods of the East or of the West,
composed of but one half of the episcopate. The Synod of Constantinople
(381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the
four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as ecumenical
because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.
3. Patriarchal, national, and primatial councils represent a whole patriarchate,
a whole nation, or the several provinces subject to a primate. Of such councils
we have frequent examples in Latin Africa, where the metropolitan and
ordinary bishops used to meet under the Primate of Carthage, in Spain, under
the Primate of Toledo, and in earlier times in Syria, under the Metropolitan—
later Patriarch—of Antioch.
4. Provincial councils bring together the suffragan bishops of the metropolitan
of an ecclesiastical province and other dignitaries entitled to participate.
 5. Diocesan synods consist of the clergy of the diocese and are presided over
by the bishop or the vicar-general.
6. A peculiar kind of council used to be held at Constantinople, it consisted of
bishops from any part of the world who happened to be at the time in that
imperial city. Hence the name synodoi enoemousai, “visitors’ synods.”
7. Lastly there have been mixed synods, in which both civil and ecclesiastical
dignitaries met to settle secular as well as ecclesiastical matters. They were
frequent at the beginning of the Middle Ages in France, Germany, Spain, and
Italy. In England even abbesses were occasionally present at such mixed
councils. Sometimes, not always, the clergy and laity voted in separate
chambers (s.v. “General Councils”).
30. Several of these are no longer held, but canon law currently provides for:
• Diocesan synods (CIC 460–468), which may involve only a single bishop and
his clergy and laity, though more than one bishop may be involved if the
diocese has a coadjutor bishop or auxiliary bishops
• Particular councils (CIC 439–446), which are plenary if they include all the
churches in a particular conference of bishops (CIC 439), or provincial if they
include the churches of a particular ecclesiastical province within the
conference (CIC 440)
• Ecumenical councils (CIC 337–341), which are discussed below.
The more bishops are involved, the wider the area affected by its teachings and
the more authority those teachings have. Because ecumenical councils pertain to
the whole world, they have universal authority and can teach infallibly.
31. Over time, terminology concerning councils has changed. The terms council
and synod are sometimes used interchangeably, and ecumenical councils are
sometimes referred to as universal or general councils. Confusingly, “universal
council” and “general council” also have been used for any council not restricted
to a single province.
Episcopal Conferences
32.Councils are occasional events in the life of the Church. They are called, they
meet, and then they are over. However, bishops also collaborate in a regular,
ongoing fashion. One way is through episcopal conferences. These began in the
nineteenth century, and Vatican II called for bishops everywhere to form
national or regional conferences (Christus Dominus, 37).
Conferences are required to meet at least once a year (CIC 453), and the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops meets twice a year, in June and November. In
addition to the plenary (“full”) sessions when all its members gather, there are
periodic meetings of committees, and conferences maintain administrative
offices to conduct routine business between plenary sessions.
33. After Vatican II, controversy developed about the teaching authority of
conferences. Some, including the U.S. conference, began issuing documents
whose authority was unclear. These documents were often drafted and released
by a committee or group of committees and presented in the media as the
teaching of the bishops, without the full conference voting on them.
Even when the conference had voted, individual bishops might disagree with
the majority. Were the faithful of a particular country obliged to assent to the
teaching on a mere majority? What if their own bishop was one who disagreed?
And what of the bishop himself? Was he obliged to agree because most of his
confreres had a different opinion? Further, episcopal conferences aren’t part of
the fundamental structure of the Church. They aren’t divinely instituted but are
created, for practical reasons, by canon law. Yet an individual bishop holds his
teaching authority by divine law. How could the majority vote of a human
institution overrule teaching authority held by divine right? The 1980s and 1990s
saw a vigorous discussion of these questions.3
34. Eventually, Pope John Paul II established the following norms:
Art. 1.—In order that the doctrinal declarations of the conference of bishops .
. . may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the
conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the bishops who are
members or receive the recognitio [i.e., approval] of the Apostolic See if
approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the bishops belonging
to the conference and having a deliberative vote.
Art. 2.—No body of the episcopal conference, outside of the plenary
assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The
episcopal conference cannot grant such power to its commissions or other
bodies set up by it (Apostolos Suos).
The first norm is based on the fact that, if the bishops unanimously agree on a
doctrine, it could fairly be represented as their teaching. However, the rights of
individual bishops who disagree are also safeguarded. If not all agree, but if two
thirds do, the Holy See can be asked to consider approving the position. If it
does, the document becomes authentic magisterium and the people and bishops
of the territory are expected to assent to its teaching.
The second norm guarantees that only documents that have been voted on by
the whole assembly of bishops can become authentic magisterium. Documents
issued between plenary sessions, by commissions or committees, or by particular
officials, are not.
The Synod of Bishops
35.Another way bishops collaborate is through the Synod of Bishops, which
Pope Paul VI announced in 1965. According to the Code of Canon Law:
The Synod of Bishops is a group of bishops who have been chosen from
different regions of the world and meet together at fixed times to foster closer
unity between the Roman pontiff and bishops, to assist the Roman pontiff
with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in
the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, and to consider
questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world (CIC 342).
The synod is similar to national conferences in that it is a permanent body with
administrative offices and staff (in this case, in Rome), and it holds periodic
meetings. Unlike national conferences, its members don’t all come from a single
territory. It includes a representative sample of bishops, most of whom change
with each meeting.
Since the first meeting in 1967, it has gathered about once every two years.
Topics have included:
• Preserving and strengthening the Faith (1967)
• Evangelization in the modern world (1974)
• Catechesis in our time (1977)
• The Christian family (1980)
• The twentieth anniversary of Vatican II (1985)
• The Eucharist (2005)
• The word of God (2008)
• The family and challenges facing it (2014–2015)
Sessions also have met to discuss the pastoral situation in regions such as
Africa (1994), the Americas (1997), Europe (1999), the Middle East (2010), and
specific countries like the Netherlands (1980) and Lebanon (1995).
36.When the synod meets, the bishops discuss the appointed topic and prepare a
document known as the relatio synodi (Latin, “the report of the synod”), which
is given to the pope. The synod does not typically have doctrinal or legal
authority but is an advisory body that provides counsel to the pope:
It is for the Synod of Bishops to discuss the questions for consideration and
express its wishes but not to resolve them or issue decrees about them unless in
certain cases the Roman pontiff has endowed it with deliberative power, in
which case he ratifies the decisions of the synod (CIC 343).
Afterward, the pope usually issues a document called a postsynodal apostolic
exhortation. Such documents are primarily pastoral (indicated by the term
exhortation), but they are documents of the pope’s magisterium.
The pope may take additional actions based on suggestions by the synod. Thus
the 1967 synod recommended that the 1917 Code of Canon Law be revised and
that a commission for dialogue between theologians and the Holy See be
created. Similarly, the 1985 synod recommended the writing of a universal
catechism. These recommendations resulted in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the
International Theological Commission, and the Catechism of the Catholic
Church. (For more on the authority of synod documents, see §158.)
The College of Bishops
37.Both the pope and the college of bishops have full and supreme power over
the Church. According to Vatican II:
In virtue of his office, that is as vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole
Church, the Roman pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the
Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops,
which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body
continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the
universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the
Roman pontiff and never without this head (Lumen Gentium, 22).
The council explains:
This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman pontiff. For
our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the
Church [cf. Matt. 16:18], and made him shepherd of the whole flock [cf. John
21:15ff]; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which
was given to Peter [Matt. 16:19], was granted also to the college of apostles,
joined with their head [Matt. 18:18, 28:16–20] (ibid.).
38. Bishops must remain in communion with the Church to be part of the
episcopal college:
One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of sacramental
consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the
body (ibid.).
Consequently, bishops who have gone into schism (CCC 2089) cease to be
members of the college of bishops. They still remain bishops in the sacramental
sense, but they cannot exercise the full and supreme power over the Church,
which requires the pope:
This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the
bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college
calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the
united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act
(ibid.).
39.The full and supreme power over the Church includes the power to govern
and the power to teach, including the power to infallibly define teachings (see
chapters fifteen and sixteen). This can happen when the bishops are spread
throughout the world, performing their ordinary teaching duties. In that case, a
doctrine is said to be infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal
magisterium. Infallible definitions can also be made by the bishops gathered in
an ecumenical council.
Ecumenical Councils
40. Ecumenical councils issue rulings that affect the whole world (Greek,
oikoumenē), and they ideally involve bishops from the whole world. They are
thus capable of exercising the Church’s supreme power. According to Vatican II:
The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is
exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never
ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor
of Peter; and it is the prerogative of the Roman pontiff to convoke these
councils, to preside over them, and to confirm them (ibid.).
The first ecumenical council was held in Nicaea in A.D. 325, and it infallibly
defined the divinity of Christ. The second, held in Constantinople in 381,
infallibly defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Subsequent councils have dealt
with many subjects. A total of twenty-one ecumenical councils have been held,
the most recent being Vatican II (1962–1965).
Not every ecumenical council was convoked by the pope or involved bishops
from the entire Christian world. The early councils were called by the emperor,
though the bishops of Rome sought to participate, such as by sending legates.
Even today—when global travel is easy—not every bishop can attend. Reasons
of health, local emergencies, and political persecution can prevent a bishop from
doing so. In the ancient world, travel was much harder, and sometimes only a
small number of bishops could attend. Several had fewer than 200 bishops, and
Constantinople IV had barely more than a hundred. Also, rather than coming
from all over the Christian world, the attendees of some early ecumenical
councils came exclusively from the East.
41.This led the Church to reflect on what is ultimately necessary for a council to
count as ecumenical. It must involve a gathering of bishops—otherwise it
wouldn’t be a council—and, if its results are to apply to the whole world, then
the pope needs to be involved. This is why Vatican II said “a council is never
ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of
Peter” (ibid.).
That covers historical situations. Going forward, canon law provides that only
the pope can convoke an ecumenical council (CIC 338 §1), and every member of
the college of bishops has the right and the duty to attend, unless legitimately
prevented (CIC 339 §1). Further:
The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless
they have been approved by the Roman pontiff together with the council
fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order (CIC 341 §1).
List of Ecumenical Councils and Key Subjects
• 325: Nicaea I (divinity of Christ)
• 381: Constantinople I (divinity of the Holy Spirit)
• 431: Ephesus (Mary as Theotokos)
• 451: Chalcedon (full deity and humanity of Christ)
• 553: Constantinople II (errors of Origen)
• 680–681: Constantinople III (the divine and human wills of Christ)
• 787: Nicaea II (religious images)
• 869: Constantinople IV (the Photian schism)
• 1123: Lateran I (societal and Church reform)
 • 1139: Lateran II (errors of Arnold of Brescia)
• 1179: Lateran III (errors of the Albigensians and Waldensians)
• 1215: Lateran IV (errors of Joachim of Flora)
• 1245: Lyons I (excommunication and deposition of Emperor Frederick II)
• 1274: Lyons II (procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son;
union with the Eastern churches)
• 1311–1313: Vienne (the Knights Templar)
• 1414–1419: Constance (ending the Western Schism; errors of Wycliffe and
Hus)
• 1432–1439: Florence (union with the Eastern churches)
• 1512–1517: Lateran V (Church reform)
• 1545–1563: Trent (errors of Protestant Reformers)
• 1869–1870: Vatican I (papal infallibility)
• 1962–1965: Vatican II (Church reform)
3 See Francis J. Sullivan, S.J., “The Teaching Authority of Episcopal Conferences,” Theological Studies
63(2002):472–493, available online at TheologicalStudies.net. See also Thomas J. Reese, S.J., ed.,
Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, 1989).
 PART I
The Church as Teacher
 CHAPTER 4

The Pope and the Holy See

The Pope As Teacher

42.The pope is famous for being able to teach infallibly, but not everything he
says is infallible. Most things aren’t. How much authority a statement has
depends on the weight the pope intends to give it.
Like every bishop, popes have training in theology, philosophy, and biblical
studies. Some are even scholars in these fields, and they can write in them
without invoking their teaching authority. When Pope Benedict XVI wrote his
Jesus of Nazareth series on the life of Christ, he famously pointed out:
It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the
Magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face
of the Lord” (cf. Ps. 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would
only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no
understanding (vol. 1, Foreword).
Also, as the bishop of the Diocese of Rome, the pope is capable of teaching in
this capacity—simply as the bishop of his local flock. However, as the successor
of Peter, the pope can teach authoritatively for the entire Church, and he is able
to exercise the fullest degree of the Church’s teaching authority by infallibly
defining matters (see chapters fifteen and sixteen).
The Roman Curia
43.Every bishop is charged with caring for a large number of souls. That’s why
dioceses are divided into parishes, with priests and deacons to minister to
individual Catholics. Running a diocese is a complex task, so the bishop has
people who assist him. These people are known as his curia—a term taken from
Latin roots meaning “a gathering together” (co-) of “men” (viri). The pastoral
challenge facing the pope is even greater, and so he also has a curia in Rome:
The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the
Roman pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and
service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. It thus
strengthens the unity of the faith and the communion of the people of God
 and promotes the mission proper to the Church in the world (Pastor Bonus,
I:1).
44.Departments of the Roman Curia are known as dicasteries. The Greek term
dikastērion meant “a court of law,” though today most of the dicasteries of the
Roman Curia are not courts.
45.The Roman Curia has a complex structure that changes over time. In 1988,
Pope John Paul II issued the apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus (Latin, “Good
Shepherd”), which reorganized it and defined the functions of its departments.
At the papal conclave of 2013, many cardinals expressed a desire for curial
reform, and Pope Francis announced plans to study how the curia could be better
organized to meet the needs of the Church.
There is a hierarchy among the dicasteries, which belong to categories that are
ranked as follows:
1. Secretariat of State
2. Congregations
3. Tribunals
4. Pontifical councils
5. Administrative services
6. Other institutes
46. The media regularly overlooks distinctions among the dicasteries and the
people who work at them. Anytime anyone connected with the Vatican says
something, the press issues a headline attributing what they said directly to the
pope. This is bad journalism. People who work in the Roman Curia assist the
pope, but this doesn’t mean they always speak for him. Hundreds of people work
at the Vatican, and very few have regular, personal contact with the pope. He
certainly does not give them personal instructions every time they write a letter,
speak in public, or talk to a reporter.
Statements made by someone at the Vatican must be weighed in terms of who
he is and what level of authority he has. Just as, with a secular organization, you
can’t attribute a statement made by someone who works in the mail room
directly to the CEO, not every statement from a curial employee can be
attributed to the pope.
47.The press also frequently mistakes every Vatican document as representing
the teaching of the Church. Although such documents are meant to reflect
Catholic principles, comparatively few are statements of doctrine. The
Magisterium consists of the bishops of the Church, and the pope is the only
bishop who can proclaim doctrines for the whole Church. Consequently, for a
Vatican document to carry magisterial authority, it has to both be doctrinal in
nature and be approved by the pope. If both conditions are not met, whatever
other value the document may have, it is not a magisterial statement. Most
documents issued by dicasteries do not fall into this category.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
48. The dicastery that has the most to do with Church teaching is the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). It is the only one that issues
magisterial documents on a regular basis.
The CDF was founded in 1542 by Pope Paul III. Originally, it was called the
Sacred Congregation for the Universal Inquisition, and like other inquisitions, it
was tasked with protecting the Catholic faithful from heresies. Over time, its
name changed. In 1908, Pope Pius X dubbed it the Sacred Congregation of the
Holy Office, and for much of the twentieth century it was informally called “the
Holy Office.” In 1965, Paul VI renamed it the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith. By the mid-1980s, Vatican congregations stopped using
the adjective “Sacred” in their names, resulting in its current designation.
49. Pastor Bonus summarizes its mission as follows:
The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to
promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic
world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way (art.
48).
Note that this is not exclusively or even primarily a negative mission, focused
on rooting out doctrinal error. News reports often refer to the CDF as the
successor to “the Inquisition”—calling to mind torture chambers and efforts to
get people to confess heresies. Not only does that kind of thing not happen today
(the Church condemns torture; CCC 2297–2298), but this ignores the positive
functions the CDF performs. Its fundamentally positive mission is shown by the
fact that it is tasked with promoting Catholic doctrine, before its role in
safeguarding doctrine is mentioned.
Pastor Bonus elaborates on this positive function:
Fulfilling its duty of promoting doctrine, the congregation fosters studies so
that the understanding of the faith may grow and a response in the light of the
 faith may be given to new questions arising from the progress of the sciences
or human culture (art. 49).
50.When a document is issued by a dicastery of the Roman Curia, such as the
CDF, this does not make it a document of the Magisterium. For that, it must
carry papal approval:
The Roman pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various
bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the
documents issued by this congregation expressly approved by the pope
participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter (Donum
Veritatis, 18; see also §361).
This principle also applies to bodies such as the Synod of Bishops. A document
issued by the synod “participates in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of
Peter” if it is “expressly approved by the Roman pontiff” (Episcopalis
Communio art. 18, §1; see §158 for more on the authority of synod documents).
Other Dicasteries
51.Although the CDF is the only dicastery that regularly issues magisterial
documents, other dicasteries discuss Catholic doctrine and sometimes issue
documents of a doctrinal nature. For example:
• The Pontifical Academy for Life (now part of the Dicastery for the Laity,
Family, and Life) published discussions of how to apply Catholic moral
principles to new biomedical questions.
• The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity publishes documents
discussing Catholic teaching in relation to the views of other Christians.
• The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
deals with Catholic teaching regarding the sacraments and aspects of popular
piety.
In 2004 the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (now part of the Dicastery
for Promoting Integral Human Development) issued the Compendium of the
Social Doctrine of the Church. As the name indicates, it has a doctrinal nature.
However, it did not carry a notification of papal approval. Consequently, it
appears to be merely a summary (compendium) of existing social doctrine,
rather than a new exercise of the Magisterium (§§50, 361).
52.Although most curial documents are not personally approved by the pope, the
dicasteries are required to submit major decisions to him and to keep him
informed of important activities. Pastor Bonus states:
Decisions of major importance are to be submitted for the approval of the
supreme pontiff, except decisions for which special faculties have been
granted to the moderators of the dicasteries . . .
It is of the utmost importance that nothing grave and extraordinary be
transacted unless the supreme pontiff be previously informed by the
moderators of the dicasteries (art. 18).
Documents that the pope does not personally approve are still expected to be
doctrinally orthodox. To ensure this, they are only to be published after they
have been reviewed and corrected by the CDF. Pastor Bonus requires:
Documents being published by other dicasteries of the Roman Curia, insofar as
they touch on the doctrine of faith or morals, are to be subjected to its [the
CDF’s] prior judgment (art. 54).
This approval by the CDF functions as an imprimatur indicating they do not
contradict Church teaching, though not everything they say has magisterial
authority.
Special Non-Curial Bodies
53.We also need to mention bodies that are not part of the Roman Curia but that
have a special connection with it and Church doctrine. The two most important
are the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological
Commission.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission
54. The Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) originally was an organ of the
Magisterium. It was founded in 1902 by Pope Leo XIII in the apostolic letter
Vigiliantiae Studiique. At that time, it consisted of a group of cardinals, assisted
by consultors, after the model of Vatican congregations. Its purpose was to
engage the field of biblical scholarship and provide responses to major
controversies of the day.
In 1971, Paul VI reorganized the PBC in the motu proprio Sedula Cura, which
stated that the commission “continues in its work of promoting biblical studies
and assisting the Magisterium of the Church in the interpretation of Scripture”
(norm 1). However, the commission was no longer built around a group of
cardinals working with consultors. Instead, it became a commission of biblical
scholars who report to the CDF.
It thus ceased to have magisterial authority and became an advisory body. In
his preface to the commission’s 1993 document, The Interpretation of the Bible
in the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger writes:
The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican
Council, is not an organ of the magisterium, but rather a commission of
scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing
exegetes, take positions on important problems of scriptural interpretation and
know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the Magisterium.
The International Theological Commission
55. Unlike the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the International Theological
Commission (ITC) has never been an organ of the Magisterium. It has always
been an advisory body. The ITC was created in 1969 by Paul VI as a group of
scholars reporting to the CDF, and its current statutes were established in 1982
by John Paul II in the motu proprio Tredecem Anni. According to that document:
It is the duty of the International Theological Commission to study doctrinal
problems of great importance, especially those which present new points of
view, and in this way to offer its help to the Magisterium of the Church,
particularly to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to which
it is attached (norm 1).
 PART I
The Church as Teacher
 CHAPTER 5

Doctrines and the Realm of Belief

Introduction
56. “Is that a doctrine or a discipline?” This question is often asked in discussions
of the Catholic faith. It presupposes that everything can be placed in one of these
categories. Thus the Trinity is a doctrine, but the celibacy of priests is a
discipline.
It’s also commonly assumed that doctrines cannot change, but disciplines can.
The doctrine of the Trinity is an unchangeable part of the Catholic faith. By
contrast, the discipline of priestly celibacy can change.
Although the doctrine/discipline distinction can be useful, it oversimplifies
matters. The two can be tightly linked, and a doctrine may require a particular
discipline. It is an infallible doctrine that adultery is gravely sinful, and this
requires the discipline of fidelity in marriage. Fidelity thus can be understood as
a doctrine and a discipline. As this example illustrates, some disciplines—like
marital fidelity—cannot change, and as we will see in later chapters, some
doctrines can change.
Another problem is that doctrine and discipline are not exhaustive categories.
Not everything is a doctrine or a discipline. Some things don’t qualify as either.
To see why, we need to back up and look at the broader categories to which
doctrine and discipline belong: the realm of belief and the realm of action. In this
chapter, we will look at the realm of belief.
Understanding Belief
57. Things people believe can be classified in various ways:
• By their relationship to reality
• By their degree of certainty
• By their subject matter
• By their relation to Church teaching

Beliefs and Reality

58. One way of classifying beliefs is by the relationship they have to reality. The
two most basic classifications are true and false. Beliefs that correspond to
reality are true, and those that don’t are false. The belief that it is raining outside
is true if and only if it really is raining outside. Otherwise, it is false.
59. The true/false distinction is useful in many situations, but not in all.
Sometimes a belief is not simply true or simply false. This happens with
approximations. Consider the number pi (π). This is an irrational number, which
means it can’t be expressed as the ratio of two other numbers (e.g., 1/4, 1/2, 2/3),
and it can’t be fully written out in decimal form. We can only write out pi to
different degrees of approximation, such as 3.14, 3.1415, or 3.141592. These
approximate pi with increasing precision, and to that extent they express truth.
However, none is exactly pi. Approximation occurs in all fields, including
religion. A famous example is the Bible’s description of the metal basin or “sea”
used for ceremonial washings in Solomon’s temple. Scripture reports it was ten
cubits across and “a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference” (1 Kings
7:23; 2 Chron. 4:2). This implies an approximation of pi as 3, which is not
wrong; it’s simply less precise than the approximations given above.
60. Approximations occur in religion because human speech, consciousness, and
knowledge can only express the truth with a finite degree of precision. Yet God
is infinite and beyond our ability to fully grasp. The Catechism says:
God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our
language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound, or imperfect, if we
are not to confuse our image of God—the inexpressible, the
incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable—with our human
representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God
(CCC 42).
Nevertheless, our words do express truth:
Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human
modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though
unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that
between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without
implying an even greater dissimilitude; and that concerning God, we cannot
grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in
relation to him (CCC 43; cf. Vatican I, Dei Filius, 4:4).
In addition to the degree to which beliefs correspond to reality, they can also be
classified by the degree to which they are certain.
 Objective and Subjective Certainty
61. Certainty can be either subjective or objective. Subjective certainty is the
degree of confidence an individual person feels regarding a belief. He is
subjectively certain if he has no practical doubts that it is true. This form of
certainty is often called certitude to distinguish it from objective certainty.
Objective certainty is the degree of confidence objectively warranted by the
evidence for a belief. A belief would be objectively certain if an ideal reasoner—
a person making no mistakes in logic or weighing evidence—concluded the
belief is certainly true.
Possibility, Probability, and Certainty
62. Beliefs can be ranked along a spectrum of certainty. A belief may be:

a ) certainly true
b) probably true
c ) possibly true
d) possibly untrue
e ) probably untrue
f ) certainly untrue
The halves of this spectrum mirror each other, so we only need concern
ourselves with the possible, the probable, and the certain:
• A belief is possible if it is not certainly untrue.
• Beliefs that are possible have one or another degree of probability. Some are
only barely possible (highly unlikely), others are equiprobable (as likely as
not to be true), and some are highly probable. There are many ways of
ranking probability, and these are only a few examples.
• The highest degree of probability is certainty. Beliefs that are certain are so
well supported that doubt is excluded.
Types of Certainty
63. Scholars have distinguished different ways that a belief can be certain. One
common account is as follows:
• Metaphysical certainty occurs when there is no possibility at all of it being
incorrect. Proposed examples include the laws of logic, the laws of
mathematics, and the knowledge an individual has that he exists.
• Physical certainty occurs when something follows from the ordinary
operations of nature (barring the possibility of the extraordinary or the
 miraculous). Proposed examples include the laws of physics and chemistry,
knowledge that one will someday die, and knowledge that the sun will rise in
the morning.
• Moral certainty is possible when free will is involved. Proposed examples
include laws developed by the social sciences, historical facts, and the
certainty that one’s spouse is not secretly poisoning one’s food.
What is common to all these is the exclusion of doubt—the defining
characteristic of certainty. Although it is possible one’s spouse is secretly
poisoning one’s food, the evidence normally warrants moral certainty that this is
not happening. Although it is possible a rare physical event or a miracle might
prevent the sun from rising in the morning, we normally don’t have evidence to
warrant doubting that it will, so it is physically certain. Finally, some beliefs
have no possibility of being incorrect (e.g., 1+1=2), and we can regard them as
metaphysically certain.
Except in the last case, the beliefs are only highly probable. However, the
human mind is configured so that it is impractical to entertain doubts about
them. When a judgment is made that it is no longer worth entertaining doubts
then a state of subjective certainty (certitude) has been achieved.
Certainty and Church Teaching
64. Scholars have examined the relationship between faith and reason and
certainty. Not all have gotten it right. Some have exaggerated the role of faith, to
the exclusion of reason. Others have done the reverse. And some have falsely
minimized or maximized the possibility of certainty. Consequently, the Church
has established boundaries for the discussion.
It has infallibly taught that it is possible by the natural use of reason to achieve
certainty regarding the existence of God. Vatican I infallibly rejected the
proposition that “the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with
certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human
reason” (Dei Filius, canons 2:1; cf. CCC 36).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes the manner in which proofs for his
existence work:
Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who
seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also
called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural
sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments,”
 which allow us to attain certainty about the truth (CCC 31).
Vatican I also infallibly rejected the proposition “miracles can never be known
with certainty” (Dei Filius, canons 3:4), meaning that some miracles can be.
65.Although some things are known about God with certainty by natural reason,
not everyone is in a position to learn these proofs:
In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man
experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason
alone (CCC 37).
Not everyone has the inclination or training to follow philosophical proofs
about God, and we all have disordered desires that predispose us to believe what
we wish to be true rather than what the evidence supports. Because of these
difficulties, God has supplemented what can be known about him by reason with
revelation:
This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not
only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also about those
religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of
human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they
can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture
of error (CCC 38).
66.To make divine revelation credible, God has given certain signs which serve
as “motives of credibility”:
So that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with
reason, God willed that external proofs of his revelation should be joined to
the internal helps of the Holy Spirit. Thus the miracles of Christ and the
saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and
stability are the most certain signs of divine revelation, adapted to the
intelligence of all; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis),
which show that the assent of faith is by no means a blind impulse of the
mind (CCC 156).
These motives of credibility bring us to the point where placing our faith in
divine revelation is reasonable. They are “most certain signs of divine
revelation,” and scholars have generally held that the kind of certitude they
provide is moral certitude.4 They do not compel the will, but they make the
choice of faith rational.
67. The points of faith themselves, however, are certain in a different way,
because they are given to us by “the authority of God himself, who makes the
revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Dei Filius, 3:2). They are
therefore not just morally or physically certain but objectively certain in the most
absolute sense.
Beliefs and Subject Matter
68. Another way of classifying beliefs is by subject matter. Within the realm of
religion, topics of study include:
• Christology: The study of the Person and work of Christ
• Pneumatology: The study of the Person and work of the Holy Spirit
• Protology: The study of the “first things” (i.e., Creation)
• Angelology: The study of angels
• Theological anthropology: The theological study of man
• Hammartiology: The study of sin
• Soteriology: The study of salvation
• Ecclesiology: The study of the Church
• Mariology and hagiology: The studies of Mary and the saints
• Eschatology: The study of the “last things” (e.g., death, judgment, hell,
heaven)
Belief-Related Disciplines

Identifying the Disciplines

69. In the Church there are a number of disciplines—in the sense of fields of
study—related to belief. It is possible to classify them based on the goals they
pursue, giving us fields like:
• Evangelization, whose goal is announcing the Faith
• Apologetics, whose goal is defending the Faith
• Catechetics, whose goal is basic instruction in the Faith
• Theology, whose goal is a deeper understanding of the Faith
70. The first field—evangelization—involves the study of how to proclaim the
gospel (Greek, euangelion). This discipline takes first place because people must
embrace the Christian gospel before they are willing to go deeper into the study
of the Faith. Evangelization was a principal activity of Jesus and the apostles.
71.Once the gospel has been proclaimed, people want to know why they should
believe it. They also will want objections cleared up. Apologetics offers a
defense (Greek, apologia) of the Faith by providing the needed evidence and
answers to objections. It naturally follows evangelization and began to emerge as
a specialized discipline in the second century. Today in scholarly writings,
apologetics is sometimes referred to as fundamental theology since it establishes
the foundations of Christian belief, and it is often practiced in new ways.
72. After people have accepted the gospel, they need basic instruction in the
Faith. This is done through catechesis (Greek, katekhein, “to instruct orally”). As
the Church grew, catechetics became a specialized discipline, and individuals
tasked with it became known as catechists.
73. As people grow in faith, they want to go deeper. This leads to theology
(Greek, theos, “God,” and logia, “discussion”), whose task is to discuss and
understand God in a deeper way. An unofficial glossary for the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, composed by Cardinal William Levada, defines theology as
“the study of God, based on divine revelation.” Everyone who seeks to
understand God in a deeper way is engaging in theology, and specialists in the
field are known as theologians. There have always been theologians in the
Church (St. Paul being a first-century example), but as an organized field of
study, theology was the last of these four disciplines to develop.
Liberty Within the Disciplines
74. Although there is overlap between Church teaching and each of the fields just
discussed, there is considerable liberty within these fields. This conflicts with the
stereotypical view of the Church as a dogmatic, authoritarian institution.
75.Consider evangelization: although an evangelist must announce the basics of
the Christian faith (e.g., the existence of God, his love for us, our need for
salvation in Christ), there is no official way of proclaiming the gospel. Instead,
evangelists are called upon to use their creativity and skill to find the best ways
to reach people—a complex task given the differences among people and the
views they hold.
76.The Church accords similar liberty to apologists. Although it teaches that it’s
possible to prove God exists, the Church doesn’t have an official set of
arguments for God’s existence. It makes general remarks on strategies for this
(CCC 31–35), but it has not worked these up into detailed proofs. Not even St.
Thomas Aquinas’s famous “five ways” of proving God’s existence (ST I:2:3)
are considered official proofs. There is even less of an official stance on how to
deal with arguments posed by Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or other sects.
Apologists thus are called on to use their skill and creativity in dealing with
these.
77.The situation changes somewhat with catechesis. Since it is instruction in the
basic teachings of the Faith, one would expect the Magisterium to have more to
say. The Church has even produced its own catechisms, such as the Roman
Catechism (aka the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Pope
Pius V in 1566) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (promulgated by
Pope John Paul II in 1992). National conferences of bishops have also produced
catechisms, such as the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (2006).
Nevertheless, catechists must still use their skill and creativity to help people
understand and accept the basic teachings of the Faith. To assist them in this
task, the Church gives guidance on how to implement catechesis on the practical
level, as in the General Directory for Catechesis, published by the Vatican’s
Congregation for Clergy in 1997, and the National Catechetical Directory,
published by the U.S. bishops in 2005.
Beliefs and Church Teaching

Theology and Church Teaching

78. One field that calls for special attention is theology. Like catechesis, it has a
large overlap with official Church teaching. However, unlike catechesis, it goes
well beyond this, for theologians are called to explore divine revelation in a
deeper way.
79. At times, this causes problems. Following Vatican II, a wave of dissent
spread, with many theologians rejecting magisterial teachings. These included
high-profile theologians like Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Charles
Curran, each of whom was eventually disciplined by the CDF. Catechetics was
also thrown into confusion, as dissident theological ideas filtered down to
parishes, leaving catechists unsure what they were to teach.
The situation was addressed in the pontificates of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II,
and Benedict XVI, who released a series of documents reaffirming Church
teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also was written to address the
catechetical crisis.
However, these actions—and the disciplining of dissident authors—led some
theologians to object. They argued the Holy See was infringing on their area of
expertise and trying to reduce them to the status of catechists who merely repeat
Church teaching rather than seek a deeper understanding of revelation.
The Holy See thus began several initiatives to clarify the task of theologians
and reassure them that there was a legitimate role for their discipline. Some of
these were carried out through the International Theological Commission (ITC),
which Paul VI created as a way for the Holy See to consult with theologians and
which is composed of theologians known for orthodoxy (see §55).
80.Several ITC studies have dealt with the relationship between the Magisterium
and theologians. One document—Theses on the Relationship Between the
Ecclsiastical Magisterium and Theology (1975)—explains the term theologian
as follows:
By “theologians” are meant those members of the Church who by their
studies and life in the community of the Church’s faith are qualified to
pursue, in the scientific manner proper to theology, a deeper understanding of
the word of God and also to teach that word by virtue of a canonical mission
(thesis 1).
Here “canonical mission” refers to a special charge given to theologians by the
Catholic universities at which they teach:
Those who teach disciplines concerning faith or morals must receive, after
making their profession of faith, a canonical mission from the chancellor or
his delegate, for they do not teach on their own authority but by virtue of the
mission they have received from the Church (John Paul II, Sapientia
Christiana, art. 27:1).
In addition, “those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher
studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical
authority” (CIC 812), who is usually the local bishop.
To be a theologian in the formal, academic sense, one must thus have the
needed canonical qualifications. However:
All the baptized, insofar as they both really live the life of the Church and
enjoy scientific competence, can carry out the task of the theologian, a task
that derives its own force from the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church (thesis
7:2).
81.Concerning the enterprise of theology itself, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) explains:
Among the vocations awakened in this way by the Spirit in the Church is that
of the theologian. His role is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper
understanding of the word of God found in the inspired scriptures and handed
on by the living Tradition of the Church. He does this in communion with the
Magisterium which has been charged with the responsibility of preserving the
deposit of faith. . . .
Obedient to the impulse of truth which seeks to be communicated, theology
also arises from love and love’s dynamism. In the act of faith, man knows
God’s goodness and begins to love him. Love, however, is ever desirous of a
better knowledge of the beloved (Donum Veritatis, 6–7).
82. As a quest to understand God in an ever deeper manner, theology goes
beyond catechesis. It is an exploratory science, and theologians propose many
ideas that go beyond Church teaching. In doing so, they play a valuable role, for
by exploring and testing ideas, they serve the process of doctrinal development
(see chapter eighteen). As time passes, the Magisterium monitors the fruits of
their labor, and when a theological idea is sufficiently established, the
Magisterium may elevate it to the status of a doctrine. For example, the term
transubstantiation was originally proposed by theologians. The 1909 edition of
the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of
Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other
theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of
Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted
this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and
the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor
Michael Palaeologus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not
only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but
authoritatively confirmed the “aptitude of the term” to express most strikingly
the legitimately developed doctrinal concept (s.v. “Eucharist”).
83.Although theologians—like everyone else—are obliged to adhere to Church
teaching, they also need the proper liberty to perform their task. The CDF states:
Freedom of research, which the academic community rightly holds most
 precious, means an openness to accepting the truth that emerges at the end of
an investigation in which no element has intruded that is foreign to the
methodology corresponding to the object under study.
In theology this freedom of inquiry is the hallmark of a rational discipline
whose object is given by revelation, handed on and interpreted in the Church
under the authority of the Magisterium, and received by faith. These givens
have the force of principles. To eliminate them would mean to cease doing
theology (Donum Veritatis, 12).
The Magisterium thus expects theologians to adhere to Church teaching while
also having the freedom to explore aspects of divine revelation on which it has
not yet pronounced.
84. Sometimes people confuse ideas proposed by theologians with Church
teaching. The thought of Aquinas has been so influential historically that many
have treated views he proposed as if they were official Catholic teaching, and his
thought has enjoyed special magisterial prestige. As late as 1950, Pius XII
required “that future priests be instructed in philosophy according to the method,
doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor, since as we well know from the
experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for
teaching students and for bringing truth to light” (DH 3894). However, in recent
years there has been a shift in the way the Magisterium recommends Aquinas.
Although “the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas
as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology” (John Paul
II, Fides et Ratio, 43), it does not endorse all of his views, and it permits and
respects schools of thought besides Thomism.
Sometimes theological ideas are so common that ordinary Catholics are
surprised to learn they aren’t official Church teachings. For example, many have
been taught as part of their basic catechesis about the “seal” that we receive in
baptism, but, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, this image is only
used “in some theological traditions”:
The seal [as a symbol of the Holy Spirit] is a symbol close to that of
anointing. The Father has set his seal on Christ and also seals us in him.
Because this seal indicates the indelible effect of the anointing with the Holy
Spirit in the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and holy orders, the image
of the seal (sphragis) has been used in some theological traditions to express
the indelible “character” imprinted by these three unrepeatable sacraments
 (CCC 698).
What the Church teaches is that these three sacraments have an indelible effect,
but the image of a seal belongs to theology rather than doctrine. This brings us to
our next subject.
Doctrine and Dogma
85. “What is the difference between a doctrine and a dogma?” Apologists are
asked this question frequently, and the meaning of the word doctrine is
straightforward: in Latin, doctrina means “teaching,” and a Catholic doctrine is
something that the Church authoritatively teaches. Specifically, a doctrine is a
matter of faith or morals taught by the Magisterium.
86.The meaning of dogma is less straightforward. This Greek word originally
meant “opinion” or “belief.” Over the centuries it has had many meanings. At
times, it’s been a synonym for doctrine. However, today it has a very specific
use. Cardinal Avery Dulles explains:
In current Catholic usage, the term “dogma” means a divinely revealed truth,
proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and
hence binding on all the faithful without exception, now and forever (The
Survival of Dogma, 153).
More simply: a dogma is a doctrine that the Magisterium has infallibly defined
to be divinely revealed. From this definition, three things are clear:
1. Dogmas are a subset of doctrines. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all
doctrines are dogmas.
2. Dogmas are infallible. If a teaching has any lesser level of authority, it is not
a dogma.
3. Dogmas are also a subset of infallible teachings. Just because the Church has
infallibly taught something does not make it a dogma. For that to happen, the
Church must infallibly teach that the doctrine is divinely revealed. This
distinction is important because the Church is capable of infallibly defining
some things that aren’t part of divine revelation (see chapter fifteen).
Summary
87.From the foregoing, we can represent the way different beliefs relate to
Church teaching as a series of concentric circles:
• The outermost circle represents beliefs in general—the entire range of views
 people might hold, regardless of the subject they concern.
• Within this, there is the realm of theological beliefs—beliefs about God based
on divine revelation.
• Further in lies the realm of Church doctrine—beliefs the Magisterium teaches
authoritatively.
• Near the core are infallible doctrines—beliefs the Magisterium teaches
infallibly.
• At the center are dogmas—beliefs the Magisterium has infallibly taught to be
divinely revealed.

4 For example, see “Certitude” in the 1908 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia, and Sylvester J. Hunter,
S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1896), I:102.
 PART I
The Church as Teacher
 CHAPTER 6

Disciplines and the Realm of Action

88. We began the previous chapter with the question “Is that a doctrine or a
discipline?” and we saw that it oversimplifies things. Not everything is a
doctrine or a discipline. Doctrines are only one set within the larger category of
beliefs, and the same is true of disciplines. These belong to the larger category of
actions, which can be classified in various ways. Here we will look at the
following:
• Actions in general
• Customs
• Disciplines
• Laws

Actions and Customs

89.An action is anything people do. Actions can be good, bad, or indifferent;
they can be planned or spontaneous; they can be deliberate or involuntary.
90.Some actions people do on a regular basis. When a community performs an
action regularly, it is known as a custom. These may or may not carry a sense of
obligation:
• If a person or group chooses to do something differently, they may be
deviating from custom, but they may not be violating any moral or legal
obligation.
• On the other hand, a custom may have become so deeply ingrained in a
culture that a sudden, unexpected deviation from it would cause confusion,
consternation, or anxiety, and to cause others needless distress violates the
moral norm to love our neighbors (Matt. 22:39).
• Customs can even obtain the force of law. The Code of Canon Law has a
section detailing the conditions under which this happens (CIC §§23–28).
91.Over the centuries, many customs have arisen in Christian communities, such
as the way they number the Ten Commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church explains:
The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course
of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments
established by St. Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic
Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confessions. The Greek Fathers worked
out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox churches and
Reformed communities (2066).
Note that the Catechism does not say that the Commandments must be
numbered the way St. Augustine proposed. It doesn’t enter into the question of
which numbering, if any, is superior (there is also a Jewish numbering). It
simply says, “the present catechism” uses the traditional Catholic one. This is
significant because there have been needless disputes among Christians on this
issue, but when we recognize this is a matter of custom rather than doctrine,
these can be resolved.
Consequently, we need to be sensitive to when something is a matter of custom
and whether it carries an obligation. Just because something is a regular Catholic
practice doesn’t mean it is a matter of doctrine or that it carries a moral or legal
obligation.
Disciplines
92.If a custom carries an obligation, it can be called a discipline. The Oxford
English Dictionary defines “discipline” as “the system by which the practice of a
church, as distinguished from its doctrine, is regulated.”5 Understood this way,
disciplines involve obligations: they regulate the practice of a church.
93. The obligation can arise from several sources, including:
• Moral principles: The discipline of fidelity in marriage is based on the moral
prohibition of adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 20:18).
• Doctrinal principles: The discipline of baptizing converts is based on divine
revelation (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38).
• Church law: Many disciplines are based on provisions found in the Code of
Canon Law or the Church’s liturgical books.
Case Study: The Discipline of Priestly Celibacy
94.Since the Protestant Reformation, the fact that most Catholic priests are
unmarried (i.e., celibate) has been a lightning rod, and many Protestants have
argued that the practice is “unbiblical” or contrary to the Bible. In fact, there is a
strong biblical basis for it. Both Jesus and St. Paul were celibate (cf. Eph. 5:25–
32, 1 Cor. 9:5), and both recommended the practice to others (Matt. 19:10–12;
cf. 2 Tim. 2:3–4).
Despite its biblical basis, priestly celibacy is only a discipline. It is possible in
principle for priests to be married (cf. 1 Cor. 9:5, 1 Tim. 3:2), and some Catholic
priests are married. Eastern Catholic churches ordain married men, and the
Western church sometimes ordains married men who previously were ministers
in other denominations. Thus, although the Latin church’s Code of Canon Law
requires celibacy for clerics (CIC 277 §1), this law could one day be modified or
abolished.
Laws
95.St. Thomas Aquinas provides the classic definition of a law as “an ordinance
of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community,
and promulgated” (ST I–II:90:4). Similarly, the Catechism of the Catholic
Church says a “law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the
sake of the common good” (1951). These definitions have the same essential
elements:
• Laws are rules of conduct (i.e., “ordinances”).
• They are created by a legislator (“him who has care of the community”/the
“competent authority”). This is one of the differences between laws and mere
customs. Laws require a legislator, whereas customs can be introduced by a
community (CIC 23).
• They are published (“promulgated”/“enacted”) so that the community knows
about them.
• They promote the common good of the community to which they apply. Thus
laws must be “ordinances of reason.” A law that worked against the common
good would be unreasonable and thus an unjust rule rather than a true law.

Divine and Human Laws

96. Laws can be classified by the legislator who issues them. Thus laws given by
God are divine laws. Because God has shared the authority to rule with men,
their laws—known as human laws—are backed by God’s authority when they
are just.
Since laws create a moral obligation to follow them, we can view all true laws
as expressions of an overall moral law. The Catechism states:
There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated:
 eternal law—the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law,
comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally,
civil and ecclesiastical laws (1952).
We will look briefly at each of these.
The Eternal Law
97. The most fundamental form of divine law is the eternal law, which is God’s
wisdom, the providential plan by which he rules the world. Aquinas explains:
The whole community of the universe is governed by divine reason.
Wherefore the very idea of the government of things in God, the ruler of the
universe, has the nature of a law. And since the divine reason’s conception of
things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Proverbs 8:23,
therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal (ST I–II:91:1).
Since God is the source of everything, all law is ultimately rooted in God’s
wisdom, and laws are only binding to the extent that they participate in the
eternal law.
Natural Law
98. The term natural law can be a source of confusion. In English, it often refers
to laws proposed by the natural sciences, such as Newton’s laws of motion.
Although these are part of God’s plan for the universe, they are not what
theologians refer to as natural law. In this case, natural isn’t a reference to the
natural world but to human nature, which includes the gift of reason:
This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings,
but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature (CCC
1955).
Reason enables us to understand the aspects of God’s plan that apply to us—to
how we should direct our actions—and the Church uses natural law to refer to
the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law:
The natural law is a participation in God’s wisdom and goodness by man
formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human
person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties (CCC 1978;
cf. ST I–II:91:2).
99. Natural law applies to all people, in all times, and must undergird all human
laws:
• Because human beings share the same nature, natural law applies to all
people, in all cultures. Sin interferes with our awareness of it, but reason
enables us to understand its requirements. Thus St. Paul says when Gentiles
naturally perform good actions, “they show that what the law requires is
written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:14–15).
• Human nature does not vary through the centuries. Consequently, although
how the principles of natural law are to be applied in particular situations
varies (CCC 1957), they are the same at all times.
• Since laws must promote the common good and be in accordance with
reason, human laws must be in conformity with natural law.
The Catechism summarizes these points when it says:
The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that
express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the
erection of moral rules and civil law (1979).
Revealed Law
100. The gift of reason is not the only way God communicates with man. He also
uses revelation, producing revealed law. Theology divides this into two bodies:
the Old Law and the New Law.
101.The first is the law God gave to the people of Israel. The “Law of Moses” is
found in the first five books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy).
Although these books contain many individual laws, they are summed up in the
Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).
“The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason”
(CCC 1961), such as the prohibition of murder, adultery, and theft. Because
these requirements are part of natural law, they apply to all people, even those
who are not Israelites. In addition, God gave the Israelites laws to regulate life as
his covenant people. These included circumcision, dietary laws, holy days, and
laws of sacrifice. Since these precepts go beyond natural law, they didn’t apply
to all people. Aquinas explains:
The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added certain
precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those precepts of the natural law
contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not
because they belonged to the Old Law, but because they belonged to the
 natural law. But as to those precepts which were added by the Old Law, they
were not binding save on the Jewish people alone (ST I–II:98:5).
102. The Old Law prepared the Jewish people for the coming of Christ. It thus
gave way to the New Law (Gal. 3:23–25), which is referred to as “the Law of
Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21, Gal. 6:2) and “the Law of the Gospel.”
This law is expressed in the revelation found in the New Testament. Like the
Old Law, it communicates truths that are accessible to reason and thus belong to
natural law. It also establishes principles to regulate the lives of Christians as
God’s New Covenant people. These include provisions regarding Church
government (e.g., Matt. 16:18–19), the Christian day of worship (e.g., 1 Cor.
16:2, Rev. 1:10), and the sacraments (e.g., Matt. 28:19, Luke 22:19).
Unlike the Old Law, the New Law is accompanied by the gift of the Holy
Spirit, who works through charity in the hearts of Christians to enable them to
fulfill the law. The role of the Holy Spirit is so important that Aquinas can say
that “the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to
those who believe in Christ” (ST I–II:106:1). Similarly, the Catechism states:
“The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ,
operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord’s Sermon on
the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us” (1983).
Civil Law
103. We now come to laws for which human beings serve as legislator. A true
law must promote the common good. Consequently, such laws participate in the
natural law and are morally obligatory. St. Paul says:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and
those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good
conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then
do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for
your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in
vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the
sake of conscience (Rom. 13:1–2).
Similarly, St. Peter says:
 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the
emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do
wrong and to praise those who do right (1 Pet. 2:13–14).
104.Although the civil law participates in natural law, it does not simply copy it.
Instead, it takes natural law principles and applies them to particular situations.
This is why civil law can vary in different places and times.
Natural law contains a principle that we should not create unnecessary dangers
to others’ lives, but this principle can be applied in different ways. Thus, in the
U.S., traffic laws require cars to drive on the right side of the road, but in the
U.K., they must drive on the left. Both applications of the principle are
legitimate and promote the common good.
Civil laws also can vary across time. The invention of wheeled transport and
especially the automobile created a need to legislate which side of the road to
use. But it’s possible future technologies like self-driving cars could remove the
need. Human legislators can thus change laws to respond to changing conditions.
Ecclesiastical Law
105. God has given Church leaders the authority to establish laws. This power
was given to Peter and his successors when Jesus declared:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19).
The authority to bind and loose was later shared with the other Church leaders
(Matt. 18:18), and the New Testament exhorts Christians to obey them:
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your
souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and
not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you (Heb. 13:17; cf. 1 Thess.
5:12).
Like the civil law, ecclesiastical law takes principles found in divine law and
106.
applies them in concrete situations. Thus the Code of Canon Law contains
provisions taken directly from divine law and provisions of human origin:
In the measure in which a human law gathers and formulates a command of
divine origin, it participates in the superior and universal binding force of the
 latter. Sometimes the legislator declares the divine foundation possessed by
the law which he has made (for example, c. 207 §1 indicates that the clergy
exists in the Church “by divine institution”; likewise, c. 1084 §1 says that
impotence in certain cases “by reason of its very nature” invalidates
marriage); but there are many other canons which translate a divine precept
into law even though this is not expressly indicated. In any case, their binding
force is the same.
On the other hand, laws which have their origin in the authority of the
human legislator are called “merely ecclesiastical laws” and have the binding
force that the legislator has established (and always under the condition that
they do not contradict the divine law).6
Case Study: The Manner of Performing Penance
107.Human leaders cannot overrule God, from whom their authority comes.
Consequently, Church leaders cannot modify the requirements of divine law.
They can only modify what they have established. Consider the following canon
from the Code of Canon Law:
The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her
own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common
observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the
Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform
works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own
obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence,
according to the norm of the following canons (CIC 1249).
This describes both the divine law requirement that Christians do penance and
how this obligation is to be fulfilled through days of penance. The first
requirement cannot change. Even if a future edition of the Code deleted this
canon entirely, the obligation would remain. However, the way the obligation is
fulfilled can change. Thus the Code provides that:
It is only for the supreme ecclesiastical authority to establish, transfer, and
suppress feast days and days of penance common to the universal Church.
Diocesan bishops can decree special feast days or days of penance for their
dioceses or places, but only in individual instances (CIC 1244 §§1–2).
The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of
fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially
works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and
 fast (CIC 1253).
Summary
108. From the foregoing, we can represent the way different actions can be
classified as a series of concentric circles:
• The outermost circle represents actions in general—the entire range of things
people do, whether they are occasional or habitual.
• Within this, there are customs—actions done habitually by a group of people,
whether or not they are obligatory.
• Further in lie disciplines—actions members of a community are obliged to
do.
• At the center are laws—“a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for
the sake of the common good” (CCC 1951).

109. We can classify laws in a similar way:

• Within this realm there are two great divisions—divine law and human law—
based on whether God or man is the legislator.
• The realm of divine law contains the eternal law—God’s providential plan
for all of creation.
 • The eternal law includes the natural law—those aspects of God’s plan that
pertain to man and can be learned by reason.
• The natural law intersects with revealed law—those aspects of God’s plan
that are known by divine revelation.
• Revealed law includes the Old Law (given to Israel) and the New Law (given
to the Church).
• Finally, human law includes the civil law (established by the state) and
ecclesiastical law (established by the Church).
This way of visualizing matters does not take into account all of the
distinctions we have covered. Thus for the sake of simplicity, it does not show
that civil and ecclesiastical law participate in different aspects of divine law, but
it provides a basic way of understanding the relationships among the categories.
5 James A. H. Murray, ed., A New English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), s.v. “Discipline,”
6b.
6 Joseph T. Martin de Agar, A Handbook on Canon Law (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1999), 19–20.
 PART II
Where Church Teaching Is Found
 CHAPTER 7

Sources of Church Teaching

Truths of Reason
110.Some of our beliefs can be supported by natural reason, and some can only
be supported by divine revelation.
The first category involves most of the beliefs we have—everything from the
findings of the sciences, to knowledge of history, to the details of our own lives.
Most of the time, beliefs based on natural reason don’t have directly religious
content. However, sometimes they do. As previously noted (§64), reason is
capable of establishing certain facts about God, and there is more overlap
between reason and revelation than sometimes supposed:
All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created
in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures—
their truth, their goodness, their beauty—all reflect the infinite perfection of
God. Consequently, we can name God by taking his creatures’ perfections as
our starting point, for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a
corresponding perception of their Creator (CCC 41).
Everything about creation reveals something about God, and the Church is able
to draw on natural reason for some of its teachings. It is even capable of teaching
certain reason-based truths infallibly.
111.As we will see in chapter fifteen, the Church’s gift of infallibility can be
exercised regarding two kinds of truth: truths of revelation and additional truths
needed to properly explain and defend the contents of revelation. Cardinal Avery
Dulles explains:
It is generally agreed that the Magisterium can infallibly declare the
“preambles of faith,” that is, naturally knowable truths implied in the
credibility of the Christian message, such as the capacity of the human mind
to grasp truth about invisible realities, to know the existence of God by
reasoning from the created world ([DH 3004, 3026, 3538]), and to grasp the
possibility of revelation ([DH 3027]) and miracles ([DH 3033–34]).7
 These truths also include what are known as “dogmatic facts,” such as “the
ecumenical authority of a given council or the validity of the election of a given
pope, since this information might be essential to establish the validity of a
dogmatic definition. Unless the Church could identify her popes and ecumenical
councils with full authority, her dogmatic teaching would be clouded by
doubt.”8
Finally, the Magisterium is able to teach certain moral truths infallibly. Even if
they are not divinely revealed, they are knowable by reason, making them part of
natural law. The degree to which the Church’s infallibility extends to these truths
has not been fully clarified, but it at least allows the Church to infallibly define
the intrinsic evil of certain actions, since it is necessary to avoid such actions for
salvation (see §§442–446).
Revealed Truths
112.Despite the possibility of the Church defining truths known by natural
reason, these are not the principal object of its teaching mission.
By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his
works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly
arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine revelation. Through an utterly
free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he
does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all
eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan
by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit
(CCC 50).
113.We often think of revelation as being given in the form of words, such as the
words found in Scripture. However, God also reveals truths about himself by his
actions, such as performing miracles, being born in human form, and being
crucified for our sake.
This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity:
the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the
teaching and realities signified by the words, whereas the words proclaim the
deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them (Dei Verbum, 2).
114.By means of revelation, God allows us to know theological “mysteries”—
things that cannot be deduced by reason alone. An example is the fact God is one
being in three Persons:
 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the mysteries that
are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by
God. To be sure, God has left traces of his trinitarian being in his work of
creation and in his revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost
being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even
to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the
Holy Spirit (CCC 237).
115.Some Christians use different terms for the things that can be known about
God through reason and those that must be known by revelation. Since the
created world reveals things about God, at least in a general way (Rom. 1:19–
20), some in the Protestant community have referred to this mode of knowledge
as general revelation. By contrast, information given through prophets, in
Scripture, and by Jesus Christ is referred to as special revelation.
116.A division made in Catholic circles concerns the difference between public
and private revelation. When the word revelation is used without a further
qualifier, it refers to public revelation. According to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
The term “public revelation” refers to the revealing action of God directed to
humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of
the Bible: the Old and New Testaments (“Theological Commentary” in The
Message of Fatima).
Note that Scripture is only the literary expression of public revelation. As we
will see, it is also found in Sacred Tradition.
117.Since the time of the apostles, the body of public revelation—a body referred
to as “the deposit of faith”—has been closed. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church explains:
The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive covenant,
will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before
the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if revelation is
already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for
Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the
centuries (CCC 66).
In contrast to public revelation, private revelation is not directed to the entire
118.
world but to an individual or group. Pierre Adnes, professor of dogmatic
theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, explains:
The adjective private, which is added to distinguish them from the earlier
revelation (sometimes called “public” because it is addressed, through the
ministry of the church, to the human beings of every time and place), does not
mean that these revelations are necessarily meant only for a single individual.
In fact, they often apply to an entire group, an entire milieu, or even the entire
Church at a given moment of its history. It would undoubtedly be better to
call these revelations “special” or “particular,” as the Council of Trent does
([DH 1540, 1566]).9
119. Though Scripture as a whole is directed to the entire Church, it contains
accounts of God giving revelations to particular people for use in their own day.
Thus scholars have seen the Bible as containing private revelations that were
later preserved as part of public revelation. Adnes writes:
Sacred Scripture and particular revelations are not mutually exclusive.
Revelations of the second kind are not to be defined by the fact that they are
outside the biblical setting but by their object, purpose, and addressee. If these
elements are particular, then the revelations are particular and remain such
even if guaranteed by biblical inspiration, since the latter does not alter their
characteristics but only ensures their authenticity. The Acts of the Apostles is
full of examples. After having proclaimed on Pentecost the age of the Spirit,
who works through visions, dreams, and prophecies (2:16–21), Peter learns
through a particular revelation how he should act in regard to Cornelius the
centurion (10:3–8). Paul is converted as the result of a revelation he receives
on the road to Damascus (9:3–9), and he will be constantly guided in his
missionary activity by particular revelations (16:9; 18:9; 20:23; 27:23–24), to
which are to be added those revelations of a strictly personal and mystical
kind about which he tells the Corinthians (2 Cor. 12:1–6) (ibid.).
120. Public revelation is closed, whereas private revelation continues to be given:
Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of
which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not
belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or
complete Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a
certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the
sensus fidelium [“the sense of the faithful”] knows how to discern and
 welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ
or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct
the revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-
Christian religions and also in certain recent sects that base themselves on
such “revelations” (CCC 67).
121. Because they cannot supplement or correct public revelation, private
revelations have a different purpose and level of authority. Cardinal Ratzinger
explains:
The authority of private revelations is essentially different from that of the
definitive public revelation. The latter demands faith; in it in fact God himself
speaks to us through human words and the mediation of the living community
of the Church. Faith in God and in his word is different from any other human
faith, trust, or opinion. The certainty that it is God who is speaking gives me
the assurance that I am in touch with truth itself. It gives me a certitude which
is beyond verification by any human way of knowing. It is the certitude upon
which I build my life and to which I entrust myself in dying.
Private revelation is a help to this faith, and shows its credibility precisely by
leading me back to the definitive public revelation. In this regard, Cardinal
Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope Benedict XIV, says in his classic
treatise, which later became normative for beatifications and canonizations:
“An assent of Catholic faith is not due to [private] revelations approved in
this way; it is not even possible. These revelations seek rather an assent of
human faith in keeping with the requirements of prudence, which puts them
before us as probable and credible to piety” (“Theological Commentary” in
The Message of Fatima).
122.When private revelations are approved by Church authority, the implications
are modest. Cardinal Ratzinger notes:
The Flemish theologian E. Dhanis, an eminent scholar in this field, states
succinctly that ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three
elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is
lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with
prudence. Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the gospel
and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore, it should not be
 disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use
(ibid., citing E. Dhanis, “Sguardo su Fatima e bilancio di una discussione,” in
La Civiltà Cattolica 104 [1953]: II:392–406, in particular 397).
123. Private revelations can give rise to devotions and even find a place in the
liturgy:
We might add that private revelations often spring from popular piety and
leave their stamp on it, giving it a new impulse and opening the way for new
forms of it. Nor does this exclude that they will have an effect even on the
liturgy, as we see for instance in the feasts of Corpus Christi and of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus (ibid.).
Divine Mercy Sunday (the Sunday after Easter) is another devotion derived
from private revelation (the apparitions of Jesus reported by St. Faustina
Kowalska). It was added to the liturgical calendar by Pope John Paul II.
The Magisterium and the Word of God
124. The Greek word for revelation, apokalupsis, appears in the New Testament,
but not often. At the time, there was a more common term: the word of God. The
function of the Church’s Magisterium is to proclaim the word of God, which is
why “the church of the living God” is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1
Tim. 3:15).
It is common in the Protestant community to speak of the word of God as if it
were identical with Scripture. The Catholic Church is then accused of “adding to
the word of God” since it does not use Scripture alone to support its teachings.
The Church acknowledges that “Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch
as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit” (Dei
Verbum, ٩). However, even a cursory reading of Scripture shows that the word
of God is not limited to Scripture. It is a complex reality that includes several
things:
• In the first chapter of the Bible, we read about the power of God’s creative
word, as he speaks created realities into existence: “‘Let there be light’; and
there was light” (Gen. 1:3). This understanding of God’s creative word is
found in the Psalms, which state: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were
made” (Ps. 33:6).
• The Bible records the word of God being given to prophets who wrote no
Scripture at all, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 9:27), Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:22), and
John the Baptist (Luke 3:2).
 • The New Testament describes the oral apostolic preaching of the Christian
faith as the word of God (Acts 4:31, 6:7, 16:6).
• Most fundamentally, Scripture describes Jesus himself as the Word of God
(John 1:1–18; Rev. 19:13).
Consequently, Scripture is simply the portion of God’s word that was
consigned to writing under divine inspiration.
125. The proper response to the word of God is to accept the whole of it as
authoritative. Everything God speaks—everything he reveals—is authoritative,
for “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the
mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4; cf. Deut. 8:3). It would be wrong to close our ears to
God’s word when it is found outside of Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).
Tradition

The Value of Tradition

126. Tradition is what is handed down from one generation to another. The Latin
word traditio comes from the roots trans- (“across”) and dare (“to give”). The
term the Greek New Testament uses for tradition, paradosis, similarly means “to
hand down/over.”
In the Protestant community, tradition has a negative ring. Protestant
apologists cite Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees: “You leave the
commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). But Jesus
did not condemn all traditions. He condemned only those that contradict or
“make void” the word of God (Mark 7:13). Furthermore, other passages show a
positive attitude toward tradition. Paul states:
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the
traditions even as I have delivered them to you (1 Cor. 11:2).
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were
taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15).
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord
with the tradition that you received from us (2 Thess. 3:6).
These use the same Greek word (paradosis) that Jesus uses. Thus, tradition
itself is not a problem. When a tradition contradicts the word of God, it is to be
shunned, but when it conveys the word of God, it is to be embraced.
127.Fundamentally, the Christian faith as a whole is a tradition—or a collection
of traditions handed down from Christ and the apostles. Thus Luke says he is
compiling a narrative of events “just as they were delivered to us by those who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2).
The word he uses for “delivered” is paradidōmi, the verb corresponding to
paradosis. If tradition were a common verb in English, this passage could be
translated “just as they were traditioned to us.” The same is reflected in Jude’s
epistle, which says:
Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it
necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once
for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
Again, the verb is paradidōmi: the faith has been once for all handed on or
“traditioned” to the saints. Tradition thus is not a negative concept. It is
fundamental to the Christian faith.
Tradition andTraditions
128. In addition to traditions that violate the word of God (Mark 7:8) and
traditions that convey the word of God (2 Thess. 2:15), there is a middle
category: traditions that are neither required by the word of God nor are contrary
to it.
Jesus and the first Christians used the Aramaic, and this has been handed down
to today. Aramaic is still used in worship in Chaldean and Maronite Catholic
churches. Even Christians who don’t speak Aramaic use Aramaic words and
phrases like Abba (“Father”) and Maran atha (“our Lord, come”). Yet Jesus and
the apostles didn’t mandate Aramaic. The New Testament is even written in
Greek. The use of Aramaic as a worship language thus falls into the category of
a tradition that is permitted but not required by divine law.
129. We thus could divide tradition into three categories:
• Traditions that are required
• Traditions that are permitted
• Traditions that are prohibited
130.More often, traditions are divided into just two categories: (1) Those that are
required and (2) those that are not required. A way of visually signaling which of
the two types is meant has developed. Traditions that are obligatory are referred
to with a capital “T” (“Traditions”) whereas non-obligatory ones receive a lower
case “t” (“traditions”). When a mix of obligatory and non-obligatory traditions
are in view, the lower case is used. We will follow these conventions in this
book.
131.Under the heading “Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions,” the
Catechism says:
The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what
they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from
the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written
New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of
living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary,
liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These
are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the
great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be
retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s
Magisterium (CCC 83).
Tradition thus comes to us from the apostles. This is why the Catechism refers
to it as “apostolic Tradition.” It is also frequently called “Sacred Tradition,” and
it is distinguished from lowercase “ecclesial traditions.” The latter have been
approved “under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium,” and so they are not
contrary to the word of God. However, they also are not obligatory under divine
law, meaning they correspond to the middle category in §129.
This passage doesn’t refer to traditions contrary to the word of God. Because
Christians are sinners, such traditions arise, but they are not approved by the
Magisterium and so are not ecclesiastical traditions in the proper sense, even if
common in Christian circles.
Scripture and Tradition
132. In the broad sense, apostolic Tradition includes everything authoritatively
passed down to the Church by the apostles, and that would include Scripture.
They were handed down, too! However, a narrower and more common usage
conceives of Tradition as the word of God passed down to us in ways other than
Scripture. Scripture and Tradition are then seen as the two modes by which
divine revelation is handed on.
133. Tradition is passed on by several means, including oral preaching, the
liturgy, and the writings of the Church Fathers. Since Scripture is also written,
how is it different from the writings of the Church Fathers—or other ways of
passing down Tradition? The answer is that only Scripture is divinely inspired.
According to Vatican II:
There exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition
and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine
wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.
For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to
writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while Sacred Tradition takes
the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the
apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity (Dei Verbum, 9).
134.Because God’s word has been passed on through both Scripture and
Tradition, the Church does not rely exclusively on Scripture:
Consequently, it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her
certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both Sacred
 Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the
same sense of loyalty and reverence (ibid.)
135.What does it mean for Scripture to be divinely inspired? The council
explains:
Because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, [the scriptures] have
God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In
composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by him
they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with him acting in them
and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and
only those things which he wanted (Dei Verbum, 11).
The scriptures thus do not contain material that God did not want included in
them.
136.By contrast, the writings of the Church Fathers do not have this quality.
They contain added material that individual Fathers chose to include, and this
material is not always authoritative or even accurate. They thus present
authoritative Traditions alongside non-authoritative ones.
137.There thus needs to be a sifting of apostolic Tradition from other traditions.
This is the function of the Magisterium. Christ’s pastors have received the task
of guiding his sheep by discerning what is authentically of God and what is not.
This task applies both when the word of God is written in the form of Scripture
and when it is handed on in other ways.
138. The Magisterium thus received the task of identifying genuinely apostolic
scriptures from among the array of “scriptures” (apocryphal gospels, etc.)
circulating in the early Church. It made its decision on the basis of Tradition—
on which books had been handed on to the Church as authoritative by the
apostles and had been read in the churches as such. This included both the books
of the Old and the New Testaments, and it included books written by apostles
(Romans, 1 Peter) and their associates (Mark, Luke). If there was no tradition of
a book being read in the churches, or if it disagreed with the teachings handed on
from the apostles, it was regarded as inauthentic. Tradition thus proved the key
to the Magisterium identifying the books of Scripture. Vatican II notes:
Through the same Tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is
known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood
 (Dei Verbum, 8).
Now that the canon has been identified, the Magisterium continues to
authoritatively discern the elements that represent apostolic Tradition and those
that are merely traditions.
139. To summarize the relationship of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium:
• Scripture passes on divine revelation in the form of inspired writings.
• Tradition communicates it in other forms.
• The Magisterium distinguishes apostolic Scripture and Tradition from other
scriptures and traditions.
According to Vatican II:
It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching
authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked
and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all
together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit
contribute effectively to the salvation of souls (ibid., 10).
140.Although the three are closely linked, there are important differences among
them. Scripture alone is divinely inspired, so it has a special primacy. The
formulations of divine revelation in Tradition and the teachings of the
Magisterium are true, but they aren’t authored by God the way Scripture is.
Another difference is that Scripture and Tradition represent sources of divine
revelation. The Magisterium does not. It merely proclaims what is found in
Scripture and Tradition. Thus Vatican II stated:
[T]he task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or
handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the
Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This
teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only
what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously
and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the
help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything
which it presents for belief as divinely revealed (ibid.).
The Magisterium therefore occupies a place below Scripture and Tradition,
even when it teaches infallibly. This raises the question of how infallibility
relates to inspiration and the related concept of inerrancy.
Inerrancy, Infallibility, and Inspiration

Inerrancy
141. Scripture is often said to be inerrant. This is the quality of not containing
error. However, even merely human documents can be inerrant. A geometry
textbook that contains no errors is inerrant. So is any statement a person makes
that does not contain a falsehood. Even badly worded and partial expressions of
truth are not erroneous. Consequently:
• Any true statement in an ordinary, human document is inerrant.
• True statements in Church documents are inerrant.
• Statements of apostolic Tradition are inerrant.
• Statements in Sacred Scripture are inerrant.
Infallibility
142. Infallibility is greater than inerrancy. It is the quality of not being able to
make an error. Since “to err is human,” God alone is intrinsically infallible.
However, God can protect people from making errors, and when he does so, they
are given a measure of infallibility. The authors of Scripture had this quality
while writing under divine inspiration, as do members of the Magisterium when
infallibly defining a teaching.
Although in the proper sense infallibility applies to persons, in common usage
the term also covers statements made by people God protects from error. Thus
Church teachings and not just Church teachers are described as infallible.
The fact that a person is protected from making an error doesn’t mean what he
says will be well phrased, complete, or timely. It just means it won’t be false.
This means infallible statements by the Magisterium could be confusing, partial,
or given at an inopportune time. However, they are guaranteed to be true.
Since the authors of Scripture were protected from error, one could also say
that Scripture is infallible, but this usage is not standard since their authors were
divinely inspired.
Inspiration
143. Inspiration is greater than inerrancy and infallibility. The term comes from
the Latin inspirare (in-, “in/on/into” + spirare, “to breathe”). As used in
theology, it refers to the quality of being “breathed by God.” The Greek
equivalent is theopneustos (theos, “God” + pneō, “breathe out”). Thus Paul says
“all Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3:16)—or, more literally, “every
Scripture is breathed by God.”
 Theologians have not fully explored the depths of the mystery of inspiration,
but one of its consequences is that God is the ultimate author of Scripture,
though he used human authors as his agents. Another consequence is that the
human authors “consigned to writing everything and only those things which he
wanted.” From this, Vatican II drew the conclusion:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers
must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of
Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without
error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of
salvation (Dei Verbum, 11).
The gift of inspiration thus entails the lesser gift of protection from error
(infallibility), resulting in an absence of error (inerrancy). However, it goes
beyond both of these in that the Holy Spirit is not simply preventing error.
Like infallibility, inspiration in the proper sense applies to persons rather than
documents. The Pontifical Biblical Commission notes:
Inspiration as an activity of God, therefore, directly concerns the human
authors: they are the ones who are personally inspired. But then the writings
composed by them are also called inspired (The Inspiration and Truth of
Sacred Scripture, 5).
Like infallibility, inspiration only occurs on certain occasions: the pope and the
bishops are not infallible all the time, and the biblical authors were divinely
inspired when they wrote Scripture. The Holy Spirit should not be regarded as
the author of everything they did or said, as illustrated by the fact they
sometimes were in conflict with each other (Gal. 2:11–14; cf. 1 Cor. 14:33).
Living Tradition and Doctrinal Development
144. Though the contents of the deposit of faith are unchanging, the way in which
it is expressed is not. For this reason, theologians often speak of the Church as
possessing a “living tradition.”
One way it is living is how it is applied to changing circumstances. As the
centuries progress, cultures develop and the Faith that was “once for all
delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) is manifested in new ways. It gives rise to new
expressions, customs, and rules. The process of “inculturation” occurs across
many fields, including theology, liturgy, popular piety, and canon law.
Another way Tradition is living is described by Vatican II:
 Tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the
help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the
realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through
the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in
their hearts (see Luke 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the
spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those
who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as
the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward
toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete
fulfillment in her (Dei Verbum, 8).
This “growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have
been handed down” is known as doctrinal development (see chapter eighteen).
Case Study: The Trinity
145. The divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is taught in the New
Testament, but not in a concise way or in a single place. It took time for the
biblical data to be formulated as the doctrine of the Trinity. This happened as
heretics of various kinds began denying aspects of the truth about God and the
Church was forced to assert her faith in clearer and more precise terms.
It thus developed a special vocabulary that had not existed before. At the First
Council of Nicaea (325), the bishops combatting the Arian heresy found the
Arians had discovered ways of reinterpreting the language of Scripture to deny
the divinity of Christ. To make it clear this was not the faith of the Church, the
fathers of the council needed to use a new, postbiblical term to express the
relationship of the Father and the Son. This is why the Nicene Creed states the
Son is “consubstantial” (Greek, homoousion) with the Father.
Through the centuries, numerous terms have been coined to describe realities
connected with the Faith—for example, Trinity, original sin, Bible, purgatory,
transubstantiation. As this happened, truths implied in the apostolic deposit
became explicitly formulated.
7 Avery Dulles, Magisterium (Naples, Fla.: Sapientia Press, 2007), 77.
8 Dulles, Magisterium, 77.
9 Pierre Adnes, “Revelations, Private” in Rene Latourelle and Rino Fisichella, Dictionary of Fundamental
Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1995).
 PART II
Where Church Teaching Is Found
 CHAPTER 8

The Documents of Bishops and Popes

146. Christianity has always valued the written word, beginning with Scripture.
As the ages progressed, Christians produced an extensive and ever-growing
body of literature. Today the Magisterium produces a blizzard of documents.
Keeping up with the hundreds of documents issued each year by the pope alone
is nearly impossible, and they come in a bewildering number of kinds.
Of course, bishops and popes don’t just teach in documents. The original
proclamation of the Faith was oral, and it continues to be taught orally today.
Hypothetically, a pope or council could even infallibly define a dogma by oral
means, though if this were done, it would be written down immediately and then
transmitted to the Church in documentary form. In this chapter we will look at
major types of Church documents.
The Documents of Bishops

An Individual Bishop’s Documents

147. Bishops express their personal magisteria in a number of ways. The
Congregation for Bishops lists two major ones:
The Homily. As an integral part of the liturgy, which is the source and summit
of the Church’s entire life, the homily is the most excellent and, in a certain
sense, the sum of all forms of preaching. The bishop should seek to expound
Catholic truth in its fullness, in simple, familiar language, suited to the
capacities of his hearers, focusing—unless particular pastoral reasons suggest
otherwise—on the texts of the day’s liturgy. He should plan his homilies so as
to elucidate the whole of Catholic truth.
Pastoral letters. On special occasions in the life of the diocese, the bishop
should also propose doctrine by means of pastoral letters and messages,
addressed to the whole Christian community. These may appropriately be
read out in Churches and oratories and also distributed in printed form among
the faithful (Apostolorum Successores, 122a–b).
The congregation lists other ways a bishop may teach, though these means
typically are not expressions of authoritative magisteria:
 Other forms of preaching. The bishop should never miss an opportunity to
communicate the doctrine of salvation, making full use of the possibilities
offered by the mass media: newspaper articles, television and radio
broadcasts, conferences, or lectures on religious topics, particularly when he
is addressing those responsible for disseminating ideas in the professional
worlds of education and information (ibid., 122c).
Joint Bishops’ Documents
Local Joint Documents
148. Sometimes bishops issue documents jointly. This can happen when the
bishops from two or more neighboring dioceses decide to issue a pastoral
statement on an issue affecting their territory. These are usually released on an
ad hoc basis. They are commonly pastoral, and—apart from repeating things the
Church already teaches—doctrines they express represent the personal
magisterium of the individual bishops involved.
National Joint Documents
149. Often joint documents are issued by the national bishops’ conference. At its
regularly scheduled meetings, it is common for bishops to approve documents on
doctrinal and pastoral issues.
Beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. bishops have been particularly active and
have issued a series of pastoral letters on topics including war, the economy,
racism, and other subjects. In addition, they periodically produce new revisions
of documents such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (on moral
principles in voting) and Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health
Care Services.
150.Committees of the conference also issue documents. The U.S. Committee on
Divine Worship publishes a newsletter ten times a year to update bishops,
priests, and liturgists on developments in the liturgical sphere. Other committees
issue booklets or pamphlets for a broad audience, such as the Committee for
Divine Worship’s booklet Pastoral Care of the Dying or the Committee for
Evangelization and Catechesis’s pamphlet Marriage and Family: The Home of
the New Evangelization.
Of special interest for our purposes are documents released by the U.S.
bishops’ Committee on Doctrine. These are frequently styled “statements,” and
they may address topics of general doctrinal interest (The Teaching Ministry of
the Diocesan Bishop: A Pastoral Reflection), particular moral questions (The
Distinction Between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures), non-
Catholic practices that are having an impact in Catholic circles (Guidelines for
Evaluating Reiki As an Alternative Therapy), or the problems in the works of a
particular theologian (Statement on Quest for the Living God by Sr. Elizabeth A.
Johnson). Many are available on the Committee on Doctrine’s web page at
usccb.org; others are available from USCCB Publishing.
151.Officers of a national conference may also issue documents, as when the
head of the USCCB issues press releases when a news story breaks that affects
the Catholic world.
152.Employees of the conference also release various publications. The USCCB
operates Catholic News Service, which provides reporting on stories of interest
to Catholics, including items relating to popular culture, such as movie reviews.
153. Comparatively few conference documents are official acts of the
Magisterium. Movie reviews obviously are not. Although meant to reflect
Catholic principles, they are only the opinion of the reviewer. When the head of
the conference issues a press statement, it represents his personal sense of how
the bishops, or many of them, would react to a breaking story. Documents issued
by committees can be theologically valuable, but they represent only the views
of their signatories. This applies even to the Committee on Doctrine.
As we saw in §34, the only way for a joint episcopal document to “constitute
authentic magisterium” is if it is of a doctrinal nature and is either approved
unanimously by the full body of bishops or receives the approval (recognitio) of
the Holy See after being approved by at least two thirds of the conference.
154.In fact, sometimes documents issued by the conference can draw criticism
from the bishops themselves:
• In 1997, the USCCB’s Committee on Marriage and Family issued a
document titled Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers. This document
was widely criticized as downplaying Catholic teaching on homosexuality,
and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith requested revisions.
• In 2002, a group of scholars connected with the Committee on Ecumenical
and Interreligious Affairs released Reflections on Covenant and Mission,
which was seen as discouraging Jews from becoming followers of Christ. In
response, the Committee on Doctrine issued a critical statement titled A Note
 on Ambiguities Contained in “Reflections on Covenant and Mission.”
• A review of the 2005 movie Brokeback Mountain, which deals with a
homosexual romance, was initially classified by its reviewer as L (“limited
adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find
troubling”). Following a backlash, it was reclassified as O (“morally
offensive”).
155.Although few documents meet the conditions necessary to count as authentic
magisterium, they can still contain important doctrinal and pastoral statements.
Pope Francis frequently quotes documents issued by episcopal conferences. In
his encyclical Laudato Si’, he quotes documents by the episcopal conferences of
Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Canada, Germany, Japan,
Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, and
the United States.
Joint International Documents
156. Sometimes conferences from different nations work together. The Council of
Latin American Bishops (Spanish, Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, better
known as CELAM) includes episcopal conferences from Latin America and the
Caribbean. Like an individual national conference, it meets annually and has a
permanent administrative staff. Periodically, CELAM holds general conferences,
such as at Medillin, Colombia, in 1968, at Puebla, Mexico, in 1979, and at
Aparecida, Brazil, in 2007. These conferences issue “concluding documents” of
a pastoral nature that sum up the thoughts of the conference.
Apostolos Suos does not discuss documents issued by bodies like CELAM, but
the same principles presumably apply to them. Even if they do not “constitute
authentic magisterium,” they are still influential. Thus in his apostolic
exhortation Evangelii Gaudiam, Pope Francis quotes from CELAM’s Puebla and
Aparecida documents, and in Laudato Si’ he quotes from the Aparecida
document and a similar document issued by the Federation of Asian Bishops’
Conferences (FABC).
The Synod of Bishops
157. The Synod of Bishops issues several major documents:

• Initially, its Secretariat in Rome prepares a document known as the

lineamenta (Latin, “outlines”), which sketches out the topics to be covered at
the synod and includes a questionnaire. It is then circulated to episcopal
conferences for feedback.
 • The Secretariat then incorporates this feedback and drafts the instrumentum
laboris (Latin, “working document”), which serves as the starting point for
discussion when the synod meets.
• At the synod, the bishops draft and vote on a document that is submitted to
the pope. Often it takes the form of a series of propositiones (Latin,
“proposals”); however, it can take other forms, such as a relatio synodi
(Latin, “report of the synod”).
158. Following its founding in 1965, some early meetings of the synod tried to
draft documents for public consumption, but this only came to fruition at the
1971 synod, which released a document titled Justice in the World. Usually, the
brief time the synod meets (less than a month) was not enough to prepare a
document addressed to the public. However, beginning in the reign of Benedict
XVI, it became common for the pope to publicly release the document it submits
to him.
Because most of its documents have not been addressed to the faithful, and
because bishops cannot authoritatively teach the pope, such documents are not
acts of authoritative magisterium, though they refer to things the Magisterium
has already taught and provide a valuable look at the mind of the world
episcopate.
In September of 2018, Pope Francis issued the apostolic constitution
Episcopalis Communio, in which he indicated that a synod’s final document
could participate in the pope’s ordinary magisterium in the following situations:
§1. Having received the approval of the members [of the synod], the final
document of the assembly is offered to the Roman pontiff, who decides whether
to publish it.
If expressly approved by the Roman pontiff, the final document participates in
the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.
§2. If the Roman pontiff granted the deliberative power to the assembly of the
synod, in accordance with can. 343 of the Code of Canon Law, the final
document participates in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter once
ratified and promulgated by him.
In this case the final document is published with the signature of the Roman
pontiff together with that of the members (art. 18).
Conciliar Documents
159. Councils have produced many types of documents in Church history. The
earliest we have is the letter sent by the Council of Jerusalem around A.D. 49
(see Acts 15:23–29). Here we will focus on the documents of ecumenical
councils.
160. Ecumenical councils produce many background documents—speeches,
reports, drafts, etc. These are referred to as the “acts” of the council. Although
generally only studied by scholars, they shed valuable light on the final, public
documents the council issues.
161. There is no established form the public documents must take, and their
nature has varied considerably over time.
The first ecumenical council—First Nicaea (325)—published two major
documents; the first was a profession of faith known as the Creed of Nicaea (not
the same as the Nicene Creed10) and the second was a series of canons (rules)
dealing with matters of early canon law.
162. Subsequent councils developed new forms of documents, and by Trent
(1545–1563), the most significant conciliar documents were known as
“decrees,” which alternately dealt with Church doctrine and Church reform.
Some doctrinal decrees included a general treatise on a subject, followed by a
series of canons emphasizing the key doctrinal points (e.g., the Decree on
Justification). Other decrees consisted of a brief introduction followed by canons
(e.g., the Decree on the Sacraments). Trent’s “decrees on reformation” have a
pastoral character and affected then-current canon law.
163. Vatican I (1870) issued two documents, both of which are styled “dogmatic
constitutions.” Dei Filius contains a doctrinal treatise followed by canons.
Pastor Aeternus deals with papal authority and infallibility, and it has the canons
embedded in the doctrinal treatise, with one at the end of each chapter. This
council planned to produce more documents, but it was suspended due to the
events of the Franco-Prussian War and the capture of Rome by the Kingdom of
Italy.
164.Vatican II (1962–1965) produced three types of documents, known as
constitutions, declarations, and decrees. The constitutions also fall into two
kinds, styled either “dogmatic” or “pastoral.” Francis Morrisey observes:
It is still rather difficult to state precisely why one document was given a
specific qualification rather than another. It could be noted, though, that the
constitutions—such as the dogmatic and pastoral ones—are fundamental
documents addressed to the Church universal, while the decrees, which build
 upon constitutional principles, are directed more specifically to a given
category of the faithful or to a special form of apostolate. The declarations
were policy statements giving the teaching of the Church on certain more
controverted matters, and thus are more liable to be revised with time.11
All of the Vatican II documents take the form of treatises, and they do not
contain canons.
165. Just as it is difficult to say why particular documents were issued as
constitutions, declarations, or decrees, it is also difficult to say precisely what
weight these carry. As the documents of an ecumenical council, they are all
important. However, the council did not provide an explanation of their exact
nature and weight.
The constitutions are the most authoritative documents, and the dogmatic
constitutions—Dei Verbum (on divine revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the
Church)—are the most authoritative of all. The pastoral constitutions
—Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the liturgy) and Gaudium et Spes (on the Church
in the modern world)—have a somewhat lesser status.
The declarations and decrees have less authority than the constitutions, but it is
not altogether clear which is weightier. Authors such as Morrissey seem to hold
that the declarations have the lesser rank, as they generally deal with more
controversial subjects. This is true: two deal with non-Christian religions and
religious freedom (the third is on Christian education). By contrast, the decrees
are generally on less controversial topics (means of social communication,
bishops, religious life, etc.), though one deals with the sensitive issue of
ecumenism. In addition, one could argue that the term “decree” has a longer
history as a type of council document and thus decrees should be given more
weight.
The nature of a conciliar document is one factor affecting the weight of a
teaching it mentions, but ultimately every statement it makes must be assessed
individually.
Papal Documents
166.The teaching ministry of the pope mirrors that of other bishops. Like them,
he gives homilies, makes speeches, writes letters, and so on. However, the
number and types of documents a pope issues goes far beyond those of an
ordinary bishop, and—confusingly—the names and nature of these documents
has changed over time and is not always consistent.
 Papal Bulls and Briefs
167. Papal bulls are among the most famous documents a pope issues, and many
people have heard of them, even if they have no idea what they are. This term is
especially confusing because it doesn’t deal with the content of the document but
the physical form it takes. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
A bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so called from its
resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon water (Latin bullire, to boil).
In the course of time the term came to be applied to the leaden seals with
which papal and royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle
Ages, and by a further development, the name, from designating the seal, was
eventually attached to the document itself. This did not happen before the
thirteenth century and the name bull was only a popular term used almost
promiscuously for all kinds of instruments which issued from the papal
chancery. A much more precise acceptance has prevailed since the fifteenth
century, and a bull has long stood in sharp contrast with certain other forms of
papal documents. For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined
to be “an apostolic letter with a leaden seal” (s.v. “Bulls and Briefs”).
Because a bull was simply any letter issued with a bulla, this didn’t reveal
much about its content, though the use of a leaden seal adds solemnity and
importance. In practice bulls were issued on doctrinal, legal, and practical
matters.
168.Eventually, papal briefs—a simpler form of document—began to replace the
bull:
The introduction of briefs, which occurred at the beginning of the pontificate
of Eugenius IV [1431–1447], was clearly prompted from the same desire for
greater simplicity and expedition which had already been responsible for the
disappearance of the greater bulls and the general adoption of [other, less
cumbersome documents]. A brief (breve, i.e., “short”) was a compendious
papal letter which dispensed with some of the formalities previously insisted
on. It was written on vellum, generally closed, i.e., folded, and sealed in red
wax with the ring of the fisherman (ibid.).
The use of a wax seal conveyed less formality, and in the 1800s, the wax seal
was replaced with a simple stamp in red ink.
169. Today, most papal letters are issued in the form of briefs, although bulls are
issued in particularly solemn cases. In 1961, Pope John XXIII issued the bull
Humanae Salutis convoking Vatican II, and in 2015, Pope Francis issued the
bull Misericordiae Vultus to announce an extraordinary jubilee year of mercy.
Modern Papal Documents by Type
170. Setting aside the physical form they take, papal documents usually are
classified by the type of content they contain and the occasions on which they
are issued. They fall along a spectrum of solemnity, which very roughly is as
follows:
• Apostolic Constitutions
• Encyclicals
• Motu Proprios
• Other Apostolic Letters
• Apostolic Exhortations
• Letters
• Homilies
• Speeches
• Catecheses
• Angelus/Regina Caeli addresses
• Fervorinos
• Books
• Interviews

Apostolic Constitutions
171. Apostolic constitutions are considered the most solemn papal documents.
Francis Morrisey explains:
They deal with doctrinal or disciplinary matters, but are issued only in
relation to very weighty questions. They are now generally reserved for acts
of the pope related to important matters regarding the Church universal or a
particular church, such as the erection of dioceses.12
Today most apostolic constitutions are short and deal with local matters (e.g.,
creating dioceses or ecclesiastical provinces). However, popes also use them to
issue solemn decisions affecting the whole Church, as with:
• Ineffabilis Deus (1854), in which Pope Pius IX infallibly defined the
Immaculate Conception of Mary.
 • Munificientissimus Deus (1950), in which Pope Bl. Pius XII infallibly defined
the Assumption of Mary.
• Depositum Fidei (1992), in which Pope John Paul II promulgated the
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
They also can deal with worldwide disciplinary matters, as with:
• Sacrae Disciplinae Legis (1983), in which John Paul II promulgated the
current Code of Canon Law.
• Anglicanorum Coetibus (2009), in which Pope Benedict XVI allowed
personal ordinariates to be erected for Anglicans entering the Church.
• Vultum Dei Quaerere (2016), in which Pope Francis revised the laws
governing women’s contemplative life.
Apostolic Letters
172. As the name indicates, these take the form of letters addressed to specific
audiences. There are several types:
• Decretal letters are particularly solemn and used to declare the canonization
of saints.
• Encyclical letters are the most authoritative teaching documents apart from
certain apostolic constitutions.
• Apostolic letters given “sub plumbo” (Latin, “under lead”) are modern papal
bulls.
• Apostolic letters given “motu proprio” (Latin, “by my own initiative”)
represent special initiatives on the part of the pope, as opposed to being
documents initiated on the suggestion or advice of others.
• Apostolic letters are sometimes issued without further qualification and tend
to be the least authoritative of this category.
Several of these categories warrant further discussion.
Encyclicals
173. Encyclicals are not as common as many think and are typically issued only
every couple of years. The word encyclical (Greek, en-, “in” and kuklos,
“circle”) arose because they are not addressed to a particular person and are
meant to be circulated widely. According to Pope Paul VI:
[An encyclical is] a document in the form of a letter sent by the pope to the
bishops of the entire world; “encyclical” means circular. It is a very ancient
 form of ecclesiastical correspondence that characteristically denotes the
communion of faith and charity that exists among the various “churches,” that
is, among the various communities that make up the Church (Audience,
August 5, 1964).13
The New Testament includes letters intended to be circulated among different
churches (cf. James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, Rev. 1:4), and many bishops in the early
Church issued such letters. However, the custom fell out of use, and when it was
revived, it became associated with the popes. J. Michael Miller explains:
Benedict XIV (1740–1758) is credited with reviving the ancient tradition of a
pope writing a common letter either to a specific group of bishops or to the
episcopate as a whole. Not long after his election, Pope Benedict sent out the
circular letter Ubi Primum (1740) to all members of the college of bishops.
Because of this gesture, collections of papal encyclicals now routinely begin
with his pontificate. Gregory XVI (1831–1846) called these papal letters
“encyclicals” and, during his papacy, this term passed into general use. For
many papal documents published before the mid-nineteenth century,
however, scholars fail to agree on which ones can properly be classified as
encyclicals. Only for those issued after the First Vatican Council (1870) is
there a consensus about the attribution of this designation to specific papal
writings. . . .
Since Pius XI, the popes have distinguished between encyclical “letters” and
encyclical “epistles.” The latter treat a question of interest either to a
restricted group or to the bishops of a specific country or region of the
Church. In theory, because encyclical epistles are not addressed to the whole
Church, they are considered less solemn and therefore enjoy less formal
authority than encyclical letters.14
The distinction between encyclical letters and encyclical epistles is confusing
since “epistle” (Greek, epistolē) means “letter” (Latin, littera). Consequently, the
distinction is largely ignored in practice:
In fact, contemporary theologians regularly overlook the distinction, using the
term “encyclical” to refer both to encyclical epistles and encyclical letters.15
Today, encyclicals are often addressed to more than just bishops. Benedict
174.
XVI addressed Caritas in Veritate (2009) “to the bishops, priests, and deacons,
men and women religious, the lay faithful, and all people of good will.” Going
even further, Pope Francis said in Laudato Si’ (2015), “I wish to address every
person living on this planet” (n. 3).
175.The doctrinal weight of encyclicals varies. Pope Benedict XV’s In Praeclara
Summorum (1921) celebrated the literary contributions of medieval Italian poet
Dante Alighieri. It was thus of less doctrinal weight than John Paul II’s
Evangelium Vitae (1995), which contained solemn papal reaffirmations of
Church teaching on the killing of innocents, abortion, and euthanasia.
Sometimes people ask if encyclicals are infallible. Although they can reaffirm
teachings that are already infallible, popes do not use encyclicals to issue new
infallible teachings. The documents used for that are apostolic constitutions. J.
Michael Miller comments:
While no canonical or theological reason would prevent the successor of
Peter from making an ex cathedra pronouncement in an encyclical, no pope
has solemnly defined a dogma of faith in this way. In other words, the
contents of an encyclical are presumed to belong to the ordinary magisterium
unless the opposite is clearly manifested.16
Motu Proprios
176. The name motu proprio indicates that a letter originated with the pope
himself, though this may not always be meant literally. Motu proprios deal with
disciplinary matters. Francis Morrisey explains:
Of all the papal legislative texts, the motu proprio is probably the most
common source of canonical legislation after the Code itself. . . . Originally
used to settle the affairs of the Curia or to administer the Papal States, today
they deal with matters that are significant but would not merit a constitution;
they are legislative in nature. While encyclicals and other papal letters are
addressed to certain categories of persons, a motu proprio is directed to the
Church at large.17
Examples of motu proprios include:
• Ecclesia Dei (1988), in which John Paul II declared the excommunication of
the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X and established provisions for
members of that movement who wished to remain in communion with the
Church.
• Summorum Pontificum (2007), in which Benedict XVI clarified and
liberalized the use of the traditional Latin Mass.
 • Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (2015), in which Pope Francis revised the Code of
Canon Law’s provisions regarding annulments.
Other Apostolic Letters
177. Some apostolic letters don’t fall into the categories above. They are
sometimes called “apostolic epistles.” Francis Morrisey explains:
In distinction from encyclical letters, apostolic epistles are sent to a particular
category of persons, such as a group of bishops. These documents . . . contain
social and pastoral teachings, but are not legislative texts.18
Examples include:
• Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), in which John Paul II solemnly confirmed that
priestly ordination is reserved to men alone.
• Lux Sui Populi (2012), in which Benedict XVI proclaimed St. Hildegard of
Bingen a Doctor of the Church.
• Vidimus Stellam Eius (2015), in which Pope Francis proclaimed St. Gregory
of Narek a Doctor of the Church.
Apostolic Exhortations
178. As the name suggests, these are documents in which the pope exhorts (urges,
advises, counsels). They are pastoral rather than doctrinal in the formal sense,
though they routinely restate Church doctrine. As teaching documents, they rank
lower than encyclicals, though it would be inaccurate to represent them as non-
magisterial documents. They also aren’t legislative and don’t create or modify
laws. However, they can indicate how popes believe moral and canon law should
be applied.
After it became clear that the Synod of Bishops often couldn’t effectively
prepare public documents in its own name (see §158), popes began releasing
apostolic exhortations following its meetings. These are known as “postsynodal
apostolic exhortations.”
Examples of apostolic exhortations include:
• Familiaris Consortio (1981), a postsynodal exhortation in which John Paul II
discussed the role of the Christian family in the modern world.
• Verbum Domini (2011), a postsynodal exhortation in which Benedict XVI
discussed the word of God.
• Amoris Laetitiae (2016), a postsynodal exhortation in which Pope Francis
 discussed love in the family.
Letters
179. Popes often write letters that don’t have the modifier “apostolic.” They are
just “letters” or “epistles” (Latin, epistulae) and are correspondingly less
weighty. These documents are not usually known by a Latin incipit (that is, the
first few words of the document in Latin). Instead, they are referred to by the
person or group addressed and by date. Examples include:
• Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Participants of the Plenary Session of the
Congregation for the Causes of Saints (April 24, 2006), in which he clarified
the way the term “martyr” should be used.
• Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the
Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by
Archbishop Lefebvre (March 10, 2009), in which he explained why he lifted
the penalty of excommunication from the Society of St. Pius X bishops.
• Pope Francis’s Letter to the Italian Journalist Dr. Eugenio Scalfari
(September 11, 2013), in which he responded to a letter published in the
newspaper La Repubblica.
Chirographs
180. Sometimes popes write letters in their own hand, in which case the resulting
document is known as a chirograph (Greek, kheir, “hand” and graphē,
“writing”). These are usually short and composed when the pope does not wish
to prepare a more formal document. This can mean either that the matter is of
lesser weight or that it is so urgent the pope wants to address it immediately.
Examples include:
• John Paul II’s Chirograph for the Centenary of the Motu Proprio “Tra le
Sollecitudini” on Sacred Music (November 22, 2003)
• Pope Francis’s Chirograph by Which a Council of Cardinals Is Established
(September 28, 2013)
• Pope Francis’s Chirograph for the Institution of a Pontifical Commission for
the Protection of Minors (March 22, 2014)
Audiences
181. Every Wednesday, the pope holds a formal meeting or “audience” (Latin,
audientia, “hearing”) with people gathered in St. Peter’s Square. Although lower
than encyclicals in doctrinal authority, they are an unusually rich resource since
they are used to give cycles of catechetical instruction, such as John Paul II’s
“Theology of the Body” series (periodically given from 1979 to 1984).
John Paul II did many cycles of catechesis on various subjects, essentially
working his way through the contents of the Creed and providing a parallel to
the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He also did series on subjects such as
priests, the Psalms, and the canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours. The last series
was continued by Benedict XVI, who went on to discuss Christ and the Church,
the twelve apostles and St. Paul, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, prayer,
and faith. The last was continued by Pope Francis, who has also conducted series
on the sacraments, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Church, the family, and
others.
The series do not run continuously. Popes will interrupt them with audiences
for liturgical days and seasons, and whenever the pope returns from a major
apostolic journey he usually devotes his next audience to reflecting on the trip.
Audiences are especially valuable from a doctrinal perspective because of their
weekly frequency and the broad range of topics they cover. High-level
documents like encyclicals only appear every couple of years, but in the same
period popes give about a hundred audiences. They thus cover numerous topics
that never make it into encyclicals.
Homilies
182. Popes, like other members of the clergy, give homilies. They are the most
ancient regular form of papal teaching. Today transcripts of the pope’s homilies
are published in the journal Acts Apostolicae Sedis (see §231) and on the Vatican
website (www.vatican.va). Sometimes they are televised, streamed, or broadcast
live on radio.
Popes do not use homilies as major teaching occasions, and they tend to be
brief reflections on the biblical readings or liturgical themes. Speeches styled
“homilies” are given at major public liturgies. They are different from the
fervorinos given at daily Masses (see §186).
Speeches
183. Popes give many speeches, both in Rome and during travels. In Rome, the
pope addresses:
• Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and bodies affiliated with the Holy See
• Bishops from particular territories who are making their ad limina visits
• Dignitaries such as ambassadors and heads of state
 • Religious and lay groups from different parts of the world
When the pope travels, among the first speeches he gives is an address to
representatives of the local government. He also addresses the local Catholic
bishops, representatives of other churches and faiths, and groups gathered for
major events, such as World Youth Day.
Speeches usually are not major teaching occasions and tend to be primarily
pastoral or diplomatic. However, the speeches popes give to Roman dicasteries
can be very informative about the way the pope wishes them to carry out their
work, and they contain references to projects the departments are pursuing that
are not yet publicly announced. The speeches popes give to bishops making ad
limina visits are informative about the problems he sees in their territories and
how he wants them to respond.
Messages
184. Popes issue a large number of “messages” every year. These are published in
a different section than the speeches in Acts Apostolica Sedis (see §231) and on
the Vatican website. The most famous is the Urbi et Orbi (Latin, “to the city and
the world”) message, which occurs every Easter and Christmas. In it, the pope
reflects on these holidays and discusses various world situations. Currently, in
addition to an annual message for Lent, there are annual messages for:
• World Communications Day
• World Food Day
• World Mission Day
• World Day for Consecrated Life
• World Day for Migrants and Refugees
• World Day of Peace
• World Day of the Sick
• World Day of Prayer for Vocations
• World Day of the Poor
• World Youth Day (including the annual local celebrations)
For the most part, messages are pastoral and reiterate familiar themes.
However, messages can occasionally be more significant. On October 22, 1996,
John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that made
world headlines because he indicated a more positive attitude toward certain
versions of evolution than he and other popes had previously taken.
 Angelus/Regina Caeli Addresses
185. Every Sunday at noon the pope gives a brief address from the window of the
papal apartment in which he reflects on the Sunday readings or the liturgical day.
At its conclusion, he says a brief prayer with the crowd, which will be the
Angelus (“The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary . . .”) or, during Easter, the
Regina Caeli (“Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia . . .”). These addresses are
thus referred to by the prayer he recites. They are among the least authoritative
papal addresses, though they contain valuable spiritual insights.
Fervorinos
186. Canon law requires homilies be given on Sundays and holy days of
obligation (CIC 767 §1). On other days, they are only recommended (§2). Daily
homilies tend to be short and informal. Known as fervorinos (from an Italian
word meaning “a little fire”) they are meant to be brief motivational or
inspirational talks.
In the reign of Pope Francis, the Holy See began to publish accounts of his
fervorinos, which appear on the Vatican website (www.vatican.va) under the
English title “Daily Meditations.” Unlike his formal homilies, they are
improvised and—at Pope Francis’s request—only summaries rather than
transcripts are made available. Apparently, he feels the fervorinos provide a
benefit, but he did not want to spend time every day reviewing, correcting, and
approving such short, informal statements. Consequently, they do not participate
in the papal magisterium the way formally prepared homilies do, and they are
not published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (see §231). Accounts of them can be
useful for understanding the pope’s thought, but without full transcripts, the
details are not to be pressed.
Other Official Papal Statements
187. The categories above represent the major types of papal statement, but there
are others, including:
• Greetings popes send from the papal plane to world leaders whose territories
they are flying through
• Telegrams to express prayer and condolences in the wake of tragedies
• Papal tweets sent from @Pontifex on Twitter—a practice begun by Benedict
XVI to engage internet culture
Although every papal statement presupposes doctrinal principles, such
statements do not participate significantly in the pope’s magisterium.
 Non-Official Papal Statements
188. Popes also make non-official statements. Some have published books during
their pontificate, such as John Paul II’s interview book, Crossing the Threshold
of Hope, and Benedict XVI’s three-volume series, Jesus of Nazareth. Modern
popes also frequently give interviews with the press. In principle, nothing stops a
pope from exercising his magisterium in such statements. However, typically he
does not. In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI made it explicit that he
was not exercising his magisterium (see §42).
189. Some authors have expressed puzzlement at the idea that a pope could
discuss doctrinal matters without these statements becoming part of his
magisterium.19 However, this idea has long been recognized. It is presupposed
by the fact that popes and councils can determine what level of doctrinal
authority to invest in their statements. If, by exercising the fullest extent of their
authority, they can set the level of authority to “infallible,” they can also set it to
“zero,” enabling them to propose theological ideas for the consideration of the
faithful without imposing them as matters of doctrine.
This was made explicit in the briefing (Latin, relatio) given by Bishop Vincent
Gasser to the fathers of Vatican I as they prepared to define papal infallibility.
He indicated that the pope is infallible:
when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, not, first of all, when he
decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of
a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as
supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.20
Gasser thus indicates that a pope can speak “as a private teacher,” or
theologian, rather than as pope.
The same is indicated by Vatican II, which taught that when he teaches
infallibly, “the Roman pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person,
but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church” (Lumen Gentium, 25). It is
up to the pope to determine the capacity in which he is speaking, as when Pope
Benedict determined to write his Jesus of Nazareth series as a private author.
190.In 1990, the CDF noted that theologians need to “assess accurately the
authoritativeness of the interventions, which becomes clear from the nature of
the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very
way in which it is expressed” (Donum Veritatis, 24).
Regarding the manner in which something is phrased, if a pope says it “is in no
way an exercise of the magisterium,” as Benedict XVI did, then it obviously is
not.
Regarding the nature of a document like a papal book or interview, the pope
has his own means of publishing official documents, via the Vatican publishing
house (Libreria Editrice Vaticana). Consequently, it’s significant if he chooses
someone else to issue it. A rule of thumb is that if a secular book publisher,
newspaper, magazine, or other media outlet is the originating publisher of a
papal statement then it should be regarded as an unofficial one unless the pope
indicates the contrary.
191.This doesn’t mean that non-magisterial papal statements have no value. They
have an intrinsic value based on the arguments the pope uses, and they have a
practical value in understanding the mind of a pope.
Something similar is true of writings made before a man became pope. They
may or may not have been part of his magisterium as a bishop, and his later
election to the papacy does not confer papal authority on them retroactively.
However, they provide valuable insights on his thought. Thus the extensive body
of theological literature Joseph Ratzinger penned provides insights for
understanding the magisterium of Benedict XVI.
10 The modern Nicene Creed is more formally known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. It consists
of the original Creed of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, as supplemented by the First Council
of Constantinople (381) to also define the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
11 Francis Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements: Their Canonical Significance in Light of the Code
of Canon Law, 2nd ed. (Ottawa: Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 1995), 21.
12 Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements, 15.
13 Apud J. Michael Miller, The Encyclicals of John Paul II (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2001),
11.
14 J. Michael Miller, The Encyclicals of John Paul II, 12–14.
15 Miller, The Encyclicals of John Paul II, 15.
16 Miller, The Encyclicals of John Paul II, 20–21.
17 Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements, 17–18.
18 Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements, 13.
19 E.g., see Edward Peters, “A Non-Magisterial Magisterial Statement?,” December 15, 2015, at In the
Light of the Law, canonlawblog.wordpress.com. See also “Why the Holy See Issues Non-Magisterial
Statements” at jimmyakin.com.
20 Apud O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility, 73.
 PART II
Where Church Teaching Is Found
 CHAPTER 9

Curial and Other Documents

Curial Documents
192. The Roman Curia issues a huge number of documents. With more than a
billion Catholics in the world, the need to relate to the nation-states in which
they reside, and the need to evangelize the cultures of the world, a plethora of
documents is only to be expected. Here we will look at the major types of curial
documents dealing with Church teaching. Most of these are issued by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Note that curial documents
must carry express papal approval to be acts of the Magisterium—a rule that
applies even to the CDF (see §50).
Responses/Dubia
193. The shortest documents to engage Church teaching are known, variously, as
replies, responses, dubia, or responsa ad dubia. All of these refer to the same
thing. In Latin, dubium means “a doubt,” but it can colloquially refer to a
question. A responsum ad dubium is therefore a response to a question. Various
dicasteries have used this Q & A format to answer inquiries sent by bishops.
Dubia are strikingly brief, the question is carefully worded, and the reply is often
just a single word: affirmative or negative.
194. Here is the complete text of one such dubium:
RESPONSE TO A “DUBIUM”
on the validity of baptism conferred by “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints,” called “Mormons”
Question: Whether the baptism conferred by the community “The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” called “Mormons” in the vernacular, is
valid.
Response: Negative.
The supreme pontiff John Paul II, in the audience granted to the undersigned
cardinal prefect, approved the present response, decided in the Sessione
Ordinaria of this congregation, and ordered it published.
 From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June
2001.
+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER Prefect
+ Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B. Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli Secretary
This dubium considers only a single question, but others include a series of
questions. As you can see, in this case the question is a single sentence, and the
response is a single word. Everything else consists of formalities letting you
know that the pope approved the response (making it a magisterial statement),
and when and by whom it was issued.
One-word answers provide decisive responses, but they leave one wanting an
explanation of the reasoning behind the response. In some cases, the text of a
dubium will contain a few words of explanation, but longer explanations are
typically found in an accompanying document.
Accompanying Documents
195. Upon the release of major documents, the Holy See holds press conferences
in which official representatives comment on them. The texts of these
presentations—or other signed or unsigned commentaries—are then made
available.
When the CDF released the dubium on Mormon baptism, it knew people would
want some kind of explanation of why Mormon baptisms are invalid (especially
since the Holy See previously had treated them as valid). It therefore released
two accompanying documents—one by Fr. Luis Ladaria, S.J., and another by Fr.
Urbano Navarrete, S.J., both of whom were involved in preparing the dubium.
Their commentaries were published in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore
Romano.
Accompanying documents are helpful in understanding the reasoning and
significance of documents, but they do not carry papal approval and are not
magisterial. Their authors, if known, are giving their own understanding of
matters. Unsigned accompanying documents can be regarded as reflecting the
thought of the authors in a general way, but they also are not on the same level
as the official text.
Notes
196. In recent years the CDF has issued “notes,” which are a step up from dubia
in terms of length, typically being a few pages long. Like most Church
documents, they use ordinary prose instead of a Q & A format. As the somewhat
informal name “note” suggests, they are documents of a lesser order. Examples
include:
• Note on the Expression “Sister Churches” (2000), in which the CDF explains
the proper use of a conceptually tricky phrase.
• Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and
Work of Fr. Antonio Rosmini Serbati (2004), in which the CDF discussed the
fundamental orthodoxy of a nineteenth-century philosopher and theologian
whose works were once prohibited.
• Note on the Banalization of Sexuality, Regarding Certain Interpretations of
“Light of the World” (2010), in which the CDF responded to a controversy
concerning remarks Pope Benedict XVI had made in the interview book Light
of the World.
197.In some cases, the CDF qualifies a document as a “doctrinal note,” giving it
greater weight. Examples include:
• Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics
in Political Life (2002), in which the CDF discusses the moral obligations of
Catholic politicians and citizens.
• Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (2007), in which the CDF
discusses the importance of evangelization and its implications.
Notifications
198. Though “notification” and “note” share the same root, notifications play a
different function: usually they are warnings, most frequently about a book or
books that contain problematic theological ideas. Examples include:
• Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power, Essays on Militant
Ecclesiology” by Fr. Leonardo Boff, O.F.M. (1985)
• Notification Concerning the Text “Mary and Human Liberation” by Fr. Tissa
Balasuriya (1997)
• Notification Concerning the Writings of Fr. Anthony De Mello, S.J. (1998)
In recent years, CDF notifications have become less common, as the
congregation has been shifting the burden of dealing with problematic
theologians to national bishops’ conferences. Consequently, the U.S. bishops’
Committee on Doctrine has begun issuing similar statements on books by
American theologians.
199. Notifications sometimes concern individuals, their ideas, and problematic
activities they have undertaken, including ecclesiastical crimes such as schism or
performing illicit ordinations. Examples include:
• Notification Regarding the Canonical Penalties Incurred by His Excellency
Mons. Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc and Other Completely Illicit
Ordinations (1983)
• Notification Regarding Rev. George de Nantes (1983)
• Notification Regarding Sr. Jeannine Gramick, S.S.N.D., and Fr. Robert
Nugent, S.D.S. (1999)
200.Notifications are sometimes issued to warn the faithful about problematic
reports of apparitions:
• Notification Regarding the Alleged Apparitions and Revelations of “Our
Lady of All Nations” in Amsterdam (1974)
• Notification on the Writings and Activities of Mrs. Vassula Ryden (1995)
201.In two cases notifications were issued concerning the validity of baptisms in
non-Catholic communities. It is not clear why these were not issued as dubia,
especially since they were written as a question followed by a one-word
response (“Negative” in both cases):
• Notification Regarding the Validity of the Baptism Conferred by the
“Christian Community” of Rudolph Steiner (1991)
• Notification on the Validity of the Baptism Conferred in “The New Church”
(1993)
202. Though most notifications are warning against specific individuals and
things, there are a few that serve other functions:
• Notification Regarding the Abolition of the Index of Books (1966), in which
the CDF notes that the Index of Prohibited Books has been abolished, though
one still has a moral duty to guard one’s faith.
• Notification Regarding the Devotion to Divine Mercy in the Form Proposed
by Sr. Faustina Kowalska (1978), in which the CDF announces that a
previous notification regarding the Divine Mercy devotion is no longer in
force.
Decrees
203. A step up from notifications are decrees, which establish or concretely apply
a law. Francis Morrisey explains:
The Code provides for two types of decrees: general and individual. A
general decree is issued for a community capable of receiving a law (c. 29),
while an individual decree is an administrative act in which a decision is
given or a provision is made in a particular case in accord with the norms of
law (c. 48).21
Canon 29 provides that general decrees “are laws properly speaking.”
204.Since the Second Vatican Council, the CDF has published one general
decree. It was issued in 2007 following a number of attempted ordinations of
women to the priesthood (see General Decree Regarding the Delict of Attempted
Sacred Ordination of a Woman). A similar decree (without the qualifier
“general”) was issued in 1988, when the congregation provided automatic
excommunication for anyone who records a confession or discloses it through
the means of social communication. Other CDF decrees include:
• Decree on the Ecclesiastical Burial of Manifest Sinners (1973)
• Decree Regarding the Censorship of Pastors of the Church on Books (1975)
• Decree Regarding Public Celebration of Mass in the Catholic Church for
Other Christians Who Have Died (1976)
• Decree Concerning Certain Unlawful Priestly and Episcopal Ordinations
(1976)
• Decree Regarding Cases in Which Impotence Renders Marriage Null (1977)
These decrees were published before the 1983 Code of Canon Law and have
been superseded in various ways.
205.Although CDF decrees frequently deal with unfortunate situations and can
impose penalties, some have happier subjects. In 1992, a decree offered a path to
regularize relations with an organization known as Opus Angelorum, and several
decrees issued between 2011 and 2012 erected personal ordinariates for
Anglicans who wish to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Declarations
206. Related to decrees are declarations. Morrisey explains:

Another form of pronouncement used quite frequently in recent years is the

declaration, which is an interpretation of existing law or facts, or a reply to a
contested point of law or doctrine.22
 Since Vatican II, the CDF has issued many declarations. Some of them focus
on specifically doctrinal matters. These include:
• Mysterium Ecclesiae: Declaration in Defense of Catholic Doctrine on the
Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day (1973)
• Inter Insigniores: Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the
Ministerial Priesthood (1976)
• Dominus Iesus: Declaration on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus
Christ and the Church (2000)
207.Some declarations cover the same kind of material found in notifications and
decrees—such as warnings about doctrinal errors advocated by theologians—
and it is not clear why the congregation chose to issue them as declarations.
These include:
• Declaration Regarding Certain Aspects of the Theological Doctrine of Prof.
Hans Kung (1979)
• Declaration Regarding the Dialogues with Rev. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx on
Certain Aspects of his Doctrinal Christology (1979)
• Declaration on the Book by Fr. Jacques Pohier, “When I Say God” (1979)
Similarly, some declarations deal with problematic pastoral situations:
• Declaration Concerning the Status of Catholics Becoming Freemasons
(1981)
• Declaration on Masonic Associations (1983)
• Declaration on the “Clandestine Church” in the Czech Republic (2000)

Letters
208. The CDF occasionally issues public documents in the form of letters. In
some cases, these are important items of individual correspondence, such as a
1980 letter to the Belgian theologian Edward Schillebeeckx, concerning
problematic statements in his writings. Another is a 1982 letter to Bishop Alan
Clark about the progress of his dialogue with representatives of the Anglican
communion.
209.However, usually the CDF doesn’t publicly release correspondence directed
to individuals. But it does publish letters issued to a broader audience, such as
the heads of episcopal conferences. These are known as circular letters (litterae
circulares) because they are meant to be widely circulated. Despite having a
similar function to papal encyclicals, they are called “circular letters” to prevent
confusion.
Such documents deal with disciplinary matters, though they involve doctrinal
principles. Examples include:
• Circular Letter Regarding the Indissolubility of Marriage (1973)
• Circular Letter to All Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences Concerning
the Use of Low-Gluten Altar Breads and Mustum as Matter for the
Celebration of the Eucharist (2003)
• Circular Letter to Assist Episcopal Conferences in Developing Guidelines for
Dealing with Cases of Sexual Abuse of Minors Perpetrated by Clerics (2011)
210.Interestingly, the CDF sometimes issues letters to a broad audience but omits
the qualifier “circular.” When a Latin version of these documents exists, they are
often called epistulae rather than litterae, though both terms translate in English
as “letters.” Examples include:
• Letter to Ordinaries Regarding Norms on Exorcism (1985)
• Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of
Homosexual Persons (1987)
• Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian
Meditation (1991)
Instructions
211. Among the more authoritative documents issued by the CDF are
instructions. According to the Code of Canon Law, instructions “clarify the
prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in
fulfilling them” (CIC 34). Instructions of this type issued by the CDF include:
• Instruction on Mixed Marriages (1966)
• Instruction on the Necessity to Establish Doctrinal Commissions in Episcopal
Conferences (1967)
• Instruction Regarding the Burial of the Deceased and the Conservation of the
Ashes in the Case of Cremation (2016)
These can contain extensive discussions of doctrine, but they also prescribe
how the laws on these subjects are to be applied. In some cases, instructions
establish new legal norms.
212. On the other hand, some CDF instructions are devoted to doctrinal rather
than legal matters. These include:
• Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation” (1984)
• Donum Veritatis: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
(1990)
• Dignitas Personae: Instruction on Certain Bioethical Questions (2008)
These represent an extension of the category of “instruction” as defined in the
Code of Canon Law, which may be one reason why Francis Morrisey observes:
It is this form of document, along with the declaration, that has given rise to
the greatest difficulty in interpretation in the post-conciliar era. Since the texts
are not strictly speaking legislative—at least according to their nature—their
application certainly allows for more leeway than would a decree.23
The CDF’s decision to publish some purely doctrinal documents as instructions
may be a desire to signal their authority. The canonical use of the term, as well
as the greater formality of the word “instruction” compared to “note” or “letter,”
lends additional gravitas.
Other CDF Documents
213. Some CDF documents do not fall into the above categories. Examples
include:
• Christian Faith and Demonology (1975), a document styled a “study” by an
anonymous expert the CDF commissioned to prepare it
• Regulations for Doctrinal Examination (1997), a set of procedural norms the
CDF employs when evaluating reports of doctrinal error
• Documents Regarding “The Message of Fatima” (2000), a collection of
several documents dealing with the Fatima apparitions and their famous
“third secret”
• Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious
(2012), an evaluation of problematic ideas and activities in a leadership group
for women religious

Directories
214. The final kind of curial document we will consider is the directory. Thus far
the CDF has not issued any directories, but other dicasteries have, and they often
touch on matters of doctrine. Morrisey explains:
 Another relatively new type of act is the directory, wherein guidelines are
given for the application of accepted principles. . . . The interest of a directory
is to provide the basic principles of pastoral theology, taken from the
Magisterium of the Church, by which pastoral action in the ministry can be
more fittingly directed and governed. This outlook explains why the
theoretical aspect is given primary emphasis in a directory without, however,
neglecting the practical aspects. Consequently, directories are addressed more
particularly to bishops to give them assistance in practical matters.24
Examples of directories touching on doctrinal matters include:
• Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism
(Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 1993)
• General Directory for Catechesis (Congregation for the Clergy, 1997)
• Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (Congregation for Divine
Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2001)
• Apostolores Succesores: Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops
(Congregation for Bishops, 2004)

Commission Documents
215.From time to time, the Holy See has created commissions to study particular
subjects. These meet either on a temporary or an ongoing basis. Under canon
law, these commissions are not organs of the Magisterium, but their documents
are only published if they receive Church approval. Two current commissions of
special significance are the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International
Theological Commission.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission
216. The Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) began its life in 1902 as an organ
of the Magisterium. However, in 1971 it was reorganized by Pope Paul VI as an
advisory body run under the auspices of the CDF (see §54). Its documents fall
into two groups, based on these periods.
Early PBC Documents
217. The PBC’s best-known early documents were issued between 1905 and 1933
and were written in the dubia format. They principally concerned questions
about particular books of the Bible (e.g., did Moses write the Pentateuch, how
many authors contributed to Isaiah, in what order were the synoptic Gospels
written), and they largely reaffirmed views that had been widely accepted in
recent centuries and were being challenged by modern biblical scholarship. At
the time, these responses had magisterial authority, at least when they touched
on matters of doctrine. This was confirmed by Pope Pius X in the 1907 motu
proprio Praestantia Scripturae.
218. Over time, this changed. In 1948, the PBC issued a letter to Cardinal
Emmanuel Suhard of Paris concerning certain early responses. This letter was
written at the direction of Pope Bl. Pius XII and carried his approval. It
concluded that, in light of subsequent magisterial teaching (including Pius XII’s
1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu), key findings of the early PBC dubia
“are in no way a hindrance to further truly scientific examination of these
problems in accordance with the results [of biblical scholarship] acquired in
these last forty years.”
In 1990, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave a press conference for the release of
Donum Veritatis in which he discussed the early PBC decisions, stating:
As a warning cry against hasty and superficial adaptations they remain fully
justified; a person of the stature of Johann Baptist Metz has said, for example,
that the anti-Modernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in
keeping her from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world. But the details of
the determinations of their contents were later superseded once they had
carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment.25
In a 2003 speech to the PBC, he again stressed the theme of the early decisions
as valid warnings for their time but which since have been superseded:
It is true that, with the above-mentioned decisions, the Magisterium overly
enlarged the area of certainties that the faith can guarantee; it is also true that
with this, the credibility of the Magisterium was diminished and the space
necessary for research and exegetical questions was excessively restricted. . . .
At first it seemed indispensable for the authenticity of Scripture, and
therefore for the faith founded upon it, that the Pentateuch be indisputably
attributed to Moses or that the authors of the individual Gospels be truly those
named by tradition.26
He concluded:
Meanwhile, not only those decisions of the Biblical Commission which had
entered too much into the sphere of merely historical questions were
corrected; we have also learned something new about the methods and limits
 of historical knowledge.
The matter was put succinctly by Cardinal Ratzinger’s successor as prefect of
the CDF, Cardinal William Levada, when in a 2005 speech he remarked that the
early decisions of the PBC are “now viewed as transitory judgments.”27
Recent PBC Documents
219. Since its reorganization as an advisory body, the PBC’s documents have not
carried magisterial authority. However, there are safeguards in place to ensure
they are in line with Catholic teaching:
a) The man in charge of the commission is the head of the CDF and thus the
chief official entrusted with guarding the Church’s doctrine. According to the
PBC’s statutes:
The cardinal prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith serves as the president of the Biblical Commission, and he may be
assisted by a vice-president selected from the members of the commission
(Sedula Cura, norm 2).
b) Members of the commission are appointed by the pope, on the
recommendation of the head of the CDF, and are chosen based on their
adherence to the Magisterium:
The Biblical Commission is composed of scholars of the biblical sciences
from various schools and nations, who are distinguished for their learning,
prudence, and Catholic regard for the Magisterium of the Church.
Members of the Biblical Commission are appointed by the supreme
pontiff, on the proposal by the cardinal president and after consultation with
the episcopal conferences (norms 3 and 4).
c) The writings of the PBC are submitted to the pope before being given to the
CDF:
The conclusions reached by the Biblical Commission . . . shall be submitted
to the supreme pontiff before being turned over for the use of the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (norm 10).
d) The pope must approve PBC documents before they are published:
It is the duty of the Biblical Commission to conduct studies of proposed
questions as well as to prepare instructions and decrees, which the Sacred
 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the right to publish, with
special mention of the Biblical Commission and with the recorded approval
of the supreme pontiff, unless the supreme pontiff in special cases shall have
determined otherwise (norm 11).
Since they are not magisterial documents, this does not mean that Catholics are
obliged to agree with everything they discuss (e.g., various theories of biblical
scholarship), but the approval of the pope functions as an imprimatur (Latin, “let
it be published”), indicating the fundamental orthodoxy of published PBC
documents.
The International Theological Commission
220. Unlike the PBC, the International Theological Commission (ITC) has never
been an organ of the Magisterium. It was founded as an advisory body run under
the auspices of the CDF (see §55). Because of this, one is under no obligation to
agree with its conclusions, except where they repeat Church teaching. However,
there are safeguards to ensure its documents’ fundamental orthodoxy:
a) The man in charge of it is the head of the CDF:
The President of the International Theological Commission is the cardinal
prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who,
however, in case of necessity and for individual sessions may delegate
another moderator (norm 2).
b) Members are appointed by the pope, based on the recommendation of the
head of the CDF, and selected based on their doctrinal orthodoxy:
The International Theological Commission is made up of scholars of the
theological sciences of different schools and nations; they should be
eminent for their science, prudence, and fidelity toward the Magisterium of
the Church.
The members of the International Theological Commission are appointed
by the supreme pontiff, to whose judgment the cardinal prefect of this
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will make proposals, after
having listened to the episcopal conferences (norms 3 and 4).
c) When the ITC has completed a study, it is submitted to the pope and the
CDF:
The conclusions which the International Theological Commission reaches,
 whether in the plenary session or in the special subcommissions, as also, if it
be judged opportune, the views of individual members, should be submitted
to the supreme pontiff and should be given to the Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith (norm 11).
d) Its documents are only published on the condition that the Holy See does not
have “any difficulty” with them:
Documents which have been approved by the majority of the members of
the International Theological Commission may also be published on
condition that there is not any difficulty on the part of the Apostolic See
(norm 12).
Since the statutes of the ITC don’t specify that the pope himself is to authorize
publication (as with the PBC), this is typically done by the head of the CDF, and
so it is his authorization that functions as an imprimatur certifying the doctrinal
orthodoxy of a published ITC document.
221.The ITC is not a forum for dissident theologians, and it is meant to represent
a common, orthodox approach to theology. Thus in 1985, its then-head, Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, wrote:
It is hardly surprising that one constantly hears the criticism that the
Commission is not active enough and has nothing to offer the wider life of the
Church. However, anybody who has expectations that the commission might
represent a kind of permanent “his majesty’s opposition” to the Church’s
Magisterium, offering a running commentary of speculative objections
against Rome for the benefit of the multitude, is going to be disappointed by a
revelation of the serenity and objectivity of the commission’s labors. On the
other hand, anybody who is looking for world-shaking scholarly discoveries
has misunderstood the whole point and nature of a commission. Thirty very
different voices have to be brought to speak in harmony: the scholarly
pursuits of individuals are not the object of the exercise. The special
contribution of the commission is to gain a hearing for the common voice of
theology amid all the diversities that exist. For notwithstanding the legitimate
pluralism of theological cultures in the Church, the unity of theology must
remain and empower theologians to offer some common account of their
subject.28
Other Commission Documents
222. In addition to the PBC and ITC, other pontifical commissions have been
appointed. A noteworthy example was the Pontifical Commission on Population,
the Family, and Birth-Rate, which was established by John XXIII in 1963 and
dealt with the question of birth control. In 1966, it issued its findings to Paul VI,
but they were not approved for publication. Instead, they were leaked to the
press and published in French and English editions—the latter appearing in the
American newspaper The National Catholic Reporter (April 19, 1967).
Because the Holy See did not approve them for publication, these documents
could not be relied upon to accurately reflect Catholic principles, and they did
not. The majority of commission members supported a change in the Church’s
position on contraception. The fact the documents did not reflect Catholic
principles was confirmed in 1968 by Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, which
reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the subject.
Special Documents

Codes of Canon Law

223. Certain documents that do not fall into the above categories also need to be
considered. Among them are the codes of canon law.
Prior to the twentieth century, canon law was found in an extensive collection
of documents composed over the centuries. It was a complex and confusing field
needing greater organization, and in 1917, Pope Benedict XV released the first
Code of Canon Law (Latin, Codex Iuris Canonici or CIC), which organized and
condensed the core of canon law into a single volume.
This Code served as the basis of canon law for much of the twentieth century,
but in 1983 Pope John Paul II issued a new edition, which replaced the original.
In 1990, he released a parallel volume—the Code of Canons for the Eastern
Churches (Latin, Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium or CCEO)—which
became the basis of canon law for Eastern Catholic churches.
Subsequently, popes have updated canon law by revising specific canons rather
than releasing new full editions. This first occurred when John Paul II released
the motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998), which modified a small number of
canons. Benedict XVI modified a few more in Omnium in Mentem (2009), and
Pope Francis extensively revised the canons pertaining to the annulment process
with Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (2015). Consequently, one must ensure one is
reading the current edition of the affected canons.
By nature, codes are legal documents rather than teaching documents.
However, they are based on doctrinal principles, and some canons involve
straightforward expressions of doctrine (see §106). Consequently, the Catechism
of the Catholic Church—a teaching document—sometimes quotes from the
Code to document a point of doctrine.
Because the codes contain a mixture of doctrinal and legal principles, one must
carefully distinguish the two to determine the degree to which their provisions
can be modified (see §107).
Churchwide Catechisms
224. In two notable cases the Holy See has released Churchwide catechisms. The
first was mandated by the fathers of Trent as a way to reinforce Catholic
teaching against Protestant ideas. Consequently, in 1566, Pope Pius V released
the Roman Catechism (aka the Catechism of the Council of Trent). It was
addressed to local pastors and intended to inform their preaching and teaching.
The Roman Catechism became highly influential, and it is quoted numerous
times in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, though as a creature of its time it
does not reflect the subsequent 450 years of doctrinal development or the
changes in Church law and practice.
225. Following Vatican II (1962–1965), a period of intense doctrinal confusion
occurred, with many Catholics unsure what the Church taught. At the 1985
meeting of the Synod of Bishops, the idea of a new Churchwide catechism was
proposed, and in 1992 John Paul II released the first edition of the Catechism of
the Catholic Church. This edition was in French—the language most widely
known in the working group that composed it—and it was subsequently
translated into numerous languages, with an English edition appearing in 1994.
In 1997, John Paul II released a Latin edition of the text, which henceforth was
the official version from which future translations would be made. This edition
also included several minor modifications, so it is necessary when quoting from
the affected passages to ensure they reflect the 1997 revision. In 2018, Pope
Francis also authorized a revision of the passage in the Catechism dealing with
capital punishment.29
226.Many had questions about the Catechism’s level of authority. Does the fact
that something is mentioned in it mean that the teaching is infallible or nearly
infallible? The answer is no. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who headed the
commission that prepared the work, explained that it did not affect the previous
status of teachings:
This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the
 authority of the Catechism. In order to find the answer, let us first consider a
bit more closely its juridical character. We could express it in this way:
analogously to the new Code of Canon Law, the Catechism is de facto a
collegial work; canonically, it falls under the special jurisdiction of the pope,
inasmuch as it was authorized for the whole Christian world by the Holy
Father in virtue of the supreme teaching authority invested in him. . . .
This does not mean that the Catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its
opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on it as a danger
to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for
the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the
apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, with which the pope promulgated it
on October 11, 1992—exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second
Vatican Council: “I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate
tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction
in the faith.” The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive
no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the
Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches,
whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the
faith and teaching of the Church.30
Consequently, the fact a teaching is included in the Catechism doesn’t make it
infallible. In Cardinal Ratzinger’s words, its teachings “receive no other weight
than that which they already possess.” Therefore, one must look to prior and
subsequent documents to determine what this is.
227. The Catechism had a significant impact worldwide, with many local
catechisms being revised or newly composed based on its contents. It also led to
two additional catechisms of a global nature.
The first, the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, was
released by Benedict XVI in 2005. It is written in a question-and-answer format
and distills the key teachings of the larger Catechism.
The second, the Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church or Youcat, was issued
in 2011 and has been distributed at events like World Youth Day. Unlike the
Catechism and the Compendium, Youcat is not a publication of the Holy See. It
was reviewed and approved by the CDF, and it carries a forward by Benedict
XVI, but it is actually a local publication written under the direction of Cardinal
Christoph Schonborn of Vienna.
228.A final, related document that appeared following the success of the
Catechism is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004). It
was released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (now part of the
Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development). As its name suggests, it
seeks to summarize the social teachings of the Church. It does not carry papal
approval and so it does not participate in the pope’s magisterium, though it does
repeat teaching of prior popes. Also, since it deals with matters of doctrine, it
would have been reviewed by the CDF, ensuring its fundamental orthodoxy (see
§§50–52).
Publications Linked to the Holy See
229. The Holy See has many communications initiatives to get its message out,
including a press office, a publishing house, and news services for print, radio,
television, and the internet. In 2015, Pope Francis decreed that these efforts
would be folded into a new Secretariat for Communications.
230.Among the efforts the Secretariat oversees is the Holy See’s publishing
house, Libreria Editrice Vaticana (Italian, “Vatican Publishing Library”) or
LEV, which was founded in 1926. It publishes magisterial documents such as
papal encyclicals and the Latin edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
However, LEV also publishes non-magisterial works including writings of
scholars in biblical studies and canon law. These works do not carry magisterial
authority, but they generally may be presumed to reflect Catholic teaching,
especially when they carry an imprimatur.
231.Among LEV’s most important publications is Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Latin,
“Acts of the Apostolic See”), a monthly journal that prints documents issued by
the pope and the dicasteries of the Roman Curia. It is considered the official
record of such documents, and its authoritative status is illustrated by the fact
that universal laws typically take effect three months after their appearance in
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (CIC 8 §1).
232.The Secretariat for Communications also oversees the Vatican newspaper,
L’Osservatore Romano (Italian, “The Roman Observer”), which began
publication in 1861. It is frequently considered a semiofficial publication of the
Holy See, and it prints both magisterial and non-magisterial pieces. Non-
magisterial pieces appearing in L’Osservatore Romano are considered
fundamentally orthodox, though the mere fact of publication does not carry as
much weight as it used to. Beginning in the reign of Benedict XVI (2005–2013),
the paper implemented an editorial policy intended to make it more engaging,
and it began to print opinion pieces engaging pop culture phenomena such as
Michael Jackson and The Simpsons.
233. Another semiofficial publication is the magazine La Civiltà Cattolica
(Italian, “The Catholic Civilization”). It is issued by the Jesuit order rather than
the Secretariat for Communications. Its semiofficial status is due to the fact that,
prior to publication, it is reviewed and approved by the Holy See’s Secretariat of
State. It therefore serves as an indicator of the Secretariat’s thought.
Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum
234. A final notable work is Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum, et
Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum (Latin, “Handbook of Creeds,
Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals”), which is
commonly called “Denzinger” after its original editor—the German scholar
Heinrich Denzinger—who published the first edition in 1854.
Denzinger is a collection of extracts from magisterial documents throughout
the centuries. There are other, similar works, but Denzinger is by far the most
influential, and it has gone through more than forty editions. Some are known by
compound names reflecting later editors (e.g., “Denzinger-Schonmetzer” or
“Denzinger-Hunermann”).
235.The work is so influential that, although it isn’t a Church publication,
magisterial documents regularly cite it using abbreviations like D 1008, DS
3628, or DH 5109, reflecting numbered paragraphs in different editions of the
work.
236.Denzinger documents the development of Church teaching over time, and so
the excerpts it gives are in chronological rather than topical order. The work’s
historical nature has important implications for evaluating the weight of
individual statements it contains:
• One cannot take a random statement and conclude it is infallible.
Comparatively few statements are infallible, and one must determine the
doctrinal weight they had at the time they were issued.
• One cannot assume a random statement is currently Church teaching.
Denzinger contains non-infallible statements that have since been superseded,
e.g., the early replies of
the Pontifical Biblical Commission (see §218). One must take subsequent
 doctrinal development into account.
• Statements in Denzinger reflect the vocabulary of the time, and the use of
terms can change. Thus Peter Hunermann notes, “The terms sacramentum
and dogma, for example, undergo important shifts in meaning.”31
Despite these cautions, Denzinger is an extraordinarily valuable collection of
magisterial texts.
21 Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements, 25.
22 Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements, 29.
23 Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements, 29.
24 Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements, 34–35.
25 Joseph Ratzinger, “Theology Is Not Private Idea of Theologian,” L’Osservatore Romano, English
Weekly Edition, July 2, 1990, 5.
26 Joseph Ratzinger, Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes, May 5, 2003.
27 William Levada, Address at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm, “Dei Verbum—Forty Years
Later,” October 10, 2005.
28 Joseph Ratzinger, Foreword, in Michael Sharkey, ed., International Theological Commission, vol. 1:
Texts and Documents, 1969–1985.
29 For a discussion of this change and its doctrinal significance, see “Understanding the Catechism’s Death
Penalty Revision” at jimmyakin.com.
30 Joseph Ratzinger and Christoph Schonborn, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 25–27.
31 Heinrich Denzinger et al., eds., Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum, et Declarationum de Rebus
Fidei et Morum (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 10.
 Part III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 10

Reading Church Documents

The Need to Read the Documents

237.For a person who wants to understand Church teaching, reading Church
documents is a must. Innumerable misunderstandings arise precisely because
people don’t consult the documents, because they give them a hasty, inattentive
reading, or because they lack the background needed to understand them.
Every day, people discuss what they’ve heard Church leaders say. These
reports then get passed on in second- and thirdhand forms—a process that
produces a huge body of gossip and rumors, many completely inaccurate (see
chapter twenty-one). Today, the mass media flashes inaccurate stories about
Church leaders around the globe at lightning speed, misleading millions of
people and making it all the more necessary that we consult the original
documents to see what was said.
Case Study: Mistaken Press Accounts
238.Here is the beginning of a story published by the Associated Press about an
interview Pope Francis gave during a return flight from Colombia:
Pope Blasts Climate Change Doubters: Cites Moral Duty to Act By Nicole
Winfield Associated Press
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP)—Pope Francis has sharply criticized climate
change doubters, saying history will judge those who failed to take the
necessary decisions to curb heat-trapping emissions blamed for the warming
of the Earth.32
On occasion, Pope Francis uses harsh language, and this account leads one to
believe he did so here, “blasting” those who doubt man-made climate change
and stating that history will “judge”—i.e., condemn—them. But when one
checks a transcript of the interview, it turns out he took a far more irenic tone.
When asked whether politicians have a moral responsibility for climate change
and why some deny man causes it, he said:
 Pope Francis: Thanks. For the last part, to not forget, whoever denies this
should go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly. The
scientists are precise. The other day, when the news of that Russian boat came
out, I believe, that went from Norway to Japan or Taipei by way of the North
Pole without an icebreaker and the photographs showed pieces of ice. To the
North Pole, you could go. It’s very, very clear. When that news came from a
university, I don’t remember from where, another came out that said, “We
only have three years to turn back, otherwise the consequences will be
terrible.” I don’t know if three years is true or not, but if we don’t turn back
we’re going down, that’s true. Climate change, you see the effects and
scientists say clearly which is the path to follow. And all of us have a
responsibility, all . . . everyone . . . a little one, a big one, a moral
responsibility, and to accept from the opinion or make decisions, and we have
to take it seriously. I think it’s something that’s not to joke around with. It’s
very serious. And you ask me: what is the moral responsibility. Everyone has
his. Politicians have their own. Everyone has their own according to the
response he gives.
I would say: everyone has their own moral responsibility, first. Second, if
one is a bit doubtful that this is not so true, let them ask the scientists. They
are very clear. They are not opinions on the air, they are very clear. And then
let them decide, and history will judge their decisions. Thanks.33
Pope Francis did not “blast” critics of man-made global warming. He indicated
his own belief in the phenomenon and remarked that everyone has a moral
responsibility, but he spoke respectfully of those who doubt humans cause it,
referred them to scientists, and said that history will judge “their decisions”—
i.e., determine whether they were correct—not judge or condemn “them.”
239.An even more egregious example involves not just a misrepresentation of the
pope’s tone but his meaning. A 2015 story by Catholic news agency ZENIT
carried the headline, “Pope to U.S. Christian Unity Event: Jesus Knows All
Christians Are One, Doesn’t Care What Type.”34 It stated:
Francis pointed out that Jesus knows that Christians are disciples of Christ,
and that they are one and brothers.
“He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics
or Apostolic . . . he doesn’t care!” Francis said. “They are Christians.”
When one checks the transcript of the original message, it turns out Francis
didn’t say Jesus does not care what kind of Christian you are. He said the devil
doesn’t care:
Division is the work of the father of lies, the father of discord, who does
everything possible to keep us divided. . . . It is he who is persecuting us. It is
he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the
blood of) martyrdom. He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that
they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals,
or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic . . . he doesn’t care! They are
Christians (Video Message on the Occasion of the Day of Christian Unity,
May 23, 2015).
240.Shortly before his resignation in 2013, Pope Benedict XVI spoke with the
clergy of Rome and commented on how the media distorted what happened at
Vatican II. He recalled how journalists created a false image of the council,
which he termed a “council of the media,” and how it had disastrous
consequences:
We know that this council of the media was accessible to everyone.
Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created
so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed,
convents closed, banal liturgy . . . and the real council had difficulty
establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual council was stronger than the
real council. But the real force of the council was present and, slowly but
surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is
also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church (Meeting with Parish
Priests and the Clergy of Rome, February 14, 2013).
241. These examples illustrate how secondhand accounts can distort and
misrepresent the facts, and they underscore the need to consult the original
documents. This must be our constant practice, particularly when we encounter a
claim about the Church that seems strange or shocking.
Key Concepts: Authorial Intent, Exegesis, Eisegesis, and Hermeneutics
242. When scholars study texts, they discuss important concepts like authorial
intent, exegesis, eisegesis, and hermeneutics.
Authorial intent refers to what an author meant to communicate. Determining
this is the goal of interpreting a document. If we are reading a Church document
our task is to establish what the author—a bishop, a pope, or a council—wanted
to communicate.
243.To achieve this goal, we employ exegesis, a Greek word that means
explanation or interpretation (from the roots hegeisthai, “guide,” and ek, “out”).
The goal of exegesis is to guide the meaning out of a text so we understand it.
244.What we want to avoid is eisegesis or reading an unintended meaning into a
text (Greek, eis, “into”). This is a real danger. People frequently read false
meanings into the words of others, often unintentionally, and history shows this
can easily happen with statements made by Church leaders.
245. The process by which one arrives at an interpretation is hermeneutics
(Greek, hermēneutēs, “interpreter”), and an individual principle you use when
interpreting is a hermeneutic. In recent years Benedict XVI spoke of how
Vatican II should be interpreted using a “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”
rather than a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” (see §§288, 295).
The Process of Interpretation

The Authoritative Version of a Text

246. Church documents appear in many editions and translations, but the official
version is known as the editio typica or “typical edition.” Its function is to serve
as the ultimate reference point for questions about a document. Regardless of
what other editions and translations may say, the wording of the editio typica is
the official, authoritative wording, and it is used to make translations into other
languages.
The editio typica is often found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and it is often in
Latin, though not always. Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge
(1937) was famously written in German to express the pope’s horror at what was
happening in Nazi Germany.
Frequently, a document will be written in a modern language and then
translated into Latin to produce the editio typica, as with the Catechism of the
Catholic Church (see §225).
247. The editio typica may differ from earlier editions. If a pope gives a speech
and has a slip of the tongue, the version in Acta Apostolicae Sedis will correct
this. Similarly, when the Catechism was released in Latin, a number of
adjustments were made in the text. Originally, paragraph 2358 stated that people
who suffer from same-sex attraction “do not choose their homosexual condition;
for most of them it is a trial,” but there was a concern this could be
misunderstood, and it was revised to read, “This inclination, which is objectively
disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
The typical edition can be revised with time, as with the Roman missal released
by Pope Paul VI:
• In 1970, the first typical edition of the Missal was published.
• In 1971, an “amended typical edition” was produced.
• In 1975, a “second typical edition” that made more substantial changes came
out.
• In 2002, Pope John Paul II issued the “third typical edition,” which became
the basis for the current rite used at Mass.
• In 2008, Benedict XVI released an “amended third typical edition,” which
corrected typos and made minor updates.

248.The editio typica can be difficult to access since it is normally used only by
scholars. Books and journals printing it tend to have low print runs, and they are
consequently expensive. Fortunately, the internet is changing this. Acta
Apostolicae Sedis is now published in pdf form on the Vatican web page
(vatican.va), and the site contains the original language versions of many
documents in Latin.
Types of Translation
249. We are fortunate to live in an age when translations of Church documents
are widely available. However, there are issues the interpreter needs to be aware
of. One is translation style. Languages do not map onto each other in a word-for-
word fashion, and translators have to make choices when doing their work. For
example, if you translate Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer from the
original Greek in a strictly word-for-word fashion, it would read something like
this:
Father our, that in the heavens, let-be-sanctified the name your, let-come the
kingdom your, let-happen the will your, as in heaven also on earth. The bread
our, the daily, give us today, and remit us the debts our, as also we remit-to the
debtors our, and not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil (Matt.
6:9–13).
This is not good English, and reading this kind of translation for page after
page would be frustrating and confusing. Consequently, to produce readable
texts, translators have to accommodate what the original language says to the
way the target language works.
250. Generally, they do this in one of two ways, producing different styles of
translations. The first of these seeks to preserve as much of the form and
wording of the original as possible. These “formal equivalence” translations are
sometimes called “literal” translations, but that is misleading, for no translation
is fully literal.
The second style places less emphasis on details of the original wording and
seeks to communicate its meaning in a way that feels natural. These “dynamic
equivalence” translations are sometimes called “free” translations or even
“paraphrases.”
All translations fall on a spectrum between formal and dynamic equivalence.
Both styles have their advantages and disadvantages. Formal translations can be
confusing and hard to read, but they capture more aspects of the original
wording. Dynamic translations are easier to read, but they lose more aspects of
the original and are more vulnerable to translator bias.
251. We see different translation styles in the Bible itself. In first-century
Palestine, it was common in Aramaic to speak about sin as going into debt, and
since Matthew’s Gospel was written primarily for Jewish Christians, it uses a
formal equivalence translation in Greek: “forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12).
Luke’s Gospel was written for a predominantly Gentile audience, so it uses a
dynamic translation: “forgive us our sins” (Luke 11:4).
252.Today Church documents are translated by many different people, and they
don’t all use the same translation strategy. Consequently, you have to be
sensitive to what kind of translation you are reading. If it is a dynamic
translation, you should be particularly alert to the fact that the translator is
making a lot of choices about how to put statements into smooth-flowing
English, and with each choice, there is the possibility of losing or
misrepresenting something from the original.
Ambiguity in the Original
253. Words and phrases can mean more than one thing. “The kitty is on the table”
means one thing in a veterinarian’s office and another in a poker game. When a
translator encounters ambiguity in a text, he may get lucky and find a way to
preserve it in translation, but often he must make a choice that collapses the
ambiguity.
If we translate the final line of the Lord’s Prayer word for word, Jesus says we
should ask God to “deliver us from the evil.” Because of how Greek works, “the
evil” is ambiguous. It can refer either to evil in general or it can refer to
something specific: the evil one (i.e., the devil). Standard English doesn’t have a
way of preserving that ambiguity, so translators collapse the ambiguity in favor
of one meaning or another. Some choose “deliver us from evil” (Revised
Standard Version), and others choose “keep us safe from the Evil One” (Good
News Translation).
254.Sometimes a translator encounters a word or phrase that is so difficult that he
is baffled, yet he must find some way to translate it.
Again, the Lord’s Prayer furnishes an example: when Jesus tells us to pray for
“our daily bread,” the Greek word for “daily” (epiousios) is unusual. It isn’t
found anywhere in Greek literature, except in connection with the Lord’s Prayer.
The early Christian scholar Origen—a native Greek-speaker—wrote: “We must
note that the term epiousios is not used by the Greeks: neither does it occur with
the scholars, nor does it have a place in the language of the people. It seems to
have been invented by the Evangelists” (Prayer 2:27:7).35 Not knowing what
the term means in Greek, scholars have no way of figuring out exactly what the
word would have been in Aramaic, and they have proposed numerous
translations, including “daily,” “for today,” “for tomorrow,” “that we need,”
“necessary,” “appointed,” “supersubstantial,” and others.
255.The thing you need to remember when reading Church documents is that, as
works composed in human language, they contain ambiguity, and their
translators can’t always preserve that in English. Inevitably, they will collapse
ambiguities in favor of one understanding or another. Therefore, you need to
think about how ambiguities in the original might affect the meaning of what
you are reading and, if necessary, check the original language.
Inconsistencies in Translations
256. Since Church documents are translated by different people, they sometimes
render a word or phrase inconsistently. An example that relates directly to the
subject of this book is the Latin word magisterium. In many translations, this
will be brought over directly as “magisterium,” but many others, even official
ones, render it “teaching authority.” This happens so frequently that any time
you see “teaching authority” in a Church document, it is almost certainly
magisterium in the Latin original.
257.A famous example that can affect meaning occurs with the Vatican II
document Dei Verbum. A translation prepared under the editorship of Austin
Flannery reads:
Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should
be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the
books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which
God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred
scriptures (Dei Verbum 11).36
However, a translation of the same sentence prepared under the editorship of
Walter Abbott reads:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers
must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of
Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without
error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of
our salvation.37
The key difference is the placement of the clause “for the sake of our
salvation.” In Flannery it is placed in a way that simply indicates the purpose for
which God put his truth in Scripture, whereas in Abbott it could be taken as
restricting the inerrancy of Scripture so it only teaches without error those truths
God put in Scripture for this purpose.
258.This inconsistency generated a great deal of discussion, and both versions
appear in Vatican-approved editions. Paragraph 107 of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church has the Flannery placement, but an English edition of the
Vatican II documents published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana (and found on the
Vatican website) has the Abbott placement.
The word order in the Latin original supports Flannery’s placement, but Latin
word order is notoriously flexible. Significantly, the passage says that everything
the biblical authors asserted is also asserted by the Holy Spirit, and since God
himself cannot err, that would mean all of the assertions of Scripture are true
(even if they aren’t intended to be taken literally).
Misleading or Mistaken Translations
259. Translators are fallible human beings, and they sometimes make mistakes.
These have to be identified and handled on a case-by-case basis, and correcting
them requires consulting the original language. However, you need to be aware
that they do happen, even when the translator is skilled and has the best of
intentions.
260.Sometimes errors are very small and simply amount to typos. Since Church
documents need to be translated quickly, mistakes in spelling and punctuation
often appear in the Vatican news service and on the Vatican website.
Sometimes this happens in carefully prepared translations. A few years ago I
discovered a typo in the English version of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church. Paragraph 345 describes the Sabbath as “the end of the work of the six
days.” In Latin there are quotation marks around “six days,” which is significant
because they signal the reader that the days are understood symbolically rather
than literally, as in other paragraphs (cf. 337, 339, 342).
Sometimes a translation will be flatly erroneous. Tim Staples discovered an
261.
example in paragraph 460 of the Catechism. He writes:
Where the English translation says, quoting St. Athanasius of Alexandria in
the fourth century, “For the son of God became man so that we might become
God,” the official Latin text actually reads, “Ipse siquidem homo factus est, ut
nos dii efficeremur.” Literal translation: “For the Son of God became man so
that we might be made gods.” The Latin term dii, translated “God” in the
English translation of the Catechism, is actually nominative plural and is not
capitalized. Unfortunately, the English translation of the official Latin text
gets it wrong. “God” should be “gods.”38
This is significant because to be made God could mean becoming part of the
Godhead, alongside the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That understanding
would be heretical (and metaphysically impossible, since God is immutable and
can’t change). However, to become “gods” only means to share in God’s
communicable attributes, such as holiness, and thus “become partakers of the
divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).
Deceptive Translations
262. Unfortunately, translators sometimes produce misleading or inaccurate
translations in the service of an agenda. These aren’t the norm, and one
shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that a translator is acting in bad faith, but they
do happen.
An example occurs in many English translations of liturgical texts from the
1980s and 1990s. Following Vatican II, the Holy See allowed greater use of laity
to distribute Communion when the number of available priests and deacons was
insufficient. In canon law, “the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a
bishop, presbyter, or deacon” (CIC 910 §1), and anyone else is termed an
“extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” (cf. CIC 910 §2).
However, an ideology grew in some liturgical circles wishing to blur the
distinction between clergy and laity by having as many lay people as possible
performing ministerial roles. To facilitate that, some translators began
deliberately and systematically mistranslating “extraordinary minister of Holy
Communion” (Latin, minister extraordinarius sacrae communionis) with terms
that masked the extraordinary character of this role—e.g., “special minister.” Of
course, Latin has a word that means special (specialis), but it isn’t used in the
relevant passages.
These mistranslations grew so widespread that the Holy See demanded they be
stopped. In 2004, the Congregation for Divine Worship stated:
This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is
known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and
not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the
Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist,” by which names the
meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened
(Redemptionis Sacramentum, 156).
Technical Meanings of Terms
263. The starting point for understanding Church texts is making sure one
understands the words they use. This is not as simple as it might appear.
Theology, canon law, liturgy, and biblical studies all use “terms of art”—that is,
terms with technical meanings known to professionals working in the field.
Examples include heresy, apostasy, and schism. In popular speech, heresy is
often used loosely to mean something like “false religious belief” or “really bad
false religious belief,” apostasy is used to mean the same thing as heresy, and
schism is used for some kind of religious division. However, in Church
documents these terms have technical meanings:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism
of some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith; apostasy is
the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission
to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church
subject to him (CIC 751, CCC 2089).
Each element in these definitions is important.
264. For heresy to occur:
 1. A truth “which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith” must be
involved. This is another way of saying a dogma (i.e., something the Church
has infallibly defined to be divinely revealed; see §§271, 343). If anything
less than a dogma is involved—even if it’s an infallible teaching—then
heresy does not exist.
2. A person must deny or doubt this truth, meaning either reject it outright or at
least refuse to make a judgment about it. (Having emotional “doubts” or
lacking emotional confidence is not enough; doubt in this case means
suspending one’s judgment as an act of the will.)
3. The person must be baptized. Thus Muslims, Jews, and other non-baptized
people are not heretics.
4. The person must be obstinate. A baptized person who is innocently unaware
that they are rejecting a dogma is not committing heresy.
The last requirement—which has been part of the Church’s understanding for a
long time (cf. Code of Canon Law [1917] 1325 §2)—has an important
implication. Although Protestants have been baptized and do doubt or deny
Catholic dogmas, they typically do not do so out of bad faith (Latin, mala fide)
and thus don’t meet the requirement of obstinacy.
Vatican II remarked: “The children who are born into these communities and
who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the
separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with
respect and affection” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3). The Secretariat for Promoting
Christian Unity then indicated people raised Protestant didn’t need to make a
formal abjuration of heresy upon becoming Catholic (Ecumenical Directory
[1967], 19–20). Thus today Church documents refer to Protestants as “separated
brethren” rather than heretics because they’re not presumed to be in bad faith.
However, sometimes a distinction is drawn between “formal heresy” and
“material heresy.” The former refers to the kind of heresy defined above, in
which a baptized person obstinately refuses to embrace a dogma. “Material
heresy” exists when the person is not obstinate. Though rare, this usage is found
in Church documents (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Actus
Formalis Defectionis ab Ecclesia Catholica, 2006). On this understanding,
Protestants could be termed “material heretics,” though, as a way of promoting
Christian reconciliation, this phrase is not used in contemporary Church
documents.
265. The term apostasy must be used carefully. It refers to rejecting the Christian
faith outright. If a person maintains any kind of claim to being a Christian, he is
not an apostate. He must be willing to say, “I am not a Christian anymore.”
266. Finally, schism has a technical meaning. It involves one of two things: (1)
refusing to submit to the pope or (2) refusing to be in communion with those
subject to him.
Whether one of these conditions exists is sometimes disputed. The bishops of
the Society of St. Pius X maintain they have always submitted to the pope, but in
1988, John Paul II ruled that by being consecrated as bishops against his
instructions they had committed a schismatic act since “disobedience to the
Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of
the church . . . implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy” (Ecclesia
Dei, 4). He thus determined that professing to submit was not enough if one
refused to submit in practice on a grave matter. (Note: Subsequent actions by
Popes Benedict XVI and Francis may indicate that the Society is no longer in a
state of formal schism.)
Unexpected Meanings
267. Sometimes the Church uses terms in ways quite different from the common
understanding. An example is authentic. In ordinary speech, this means
“genuine,” as opposed to fake or fraudulent, but in Church documents it often
means something else. The U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine explains:
“Authentic” in the phrase “authentic magisterium” is a transliteration from
the Latin and means “authoritative” (The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan
Bishop, note 1).
The same usage can appear in other phrases, such as “authentic document” and
“authentic teaching,” which then respectively mean “authoritative document”
and “authoritative teaching.”
268. A term with a similarly unexpected meaning is dissent. In 1990 the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith defined dissent as “public opposition
to the Magisterium of the Church” (Donum Veritatis, 32), and two years later,
the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine noted:
[Donum Veritatis] restricts the meaning of the word dissent to “public
opposition to the Magisterium of the Church, which must be distinguished
from the situation of personal difficulties” (DV 32). This should be noted
because in American usage the term dissent is used more broadly to include
 even the private expression of rejection of reformable magisterial teaching
(The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop, 18).
A person who privately rejects a Church teaching that is “reformable” (not
infallible) is not a dissenter in the way Rome uses this term. He only becomes a
dissenter if he publicly opposes the teaching (see chapter twenty). The
development of the internet creates new questions regarding what constitutes
private or public opposition. Some discussions (e.g., among a small group of
people by email or a small group of “friends” on social media) would clearly be
private, but other discussions (e.g., messages addressed to the public at large)
would not.
Changes in Meaning Over Time
269. Language changes over time, so you have to ensure that you understand the
way terms were used at the time a Church document was written. Here we will
examine three terms—heresy, dogma, and sacrament—that have changed
meaning over the centuries and illustrate the need to know the history of words
when reading Church documents.
“Heresy”
270. This term did not always have the meaning it does today. Originally, the
Greek term from which it is taken, hairesis, meant “opinion” or “choice,” and it
was used neutrally to refer to any distinctive group (Acts 26:5), such as
Sadducees, Pharisees, and Christians (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 24:5). However, it also
could indicate factionalism (Acts 24:14; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1) and
thus signify what we would call a sect or schism.
Sects are known for having distinctive beliefs, and this meaning came to the
fore. The early Church Fathers thus began to use heresy to refer to deviations in
doctrine within the Christian community, at which point the term ceased to apply
to non-Christian groups.
By the Middle Ages, it had come to refer to a specific kind of doctrinal
deviation: the denial of a dogma. St. Thomas Aquinas defined heresy as “a
species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but
corrupt its dogmas” (ST II–II:11:1). This is close to the modern definition
discussed in §264. However, it introduces a parallel term, dogma, which we will
consider next.
In view of these uses, one must be careful when interpreting the word heresy in
older Church documents, for they do not use it in its modern, technical sense
(see §498).
“Dogma”
271. In the first century, the Greek term dogma meant “edict,” “ordinance,” or
“decree.” It is used in the New Testament for the decree of Caesar Augustus at
the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1) and decrees of later caesars (Acts 17:7). It’s
also used for the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law (Eph. 2:15, Col. 2:14)
and the decisions reached at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 16:4).
Outside the New Testament, dogma also meant “opinion,” “belief,” or “that
which seems right,” based on its root dokein (“to seem”). The Church Fathers
began using dogma to refer to the teachings of Christ, but they also used it for
other teachings, including “the false doctrines of philosophers or heretics, or
Catholic doctrine.”39 It was thus a general term for “teaching” or “doctrine.”
Gradually, it came to mean a specific class of Christian doctrines:
Dogma in the sense in which the term is used nowadays in the Church and in
theology (a usage which only became definite and universal in the eighteenth
century) is a proposition which is the object of fides divina et catholica
[“divine and catholic faith”], in other words, one which the Church explicitly
propounds as revealed by God, in such a way that its denial is condemned by
the Church as heresy and anathematized.40
Key to understanding this usage is the phrase “divine and catholic faith” The
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law comments:
The faith is called “divine” because it responds to God’s self-revelation, and
“catholic” because it is proposed by the Church as divinely revealed.41
A dogma is thus a truth that the Church has infallibly proclaimed to be divinely
revealed. The fact that this usage only became widespread in the eighteenth
century means that for much of Church history it was used in a looser sense, and
this must be taken into account when reading older documents. In many, dogma
will mean the same thing as doctrine (see §496).
This explains an otherwise puzzling fact: the field of dogmatic theology or
“dogmatics” doesn’t just involve study of dogmas but of all Church teaching.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller states:
Though the name of this discipline (roughly since the eighteenth century) has
been taken from the individual dogmas, dogmatics is not restricted to the
dogmas in the formal sense: to certain doctrinal principles accepted in
 Catholic belief on divine authority due to a council or papal definition (e.g.,
the belief in Christ in the Nicene Creed or the dogma of the corporeal
assumption of Mary in God’s glory).
Dogma means here the whole of Christian belief in terms of the creed and
practice of the Church.42
“Sacrament”
272. The Greek word for sacrament is mustērion. It originally meant “mystery,”
“secret,” or “secret rite,” and it is used in the New Testament to refer to “the
secrets of the kingdom of God” (Matt. 13:11) and to the “mysteries of God” in
general (1 Cor. 4:1), etc. The use of mustērion to refer to a secret or sacred rite is
not found in the New Testament but begins to appear in the Church Fathers, who
translated mustērion with the Latin word sacramentum.
In itself sacramentum had the sense of something sacred. In secular Latin it
commonly denoted a deposit, and very frequently it stood for an oath,
particularly the military pledge of allegiance. In the latter sense the early
Church used it sometimes for the creed and associated it with baptism. The
word also found a wider ecclesiastical use for signs of sacred things, whether
in the more general sense of any earthly sign with a heavenly meaning or in
the more specific sense of divinely given covenant signs, i.e., circumcision
and the Passover in the Old Testament and baptism and the Lord’s Supper in
the New Testament.43
Because of the term’s range of meanings, numerous Christian rites were called
sacraments. Thus St. Augustine speaks of “the sacrament of the Lord’s Prayer”
(Sermon 228:3) and to “the sacrament of salt” administered to catechumens (On
the Catechizing of the Uninstructed 26[50], On the Merits and Forgiveness of
Sins 2:25[42]).
From the end of the tenth century to the time of Peter Lombard (d. 1164), we
find a long list of sacramenta in vogue. Peter Damian (Serm. 69) says there
are “twelve sacramenta in the Church.” Hugo of St. Victor (“De Sacr.” ix. 7)
counts (α) two necessary sacramenta—viz. Baptism and the Eucharist; (β)
sacramenta useful for sanctification—e.g. sprinkling with holy water, blessed
ashes, &c., &c.; (γ) those which prepare us for other sacred rites—e.g.
ordination, &c. St. Bernard (Serm. “In Coena Domini”) tells his hearers there
are many sacramenta, but he will only speak then of three—viz. Baptism,
Eucharist, and the washing of feet.44
 However, a new era began when Peter Lombard introduced his definition of the
term:
In the twelfth century Peter Lombard (d. 1164), known as the Master of the
Sentences, author of the manual of systematized theology, gave an accurate
definition of a sacrament of the New Law: a sacrament is in such a manner an
outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e., signifies or
represents it) and is its cause . . . (IV Sent., d.I, n.2). This definition was
adopted and perfected by the medieval Scholastics.45
This led to the definition found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and
entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us (1131).
Using his definition, Lombard identified the seven sacraments we refer to by
that name today. Rites instituted by Church authority were then classified not as
sacraments but as sacramentals:
Sacramentals are sacred signs instituted by the Church. They prepare men to
receive the fruit of the sacraments and sanctify different circumstances of life
(CCC 1677).
Even today, the term sacrament is used in other senses, as when the Church is
referred to analogically as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–
776, 780).
Personal Uses
273. Everyone speaks and writes in his own, individual way—what linguists call
his idiolect (from Greek idios, “one’s own, personal” and dialect). The
Magisterium generally uses language in a carefully crafted and cautious way, in
keeping with established usage, so it will be understood by bishops, priests, and
theologians the world over.
However, each bishop and pope has his own idiolect. John Paul II could
compose very dense prose that was difficult to understand (see, e.g., Veritatis
Splendor). By contrast, Benedict XVI is recognized as a much clearer writer
(see, e.g., Jesus of Nazareth).
Popes are so influential that their idiolects can make a broad impact on
theological discourse, as when John Paul II began to speak of “the theology of
the body” or when Benedict XVI introduced “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and
“hermeneutic of reform.”
Pope Francis also uses terms in unique ways. He frequently speaks of reaching
those on “the peripheries” of society and of churchmen needing to have “the
smell of the sheep.” He also has a special meaning when he refers to “the
corrupt.” Rocco Palmo comments:
“The corrupt” are a frequent and uniquely loaded target in Francis’s arsenal
of criticism—a category of people who are essentially beyond redemption,
having lost their sense of sin and thus an awareness of their need for God’s
mercy. Among other examples, in a 2013 homily, the pope put it bluntly,
citing St. John: “The corrupt are the Antichrist.”46
Pope Francis’s idiolect is so distinctive that in 2018 the CDF issued a letter
(Placuit Deo) to explain the way he uses the terms Pelagianism and Gnosticism,
in preparation for the release of his apostolic exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate,
which heavily used both terms.
It is therefore important to pay attention not only to the way terms are used in
general but to the specific ways they are used by individuals.
Learning the Meanings
274. We’ve looked at the unexpected ways words can be used in Church
documents, but how are you supposed to learn all those meanings? There is no
single answer. If you’re lucky, the document you’re reading will contain a
definition. Thus the Code of Canon Law gives precise legal definitions for terms
like “minor” and “infant”:
§1. A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age has reached
majority; below this age, a person is a minor.
§2. A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is
considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion
of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason
(can. 97).
Sometimes you have to read carefully to notice a definition. When Donum
Veritatis defines dissent, it does so in a backward way that introduces the term
only at the end of what it was being used to describe. It also offered the
definition in the middle of a sentence rather than devoting a whole sentence to it,
stating:
 In particular, he [Pope Paul VI] addresses here that public opposition to the
Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent,” which must be distinguished
from the situation of personal difficulties treated above.
It would be very easy to miss the definition, but the trailing phrase “also called
‘dissent’” gives you the needed clue.
275. Much of the time documents don’t define terms, in which case you must
consult other resources. It’s preferable to consult official documents, and the
Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are particularly
useful as both contain many definitions. At times the Catechism offers an
embarrassment of riches, piling up multiple ways of defining a single concept. In
other cases, definitions can be found by consulting major documents on the topic
or looking in the pope’s weekly catecheses.
276. When it isn’t possible to find a definition in an official document, you should
consult scholarly non-magisterial ones. There are numerous dictionaries,
lexicons, and encyclopedias dealing with theology, biblical studies, liturgy, and
canon law. Commentaries can also be very useful. Thus commentaries on the
Code of Canon Law can clarify the meaning of terms not defined in the Code
itself. Histories and scholarly papers are also potential resources. Finally, if you
can’t find a written resource that gives you a definition, you can contact an
expert in the field.
In dealing with any of these non-official sources, be aware you’ll be getting a
non-official definition. It may be based on expertise, but it may not fully
correspond to the way the term is used in the document you’re examining.
32 Nicole Winfield, Associated Press, September 11, 2017, 9:55 A.M. EDT, online at www.apnews.com.
33 Catholic News Agency, “Full Text of Pope Francis’ In-Flight Press Conference from Colombia,”
September 11, 2017, 10:10 A.M., online at catholicnewsagency.com.
34 Zenit, May 25, 2015, 9:34 A.M., online at zenit.org. Note that the story has since been corrected.
35 Origen, Origen: Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom, ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, trans.
John J. O’Meara, vol. 19, Ancient Christian Writers (New York, N.Y. and Mahwah, N.J.: Newman Press,
1954), 96.
36 Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, new rev.
ed., vol. 1, (Northport, N.Y.: Costello Publishing, 1992), 757.
37 Walter M. Abbott, S.J., ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder & Herder and Association
Press, 1966), 119.
38 “Does the Catholic Church Teach We Are Gods?,” online at timstaples.com.
39 Basil Studer, “Dogma, History Of,” ed., Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover, trans. Joseph T. Papa,
Erik A. Koenke, and Eric E. Hewett, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2014), 731.
40 Karl Rahner, ed., Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi (New York: Seabury
Press, 1975), s.v. “Dogma”; bibliographic citations omitted.
41 John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green, eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon
Law (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), 914.
42 Gerhard Muller, Catholic Dogmatics for the Study and Practice of Theology, vol. 1 (New York:
Crossroad, 2017), xii–xiii.
43 R.S. Wallace and G.W. Bromiley, “Sacraments,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
Revised, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 256.
44 William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (New York: Catholic Publication Society
Co., 1887), 735.
45 Daniel Kennedy in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), s.v.
“Sacraments.”
46 Rocco Palmo, “‘There Is No Turning Back Now’—In Historic Abuse Summit, Vatican Says Chilean
Bench to Face ‘Consequences,’” May 12, 2018, online at whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com.
 PART III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 11

Key Principles of Interpretation

Exploring the Possibilities

277. There is much more to correctly interpreting a document than understanding
the terms and knowing the rules of grammar. Because of the natural ambiguity
of language, additional rules of exegesis need to be employed.
The first step is becoming aware of the ambiguity a text has. You can’t
eliminate possible meanings until you know what the possibilities are. Don’t
stop with the first meaning that occurs to you. It may not be correct. The careful
way magisterial documents are written demands careful reading. If one simply
goes with one’s first impression, it is easy to miss something important.
Ask yourself all of the things a statement could mean. If there are many, make
a list. Then go back through them and determine how likely or unlikely each is,
based on other things you know, such as what is said in surrounding passages.
Based on this, you are likely to find that a text must mean at least certain things,
that it could mean other things, and that it could not mean further things.
278.It may not be possible to eliminate all ambiguity. The text may not contain
enough information, and it may be deliberately open to more than one meaning.
This happens because the Faith is rich and multilayered. The human mind can’t
grasp everything God has revealed. The authors of Scripture therefore made
deliberately ambiguous statements, such as using symbols that have more than
one fulfillment (cf. Rev. 17:3, 9–10). The Magisterium also uses ambiguity to
keep from oversimplifying divine revelation, to keep options open for further
doctrinal development, and to protect legitimate diversity of opinion in the
Church.
279.This happens in the writings of popes and at every council. When one meets,
it brings together bishops with many points of view. As they draft documents,
the council fathers must find ways to express the central points they want to
make but that don’t close off legitimate viewpoints.
At Trent (1545–1563), ways needed to be found for the council to reject
erroneous Protestant ideas about justification without closing off views held by
Thomists, Scotists, etc. This led to the council’s Decree on Justification using
partly ambiguous language to preserve liberty of opinion among the Catholic
schools. Hubert Jedin observes:
[The Decree on Justification] is more than a compromise between the great
theological schools: it is clear and precise when treating of the essence of
justification, ambiguous and obscure from sheer caution when dealing with
particular details, that is, the divergent opinions of the schools.47
The final version of the decree thus rejected Protestant errors while allowing
the legitimate Catholic schools to continue to hold their own points of view. The
takeaway for us is that, although we should eliminate meanings a text could not
intend, we should not minimize actual ambiguity or pretend it doesn’t exist.
The Historical Context
280. Church documents are written to accomplish particular goals at particular
moments in history. Therefore, their historical context must be taken into
account. For example, St. Paul wrote his letters to address pastoral situations in
local churches, and biblical scholars try to reconstruct these situations to shed
light on the meaning of his letters.
281. It is often possible to identify the central concern that led to a magisterial
intervention. The first Church council (Acts 15) was called to deal with whether
Gentile Christians need to be circumcised.
The first ecumenical council—Nicaea I (325)—was called in response to
Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ. Thus the Creed of Nicaea defines
the divinity of Christ. However, it only makes a brief mention of the Holy Spirit
and doesn’t define his divinity since that wasn’t the controversy under
discussion.
It was under discussion at the second ecumenical council—Constantinople I
(381)—which responded to the Pneumatomachians (Greek, “those who fight
against the Spirit”). They denied the Holy Spirit’s divinity, so the resulting
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (known today as the “Nicene Creed”) did
define the Holy Spirit’s divinity.
282. Knowing the purpose for which a magisterial document was produced tells
you about the authors’ intent. The general rule is that what the Magisterium says
should be read in light of its central purpose, and it shouldn’t be regarded as
settling questions apart from that purpose, unless the contrary is clear.
 Since Trent’s purpose was to respond to the Protestant Reformers, we
shouldn’t try to use its documents to settle doctrinal discussions among
legitimate schools of Catholic thought (§279). Similarly, the purpose of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church was to restate the Faith in response to
confusion after Vatican II, not to further doctrinal development. Thus, the
individual points mentioned in it only have the same weight they did before it
was issued (§226).
Of course, the Magisterium can address matters besides those involved in its
central purpose. In addition to issuing its creed, I Nicaea issued a series of
canons on disciplinary matters. But the words the council used made it obvious
they were going beyond the purpose of dealing with Arianism. The general rule
thus remains: magisterial documents should be understood as addressing their
central purpose unless the words make it clear they are addressing something
else.
The Literary Context
283.One of the most familiar exhortations in biblical studies is to read Scripture
passages in context. If you read them without regard for context, they could
mean all kinds of things, and this creates an opportunity for you to read your
own views into Scripture so that you’re doing eisegesis rather than exegesis. The
same is true when reading Church documents. A single statement in isolation
can be read multiple ways. What context does is close off some of those
possibilities so you can understand what is meant.
Suppose a person with no prior background in Catholic thought opened the
284.
Catechism at random and read this single sentence:
Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of
which have been recognized by the authority of the Church (CCC 67).
If he then closed the book and thought about what the sentence means, he
might conclude the Church believes God continues to give revelations, some of
which it has authoritatively recognized as being just as binding as Scripture. He
might even think the Church believes God continues to disclose new mysteries.
However, this is not what this sentence means, as the context makes clear. In the
previous paragraph, we read:
There will be no further revelation
The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant,
will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before
 the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if revelation is
already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for
Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the
centuries (CCC 66).
Continuing further in paragraph 67, we read:
They [the “private” revelations] do not belong, however, to the deposit of
faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation,
but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the
Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and
welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ
or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct
the revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-
Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on
such “revelations.”
This shows how important context is: a single statement in isolation can be
understood in ways that are essentially the opposite of what is being said.
285.When people speak and write, the reason they provide context is to prevent
misunderstanding. If we stated our conclusions as bare, unconnected
propositions, they would often be misunderstood. Thus we build up to our key
sentences, unpack them, and repeat them in different words to help people
understand our meaning.
286. Context can be conceived of as a series of concentric zones:
1. At the center is the immediate context of a statement—what is said
immediately before and after it.
2. Next is the proximate context—what is said elsewhere in the same section or
chapter.
3. Beyond that is the documentary context—everything said in the same
document.
4. Finally, there is the remote context—things said in other relevant documents,
especially those on the same subject or by the same author.
The first is the most important, because it’s most likely to contain information
bearing on the interpretation of a statement. The other contexts are progressively
less likely to contain important information, but there are exceptions.
287.A helpful question to ask is, “Why is this statement made in this section
rather than another one?” This sometimes reveals something important about the
author’s intention.
For example, in the Catechism, contraception is dealt with in the section titled
“The fecundity of marriage” (CCC 2366–2372), and it only mentions
contraception between a husband and a wife (CCC 2370). The subject is not
dealt with in the section “Offenses against chastity,” which deals with sexual
sins more broadly—e.g., masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and rape
(CCC 2351–2356). This reflects the fact that Humanae Vitae only discusses
contraception within marriage (see §261), the Church having already made it
clear that all forms of sex apart from marriage are impermissible.
The Hermeneutic of Continuity
288. Pope Benedict XVI several times discussed the ways the documents of
Vatican II have been interpreted. He referred to one approach as a “hermeneutic
of discontinuity,” stating:
The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-
conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the
council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the council. It claims that
they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found
necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless.
However, the true spirit of the council is not to be found in these
compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in
the texts.
These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the
council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible
to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the
true spirit of the council and its newness, it would be necessary to go
courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the
council’s deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.
In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the council but its
spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on
how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently
made for every whim (Address to the Roman Curia, December 22, 2005).
289. The opposite of a hermeneutic of discontinuity would be one of continuity.
This would understand the council not as decisively breaking with what came
before but as preserving what had been handed down from the previous
generations of Christians. Thus passages in Vatican II that repeated traditional
Church teaching could not be set aside as things that were included merely to get
a momentary majority of votes and later be discarded. Instead, they must be
regarded as part of the council’s authoritative teaching.
290.The hermeneutic of continuity has implications beyond the interpretation of
Vatican II. At the beginning of the Christian age, Jesus gave his apostles a
message and commissioned them to preach it. It is also the job of the apostles’
successors—the bishops, and thus the Magisterium—to continue to proclaim this
body of revelation, the deposit of faith, until Jesus returns. There is thus to be a
fundamental continuity in the teaching of the Church, and this implies a
hermeneutic of continuity when we read its documents.
291.One consequence of this is a presumption that the Church’s teaching in one
age can be harmonized with its teaching in another age. The assumption should
be that the documents do not fundamentally contradict each other, just as the
books of the Bible do not. When there is an apparent contradiction, it is an
invitation to read more deeply and see how the two might be harmonized. That
means an initial presumption that earlier documents do not contradict later ones
and vice versa.
The Hermeneutic of Reform
292. Jesus told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the
truth” (John 16:13). This is the dynamic that drives doctrinal development (see
chapters eighteen and nineteen). Through doctrinal development, the Holy Spirit
helps the Church:
• Understand and articulate its faith in a more precise way (e.g., the precise
language that was crafted to express the doctrine of the Trinity)
• Make things explicit that were formerly implicit in the deposit of faith (e.g.,
the realization that since Christ is fully God and fully man he must have two
wills, one divine and one human)
• Differentiate between what is genuinely part of the deposit of faith from what
are merely customary ways of thinking and acting (e.g., the realization that
being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses is not necessary to be a
Christian)
The reality of doctrinal development leads to what may be termed a
“hermeneutic of reform”—that is, a recognition that, despite continuity in
Church teaching, the way it is expressed develops over time in a process of
continual reform.
293. In practice, this means being sensitive to changes in how the Church
articulates its teaching. It isn’t enough to note the points of continuity with what
has been said before. One also must note the differences and accept their
legitimacy. The hermeneutic of reform thus complements the hermeneutic of
continuity. Without it, the latter could be applied in so wooden a way that it
would keep us from recognizing doctrinal development when it takes place.
294.After Vatican II (1962–1965) the hermeneutic of continuity was applied by
some traditionalists in a way that didn’t recognize its legitimate developments of
doctrine and practice. When discussing the doctrinal objections of the
traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, Benedict XVI remarked, “The Church’s
teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962—this must be quite clear to
the Society” (Letter Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the
Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009).
295. Of the two hermeneutics, the more fundamental is the principle of
continuity. The deposit of faith was given to the Church at its inception, and it is
the Church’s task to continue to proclaim its contents until Christ returns.
Doctrinal development does not provide the Church with new revelation to
supplement the deposit of faith, it merely allows the Church to understand the
contents of the deposit in a deeper way.
Although the hermeneutic of continuity is more fundamental, the principle of
reform cannot be ignored. It is based on the teaching of Christ himself and
demonstrated throughout Church history. Both are essential, and Benedict XVI
once referred to the two together as a “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”
(Address to the Roman Rota, January 27, 2007).
The Hermeneutic of Charity
296. Fallen human nature guarantees not everyone will be pleased with
everything that happens in the Church. The New Testament records difficulties
the early Christians had with each other, including doctrinal conflicts (Acts 11,
15) and the problem of factions (1 Cor. 1:10–3:23).
Dissatisfaction happens in every age of the Church. After Vatican II,
progressives who wanted the council to go further felt unhappy with things
during the pontificates of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
Simultaneously, traditionalists who thought the council went too far didn’t like
events in the reigns of these same popes, as well as Pope Francis.
Disappointments can lead to cynicism, and both some progressives and some
traditionalists began adopting a fundamentally uncharitable attitude toward
magisterial documents, reading them in the least favorable way and seeking to
maximize differences with the Magisterium. Such attitudes are part of our fallen
nature, and everyone can fall into these traps.
297.The solution is a “hermeneutic of charity.” Love is the fundamental Christian
ethic (Matt. 22:37–40, cf. 5:43–48). Many passages in the New Testament
exhort believers to be of one mind and to live in harmony (e.g., Rom. 12:16,
15:5–6; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:2; 1 Peter 3:8–9), and charity (love) is
the greatest of the theological virtues. As St. Paul says:
If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am
nothing. . . . Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not
arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or
resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all
things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Cor. 13:2, 4–
7).
As Christians, we must heed the New Testament’s call to charity:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any
participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by
being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one
mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others
better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but
also to the interests of others (Phil. 2:1–4).
298.When reading Church documents we must approach them with an attitude of
charity and humility. We must not automatically assume we are correct and
anything in them we don’t like must be false. The bishops teaching in union with
the pope are guided by the Holy Spirit in a way that we are not.
We must not adopt a cynical or jaded attitude and must give Church documents
a favorable interpretation—the benefit of the doubt—whenever possible. We
should see the good in them (Phil. 4:8), even if it is not expressed the way we
would have said it. We should presume the goodwill of the authors and “in
humility count others better” than ourselves (Phil. 2:3). Finally, we must
recognize that—given the global nature of the Church—not every document is
framed to deal with our personal concerns. It may be addressing the situation of
others, in a far-removed part of the world. By recognizing this, we will look not
just to our interests but “also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4).
The Hermeneutic of Precision
299.Reading someone’s work charitably means reading it with precision—paying
attention to what they say and don’t say. We aren’t reading charitably if we do a
sloppy, inattentive job and end up attributing things to an author he didn’t say.
We’ve all spoken with someone who acts like he can’t be bothered to pay
attention, and it’s no surprise when he tries to speed things along by stating, “So
what you’re saying is this”—revealing in the process that he completely
misunderstood us. “That’s not what I’m saying at all,” we reply.
300. Reading magisterial documents with precision means carefully noting both
what they say and what they don’t say. We must be especially cautious when
drawing inferences from them. By definition, inferences go beyond what a
person said, and the further away we get from the actual words a person used,
the higher the chances of making a mistake.
Inferences are particularly risky in doctrine and theology because many
concepts in divine revelation are at the edge of our ability to understand—e.g.,
the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, and the afterlife. Drawing incautious
inferences from revelation is a perennial source of error and heresy. It contains
many truths that need to be kept in harmony, producing the famous Catholic
“both/and”—Christ is both God and man, God is both one and three, etc.
Heresies often occur when someone seizes on a truth and draws incautious
inferences from it. In the early Church, the Docetists inferred that since Jesus is
God, he can’t be man, whereas the Ebionites did the reverse. Today Oneness
Pentecostals infer that since there is one God, he can’t be three Persons, and
Mormons infer that since there are three divine Persons, there is more than one
God.
301. Another reason we must be careful with inferences is that the Magisterium
usually phrases its teachings very carefully so it doesn’t prematurely close off
legitimate discussion. On countless subjects there are different opinions, some of
which fall into broad schools of thought (e.g., Thomism, Augustinianism,
ressourcement theology). Ordinarily, the Magisterium avoids hindering
discussion among these schools. Thus Trent declined to decide between the
views of Thomists, Scotists, and others on justification (§279).
One reason for this hesitancy is that theological discussion helps drive doctrinal
development. It clarifies questions and eventually informs the decisions of the
Magisterium. Thus the Magisterium generally leaves theological questions open
and only intervenes authoritatively when there is a significant need to do so, as
in the case of a pressing theological or social need.
A key question to ask yourself is thus, “What opinions were considered
legitimate at the time this document was written?” If an opinion was considered
legitimate, we should assume it remained so unless the words of the document
clearly indicate otherwise. The latter does happen, as when Pope Pius IX defined
the Immaculate Conception in 1854. He thereby indicated that some of the
Dominicans of the Thomist school, who in prior centuries had opposed the
teaching, were incorrect.
302.As a check on drawing incautious inferences, we also need to ask, “What are
the authors not saying?” This is important because we are subject to a cognitive
flaw known as confirmation bias—the tendency to read evidence in a way that
favors views we already hold. All of us like seeing our views confirmed, and
studies show we have a tendency to acknowledge evidence that supports them
and ignore or downplay evidence that doesn’t.
303. Confirmation bias affects our religious views as much as any others, and it
can skew the way we read religious documents—whether biblical, Patristic, or
magisterial. People often consult such documents precisely to find confirmation
—a phenomenon known as prooftexting. In principle, prooftexting is fine. Texts
that do support a view can be used to prove it. However, confirmation bias leads
many people to think a text supports their view when it doesn’t. It’s too easy for
us to find a passage that says something like what we want and just assume that
it does. This gives prooftexting a bad name, and many sources now define
prooftexting as the misuse of passages to support a view.
304. This happens both when the thing we want confirmed is something we like
and when it’s something we dislike. Just as we want to see authorities we respect
saying things we agree with, we also want to see people we don’t respect saying
things we disagree with. That confirms our bias and justifies our negative
attitude toward them.
Thus anti-Catholics search Catholic writings for statements that “prove” how
misinformed, heretical, or evil the Church is. The same thing occurs when
Catholics read the writings of those they disagree with, even if they are fellow
Catholics. Following Vatican II, individuals in the progressive and traditionalist
communities have read magisterial texts in unsympathetic ways to justify their
criticisms.
305.This is why the hermeneutic of charity is so important and why it leads to the
hermeneutic of precision. The Golden Rule demands we read others’ statements
the way we want ours read: sympathetically and carefully. Consequently,
magisterial documents are to be given a strict reading, not the one we would
prefer.
306. This principle is so important it’s found expression in canon law with respect
to infallible teachings. According to the Code:
No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly
evident (CIC 749 §3).
Note the way this is phrased: it says no doctrine is to be understood as
infallible unless this is clearly the case. It doesn’t say merely that no text is to be
understood as infallible. Even if you have a text that meets the requirements for
infallibility (and such texts are rare), you can’t say that a particular doctrine is
found in that text, and thus infallible, unless it’s “manifestly evident” that it is.
Infallible texts must be given a strict reading. We can’t stretch them to make
things infallible that we want to be infallible.
The same applies in principle to every text and teaching, whether it is infallible
or not. They all must be read using a hermeneutic of precision.
307.When figuring out the intention of a text’s authors, we even need to ask,
“What are they avoiding saying?”
For example, when Pope Pius XII infallibly defined the Assumption of Mary,
he deliberately avoided saying that she died. It was the common opinion among
theologians that she did, and he even referred to her death or “dormition” in the
same document, but in making the definition he merely said that Mary “having
completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into
heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus, 44).
John Paul II noted that Pope Pius “made no pronouncement on the question of
Mary’s death” and that “some theologians have in fact maintained that the
Blessed Virgin did not die and was immediately raised from earthly life to
heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the seventeenth
century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as
her entry into heavenly glory” (General Audience, June 25, 1997).
This provides a concrete example of a pope (i.e., Pius XII) deliberately
avoiding saying something, even though he himself accepts it, as a way of
preserving the theological liberty of others.
Case Study: Humanae Vitae and Contraception Within Marriage
308.Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) provides an example of why it is
necessary to read magisterial documents with precision. According to a common
translation, after it condemns abortion and sterilization, the text says:
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or
after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—
whether as an end or as a means (Humanae Vitae 14).48
The problematic phrase is “sexual intercourse,” which corresponds to
coniugale commercium in Latin. But coniugale does not mean “sexual.” There is
a different adjective for that—sexualis—and it is used in many Church
documents, so it isn’t omitted here for reasons of delicacy.
Coniugale actually means “marital” (cf. coniugatus, “married”; coniugare, “to
unite in marriage”; coniunx, “spouse”). The two-volume Oxford Latin
Dictionary doesn’t even list “sexual” as a meaning of coniugalis, giving its
definition as:
coniugālis ~is, ~e adj. [coniunx + -ālis]
1 Belonging or proper to marriage, marital; (of gods) presiding over marriage.
2a Belonging to a husband or wife.
b consisting of wives.49
Similarly, Leo F. Stelten’s Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin simply lists:
Conjugális –is –e: conjugal, marital50
Translated properly, coniugale commercium means “marital intercourse,”
“marital congress,” or “marital exchange.” This fits with Paul VI’s overarching
theme in the encyclical of the regulation of births in marriage—a theme that
appears as early as its first sentence:
The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people
[Latin, coniuges] collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator
(Humanae Vitae 1).
 If Paul VI wanted to indicate sexual intercourse in general, all he would have
had to do was write commercium and the context would indicate it was sexual
intercourse (or he could have used coitus, a common word for sex). What
coniugale does is specify the kind of intercourse in question.51
309.The reason Paul VI used this phrase is because the question under discussion
was whether there were circumstances in which married couples could
responsibly use contraception. The Church already condemned all sexual activity
outside marriage, and the question of contraception outside of marriage was not
what the encyclical set out to answer.
310. Subsequent magisterial documents have followed the same line. As noted
earlier (§287), the Catechism deals with contraception only in the section titled
“The fecundity of marriage” (CCC 2366–2372), and it only mentions
contraception between a husband and a wife:
The innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband
and wife [coniugium, lit., “of the spouses”] is overlaid, through contraception,
by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself
totally to the other (CCC 2370).
Contraception is not discussed in the section “Offenses against chastity,” which
deals with sexual sins more broadly—e.g., masturbation, pornography,
prostitution, rape (CCC 2351–2356).
311.A common view in orthodox Catholic circles is that contraception should not
be used in any cases, and it’s natural to want to find Humanae Vitae or the
Catechism confirming that. The anonymous translator’s own beliefs in this
regard may have caused him not to note the difference between “conjugal
intercourse” and “sexual intercourse.” But a precise reading of the text is
important because failing to note the difference can lead to bewilderment, shock,
and charges of infidelity to Catholic teaching regarding other statements and
actions of the Magisterium.
312.Although the major question in Catholic circles in the 1960s was whether
married couples could use contraception, the subject was discussed in other
contexts. A famous example concerns a group of nuns living in a part of the
Congo where rapes were common. Since the nuns were not married, could they
use contraception as a defense against becoming pregnant by rape? It is often
misreported that Paul VI gave the nuns permission to use contraception for these
purposes, though the facts are more complex. John Allen reports:
In December 1961, the influential Italian journal Studi Cattolici (“Catholic
Studies”) published an issue in which three Catholic moral theologians agreed
that in the Congo case, contraception could be justified.
The future Paul VI, at that stage, was still the Archbishop of Milan, and
close to the currents that shaped Studi Cattolici. It was assumed the
conclusions reflected his thinking. That appeared to be confirmed later when
Paul VI made one of the authors, Pietro Palazzini, a cardinal.
Paul became pope in 1963, and never issued any edict writing that position
into law. Thus, when pressed about it some years later, a Vatican spokesman
could accurately say, “I am not aware of official documents from the Holy
See in this regard.”
Still, the Vatican never repudiated the 1961 position, so the takeaway [for
Italians] was that it remained a legitimate option.52
The fact Paul VI took no action in the “Congo nuns” case makes it impossible
to draw any firm conclusions from it. However, cases like this may be part of
why he refrained from making a broader statement in Humanae Vitae.
More certain is a position taken by the U.S. bishops in Ethical and Religious
313.
Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (6th ed., 2018), which states:
Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the
victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law
enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support
as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should
be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual
assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has
occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent
ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however,
to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct
effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a
fertilized ovum (dir. 36, emphasis added).
This understands contraception in cases of rape not as the frustration of what
should be the total act of self-giving between spouses, as in the Catechism, but
as a legitimate defense against “potential conception from the sexual assault.” It
thus allows Catholic health-care workers to provide certain means of
contraception to rape victims, provided precautions are taken to ensure that an
abortion does not result. The common view that Paul VI condemned
contraception in all circumstances could lead the faithful to charge the U.S.
bishops with infidelity to Catholic teaching in this document (which was
prepared in consultation with the CDF), but a careful reading of Humanae Vitae
does not preclude this view.
314. A similar situation arose in 2010, with the release of Light of the World, a
book-length interview Benedict XVI gave to Peter Seewald. In it, Pope Benedict
said the use of a condom by prostitutes infected with the AIDS virus could be “a
first step in the direction of a moralization” even though condoms are “not really
the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”53
People holding that Humanae Vitae condemned contraception in all cases
expressed amazement that Benedict XVI could describe the use of a condom in
these situations as a step toward “moralization,” seemingly implying it could
lessen rather than aggravate the immorality of the situation. Responding to the
controversy, the CDF issued a Note on the Banalization of Sexuality, which
stated:
Those involved in prostitution who are HIV-positive and who seek to
diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first
step in respecting the life of another—even if the evil of prostitution remains
in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral
theological Tradition of the Church.
In other words, the use of a condom in these situations would mitigate the evil
of endangering the life of another but would not mitigate the evil of prostitution.
Benedict’s comments are based on an ongoing discussion at the Holy See
regarding the use of contraception in situations like this. John Allen reports:
Beyond the question of prostitution, many mainstream Catholic moral
theologians have also argued for the moral acceptability of condoms in the
case of a married heterosexual couple where one partner is HIV-positive and
the other is not. In that set of circumstances, theologians have argued,
condoms would be acceptable since the aim is not to prevent new life, but to
prevent infection.
Back in 2006, Benedict asked the Pontifical Council for the Health Care
[Workers] under Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, who has since retired, to
examine precisely that question. Having polled the doctors and other health
 care professionals, as well as theologians, who consult with the council,
Barragán presented the pope with a tentatively positive response—that in the
case of couples where one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not,
condoms could be justified.
To date that position has not been officially codified, and some Vatican
officials have said on background that they worry doing so would be seen
publicly as a blanket endorsement of condoms. Yet Benedict’s comments to
Seewald suggest that the pope himself is at least positively inclined to such a
development.54
The fact that Benedict asked for the question to be studied indicates he sees
more potential complexities to this issue than the popular understanding of
Humanae Vitae would suggest.
315.None of the cases we’ve looked at involve official, magisterial statements on
the use of condoms or other means of contraception in these situations.55
However, a careful reading of Humanae Vitae and the Catechism reveal how
churchmen could take the positions they have without being unfaithful.
The Importance of Genre
316. One of the most important things to know about a document is its genre.
Genres are styles of writing or literature. They obey different rules and are used
for different purposes. For example, in the Old Testament we find books that are
legal, historical, poetic, and prophetic, whereas the New Testament contains
biographies of Jesus, a history (Acts), letters, and prophecy (Revelation).
Modern documents, including magisterial ones, also belong to different genres.
A papal homily does not belong to the same genre as an encyclical.
There are important differences between the genres of Church documents. If
you want to know what Church teaching requires you to believe, you want to
look in a teaching document like the Catechism of the Catholic Church or an
encyclical. If you want to know what Church law requires, you want to look in a
legal document like the Code of Canon Law. There is some overlap: the Code
contains provisions that express Church teaching, and the Catechism sometimes
quotes from the Code. However, it’s the Code that establishes legal obligations,
whereas the Catechism documents doctrinal obligations.
The genre of the Catechism—as a catechism—is important. By nature, it
provides only a basic summary of Catholic teaching. It doesn’t explore every
question—even about the doctrines it covers. Consequently, if you want a deeper
look at a particular teaching, you need to dig into other documents.
 Introductions and Norms
317. Within a given document there are often sections that obey their own rules,
establishing a subgenre. Knowing the rules these sections obey and how they
differ is important.
Some documents mix doctrinal and legal sections. For example, John Paul II’s
motu proprio Apostolos Suos (2002) begins with remarks of a doctrinal and
pastoral nature about episcopal conferences and then shifts to give a series of
“complementary norms” that establish legal requirements. This structure is
common in recent documents establishing or modifying laws. It is also followed
in Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Omnium in Mentem (2009) and in Pope
Francis’s motu proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (2015), both of which
modified the Code of Canon Law.
318.The same basic structure is found in the doctrinal decrees of some councils,
including Trent. These often begin with a lengthy introductory section on
doctrine and conclude with a series of canons that establish the legal penalty of
anathema (a kind of excommunication) for those denying specific points of
doctrine. The introduction/canon distinction is particularly important because the
infallible definitions are found among the canons (see §§483–488).
Subgenres in the Catechism
319. Sometimes a document explains the subgenres it uses. The Catechism of the
Catholic Church contains a section titled “Practical Directions for Using this
Catechism” (CCC 18–22), which tells us several noteworthy things, including:
• The use of smaller, non-italic type in the Catechism signifies material of
secondary importance.
• Some of the material in these sections is of “an historical or apologetic
nature” rather than a doctrinal nature, though sometimes these sections offer
“supplementary doctrinal explanations.”
• The “IN BRIEF” sections in small, italic type summarize “the essentials of that
unit’s teaching in condensed formulae,” meaning that they pick out the more
essential points.
Textual Notes
320. A subgenre that deserves special attention is the textual note, which includes
footnotes, endnotes, and inline citations (i.e., instances where a series of biblical
or other documents are briefly cited in a parenthetical remark). Textual notes
generally contain one of four things:
 • Citations of biblical documents
• Citations of historic Christian documents (e.g., Church Fathers, theologians)
• Citations of magisterial documents
• Explanatory or supplemental comments

321.The fact these are presented in the form of brief notes indicates their contents
are of lesser importance. If they were of primary importance, they would be part
of the main text. However, in determining their weight, there are two extremes to
be avoided: attributing too much or too little significance to them.
322.Sometimes a citation is given to tell you where a quotation in the main text
comes from. For example, paragraph 227 of the Catechism cites this prayer from
St. Teresa of Avila:
Let nothing trouble you / Let nothing frighten you Everything passes / God
never changes Patience / Obtains all Whoever has God / Wants for nothing
God alone is enough
The footnote at the end of this quotation reads:
St. Teresa of Jesus, Poesías 30, in The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila,
vol. III, tr. by K. Kavanaugh, OCD, and O. Rodriguez, OCD (Washington
DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1985), 386 no. 9, tr. by John Wall.
The function of this footnote is simply to document the source of the quotation.
It has no other purpose.
323.However, sometimes a note will give a citation or string of citations to
documents that are not quoted. In this case, the note indicates the author thought
the cited passages are relevant to his topic and examining them could be
valuable. But he did not think it crucial or he would have quoted the documents.
Thus paragraph 19 of the Catechism states:
The texts of Sacred Scripture are often not quoted word for word but are
merely indicated by a reference (cf.). For a deeper understanding of such
passages, the reader should refer to the scriptural texts themselves.
324. Does the fact that a Church document cites a biblical passage create a
doctrine that the passage proves a teaching discussed in the main text?
The answer appears to be no. In the last century the Magisterium has given
biblical scholars extraordinary freedom to explore the many possible meanings
of Scripture. Frequently, even the main texts of Church documents (not just the
notes) discuss theories proposed by these scholars without imposing them as
matters of doctrine. Thus the audiences of John Paul II and Benedict XVI refer
to the idea that Genesis is composed of Yahwist and Elohist sources and that
Isaiah was composed by more than one prophet (e.g., “Proto-Isaiah,” “Deutero-
Isaiah,” and “Trito-Isaiah”). Yet it isn’t Church doctrine that one must accept
these views (see §373). Given this, it isn’t plausible to think the Magisterium
intends to create a doctrine that one must interpret a biblical passage a certain
way just by citing it. Something more is needed.
What is binding are the doctrines the passages discuss. But Scripture citations
generally have an illustrative rather than doctrinal force. Just as popes may
propose ideas from biblical scholarship as helpful things for their audience to
consider, yet not make them doctrines, so they may propose biblical passages as
helpful ones to consider in relation to a point of doctrine they are discussing.
325. The same goes for citations of historic Christian documents, such as the
writings of a Church Father or theologians living in different periods. Without
the use of authoritative language attributing doctrinal force to them, they
generally should be considered useful illustrations.
326. What about citations of previous magisterial documents? It’s certain that
authors think the prior document is relevant to the subject under discussion, but
the fact that it’s cited without being quoted indicates it’s of secondary
importance.
Often citations of previous magisterial documents are given to illustrate the
history of a doctrine. Consequently, they have to be understood in light of
doctrinal development. It would be mistaken to hold that, just because a previous
document is cited, no doctrinal development has occurred.
327. The final type of material one finds in textual notes are explanatory and
supplemental comments. These can clarify a point discussed in the main text or
add a new point it does not mention but that is related. As always, this material is
of secondary nature, but that doesn’t mean it can be ignored.
Case Study: Footnotes in Amoris Laetitia
328.In 2016, Pope Francis issued an apostolic exhortation titled Amoris Laetitia,
which followed two meetings of the Synod of Bishops (in 2014 and 2015) on the
subject of the family. Much of the document consisted of well-established
doctrinal and pastoral reflections, but portions proved controversial because of
what they said about people in irregular marital situations. These remarks are
found in its footnotes.
329. First, some background: based on Jesus’ teachings regarding the permanence
of marriage (Mark 10:1–12; cf. Rom. 7:2–3), the Church holds that Catholics
cannot simply get a civil divorce and contract a new marriage. Such unions
constitute an objective state of ongoing adultery. Since adultery is gravely sinful
(Exod. 20:14), the Church prohibits such Catholics from receiving the Eucharist
(cf. 1 Cor. 11:27) and from being absolved in confession unless they repent and
address their adulterous situation.
This can be done in a number of ways, including separating from the current,
civil spouse, by obtaining an annulment for the first marriage and then having
the current union convalidated, or by refraining from having sex with the current
partner and living “as brother and sister.” In these cases, the person can go to
confession, receive the Eucharist, and lead a normal sacramental life. Thus, in
his exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1980), John Paul II wrote:
The Church reaffirms her practice [consuetudo, “custom, usage, habit”],
which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to eucharistic
Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be
admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively
contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is
signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special
pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful
would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about
the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of penance which would open the way to
the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken
the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to
undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility
of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as
for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the
obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete
continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples
(Familiaris Consortio, 84).
This discipline was reaffirmed on a number of occasions, including in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1650), in a 1994 letter from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled Annus Internationalis
Familiae, and in Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic exhortation Sacramentum
Caritatis (n. 29).
330. From the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis signaled a desire to find
a way to modify this discipline to allow the sacraments to be administered to at
least some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. This was discussed at the
2014 and 2015 synods, and when the pope announced his solution in Amoris
Laetitia, he did not go as far as many progressives wished.
The approach he described is based on the fact that, although such unions are
objectively adulterous and thus gravely sinful, the persons in them may not be in
a state of mortal sin. Church teaching holds:
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: mortal sin is sin
whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full
knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857).
Ongoing sexual relations in an invalid marriage provide the grave matter, but
they don’t mean the knowledge and deliberation conditions are met. A person
could, through inadequate catechesis, lack a proper understanding of the
sinfulness of these acts. Alternately, due to various psychological factors, he
could lack the deliberate consent needed to make the sins mortal. Consequently,
some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who continue to have sexual
relations would not be committing mortal sin, and, in Pope Francis’s judgment,
it could be legitimate to admit these individuals to the sacraments in some
situations.
331.Cardinal Gerhard Muller—former head of the CDF and a strong defender of
the Church’s teaching on marriage—affirmed the fundamental orthodoxy of this
line of thought, stating:
It is evident that Amoris Laetitia (art. 300–305) does not teach and does not
propose to believe in a binding way that the Christian in a condition of a
present and habitual mortal sin can receive absolution and Communion
without repentance for their sins and without formulating the intention of not
sinning any more. . . .
An accurate analysis shows that the pope in Amoris Laetitia has not
proposed any doctrine to be believed in a binding way that is in open or
implicit contradiction to the clear doctrine of the Sacred Scripture and to the
 dogmas defined by the Church on the sacraments of marriage, penance, and
Eucharist. . . .
It is possible that the tension that occurs here between the public-objective
status of the “second” marriage and subjective guilt can open, under the
conditions described, the way to the sacrament of penance and Holy
Communion, passing through a pastoral discernment in [the] internal forum. .
..
What is at issue is an objective situation of sin which, due to mitigating
circumstances, is subjectively not imputed.56
With this as background, it is instructive to look at two footnotes. The first is
332.
appended to Amoris Laetitia 298, which states:
The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the
children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to
separate.”329
The footnote reads:
329John Paul II, apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November
1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing
and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the
Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are
lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the
children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).
333. Some have pointed out that this footnote uses a potentially misleading
translation of a key phrase from Gaudium et Spes (“good of the children”
suggesting children’s well-being when in fact the Latin bonum prolis typically
refers to the good that children themselves are in marriage), which is another
reminder of the need to be careful about translations and to check original
language documents.
Footnote 329 also cites Familiaris Consortio 84—the famous passage, quoted
above, where John Paul II affirmed the discipline of not allowing divorced and
civilly remarried Catholics to go to confession or receive the Eucharist. This
raises the question of whether an earlier magisterial document can be cited in a
footnote without reaffirming everything that document said. In fact, a key
purpose of Amoris Laetitia was to modify something about the Church’s
practice, though there is a question of what.
Some have held that John Paul II did not mention any exceptions for
administering the sacraments in cases where an objectively adulterous situation
did not constitute mortal sin, and therefore there were to be no exceptions. By
contrast, Amoris Laetitiae allows their administration in some cases if the sin is
not mortal. (see §335). On this understanding, Amoris modified the substance of
the Church’s sacramental discipline by creating exceptions that previously were
not to be made.
Others have argued that for centuries the Church’s moral and pastoral theology
has allowed certain subjectively guiltless couples to receive the sacraments,
provided the danger of scandal is avoided (cf. St. Alphonsus Liguori, Guide for
Confessors, ch. 1), and thus that these exceptions have always existed—though
that is not to say that they are at all common.
On this understanding, Amoris merely called attention to such exceptions and
thus did not modify the substance of the Church’s discipline. Instead, one might
argue, it encouraged greater awareness of the exceptions and thus more frequent
administration of the sacraments in such circumstances.
Whether Amoris modified the substance of the Church’s discipline or merely
called attention to the existence of traditionally recognized exceptions, this
illustrates the need to be aware that the citation of a prior document doesn’t
necessarily show everything it said is still in force.
334.Some authors argued that footnote 329 lacked force because it was a
footnote. Fr. Regis Scanlon commented:
Since footnotes are not part of the text, footnote 329 is probably not the work
of the pope or the Magisterium.57
To which canonist Edward Peters responded:
Come again? Footnotes are not part of this duly published papal text? How is
that, I wonder.
Granted, footnotes usually supply bare references to the sources underlying
the assertions made in the main body of a text and so are not typically used
for making substantive assertions on their own. But does such an adjectival
footnote convention mean that footnotes cannot make assertions if that is in
fact how they read?
Looking at, say, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, one sees
that, while most conciliar footnotes were merely informational in nature,
 some did make substantive assertions of their own and a few even carried
legal consequences.58
Peters went on to provide examples of substantive footnotes, and he is certainly
correct that they can have important consequences for how a text is understood
and applied. Also, the suggestion that footnote 329 might not be “the work of the
pope” is immaterial. Papal documents are regularly ghostwritten and edited by
others. Regardless of how the language in a papal text originates, the pope signs
off on it and issues it by his own authority.
An even more controversial footnote was appended to Amoris Laetitia 305,
335.
which states:
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in
an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or
fully such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow
in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this
end.351
The footnote reads:
351In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I
want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber,
but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (apostolic exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I
would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a
powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).
This was controversial because it indicates that “the Church’s help” to the
divorced and civilly remarried “can include the help of the sacraments,” with
confession and the Eucharist listed as examples. It thus indicates these two
sacraments can be administered “in certain cases” because of “conditioning and
mitigating factors” that make it possible for a person in “an objective situation of
sin” nevertheless to “be living in God’s grace” (i.e., a state of grace). On this
understanding, Amoris Laetitia thus does not change Church teaching regarding
the possibility of receiving the sacraments in a state of ongoing, unrepented
mortal sin, but takes an approach whose fundamental orthodoxy was affirmed by
Cardinal Muller. For our purposes, it indicates how footnotes in magisterial
documents can carry important implications.
47 Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, vol. II: The First Sessions at Trent, 1545–1547 (New
York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961), 309.
48 Claudia Carlen, ed., The Papal Encyclicals: 1958–1981 (Ypsilanti, Mich.: Pierian Press, 1990), 227.
49 P.G.W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Citations of
classical Latin literature omitted.
50 Leo F. Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995).
51 See also “The Meaning of ‘Marital Intercourse’” at jimmyakin.com.
52 John L. Allen, Jr., “Pope Takes the Classic Vatican Approach to Birth Control and Zika,” February 20,
2016, online at cruxnow.com.
53 Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald, Light of the World (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 119.
54 John L. Allen, Jr., “Pope Signals Nuance on Condoms,” November 20, 2010, online at ncronline.org.
55 Not even Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services appears to be an official act
of magisterium, since it does not carry a notice indicating it was approved in a way that would qualify under
the conditions laid out in Apostolos Suos.
56 “Communion to the Remarried, Muller, ‘There Can Be Mitigating Factors in Guilt,’” online at
lastampa.it; translated from Cardinal Muller’s introduction to the book Risposte (Amichevoli) ai Critici di
Amoris Laetitia by Rocco Buttiglione (Milan: Edizione Ares, 2017).
57 Fr. Regis Scanlon, “What History May Tell Us About Amoris Laetitia,” January 26, 2017, online at
crisismagazine.com.
58 Edward Peters, “Do Footnotes Count?” January 27, 2017, online at canonlawblog.wordpress.com.
 PART III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 12

The Spectrum of Authority

336.In this chapter, we begin looking at the levels of authority Church teachings
can have and how this can be assessed.
As we saw in chapters eight and nine, some magisterial documents have more
weight than others: encyclicals are more authoritative than apostolic
exhortations, apostolic exhortations are more authoritative than homilies, etc.
Regardless of the overall weight a document has, the weight of an individual
statement in it must be individually assessed. The document type colors the
authority of a statement, but even highly authoritative documents like
encyclicals can contain statements that aren’t even expressions of doctrine, such
as this one from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995):
The Church’s canonical discipline, from the earliest centuries, has inflicted
penal sanctions on those guilty of abortion (n. 62).
This statement is historical rather than doctrinal. It isn’t a teaching of the
Church that canon law has inflicted penalties for abortion. That’s a fact of
history, not a fact derived from the deposit of faith Christ gave to the apostles.
This doesn’t mean the statement is unrelated to doctrine. The fact that abortion
is contrary to Catholic teaching explains why canon law has imposed penalties
on it, and John Paul II wrote the sentence to illustrate the continuity of the
Church’s teaching on abortion as part of the justification for the following
statement:
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his
successors, in communion with the bishops—who on various occasions have
condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit
dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement
concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion
willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder,
since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (ibid.).
 This is a highly authoritative statement, as indicated by the invocation of his
Christ-given authority as the successor of Peter and the fact he’s issuing this
teaching in communion with the bishops, who have “shown unanimous
agreement concerning this doctrine.” Although the teaching on abortion was
already infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium, this statement is only
one step away from being a new infallible definition. All it would need would be
for John Paul II to have said “I declare and define” instead of “I declare” (see
§§489–495).
If a single encyclical can contain non-doctrinal statements and statements one
step away from being new infallible definitions, it’s clear we must proceed
carefully when assessing where a statement falls on the spectrum of doctrinal
authority.
So how can we describe that spectrum?
Theological Notes
337.Scholastic theologians developed an unofficial way of ranking different
doctrinal propositions. These ranks were called “theological notes.” Cardinal
Avery Dulles explains:
The recognition that not all conclusions were equally certain [was
characteristic of Scholastic theology]. Each thesis had to have a theological
note attached to it, indicating the degree of its certitude or probability, as the
case might be. Reasons were given for the note in question: for example, the
definitions of popes and councils, the clear teaching of Scripture, theological
reasoning, the general consent of the fathers or of the theologians.59
At the top end of the spectrum were propositions de fide definita (“defined as
being of the faith”). These were dogmas—things that the Church had infallibly
defined as revealed by God. Below this were a variety of notes, which stretched
all the way down to propositio haeretica (“heretical proposition”)—i.e., the
rejection of a dogma. The spectrum of notes had two halves. The first consisted
of positive notes indicating a proposition was certain, probable, etc. This was
mirrored in the second half, where the notes—known as censures—indicated
how problematic a proposition was.
A sample of the positive theological notes is given by Ludwig Ott in his
338.
book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed
truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing
 (fides divina [divine faith]), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches
for the fact that a truth is contained in revelation, one’s certainty is then also
based on the authority of the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides
catholica [catholic faith]). If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith
(definition) of the pope or of a general council, they are “de fide definita”
[defined as of faith].
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible teaching
authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith
which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica
[ecclesiastical faith]). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A teaching proximate to faith (sententia fidei proxima [opinion proximate to
faith]) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of
revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the
Church.
4. A teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad
fidem pertinens [opinion pertaining to the faith], i.e., theologice certa
[theologically certain]) is a doctrine, on which the teaching authority of the
Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its
intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common teaching (sententia communis [common opinion]) is doctrine,
which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted
by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more
probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis [probable opinion], probabilior
[more probable], bene fundata [well-founded]). Those which are regarded as
being in agreement with the consciousness of faith of the Church are called
pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by
the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but
which is tolerated by the Church.60
339. By contrast, Ott describes the negative notes as follows:
The usual censures are the following: a heretical proposition (propositio
haeretica). This signifies that the proposition is opposed to a formal dogma; a
proposition proximate to heresy (propositio heresi proxima) which signifies
that the proposition is opposed to a truth which is proximate to the Faith
(Sent. fidei proxima); a proposition savoring of or suspect of heresy
(propositio haeresim sapiens or de haeresi suspecta); an erroneous
 proposition (prop. erronea), i.e., opposed to a truth which is proposed by the
Church as a truth intrinsically connected with a revealed truth (error in fide
ecclesiastica) or opposed to the common teaching of theologians (error
theologicus); a false proposition (prop. falsa), i.e., contradicting a dogmatic
fact; a temerarious proposition (prop. temeraria), i.e., deviating without
reason from the general teaching; a proposition offensive to pious ears (prop.
piarum aurium offensiva), i.e., offensive to religious feeling; a proposition
badly expressed (prop. male sonans), i.e., subject to misunderstanding by
reason of its method of expression; a captious proposition (prop. captiosa),
i.e., reprehensible because of its intentional ambiguity; a proposition exciting
scandal (prop. scandalosa).61
340.The censures were the first to appear in Church history. They arose because
of the need to warn the faithful against problematic ideas and to indicate the
nature of the problem. The positive notes became popular only later.
Post-Tridentine theologians showed a tendency to elaborate and define
precisely the various notes and censures. Here the great names are M. Cano,
F. Suarez, O. de Castro, J. de Lugo, and the Salmaticenses (cf. J. Cahill).
Catholics engaged in controversial theology (Veronius, Holden, etc.) tried to
bring out as clearly as possible the essential truths of faith in contrast to
theological opinions . . . in order to confine the debate with Protestants to
certain formulas, and ultimately to serve the purpose of reunion. Systematic
presentations of theological notes and censures began to appear at the
beginning of the seventeenth century. In 1709 Antonius Sessa (Panormitanus)
listed a total of sixty-nine theological notes.62
Because the notes were unofficial, their number and definition varied from
author to author. One of the most influential recent books dealing with them is
the 1951 volume by Sixtus Cartechini, De Valore Notarum Theologicarum et de
Criteriis ad Eas Dignoscendas (“On the Value of Theological Notes and on the
Criteria by Which They Will Be Discerned”).
The notes were applied by individual theologians to indicate their estimation of
how a proposition should be ranked, though they are occasionally used in older
magisterial documents.
The notes largely fell out of use after Vatican II, which turned away from the
341.
neo-Scholastic theology of the early twentieth century. Cardinal Dulles explains:
 One of the central questions at Vatican II was whether the council would
reaffirm the scholastic tradition or accept a measure of philosophical
pluralism. Most of the preparatory schemas of 1962 [i.e., the draft documents
prepared for the bishops to consider], drawn up principally by Roman
professors, were strictly scholastic in thought and expression. But when the
bishops assembled they rejected many of the schemas and established new
commissions to write their documents. . . .
In the end, the council documents were not written in scholastic style. Care
was taken, in fact, not to adopt any philosophical option. The council chose to
focus on pastoral aims and to avoid hard theoretical questions.63
Although the council refrained from using Scholastic language, it
acknowledged the legitimacy of the notes in principle. Thus Lumen Gentium
carries an appendix because a question had arisen “regarding the precise
theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the
Schema de Ecclesia [i.e., Lumen Gentium] and is being put to a vote.”64
At the time, theologians often wrote manuals dividing theology into individual
propositions, each of which would be assigned a note. But following the council,
they strove to present organic discussions of theology in prose form, like the
authors in the Patristic age.
Three Levels of Teaching in the New Profession of Faith
342. Though the use of theological notes has fallen off in recent years, a need for
rankings remains, and the Magisterium has begun employing a similar system.
In 1998, John Paul II issued a new profession of faith to be used when someone
assumes certain offices (e.g., bishop or seminary rector). This profession consists
of the Nicene Creed, followed by three concluding paragraphs, which read:
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God,
whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a
solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium, sets forth to
be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by
the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, 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 their authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to
proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
 These paragraphs refer to teachings with three different levels of doctrinal
authority. They were discussed in a very informative document issued by Joseph
Ratzinger and Tarcisio Bertone titled the Doctrinal Commentary on the
Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei. Although its authors were,
respectively, the head and the secretary of the CDF, it is an unofficial
commentary rather than an act of the Magisterium, as it does not contain a note
of papal approval (cf. §§50, 361).
Dogmas
343. The truths referred to in the first concluding paragraph are dogmas. These
are truths that the magisterium has infallibly taught to be divinely revealed (see
§271). The paragraph thus refers to the truths that “the Church, either by a
solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium, sets forth to be
believed as divinely revealed.”
Although the first paragraph doesn’t make explicit that these are infallibly
proposed, this is presupposed by the terms “solemn judgment” and “ordinary and
universal magisterium”—both of which are terms of art. Ratzinger and Bertone
state:
These doctrines are contained in the word of God, written or handed down,
and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the
Roman pontiff when he speaks “ex cathedra,” or by the college of bishops
gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and
universal Magisterium (Doctrinal Commentary, 5, emphasis altered).
344.The fact that something is a dogma has implications for the way it is to be
received:
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the
faithful (ibid.)
The response here referred to as “theological faith” is referred to in other
documents as “divine and catholic faith” (e.g., CIC 750 §1). Ludwig Ott
explains:
Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both divine faith (fides divina)
and catholic faith (fides catholica); it is the object of the divine faith (fides
divina) by reason of its divine revelation; it is the object of catholic faith
(fides catholica) on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the
Church. . . .
 If, despite the fact that a truth is not proposed for belief by the Church, one
becomes convinced that it is immediately revealed by God, then, according to
the opinion of many theologians (Suarez, De Lugo), one is bound to believe it
with divine faith (fide divina). However, most theologians teach that such a
truth prior to its official proposition of the Church is to be accepted with
theological assent (assensus theologicus) only, as the individual may be
mistaken.65
A converging explanation is offered by the New Commentary on the Code of
Canon Law:
The faith is called “divine” because it responds to God’s self-revelation, and
“catholic” because it is proposed by the Church as divinely revealed.66
Other Infallible Teachings
345.A step down from dogmas are the truths referred to in the second concluding
paragraph. Like dogmas, they have been infallibly taught, but the magisterium
has not infallibly taught them to be divinely revealed.
Although the Magisterium’s primary mission is to teach divine revelation, it is
also able to infallibly teach certain additional things connected with divine
revelation (see §§428–450). This allows it to protect revealed truths. For
example, to protect a dogma the Church might need to infallibly settle whether a
pope or council that defined it was a valid pope or a genuine ecumenical council.
The Church also may need to define points of a more directly doctrinal nature.
Ratzinger and Bertone explain:
The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to
the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and
expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the
Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. . . .
The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures,
thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are
truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of
an historical relationship, while other truths evince a logical connection that
expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the
Church is called to undertake (Doctrinal Commentary, 6–7).
To be infallible, they must be defined through one of the ways that the Church
exercises its infallibility:
 Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman pontiff when he speaks
“ex cathedra” or by the college of bishops gathered in council, or they can be
taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a
“sententia definitive tenenda” (Latin, “an opinion to be definitively held”) (n.
6).
346. This response—definitively holding a view—is different from the
theological faith that is called for by dogmas since only divine revelation calls
for the response of theological faith. Truths of another nature don’t. The Church
thus expresses this distinction by saying that such truths must be “definitively
held”:
Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to
these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s
Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the
Magisterium in these matters (n. 6).
The Doctrinal Commentary later states:
With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the
Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held
definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that
there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the
assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the
supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the
assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the word of God
(doctrines de fide credenda [“to be believed concerning the Faith”]); in the
case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the
Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of
the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda [“to be held
concerning the Faith”]) (n. 8).
This distinction dates back more than a century. Cardinal Avery Dulles
explains:
In saying “hold” rather than “believe” the profession of faith here follows the
language of Vatican I, which distinguished between credenda (doctrines “to
be believed” in the strict sense of the word, [DH 3011]) and tenenda
(doctrines “to be held,” [DH 3074]).67
347.The validity of a papal election or the fact that a council was ecumenical
could never be a dogma since these truths are not part of the original revelation
given by Christ. However, revealed truths that have not yet been defined as such
can be elevated to the rank of dogma. Ratzinger and Bertone explain:
It cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the
understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can
progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of
these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith (Doctrinal
Commentary, n. 7).
For that to happen, a new infallible definition would be needed. The original
definition guaranteed the particular teaching is true, and a new one could
guarantee it is divinely revealed. Therefore, one should not characterize the
truths in this category as non-revealed infallible truths. Some may belong to
divine revelation, but the Church has not yet infallibly defined that they do.
The Doctrinal Commentary gives papal infallibility as an example of a truth
that once belonged to this category but later went on to become a dogma:
Although its character as a divinely revealed truth was defined in the First
Vatican Council, the doctrine on the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction
of the Roman pontiff was already recognized as definitive in the period
before the council. History clearly shows, therefore, that what was accepted
into the consciousness of the Church was considered a true doctrine from the
beginning, and was subsequently held to be definitive; however, only in the
final stage—the definition of Vatican I—was it also accepted as a divinely
revealed truth (n. 11).
The commentary also points to the impossibility of ordaining women to the
priesthood as a truth that currently belongs to this category and that might one
day become a dogma:
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the
doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The supreme pontiff,
while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm
that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written word
of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has
been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the
prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the
 future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this
teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed
(ibid.).
Other Teachings
348. The third concluding paragraph deals with non-infallible teachings of the
Magisterium. They are “the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the
college of bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium,
even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”
Ratzinger and Bertone explain:
To this paragraph belong all those teachings—on faith and morals—presented
as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn
judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium
(n. 10).
They go on to explain:
They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or
to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn
against ideas incompatible with those truths or against dangerous opinions
that can lead to error (ibid.).
349.Since they are not dogmas, these teachings do not require the response of
theological faith, and since they are not infallible and could change, they are not
to be held definitively.
Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary
Magisterium of the Roman pontiff or of the college of bishops and therefore
require religious submission of will and intellect (ibid.).
The meaning of this response was elaborated by Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz Braña
in an article published in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano:
Precisely because it is “religious” assent, such assent is not based purely on
rational motives. This kind of adherence does not take the form of an act of
faith. Rather, it is an act of obedience that is not merely disciplinary, but is
well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the
Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic of faith and under the impulse of
obedience to the faith” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction Donum Veritatis, 24 May 1990, n. 23). This obedience to the
 Magisterium of the Church does not limit freedom but, on the contrary, is the
source of freedom. Christ’s words: “he who hears you hears me” (Luke
10:16) are addressed also to the successors of the apostles; and to listen to
Christ means to receive in itself the truth which will make you free (cf. John
8:32).68
Theological Opinions
350. In the Doctrinal Commentary, Ratzinger and Bertone stated that the third
concluding paragraph referred to propositions that the magisterium has
“presented as true or at least as sure.” Magisterial documents don’t always do
this. Sometimes they propose theological opinions without indicating they are
true or sure. Pope Benedict XVI did so when considering the nature of the “fire”
of purgatory:
Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and
saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Savior. The encounter with him is the
decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This
encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to
become truly ourselves (Spe Salvi, 47).
He says “some recent theologians” have thought this.69 He doesn’t say that he
—by his papal authority—mandates this view or that the Church does.
Consequently, he proposes an idea from theology for the reader’s consideration,
without imposing it as Church teaching.
When a magisterial document proposes theological ideas this way, they have
the favorable recommendation of the author, and we owe them respectful and
appreciative consideration, in keeping with the hermeneutic of charity (§§296–
298), but they do not require the “religious submission of will and intellect” that
doctrines do.
Other Non-Doctrinal Statements
351.Msgr. Ocáriz’s piece in L’Osservatore Romano grew out of the Holy See’s
dialogue with the traditionalist group known as the Society of St. Pius X. The
dialogue today is conducted by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei under
the auspices of the CDF and focuses on statements by Vatican II that the Society
finds objectionable. It’s therefore significant that Msgr. Ocáriz observes:
Documents of the Magisterium may contain elements that are not exactly
doctrinal—as is the case in the documents of the Second Vatican Council—
elements whose nature is more or less circumstantial (descriptions of the state
 of a society, suggestions, exhortations, etc.). Such matters are received with
respect and gratitude, but do not require an intellectual assent in the strictest
sense.70
We’ve already seen that magisterial documents can propose theological ideas
for the reader’s consideration, but what about the kinds mentioned here? An
example might be a statement John Paul II made in this passage discussing the
death penalty:
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the
punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go
to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity:
in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.
Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the
penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent
(Evangelium Vitae, 56).
The first statement—that the death penalty should be applied only in cases of
necessity—could be taken as an expression of doctrine. However, the second
statement seems to be one of the “descriptions of the state of a society” that is
“not exactly doctrinal” and thus as a judgment that should be “received with
respect and gratitude” but that does “not require an intellectual assent in the
strictest sense.”
This understanding is reflected in a 2004 memorandum by Cardinal Ratzinger,
who wrote:
If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of
capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that
reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy
Communion. . . . There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among
Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty (Worthiness to
Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, 3).
Msgr. Ocáriz’s observation that the Magisterium’s non-doctrinal statements
“are received with respect and gratitude” is in keeping with the hermeneutic of
charity (§§296–298).71
The Positive Side of the Spectrum
352.From what we’ve seen, several kinds of statements can be found in
magisterial documents:
The Hierarchy of Truths
353. Vatican II observed:
When comparing doctrines with one another, [theologians] should remember
that in Catholic doctrine there exists a “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in
their relation to the fundamental Christian faith (Unitatis Redintegratio, 11).
This hierarchy of truths is related to but distinct from the spectrum of authority
that Church teachings have. At the top of the hierarchy of truths are the core
teachings of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God, the Trinity, and the
Incarnation of Christ. Doctrines surrounding these core truths are lower in the
hierarchy. Thus the Marian doctrines—her Immaculate Conception, her
perpetual virginity, her status as the Mother of God, and her Assumption—are
lower than the Incarnation of Christ, to which they are oriented (CCC 487).
The hierarchy of truths is related to the spectrum of authority in that the highest
truths tend to be infallibly defined dogmas. If something is a central teaching of
the Christian faith, it will be defined as part of divine revelation. Less
authoritative teachings tend to be lower in the hierarchy of truths. However, the
hierarchy of truths is distinct from the spectrum of authority because a teaching
does not have to be a central truth to be a dogma or to be infallible. Even minor
points of revelation can be proclaimed dogmas, and some non-revealed truths
can be taught infallibly (see §§428–430, 434–450). Thus teachings lower in the
hierarchy of truths can rank high on the spectrum of authority, as with the
Marian dogmas. Similarly, items that are divinely revealed and that one day
could be proclaimed as dogmas may not have been taught infallibly at this point.
Sometimes people ask why they should believe a truth if it’s lower in the
hierarchy, and the answer is because it is true. Other times people ask why a
truth was defined as a dogma if it’s lower in the hierarchy. The historical reasons
may vary, but the ability of the Church to define such matters is not in question.
If God thought a truth important enough to reveal it to mankind, it’s the potential
subject of a definition.
The Negative Side of the Spectrum
354.When doctrinal notes were in common use, the positive notes were often
paired with corresponding negative ones. Thus, the denial of a dogma was a
heresy.
Some older magisterial documents use these negative notes, or censures. Pope
Pius V’s bull Exsurge Domine (1520), which concerned the errors of Martin
Luther, stated:
All and each of the above-mentioned articles or errors, as set before you, we
condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively heretical or [aut]
scandalous or [aut] false or [aut] offensive to pious ears or [vel] seductive of
simple minds and in opposition to Catholic truth (DH 1492).
This employs six censures:
• Heretical
• Scandalous
• False
• Offensive to pious ears
• Seductive of simple minds
• Opposed to Catholic truth
These censures are not all synonyms. In fact, some of them don’t even imply
that an idea is false. “Offensive to pious ears” means that a proposition is
offensively phrased but not that it is technically false.
Latin has more than one way of saying “or.” Aut tends to be an exclusive “or”
(this or that, but not both), whereas vel tends to be an inclusive “or” (this or that,
maybe both). When contrasted with vel, the use of aut in Exsurge Domine means
that some of Luther’s claims are heretical (opposed to dogma72) though others
are scandalous (tending to lead people to sin), others false (untrue but not
opposed to dogma), and others offensive to pious ears (offensively phrased). The
shift to vel then indicates that these ideas, and others, are also seductive of
simple minds (tending to deceive the uneducated) and opposed to Catholic truth
(in the ways indicated).
355.The Magisterium still needs to indicate when an idea is problematic and
what the nature of the problem is. Ratzinger and Bertone briefly list the
problems associated with denying truths belonging to the three added
paragraphs. Concerning the first paragraph, which dealt with dogmas, they
explain:
Whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the
censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of
Canon Law (Doctrinal Commentary, n. 5).
This corresponds to the modern use of the term “heresy” (see §264).
Concerning the second paragraph, which dealt with other infallible teachings,
they said:
Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of
Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with
the Catholic Church (n. 6).
A key term in this statement is “full communion.” Someone who rejects an
infallible teaching of the Church is not thereby put entirely out of the Church but
is rather in a state of impaired communion (i.e., a form of communion which is
not “full”). This concept is further explained by the fathers of Vatican II (see
§§575–577), who mention charity as an element necessary for full incorporation
in the Church. Applying this to truths of the second paragraph, to deny an
infallible doctrine that is not a dogma impairs one’s communion with the
Church. If done willfully, the result can be a loss of charity and thus a mortal sin.
Concerning the third paragraph, which dealt with non-infallible teachings, they
said:
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous
[Latin, falsum, literally “false”] or, in the case of teachings of the prudential
order, as rash or dangerous and therefore “tuto doceri non potest” [Latin, “not
able to be taught safely”] (n. 10).
 Here a distinction is drawn between doctrines of a more theological nature and
those “of the prudential order,” as in the Church’s social teaching. A proposition
contrary to the former would be labeled as false, whereas a proposition contrary
to the latter could be labeled in a number of ways that correspond to the older
system of censures. Ratzinger and Bertone mention a proposition could be
termed “rash” (temerarium, reckless) or “dangerous” (periculosum, having the
potential to cause harm), meaning it is “not able to be safely taught.” Notice that
the latter qualifications don’t mean the idea is necessarily false but that it carries
unacceptable risk.
The Doctrinal Commentary doesn’t deal with theological opinions and other
non-doctrinal statements found in magisterial documents. Since these do not
require assent, there would be no censure for disagreeing with them. However, if
rejected out of ill will toward the Magisterium, one could be faulted for a failure
of charity and an improperly filial attitude toward the pastors of the Church.

Conclusion
356. How can we know to which category a statement in a magisterial document
is to be assigned? It can be tricky, because over the centuries the Magisterium
has used different methods of signaling the weight of a teaching. Today the
matter is mostly discussed by experts, and the experts do not always agree. Yet
there are indicators, which we will discuss in coming chapters.
59 Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System, 2nd ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1996),
43.
60 Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957), 9–10.
61 Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 10.
62 Johann Finsterholzl, in K. Rahner, et al., Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, vol. 6
(New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), s.v. “Theological Notes.”
63 Dulles, The Craft of Theology, 121–122.
64 “Notificationes” Given by the Secretary General of the Council, November 16, 1964; cf. Harold E.
Ernst, “The Theological Notes and the Interpretation of Doctrine, Theological Studies 63(2002):813–825.
65 Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 5.
66 Beal et al., eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law; on CIC 750.
67 Dulles, Magisterium, 89.
68 Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz Braña, “On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council,” L’Osservatore Romano,
December 2, 2011.
69 He does not mention that, in his earlier books, then-Fr. Ratzinger was an advocate of this view. See
Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, 2nd ed., (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1988), 228–233.
70 Ocáriz, “On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council.”
71 On August 1, 2018, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luis Ladaria,
issued a letter to the bishops of the world announcing that Pope Francis had approved a change to the
section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church dealing with the death penalty. For a discussion of this
change and its doctrinal significance, see “Understanding the Catechism’s Death Penalty Revision” at
jimmyakin.com.
72 This has to be understood with some nuance; although heresy was defined in the 1500s, following St.
Thomas Aquinas, as the corruption of the Church’s dogmas, the modern understanding of a dogma was not
yet in use and the term was used more loosely, meaning that the concept of heresy was correspondingly
looser. See §§270–271.
 PART III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 13

Non-Doctrinal Statements

Reasons for Non-Doctrinal Statements

357. Magisterial documents contain a surprising number of non-doctrinal
statements, and it is important to spend time surveying them to become aware of
when they are made.
You might wonder why they’re there in the first place. Shouldn’t Church
documents confine themselves to matters of doctrine? The answer is no. The
bishops aren’t commissioned just to be teachers but to be pastors of the faithful.
They need to provide pastoral care, including helping people understand the
history and reasons for Church teachings and how to implement them. They
need to communicate in an effective and winning way, so Church documents
need to communicate organically, not simply list propositions or offer logical
demonstrations like we find in Euclid’s Elements.
We see this in the very first Church documents: the writings of the New
Testament. The Gospels and Acts contain many doctrinal statements (e.g., Jesus’
teachings), but they set them in an organic, historical context. Even St. Paul—the
greatest theologian among the apostles—writes in a pastoral way. He tells his
readers he is praying for them, discusses his travel plans, and conveys personal
greetings. It is no surprise that the documents of subsequent eras have followed
the same pattern.
Identifying Non-Doctrinal Statements
For a statement in a Church document to be an expression of doctrine, it
358.
must meet the following criteria:
1) It must occur in a document that carries magisterial authority.
2) It must state a matter pertaining to faith or morals.
3) It must state this matter in a way that places the authority of the Church
behind it and creates an obligation for the faithful to respond at least with
“religious submission of will and intellect” (see §348–349).
The first condition exists because bishops and popes are capable of issuing
unofficial documents, and Church bodies such as bishops conferences or Vatican
dicasteries are capable of issuing documents that don’t meet the criteria for
exercising the Magisterium (§§33–34, 50, 147, 153–154, 188–191).
The second condition exists because the Magisterium is commissioned to
announce truths known by divine revelation. It also has the ability to teach
certain related matters “without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved
and expounded” (CDF, Mysterium Ecclesiae. 3). Though these truths are not part
of the deposit of faith, they nevertheless pertain to it and thus pertain to faith and
morals (see §§428–430). Other truths—e.g., from geometry, physics, chemistry,
history—don’t fall within the sphere of the Church’s teaching authority.
The third condition exists because the Magisterium is capable of proposing
ideas for consideration without imposing them as matters the faithful are
obligated to believe (§§350–351).
359. If the first and second conditions are met, they generally entail the third.
That is, if a statement pertains to faith or morals and is made in a document that
carries magisterial authority, the faithful generally are expected to believe it. The
document doesn’t have to go out of its way to say, “This is authoritative
teaching.”
However, even in a magisterial document, that presumption doesn’t hold if (1)
the statement doesn’t pertain to faith or morals or (2) if the document indicates it
isn’t a matter of authoritative teaching. These two situations can be used as a
guide for identifying non-doctrinal statements in magisterial documents.
Statements Not Pertaining to Faith or Morals

Introductory and Concluding Statements

360. Magisterial documents frequently contain non-doctrinal statements at their
beginnings and ends. Here is how Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Dominum et
Vivificantem (1986) begins:
Ioannes Paulus PP. II
DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM
On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church and the World
INTRODUCTION
Venerable Brothers, Beloved Sons and Daughters,Health and the Apostolic
Blessing!
This tells us the document’s author, title, subject, and audience (the bishops
and the Catholic faithful). Also, as an expression of pastoral concern, John Paul
II wishes the audience health and imparts his apostolic blessing.
At the end of the document, we find:
Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on May 18, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the
year 1986, the eighth of my pontificate.
This situates the document in space and time, telling us where it was issued
(from St. Peter’s in Rome, which underscores its authority) and when (Pentecost
of 1986, an appropriate day given its subject matter).
361. Although not statements of doctrine, introductory and concluding texts
provide important information about a document. Introductory texts frequently
tell us what kind of document we are reading, which has a bearing on the level
of authority it carries. We also typically find notices of authorization either at the
beginning or the end of texts. Here is the end of the CDF’s instruction Dignitas
Personae:
The sovereign pontiff Benedict XVI, in the audience granted to the
undersigned cardinal prefect on 20 June 2008, approved the present
instruction, adopted in the ordinary session of this congregation, and
ordered its publication.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 8
September 2008, Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
William Card. Levada Prefect
+ Luis F. Ladaria, S.I.Titular Archbishop of Thibica Secretary
The italicized sentence—which is italicized in the original to underscore its
importance—indicates that the document has been authorized by the pope and
thus participates in his personal magisterium. Without that authorization, it
might be an interesting and informative study, but it wouldn’t be a document of
the Magisterium (§50).
Statements of Gratitude/Praise
362. Documents based on speeches frequently begin with statements of gratitude
or praise for those being addressed. Thus John Paul II once told the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences:
I am very grateful to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and to its president,
Professor Carlos Chagas, for having arranged this interesting Study Week on
the subject of “The Impact of Space Exploration on Mankind” being held in
 the Casina of Pius IV.
For me it is a source of great satisfaction to meet you, the members of the
Pontifical Academy and scientists from all over the world. The present
assembly gives me an opportunity to express my admiration at the
exceptional developments which have taken place in space technology
(Address to Scientists, October 2, 1984, n. 1).
These statements parallel St. Paul’s expressions of praise and gratitude for his
readers and serve a pastoral function. By expressing goodwill and appreciation,
they encourage a favorable reception of the message.
Statements of Purpose
363. Introductions often contain a statement of purpose, which is important for
identifying the authors’ goals. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and
fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals,
in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s
Tradition. Its principal sources are the sacred scriptures, the Fathers of the
Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve as a
point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the
various countries.
This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of
all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered
to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the
people of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of
catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all
other Christian faithful (CCC 11–12).
This statement lets us know the Catechism:
• provides “the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine,” not
every point of Church teaching
• reflects both Vatican II and “the whole of the Church’s Tradition,” so it
shouldn’t be dismissed as either out of date or detached from Tradition
• is meant to help with composing or revising other catechisms, not to supplant
them
• is meant for use by many, including the lay faithful, so it shouldn’t be
dismissed as just for bishops
 Structural Statements
364. Magisterial documents sometimes contain statements indicating the structure
of the document. These allow the reader to know what to expect and how to
situate material in the context of its overall design. For example, the Catechism
of the Catholic Church states:
The plan of this catechism is inspired by the great tradition of catechisms
which build catechesis on four pillars: the baptismal profession of faith (the
Creed), the sacraments of faith, the life of faith (the Commandments), and the
prayer of the believer (the Lord’s Prayer) (CCC 13).
Directions for Use
365. The early parts of documents sometimes contain instructions for use, such as
this statement from the Catechism:
The texts of Sacred Scripture are often not quoted word for word but are
merely indicated by a reference (cf.). For a deeper understanding of such
passages, the reader should refer to the scriptural texts themselves. Such
biblical references are a valuable working-tool in catechesis (CCC 19).
Definitions and Etymologies
366. Once we move past the introductory sections of a document, we continue to
find non-doctrinal statements, including definitions and etymologies that shed
light on the use of key terms. For example, John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation
Catechesi Tradendae (1979) explains:
Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people, and adults
which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted,
generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to
initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life (n. 18).
Statements About History
367. To situate Church teaching in its historical context, magisterial documents
frequently make statements about history, such as this one from the Catechism:
The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century when
the gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new structures for
the production of consumer goods, its new concept of society, the state and
authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership (CCC 2421).
Statements About Science
368.Sometimes Church documents comment on matters of science, as with the
Catechism’s statement:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of
many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the
age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms, and the
appearance of man (CCC 283).
Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’, which focuses on environmental
concerns, contains more scientific statements than any other recent Church
document. For example:
At the global level, [the climate] is a complex system linked to many of the
essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates
that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.
In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in
the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events,
even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each
particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes
of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or
at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there
are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and
axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most
global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others)
released mainly as a result of human activity. As these gases build up in the
atmosphere, they hamper the escape of heat produced by sunlight at the
earth’s surface. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based
on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide
energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed
uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes (n. 23).
Statements About Technology
369. Modern magisterial documents often contain statements about technology,
such as this one from John Paul II:
One of the biggest tasks that can be carried out by the use of satellites is the
elimination of illiteracy. About one billion people are still illiterate. Again,
satellites can be used for a wider spreading of culture in all the countries of
 the world, not only in those where illiteracy has already been eliminated but
also in those where many can still not yet read or write, for culture can be
spread with the use of pictures alone (Address to Scientists, October 2, 1984,
n. 6).
Statements About Society
370. In his L’Osservatore Romano piece, Msgr. Ocáriz noted that magisterial
documents contain statements about the state of societies (see §٣٥١). Examples
include these statements by John Paul II:
The call for Christian unity made by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council
with such impassioned commitment is finding an ever greater echo in the
hearts of believers, especially as the year 2000 approaches, a year which
Christians will celebrate as a sacred jubilee, the commemoration of the
Incarnation of the Son of God, who became man in order to save humanity
(Ut Unum Sint, 1).
It is undeniable that this time of rapid and complex change can leave
especially the younger generation, to whom the future belongs and on whom
it depends, with a sense that they have no valid points of reference (Fides et
Ratio, 6).
Statements About Philosophy
371. Philosophy interacts with faith in several ways (e.g., proofs of the existence
of God, discussions of morality, metaphysical ideas about creation and the
afterlife). Philosophical ideas thus can become the subject of doctrinal
statements. However, the Church doesn’t endorse any one philosophical system,
and magisterial documents sometimes merely describe such systems, as in this
passage from the Catechism:
Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins.
Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or
that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism).
Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God
and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal
principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict
(Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world
(at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be
rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by
God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to
 itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but
see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism)
(CCC 285).
None of these views are compatible with the Catholic faith, though that isn’t
indicated in the sentences just quoted. Instead, it’s indicated in the preceding
sentence (“Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by
responses to the question of origins that differ from its own”). This illustrates
how non-doctrinal statements interlock with doctrinal ones. Merely describing
what non-Christians believe doesn’t create a statement of Catholic doctrine, but
such a description can be paired with statements that are binding on the faithful
and cast new light on the description.
Statements About Biblical Studies
372. The history of how the Magisterium interacts with biblical studies is
complex. Scripture is a repository of divine revelation, and a major goal of
biblical studies is explaining the meaning of scriptural texts. The Magisterium
thus may need to teach authoritatively on ideas proposed by biblical scholars.
This includes theories about the origins of the sacred texts. Ideas popular in the
last two centuries include proposals that the Pentateuch was composed after the
time of Moses from four principal sources (the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and
Deuteronomic sources) and that Isaiah was composed by several individuals in
different periods (Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah).
When these ideas were first proposed, it was thought they might undermine the
inspiration and authority of Scripture, and in the early twentieth century the
Pontifical Biblical Commission—then an organ of the Magisterium (§54)—
prohibited them from being taught. Pope Benedict XVI commented on this
period:
Let us take, for example, the book of Isaiah. When the exegetes discovered
that from chapter forty on the author was someone else—Deutero-Isaiah, as
he was then called—there was a moment of great panic for Catholic
theologians. Some thought that in this way Isaiah would be destroyed and that
at the end, in chapter fifty-three, the vision of the Servant of God was no
longer that of Isaiah who lived almost 800 years before Christ. “What shall
we do?” people wondered (Lenten Meeting with the Clergy of Rome,
February 22, 2007).
373. However, the Magisterium subsequently took a different view and allowed
them to be taught (§§217–218). Today, the Church regards how the biblical
books were composed as a historical question that doesn’t affect their inspiration
or authority. Such proposals even appear in magisterial statements, such as these
by John Paul II:
From the point of view of biblical criticism, it is necessary to mention
immediately that the first account of man’s creation [Gen. 1:1–2:4a] is
chronologically later than the second [Gen. 2:4b–25], whose origin is much
more remote. This more ancient text is defined as “Yahwist” because the term
“Yahweh” is used to name God. . . . In comparison with this description, the
first account, that is, the one held to be chronologically later, is much more
mature both as regards the image of God, and as regards the formulation of
the essential truths about man. This account derives from the priestly and
“Elohist” tradition, from “Elohim,” the term used in that account for God
(General Audience, September 12, 1979).
The book of the great prophet Isaiah, who lived in the eighth century B.C.,
also contains the voices of other prophets who were his disciples and
successors. This is the case of the one whom biblical scholars have called
“Deutero-Isaiah,” the prophet of Israel’s return from the Babylonian exile
which took place in the sixth century B.C. His work forms the chapters 40–55
of the book of Isaiah (General Audience, November 20, 2002).
By including ideas from modern biblical studies in their texts, recent popes
haven’t made them part of Catholic doctrine. The Magisterium does not have
authoritative teachings on these matters, and they fall into the realm of free
opinion (§324). Hypothetically, these matters could one day be judged necessary
for defending and explaining the deposit of faith, at which time the Church
might authoritatively address them, but this isn’t presently the case.
Consequently, when one sees ideas like this discussed in Church documents,
they should be regarded as non-doctrinal statements.
Aspirational Statements
374. There are several types of aspirational statements, and they often occur at the
end of documents, when authors express their desires for the future. Some are
statements of hope. These nudge the readers in the direction the author wants and
reveal information about his author’s intentions in writing, as in this example
from John Paul II:
It is my hope that this pastoral visit to the Church in New Zealand will further
 the cause of ecumenism and draw us all closer to our one Lord and Savior
(Homily, November 22, 1986).
375.Some documents contain suggestions (§351). These invite people to do
something, making them more direct than the nudges given in statements of
hope, but they do not have a sense of urgency, as in this suggestion from
Benedict XVI:
To conclude, dear friends, today I would like to suggest that you keep the
Holy Bible within reach, during the summer period or in your breaks, in order
to enjoy it in a new way by reading some of its books straight through, those
that are less known and also the most famous, such as the Gospels, but
without putting them down (General Audience, August 3, 2011).
A step up from suggestions are requests. Here people are directly asked to do
376.
something, as in this example from John Paul II:
I ask everyone to look more deeply at man, whom Christ has saved in the
mystery of his love, and at the human being’s unceasing search for truth and
meaning (Fides et Ratio, 107).
377.Stronger yet are exhortations. These are urgent requests, as in this example
from John Paul II:
I, John Paul, servus servorum Dei [Latin, “servant of the servants of God”],
venture to make my own the words of the apostle Paul, whose martyrdom,
together with that of the apostle Peter, has bequeathed to this See of Rome the
splendor of its witness, and I say to you, the faithful of the Catholic Church,
and to you, my brothers and sisters of the other Churches and ecclesial
communities: “Mend your ways, encourage one another, live in harmony, and
the God of love and peace will be with you. . . . The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you
all” (2 Cor. 13:11, 13) (Ut Unum Sint, 103).
378.A final kind of aspirational statement is the prayer—in which aspirations are
directed heavenward. In recent times it has become common to end important
Church documents with a prayer, and frequently a prayer to the Virgin Mary.
Statements of Regret or Condemnation
379. The opposite of aspirational statements are expressions of regret and
condemnation. Some documents are written specifically to express regret.
Whenever a notable tragedy occurs in the world, the Holy See may send a
telegram expressing the pope’s concern and his prayers for those involved. This
serve as a form of pastoral care and evangelization. For example:
It was with great sadness that His Holiness Pope Francis learned of the tragic
loss of life following the recent earthquake in Papua New Guinea.
Commending the souls of the deceased to the mercy of almighty God, he
sends his heartfelt condolences to their families, and he assures all those
affected by this disaster of his closeness in prayer. Upon all those who mourn
at this difficult time, and upon the emergency personnel involved in the
important relief efforts, Pope Francis willingly invokes the divine blessings of
strength and consolation (Telegram, March 7, 2018).
Other times, the pastors of the Church express regret concerning longstanding
problems, as in this example from Pope Paul VI:
We ourself share the suffering of seeing prolonged on the African continent
the conflicts in which there are bleeding or starving so many human beings
called to the joy of life. We deplore the precarious conditions of life which,
despite many efforts, prevail among so many urban and rural peoples in
Africa, with limitations opposed to their development and their dignity. Of
even greater concern it seems to us is the situation of the young African who
becomes discouraged and exasperated, faced with uncertainty about his
professional future (Address to the New Ambassador of Senegal, April 22,
1969).
380.Misfortunes are often caused by sin, and John Paul II was noted for a series
of expressions of regret concerning historical sins committed by Catholics.73
These culminated in a “day of pardon” in 2000, when he asked forgiveness for
faults committed by Christians in the past:
Let us forgive and ask forgiveness! While we praise God who, in his merciful
love, has produced in the Church a wonderful harvest of holiness, missionary
zeal, total dedication to Christ and neighbor, we cannot fail to recognize the
infidelities to the gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during
the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have
occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of
the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward
the followers of other religions (Homily for the “Day of Pardon,” March 12,
 2000).
381. Expressions of condemnation are stronger than those of regret. They do not
just express sorrow at an unfortunate occurrence; they also censure it as a moral
evil. Thus, after the U.S. priestly sexual abuse scandal broke into the news in
2002, John Paul II stated:
The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly
considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God.
To the victims and their families, wherever they may be, I express my
profound sense of solidarity and concern (Address, April 23, 2002).
All these statements—whether concerning unavoidable tragedies or crimes
committed by churchmen—play a pastoral function as Church leaders seek to
care for souls and to rebuild bridges when they have been at fault.
Statements of Pastoral Solidarity
382. Church documents also contain statements of pastoral solidarity indicating
the Church’s concern for people facing particular trials, as in this example from
the Catechism:
Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give
me,” asks Abraham of God, “for I continue childless?” and Rachel cries to
her husband Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!” (CCC 2374).
Metadoctrinal Statements
383. A final category of non-doctrinal statements are what could be called
“metadoctrinal” statements, or statements about doctrinal statements, as in this
example from Pope Francis:
It is my hope that this encyclical letter, which is now added to the body of the
Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity,
and urgency of the challenge we face (Laudato Si’, 15).
Formally speaking, the reference to the encyclical being added to the Church’s
social teaching is unnecessary. The fact it’s an encyclical indicates it’s a
teaching document, and the fact that it deals with society’s impact on the
environment places it in the realm of social doctrine. However, this statement
makes it explicit that Laudato Si’ contains doctrine, so it cannot be dismissed as
simply dealing with non-doctrinal matters. Metadoctrinal statements also are
found in other documents to indicate that a teaching is authoritative or to
indicate the level of authority it has.
Statements Not Creating an Obligation

Questions
384. Some statements in magisterial documents do pertain to faith or morals but
nevertheless don’t generate an obligation for the faithful to respond with
“religious submission of will and intellect.” For example, some don’t make
assertions but merely ask questions, as in this passage from the Catechism:
Is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a
transcendent, intelligent, and good Being called “God”? and if the world does
come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it
come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it? (CCC
284).
The Church has answers to these questions—found elsewhere in the Catechism
—but since they aren’t given here, this passage doesn’t teach any doctrines.
Issues Expressly Set Aside
385. Sometimes a magisterial figure will raise an issue and then expressly set it
aside. Though not framed in the form of a question, this type of statement
functions as an open-ended question. Thus in one of his audiences, Benedict
XVI raised and then set aside the issue of who the beloved disciple is in John’s
Gospel:
According to tradition, John [the son of Zebedee] is the “disciple whom Jesus
loved,” who in the fourth Gospel laid his head against the teacher’s breast at
the Last Supper (cf. John 13:23), stood at the foot of the cross together with
the Mother of Jesus (cf. John 19:25) and lastly, witnessed both the empty
tomb and the presence of the risen one himself (cf. John 20:2; 21:7).
We know that this identification is disputed by scholars today, some of
whom view him merely as the prototype of a disciple of Jesus. Leaving the
exegetes to settle the matter, let us be content here with learning an important
lesson for our lives: the Lord wishes to make each one of us a disciple who
lives in personal friendship with him (General Audience, July 5, 2006).
By deferring the matter to exegetes (biblical scholars) to settle, Benedict XVI
indicates he does not regard it as settled by Catholic doctrine.
Statements Flagged as the Author’s Opinion
386. Statements dealing with faith and morals also can fail to generate an
obligation when they are flagged as matters of the author’s opinion rather than
doctrines. Thus when Pope Francis was asked, in 2017, why he took a more
negative tone toward nations maintaining nuclear arsenals as deterrents than
John Paul II had in 1982, he replied:
In thirty-four years, nuclear [development] has gone further and further and
further. Today we are at the limit. This can be argued; it is my opinion, but
my staunch opinion: I am convinced of it. We are at the limit of what’s licit in
regard to having and using nuclear weapons. Why? Because today, with so
sophisticated a nuclear arsenal, we risk the destruction of humanity, or at least
of a large part of humanity. . . . We are at the limit, and since we are, I ask
myself this question—not as papal magisterium, but it is the question a pope
asks—today is it licit to maintain nuclear arsenals, as they are, or today, to
save creation, to save humanity, is it not necessary to go back? (Press
Conference, December 2, 2017).
Whether it’s legitimate for nations to maintain a nuclear deterrent is a moral
question, but here no obligation to believe the pope’s opinion is created. Aside
from the fact this is an interview rather than a magisterial document, Pope
Francis flags what he says as “his opinion,” “not as papal magisterium,” and as a
“question a pope asks.”
387.Pope Francis’s response contains multiple indicators that it’s his opinion, but
statements sometimes signal the same thing in subtler ways, as with this example
from John Paul II:
The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s
death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no
detail particularly worthy of mention. If this were not the case, how could the
information about it have remained hidden from her contemporaries and not
have been passed down to us in some way?
As to the cause of Mary’s death, the opinions that wish to exclude her from
death by natural causes seem groundless (General Audience, June 25, 1997).
Here he indicates his own at least tentative opinion that Mary died a natural
death (cf. §307). But instead of saying, “this is my opinion,” he uses subtler
language, saying the silence of the New Testament “leads one to suppose” it was
a natural death and opinions to the contrary “seem groundless.” Such
tentativeness indicates we are in the realm of opinion rather than doctrine.
388. The same is indicated when an issue is framed in terms of probability, as in
this discussion of the authorship of Hebrews by Benedict XVI:
Tertullian attributes to him [Barnabas] the letter to the Hebrews. This is not
improbable. Since he belonged to the tribe of Levi, Barnabas may have been
interested in the topic of the priesthood; and the letter to the Hebrews
interprets Jesus’ priesthood for us in an extraordinary way (General
Audience, January 31, 2007).
“This is not improbable” signals a permitted opinion, though not necessarily
one Benedict holds since “not improbable” indicates a notable but not an
absolute degree of probability.
Statements Flagged as the Opinion of Others
389. Statements can also be flagged as the opinion of some person or group.
When these are raised for our consideration without being endorsed or
condemned, they do not create a doctrine. Thus Benedict XVI discussed a
theological proposal by Bl. John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308):
Unlike many Christian thinkers of the time, [Duns Scotus] held that the Son
of God would have been made man even if humanity had not sinned. He says
in his Reportatio Parisiensis (Latin, “Parisian Report”): “To think that God
would have given up such a task had Adam not sinned would be quite
unreasonable! I say, therefore, that the fall was not the cause of Christ’s
predestination and that if no one had fallen, neither the angel nor man in this
hypothesis Christ would still have been predestined in the same way” (in III
Sent., d. 7, 4). This perhaps somewhat surprising thought crystallized
because, in the opinion of Duns Scotus the Incarnation of the Son of God,
planned from all eternity by God the Father at the level of love is the
fulfillment of creation and enables every creature, in Christ and through
Christ, to be filled with grace and to praise and glorify God in eternity.
Although Duns Scotus was aware that in fact, because of original sin, Christ
redeemed us with his passion, death, and resurrection, he reaffirmed that the
Incarnation is the greatest and most beautiful work of the entire history of
salvation, that it is not conditioned by any contingent fact but is God’s
original idea of ultimately uniting with himself the whole of creation, in the
person and flesh of the Son (General Audience, July 7, 2010).
 Scotists have favored this proposal, whereas Thomists have been skeptical of it,
but the Magisterium has not weighed in. Benedict XVI flags it as Scotus’s
opinion but neither endorses nor criticizes it.
390. The same thing happens with ideas proposed by groups, as when Benedict
XVI stated “some recent theologians are of the opinion” that the fire of
purgatory is Christ himself (§350). It isn’t necessary for the word “opinion” to
be used. The mere attribution of a view to a person or group—without further
magisterial comment—is enough. For example, after mentioning that it is “not
improbable” that the author of Hebrews was Barnabas, Benedict XVI went on to
say:
After returning to Ephesus, Apollos resisted Paul’s invitation to return to
Corinth immediately, postponing the journey to a later date of which we
know nothing (cf. 1 Cor. 16:12). We have no further information about him,
even though some scholars believe he is a possible author of the letter to the
Hebrews which Tertullian believed Barnabas had written (General Audience,
January 31, 2007).
Here the view that Apollos was the author is attributed to “some scholars,” and
the pope makes no judgment on the matter.
391. In identifying statements of this type, the following factors are key:
1. Discussion of a view
2. The naming of a person (Bl. John Duns Scotus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bl.
John Henry Newman) or group (scholars, theologians, exegetes)
3. Language that attributes a view to them (“according to,” “tell us,” “are of the
opinion,” “have proposed,” “consider”)
4. Absence of an authoritative magisterial evaluation of the view
Sometimes the author of the document will make a tentative evaluation. For
example, a pope might say that the view of a theologian or scholar is probable or
improbable. But since neither judgment is definite, it would leave the matter in
the realm of opinion. He might even endorse or reject the view wholeheartedly,
stating it explicitly as a matter of his own opinion, without making an
authoritative pronouncement.
392.However, an author may make an authoritative judgment on the opinion of
others. For example, John Paul II discussed the proposal of various theologians
that the Holy Spirit may be understood in a special way, as a divine Person, as
the mutual love of the Father and the Son:
[St. Augustine’s] reflections developed the concept of the Holy Spirit as the
mutual love and the bond of unity between the Father and the Son in the
communion of the Trinity. He wrote: “As we appropriately call the sole Word
of God “Wisdom,” even though generally speaking the Holy Spirit and the
Father himself are Wisdom, the Spirit also is given Love as a proper name,
even though the Father and the Son are love as well in a general sense”
(General Audience, November 14, 1990).
In the same audience, he went on to give an authoritative judgment on the
matter stating:
It is the doctrine of the East and West which Pope Leo XIII gathered from the
tradition and synthesized in his encyclical on the Holy Spirit, wherein we read
that the Holy Spirit “is divine goodness and the mutual love of the Father and
the Son” (citing Leo XIII Divinum Illud Munus, 3).
The understanding of the Holy Spirit as the mutual love of the Father and the
Son thus is a matter of Church teaching rather than simply theological opinion.
How Non-Doctrinal Statements Relate to Doctrinal Ones
393. As we’ve seen, there are more non-doctrinal statements in magisterial
documents than one might initially suppose. These play a variety of roles,
including pastoral functions. Although they are not expressions of doctrine, they
are still related to doctrine.
Statements of regret and condemnation concerning specific events presuppose
the Church’s moral teachings. So do statements of gratitude and praise.
It’s sometimes possible to identify the doctrinal principles underlying a non-
doctrinal statement, as when we saw (§371) how a single sentence in the
Catechism (“Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by
responses to the question of origins that differ from its own”) implied a rejection
of numerous philosophical positions, though the description of those views was
itself a collection of non-doctrinal sentences (see CCC 285).
Although it’s sometimes possible to extract principles of Catholic doctrine
from non-doctrinal statements, this must be done with care, and often the non-
doctrinal statements are too ambiguous. If the pope makes a general expression
of gratitude to some group, it’s usually impossible to extract a specific set of
moral propositions and say these are Church doctrines on the basis of his
remarks.
There are thus two extremes to be avoided: saying non-doctrinal statements
have no bearing on Church teaching and—in violation of the hermeneutic of
precision—drawing incautious inferences about Church teaching from them.
73 See International Theological Commission, Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of
the Past (1999); see also Luigi Accattoli, When a Pope Asks Forgiveness: The Mea Culpa’s of John Paul II
(Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1998).
 PART III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 14

Non-Infallible Doctrines

The Nature of Non-Infallible Doctrines

394. Teachings that fall into this category are referred to several ways:
• They are called non-infallible because they don’t belong to the category of
infallible teachings.
• They are called non-definitive because they haven’t been defined.
• They are called non-irreformable because they can be changed.
Each term involves a negation with respect to another category of teachings
(those that are infallible, definitive, or reformable). To date, no non-negative
way of referring to them (e.g., “ordinary” teachings) has become standard.
Sometimes the term “fallible” is used, but the Magisterium studiously avoids
this. One might wonder: if they aren’t infallible, why not just call them fallible?
That would seem preferable to the clunky double-negative “non-infallible.”
The reason is that calling them fallible could undermine their authority by
suggesting they are mistaken or likely to be mistaken. The truth is that, although
the Holy Spirit has not (yet) guided the Church to infallibly define them, he has
guided the Magisterium in a more general way in formulating and proclaiming
them. This, along with their foundation in Scripture and Tradition, is why they
call for the response of “religious submission of will and intellect” (Lumen
Gentium, 25). Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz Braña comments:
Even if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the
charism of infallibility, it does not follow that such a teaching is therefore to
be considered “fallible”—in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a
“provisional doctrine” or just an “authoritative opinion.” Every authentic
expression of the Magisterium must be received for what it truly is: a teaching
given by pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the “charism of
truth” (Dei Verbum, n. 8), “endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen
Gentium, n. 25), “and by the light of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).74
395.Although there are understandable reasons for avoiding the term “fallible,”
that expression contains a truth. Thus Ocáriz acknowledges they shouldn’t be
considered fallible “in the sense” he goes on to describe. Taking the term in
another sense, there remains the possibility—however remote—of their
involving error, and in recent years the Magisterium has more frankly
acknowledged this. The CDF explains:
In order to serve the people of God as well as possible, in particular, by
warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the
Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in
addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It
often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between
what is necessary and what is contingent (Donum Veritatis, 24).
396. The process of discerning what is solid and what is not occurs over the
course of doctrinal development. Before Galileo it was taken for granted (1) that
Scripture is divinely inspired and thus true and (2) that certain passages of
Scripture imply the earth is stationary and the sun moves around it. Many thus
inferred it is a matter of Christian faith that the sun moves around the earth.
Although premise (1) is an article of the Christian faith, the other is not. The
discoveries of Galileo and others prompted a reexamination of premise (2), and
it was realized that the passages in question didn’t mandate the common
interpretation.
The twentieth century saw many similar disentanglements as it was realized the
inspiration, truth, and authority of Scripture didn’t require its books to be written
by known individuals living at known times (e.g., the book of Isaiah being
written by a single prophet in the eighth century B.C.). This was not obvious at
the beginning of the century, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission initially
prohibited the teaching of non-traditional ideas about the authorship of these
books. However, as the century progressed, awareness grew that the inspiration
of the biblical books is a separate question than the details of how they were
composed, and these prohibitions ceased (§§217–218, 324, 372–373).
397. The possibility of mixing solid principles with less certain ones is a
particular risk in areas involving prudential reasoning, such as in the social
doctrine of the Church. It uses contingent facts from fields such as sociology,
economics, and even the physical sciences (cf. Laudato Si’). Consequently, the
CDF states:
 When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it
could happen that some magisterial documents might not be free from all
deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate
consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it
would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one
were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in
its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the
integral [i.e., complete, overall] exercise of its mission. In fact, the
theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain
competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage
of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the
tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the
Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because
while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were
not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted
discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress
(ibid.).
This degree of frankness about the possibility of error was new. At the press
398.
conference presenting the document, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated:
[Donum Veritatis] states—perhaps for the first time with such candor—that
there are magisterial decisions which cannot be the final word on a given
matter as such but, despite the permanent value of their principles, are chiefly
also a signal for pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional policy. Their kernel
remains valid, but the particulars determined by circumstances can stand in
need of correction. In this connection, one will probably call to mind both the
pontifical statements of the last century regarding freedom of religion and the
anti-Modernist decisions of the beginning of this century, especially the
decisions of the then Biblical Commission. As warning calls against rash and
superficial accommodations, they remain perfectly legitimate: no less a
personage than J. B. Metz, for example, has remarked that the anti-Modernist
decisions of the Church performed the great service of saving her from
foundering in the bourgeois-liberal world. Nevertheless, with respect to
particular aspects of their content, they were superseded after having fulfilled
their pastoral function in the situation of the time.75
In 2003, he was even more blunt about the early replies of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission, stating:
It is true that, with the above-mentioned decisions, the Magisterium overly
enlarged the area of certainties that the Faith can guarantee; it is also true that
with this, the credibility of the Magisterium was diminished and the space
necessary for research and exegetical questions was excessively restricted
(On the 100th Anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, May 10,
2003).
399. We thus see that the possibility of error in non-infallible teachings is a real
one, and one about which the Magisterium is becoming increasingly frank.
However, the Holy Spirit still guides the Magisterium when formulating such
teachings. Although he does not guarantee complete freedom from error in the
Church’s non-definitive teaching, he ensures the content of the deposit of faith is
preserved and its essential principles remain present in the Church’s teaching—
even if there is an admixture of ideas that needs to be purified through doctrinal
development, which also takes place under his guidance. Consequently, one
cannot infer “that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its
prudential judgments,” and its non-infallible teachings ordinarily require the
“religious assent of will and intellect” (§349).
Identifying Non-Infallible Doctrines
400.Showing that a statement in a Church document expresses a non-infallible
teaching consists of two steps:
1. Showing it expresses a doctrine
2. Showing the doctrine has not been infallibly defined
The first is accomplished using the principles in §§358–359, and the second is
the default assumption concerning Church teachings. The Code of Canon Law
provides:
No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly
evident (can. 749 §3).
The conditions needed for this presumption to be overcome will be discussed
in chapter sixteen.
401.When evaluating whether a doctrine is infallible, it isn’t enough to look at a
single passage and apply the tests for infallibility. Consider this statement from
the Catechism on the Assumption of Mary:
 Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin,
when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul
into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as queen over all things, so that
she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and
conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a
singular participation in her Son’s resurrection and an anticipation of the
resurrection of other Christians (CCC 966).
This passage doesn’t use the right language to create a new infallible definition.
However, though the Assumption of Mary isn’t defined here, it is defined in
Pope Pius XII’s apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950).
Therefore, to verify a teaching isn’t infallible, you may need to look at more than
one document.
For famous infallible teachings (the Assumption of Mary, the real presence of
Christ in the Eucharist, the dogma of the Trinity), this may not be necessary.
You may already know the doctrine is infallible. But what if you’re not sure?
There are several options:
• Look at chapter fifteen and see if it’s among the doctrines listed as infallible.
However, this list isn’t exhaustive or itself definitive.
• Look it up in a manual of theology that uses doctrinal notes (e.g., Ludwig
Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). However, these doctrinal notes are
largely unofficial and represent the personal view of the theologian.
• Look up the Church documents listed to support it in the manual of theology
and apply the tests for infallibility. The relevant passages will almost always
be found in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (§§234–236). Given its
long history and the careful, scholarly work done on it, it’s unlikely an
infallible doctrinal definition won’t be in Denzinger.
• Look in Denzinger’s extensive doctrinal index, check the passages it lists, and
apply the tests for infallibility.
Be very wary of online sources discussing infallibility. The wild and woolly
world of the internet is filled with authors who are not experts, who don’t
understand the criteria for infallibility, and who either dramatically
underestimate the number of infallible doctrines (in the case of progressive
authors) or who dramatically overestimate their number (in the case of
traditionalist authors).
These procedures offer a generally reliable way of determining whether the
Church’s extraordinary magisterium has defined a matter. Verifying infallible
teachings by the ordinary and universal magisterium presents additional
challenges that will be discussed in chapter fifteen.
There are many instances of non-infallible Church teachings, particularly
402.
among those that have only been recently articulated. The U.S. bishops’
Committee on Doctrine notes:
An example of teaching that is non-definitive and calls for obsequium
religiosum [Latin, “religious submission”] is the teaching of the instruction
Donum Vitae against such practices as artificial insemination, surrogate
motherhood, and in vitro fertilization (The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan
Bishop, fn. 25).
Evaluating the Weight of Non-Infallible Doctrines
403.Once a doctrine has been identified as a non-infallible teaching, there is
more to say about its doctrinal weight. Based on principles articulated in Lumen
Gentium 25, the CDF has identified three criteria for evaluating the weight of
non-definitive teachings:
[These teachings] require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the
mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the
documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of
the verbal expression (Doctrinal Commentary, 11).
Since Lumen Gentium establishes that these teachings are to be received with
“religious submission of will and intellect,” the different “degrees of adherence”
are best understood as degrees of the intensity of such submission. Highly
authoritative teachings require a more intense submission of will and intellect
than more tentative ones. Unfortunately, the Magisterium hasn’t worked out a
way of describing these degrees, though it might one day do so, perhaps based
on the formerly common doctrinal notes. In the meantime, it’s still possible to
apply the three criteria to determine relative weight.
The Nature of the Documents
404. The first criterion is the nature of the documents in which a teaching appears.
Thus a papal encyclical is more authoritative than a weekly papal audience, and
the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II are more authoritative than its decrees.
It is difficult to apply this criterion because the relative weights of different
documents are only loosely defined, as discussed in chapters eight and nine. The
Holy See has not published an explanation of their weights, and it often isn’t
clear why a document was issued in one form rather than another. Despite the
fuzziness of the system, it can still be said that if a doctrine is mentioned in high-
level documents, this adds weight it wouldn’t have if it were mentioned only in
lower-level documents.
The Frequency of Repetition
405. The second criterion is the frequency with which the Magisterium repeats a
doctrine. If it is mentioned only rarely (perhaps not even in centuries), it has a
lower level of authority; if the Magisterium repeats it frequently, it is more
authoritative. There are a number of reasons why a doctrine may be mentioned
frequently:
1. It is a fundamental teaching of the Faith.
2. It is a popular idea.
3. It is an unpopular idea.
4. Doctrinal development is occurring.
Fundamental Teachings
406. It’s obvious that fundamental teachings of the Faith will be mentioned
frequently. The fact that Jesus is the Christ is mentioned in document after
document, giving it enormous authority. Fundamental teachings of the Faith
naturally are infallible at least by virtue of the ordinary and universal
magisterium. Consequently, this specific reason why doctrines can be mentioned
frequently doesn’t apply for determining the weight of non-infallible doctrines.
However, the others can.
Popular Teachings
407. The substance of the Faith is the same in every age, but particular ideas
about it rise and fall in popularity. During periods when an idea is popular, it
may be repeated with some frequency in Church documents, and this gives it
added weight in those periods. However, as doctrinal development progresses,
an idea’s popularity may recede, causing it to lose weight. For example, see
§§568–570 on the view that infants dying without baptism could not go to
heaven.
Unpopular Teachings
408. In every age there are ideas that are unpopular, and this can lead the
Magisterium to frequently repeat its teaching on them. Today, the Church’s
teachings on abortion, contraception, and reserving the priesthood to men are
unpopular in society. Consequently, the Magisterium has reiterated them on
numerous occasions. At present, the Vatican website (vatican.va) has hundreds
of references to these teachings. Nothing like that number of references would
be found in the documents of a prior century, when there was no public
controversy on them.
Doctrinal Development
409. A teaching may be mentioned frequently in Church documents because
doctrinal development is taking place. For example, although it’s always been
recognized that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15),
the implications of this for its infallibility have undergone significant
development in the last two centuries. This led to more frequent discussions in
Church documents of the infallibility of the pope, ecumenical councils, and the
ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.
The Tenor of the Verbal Expression
410. The third criterion for assessing the weight of a teaching is the tenor of the
words used to express it. If it is proposed briefly and tentatively, it will have less
authority, whereas if it is expounded at length and emphatically, it will have
more.
411. Consider this statement by Pope John Paul II:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great
importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself,
in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare
that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on
women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s
faithful (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4).
The doctrine in question was already infallible by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium of the Church, which is what the pope is saying. However, he
doesn’t make a new, papal definition (i.e., an ex cathedra statement), as later
confirmed by Joseph Ratzinger and Tarcisio Bertone, who stated, “the supreme
pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to
reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively” (Doctrinal Commentary,
11).
Note how forceful the language can be without creating a new definition, with
multiple elements stressing the importance of the teaching:
• “that all doubt may be removed”
• “a matter of great importance”
• “a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself”
• “my ministry of confirming the brethren”
• “I declare”
• “no authority whatsoever”
• “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”
The only thing keeping this from being a new, papal definition is the fact he
didn’t use the verb “I define” (see §489–495).
412. On the other hand, consider this statement from John Paul II:
Can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the
victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the
countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the
model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which
are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic
system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the
market, private property, and the resulting responsibility for the means of
production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the
answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more
appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy,” or simply
“free economy.” But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom
in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical
framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and
which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is
ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative (Centissimus Annus,
42).
Notice the tentativeness of the language: if you understand capitalism one way,
the answer is yes, but if you understand it another way, the answer is no. This is
definite enough to establish a teaching, but the tentativeness of the language
indicates the teaching has less authority. If the language of a statement is
tentative enough, it will not express a doctrine but only an opinion (§188–
190,386–392).
74 Ocáriz, “On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council.”
75 Joseph Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates,
trans. Adrian Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 106.
 PART III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 15

Understanding the Church’s Infallibility

413. Infallible teachings are referred to a number of ways:

• They are called infallible because they are taught in a way that is not fallible
(capable of resulting in error).
• They are called definitive because they bring all legitimate discussion
completely (Latin, de-) to an end (finis)—thus an act that teaches a
proposition definitively is called a definition.
• They are called irreformable because they are not capable of being
“reformed” or changed in substance, though they can be supplemented or
clarified.
The Basis of the Church’s Infallibility
414.Jesus told Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and
the powers of death [lit., “gates of hades”] shall not prevail against it” (Matt.
16:18). This means the Church won’t pass out of existence but will remain until
the Second Coming. Theologians call this quality indefectibility since the Church
can never defect (Latin deficere, “to fail or fall away”). Jesus also declared:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age (Matt.
28:18–20).
Here Jesus commissions the Church to preach the whole of the Faith—“all that
I have commanded you”—and assures it he will be with it until the end of the
world, guiding it using the authority he has been given. He thus backs the
teaching mission of the Church with his own authority. As he said on another
occasion, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and
he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). He further promised
the Holy Spirit would lead his disciples “into all the truth” (John 16:13), and that
the Holy Spirit will “be with you forever” (John 14:16). Therefore, as down
through the ages the Church proclaims “the faith which was once for all
delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), its teaching mission is backed by the authority
of and guided by Christ and the Holy Spirit.
415.Authority can be exercised in different degrees, which raises the question of
what happens when the Church uses its teaching authority to definitively settle a
question and irrevocably bind the faithful to believe its teaching.
Theologians perceived that the Church wouldn’t be indefectible if it could
definitively teach a false proposition, for then it would defect from the true faith
and fall away from Christ. Therefore, the divine guidance it is given would
prevent it from definitively binding the faithful to believe something false. The
divine guidance and indefectibility of the Church thus mean it is protected from
teaching error—or infallible—in at least some circumstances.
416. Some ask how any man or group of men could teach infallibly. As the
popular saying has it, “To err is human,” and as Scripture says, “we all make
many mistakes” (James 3:2). Surely only God is infallible. This objection
contains a measure of truth: only God is intrinsically and absolutely infallible.
However, he can protect men from error. He obviously did so with the men who
wrote Scripture, for “all Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Tim. 3:15) and
therefore guaranteed to be true. The gift of inspiration entails the lesser qualities
of infallibility and inerrancy—at least while one is working under its influence
(§§141–143). Thus Peter could write two inspired documents (1 and 2 Peter) and
yet make mistakes on other occasions.
Church documents are not inspired (§140), but in his omnipotence God can
certainly stop a man from teaching something false.
417.The Church’s infallibility is subject to limitations. Just because a defined
proposition is guaranteed to be true doesn’t mean it is also guaranteed to be:
• phrased well
• a complete expression of the truth on a matter
• given at an opportune time
• given at all
It’s thus possible for the Church to express a truth in an imperfect or
incomplete way, to define it earlier or later than would be prudent, or not to
define it at all. Despite these limitations, the Church’s infallibility is an asset that
serves its teaching mission and indefectibility.
The Subjects of Infallibility

God
418. When scholars discuss the Church’s infallibility, they frequently speak of
both the subjects and the objects of infallibility. The first refer to the subjects—
the people—who are capable of teaching infallibly, whereas the latter refers to
the objects—the propositions—that can be taught.
Ultimately, God alone is absolutely infallible, so he is the first and primary
subject of infallibility.
The Church
419. People think of the pope as infallible, but he isn’t the only one possessing a
gift of infallibility. The Church as a whole does. In 1973, the CDF stated:
God, who is absolutely infallible, thus deigned to bestow upon his new
people, which is the Church, a certain shared infallibility, which is restricted
to matters of faith and morals, which is present when the whole people of
God unhesitatingly holds a point of doctrine pertaining to these matters, and
finally which always depends upon the wise providence and anointing of the
grace of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into all truth until the glorious
coming of her Lord.
Concerning this infallibility of the people of God the Second Vatican
Council speaks as follows: “The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as
they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief.
Thanks to a supernatural instinct of faith which characterizes the people as a
whole, it manifests this unerring quality when, from the bishops down to the
last member of the laity, it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and
morals” (Mysterium Ecclesiae, 2, quoting Lumen Gentium, 12).
Though the people of God as a whole have a gift of infallibility, the Church
doesn’t speak of them “teaching” infallibly. That term is reserved for the
Magisterium, which God has commissioned to teach in a special way.
420.Nevertheless, the sense of the faithful (Latin, sensus fidelium) is infallible
when they, together with the Magisterium, “show universal agreement in matters
of faith and morals.” Examples of teachings that have been infallibly held this
way, from the beginning, include the fact God exists and that Jesus is the
Messiah. No one would, in the proper sense, be a member of the Christian
faithful if he did not hold these teachings.
421.This brings up an important point: not all who profess to be Christian are
genuinely faithful. Many professing Christians hold the Faith imperfectly and
don’t lead lives open to the promptings of divine grace. Consequently, they have
an impaired sense of the faith (Latin, sensus fidei). The International Theological
Commission notes:
In the history of the people of God, it has often been not the majority but
rather a minority which has truly lived and witnessed to the faith. The Old
Testament knew the “holy remnant” of believers, sometimes very few in
number, over against the kings and priests and most of the Israelites.
Christianity itself started as a small minority, blamed and persecuted by
public authorities. . . . In many countries today, Christians are under strong
pressure from other religions or secular ideologies to neglect the truth of faith
and weaken the boundaries of ecclesial community. It is therefore particularly
important to discern and listen to the voices of the “little ones who believe”
(Mark 9:42) (Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 118).
The Bishops
422. Because it is difficult to discern the voice of the true faithful from those who
make a compromised profession of the Faith, we can’t identify the sensus
fidelium with popular opinion among Christians (see §600). Therefore, apart
from particularly clear cases like the existence of God and the fact Jesus is the
Messiah, it is difficult to determine when a teaching is infallible because it is
held by the faithful as a whole. We thus need a more clearly identifiable voice
capable of speaking with infallibility.
This is found in the next subject of infallibility, the bishops. Because of their
divine commission as authoritative teachers, they teach infallibly when
“maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor
of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in
agreement on one position as definitively to be held” (Lumen Gentium, 25).
This infallibility is exercised only in communion with each other, for “the
individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility” (ibid.), and only
in communion “with the successor of Peter,” the head of the college of bishops.
423.The bishops can teach infallibly “even though dispersed through the world”
(ibid.), in which case a matter is said to be defined by the “ordinary and
universal Magisterium of the Church.” But when they are dispersed it can be
difficult to verify that they have the kind of agreement needed.
424. Consequently, the infallibility of their teaching is “more clearly verified
when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges
of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered
to with the submission of faith” (ibid.).
The Pope
425. Ecumenical councils are massive and difficult undertakings, and during a
time of pressing need—such as an outbreak of heresy—it may not be possible
for an ecumenical council to meet in a timely manner. Or, if a council does meet,
it may not be able to reach a consensus on what response to give. This creates a
need for recourse to an infallible voice that can address issues definitively
without the encumbrances involved in an ecumenical council.
That need is met by the fourth and final subject of infallibility—the pope, the
head of the college of bishops and thus the head of the Magisterium.
426.Because of the need for the pope to be able to teach infallibly on an
independent basis, apart from the other bishops, his teachings don’t require the
approval of others:
His definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are
justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of
the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no
approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For
then the Roman pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but
as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of
infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or
defending a doctrine of catholic faith (Lumen Gentium, 25).
This doesn’t mean the pope shouldn’t consult the world’s bishops or even the
body of the faithful more broadly when possible. It also doesn’t mean he
shouldn’t study a matter diligently and consult theological experts. To attempt an
infallible definition without proper preparation would be dangerous and
imprudent (§§416–417).
427. Because the pope occupies the “Chair of Peter” (i.e., exercises Peter’s
teaching authority), his infallible definitions are referred to as ex cathedra
statements (Latin, “from the chair”).
The Objects of Infallibility
428.Simply put, a truth is an object of infallibility if the Church can infallibly
define it. According to Vatican I, the pope is capable of defining “a doctrine
regarding faith or morals” (doctrina fidei et morum) (Pastor Aeternus, 4).
Similarly, Vatican II stated:
This infallibility, with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be
endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals (doctrina de fide vel
moribus), extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends, which must be
religiously guarded and faithfully expounded (Lumen Gentium, 25).
429. Two things need to be clarified about this statement. The first concerns the
phrase “faith and morals.” The Latin word mores (singular, mos) is notoriously
difficult to translate in this context and doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as
“morals” in English. Instead, mos means “custom, manner, action”76 or “an
established practice, custom, or usage.”77 Francis Sullivan explains:
Mores includes far more than what we would call “morals”; actually it
includes everything that the gospel reveals about the Christian way of life:
how to live, how to pray, how to worship God. . . . Perhaps the English word
that comes closest to the Tridentine sense of mores is “practices,” so that res
fidei et morum would be better translated “matters pertaining to (Christian)
faith and practice.”78
This opens the range of possible infallible definitions to more than what would
at first glance count as points of faith or morals.
430. The second clarification concerns the statement that infallibility “extends as
far as the deposit of revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and
faithfully expounded.” It is not obvious, but the statement refers to two distinct
bodies of truth: (1) “the deposit of revelation” and (2) the things needed to
religiously guard and faithfully expound it. We know this because the Doctrinal
Commission at Vatican II issued a clarification, stating:
The object of infallibility extends to all those things, and only to those, which
either directly pertain to the deposit itself or are required in order that the
same deposit may be religiously safeguarded and faithfully expounded.79
Afterward, this explanation was echoed by the CDF:
According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium
 extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without
which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded (Mysterium
Ecclesiae 3).
Consequently, scholars divide the object of infallibility in two and distinguish
between two kinds of truths it covers. These are called the “primary” and
“secondary” objects of infallibility.
The Primary Object of Infallibility
431. According to the Vatican II Doctrinal Commission, the primary object of
infallibility consists of those things which “directly pertain to” the deposit of
faith. The primary object of infallibility thus consists of truths that have been
divinely revealed. It is called the primary object because God gave the Church
its teaching mission so that it might proclaim these truths. These truths may have
been revealed explicitly or implicitly, but they must be part of the deposit of
faith.
432.When the Church defines that one of these truths is divinely revealed, the
resulting teaching is known as a dogma (§§343–344). Dogmas require the
response of “theological faith” (Doctrinal Commentary, 5), which the Code of
Canon Law refers to as “divine and catholic faith” (can. 750 §1).
433.Dogmas are referred to in the first added paragraph of the profession of faith
(§342). Joseph Ratzinger and Tarcisio Bertone provide examples of dogmas:
To the truths of the first paragraph belong:
• the articles of faith of the Creed;
• the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas;
• the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy
with regard to grace;
• the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and
the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;
• the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;
• the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman pontiff;
• the doctrine on the existence of original sin;
• the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate
recompense after death;
• the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;
• the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an
 innocent human being (Doctrinal Commentary, 11).
The Secondary Object of Infallibility
434. Experience has shown that the Church also needs the ability to define certain
truths closely connected with divine revelation. Because these truths aren’t
revealed, they aren’t part of the Church’s primary teaching mission. For this
reason, they are referred to as the secondary object of infallibility. According to
the Vatican II Doctrinal Commission, the secondary object of infallibility
consists of truths that “are required in order that [the deposit of faith] may be
religiously safeguarded and faithfully expounded” (§430).
435. It’s significant that Vatican II’s Doctrinal Commission restricted the
secondary object “to all those things, and only to those, which . . . are required”
to guard and expound the deposit of faith. Similarly, the CDF limited it to things
“without which that deposit cannot” be guarded and expounded. This differs
from some earlier authors who held that the Church could infallibly define things
more loosely connected with the deposit of faith. By stressing that it includes
“only those” things “required” and without which revealed truth “cannot” be
properly proclaimed, the Magisterium is taking a narrower view of the secondary
object.
436.Because truths belonging to the secondary object of infallibility are not
defined as divinely revealed, they do not call for the response of divine and
catholic faith. Instead, they are to be “held definitively” (§346). Ratzinger and
Bertone state:
The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed,
insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which
are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive
character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with
revealed truth (Doctrinal Commentary, 7).
437. Some authors refer to all truths that belong to the secondary object of
infallibility as dogmatic facts because they are non-revealed facts that pertain in
one way or another to dogma.80 Other authors restrict the term “dogmatic facts”
to a subset of truths within the secondary object.81 When the more restricted use
is employed, dogmatic facts are generally said to be truths of a historical nature
such as the validity of a pope’s election, the fact that a council was ecumenical,
or the meaning of the words in a theological text.
438.Regarding the nature of truths belonging to the secondary object, Ratzinger
and Bertone explain:
[These truths] can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their
relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected
with revelation by virtue of a historical relationship; while other truths evince
a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding
of revelation which the Church is called to undertake (ibid.).
Truths with a Historical Connection to Revelation
439. The classic examples of dogmatic facts in the narrow sense have a historical
connection with revealed truth, and it is easy to see why the Church needs the
ability to infallibly define them.
Suppose a heresy arises and, to deal with it, the pope calls an ecumenical
council, which infallibly defines a dogma. In response, the heretics argue the
pope who called the council was not validly elected, the council was not truly
ecumenical, or the language it used did not actually constitute an infallible
definition. Doubt about these matters then spreads among the faithful. To end the
doubt, the Church needs the ability to authoritatively assert the key facts: the
pope was validly elected, the council was ecumenical, and it did issue an
infallible definition on the matter. These facts are not themselves part of the
deposit of revelation, which closed with the death of the last apostle. However,
they are closely connected with the dogma issued by the council. They thus
count as dogmatic facts and belong to the secondary object of infallibility.
A historical controversy in which something like this happened began in 1653,
when Innocent X infallibly condemned as heretical five propositions from the
posthumously published book Augustinus by Cornelius Jansen. In response,
Jansen’s followers argued that the condemned propositions were heretical but
that they weren’t actually taught in Augustinus. Consequently, in 1656,
Alexander VII defined that they were contained in it (DH 2010–2012). Although
the first definition dealt with revealed truth, the second dealt with the dogmatic
fact that these propositions were taught in a particular book (see §514).
Ratzinger and Bertone also list “the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the
apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations” as
belonging to this category (ibid., 11).
440.The understanding that the secondary object of infallibility includes “only
those” things “required” and without which revealed truth “cannot” be properly
proclaimed (§435) raises a question about the infallibility of the canonization of
saints. That a particular person is a saint—at least those born after biblical times
—couldn’t be defined as a dogma since it isn’t part of the deposit of faith and
doesn’t belong to the primary object of infallibility. However, many authors
have held that the sainthood of a postbiblical person is part of the secondary
object of infallibility. Cardinal Dulles explains:
Among other non-revealed matters that have frequently been seen as falling
within the secondary object of infallibility is the solemn canonization of
saints. . . . Although the common teachings of theologians gives some support
for holding infallibility in these cases, it is difficult to see how they fit under
the object of infallibility as defined by the two Vatican Councils.82
Presumably, the basis of this view would be that the proposition that a
particular man or woman died in a state of grace does not seem “required” to
properly guard and expound revealed truths or a proposition without which the
Church “cannot” do so. Opinion is presently mixed among theologians regarding
whether saint canonizations are infallible, though Ratzinger and Bertone support
the view that they are (ibid.).
This question is significant for assessing the number of truths the Church has
infallibly proclaimed. If saint canonizations are infallible then both the number
of infallible pronouncements and the number of infallibly defined truths would
be dramatically higher. During his pontificate Pope John Paul II didn’t infallibly
define any truths of a doctrinal nature, but he made 51 canonizations concerning
482 saints. That would mean 51 infallible pronouncements and 482 infallible
truths.
Truths with a Logical Connection to Revelation
441. Non-revealed truths that can be defined because they have a logical
connection with the deposit of faith include certain philosophical truths. Cardinal
Dulles explains:
It is generally agreed that the Magisterium can infallibly declare the
“preambles of faith,” that is, naturally knowable truths implied in the
credibility of the Christian message, such as the capacity of the human mind
to grasp truth about invisible realities, to know the existence of God by
reasoning from the created world ([DH 3004, 3026, 3538]), and to grasp the
possibility of revelation ([DH 3027]) and miracles ([DH 3033–34]).83
442.Various moral matters also fall into this category. Another example of a non-
revealed truth that one day could be defined is the moral impermissibility of in
vitro fertilization. This technique of reproductive technology was not dreamed of
in Jesus’ day, but it has a logical connection to Scripture’s teaching on God,
family, and life that could one day warrant an infallible definition of the matter
as a way of “religiously guarding and faithfully expounding” those teachings.
443.Similarly, Ratzinger and Bertone list euthanasia as a subject falling into this
category:
The doctrine on the illicitness of euthanasia, taught in the encyclical
letter Evangelium Vitae, can also be recalled. Confirming that euthanasia is “a
grave violation of the law of God,” the pope declares that “this doctrine is
based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted
by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium.” It could seem that there is only a logical element in the
doctrine on euthanasia, since Scripture does not seem to be aware of the
concept. In this case, however, the interrelationship between the orders of
faith and reason becomes apparent: Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every
form of the kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed
in the theory and practice of euthanasia (Doctrinal Commentary, 11).
444.The relationship between divine law and the secondary object of infallibility
became controversial following Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae
(1968). Some argued its teaching on contraception was infallibly taught by the
ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church, and a few argued that
Humanae Vitae itself defined the matter. Others argued it was not infallible, and
some argued it could not be infallibly defined because the subject lay beyond the
scope of the Church’s infallibility. Those taking the latter position fell into a
number of camps:
1. The most extreme seemed to hold that the Church is unable to define any
teaching regarding morals.
2. Another school held that the Church can define only divinely revealed moral
truths but not those known only by natural law.
3. A final school held that the Church can define certain truths of natural law
but not others (e.g., it could infallibly teach fundamental principles contained
in natural law but not their application to particular situations).
445.Few authors subscribed to the first position. Both Vatican I and Vatican II
taught that the Church’s infallibility extends to matters of faith and morals.84
Therefore, if a particular moral truth is included in divine revelation (as in the
Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount), the Church would be able to
infallibly define it.
446. Moral truths not contained in the deposit of faith would not fall under the
primary object of infallibility but they would fall under the secondary object if
they are “matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and
expounded” (CDF, Mysterium Ecclesiae, 3).
The Church hasn’t yet said whether everything that belongs to natural law falls
into this category. However, representatives of the CDF, including Joseph
Ratzinger, were asked for clarification on this point in a 1999 meeting with
several national doctrinal commissions. Their response involved a distinction
between what are known as the positive and negative norms of natural law. The
former are commandments (“do this”) and the latter prohibitions (“don’t do
this”). Concerning the negative norms, they said:
Given that the observance of all negative moral norms that concern
intrinsically evil acts (intrinsece mala) is necessary for salvation, it follows
that the Magisterium has the competence to teach infallibly and make
obligatory the definitive assent of the members of the faithful with regard to
the knowledge and application in life of these norms. This judgment belongs
to the Catholic doctrine on the infallibility of the Magisterium.85
Note that the CDF representatives addressed only natural law prohibitions “that
concern intrinsically evil acts,” or acts which by their nature are always evil.
They didn’t say the Church can infallibly define it when an act is extrinsically
evil—i.e., when it is rendered evil due to circumstances. To determine an act is
extrinsically evil, one must apply general principles to a concrete circumstance,
and the CDF representatives indicated that it hasn’t been defined that the
Magisterium can infallibly teach on those cases:
With regard to the particular application of the norms of the natural moral law
that do not have a necessary connection with revelation—for example,
numerous positive moral norms that are valid ut in pluribus [“in most cases”]
—it has not been defined nor is it binding that the Magisterium can teach
infallibly in such matters.86
 There thus remain questions regarding the extent to which the Magisterium can
define some matters known by natural law.
447.Humanae Vitae 14 doesn’t use the language needed to create a new infallible
definition. Paul VI merely says “we declare” not “we declare and define” (see
§§489–495). However, some argue that the teaching is infallible based on the
ordinary and universal magisterium.
Ratzinger and Bertone do not mention contraception in their Doctrinal
Commentary, and the CDF hasn’t yet addressed its infallibility. In 1986, the
CDF sent a letter to Fr. Charles E. Curran, who dissents from Humanae Vitae,
but although the letter both noted that he rejects the teaching on contraception
and discussed the subject of infallible teachings, it refrained from addressing
whether the teaching on contraception is infallible (Letter to Fr. Charles Curran,
July 25, 1986).
At the press conference for the encyclical’s release in 1968, the man chosen to
introduce the document—Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini—stated:
The decision has been given . . . and it is not infallible. But it does not leave
the question of the regulation of birth in a state of vague uncertainty. Only
definitions strictly so-called command the assent of theological faith. But a
pronouncement of the authentic Magisterium requires a full and loyal assent
—internal and not merely external—in proportion to the importance of the
authority that issues it (in this case the supreme pontiff), and the matter with
which it deals (in the present case a matter of the greatest importance, treating
as it does of the vexed question of the regulation of birth).87
He thus held that it was a non-infallible teaching, since it does not demand
“theological faith,” but that it was nevertheless highly authoritative and demands
“a full and loyal assent—internal and not merely external.”
Others have held that it is infallible. In 1997, the Pontifical Council for the
Family stated:
The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of
every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held
as definitive and irreformable (Vademecum for Confessors, 2:4).
This document did not carry the approval needed to make it part of the papal
magisterium (§§50, 361). The Holy See thus has yet to address the question of
the teaching’s infallibility in a magisterial document.
 On the Way to Becoming Dogma?
448. Truths initially recognized as belonging at least to the secondary object of
infallibility may—by doctrinal development—eventually be discerned to belong
to its primary object and be elevated to the status of dogmas. Ratzinger and
Bertone comment:
It cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the
understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can
progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of
these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith (Doctrinal
Commentary, 7).
449. As an example, Ratzinger and Bertone offer papal infallibility:
With reference to those connected with revelation by a logical necessity, one
can consider, for example, the development in the understanding of the
doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility, prior to the
dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council. The primacy of the
successor of Peter was always believed as a revealed fact, although until
Vatican I the discussion remained open as to whether the conceptual
elaboration of what is understood by the terms “jurisdiction” and
“infallibility” was to be considered an intrinsic part of revelation or only a
logical consequence. On the other hand, although its character as a divinely
revealed truth was defined in the First Vatican Council, the doctrine on the
infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff was already
recognized as definitive in the period before the council. History clearly
shows, therefore, that what was accepted into the consciousness of the Church
was considered a true doctrine from the beginning, and was subsequently held
to be definitive; however, only in the final stage—the definition of Vatican I
—was it also accepted as a divinely revealed truth (ibid., 11).
450.They argue the same thing may presently be occurring with respect to the
reservation of the priesthood to men:
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the
doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The supreme pontiff
[i.e., John Paul II], while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition,
intended to reaffirm [in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis] that this doctrine is to be held
definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved
 and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by
the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this
does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the
Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a
doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (ibid.).
Several things are worth noting here, because there has been confusion on this
matter. When John Paul II released Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994, some
thought it was a new ex cathedra statement, and thus that we had a new infallible
truth and a dogma. However, what he said was:
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly
ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all
the Church’s faithful (n. 4).
This lacks the language needed for a new ex cathedra statement (see §§489–
495). John Paul II says only “I declare,” not “I declare and define.” It thus is not
a definition but a solemn confirmation of a truth already infallibly taught by the
ordinary and universal Magisterium. Also, it isn’t being presented as a dogma.
John Paul II does not say that this is a matter of divine revelation but that it is a
truth “to be definitively held.” That places it in the category of infallible truths
but not in the category of dogma (see §§496–499).
This understanding was confirmed by Ratzinger and Bertone’s statement that
John Paul II was “not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition,” though they
noted that future doctrinal development might lead to it being defined as a
dogma. The same understanding was confirmed, in a magisterial act, when the
CDF issued a 1995 Dubium stating:
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word
of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the
Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and
universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church Lumen Gentium 25:2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the
Roman pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf.
Luke 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration,
explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as
belonging to the deposit of the Faith (Responsum Concerning the Teaching
Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, October 28, 1995).
 This English version contains a potentially misleading translation when it says
the reservation of priestly ordination to men is something “belonging to the
deposit of faith.” That could suggest it has been divinely revealed, but the
Ratzinger-Bertone commentary indicates that the Church has not yet established
this (see quotation above). The phrase “belonging to the deposit of
faith”/“pertaining to the deposit of faith” (ad fidei depositum pertinens) thus may
only indicate a truth required to guard and expound the deposit of faith (the
secondary object of infallibility) rather than a revealed truth (the primary object
of infallibility).
This phrase also occurs in other magisterial documents, and it illustrates why
it’s necessary to read Church documents carefully, and be aware of technical
meanings.
The Exercise of Infallible Teaching
451.Ratzinger and Bertone explain that—whether a teaching being defined is a
dogma or merely an infallible truth—it will be proclaimed by one of two kinds
of acts—either a “defining” act or a “non-defining” one:
In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an “ex cathedra”
pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical
council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the
ordinary and universal magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the
world who are in communion with the successor of Peter (Doctrinal
Commentary, 9).
452.When the pope or an ecumenical council issues an infallible definition, it is
an extraordinary act of teaching, and so the term “extraordinary magisterium” is
used (§13). In both cases, there is a moment when the Magisterium articulates a
truth in an infallible way, thus bringing legitimate discussion of the question to
an end. It is thus referred to as a definition (§413), and Ratzinger and Bertone
refer to this intervention as “a defining act.”
453. Other acts of teaching are not extraordinary, so they are referred to as
“ordinary magisterium” (§13). However, when the bishops of the whole world
(i.e., universally) agree that a truth must be held, they also are capable of
teaching it infallibly. In this case there is no single, concrete statement in which
the teaching is defined, so Ratzinger and Bertone refer to it being infallibly
taught by a “non-defining act” through the emergence of a consensus of the
bishops, together with the pope.
454.In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II confirmed
teachings that had been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal
magisterium. Ratzinger and Bertone comment:
Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman pontiff, even
without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs
to the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium as a truth that is
divinely revealed (first paragraph [added to the profession of faith]) or as a
truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has
not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this
doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei [deposit of
faith], is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium, which necessarily
includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth
infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman
pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation
of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church (ibid.).
76 Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, s.v. “Mos.”
77 Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v. “Mōs.”
78 Francis J. Sullivan, S.J., Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Eugene, Oregon:
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 128.
79 Acta Synodalia III/8 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1970), 89; apud Dulles, Magisterium, 73–
74.
80 Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, §211.
81 Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, introduction, §6.
82 Dulles, Magisterium, 78.
83 Dulles, Magisterium, 77.
84 Avery Dulles notes: “The [Latin] term mores—here translated ‘morals’—takes on different nuances in
different documents. It often means something like ‘patterns of behavior commended by the gospel’”
(Magisterium, 63). This includes more than just moral truths. However, because it does include moral
truths, the Magisterium would still be able to infallibly define these.
85 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ed., Proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ; Papers from the
Vallombrosa Meeting (Washington: USCCB, 2000), 66.
86 CDF, Proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ, 66.
87 “Press Conference on Encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae,’” L’Osservatore Romano, weekly edition in English,
August 8, 1968, 7.
 PART III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 16

Identifying Infallible Teachings

455. Sometimes people ask, “Is this document infallible?” The question is
problematic because the Magisterium doesn’t issue documents whose teaching is
infallible from beginning to end. Instead, it issues documents that contain
individual propositions that are infallible. In Ineffabilis Deus (1854) and
Munificentissimus Deus (1950)—the documents that defined the Immaculate
Conception and Assumption of Mary—only a single sentence in each document
was infallible (i.e., the definitions themselves). The rest of the documents
provided context for the definitions.
456.A better question would be, “Is this teaching infallible?”88 The initial
presumption is that it’s not: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly
unless this is manifestly evident” (CIC 749 §3). Note the forcefulness of the
language: it mustn’t just be evident that a doctrine is infallible; it must be
manifestly (clearly) evident. This places a weighty burden of proof on one
wishing to claim that a teaching is infallible.
Neglect of this principle is a frequent source of problems. Many people
casually assume a prior teaching is infallible and then encounter difficulties
squaring it with a more recent one. But the Church has always been careful
about what it defines, and the rule has always been that a teaching is not to be
regarded as infallible unless the contrary is clear.
So what factors overcome the presumption of non-infallibility? This depends
on how the Magisterium teaches it.
The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
457.The first appearance of the term “ordinary magisterium” in a Church
document was in Pope Pius IX’s letter Tuas Lebenter (1863), to the archbishop
of Munich:
[Divine faith] would not have to be limited to those matters that have been
defined by explicit decrees of ecumenical councils or by the Roman pontiffs
and by the Apostolic See, but would also have to be extended to those matters
 transmitted as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole
Church dispersed throughout the world and, for that reason, held by the
universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians as belonging to the
Faith (DH 2879).
By the time of Vatican I (1870), the qualifier “universal” had been added to
this phrase to make it clear that the whole episcopate had to be in agreement.
The ordinary magisterium exercised by an individual bishop or pope wouldn’t be
enough. Vatican I stated:
All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith that are
contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the
Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal
magisterium are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed (De
Filius 3; DH 3011).
458.Vatican II then provided what is currently the most doctrinally developed
and authoritative explanation of the conditions in which the ordinary and
universal magisterium teaches infallibly:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility,
they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though
dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion
among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching
matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as
definitively to be held (Lumen Gentium, 25; cf. CIC 749 §2).
Vatican II thus indicates the following criteria must be met for the ordinary and
universal magisterium to define a teaching:
1. The bishops of the world maintain communion among themselves.
2. They maintain communion with the successor of Peter.
3. They teach authentically (i.e., authoritatively).
4. They teach on a matter of faith and morals.
5. They are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.
The first two conditions require that the bishops not be in a state of schism,
which is “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with
the members of the Church subject to him” (CIC 751).
The third condition requires that they must teach on a matter authoritatively. It
wouldn’t be enough for them to privately believe an opinion among themselves.
It must be communicated to the faithful as an authoritative teaching.
The fourth condition requires the matter to concern “faith and morals.” That is,
it must either be a revealed truth or one required to properly guard and explain
revealed truth (§§428–450). Bear in mind that “morals” (Latin, mores) includes
aspects of Christian life that go beyond the principles of moral theology (§429).
The final condition requires three specific things:
a) It requires the bishops be in agreement. This is generally understood as a
moral unanimity among them. It wouldn’t be enough if only a portion or even
a mere majority were in agreement, but it needn’t be every single bishop in
the world.
b) The bishops must agree on one position. It isn’t enough if they consider a
range of positions legitimate. They must agree on a single, specific truth.
c) They must agree this truth is “definitively to be held” by the faithful, thereby
bringing all legitimate discussion to an end. If the bishops merely agreed that
it should be held then the teaching would be authoritative but non-infallible. It
is only when they agree a teaching is absolutely mandatory that infallibility is
engaged. (Note: The possibility of the bishops defining non-revealed truths is
why the phrase “definitively to be held” is used rather than “definitively to be
believed”; see §346).
459. Sometimes people state that teachings defined by the ordinary magisterium
must have always been held. This is not the case. Vatican II taught that the
bishops teach infallibly when/whenever (Latin, quando) the above conditions are
met. If, at a given moment in history, the bishops arrive at the needed consensus,
then from that moment forward the teaching is infallible. It is possible a
consensus previously didn’t exist or that the idea hadn’t even occurred to prior
generations of bishops (as with truths implicit in the deposit of faith or many
truths belonging to the secondary object of infallibility).
460. Similarly, it isn’t sufficient for a teaching always to have existed. An idea
may have been present in the consciousness of the Church from the beginning,
but it may have been viewed as one of a number of legitimate opinions or as a
teaching of a lesser order. It is only when the bishops arrive at a morally
unanimous consensus that it is “definitively to be held” that the teaching
becomes infallible.
It thus isn’t sufficient to produce a catalogue of quotations from churchmen
spanning many centuries to show that a teaching is infallible by the ordinary and
universal magisterium. For that, the quotations must indicate that the teaching is
definitively to be held. If, in their own day, the churchmen only taught in a way
that required “religious assent of will and intellect” then the matter would be a
longstanding teaching but not an infallible one. As in every other exercise of
magisterium, definitiveness—not length of time—is the key to infallibility.
Thus the non-definitive understanding that prevailed for many centuries that
certain passages of Scripture entail a geocentric understanding of the cosmos did
not make this teaching infallible (see §396).
461. Recently Pope John Paul II confirmed four truths as having been infallibly
taught in this way: the reservation of priestly ordination to men (Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, 4) and the moral impermissibility of the direct and voluntary
killing of an innocent human being, of direct abortion, and of euthanasia
(Evangelium Vitae, 57, 62, 65). Joseph Ratzinger and Tarcisio Bertone also
state:
Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the
universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are the teaching on the
illicitness of prostitution and of fornication (Doctrinal Commentary, 11).
462.The difficulty of ascertaining whether the needed consensus exists among
the bishops, without taking a vote, is one of the key difficulties in establishing
whether the ordinary and universal magisterium has taught a truth infallibly. It is
also one of the key reasons ecumenical councils are held.
Ecumenical Councils
463.Lumen Gentium states that the conditions for infallibility are “even more
clearly verified” when the bishops meet in an ecumenical council (n. 25).
According to the Code of Canon Law:
The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the
bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the Magisterium
as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal
Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively (CIC 749
§2).
This formulation indicates the following criteria must be jointly met for an
ecumenical council to define a teaching:
1. The college of bishops is gathered together in an ecumenical council.
 2. They exercise their magisterium.
3. They exercise it concerning a matter of faith and morals.
4. They issue a declaration for the universal Church.
5. The declaration indicates that the matter is to be held definitively.
464.The first condition requires that an ecumenical council meet. The conditions
governing ecumenical councils are specified in the Code of Canon Law (cann.
337–341). Today, only the pope can convoke an ecumenical council (can. 338
§1), though this wasn’t the case in all of Church history. The first seven
ecumenical councils were called by emperors.
465.The second condition requires the bishops exercise their teaching authority.
This is significant because not everything found in the documents of an
ecumenical council involves the exercise of magisterium. They can contain non-
doctrinal statements, such as expressions of pastoral concern (§351).
The Code of Canon Law provides a special requirement for an ecumenical
council to exercise its teaching authority:
The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless
they have been approved by the Roman pontiff together with the council
fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order (can. 341 §1).
This is because the college of bishops can’t teach apart from its head, the pope.
His approval gives the decrees of a council ecumenical status. The pope was
barely involved in some early councils, and not involved at all in the case of
Constantinople I (381), yet they are reckoned as ecumenical councils because
later popes approved them. “A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed
or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter” (Lumen Gentium, 22).
Popes don’t have to accept the decrees of councils, and they haven’t always done
so. Pope Martin V didn’t approve all the decrees of Constance, though it elected
him.
The third condition requires that the subject matter be “faith and morals,”
466.
which we have already discussed (§§428–447).
467.The fourth condition requires the bishops issue a declaration for the whole
Church. This doesn’t mean the document in which a definition is found must be
addressed to the whole Church, but it does mean it must somehow indicate the
teaching is obligatory for the whole Church.
468.The final condition requires the bishops to declare the teaching “is to be held
definitively.” Again, the use of “held” rather than “believe” allows a non-
revealed truth to be defined (§458), and the qualifier “definitively” is key: if the
bishops don’t teach that the truth must be held in a way that excludes all
possibility of future debate, it’s not infallible. The language must indicate
absolute adherence to the proposition.
469.Some councils have defined many propositions and some have defined none.
Trent (1545–1563) defined dozens of ideas as erroneous. Vatican I (1870) is
famous for having defined the infallibility of the pope, though it also defined
several other matters. Vatican II (1962–1965) didn’t issue any new infallible
teachings. Neither did several previous councils, such as Lateran I–III (1123,
1139, 1179).
Popes
470. Because of the difficulties in verifying the infallible teaching of the ordinary
magisterium and holding an ecumenical council in a timely manner, it’s possible
for the pope—the head of the college of bishops and thus of the Magisterium—
to teach infallibly. Vatican I proclaimed:
We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman
pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office
of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the
universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed
Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed
that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or
morals (Pastor Aeternus, 4).
The same truth was articulated by the Second Vatican Council as follows:
[The infallibility Christ willed his Church to have] is the infallibility which
the Roman pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his
office, 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 (Lumen Gentium 25; cf. CIC 749 §1).
471. The first of these formulations—which is itself an infallible definition—
states, at its core, that “the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra . . . is . . .
possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his
Church should be endowed.”
Embedded within this is an explanation of what counts as an ex cathedra
statement: one made “when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all
Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.” The criteria for an
ex cathedra statement are thus:
1. The pope is exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians.
2. He exercises his supreme apostolic authority.
3. He defines a doctrine.
4. The doctrine concerns faith or morals.
5. The doctrine is to be held by the universal Church.
472. The first condition requires the pope be acting in his official capacity, not
simply as a private individual, as popes sometimes do (§§188–191).
The second condition requires not just that he be acting in his official capacity
but that he be exercising the fullness of his authority. Any lesser degree will not
result in an infallible definition.
The third condition requires that the pope define a doctrine, thus forever
closing off legitimate debate about it.
The fourth condition requires the doctrine concern “faith or morals,” which we
have previously discussed (§§428–447).
The fifth condition requires that the doctrine is to be held by all of the faithful.
The formulation offered by Vatican II is simpler but conveys the same essential
content. It expressly mentions conditions 1, 3, and 4, though it expresses the
third condition by saying that the pope must proclaim the teaching “by a
definitive act” (instead of “he defines”). Conditions 2 and 5 are omitted since
they are implied by the nature of a definitive act of teaching. Such acts
necessarily involve the fullness of the pope’s authority and result in teachings to
be held by all the faithful.
473.The number of papal definitions is debated among scholars, even if we set
aside the question of saint canonizations (§440) and look strictly at definitions of
a doctrinal nature. Though it doesn’t claim to give an exhaustive list, the 1908
French Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique lists about a dozen examples of
documents that “are usually or fairly regarded as containing an infallible
definition.”89 Other sources from the same period give similar lists.90
As the twentieth century progressed, scholars further studied these texts, and
many concluded that some of them didn’t meet the criteria for infallibility. Some
took a minimalist position and concluded there are only two such documents:
Ineffabilis Deus (1854) and Munificentissimus Deus (1950), which defined the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. However, most scholars haven’t
taken such an extreme position. According to Cardinal Dulles:
Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity
about which papal statements prior to Vatican I [1870] are irreformable. Most
authors would agree on about half a dozen statements. Among the clearest
examples are the statement of Pope Benedict XII on the nature of the beatific
vision (1336; [DH 1000–1002]) and the condemnation of five Jansenist
propositions by Innocent X (1653; [DH 2001–2007]).91
Bear in mind this represents the number of documents containing infallible
definitions, not the number of definitions. Some of these documents contain
more than one definition, so the number of doctrines infallibly proclaimed by
popes would be somewhat higher. For a case study of proposed papal
definitions, see §§500–518.
Terms Indicating Infallibility
474.How can we recognize when a council is teaching a doctrine “is to be held
definitively” or when a pope teaches one “by a definitive act”? The answer is by
looking at the language used.
This is a complex issue, because the language has developed over time and
there isn’t a single, set form of words. At Vatican I, some bishops suggested the
council should develop a specific formula popes must use when issuing an
infallible definition, but this proposal was rejected. One reason was that there
had been no set formula in the past; another was that councils can’t bind
popes.92
475. When recent magisterial documents discuss infallibility, they frequently use
words like define, definitive, definitively, and definition rather than just
“infallible.” This is because there has been a development both of doctrine and
of language concerning infallibility.
Before a certain stage, the Church’s infallible teaching authority hadn’t been
explicitly formulated. Like original sin and the two wills of Christ, it’s a truth
that was originally implicit in the deposit of faith. Consequently, early popes and
councils didn’t think in terms of teaching under the charism of infallibility.
Instead, they issued proclamations intending to make it absolutely clear that a
given teaching must or must not be held by Christians—that it was not the
subject of legitimate discussion. They thus sought to bring any controversy
concerning it completely (Latin, de-) to an end (finis). By thus defining things,
they used the fullness of their teaching authority, and later theological reflection
made it clear that such definitions are infallible.
If you asked early popes or council fathers, “Have you used your teaching
authority infallibly?” they would be puzzled by the expression, just as if you
asked St. Paul, “Do you believe in original sin?” The relevant terms hadn’t been
coined. However, if—following a definition—you asked them, “Is there any
possibility what you just taught is wrong?” they would answer there is absolutely
none, the teaching is certain, and all Christians must adhere to it.
This historical development is why we don’t find popes and councils saying,
“We hereby infallibly teach . . .” Instead, a variety of expressions have been
used.
Heresy
476. The term heresy (Greek, hairesis) originally meant “opinion” or “choice”
(§270). However, the Church was quickly beset by people advocating false
opinions, and heresy came to be applied to views contrary to the Christian faith.
This led popes and councils to denounce various positions as heretical.
Because heresy is incompatible with the Christian faith, the term sometimes
appears in infallible definitions and can serve as a signal that a definition is
being made. Thus scholars commonly regard Pope Innocent X’s 1653
constitution Cum Occasione (DH 2001–2007) as an infallible declaration, partly
because it censures five propositions of Cornelius Jansen as “heretical.”
As we have noted, heresy is rejection of a dogma (§264), and since the
eighteenth-century dogmas have been understood as truths the Church has
infallibly taught to be divinely revealed (§271). Heresies thus are opposed to
infallible teachings, and the censure of heresy can infallibly indicate a
proposition is false.
477.However, it doesn’t do so in all cases. We need to sound three notes of
caution. First, infallible teaching occurs in solemn, official acts (§§463, 471).
Consequently, if a pope was giving an interview and said, “Oh! That’s
heretical!” or if he wrote a book as a private scholar and described a position as
heretical, these wouldn’t be definitions since he wouldn’t be acting in his official
capacity and exercising the fullness of his teaching authority.
478. Second, since no teaching is infallible unless this is “manifestly evident”
(§456), definitions must deal with specific, identifiable propositions. But
sometimes early councils say things like, “We condemn the views of so-and-so
and his followers as heretical.” This tells us that something the individual taught
is being condemned, but not what. It thus isn’t “manifestly evident” which
propositions are to be rejected.
Similarly, the censure of heresy can be mixed in with other censures without it
being clear to which propositions it applies. Thus most scholars don’t regard
Pope Leo X’s 1520 bull Exurge Domine (DH 1451–1492) as infallible because,
although it condemns many ideas of Martin Luther, it applies different censures
to them (including “offensive to pious ears,” which just means phrased in an
offensive way but not necessarily false) and it doesn’t indicate which ones are
heretical (§354).
479.Third, and most problematic, the term heresy hasn’t always had its modern
sense. Francis Sullivan explains:
The problem is that at Trent, and other councils before Trent, the term
“heresy” had a broader meaning than it has in modern canon law. It included
not only the denial of a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic
faith, but also ways of believing and acting which would endanger either
one’s own faith or that of the community. The fathers of Trent saw such
danger to the faith of the Catholic people in many things which the reformers
were saying and doing, over and above their denial of what Catholics held to
be divinely revealed truth.93
This means earlier condemnations of propositions as heretical may not indicate
they are contrary to divine revelation but are dangerous in some other way. A
determination thus has to be made whether the issue involves divine revelation.
Anathema
480. The Greek term anathema originally had several meanings. In the New
Testament, it could mean an offering devoted to God (Luke 21:5), something
cursed (1 Cor. 12:3), and a curse itself (Acts 23:14).
481. In 1 Corinthians 16:22, St. Paul writes, “If anyone has no love for the Lord,
let him be accursed [Greek, anathema],” and this formula began to be used in the
early Church to condemn propositions. Thus, after teaching the divinity of Christ
in the original version of the Nicene Creed, the fathers of I Nicaea state:
 However, those who say: “There was a time when he [the Son] was not” and
“Before he was born, he was not” and “He was made from nothing” or who
say that God [the Son of God] may be of another substance or essence or may
be subject to change and alteration, [such persons] the Catholic Church
anathematizes (DH 126).
Other councils and popes copied St. Paul’s formula “let him be anathema”
exactly. Trent used it numerous times in its canons, such as this one:
If anyone says that, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, man can be
justified before God by his own works, whether they be done by his own
natural powers or through the teaching of the law, let him be anathema
(Decree on Justification, can. 1).
In Latin, the phrase “let him be anathema” (anathema sit) is so commonly used
that some English versions leave it untranslated or simply abbreviate “a.s.”
482. As canon law developed, anathema came to be used for a specific penalty: a
major excommunication performed with a special ceremony. This is the meaning
it has in Trent. Contrary to a misunderstanding common in the Protestant
community, it isn’t a declaration a person is damned by God. Neither does it
mean that Protestants are under anathema. It doesn’t even mean Catholics who
commit the offense in question are automatically anathematized.
In canon law, “let him be anathema” established a penalty to be applied by the
authorities, just as civil law might say, for offenders of a certain type, “let him be
fined $500” or “let him be incarcerated for one to three years.” Penalties have to
be applied by a judge, and in the case of anathemas, the judge was the local
bishop. If a bishop determined a person in his diocese (e.g., a theologian) was
teaching a condemned proposition and wouldn’t desist after appropriate
warnings, he could sentence him to excommunication by anathema, which
involved performing a public ceremony. There was a parallel ceremony for
lifting the anathema when the man repented.
Bishops wouldn’t waste their time initiating judicial proceedings against people
who made no pretense of being Catholic, so anathemas weren’t applied to non-
Catholics. In recent centuries, they became very rare, though the penalty was
still on the books when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was released. It provided
that excommunication “is called anathema especially when it is inflicted with
the formalities that are described in the Roman Pontifical” (can. 2257 §2).
The penalty was abolished with the release of the 1983 Code, which didn’t
include the penalty and which abrogated “any universal or particular penal laws
whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code”
(can. 5 §1 °3). The penalty thus applies to no one today, although other forms of
excommunication still exist (cf. CIC 1331).
483. The term anathema is significant for our purposes because it was often
applied to heretics in solemn declarations, like the one above from Trent. There,
the penalty is prescribed for one who says that “without divine grace through
Jesus Christ, man can be justified before God by his own works, whether they be
done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law.” Establishing
this penalty is a sign the proposition in question is heretical.
Trent’s canons are the most solemn pronouncements it made. They distill the
key points from its doctrinal decrees and indicate particular teachings are to be
absolutely avoided by Christians. They thus can serve to infallibly define
matters. Although the canonical penalty of anathema no longer exists, the canons
retain their doctrinal force (and, even today, one who denies a dogma would be
excommunicated on grounds of heresy; cf. CIC 1364 §1).
484. The use of anathema is an important clue to the presence of an infallible
definition, but it isn’t sufficient of itself. The cautions we mentioned above apply
here: (1) unofficial or non-solemn uses of the term don’t create definitions, (2) it
must be applied to specific, identifiable propositions, and (3) we must take
different ways the term is used into account.
485. For example, anathemas weren’t always applied to doctrinal offenses. They
were also applied to moral ones. Thus the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) issued
this disciplinary canon:
Against magistrates and rulers of cities and others who strive to oppress
churches and ecclesiastical persons with taxes and other exactions, the
Lateran Council, desiring to protect ecclesiastical immunity, prohibited
actions of this kind under penalty of anathema, commanding that
transgressors and their abettors be punished with excommunication until they
make suitable satisfaction (can. 46).
It subsequently decreed:
Furthermore, under penalty of anathema, we forbid all Christians for a period
of four years to send their ships to oriental countries inhabited by the
Saracens, in order that a greater number of ships may be available to those
 who wish to go to the aid of the Holy Land, and that to the Saracens may be
denied the benefits that they usually reap from such commercial intercourse
(Holy Land Decrees).
Neither of these is an infallible definition. They simply prescribe the penalty of
anathema as punishment for actions such as oppressing churches with taxes or
sending commercial ships to certain countries “for a period of four years.”
486. In a related vein, Francis Sullivan states:
There is no doubt that a number of the canons of Trent pronounce the
sentence of excommunication against those who reject beliefs or practice
which, while traditional, are not part of the deposit of faith. In such cases, the
“anathema” does not help us to identify a defined dogma. It is up to the
theologian, then, to determine whether, in any particular case, the proposition
to which the canon refers belongs to the primary object of magisterium—in
other words, whether its denial would constitute heresy in the strict sense of
modern canon law or in the broader sense the term had at Trent.94
487. Among the canons he cites as belonging to the latter category are the
following:
If anyone denies that each and all of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound,
when they reach the age of reason, to receive Communion every year, at least
during the Paschal Season, according to the precept of Holy Mother Church,
let him be anathema (Decree on the Eucharist, can. 9; DH 1659).
If anyone says that confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is
impossible and is a human tradition that pious people must abolish; or that it
is not binding on each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex once a year
in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council and that for
this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during
Lent, let him be anathema (Canons on Penance, can. 8; DH 1708).
If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic Church
no other orders, major and minor, by which, as by various steps, one advances
toward the priesthood, let him be anathema (Decree on the Sacrament of
Orders, can. 2; DH 1772).
If anyone says that marriage contracted but not consummated is not
dissolved by the solemn religious profession of one of the spouses, let him be
anathema (Decree on the Sacrament of Marriage, can. 6; DH 1806).
 If anyone says that the prohibition of the solemnization of marriages at
certain times of the year is a tyrannical superstition derived from pagan
superstition;or condemns the blessing and other ceremonies that the Church
uses in solemn nuptials, let him be anathema (Decree on the Sacrament of
Marriage, can. 11; DH 1811).
Sullivan is correct that these canons deal with matters that aren’t divinely
revealed:
• The requirement to receive Communion once a year is a matter of canon law
rather than divine law, as indicated in the text itself (“according to the precept
of Holy Mother Church”).
• Neither is the requirement to confess once a year a matter of divine law, as
the text acknowledges (“in accordance with the constitution of the great
Lateran Council”).
• The minor orders weren’t matters of divine law, and—since Pope Paul VI’s
1972 motu proprio Ministeria Quaedam (which also renamed them
“ministries”)—they are no longer used to advance toward the priesthood.
• Unconsummated marriages are no longer dissolved by the religious
profession of one of the parties (cf. CIC 1141–1150).
• The times at which marriages can be celebrated is a matter of canon law, and
this has changed over time (presently they are not celebrated only on Good
Friday and Holy Saturday; Paschales Solemnitatis 61, 75).

488. Since these matters are not divinely revealed, they don’t fall within the
primary object of infallibility and can’t be the subject of dogmas. However, do
they fall within the secondary object? A case can be made that they do—i.e., that
they dealt with points needed to properly guard and expound revealed truths.
Although it isn’t a matter of divine law that the faithful receive Communion
once a year, the Church established this rule to guard a revealed truth: “Unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”
(John 6:53). Further, it was true that in the 1500s (as today) the faithful were
required to receive Communion once a year. Therefore, one could understand
this and similar canons as dealing with dogmatic facts that existed at the time of
Trent and thus were capable of being infallibly defined.
That doesn’t mean the dogmatic facts apply to all ages. Today unconsummated
marriages aren’t dissolved by religious profession, but as long as the law held
they were, this was a dogmatic fact, and the Church could define it was true in
that age.
One could thus argue that if the council intended to teach these matters
definitively that they would count as infallible definitions. The fact many of the
other canons are definitions, and that they are phrased the same way (“If anyone
says . . . let him be anathema”), at least suggests the council intended to define
them. This conclusion is arguable and would need to be made on a canon-by-
canon basis, but it should be considered.
Define/Definitive/Definitively/Definition
489. Finally, we come to the group of terms based on the word define. It should
be no surprise these can be clues for infallible definitions:
• In particular, if a pope or council says “I/we define,” this is a major indicator
a definition is being given.
• If the words “definitive,” “definitively,” or “definition” are used then they can
indicate the authors regard an infallible teaching as already given. Thus
Vatican I refers to a definition given by the Council of Florence (Pastor
Aeternus, 3; DH 3059), and John Paul II indicates that the reservation of
priestly ordination to men is a truth “to be definitively held” due to the
ordinary and universal magisterium (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4; DH 4983).
490.The standard cautions apply: (1) unofficial or non-solemn uses of these
terms don’t create definitions, (2) they must be applied to specific, identifiable
propositions, and (3) we must take different ways the terms are used into
account.
491. The last is particularly important because these terms have multiple
meanings, and frequently don’t indicate an infallible definition: they didn’t
acquire their modern, technical meanings for some time. Therefore, particularly
in early magisterial statements, they may not indicate an infallible definition by a
pope or council.95 Even today they are used other ways:
• Sometimes magisterial documents employ “define” and “definition” as
they’re used in ordinary speech (i.e., as explanations of the meanings of
words or concepts). Thus John Paul II writes:
For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia, in the first place a clear
definition is required. Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an
action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the
purpose of eliminating all suffering (Evangelium Vitae, 65).
 • In this statement, the “definition” simply explains the meaning of the term
euthanasia, as a dictionary would. Here, John Paul II doesn’t say anything
about how Catholics are to regard it or whether it is compatible with Christian
moral principles (he does that later).
• In 2006 the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued a
statement on why Pope Benedict XVI chose to drop the papal title “Patriarch
of the West” and said the term West cannot “be understood as the definition
of a territory belonging to a patriarchate” (DH 5106). Here the term means
something like “specification” or “description.”
• Church documents sometimes refer to people “defining” something even
though the person is not a pope and thus can’t make an infallible definition, as
when Benedict XVI referred to how St. Augustine “defines the essence of the
Christian religion” (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, April 19,
2005). In such cases, the term could have been translated “describes” or
“explains.”
• Sometimes the Latin term definitio so clearly means something else that it’s
rendered with a different English word, as when the translation of Benedict
XVI’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est (2005) discusses ways of understanding
the concept of love and says, “There are other, similar classifications
[definitiones], such as the distinction between possessive love and oblative
love” (n. 7; DH 5101).
Ultimately, the definition-related terms in magisterial documents can have the
full range of meaning they do in ordinary language. Thus the Latin verb definio
means “solve, define, determine, limit,” and the noun definitio means
“definition, determination, measure.”96 This puts us on notice that the use of
these terms doesn’t automatically mean that an infallible definition is being
given.
492. How can we tell when the terms do signal an infallible definition? We need
to look at the context and see if the other conditions are met. For example, here
are the two papal definitions that everyone agrees are infallible:
Definition of the Immaculate Conception
To the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, to the glory and distinction of
the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the
increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of
the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and our own, we declare, pronounce, and
define: that the doctrine that maintains that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at
the first instant of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of
almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the
human race, was preserved immune from all stain of original sin,is revealed
by God and, therefore, firmly and constantly to be believed by all the faithful.
Therefore, if any people (which God forbid!) will presume in their hearts to
think otherwise than whathas been defined by us, let them henceforth know
and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, and they
have made shipwreck of their faith and defected from the unity of the Church;
moreover, if they should dare to express in words or in writings, or by any
other outward means, these errors that they think in their hearts, they subject
themselves ipso facto to the penalties established by law (Ineffabilis Deus;
DH 2803-2804).
Definition of the Assumption of Mary
To the glory of almighty God, who has lavished his special affection upon the
Virgin Mary,for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Agesand the
Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august
Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church;by the authority of
our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own
authority, we pronounce, declare, and defineit to be a divinely revealed
dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having
completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into
heavenly glory.
Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call
into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away
completelyfrom the divine and catholic faith (Munificentissimus Deus, 44-45;
DH 3903-3904).
Notice the elements these have in common:
a) The respective popes (Pius IX and Pius XII) both begin by using exalted
language to build up the significance of the definition.
b) They invoke the authority of Jesus Christ.
c) They invoke the authority of Peter and Paul, the founding apostles of Rome.
d) They invoke their own authority.
e) They pile up verbs: “declare,” “pronounce,” and most crucially “define.”
f) They indicate that the matter is to be believed by all the faithful, either by
 saying so directly (in the case of Ineffibilis Deus) or at least by saying that
anyone who rejects the teaching has “made a shipwreck of”/“fallen away
completely from” the Faith.
g) After making the definition, they refer to “what has been defined by
us”/“that which we have defined.”
All of this makes it “manifestly evident” that the popes are (1) exercising their
offices as pastor and teacher of all Christians (b, c, d, f), (2) exercising the full
extent of their authority (a, b, c, d, e), (3) defining a doctrine (e, g), (4)
concerning faith or morals (f), (5) to be held by the universal Church (f).
493.Now that these precedents have been established, future papal definitions
may follow their model as a way of making it clear what the pope is doing. At a
minimum, since Vatican I and II spoke of the pope defining or teaching “by a
definitive act,” we would expect future definitions to use the word “define” or
another member of this family (e.g., “I teach by a definitive act,” “I teach
definitively,” “I proclaim the following definition”).
494.These two definitions shed light on other statements by recent popes. We
know the kind of language Pius IX and Bl. Pius XII used when they wanted to
make infallible definitions. Therefore, language of a lesser order should be
presumed non-infallible. The same is true of other recent popes. Thus when John
Paul II refrained from using the verb “define” in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and
Evangelium Vitae, the relevant statements shouldn’t be understood as new
definitions (as the CDF confirmed).
495.Of course, we can’t expect the popes and councils of earlier times to follow
the same model. However, one way or another, it must be “manifestly evident”
that the conditions for infallibility spelled out by Vatican I and II are met.
Identifying Dogmas
496.Once an infallible statement has been identified, the question remains of
whether it represents a dogma (§٢٧١). Cardinal Dulles explains:
In current Catholic usage, the term “dogma” means a divinely revealed
truth, proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church.97
For an infallible definition to create a dogma, the definition must indicate that
the matter is divinely revealed. It is not sufficient that the matter itself is divinely
revealed. The infallibility of the pope was always part of divine revelation,
though it took time for it to be made explicit. As Ratzinger and Bertone
indicated (Doctrinal Commentary, 11), it only became a dogma when Vatican I
defined it as a matter of revelation (§§448-449). If the matter at hand appears to
be divinely revealed, but the definition doesn’t say it is, you might conjecture it
could one day become a dogma, but that hasn’t happened yet and it’s only an
infallible teaching.
497.What language indicates the presence of a dogma? Sometimes the definition
will be explicit. Munificentissimus Deus says the Assumption is “a divinely
revealed dogma.” Without using the word dogma, the definition in Ineffabilis
Deus says the Immaculate Conception “is revealed by God.”
498.Two additional terms—heresy and faith—may also indicate the presence of a
dogma. Today, heresy refers to the rejection of a dogma (§264), and faith
indicates that matters of divine revelation are under discussion (§§344-346).
However, care must be taken when evaluating these terms in centuries when
they had broader meanings. Francis Sullivan remarks:
What is true of the broader meaning of “heresy” in earlier councils is also true
of the correlative term “faith.” This denoted an attitude of fidelity to the
Christian tradition, which meant not only the acceptance of revealed truth, but
also the acceptance of truths connected with revelation, and the rejection of
whatever could endanger one’s faith. Earlier councils sometimes defined as
doctrines of faith, truths that were merely connected with revelation, and
condemned as heretics those who denied them. An example of this is the
definition by the Council of Vienne (1311-1312) that the soul is the “form” of
the body. . . .
At that time, it was sufficient that the doctrine “pertained” to the faith, in the
sense that the council saw a danger to the faith in its denial.98
The idea of the soul as the “form” of the body borrows a concept from
philosophy, and neither Scripture nor the early Fathers speak of the soul this
way. It’s thus plausible that this represents a dogmatic fact that is “connected
with revelation by a logical necessity” (Doctrinal Commentary, 11) rather than a
truth drawn from revelation. If so, it would be part of the secondary object of
infallibility, and Vienne’s definition that the soul is the form of the body would
be an infallible truth but not a dogma.
499. Authors also commonly recognize as a dogmatic fact the fittingness of the
term transubstantiation to describe the miraculous transformation that takes
place in the Eucharist. Writing in 1896, Sylvester Hunter, S.J., stated:
In the same way [as other dogmatic facts had been defined], the Council of
Trent (Sess. 13, can. 2; [DH 1652]) defined that the word transubstantiation
was most fit to apply to the change of the elements in the Eucharist.99
The canon in question is interesting, because it appears to shift between the
primary and secondary objects of infallibility:
If anyone says that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance
of bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ and denies that wonderful and unique change of the whole
substance of the bread into his body and of the whole substance of the wine
into his blood while only the species of bread and wine remain, a change
which the Catholic Church very fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him be
anathema (Decree on the Eucharist, can. 2; DH 1652).
Sullivan points out:
Here what is defined as a dogma of faith is the “wonderful and unique change
of the whole substance of bread,” etc. On the other hand, that the Church
“very fittingly” calls this change of substance by the name
“transubstantiation” is hardly something that God has revealed.100
The term transubstantiation was not coined until the 1000s (§82), and thus the
truth that it fittingly describes the conversion of the bread and wine into the
body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus is seen as a dogmatic fact. However, the
reality of the change is contained in Scripture and Tradition and is therefore
divinely revealed and part of the primary object of infallibility. The canon thus
defines both a dogma (the reality of the change) and a dogmatic fact needed to
properly guard and expound that dogma (the fittingness of the term
transubstantiation).
Case Study: Proposed Papal Definitions
500.The infallible definitions made by councils are too numerous to cover, but
we will take a brief look at proposed papal definitions. The most extensive
contemporary discussion of them I’m aware of is by Francis Sullivan.101
Our starting point will be the passages the 1908 Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique (§٤٧٣) lists as examples that “are usually or fairly regarded as
containing an infallible definition.” These are not presented as an exhaustive list,
but they certainly include the most commonly proposed ones.
Leo I, Lectis Dilectionis Tuae (449; DH 290-295)
501. This letter—also known as the Tome of Leo (or First Tome of Leo)—deals
with the fact that Christ is one Person who has two distinct natures. Its teaching
on this point is infallible, though Leo doesn’t use language suggesting a
definition, and modern scholars often hold that its teaching is infallible because
it was subsequently defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (DH 301).
Agatho, Consideranti Mihi (680; DH 542-545)
502. This letter deals with the two wills of Christ. Its teaching on this point is
infallible, though, as with the Tome of Leo, scholars often hold this is because it
was subsequently defined by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 (DH
553-559) rather than because of the language it uses.
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302; DH 875)
503. This bull dealt with the relationship of Church and state. It contains the
statement “Furthermore we declare, state, and define that it is absolutely
necessary for the salvation of all human creatures that they submit to the Roman
pontiff” (DH 875). This is often regarded as an infallible definition, though that
has been challenged because of the ambiguity of what it means to “submit” to
the Roman pontiff. Given the Church-state issues being discussed, must they
submit politically? Politically and spiritually? Only spiritually? In a separate and
non-infallible statement Boniface indicated he meant they need to submit to the
pope’s spiritual power “with respect to sins.” Whether or not Unam Sanctam
qualifies as a definition in the modern sense, the teaching “outside the Church
there is no salvation” is regarded as a dogma (Holy Office, Letter to the
Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949; DH 3866), even if this has been set in a
broader context than in Boniface’s day (§§568-569).
Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336; DH 1000-1002)
504. This constitution defines various aspects of the beatific vision, including the
fact that the saints don’t have to wait until the end of the world to experience it.
It also defines that those who die in mortal sin go to hell and experience its
sufferings before the Day of Judgment. Both of these were denied by Benedict’s
predecessor, John XXII. The infallibility of this document is widely accepted.
Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520; DH 1451-1492)
505.This bull condemns errors of Martin Luther, saying they are “respectively
heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple
minds and in opposition to Catholic truth” (DH 1492). Not all of these censures
indicate falsity (scandalous means having a tendency to lead into sin, offensive
to pious ears means offensively phrased, and seductive of simple minds means
misleading). Because Leo X didn’t indicate which propositions had which
censures, the faithful couldn’t know what attitude to take toward individual
propositions (e.g., is this one heretical or only offensively phrased?).
Consequently, the document is not widely regarded today as infallible (§§354,
478).
Innocent X, Cum Occasione (1653; DH 2001-2007)
506. This constitution deals with errors taught by bishop and theologian Cornelius
Jansen in a book titled Augustinus, which was published after his death in 1638.
The errors have to do with grace and free will. Each proposition is censured as
heretical. Given the solemnity of the proclamation, its infallibility is widely
acknowledged.
Innocent XI, Caelestis Pastor (1687; DH 2201-2269)
507. This constitution condemned sixty-eight errors of the Spanish mystic Miguel
de Molinos, which were of a Quietistic nature. (Quietism was a tendency to
regard perfection as achievable on earth through contemplation.) Like Exurge
Domine, this document condemned the errors with a variety of censures, not all
of which indicated falsity. Consequently, since it didn’t indicate which were
heretical, it is not widely regarded today as infallible.102
Innocent XII, Cum Alias (1699; DH 2351-2374)
508. This papal brief condemned twenty-three errors of Francois de Fenelon, the
archbishop of Cambrai. They deal with the love of God and have a Quietistic
character. As with Exsurge Domine and Caelestis Pastor, the censures attached
to them don’t all indicate falsity, they are not attached to specific propositions,
and heresy isn’t even listed as one of the censures. Consequently, this document
is not widely regarded today as infallible.103
Clement XI, Unigenitus (1713; DH 2400-2502)
509. This constitution dealt with errors of Pasquier Quesnel, which were similar
to those of Cornelius Jansen. Although 101 errors are condemned, specific
censures are not applied to specific propositions. Consequently, this document is
not widely regarded today as infallible.
 Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei (1794; DH 2600-2700)
510. This constitution condemns errors committed by the Synod of Pistoia (in
Tuscany) in 1786. Eighty-five passages from the synod are condemned, and the
document tells us which censures apply to which propositions. Those passages
that state a proposition is heretical are widely understood as infallible
definitions.
Pius IX, Ineffibilis Deus (1854; DH 2800-2804)
511. This is the constitution in which Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception
of Mary. It is universally acknowledged as containing an infallible definition of
dogma (DH 2803).
Pius IX, Quanta Cura (1864; DH 2890-2896)
512. This encyclical condemns various errors, including ones related to
naturalism, socialism, and the proper relationship of Church and state. It
concludes with Pius IX stating, “by our apostolic authority, we reject, proscribe,
and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally
mentioned in this letter and will and command that they be thoroughly held by
all children of the Catholic Church as rejected, proscribed, and condemned” (DH
2896). Although Pius IX invokes his authority and tells Catholics to reject the
“evil opinions and doctrines” he has mentioned, he doesn’t provide us with a
specific list of these, doesn’t tell us which count as evil opinions and which are
false doctrines, and doesn’t apply specific censures to them. Furthermore, he had
a decade earlier provided an example of the kind of language he used in making
infallible definitions. This is a step down from that. Also, although the
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique says that “many theologians and canonists
would gladly add the famous encyclical Quanta Cura” to the list of documents
containing a definition, this phrasing (only “many” theologians and canonists;
not a majority?) suggests significant doubts about its status even in 1908.
Consequently, this document is not widely regarded today as containing an
infallible definition.
To the documents suggested in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique,
513.
we must add a few more for consideration:
Alexander VII, Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem (1656; DH 2010-2012)
514. After Innocent X condemned the errors of Jansen (§506), the latter’s
followers argued that, although the condemned propositions could be understood
in a heretical sense, this wasn’t the sense in which Jansen taught them. Sullivan
comments:
To meet this objection, Pope Alexander VII, in 1656, defined that those five
propositions were found in [the book] Augustinus, and were condemned in
the sense intended by the author. Now this is obviously not a truth revealed
by God, but one deemed necessary for the defense of the truths previously
defined by Pope Innocent X. Theologians speak of this as an example of a
“dogmatic fact,” that is, a fact that is connected with dogma in such a way as
to justify its infallible definition. Thus, there are two definitions involved, but
only that of Innocent X resulted in defined dogma.104
The constitution Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem thus contains a new infallible
definition, though not a new definition of dogma since the truths being defined
belong to the secondary object of infallibility.
Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae (1896; DH 3315-3319)
515. This apostolic letter teaches that Anglican orders are invalid. It is sometimes
proposed as an infallible definition. However, this also is challenged. The key
sentence reads: “Therefore, . . . confirming and, as it were, renewing [the decrees
of previous pontiffs], by virtue of our authority, of our own initiative, and with
sure knowledge, we proclaim and declare that the ordinations carried out
according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly
void” (DH 3319). Although Leo invokes his authority and uses strong language,
he says only “we proclaim and declare,” not “we define”—language that had
already become standard in definitions through its use by Pius IX and Vatican I.
Further, this document is an apostolic letter, which is typically seen as less
authoritative than an encyclical and certainly less authoritative than the apostolic
constitutions normally used for infallible definitions. On the other hand,
Ratzinger and Bertone propose this as an example of a papal definition of a
dogmatic fact (Doctrinal Commentary, 11; but see also Dulles, Magisterium,
91).
Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950; DH 3903)
516. This is the constitution that defined the Assumption of Mary. This is widely
acknowledged as the only infallible papal definition of a dogmatic nature in the
twentieth century.
517.In surveying the range of scholarly opinion on the number of papal
documents containing infallible definitions, we can distinguish several trends:
 • Some scholars, particularly in the early twentieth century, such as the authors
of the Dictionnaire or Ludovico Billot in his Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi
(1903), propose about a dozen examples.
• Others, in the late twentieth century, have taken a minimalist approach and
only acknowledged two—Ineffibilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus.
• Still others have taken a moderate approach that is prepared to acknowledge
that the conditions for infallibility are “manifestly evident” in the case of
more documents than two but not as many as proposed in the Dictionnaire.
518. If we revise the Dictionnaire’s list to include documents widely regarded as
containing infallible definitions (as opposed to teachings taught infallibly by
later councils), the result would look something like this:
• Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336; DH 1000-1002)
• Innocent X, Cum Occasione (1653; DH 2001-2007)
• Alexander VII, Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem (1656; DH 2010-2012)
• Innocent XI, Caelestis Pastor (1687; DH 2201-2269)
• Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei (1794; DH 2600-2700)
• Pius IX, Ineffibilis Deus (1854; DH 2800-2804)
• Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae (1896; DH 3315-3319)?
• Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950; DH 3903)
This corresponds well to Cardinal Dulles’s assessment that, of papal documents
issued before Vatican I (1870), “Most authors would agree on about half a dozen
statements.”105 Bear in mind that some of these define more than one truth, so
the number of doctrines defined is higher than the number of documents. Also,
this doesn’t deal with definitions by ecumenical councils or the ordinary
Magisterium of the Church, so the total number of infallibly defined doctrines is
higher yet.
88 One could quibble even with this question. Cardinal Avery Dulles notes: “Strictly speaking, infallibility
is a property of the Magisterium in its activity of teaching, not a property of magisterial statements. The
statement protected by infallibility are said to be ‘irreformable’” (Magisterium, 66).
89 Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, s.v. “Infaillibilité du Pape,” vol. 7, pt. 2, columns 1703–1704.
90 See, e.g., Ludovico Billot, S.J., Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (Rome: Typographia Polyglotta of the S.
C. de Propaganda Fide, 1903), 657–659.
91 Dulles, Magisterium, 71. Dulles recommends consulting Francis Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing
and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (New York: Paulist Press, 1996), 80–92, for further
discussion of proposed papal definitions.
92 O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility, 47.
93 Sullivan, Creative Fidelity, 50.
94 Sullivan, Creative Fidelity, 50.
95 Cf. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity, 53–54.
96 Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin.
97 Avery Dulles, The Survival of Dogma (New York: Crossroad, 1985), 153.
98 Sullivan, Creative Fidelity, 52.
99 Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, §221.
100 Sullivan, Creative Fidelity, 51–52.
101 Sullivan, Creative Fidelity, 41–79. Despite the problematic title of this book, Sullivan seeks to be
faithful to the Magisterium. A former professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he is one of
the major scholars in this area, and Cardinal Dulles’s recommendation of this work (Magisterium, 71, fn.
14) illustrates its utility, even if one doesn’t agree with everything he argues.
102 The current edition of Denzinger has bracketed numbers suggesting which censures apply to which
propositions. Because they are not part of the original document, it thus remains unclear which documents
should be given which censures according to Innocent XI.
103 As with Caelestis Pastor, the current edition of Denzinger has bracketed numbers suggesting which
censures apply to which propositions. Because they aren’t part of the original document, it remains unclear
which documents should be given which censures according to Innocent XII.
104 Sullivan, Creative Fidelity, 81.
105 Dulles, Magisterium, 71.
 PART III
Understanding Church Teaching

CHAPTER 17

Theological Opinion

519.Church doctrines call for the faithful to respond with “religious submission
of will and intellect” or with an even firmer response in the case of infallible
teachings. However, the faithful are not bound in matters of theological opinion,
and they may hold those opinions that seem plausible to them.
520.In some scholarly works, a permitted theological opinion is referred to as a
theologoumenon (pl. theologoumena), from the Greek theos (“God”) and logein
(“to speak”). However, this term is also used in other senses, and to avoid
confusion we will avoid it.
The Nature of Permission
521. The question of how you can know whether an opinion is permitted often
arises in times of doctrinal unsettlement and of rapid social and intellectual
change, such as our own day. Unfortunately, the answer is not always simple.
When people ask, “Is this a permitted opinion?” they are generally looking for a
yes or no answer, and sometimes the situation is complex. The reason has to do
with the nature of permission. If an opinion is permitted, it has to be permitted
by something, so we need to ask the follow-up question, “Permitted by what?”
Truth
522. The ultimate criterion is truth. If an opinion is true then it is permitted (and
mandated), but if it is false then it isn’t. However, since we are not God, we
don’t have unmediated knowledge of the truth and must turn to some source of
information.
Revelation
523. In theology, the primary source of information is divine revelation, which
can establish a number of things regarding an opinion:
• Revelation may indicate it is true.
• Revelation may indicate it is false.
 • Revelation may not indicate anything about it.
• Revelation may offer some evidence but not enough to settle the matter.
• Revelation may be unclear.

If divine revelation indicates that a view is true then it is not only permitted but
mandated. Scripture indicates that God exists, therefore this is what we must
believe. Similarly, if revelation indicates that a view is false then it is not
permitted. Scripture indicates that only one God exists, therefore, there are no
other gods.
In the other cases, things are not so clear. God hasn’t told us everything. For
example, the total number of angels is either even or odd, but revelation doesn’t
contain evidence about that. In this type of case, it is permissible to speculate, to
wonder whether the number is odd or even, but without additional evidence from
some source (e.g., reason), it wouldn’t seem permissible to adopt a firm view.
If revelation contains some information on a question but not enough to settle it
then we may assign the view a probability consistent with the evidence, but we
still need to acknowledge the view might be either true or false.
Finally, we must acknowledge revelation can be unclear. As the Ethiopian
eunuch said when Philip the Evangelist asked if he understood Isaiah’s
prophecy, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31).
Reason
524. In addition to revelation, God gives us information through the created
world, and some of this information is related to religious questions (Rom. 1:20).
Historically, philosophy has been used to shed light on religious questions, but it
is not the only relevant field. Ultimately all truth is God’s truth, so information
from all fields must harmonize with revelation, allowing faith and reason to shed
light on each other. Consequently, even if an opinion is permitted by what God
has told us in revelation, it may still receive confirmation or disconfirmation by
what he allows us to discover through reason.
In Galileo’s day, discoveries about the motions of celestial bodies prompted a
reexamination of how certain biblical passages should be interpreted. More
recently, discoveries about cosmology and biological evolution did the same. In
both cases, the Magisterium determined the passages didn’t require the
interpretations that previously were common.
Infallible Church Teaching
525. When the Magisterium exercises its teaching authority in an infallible way,
this forever settles the question under discussion. Anything that has been
infallibly defined requires definitive assent. (In the case of a dogma, it also
requires theological faith.) Consequently, anything that contradicts an infallible
teaching is prohibited.
However, care must be exercised in keeping with the hermeneutic of precision.
Since “no doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly
evident” (CIC 748 §3), infallible texts must be read precisely, without trying to
make them settle questions they don’t expressly discuss. History reveals that
future doctrinal development can place an infallible teaching in a new and
sometimes surprising context.
Thus in the Middle Ages, the dogma “no salvation outside the Church” was
understood to preclude the salvation of non-Catholics, since it was presumed
they were in bad faith due to culpable schism, heresy, or refusal to accept the
Christian faith. The discovery of the New World revealed there were millions
who had never had the opportunity of accepting the Faith, and this dramatically
recontextualized the issue (see §§568-569). The Magisterium thus came to adopt
the position that the dogma is not directed at those who are innocently separated
from the Church and that they can still be related to it in a saving way, though
outside its “visible structure” (Lumen Gentium, 8, 14-16).
Non-Infallible Church Teaching
526. On many questions, the Magisterium hasn’t exercised its teaching authority
infallibly. Because these teachings aren’t definitive, they could one day be
revised (see §§394-399, 565-570), and, in individual cases, it could be legitimate
to hold a contrary view (see chapter twenty). According to the CDF:
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on
matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that
a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the
timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions (Donum
Veritatis, 24).
However, it also stresses that one doesn’t have the right to engage in “public
opposition to the Magisterium of the Church, also called ‘dissent’” (ibid., 32).
This means a contrary view may or may not be permitted, depending on what
you mean:
• In exceptional cases, it could be permitted to question “even the contents” of
a non-infallible doctrine. Since it hypothetically could one day be revised, a
 contrary view might still turn out to be true and thus permitted from the
ultimate perspective.
• However, this possibility doesn’t create permission to publicly oppose (i.e.,
dissent from) non-infallible teachings. Contrary views are not permitted in
this sense.
We thus see a distinction between what is permitted in a veridical sense (i.e.,
with respect to a view’s truth) and what is permitted in a more sociological sense
within the Church.
Current Church Authorities
527. The ecclesial-sociological sense is also in focus when we consider the views
Church leaders are presently allowing to be discussed.
A dramatic illustration occurred when Pope Francis encouraged a discussion
among the world’s bishops of the conditions under which Communion might be
administered to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. This began when, at
Pope Francis’s invitation, Cardinal Walter Kasper gave an address to a meeting
of cardinals in which he advanced a proposal that would allow some divorced
and civilly remarried Catholics to receive absolution and Communion following
a period of penance or reorientation.106 Many argued this was incompatible
with previously established, infallible Catholic principles. Others argued at least
some of the affected doctrines weren’t infallible or they were capable of
undergoing doctrinal development in a way that would allow the Kasper
proposal.
Ultimately, Pope Francis opted for a solution that envisioned a change in
Church practice but didn’t change points of doctrine (§328-335). However, he
didn’t condemn the Kasper proposal or say debate regarding it was closed. He
thus created a situation in which it was suddenly permitted to discuss ideas in the
Church that had not been open for discussion during the pontificates of Popes
John Paul II and Benedict XVI and that many considered contrary to established
doctrine.
There thus can be potential collisions between what is permitted by established
teaching and what is permitted by present Church leaders. Such situations will
be particularly agonizing when the established doctrines are or appear to be
infallible. In other cases, they may be a sign the Magisterium is reconsidering a
non-infallible teaching. Either way, such situations illustrate the difference
between what is doctrinally permitted (i.e., by prior doctrine) and what is
ecclesiologically permitted (i.e., by current Church authorities).
 Popular Opinion in Society
528. What views are permitted in society changes over time. Some that formerly
were taboo are now permitted (e.g., favoring abortion), and some that were
formerly permitted are now taboo (e.g., favoring slavery). There also are
differences between societies in different regions. Thus some views are
permitted in Europe that would be taboo in Africa (e.g., favoring
homosexuality), and there are views that would be legally permitted under
American free speech laws that would be criminal offenses in Europe (e.g.,
Holocaust denial).
To one degree or another Christians, including Church leaders, naturally absorb
the views of the society in which they live, and this has an impact on the views
sociologically permitted within the Church. New social situations can even raise
questions that spur doctrinal development, as the discovery of the New World
did on the question of salvation outside the Church (§525). However, there is a
danger that Christians, including churchmen, may absorb ideas from society that
are incompatible with Christian doctrine. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit is still
guiding the Church “into all truth” (John 16:13), and no matter what bumps there
are in the road, we may be confident “that if the truth really is at stake, it will
ultimately prevail” (Donum Veritatis, 31).
Synthesis
529. The question of whether an opinion is permitted thus may involve more than
a simple yes or no answer:
1. Since divine revelation doesn’t settle every question, a view might be
permitted based on revelation but not permitted based on truths discoverable
by reason.
2. If reason and revelation don’t clearly rule out a view, it may still be
prohibited by infallible Church teaching, which clarifies revelation and, in
some cases, reason.
3. If a view is permitted by infallible Church teaching, it may be prohibited by
non-infallible teaching. In such a situation, in exceptional cases, it might be
legitimate to question the non-infallible teaching in private but not to publicly
oppose it.
4. If a truth isn’t permitted by Church teaching, it might still be opened for
discussion by Church authorities.
5. Regardless of whether a view is permitted by Church teaching, society may
have a different attitude, and this may influence how it is perceived in the
 Church.
Usually when people ask if a view is permitted for Catholics, they have in mind
situations (2) and (3)—is it allowed by infallible and other Church teaching?
They generally aren’t asking whether it is permitted by revelation or reason,
whether it is presently open for discussion even though it appears contrary to
Church teaching, or whether it is permitted or taboo in Catholic society. Instead,
they want to know if it’s permitted by present Church teaching (infallible or
otherwise). Often it’s possible to give a yes or no answer, but sometimes the
answer must be more nuanced:
• If someone asks, “Is it permitted to believe that the moon is made of green
cheese?” the answer will be that this is not contrary to Church teaching, but it
is ruled out by reason.
• If someone asks, “Is the Kasper proposal a permitted opinion?” my answer
would be that it appears contrary to Church doctrine but Pope Francis has
permitted it for purposes of discussion.
Basic Principles for Investigation
530.How can we identify legitimate theological opinions—understood in the
sense of views neither mandated nor prohibited by Church teaching? Two
questions need to be asked:
1) Is the view dealt with in infallible Church teaching?
2) Is it dealt with in current, non-infallible teaching?
If an opinion has been the subject of infallible Church teaching then from that
moment forward it will either be forever mandated or prohibited, even if some
form of sharpening or recontextualization takes place due to doctrinal
development. On how to determine which teachings are infallible, see chapters
fifteen and sixteen.
If an opinion has been discussed by the Magisterium in non-infallible teaching,
then a determination must be made about whether the teaching is current. This is
because doctrinal development can change which views are open to discussion—
either taking previously permitted views out of the realm of legitimate
discussion or returning them to it. On how to determine if a teaching is current,
see chapters eighteen and nineteen.
If an opinion isn’t dealt with by infallible teaching or by current, non-infallible
teaching, then it belongs to the realm of free opinion. This is because of the
general principle, derived from God’s gift of free will, that liberty exists in the
absence of either a mandate or a prohibition. It’s also in keeping with Pope Pius
XII’s acknowledgment “that popes generally leave theologians free in those
matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this
field” (Humani Generis, 19). One thus doesn’t need an explicit statement to
show that an opinion is permitted. The burden of proof is on one who would
maintain that it’s either mandated or prohibited.
Practical Principles for Investigation
Suppose you want to check whether a view is permitted by Church teaching.
531.
How do you do that in practice?
• A natural first step is checking the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which
can be counted upon to include the main points of Church teaching.
• Another work to check is Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (§§234-236),
a key collection of extracts from magisterial documents down through the
centuries.
• You also should look at documents devoted to the general subject you’re
investigating. If you’re researching a view
regarding the Eucharist, papal encyclicals devoted to the Eucharist—such as
Pope Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei and Pope John Paul II’s Ecclesia de
Eucharistia—should be consulted.
• It’s now possible to electronically search large collections of Church
documents, such as by using Google to search for key terms on the Vatican
website (after entering your terms, add the tag “site:vatican.va” to the search
field before hitting Enter).107 Some Church documents are found elsewhere
on the web, so broader internet searches also can be useful. Apart from the
Vatican website, the largest collection of Church documents in English is
probably found on the Verbum software platform (see Verbum.com).
• Manuals of theology (e.g., Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) also can
be useful for finding relevant Church documents.
• A final step is checking with an expert to see if there’s anything you have
missed.
If you find magisterial statements that pertain to the view you’re investigating,
you then need to evaluate them using the principles discussed in chapters eight
through sixteen. If, after searching, you don’t find magisterial statements that
pertain to the view, you may tentatively conclude that the Magisterium doesn’t
presently have a teaching on the subject.
Rules of Thumb for Identification
532.Although liberty of opinion is presumed and the burden of proof falls on the
one who holds that a particular view is either mandated or prohibited, there are
rules of thumb that can serve as shortcuts to showing an opinion is permitted.
Bear in mind these are rules of thumb, not absolutes. There are exceptions,
which we will discuss. Also, it’s important to remember that just because a view
is permitted doesn’t mean it is true.
Important Search Terms
533. One shortcut is using certain terms when searching Church documents
electronically. These include references to non-magisterial groups (“exegetes,”
“scholars,” “theologians”). Searching on such terms in a document devoted to
the subject you’re investigating may return references to non-magisterial
proposals on the topic. The same is true of terms that may indicate a third party’s
attitude toward your subject (“according to,” “consider,” “opinion,”
“proposed/proposal,” “tell us,” “theology”).
Using terms like “theologians” and “opinion” will return passages like
Benedict XVI’s statement, “Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the
fire [of purgatory] which both burns and saves is Christ himself” (Spe Salvi, 47).
You then need to examine the context to see whether the document mandates or
prohibits such a proposal. If it does neither (as in this case) then the rule of
thumb is that it’s a matter of free opinion.
However, a view that is permitted at one time may later be mandated or
prohibited, and the chance of that happening grows with time. You thus have to
be careful with statements in older documents.
Respected Theologians and Theological Schools
534. Another shortcut to showing an opinion is permitted is to see if it’s endorsed
by respected theologians—including Doctors of the Church—or by established
theological schools. Often consulting a manual of theology will reveal this.
If a highly respected theologian from the Patristic age (Jerome), the Middle
Ages (Peter Lombard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure), or later (St. Teresa
of Avila, Francisco Suarez, Luis de Molina) endorsed the view, this constitutes
prima facie evidence that it’s permitted. The same is true of opinions commonly
held in established theological schools (Thomists, Scotists, Franciscans).
However, this is only a rule of thumb because doctrinal development can
change the situation. Thus Bl. John Duns Scotus’s view that Mary was free from
all stain of original sin at conception was subsequently infallibly mandated, and
the view of some Dominicans of the Thomist school who in some centuries
opposed this teaching was infallibly prohibited.
535. You must be careful when looking to theologians of the post-Vatican II
period because of the dissent characterizing this time. The presumption of
permissibility doesn’t apply to the views of dissident theologians, though it does
to the views of theologians known for their support of the Magisterium.
536. A special class of respected theologians are those who have been named
cardinals (Bl. John Henry Newman, Hans urs von Balthasar,108 Avery Dulles).
Men in this category were so highly valued for their theological contributions
that popes appointed them cardinals even though they weren’t bishops. Opinions
they express may be considered permitted in most circumstances, though there
can be exceptions. For example, although von Balthasar’s proposal that we may
hope all men are saved109 is carefully phrased to avoid denying Church
teaching on the possibility of going to hell, it isn’t obvious this is a permitted
opinion. Nevertheless, the theological opinions of men in this category generally
should be presumed legitimate.
Non-Magisterial Documents Published by Church Authorities
537. Church authorities publish many documents that aren’t acts of magisterium.
Examples include:
• Documents published by the dicasteries of the Roman Curia that don’t carry
the papal approval needed to make them part of the pope’s magisterium
• Documents published by bishops’ conferences that don’t meet the criteria of
Apostolos Suos
• Documents prepared by advisory groups run by the Holy See (e.g., the Synod
of Bishops, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the International Theological
Commission)
• The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano
• The magazine Civiltà Cattolica (considered semiofficial; it’s actually
published by the Jesuits but it’s reviewed prior to publication by the Holy
See’s Secretariat of State)

Although these documents don’t represent acts of the Magisterium, they are
expected to be in line with Church teaching, and opinions expressed in them
generally may be presumed to be legitimate. As always, this is a rule of thumb,
both because the Magisterium may later weigh in on a question and because
mistakes can be made.
538. The rule of thumb applies only to documents that were authorized to be
published. Working documents that have been clandestinely leaked (as with the
1960s pontifical commission on birth control; see §222) do not count. However,
if the pope authorizes the release of a document by the Synod of Bishops or the
Pontifical Biblical Commission—as is required for them to be published—then
the rule of thumb applies. The same is true of the International Theological
Commission, whose documents can be authorized for publication by the pope or
the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “on condition that
there is not any difficulty on the part of the Apostolic See” (see §§220-221).
Statements by Members of the Magisterium
539. Finally, members of the Magisterium may express theological opinions, and
these generally may be presumed legitimate. Bishops in communion with the
pope are commissioned to teach the Faith and are guided by the Holy Spirit. One
could not seriously maintain that theological opinions expressed by bishops and
the pope should be presumed illegitimate!
The presumption of legitimacy applies both when members of the Magisterium
express a theological opinion in a magisterial document and when they express it
in unofficial works, such as:
• Books (e.g., Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth series, Cardinal Robert
Sarah’s The Power of Silence, Archbishop Charles Chaput’s Render unto
Caesar)
• Book-length interviews (e.g., John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope,
Benedict XVI’s God and the World, Cardinal Gerhard Muller’s The Hope of
the Family)
• Interviews given to newspapers and other media outlets
• Speeches
• Articles they write
Basically, the views expressed by a bishop should be considered orthodox
(legitimate, permitted) until the contrary is shown.
540.Two bishops deserve special attention in this regard—the pope himself and
the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. These are the bishops
most responsible for protecting the faith of Christians, and their views carry a
stronger presumption of orthodoxy. The pope is the vicar of Christ, empowered
by the Holy Spirit to confirm his brother bishops in the Faith (cf. Luke 22:32),
and the head of the CDF is the chief doctrinal watchdog of the Church. If you
can’t presume that these men’s views are orthodox, who can you?
The presumption also applies to works they produced prior to entering these
offices. If a man were known to be fundamentally unorthodox, the college of
cardinals wouldn’t have elected him pope, and if a man’s theological judgment
was fundamentally unsound, the pope wouldn’t appoint him to head the CDF.
541.Having said that, the presumption of orthodoxy can be defeated. Examples
include:
• Bishops whose views are so problematic they are removed from the pastoral
care of souls by the pope (e.g., French bishop Jacques Gaillot, who was
removed by John Paul II, and Australian bishop William “Bill” Morris, who
was removed by Benedict XVI)
• Bishops who have gone into schism or heresy (e.g., Zambian bishop
Emmanuel Milingo)
The views expressed by these bishops—before or after their removal from
office—can’t be considered reliable guides to whether an opinion is permitted.
The views of other bishops also can be problematic on occasion. If a view
appears to contradict Church teaching—as opposed to common theological
opinion—the presumption that it’s a legitimate view doesn’t hold. This appears
to be the case with Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal regarding the divorced
and civilly remarried (§§527, 529).
The presumption of orthodoxy for a particular opinion can even be overcome
in the case of popes. Pope John XXII (1316-1334) held that the souls of the
blessed don’t receive the full beatific vision until the end of the world and the
damned don’t enter hell until then. This was contrary to the common doctrine of
the Church in his day. Just before his death, he retracted this view (DH 990-
991), and his successor, Benedict XII, infallibly defined he had been wrong on
both matters (DH 1000-1002).
542.A special word should be said about views that bishops and popes express in
press interviews. The nature of these situations means they don’t have time to
carefully formulate a statement, consult with experts, and revise it as needed.
They are speaking off the top of their heads. This is one reason why interviews
aren’t treated as magisterial acts. It’s also why—even after stripping away layers
of media distortion—we need to be cautious with statements made in interviews.
Bishops and popes may have expressed a legitimate view in an unclear way,
omitted important qualifiers, or even misspoken. We thus shouldn’t treat
remarks made in interviews as fully formed expressions of their settled opinion.
If such remarks appear contrary to established doctrines (as opposed to common
theological opinion), we should give them the benefit of the doubt and wait to
see if a clarification is forthcoming.
543.In the case of popes, it’s common in every pontificate for the Holy See’s
press office to issue clarifications, even when the pope is as careful a speaker as
Benedict XVI. His reign saw a notable clarification following a speech in
Regensburg, Germany, that set off riots in Muslim countries, and later the CDF
issued a note clarifying remarks he made in the interview book Light of the
World (§314). The same thing has happened with even greater frequency with
Pope Francis, given his more freewheeling manner of speaking. In particular,
he’s given a number of interviews with the non-agenarian, atheist journalist
Eugenio Scalfari, and following these, the Holy See’s press office issued
warnings that Scalfari doesn’t use a tape recorder or take notes during
conversations with the pope, so words attributed to him shouldn’t be relied upon.
544.In the case of bishops, clarifications may be issued by the bishop himself or
by a spokesman. It isn’t common for the Holy See to do so. The Holy See
generally feels it would be imprudent to publicly correct bishops over individual
remarks. Doing so would undermine his ministry in his own diocese, call more
attention to a problematic statement than it otherwise would have received, and
potentially alienate people from the Church for appearing “hard-hearted” and
“authoritarian” with respect to the bishop. The Holy See thus tends to remain
silent on one-off heterodoxies.
This means that, if an individual bishop makes a statement contrary to Church
teaching and no public correction follows, it shouldn’t be taken as a sign the
Holy See considers this a permitted opinion. However, when there is a well-
established pattern—if many bishops express the view on many occasions and
no correction follows—it may be a sign the Holy See is treating the view as
permitted, at least in the ecclesial-sociological sense described above.
Examples of Theological Opinions
545. It’s only fitting we conclude this chapter with examples of legitimate
theological opinions, though these can be no more than random illustrations.
Still, some may be quite surprising, which illustrates the need to carefully
distinguish between theological opinions—however common—and the
authoritative teaching of the Church.
Various Views on Predestination, Grace, and Freedom
546. The Church has teachings on each of these subjects, but they are modest in
scope and leave many questions unanswered. Consequently, a number of
theological schools of thought have developed among Thomists, Augustinians,
Molinists, and others. Discussion among these schools became harsh in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries during what was known as the “controversy
on grace.” A practical resolution arrived in 1607 when Pope Paul V issued a
decree prohibiting the parties from censuring each other (DH 1997), thus leaving
their views a matter of free theological opinion.110
The Choirs of Angels
547. Using various biblical texts, theologians have proposed different ways of
classifying and ranking angels. However, as John Paul II indicates, these
rankings are a matter of theological opinion and none has “an absolute value”:
They [the angels] are divided into orders and grades, corresponding to the
measure of their perfection and to the tasks entrusted to them. The ancient
authors and the liturgy itself speak also of the angelic choirs (nine, according
to Dionysius the Areopagite). Especially in the Patristic and medieval
periods, theology has not rejected these representations. It has sought to
explain them in doctrinal and mystical terms, but without attributing an
absolute value to them (General Audience, August 6, 1986).
The Significance of Jesus’ Entrustment of Mary
548. In John 19:26-27, Jesus entrusts the care of his mother to the beloved
disciple. Later interpreters have seen this act as having a broader significance in
which a maternal relationship is established between Mary and all believers.
John Paul II embraced this view but noted that it was a matter of “common
ecclesial opinion”:
Interpreted at times as no more than an expression of Jesus’ filial piety toward
his Mother whom he entrusts for the future to his beloved disciple, these
words go far beyond the contingent need to solve a family problem. In fact,
attentive consideration of the text, confirmed by the interpretation of many
Fathers and by common ecclesial opinion, presents us, in Jesus’ twofold
entrustment, with one of the most important events for understanding the
Virgin’s role in the economy of salvation (General Audience, April 23, 1997).
 The Validity of Baptism “in Jesus’ Name”
549. Based on Matthew 28:19, the Church baptizes using the trinitarian formula
“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” However, in
the New Testament we also read of baptism being administered “in the name of
Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 10:48), “in the name of the Lord” (Acts 8:16), and “in
the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). This raises the question of whether
such formulas were actually used in the early Church or whether they are a
shorthand way of referring to Christian baptism (as opposed to John’s baptism
and Jewish ritual washings)—the full trinitarian formula being too long to give
on each occasion.
If baptism were administered using a formula like “in Jesus’ name,” without
denying the doctrine of the Trinity, would it be valid? The Magisterium hasn’t
dealt with this question in recent times, and the statements of prior popes are
mixed. In 256, Pope Steven I apparently referred to both formulas without
deciding between them (DH 111). In 404, Pope Innocent I referred to being
baptized “in the name of Christ” without condemning it or indicating it was to be
understood as shorthand (DH 211). Around 558, Pope Pelagius I stated failure to
use the trinitarian formula would invalidate baptism (DH 445). But in 866, Pope
Nicholas I cited the precedent of Acts and the opinion of St. Ambrose to indicate
that baptism “in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ”
would be valid (DH 646). Ludwig Ott concludes: “The Church has pronounced
no final decision on the question.”111
It is noteworthy that when the Catechism addresses the issue, it doesn’t discuss
formulas like “in Jesus’ name.” Neither does it say the essential form of baptism
is the trinitarian formula. It merely says that the trinitarian formula is used, in
slightly different forms, in the Latin and Eastern liturgies (CCC 1240). In light
of the prior mixed doctrinal tradition on this question, this illustrates why the
hermeneutic of precision is important and why we need to consider what
magisterial documents are not saying.
Jesus as a “Human Person”
550. Jesus is a Person who has a complete divine nature and a complete human
nature. From this, one might infer he could be described both as a divine Person
and as a human Person. Scripture even expressly says he is both “God” (John
1:1, 5:18, 20:28; Col. 2:6; Titus 2:13) and a “man” (Acts 2:22-23, 17:31; Rom.
5:15; 1 Tim. 2:5).
Nevertheless, various authors deny Jesus can be described as a “human
Person.” The intent is to protect against heresies such as Nestorianism, which
implies Christ is two Persons, and Ebionitism, which held that he is merely a
human person (not a divine one). In addition, Christ’s divine nature is
fundamental to his Person, whereas his human nature is not. God the Son can’t
be anything but a divine Person in virtue of his eternal, immutable, and essential
divine nature. However, he could have refrained from acquiring a human nature
if he had chosen not to incarnate. Thus if one had to choose between describing
Christ as a divine Person or a human Person, the former would be the only
choice.
Yet it doesn’t seem possible to find a magisterial document saying Christ can’t
be described as a human Person. It thus appears the rejection of this phrase is a
matter of theological opinion rather than doctrine. Further, one sometimes finds
respected theologians who acknowledge that “human Person” can be used. Thus
the renown nineteenth-century theologian Matthias Scheeben writes:
Christ may be called “human Person,” in the sense of Person having humanity
(persona humanitatis), as he is called divine Person as having divinity. Yet
that designation is not commonly used, because misleading.112
Opinions of a Prudential Order
551. The Church’s social doctrine articulates moral principles of abiding
significance, but their application to concrete situations is ultimately the
responsibility of the laity. Consequently, John Paul II stressed the wide latitude
of opinion the laity have:
[Lay Christians] express in the world the Church’s application of her own
social doctrine. Nevertheless, they must be aware of their personal freedom
and responsibility in matters of opinion, in which their choices, though
always inspired by gospel values, should not be presented as the only
alternative for Christians. Respect for legitimate opinions and choices
different from one’s own is also a requirement of love (General Audience,
April 13, 1994).
106 For the text of the address, see Walter Kasper, The Gospel of the Family (New York: Paulist Press,
2014).
107 You could also use the native search feature on the Vatican website, but Google will generate better
search results for you than that one will.
108 Von Balthasar died before he could be installed as cardinal, but the fact John Paul II appointed him to
the office indicates the value of his theological contributions.
109 See his book Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”?, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014).
110 For a discussion of the issues, see Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 242–249.
111 Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 353–354.
112 Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas B. Scannell, trans., A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s
“Dogmatik,” vol. II, 3rd ed., rev. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd., 1908), 88.
 PART IV
How Doctrine Can Develop—and How It Can't

CHAPTER 18

Understanding Doctrinal Development

The Reality of Doctrinal Development

552. Doctrinal development is the process by which the Church’s teachings
develop over time. It occurs despite the fact the Christian faith was “once for all
delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
However, in Catholic circles, it’s common to encounter claims that the
Church’s teachings “cannot change.” This mode of speech has been used to
counter Protestant claims that the Church has “added” or “invented” many things
not found in the Bible. Catholic controversialists similarly accused Protestants of
subtracting from or “varying” from historic Christian teaching. Thus, the
seventeenth-century French bishop and apologist Jacques Bossuet devoted a
book to the Variations of the Protestant Churches. Such authors contrasted
Protestant novelties with the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church.
Bossuet stated:
The Church’s doctrine is always the same. . . . The gospel is never different
from what it was before. Hence, if at any time someone says that the Faith
includes something which yesterday was not said to be of the Faith, it is
always heterodoxy, which is any doctrine different from orthodoxy. There is
no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine: there is no argument about it: it
is recognized at once, whenever it appears, merely because it is new.113
There is a fundamental continuity in Catholic teaching, since the Church is “the
pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the assertion that the Church’s
teaching “can’t change” is understood to mean its fundamental content doesn’t
change, it’s quite true. In all ages, the Church maintains the same fundamental
doctrine—the deposit of faith that it received from Christ. However, if one
maintains individual teachings aren’t subject to development, it’s false.
Doctrinal Development in Scripture
553. In the biblical age, doctrinal development occurred in a way that no longer
takes place. At the time, God was still giving public revelation, and modern
authors have termed this process “progressive revelation” because God
progressively gave mankind more information about himself. This resulted in the
disclosure of fundamentally new truths over time:
• The Israelites always believed in an afterlife (Gen. 25:8; Deut. 18:11; 1 Sam.
28:3-20), but originally little was known about it. By the later books of the
Old Testament, the resurrection of the dead had been revealed (Dan. 12:2),
and it would be further explored in the New Testament (Matt. 22:23-33; John
11:24; 1 Cor. 15:12-56; 1 Thess. 4:16, etc.).
• Old Testament prophecies began to point to a coming Messiah, who the New
Testament revealed to be Jesus Christ. It was further revealed, contrary to the
expectations of the day, that the Messiah would suffer and die for the sins of
mankind and rise “on the third day,” rather than the end of the world, when
the general resurrection takes place.
• The Old Testament stressed God’s oneness as a way of weaning the Israelites
from polytheism (Deut. 6:4), but once this was done, the New Testament
revealed that the one God is a Trinity of Persons (Matt. 28:19).
Jesus indicated progressive revelation would continue after the Crucifixion, for
he had many things to reveal that the disciples couldn’t yet bear (John 16:12).
Thus he said the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples “into all the truth” (John
16:13), based on what he was given to disclose by Jesus (John 16:14).
Progressive revelation thus continued through the Apostolic Age.
Doctrinal Development in Church History
554. After the Apostolic Age, doctrine continued to develop, but in a new way.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
No new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has
not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to
grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries (CCC 66).
This process has unfolded over the centuries in a variety of ways. One of the
clearest examples is how the doctrines of God and of Christ took shape in the
early centuries:
• In the early fourth century, the divinity of Christ was attacked by the Arians,
who held Jesus is a created, celestial being. In response, Nicaea I (325)
infallibly defined the divinity of Christ.
 • In the late fourth century, the divinity of the Holy Spirit was denied by the
Pneumatomachians (Greek, “those who fight against the Spirit”). In response,
Constantinople I (381) infallibly defined the divinity of the Spirit.
• In the early fifth century, Nestorians took a position that implied Jesus is two
persons—one divine and one human. In response, the Council of Ephesus
(431) ruled against the Nestorians, indicating Christ is a single Person.
• In the mid-fifth century, Monophysites (Greek, “one-nature”-ists) held Jesus
had only a single nature, so he couldn’t be both fully divine and fully human.
In response, the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined that Jesus has two
natures, one divine and one human.
• In the seventh century, Monothelites (Greek, “one-will”-ists) held Jesus had
only a single will. In response, Constantinople III (681) defined that he has
two wills, one divine and one human, and the two are never opposed.
As this sequence indicates, the Church’s doctrine developed by moving from
larger questions (e.g., is Jesus God?) to more detailed ones (e.g., does he have
two wills?). None of this involved new revelation, only a working out the
implications of the original deposit of faith.
Recognizing Doctrinal Development
555. Catholics have always known that popes and councils issue new definitions,
particularly in response to doctrinal errors. However, they didn’t have a robust
way of articulating the development of doctrine until Bl. John Henry Newman
(1801-1890). As a man raised Protestant, he was well aware that aspects of
Catholic faith and practice aren’t found explicitly in Scripture. For a time, this
was a barrier between him and the Church, even as he found himself moving
closer to it.
The turning point came as he was working on a book titled An Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), in which he wrestled with the
question of which developments should be considered legitimate. Though he
planned to publish the book before deciding whether to become Catholic, as it
was being printed he decided he had resolved his difficulties, and he entered the
Church.
Newman’s discussion of doctrinal development wasn’t welcomed by all
Catholics. Many, including American convert Orestes Brownson, were quite
critical. Yet he continued to explore it in both public and private works,114 and
since Newman’s death, the idea of doctrinal development has been widely
embraced. In view of his theological contributions, Newman may one day be
named a Doctor of the Church.115
Not all ways of understanding doctrinal development are correct, but the
fundamental concept is valid and has undeniably played out across history. Its
existence is so clear that the concept is accepted by many non-Catholics,
including Protestants who accept the early councils’ teachings on the Trinity and
Christology.
Causes of Doctrinal Development
556.The ultimate cause of doctrinal development is the Holy Spirit, though the
ways it takes place are complex. God can even use evils—like heresy—to
stimulate doctrinal development (CCC 311). In general, we can group the causes
of development in two classes, based on whether they originate outside or inside
the Church.
Factors Outside the Church
557. Catholics exist in a broader society, and things happening outside the Church
can influence doctrinal development:
• One of the first was the response of non-Jews to the Christian message. This
began with the conversion of Samaritans (Acts 8:4-8), the Ethiopian eunuch
(Acts 8:26-39), and the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-11:18), and it led
to the first Church council, in Jerusalem c. A.D. 49 (Acts 15), which
established that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised to be Christians.
• Persecution by Roman authorities led some Christians to lapse from the Faith
or to perform compromising acts such as surrendering copies of the
scriptures. This raised the question of what should happen when they
repented. Could they be readmitted to the Church? When and on what
conditions? This drove doctrinal development on topics like mortal sin,
penance, absolution, and eventually indulgences.
• Developments in society contributed to development of doctrine on the
question of slavery. Around 340, when slavery was unquestioned in the
Roman world, we find the local Synod of Gangra stating: “If anyone shall
teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away
from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all
honor, let him be anathema” (can. 3). However, today the Catechism of the
Catholic Church states: “The seventh commandment forbids acts or
enterprises that for any reason—selfish or ideological, commercial, or
totalitarian—lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought,
sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity”
 (CCC 2414).
• Economic developments led to development of doctrine concerning the nature
of the sin of usury. At one time this was understood as any taking of interest
on loans, but around 1230 Gregory IX indicated some taking of interest is
legitimate (DH 828).
• Biomedical developments such as modern contraceptives, means of abortion,
reproductive technologies, embryology, and genetics currently drive
additional theological and magisterial attention to these issues. Thus in
documents like Donum Vitae, the Magisterium applies Catholic principles to
newly raised bioethical questions.
Factors Inside the Church
558. Factors within the Church also drive doctrinal development, such as the early
heresies regarding the Trinity and Christology.
559. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the sensus fidelium (Latin, “sense of
the faithful”) develops and can have an impact on Church teaching. This was
explored by Newman in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and
On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (1859). The sense of the
faithful has played a notable role in doctrinal development, including the
dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception. The International
Theological Commission notes:
Before he defined it, [Pius IX] asked the bishops of the world to report to him
in writing regarding the devotion of their clergy and faithful people to the
conception of the Immaculate Virgin. In the apostolic constitution containing
the definition, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), Pope Pius IX said that although he
already knew the mind of the bishops on this matter, he had particularly asked
the bishops to inform him of the piety and devotion of their faithful in this
regard (Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, 38).
560.In addition to the faithful, the work of theologians is a force driving doctrinal
development. Discussion and debate among them sheds light on issues that the
bishops eventually use in formulating doctrine. The CDF notes:
The living Magisterium of the Church and theology, while having different
gifts and functions, ultimately have the same goal: preserving the people of
God in the truth which sets free and thereby making them “a light to the
nations.” This service to the ecclesial community brings the theologian and
 the Magisterium into a reciprocal relationship. The latter authentically teaches
the doctrine of the apostles. And, benefiting from the work of theologians, it
refutes objections to and distortions of the faith and promotes, with the
authority received from Jesus Christ, new and deeper comprehension,
clarification, and application of revealed doctrine (Donum Veritatis, 21).
561. Finally, the bishops themselves, as members of the Magisterium, drive
doctrinal development, both in the exercise of their personal magisteria, in their
participation in the worldwide ordinary magisterium, and in ecumenical
councils. In particular, popes can drive doctrinal development both through their
ordinary magisteria and through infallible definitions.
Types of Doctrinal Development

Adding Weight to Concepts

562. Since there is no new revelation, doctrinal development involves clarifying
our understanding of the existing revelation. This happens in two general ways:
adding weight to concepts or removing it from them.
Ideas don’t occur for the first time in magisterial documents. The pope doesn’t
write an encyclical, have a thought strike him that’s never been discussed before,
and say, “What a great idea! I’m going to make it official Church teaching right
now!” Inevitably, the views discussed in magisterial texts have been around
previously.
Many go back to the time of the apostles, even if the way they’re expressed has
changed. The belief that Christ is God goes back to the ministry of Jesus himself.
However, this isn’t true of everything. Some beliefs were only implicit in the
deposit of faith, such as the teaching that Christ has two wills, one divine and
one human. Although the Church began with the awareness that Jesus is both
God and man, the implications of this for his wills took time to work out.
When a concept first begins to be articulated, it takes time to be evaluated by
the Magisterium. Although there are variations in the pattern, a concept
frequently begins as a free theological opinion before it’s made part of Church
teaching. It may then grow in authority to the point of being taught infallibly or
even made a dogma.
Case Study: The Immaculate Conception
563.The Immaculate Conception illustrates how a concept that’s originally
implicit in divine revelation can become explicit and then gain doctrinal
authority and become a dogma.
 Scripture presents the Virgin Mary as a woman of holiness—as “the handmaid
of the Lord” (Luke 1:38)—and as a woman who has been uniquely blessed by
God (Luke 1:42). First-century writings outside the New Testament suggest she
was free from the penalty of what later would be called original sin. Thus the
Ascension of Isaiah—likely written in A.D. 67116—indicates when Jesus was
born, she had a miraculous, painless childbirth (11:2-4), despite the fact that the
multiplication of pain in childbirth was a consequence of original sin (Gen.
3:16). This is also mentioned in other early documents, including the second-
century Odes of Solomon (19:7-9; cf. Protoevangelium of James, 19).
Various early Fathers meditate on Mary’s holiness and refer to her as
immaculate, meaning “without stain” (Latin, im-, “without” and macula,
“stain”). One such Father is St. Ephrem the Syrian (Nisibene Hymns 27:8). After
the concept of original sin was formulated to express the Bible’s teaching on the
fall of man and its consequences, theologians could relate Mary’s unique
holiness to this concept, and the question was asked whether she was subject to
original sin the way ordinary people are or if there was an exception in her case.
If Mary was unstained by original sin, at what point? Was she conceived that
way or was she only liberated from it at a later point?
At the beginning of the twelfth century, the British monk Eadmer, a pupil of
St. Anselm of Canterbury, and Osbert of Clare, advocated the Immaculate
(passive) Conception of Mary, that is, her conception free from original sin.
Eadmer wrote the first monograph on this subject.117
The concept of the Immaculate Conception thus became explicit in the
consciousness of the Church. However, at this point it was a matter of free
theological opinion, and not all supported it. Some in the Dominican Order
objected that the Immaculate Conception conflicted with Christ’s role as Savior
of all men (1 Tim. 4:10).
The solution was provided by Bl. John Duns Scotus, who argued that by
preserving Mary from original sin, God gave her a greater form of salvation. She
wasn’t merely saved despite having contracted original sin, she was saved from
contracting it. Following this theological development, the Magisterium began to
weigh in on the subject:
In the year 1439, the Council of Basle, in its thirty-sixth session, which,
however, had no ecumenical validity, declared in favor of the Immaculate
Conception. Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) endowed the celebration of the feast
 with indulgences, and forbade the mutual censuring of the disputing factions
[DH 1400, 1425-1426]. The Council of Trent, in its Decree on Original Sin,
makes the significant declaration “that it was not its intention to involve
Mary, the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God in this Decree”
[DH 1516]. In 1567, Pope Pius V condemned the proposition advanced by
Baius, that nobody but Christ had been free from original sin, and that Mary’s
sorrows and her death were a punishment for actual sins or for original sin
[DH 1973]. Popes Paul V (1616), Gregory XV (1622) and Alexander VII
(1661), advocated the doctrine. Cf. [DH 2015]. On the eighth day of
December, 1854, Pope Pius IX, having consulted the entire episcopate, and
speaking ex cathedra, declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to
be a dogma of the Faith [DH 2803-2804].118
Removing Weight from Concepts
564. Doctrinal development also occurs when weight is removed from concepts.
One way this happens is when the Magisterium condemns an idea, giving it a
negative weight (see §§339, 354-355). When this happens, the Magisterium uses
one or another degree of authority, from tentatively warning against an idea to
infallibly heretical.
565.However, the Magisterium may also remove weight from an idea without
condemning it. This does not happen with infallible teachings, since they cannot
lose doctrinal weight (they can only be understood in a deeper way, expressed in
other terms, or situated in a new context, as with “no salvation outside the
Church”; §§568-569). But it can happen with non-infallible teachings. The CDF
notes:
To serve the people of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them
of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can
intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid
principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes
possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary
and what is contingent. . . .
In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a
certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the
passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of
the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the
Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because
 while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were
not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted
discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress
(Donum Veritatis, 24).
566. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger referred to this process of separating solid
principles from other elements as “essentializing.” When asked how the Church
might change in the future, given shifting global demographics and the fact
many future Catholics will be from non-European cultures, he replied:
For this reason, essentializing—one of [Romano] Guardini’s words—is in my
opinion what is fundamental. This is not so much a matter of making
imaginative constructions of something in advance, which will then turn out
to be quite different and not something we could have constructed artificially,
as of turning our lives toward what is essential, which can then be embodied
and represented anew. In this sense, a kind of simplification is important, so
that what is truly lasting and fundamental in our teaching, in our faith, can
emerge. So that the basic constant factors, the questions about God, about
salvation, about hope, about life, about what is fundamental in ethics, can be
made visible in their basic elements and be available for the construction of
new systems.119
He went on to say:
We can only humbly seek to essentialize our faith, that is, to recognize what
are the really essential elements in it—the things we have not made but have
received from the Lord—and in this attitude of turning to the Lord and to the
center, to open ourselves in this essentializing so that he may lead us onward,
he alone.120
567. This process is seen when the Church revises non-infallible teachings.
Because they are based on divine revelation and formulated with the assistance
of the Holy Spirit, they invariably contain elements of truth—solid principles—
so that even when a teaching is revised, these elements are preserved.
Case Study: Limbo and the Salvation of the Unbaptized
568.The importance of baptism for salvation has been understood in every age.
In some ages it was thought there were only a few exceptions, such as martyrs,
who have a “baptism of blood,” and catechumens, who consciously intended to
be baptized and thus have a “baptism of desire.”
 Infants can’t have such an intention, and it was thought those who died without
baptism wouldn’t be able to receive the beatific vision of God in the afterlife—
even if they also wouldn’t suffer since they lack personal sin. This led to the idea
of limbo as a place where they wouldn’t suffer and wouldn’t have the
supernatural happiness of heaven, though they might have great natural
happiness.
The requirement of baptism for infants to be saved was stressed in magisterial
documents into the twentieth century, as in these questions from the Catechism
of St. Pius X:
Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?
A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.
Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive baptism?
A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on
account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and
cannot be saved without baptism.
569. By this time, theologians were beginning to realize that salvation could be
possible for more unbaptized people than previously thought. In the Middle
Ages, it was easy to assume that those who hadn’t embraced the gospel (e.g.,
non-Christian Jews, Muslims) had heard it and culpably rejected it. But when the
New World was discovered, theologians realized there were millions of people
(Native Americans) who’d never heard the gospel and couldn’t be at fault. This
led to a greater recognition of the possibility of salvation for the unbaptized and
other non-Catholics. Pope Pius IX taught:
Those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our most holy
religion, by carefully keeping the natural law and its precepts, which have
been written by God on the hearts of all, by being disposed to obey God and
to lead a virtuous and correct life, can, by the power of divine light and grace,
attain eternal life (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863; DH
2866).
Similarly, in 1949 the Holy Office (later the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith) stated:
In order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he
be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that
at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
 However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but
when a person suffers from invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit
desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul
whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God (Letter
to the Archbishop of Boston; DH 3870).
Vatican II then held that God offers the possibility of salvation to all, stating:
Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact
one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known
only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this
paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes, 22).
570. There had always been an instinctive resistance to saying infants dying
without baptism were simply damned, which was what led to the idea of limbo
in the first place. As awareness of the number of potential exceptions to the
requirement of baptism grew, it prompted a reevaluation of whether there might
be ways for unbaptized infants to be saved. When the Catechism was issued, it
stated:
As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only
entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.
Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and
Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children
come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of
salvation for children who have died without baptism (CCC 1261).
Finally, in 2007 the International Theological Commission issued a study
requested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which stated:
In the Church’s Tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptized
are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been “common
doctrine” [Italian, dottrina comune]. This common doctrine followed upon a
certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not
possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or the same certitude as other
affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed
dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the Magisterium
(The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 34).
It also noted:
 [Papal interventions] did not endorse the theory of limbo as a doctrine of
faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching [Italian, dottrina
cattolica comune] until the mid-twentieth century (26).
Despite the fact both the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific
vision and limbo had been “common doctrine” (i.e., non-infallible Church
teachings), the doctrinal developments noted above have led to the view that
there are, in the ITC’s words, “strong grounds for hope that God will save
infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished
to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church” (103).
The ITC study was then approved for publication by Pope Benedict XVI,
indicating that there is “not any difficulty on the part of the Apostolic See” with
the document (Tredecim Anni, 12). We thus see how the strict requirement of
water baptism for salvation lost doctrinal weight as additional exceptions to the
rule were discerned, though based on divine revelation the Church acknowledges
baptism as the only ordinary means of salvation (CCC 1257-1261).
A Word of Caution
571. However popular it may be in some circles to say that Catholic doctrine
“cannot change,” this doesn’t seem to be the way the Magisterium articulates the
continuity in its doctrine. Searches of the Vatican website (vatican.va) for such
statements don’t turn up results. Instead, the Magisterium has become
increasingly frank about the possibility of error in non-infallible teachings
(§§395-399).
Because there is continuity in the principles underlying Catholic teaching, the
Magisterium appears to prefer the language of development to the language of
change (cf. §577), but it avoids making absolute statements like “doctrines can’t
change.”
In apologetic discussions, statements like “doctrines can’t change, but they do
develop” will be unconvincing to skeptical listeners. They will rightly point out
that development is a kind of change, and if they are knowledgeable, they may
point to doctrines that have undergone significant change, such as slavery, usury,
the salvation of non-Catholics, or limbo. Rather than be sidetracked by semantic
quibbles about whether something is a “change” or a “development,” it is
prudent to be frank and to neither minimize nor exaggerate the possibility of
change in Church teaching:
• Infallible teachings can never be reversed, though they can be understood
 more precisely, articulated in other ways, or set in new contexts.
• Non-infallible teachings—such as the absolute exclusion of unbaptized
infants from the beatific vision or the doctrine of limbo—can gradually be
weakened by new doctrinal development and even lose their status as
authoritative teachings. In this process, the Holy Spirit preserves the solid
principles contained in Church teaching as they are separated from
nonessential elements.
Indicators of Doctrinal Development
572.Doctrinal development is easy to discern in hindsight, when the changes
occurred in prior centuries, but how can we tell when it’s happening in our own
day? Here we will look at several recent examples from Vatican II.
Previously Unaddressed Questions
573. A clear indicator of doctrinal development is when the Magisterium
addresses a question it hasn’t pronounced upon before. For example, the Council
of Trent taught that ordination to the priesthood involves the bestowal of a
sacramental character, just as baptism and confirmation do (Decree on the
Sacrament of Orders, 4; DH 1767), but it didn’t discuss what happens when a
man is consecrated a bishop. Vatican II did address this question, stating:
The sacred council teaches that by episcopal consecration the fullness of the
sacrament of orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both
in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the
Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred
ministry (Lumen Gentium, 21).
New Language
574. Another clear indicator of doctrinal development is when the Magisterium
uses significantly different language to articulate a teaching. In his encyclical
Mystici Corporis (1943), Pope Bl. Pius XII gave this account of what it means to
be a member of the Catholic Church:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have
been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so
unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body, or been
excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed (n. 22).
He thus names four conditions which are needed for a person to be a member
of the Church:
 1. The person has been baptized.
2. The person professes the truth faith.
3. The person has not separated from the Church.
4. The person has not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults.
However, when Vatican II met, it used markedly different language when
describing how people are united to the Church:
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the
Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given
to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and
through her with Christ, who rules her through the supreme pontiff and the
bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are
profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and
communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the
Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the
Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart”
(Lumen Gentium, 14).
The council went on to make several additional and relevant remarks:
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to
be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her.
With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own
(ibid.).
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who,
being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not
profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with
the successor of Peter (n. 15).
Finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various
ways to the people of God (n. 16).
Lumen Gentium is covering the same general territory as Mystici Corporis. The
things it names as binding men to the Church “in a visible way”—i.e.,
“profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and
communion”—correspond substantially to the conditions for membership listed
by Pius XII. However, Lumen Gentium places the subject in a larger context.
Instead of speaking simply of “members,” it discusses those who are “fully
incorporated”—including conditions not listed in Mystici Corporis—and it
comments on those who are “joined” (catechumens), “linked” (non-Catholic
Christians), or “related” (non-Christians) to the Church.
Since it doesn’t use the term “members,” Lumen Gentium doesn’t alter the
definition of that term. However, the shift in language indicates that the council
is conceptualizing people’s relationship with the Church in a more complex way
than the binary “member”/“non-member” model. It thus represents doctrinal a
development that addresses questions not raised in Mystici Corporis (i.e., how
different kinds of non-members are related to the Church).
Altered Substance
575. A final clear indicator of doctrinal development is when the Magisterium
alters the substance of a teaching. In 1943, Pius XII wrote:
If we would define121 and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which
is [Latin, est] the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic and Roman Church—we shall
find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression
“the Mystical Body of Christ”—an expression which springs from and is, as it
were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the sacred scriptures and
the Holy Fathers (Mystici Corporis, 13).
Here Pius XII identifies the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church in a
simple and direct way, using the Latin verb est (“is”). In 1950, Pius XII returned
to this point, stating, disapprovingly:
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in our encyclical
letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which
teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are
one and the same thing (Humani Generis, 27).
When Vatican II met, a doctrinal development occurred that indicated a
576.
more complex relationship between the two. The council fathers described “the
Church of Christ,” stating:
This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in
[Latin, subsistit in] the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor
of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him, although many elements
of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These
elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling
toward catholic unity (Lumen Gentium, 8).
577.The use of “subsists in” rather than “is” produced a great deal of discussion
after the council, and in 2007 the CDF issued a document containing several
dubia on the subject. Responding to the initial question, “Did the Second
Vatican Council change [Latin, mutare] the Catholic doctrine on the Church?”
the congregation replied:
The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this
doctrine, rather it developed, deepened, and more fully explained it
(Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on
the Church, 1).
Here the congregation indicates the council didn’t make a wholesale change to
the doctrine, though—if we speak frankly—by developing, deepening, and more
fully explaining it, a change of some kind occurred.
Responding to the question “What is the meaning of the affirmation that the
Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?” the congregation replied:
“Subsistence” means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence
of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the
Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the
Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial
communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on
account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic
Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess
in the symbols of the faith (I believe . . . in the “one” Church); and this “one”
Church subsists in the Catholic Church (ibid., 2).
Finally for our purposes, when responding to the question “Why was the
expression ‘subsists in’ adopted instead of the simple word ‘is’?” the
congregation stated:
It comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous
elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure,
but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel toward
catholic unity” (ibid., 3).
Thus, by using “subsists in,” the council wished to express a more complex
relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church than “is”
would convey, meaning a doctrinal development took place.
Unlike the previous development—in which the council employed the
language of “full incorporation” rather than membership, thus allowing
“member” to be used in its established sense—the council here makes a change
that affects the substance of an existing teaching. It would no longer be possible
(except in colloquial speech where “subsists” wouldn’t be understood) to make
as simple an identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. The
core of prior teaching has been retained: Christ instituted only one Church on
earth, the Catholic Church is the organic continuation of that Church, and only it
has all of the aspects of that Church. However, “it is possible, according to
Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and
operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion
with the Catholic Church.”
Notable Indicators
578. In addition to clear indicators that doctrinal development has occurred, there
are also signs one may be under way or may soon occur. These reflect the factors
used to assess the weight of non-infallible teachings:
The authoritativeness of [magisterial] interventions . . . becomes clear from
the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated,
and the very way in which it is expressed (Donum Veritatis, 24).
The three criteria of authoritativeness are:
1. The nature of the documents that contain a teaching
2. The frequency with which it is repeated
3. The language used to express it
Using these criteria, one can plot trajectories with respect to the weight a
teaching has:
• If a non-infallible teaching is being mentioned in more authoritative
documents, more frequently, or with more emphatic language, these are signs
it’s being given a higher level of authority.
• If it’s being mentioned in less authoritative documents, less frequently, and
with less emphatic language, these are signs that it is being given a lower
level of authority.
Since doctrinal development involves adding or removing weight from a
concept (§§562-570), either of these trends suggests doctrinal development is
under way.
579. Another sign doctrinal development may be under way is when the
Magisterium allows bishops or theologians to explore alternatives to how a
teaching is presently formulated or understood. In these cases, the way the
Magisterium responds is key:
• If it responds by reiterating its current teaching, this is a sign discussion to the
contrary is not legitimate. Thus when bishops and theologians began to
question or reject the teaching of Humanae Vitae on contraception, or to
advocate the ordination of women to the priesthood, the Magisterium
responded by forcefully repeating both of these teachings, showing the
position of these individuals was illegitimate and doctrinal development was
not under way on these questions.
• However, if the discussion goes on for a significant period and the
Magisterium doesn’t reiterate current teaching, it may be a sign doctrinal
development is happening. Thus when bishops and theologians began to
explore alternatives to limbo, the Magisterium remained silent and allowed
the discussion to progress, and eventually limbo ceased to be part of the
common doctrine of the Church (§§568-570).
Magisterial Silence
580. For magisterial silence to indicate doctrinal development, it must go on for
some time. The Holy See tends not to respond to individual variations from its
teachings and, especially in the case of bishops, treats them as one-off heterodox
expressions (§544). However, if there is an ongoing pattern of alternatives being
proposed and the Holy See remains silent, it’s significant. Rome may be
allowing the subject to be explored by theologians and by bishops in their
particular magisteria. At a later time, it may or may not reengage the issue.
581.Because periods of silence may indicate doctrinal development, one must be
careful appealing to older documents to support non-infallible teachings that
haven’t been mentioned in a long time.
582. In fact, prolonged magisterial silence may be a sign that a teaching has
already ceased to be part of Church doctrine. This is essentially the same as the
legal concept of desuetude, according to which a law can lose its force due to
long disuse. The same thing can happen with Church teachings. Rather than
bringing on the disruption that would occur by issuing a formal retraction, the
Church can allow a teaching to quietly lapse.
For example, the Roman Catechism (aka the Catechism of the Council of Trent)
said this about the origin of tonsure (a way men cut their hair to signal clerical
status):
In tonsure the hair of the head is cut in form of a crown, and should always be
worn in that form, so as to enlarge the crown according as any one advances
in orders. This form of the tonsure the Church teaches [Latin, docet] to be
derived from apostolic Tradition, as it is mentioned by St. Dionysius the
Areopagite, Augustine, Jerome, fathers of the greatest antiquity and authority.
Tonsure is said to have been first introduced by the prince of the apostles, in
honor of the crown of thorns which was pressed upon the head of our Savior
(2:7:14).
Note that the Roman Catechism stated that tonsure “is said” to have been
introduced by St. Peter. That would qualify as a non-doctrinal statement since
the Catechism doesn’t insist on it. However, it also says that the Church
“teaches” clerical tonsure “to be derived from apostolic Tradition.” This would
qualify as doctrine at the time the Roman Catechism was issued.
Yet nobody holds that to be Church teaching today, and it appears the
Magisterium simply allowed this teaching to fall into desuetude. By 1912, the
Catholic Encyclopedia, which carries an imprimatur, could state based on
subsequent research:
Historically the tonsure was not in use in the primitive Church during the age
of persecution. Even later, St. Jerome (in Ezech. 44) disapproves of clerics
shaving their heads. Indeed, among the Greeks and Romans such a custom
was a badge of slavery. On this very account, the shaving of the head was
adopted by the monks. Toward the end of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth,
century, the custom passed over to the secular clergy (s.v. “Tonsure”).
It’s therefore risky to cite older Church documents as proofs for teachings that
haven’t been repeated in centuries, though this doesn’t apply to infallible
doctrines, for those never lose their status.
113 Quoted by Owen Chadwick, From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development, 2nd ed.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 17.
114 See James Gaffney, trans., ed., Roman Catholic Writings on Doctrinal Development by John Henry
Newman (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1997), and James Gaffney, ed., Conscience, Consensus, and
the Development of Doctrine: Revolutionary Texts by John Henry Cardinal Newman (New York: Image,
1992).
115 This is a view I have long held, and in recent times I have seen it proposed by others, including
Newman experts. Cf. “Cardinal Newman: Doctor of the Church? Father Ian Ker on the Priest’s Cause,
Teachings,” Zenit, October 22, 2008.
116 Jimmy Akin, “Dating the Ascension of Isaiah” (unpublished).
117 Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 201.
118 Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 202.
119 Joseph Ratzinger and Peter Seewald, God and the World: Believing and Living in Our Time: A
Conversation with Peter Seewald, trans. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), 446.
120 Ratzinger and Seewald, God and the World, 453.
121 Note that this use of the term define does not create an ex cathedra statement. If Pius XII intended to
make one, he would have used the kind of language Pius IX used in Ineffibilis Deus and that he himself
used in Munificentissimus Deus. No scholars regard this as an ex cathedra statement. Here the term is being
used in its ordinary sense of an explanation, as when a dictionary defines a word. This is confirmed by the
parallel verb “describe.”
 PART IV
How Doctrine Can Develop—and How It Can't

CHAPTER 19

Difficulties with Doctrinal Development

Any process involving fallen man creates difficulties, and therefore doctrinal
583.
development can. Here we will look at three types:
• Seeming invention of doctrine
• Seeming contradiction of doctrine
• Seeming non-reception of doctrine

Seeming Invention of Doctrine

584.This was the charge Bl. John Henry Newman set out to address in An Essay
on the Development of Christian Doctrine. It had been a staple of anti-Catholic
polemics since the Reformation that Catholics invented doctrines that had no
foundation in divine revelation (conceived, per sola scriptura, as just the Bible).
In response, Newman proposed seven criteria indicating the legitimacy of
doctrinal developments. Failure to conform to these criteria would, for Newman,
indicate doctrinal corruption. In the end, he concluded Catholic doctrinal
developments met the criteria and were legitimate. We don’t have space to
explore the criteria in detail, however, they were summarized by the
International Theological Commission:
1. The conservation of the type, which is to say the basic form, and of the
proportions and relationships existing between the whole and the parts. When
the structure as a totality remains, its type holds fast, even if some particular
concepts change. But this total structure may become corrupt, even in the
case where the concepts remain unchanged, if the latter are made part of a
context or a system of coordinates which is altogether different.
2. The continuity of principle: The different doctrines represent principles
existing at a deeper level, even when these are often not recognized until a
later stage. The same doctrine, if detached from its founding principle, may
be interpreted in more ways than one, and lead to contradictory conclusions.
Continuity of principle then is a criterion which can distinguish proper and
 legitimate development from the erroneous.
3. Capacity for being assimilated: A living idea shows its edge by its ability to
get at reality, attract other ideas to itself, stimulate reflection and develop
itself further without loss of its internal unity. This capacity for being
integrated is a criterion of legitimate development.
4. Logical coherence: The development of dogmas is a vital process which is
too complex to be regarded simply a logical explanation and deduction from
given premises. Nevertheless, there must be logical coherence between the
conclusions and the initial data. Conversely, one can judge what a
development is from its consequences or recognize it as legitimate or
otherwise by its fruits.
5. Anticipation of the future: Trends which come to realization and succeed
only later may make themselves noticeable early on, even if as isolated
phenomena where the outline is still dim. Such advance trends are signs of
the agreement of subsequent development with the original idea.
6. The conservation of past values: Development becomes corruption when it
contradicts the original doctrine or earlier development. True development
conserves and safeguards the development and formulations that went before.
7. Durability: Corruption leads to disintegration. Whatever corrupts itself
cannot last for long. Whatever is vital and durable on the contrary is a sign of
authentic development (The Interpretation of Dogma, III:5).
Seeming Contradiction of Doctrine
585. Difficulties also arise when a doctrinal development appears to contradict
previous doctrine. This can be a wrenching experience, and it occurred for many
in the traditionalist movement following Vatican II.
Members of the Society of St. Pius X, in particular, have argued that the
council’s teaching on religious liberty (see Dignitas Humanae) contradicts prior
teaching. We don’t have space to go into this subject in detail, but I would
recommend Fr. Brian Harrison’s work on the question. In his piece “Pius IX,
Vatican II, and Religious Liberty,”122 he argues that the council doesn’t change
or contradict prior teaching but considers issues that formerly were not
addressed. This is similar to how Lumen Gentium did not alter Pope Pius XII’s
definition for who count as members of the Catholic Church but offered a fuller
consideration of the ways in which people can be related to the Catholic Church
(§574).
586. Rather than looking at particular cases, we will consider general principles
for examining instances of seeming contradiction. This process is similar to
resolving apparent contradictions in Scripture, though the two aren’t strictly the
same since Scripture is divinely inspired, whereas Church documents are written
with a lesser form of heavenly assistance.
In general, when relating the magisterial documents of one era to those of
another, you need to employ the principles discussed in chapters ten and eleven,
in particular, the hermeneutics of precision, continuity, reform, and charity.
Applying the Hermeneutic of Precision (cf. §§299-307)
587. It is especially important, when looking at seeming contradictions in Church
teaching, to apply the hermeneutic of precision. This is no time to get sloppy in
how you read or think about magisterial statements! You must not be led astray
by emotion or hasty inferences. You must make a calm, objective, and precise
assessment of what the documents say. In doing that, you should ask:
• Are the statements that appear to be in conflict doctrinal at all? Magisterial
documents contain many non-doctrinal statements (see chapter thirteen),
including pastoral ones. Any pastor knows there is a time to be harsh and a
time to be gentle. This is often responsible for the different approaches
documents take. If one or both of the seemingly contrary statements is non-
doctrinal in nature then, by definition, you don’t have a doctrinal
contradiction.
• What exactly do the documents say? Take into account everything you know
about them, the historical situation that led to their creation, and how
language was used when they were written. Resist the temptation to draw
inferences and focus strictly on the meaning required by the words they use.
This is an essential step in determining whether there is an actual
contradiction.
Applying the Hermeneutic of Continuity (cf. §§288-291)
588. Although Church documents are not written under divine inspiration, the
Holy Spirit guides and unites the Magisterium across all ages in Church history.
Consequently, a fundamental continuity in its teaching should be presumed. This
has practical applications when examining seeming contradictions, and you
should ask several questions:
• What do the documents have in common—i.e., what do they agree on? This
will narrow the focus of discussion to just the apparent differences.
• Could apparent differences be due to differences in language or emphasis? If
 so, there is no contradiction.
• Could they be applying similar principles to different situations, such as those
brought on by changes in society? In this case also there would be no
contradiction.
Applying the Hermeneutic of Reform (cf. §§292-295)
589. The Magisterium doesn’t just conserve teachings from the past. If it did,
doctrinal development wouldn’t occur. Thus you mustn’t apply the hermeneutic
of continuity so rigidly that it would prevent doctrinal development. After using
the hermeneutic of continuity to identify the common ground between
documents, you should ask questions about remaining differences:
• Does the later document address things the earlier document didn’t? If so,
these may represent additions to but not contradictions of previous teaching.
• Does the later document omit things that the earlier document covered? If so,
it may mean: (1) the later document isn’t denying what the previous one said;
its authors simply chose not to go into those subjects; (2) parts of what the
earlier document said are currently being reevaluated (§580-581); (3) parts of
what the earlier document said have fallen into desuetude and are no longer
authoritative (§582).
Applying the Hermeneutic of Charity (cf. §§296-298)
590. If you’re examining a seeming contradiction in Church teaching, you’re
likely to have feelings about which version you prefer. Fallen human nature can
produce hostile feelings toward members of the Magisterium who write things
we don’t like. Our doctrinal preferences can even become tokens of our identity
and membership in particular groups:
• Some progressives quote older documents and denigrate them as a way of
showing how benighted the Magisterium was back in the olden days. They
then argue the Church needs to shed its prior teachings and embrace the
future.
• Some traditionalists quote newer documents and denigrate them as a way of
showing how benighted the Magisterium has become in recent days. They
then argue the Church needs to shed its current teachings and embrace its
prior ones.
The derision shown by both kinds of authors is a form of virtue signaling, and
it displays a lack of charity that is inconsistent with a proper attitude toward the
shepherds Christ has appointed to oversee his flock. Yes, members of the
Magisterium have flaws, just as all people do. However, to adopt a
fundamentally hostile attitude toward them is inconsistent with the ethic of love
Jesus taught, with the respect due their office, and the recognition due to the
work of the Holy Spirit in their ministry.
We must not allow ourselves to fall into this trap. We must “keep Satan from
gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs” (2 Cor.
2:11). This means taking a fundamental attitude of charity toward the authors of
magisterial documents in all ages, recognizing the good they were seeking to do,
and doing “nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others
better than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3).
Arriving at an Overall Assessment
591. Applying the above principles may lead to a quick resolution of seeming
contradictions in Church teaching, but it may not. In such cases, you should do
additional research. Have there been any books or papers written on the subject
you are considering by respected authors who are faithful to the Magisterium?
Are there orthodox experts you could consult to get more information?
592.Ultimately, seeming contradictions between Church teaching have one of
two resolutions:
• There is no contradiction—the documents merely use different language or
explore different questions.
• There is a contradiction—a material difference in what the documents say
about a doctrine, such that both cannot be true.
In the latter case, only one of the contrary statements can be true, but which? If
one is infallible then the choice is simple: the infallible one is true and the other
is mistaken in some way. However, one must not quickly conclude that a
teaching is infallible. One needs to apply the tests discussed in chapter sixteen
and remember that “no doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is
manifestly evident” (CIC 749 §3).
593. If both statements are non-infallible, the situation is harder to sort out.
However, the fact that doctrinal development is progressive provides a point of
reference. There can be ups and downs in history, but the fundamental trajectory
is of the Holy Spirit leading the Magisterium into a greater understanding of the
deposit of faith. This parallels the process of progressive revelation in Scripture,
and later texts—such as the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels—are to be given
priority when seeking to understand earlier teachings—such as those of Moses.
Consequently, if there is a genuine conflict between earlier and later expressions
of doctrine, the more recent ones are presumed to offer a deeper understanding.
This isn’t an infallible rule because later churchmen, when not speaking
infallibly, can make mistakes. However, the ongoing leading of the Holy Spirit
creates a presumption favoring more recent magisterial statements.
594. Finally, a few words should be said about our present day and objections to
some teachings of Vatican II. Representatives of the Society of St. Pius X are
correct that the documents of Vatican II shouldn’t be treated as infallible (Lumen
Gentium, appendix). The council chose not to issue any new infallible
definitions. This means there can be imperfections in how it articulated matters
and that these could be improved. Indeed, one would always expect future
doctrinal developments to improve on current magisterial statements. Also, the
Church acknowledges there can be situations in which theologians may have
legitimate difficulties with Church documents (§§612-623).
However, it would be wrong to adopt a hostile attitude toward Vatican II. Its
non-infallible teachings, like all such teachings, call for “religious submission of
will and intellect” (Lumen Gentium, 25; cf. Humani Generis, 20). Even if there
is room for critique and improvement, the fundamental legitimacy of the council
is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and expressed, in human terms, both by the
approval given its documents by the fathers of the council and by Pope Paul VI.
It’s also guaranteed by the subsequent reception of the council by the later popes
and by the worldwide episcopate.
It isn’t credible to hold that, if the council were fundamentally illegitimate, it
would have received the approval of the more than 2,400 bishops of the
worldwide episcopate who participated or the thousands of bishops who have
succeeded them. A handful of dissenting voices does not overcome the
overwhelming approval that the council received. And, as Msgr. Fernando
Ocáriz Braña remarks:
Lastly, in this regard, it does not seem superfluous to call to mind that almost
half a century has passed since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council
and that in these decades four Roman pontiffs have succeeded one another on
the Chair of Peter. An assessment of the teaching of these popes and the
corresponding assent of the episcopate to that teaching should transform a
possible situation of difficulty into a serene and joyful acceptance of the
 Magisterium, the authentic interpreter of the doctrine of the faith. This must
be possible and is to be hoped for, even if aspects that are not entirely
understood remain.123
Seeming Non-Reception of Doctrine
595. Although Vatican II received an overwhelming approval or “reception”—by
faithful, bishops, and popes—there are cases when it isn’t obvious a Church
teaching has been received by the faithful. That’s not surprising since the
Church, like Christ, has always been “a sign that is spoken against” (Luke 2:34).
Today opinion polls reveal widespread rejection by Catholics of its teaching on
contraception, and some consequently argue this teaching has not been received
by the faithful and therefore isn’t authoritative. This argument has been
advanced by Fr. Charles E. Curran.124 Fr. James Martin, S.J., has proposed a
similar argument concerning homosexual behavior.125 What are they talking
about?
Reception and the Sense of the Faithful
596. Discussing how the Holy Spirit assists the Church when it infallibly defines
a teaching, Vatican II stated:
To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on
account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of
Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith (Lumen Gentium, 25).
When the Magisterium infallibly defines a teaching, the Holy Spirit guides the
faithful to accept—or “receive”—that teaching. This reception reflects what
theologians call the “sense of the faithful” (sensus fidelium), who possess a
supernatural “sense of the Faith” (sensus fidei). According to Vatican II:
The whole body of the faithful . . . cannot err in matters of belief. This
characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei)
on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the
faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals
(Lumen Gentium, 12; CCC 92).
The Holy Spirit therefore gives the Church—including the ordinary faithful—a
supernatural awareness of what constitutes the true faith, and when the
Magisterium infallibly defines a teaching, he guides the faithful members to
receive this teaching. Following Humanae Vitae, authors like Curran argued that
so many Catholics reject its teaching that the process of reception had not
occurred. But if the Holy Spirit guarantees such reception, it would follow that
the teaching is not infallible, and Curran would argue it is also mistaken.
597.Setting aside the specific issue of contraception,126 it should be pointed out
that the process of reception is just that: a process. You can’t look at the
immediate reaction to a teaching as a definitive guide. The Holy Spirit takes time
to do his work in guiding the faithful, and this is complicated by free will. Once
people have arrived at a conclusion, they don’t easily change it. As physicist
Max Planck remarked:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.127
This insight is sometimes paraphrased as, “Science progresses one funeral at a
time,” and—though it’s grim to say so—something similar happens with
doctrinal development, especially after major teaching moments. Thus after
ecumenical councils there is frequently a period of doctrinal conflict, with some
thinking the council went too far and others thinking it didn’t go far enough. It
often takes a couple of generations for this to settle down and for the council’s
teaching to be fully received. Cardinal Dulles points out:
The Creed of Nicaea was fully received only after fifty-six years of violent
contentions. The Council of Constantinople of 381 marked the end of these
quarrels.128
It may be possible to look back at a magisterial act at a distance of hundreds of
years and assess that it wasn’t received by the faithful, but this can’t be done in
the first generation or two after the announcement of a controversial teaching.
598.In recent years a number of documents have appeared that discuss reception
and the sense of the faithful. One of the most significant is the International
Theological Commission’s Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church (2014). The
Commission notes that, despite the generally smooth reception of magisterial
teachings:
There are occasions, however, when the reception of magisterial teaching by
the faithful meets with difficulty and resistance, and appropriate action on
both sides is required in such situations. The faithful must reflect on the
teaching that has been given, making every effort to understand and accept it.
 Resistance, as a matter of principle, to the teaching of the Magisterium is
incompatible with the authentic sensus fidei. The Magisterium must likewise
reflect on the teaching that has been given and consider whether it needs
clarification or reformulation in order to communicate more effectively the
essential message (n. 80).
Who Are the Faithful?
599. The ITC points out that just because a person is a Catholic, this doesn’t mean
he’s authentically displaying a true sense of the Faith. When Catholics disagree,
they can’t all be right, and it’s obvious some are more faithful than others. God
offers all the baptized guidance (James 1:5), but we have free will and must
cooperate with his guidance to bear fruit (James 1:6-8). The Commission thus
identified criteria an individual needs to meet to authentically display the sense
of the faithful (nn. 88-105):
a) participation in the life of the Church
b) listening to the word of God
c) openness to reason
d) adherence to the Magisterium
e) holiness—humility, freedom, and joy
f) seeking the edification of the Church
All of these are common sense.
• If a person was baptized Catholic but never darkens a church door, he’s so
disconnected from his faith that he can’t be said to display a supernatural
sense of the Faith.
• The Faith is contained in the word of God, so willingness to listen to
Scripture and Tradition is essential.
• A person who won’t listen to reason, who’s determined to hold his opinions
regardless of the arguments brought forward, isn’t displaying the discernment
needed to distinguish truth from falsehood.
• Christ gave us the Magisterium, and a person who fundamentally refuses to
listen to it isn’t authentically faithful.
• Holiness is a key goal of God’s work in our lives, and a person who doesn’t
seek and display holiness isn’t cooperating with God.
• Finally, God leads individuals to build up or edify their fellow Christians, and
someone fundamentally oriented toward creating division and disedification
isn’t cooperating with him.
 Public Opinion and the Sense of the Faithful
600. In many parts of the world, including America, most Catholics don’t even go
to Mass on a regular basis. They thus don’t have the level of involvement in their
faith needed to meet even the first criterion for displaying the sense of the
faithful. When you consider how many Catholics don’t display the qualities
listed above, it’s clear public opinion polls can’t be relied upon as a guide to the
sense of the authentically faithful. The Commission comments:
i) First of all, the sensus fidei is obviously related to faith, and faith is a gift not
necessarily possessed by all people, so the sensus fidei can certainly not be
likened to public opinion in society at large. Then also, while Christian faith
is, of course, the primary factor uniting members of the Church, many
different influences combine to shape the views of Christians living in the
modern world. As the above discussion of dispositions implicitly shows,
the sensus fidei cannot simply be identified, therefore, with public or majority
opinion in the Church, either. Faith, not opinion, is the necessary focus of
attention. Opinion is often just an expression, frequently changeable and
transient, of the mood or desires of a certain group or culture, whereas faith is
the echo of the one gospel which is valid for all places and times.
ii) In the history of the people of God, it has often been not the majority but
rather a minority which has truly lived and witnessed to the faith. The Old
Testament knew the “holy remnant” of believers, sometimes very few in
number, over against the kings and priests and most of the Israelites. . . . In
many countries today, Christians are under strong pressure from other
religions or secular ideologies to neglect the truth of faith and weaken the
boundaries of ecclesial community. It is therefore particularly important to
discern and listen to the voices of the “little ones who believe” (Mark 9:42)
(n. 118).
Obviously, some who dissent from Church teaching are regular churchgoers,
and they may meet multiple criteria identified by the Commission. However, the
point remains that a true sense of the Faith is displayed by those who are
authentically faithful, not simply those who are baptized. Cardinal Dulles notes:
Sometimes it happens that a given teaching or set of teachings encounters
resistance. In the case of non-infallible teaching, it could be a sign that the
Magisterium has erred. Alternately, it could mean that the teaching, as
currently formulated, is ill-timed, one-sided, or poorly presented. But a third
 possibility must always be considered: that the faithful are not sufficiently
attuned to the Holy Spirit.129
122 Online at catholicculture.org.
123 Ocáriz Braña, “On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council.”
124 Charles E. Curran, “‘Humanae Vitae’ and the Sensus Fidelium,” National Catholic Reporter, June 25,
2018, online at ncronline.org.
125 James Martin, S.J., “Father James Martin Answers 5 Common Questions about ‘Building a Bridge,’”
America, July 14, 2017, online at americamagazine.org.
126 See also Dulles, Magisterium, 107–108.
127 Apud Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2012), 150.
128 Dulles, Magisterium, 104.
129 Dulles, Magisterium, 106.
 PART IV
How Doctrine Can Develop—and How It Can't

CHAPTER 20

Difficulties with Church Teaching

The Reality of Difficulties

601.One year as Passover approached, Jesus declared we must eat his flesh and
drink his blood. This prompted a dispute:
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who
can listen to it?” . . . After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer
went about with him.
Jesus said to the Twelve, “Will you also go away?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the
words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you
are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:60, 66-69)
As this incident reveals, Jesus’ teachings contain “hard sayings”—things that
can be difficult to accept. Some can be so challenging even followers of Jesus
may turn away and leave the Faith. Others have a different response: St. Peter
didn’t deny the difficulty of Jesus’ teaching, but he recognized that Jesus had
“the words of eternal life.” Therefore, no matter how difficult it was to accept
Jesus’ teaching, it must be true.
Both the unfaithful response to difficult teachings and the faithful one have
been repeated down through the ages. In this chapter, we will look at both.
Offenses Against the Faith and the Church

Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism

602. Finding a Church teaching difficult to accept is understandable, for God has
given the Church “hard sayings” to proclaim, but there are destructive ways of
responding. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists four:
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be
believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt
concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
 schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff or of communion
with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089, quoting CIC
751).
603. We’ve discussed the conditions that need to be fulfilled for heresy, apostasy,
and schism in §§263-266, and we don’t need to repeat the details here. However,
it’s worth noting a remark made by the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine
about making charges of heresy:
The Church has been deliberately careful in its description of something so
serious, so harmful to its identity. Unfortunately, in the context of intra-
Church polemics, heresy is often used rather loosely to designate any form of
nonacceptance of Church teaching or any proposal of novel theological
opinions or pastoral practices. To use the technical term heresy in such a
broad way would be erroneous and unjust (The Teaching Ministry of the
Diocesan Bishop, 17).
This principle also applies to the similarly grave charges of apostasy and
schism. These are all serious ecclesiastical crimes, and they carry
correspondingly serious penalties (CIC 1364 §1; cf. 1321-1325, 1330). Such
charges are not to be made casually. Just as you shouldn’t accuse another person
of spousal abuse or murder without rigorous evidence, neither should you accuse
another person of heresy, apostasy, or schism without it. The Code of Canon
Law provides:
No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person
possesses (can. 220).
The Catechism contains a serious discussion of offenses against another’s
604.
good name:
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to
cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient
foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s
faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of
others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as
possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable
interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do
so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it
badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the
Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so
that he may be saved (Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22).
Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor.
Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a
natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus,
detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity (CCC
2477-2479).
When one has committed such offenses, there is a duty of making reparation:
Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of
reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible
publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone
who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given
moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also
concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and
sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage
inflicted. It obliges in conscience (CCC 2487).
Incredulity
605. The Catechism also lists incredulity as an offense against the Faith. As “the
neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it,” it constitutes a
grave one. Incredulity is a form of nonbelief (Latin, in-, “not,” and credo, “I
believe”). It may involve a refusal to study the truths of the Faith or to take them
seriously, since doing so would interfere with a valued belief or behavior. It also
can involve a willful act of defiance, even though one knows the truths of the
Faith.
Incredulity doesn’t presuppose baptism. In the sense the Catechism uses the
term, incredulity involves only revealed truth and would not result if one
rejected non-revealed infallible teachings (§§345-347), though rejecting the
latter would still be a grave sin. Whether it would be a mortal or venial sin
would depend—for both Christians and non-Christians—on the degree of
knowledge and deliberation a person had (CCC 1857-1860).
Dissent
606. In recent decades, dissent has done a great deal of damage both inside and
outside the Church. Donum Veritatis notes:
The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done
to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church
teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic
exhortation Paterna cum Benevolentia, Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this
problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public
opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent,” which
must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above
(n. 32).
Dissent broke out on a large scale following Pope Paul VI’s encyclical
Humanae Vitae (1968). Within days of its release, the American moral
theologian Fr. Charles E. Curran began a campaign against its teaching on
contraception, and it grew to international proportions. This forced the
Magisterium to deal with large-scale opposition to its teaching—in Catholic
circles—for the first time in a long time.
607.It is important to note that dissent involves public opposition. The U.S.
bishops’ Committee on Doctrine observes:
[Donum Veritatis] restricts the meaning of the word dissent to “public
opposition to the Magisterium of the Church, which must be distinguished
from the situation of personal difficulties” (DV 32). This should be noted
because in American usage the term dissent is used more broadly to include
even the private expression of rejection of reformable magisterial teaching
(The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop, 18).
This means personal difficulties one may have accepting magisterial teaching
don’t constitute dissent as long as they don’t take the form of public opposition.
The Committee on Doctrine states:
Obviously, “public opposition” does not encompass the private denial of
teaching on the part of an individual.
More important, however, it does not seem appropriate to apply the term
 public to the professional discussions that occur among theologians within the
confines of scholarly meetings and dialogues or to the scholarly publication
of views.
608. However, there is a point at which disagreement becomes dissent:
When, however, a judgment rejecting magisterial teaching is widely
disseminated in the public forum (dissent in the proper sense as formulated by
[Donum Veritatis]), such as may occur through popular religious journals or
through books intended for mass distribution or through the press and
electronic media, then a situation of public dissent is at hand.
Most of the faithful don’t write such articles or books, but everyone has access
to social media and publishing on the internet. This means, if you have a
disagreement with Church teaching, you shouldn’t start trash talking the
Magisterium online.
609. Even if it doesn’t result in apostasy, heresy, or schism, dissent can result in a
number of penalties. In the case of theologians, this can cause the loss of their
teaching positions, and the same applies to anyone who teaches in a Church
setting, including catechists and parish study group leaders.
Dealing with Difficulties

Doubts and Difficulties

610. Not all ways of responding to difficult teachings are as destructive as these.
Some are constructive. Peter didn’t deny the difficulty of accepting Jesus’
teaching on the Eucharist, but he accepted it anyway since Jesus has the words
of eternal life (John 6:68). This illustrates a distinction discussed by Bl. John
Henry Newman:
Many persons are very sensitive of the difficulties of religion; I am as
sensitive as any one; but I have never been able to see a connection between
apprehending those difficulties, however keenly, and multiplying them to any
extent, and doubting the doctrines to which they are attached. Ten thousand
difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and
doubt are incommensurate. . . . A man may be annoyed that he cannot work
out a mathematical problem, of which the answer is or is not given to him,
without doubting that it admits of an answer, or that a particular answer is the
true one (Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Part VII).
 In ordinary English, we often use the word doubt to refer to an emotional
sensation—specifically, a lack of feeling confident. However, Newman uses the
word not to describe an emotional state but for a state of the will. In his sense,
doubt is a refusal to agree with a claim. If a person says, “I don’t know whether I
agree,” or, “I don’t agree,” he doubts in Newman’s sense. But if he says, “I
agree,” he doesn’t doubt, no matter how much he may lack a feeling of
confidence or how uncertain he is that he can prove something or answer
objections to it. The latter factors are what Newman calls difficulties. They can
be emotional (not feeling confidence) or intellectual (not knowing how to
provide proof or answer objections).
Understanding the terms this way, Newman is right: doubts and difficulties are
two different things. Peter and the Twelve may have had difficulties with Jesus’
hard saying, but they accepted it and so didn’t doubt it in Newman’s sense.
611.Since God is the source of all truth, whatever he reveals is certainly true. Yet
we may encounter emotional or intellectual difficulties. Our feelings fluctuate,
and at times we feel more or less confident. Similarly, we may not know how to
prove a teaching of the Faith or how to deal with objections to it. But we can still
accept its truth because God reveals it. According to the Catechism (which
quotes Newman):
Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is
founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths
can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but the certainty that the
divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.
“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt” (CCC 157).
612. Because God has given the Church hard sayings to proclaim, people at times
will encounter difficulties. This is an expected situation, and the Church has
offered guidance on how to deal with it, especially in the CDF’s instruction
Donum Veritatis (1990). It focuses on the role of theologians, but its principles
apply to ordinary members of the faithful. So what should we do when we find it
difficult to accept a Church teaching?
Assessing Meaning
613. First you must make sure you accurately understand what the Magisterium
has said. This is not a step to be glossed over lightly. The Magisterium often
uses specialized language designed for professionals, like bishops and
theologians, to communicate with each other in a very precise way. As we
discussed in §§263-273, it uses unfamiliar terms and it uses familiar words in
unfamiliar ways. People who don’t carefully attend to how a statement is worded
can easily misunderstand.
A different problem can happen when members of the Magisterium give
interviews. By trying to express complex theological ideas in a simple,
impromptu way, they may use imprecise language, omit important qualifiers, or
even misstate things. Further, the press may offer only partial quotations,
coupled with inadequate, inaccurate, and sensationalistic summaries of what was
said.
These factors make it important, when you encounter a statement that’s hard to
accept, to give it a careful reading. You should always look up the original text
and read it in full. Don’t just accept that someone’s summary of what a pope or
bishop said is accurate. Read it for yourself (see chapter twenty-one).
You may need to consult experts to figure out a text’s meaning, and as we
discussed in §§299-307, it’s important to pay attention both to what is being said
and to what is not being said. The latter is necessary because the Magisterium
doesn’t want to close off options on questions it isn’t specifically addressing. If
we don’t pay attention, we can mistakenly infer something the Magisterium
wasn’t teaching. We also need to recognize that sometimes statements are
ambiguous, and there may be no way to determine what is intended. On
occasion, magisterial documents use ambiguity deliberately to avoid closing off
possible views (§§253-255, 277-279).
But suppose you’ve done all these things and you still find a teaching hard to
accept. What then?
Assessing Level of Authority
614. The next step is to determine the level of authority the statement (called an
“intervention”) possesses. According to Donum Veritatis:
The theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness
of the interventions, which becomes clear from the nature of the documents,
the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it
is expressed (24).
Determining a statement’s level of authority may require the assistance of
experts. In general, statements in magisterial documents fall into three broad
categories (see chapter twelve):
1. Some aren’t doctrinal statements at all (see chapter thirteen).
 2. Some have been taught authoritatively but not infallibly (see chapter
fourteen).
3. Some have been taught infallibly (see chapters fifteen and sixteen).
It’s important to assess which category a magisterial statement belongs to as
objectively as possible, because it’s easy to allow our feelings to influence our
judgment. If we view a statement favorably, we want to put it in a more
authoritative category, and if we view it negatively, we want to put it in a less
authoritative one.
Non-Doctrinal Matters
615. If a difficult statement belongs to this category, we are not obliged to accept
it. As Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz Braña points out, “Such matters are received with
respect and gratitude, but do not require an intellectual assent in the strictest
sense.”130 In other words, we should give such statements serious and favorable
consideration, knowing that God is guiding the pastors of the Church, but the
nature of these statements ultimately doesn’t require us to agree.
Infallible Matters
616. By contrast, when the Church has infallibly taught something, we are
required to agree:
• If the Church has infallibly taught that something is divinely revealed, the
correct response is theological faith, because God has revealed the matter, and
God cannot lie.
• If the Church has infallibly taught something without specifying that it’s
divinely revealed, the correct response is to hold it definitively because by his
gift of infallibility, God has protected the Church from teaching error on this
point.
Therefore, if you determine the Church has infallibly taught something you
find difficult, the thing to do is remind yourself of these principles: God
guarantees that it’s true—either by directly revealing it or by protecting the
Church from teaching error.
Non-Infallible Matters
617. This category is the trickiest. What do we do when we find it hard to accept
something the Church teaches authoritatively but not infallibly? Donum Veritatis
notes that, in any given age, non-infallible Church teachings can contain both
elements that are certain and elements that are less sure. With time, doctrinal
development allows the Magisterium to discern which elements must be
preserved from those that need not be, but what should our attitude be while that
process plays out?
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on
matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that
a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the
timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions (Donum
Veritatis, 24).
In other words: it’s possible for a theologian to question whether a magisterial
statement is being given at an appropriate time, whether it’s phrased in an
appropriate way, or even—in the case of non-infallible teachings—whether it’s
correct. Donum Veritatis says this particularly applies with prudential matters, as
in the Church’s social teaching:
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it
could happen that some magisterial documents might not be free from all
deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate
consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question (ibid.).
However, this doesn’t mean the Church’s prudential judgments can be ignored:
It would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases,
one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually
mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine
assistance in the integral [i.e., complete, overall] exercise of its mission. In
fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain
competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage
of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the
tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the
Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because
while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were
not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted
discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress
(ibid.).
You thus shouldn’t view the Church’s prudential judgments as “habitually
mistaken.” God is still guiding the Church, even if the Magisterium sometimes
makes problematic prudential judgments that are later corrected as doctrinal
development progresses.
Before You Disagree
618. Orthodox theologians acknowledge there are exceptional situations in which
it’s possible, without sin, to disagree with non-infallible Church teaching.
Germain Grisez observes that such teaching ordinarily requires religious assent
and that “this obligation admits of exception only if there is some superior
theological source for a contrary judgment.”131 He also notes that a review of
various pre-conciliar theological manuals shows that “all admit the possibility
that one might not be obliged to assent to certain teachings—those neither
defined nor proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium. But none asserts
that theologians may publicly dissent from teachings proposed by the
Magisterium.”132
In Donum Veritatis, the CDF acknowledges there are situations in which, even
after study and dialogue, the “difficulty remains because the arguments to the
contrary seem more persuasive” and thus the theologian “feels he cannot give his
intellectual assent” (31; cf. §623).
Under what conditions would this be morally permissible? In 1968, the U.S.
bishops stated that such disagreement “is in order only if the reasons are serious
and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the
teaching authority of the Church and is such as not to give scandal” (Human Life
in Our Day, 51).133
Cardinal Avery Dulles remarked that these conditions “proved difficult to
apply. Who was to say whether the reasons were well-founded? How could one
establish that the authority of the Magisterium was not being impugned when its
teaching was being denied? How could scandal be avoided when theologians
were openly saying that the pope’s teaching was wrong?”134
A more authoritative attempt to address this question was made by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). According to Donum
Veritatis:
Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the
fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion
that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore,
would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it
because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive
authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine (28).
 This identifies three grounds that are insufficient for disagreeing with a
magisterial teaching:
1. It isn’t enough if the basis of a teaching isn’t obvious to you. The
Magisterium has been given teaching authority by God (1 Tim. 3:15), who
guides it. We thus need to be receptive to its teaching. The burden of proof is
on you if you want to disagree.
2. It isn’t enough that another view merely strikes you as more probable. In
view of the divine guidance the Magisterium receives, there need to be
serious reasons favoring another view before you’d be warranted in
disagreeing on a point of doctrine.
3. Appeals to one’s subjective conscience aren’t sufficient. There need to be
serious, objective reasons.
The last ground is particularly noteworthy since appeals to one’s conscience
were frequently made to justify dissent from Humanae Vitae. This focused
magisterial attention on the proper role and formation of conscience, and it is
one of the reasons why the Catechism of the Catholic Church has twenty-seven
paragraphs on conscience (CCC 1776-1802), compared to just four on purgatory
(CCC 1030-1032, 1054).
If the above conditions are insufficient for theologians, they also are
insufficient for ordinary members of the faithful. Indeed, an ordinary person
should be even more cautious in disagreeing with the Magisterium since he’s not
a specialist. Donum Veritatis adds:
In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental
openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for
every believer by reason of the obedience of faith (29).
Study
619. If there seem to be serious reasons to doubt a non-infallible teaching, the
next step is to study it and see if the difficulty can be resolved:
The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents,
arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on
his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine
the objections which his colleagues might offer him (ibid.).
Just as a theologian should consult his colleagues, an ordinary member of the
faithful should consult others, including catechists, priests, and theological
experts he may be able to contact.
Dialogue
620. If his own study and discussions with colleagues do not resolve a
theologian’s difficulties, he may need to engage in dialogue with the
Magisterium itself:
If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian’s part, the difficulties persist, the
theologian has the duty to make known to the magisterial authorities the
problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify
it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an
evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties (30).
Donum Veritatis notes that the fact that there are tensions to be resolved is not
necessarily a bad thing:
If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become
a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill
their respective roles while practicing dialogue (25).
His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus
to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and
with a clearer presentation of the arguments (30).
621.In the dialogue, the theologian needs to be cautious about how much
confidence he places in his own views:
Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not
present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-
arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the people of God
requires this discretion (cf. Rom. 14:1-15; 1 Cor. 8, 10:23-33). For the same
reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to
them (27).
Because of the disruption dissent causes in the life of the Church—and the
scandal that could be given to outsiders—the dialogue needs to take place
discreetly:
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media,”
but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert
the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of
doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth (30).
622. Theologians may engage in dialogue with their bishop, their episcopal
conference’s committee on doctrine, or the CDF itself. However, the only
member of the Magisterium an ordinary member of the faithful could potentially
engage in dialogue would be his bishop. Broader bodies like the national
conference’s committee on doctrine or the CDF would be overwhelmed if they
tried to engage in dialogue every time an ordinary churchgoer had difficulties
with something the Magisterium said.
Nevertheless, the same principles apply when ordinary members of the faithful
discuss their difficulties with a pastor or bishop. They should be cautious in
advancing their views, make a sincere effort to resolve the difficulties, and
discuss them discreetly rather than going on Facebook or Twitter to trash talk the
Magisterium.
Living with Unresolved Difficulties
623. Donum Veritatis notes that it isn’t always possible to clear up a theologian’s
difficulties:
It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with
the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the
theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem
more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot
give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain
open to a deeper examination of the question.
For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can
certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in
silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it
will ultimately prevail (31).
Ordinary members of the faithful, too, may find themselves having to live with
an unresolved disagreement with non-infallible Church teaching, and that is a
painful experience. The pain should be offered up for the sake of the Church and
for one’s own sanctification. As the document indicates, they also should remain
prayerful and open to reexamining the question. A powerful consolation is that,
if the Magisterium has been wrong on something, the situation will not last, for
the Holy Spirit guides the Church “into all truth” (John 16:13).
130 Ocáriz Braña,“On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council.”
131 Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume One: Christian Moral Principles (Quincy, Ill.:
Franciscan Press, 1997), 871.
132 Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, 873.
133 In this document, the U.S. bishops refer to “licit dissent,” using dissent in the American sense of
disagreement. This differs from the way the Holy See uses dissent to refer to public opposition to the
Magisterium (§§268, 606–609). The U.S. bishops thus mean legitimate disagreement.
134 Dulles, The Craft of Theology, 113.
 PART IV
How Doctrine Can Develop—and How It Can't

CHAPTER 21

The Papal Rumor Net

624. There are many people who make sketchy claims about what popes have
said. Sometimes it’s the current pope; sometimes it’s a pope from long ago.
Sometimes it concerns a doctrinal matter; sometimes it concerns a practice.
Whatever the case, the phenomenon is widespread. I call it the papal rumor net.
When you encounter it, there is a series of questions you can use to get past the
rumors. These synthesize principles we’ve discussed in this book, and they serve
as a model for dealing with sketchy claims about Church teaching.
Question 1: What’s your source?
625.Just because somebody tells you something, you aren’t obliged to believe it.
The burden of proof is on the person who tells it to you. This is especially true in
an area known to be infested by rumors, half-truths, and outright falsehoods,
such as the papal rumor net is. Therefore, the first thing to do is ask what a
person’s source is. The answer may be remarkably unsatisfying: “I don’t know.”
“Everybody knows this.” “I’ve always heard this.” “Somebody told me.” “I read
an article somewhere.” This leads to our next question.
Question 2: Why don’t you get back to me when you have a source?
626.If you don’t bear the burden of proof, you also don’t bear the burden of
research. When someone wants you to believe something, it’s his job to come up
with evidence. Don’t think you need to drop everything and do his research for
him. You’re perfectly entitled to say, “Tell you what: Why don’t you find a
source—preferably a primary source. If you do, we can examine it together.”
Question 3: Is the source authentic?
627.If the person comes back with a source, the next step is to determine if it’s
authentic, because in the last two thousand years there have been countless papal
misattributions, hoaxes, and forgeries.
For a long time, an ancient Christian document known as 2 Clement was
thought to be written by Pope St. Clement I, who reigned in the late first century.
However, today scholars generally think it was by an unknown author and was,
at some point, accidentally attributed to Clement.
There have also been deliberate hoaxes. In recent years “news parody”
websites have run stories claiming the pope said outrageous things. They
ostensibly do this for humor, but some sites take such pains to make their stories
look authentic it seems the only “humor” involved is the amusement the authors
get by hoodwinking people. News parody sites are recent, but similar hoaxes are
found in older anti-Catholic literature. In the days before people could quickly
look stuff up on the internet, it was easy to simply make up a papal quote, and
authors hostile to the Church did so for polemical purposes.
Sometimes entire documents would be forged in the name of a pope, even by
people who favored the Church. A ninth-century author who went by the name
Isidore Mercator released a collection of forged papal letters (some of which
contained authentic material) to bolster papal authority. They are now known as
the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals or the False Decretals.
628. If you encounter a quote you think may not be authentic, how do you check
it out? If it’s attributed to a recent pope, the first step is to check the Vatican
website (vatican.va). It has most of the documents from recent popes, though
they aren’t always in English. If it’s attributed to an older pope, your best bet is
to check Denzinger (see §§234-236).
If you’re trying to authenticate something a pope allegedly said to the press,
checking the website where the account appeared is important. News parody
sites may explain their nature on an “About” page, or it may be obvious if the
rest of the site contains implausible stories.
If a site tries to do serious journalism—say, it’s the New York Times or the
Wall Street Journal—you’re on safer ground, but it’s important to get the
context of what the pope said. Secular newspapers generally only give snippets
of what someone said, and the surrounding text can be highly misleading. One
way to find the original text is to search on a string of words attributed to the
pope, with additional terms like “speech,” “interview,” “full transcript,” or “full
text.”
Question 4: Is this a primary or secondary source?
629. If a source is authentic, it’s important to know whether it’s primary or
secondary. For our purposes, a primary source is one that gives the words of the
pope in their full, original context (e.g., encyclicals, audiences, speeches). These
include recordings that haven’t been edited to remove the context of what the
pope said. Anything else will be a secondary source.
630.A special kind of secondary source consists of things a pope supposedly said
in private. Claims made by such sources can be interesting, but they shouldn’t be
given much weight. All private statements are non-official and not binding. At
most they convey a pope’s private opinion on a matter. If a pope really wanted to
lend his name to an idea, he would address it publicly.
Further, reports of private papal statements are notoriously unreliable. For
example, a priest named Ingo Dollinger once claimed then-Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger told him that the entire secret of Fatima hadn’t been released.
However, the Vatican Press Office issued a statement from former Pope
Benedict XVI in which he “declares ‘never to have spoken with Professor
Dollinger about Fatima,’ clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to
Professor Dollinger on the matter ‘are pure inventions, absolutely untrue,’ and
he confirms decisively that ‘the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is
complete.’”135
Question 5: How reliable is the source?
631. Sources differ widely in reliability. Primary sources are what you want,
because they present the exact words of the pope, in context, though you have to
watch out for possible translation problems.
Secondary sources can be very unreliable. Sometimes people make claims on
Facebook or other online forums and offer no way to investigate further. They
just splash the claim out there. In such situations, the best response may be,
“Sorry, but I need a better source than that.” On the other hand, secondary
sources written by scholars carry much more weight, though even here you need
to be cautious. Scholars aren’t always correct, particularly when they’re writing
outside their field of expertise. Key questions to ask when evaluating secondary
sources are:
1. How much of the pope’s original words and their context is being given?
2. How much bias does the source display?
3. What reputation for reliability does the source have?
In general, your goal should be to get back behind a secondary source and find
a primary one. Without that, you can’t be sure what the pope said.
Question 6: Does this involve a doctrine or something else?
632.Once you have the text of what a pope said, you need to determine whether
he’s talking about a matter of doctrine. This is important because often people
assume everything a pope says is Church teaching. However, a pope may be
doing any number of things besides teaching. He may be:
• establishing a rule for Catholics to follow as a matter of Church law
• discussing history
• expressing appreciation for something
• providing advice or counsel
• giving a personal opinion
In none of these matters is a pope teaching (see chapter thirteen).
Question 7: What level of authority does the statement have?
633.You also need to establish the level of authority of what the pope says. Not
everything is infallible (see chapters fifteen and sixteen). There is a spectrum of
levels of authority a papal statement can have (see chapter twelve). And popes
are free to express matters of personal opinion without making them matters of
Church teaching, as in press interviews.
Question 8: Does the statement still apply?
634.If a papal statement was authoritative when it was made, it may not apply
today. This is true for statements of both doctrine and statements of law.
Because of doctrinal development, non-infallible statements of doctrine can be
superseded by later ones (see chapter eighteen). Similarly, using the power of the
keys given to govern the Church (Matt. 16:19), popes modify Church law to
better suit new conditions. Doctrinal and legal changes can occur in more than
one way:
• Popes may directly revoke previous statements. This happens most
commonly with legal ones.
• Popes may make a new statement that supersedes a previous one without
deprecating it. This is more common in matters of doctrine.
• Popes may allow a statement of doctrine or law to lose its force by not
repeating it for a long period of time, allowing it to fall into disuse or what
scholars refer to as “desuetude” (§§580-582).
Whatever mechanism popes choose to accomplish these changes, the fact they
occur means that you can’t take a random papal statement from centuries ago
and assume it applies today. You must look at more recent Church teaching and
law if you want to know what applies now.
Case Study: Gregory III and Horsemeat
635. I was once contacted by a person who was disturbed by claims on the
internet that Pope Gregory III (731-741) prohibited eating horsemeat.
Wikipedia’s page on horsemeat even cited a scholarly source: Calvin W.
Schwabe’s book Unmentionable Cuisine (University of Virginia Press, 1979).
According to Schwabe, “In pre-Christian times, horsemeat eating in northern
Europe figured prominently in Teutonic religious ceremonies, particularly those
associated with the worship of the god Odin. So much so, in fact, that in A.D.
732 Pope Gregory III began a concerted effort to stop this pagan practice” (p.
157).
Schwabe, who died in 2006, was a scholar. He had a doctorate in parasitology
and public health from Harvard, and he’s commonly known as the father of
veterinary epidemiology. But he wasn’t a scholar of the history of the papacy, so
he probably didn’t consult primary source papal documents for his claim about
horsemeat. He probably got it from a book or paper in his own field of veterinary
science. Whoever wrote that work also probably wasn’t an expert in the history
of the papacy and also probably didn’t check primary sources. This means we
likely have the transmission of a rumor by non-experts writing in a separate
field, with no clear source for the claim. Schwabe doesn’t cite one, not even a
veterinary text. And a check of the current edition of Denzinger doesn’t reveal
Gregory III having said anything on this subject.
But suppose that he did. How would we evaluate the matter? Without a precise
quotation to examine, we can only discuss some possibilities. It is clear from the
New Testament that eating horsemeat isn’t a sin, for Jesus “declared all foods
clean” (Mark 7:19). Medieval popes knew this, so a prohibition on horsemeat
should be understood as a matter of discipline rather than doctrine. This is
suggested by the report that Gregory’s efforts were directed against the worship
of deities like Odin in German-speaking territories.
Presumably, any such ban would have taken the form of a law that Germanic
Christians would be expected to follow to protect them from falling back into
paganism or trying to blend it with Christianity. However, Church law has been
completely reorganized since the eighth century, and it doesn’t presently have a
prohibition on eating horsemeat. Consequently, even if Gregory III or other
popes prohibited the practice, today it isn’t Church teaching or law.
135 Holy See Press Office, “Communiqué: On Various Articles Regarding the ‘Third Secret of Fatima,’”
May 21, 2016, online at press.vatican.va.
Bibliography
Walter M. Abbott, S.J., ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder & Herder and Association
Press, 1966).
Luigi Accattoli, When a Pope Asks Forgiveness: The Mea Culpa’s of John Paul II (Boston: Pauline Books
& Media, 1998).
William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (New York: Catholic Publication Society Co.,
1887).
Pierre Adnes, “Revelations, Private” in Rene Latourelle and Rino Fisichella, Dictionary of Fundamental
Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1995).
Jimmy Akin, “The Meaning of ‘Marital Intercourse’” online at jimmyakin.com.
—, “Understanding the Catechism’s Death Penalty Revision” online at jimmyakin.com.
John L. Allen, Jr., “Pope Signals Nuance on Condoms,” November 20, 2010, online at ncronline.org.
—, “Pope Takes the Classic Vatican Approach to Birth Control and Zika,” February 20, 2016, online at
cruxnow.com.
John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green, eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law
(New York: Paulist Press, 2000).
Benedict XVI and Peter Seewald, Light of the World (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010).
Ludovico Billot, S.J., Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (Rome: Typographia Polyglotta of the S. C. de
Propaganda Fide, 1903).
Claudia Carlen, ed., The Papal Encyclicals: 1958–1981 (Ypsilanti, Mich.: Pierian Press, 1990).
Catholic News Agency, “Full Text of Pope Francis’ In-Flight Press Conference from Colombia,”
September 11, 2017, 10:10 A.M., online at catholicnewsagency.com.
Owen Chadwick, From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development, 2nd ed. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987),
Charles E. Curran, “‘Humanae Vitae’ and the Sensus Fidelium,” National Catholic Reporter, June 25, 2018,
online at ncronline.org.
Joseph T. Martin de Agar, A Handbook on Canon Law (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1999).
Heinrich Denzinger et al., eds., Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum, et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et
Morum (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System, 2nd ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1996).
—, Magisterium (Naples, Fla.: Sapientia Press, 2007).
—, The Survival of Dogma (New York: Crossroad, 1985).
Harold E. Ernst, “The Theological Notes and the Interpretation of Doctrine,” Theological Studies
63(2002):813-825.
Johann Finsterholzl, in K. Rahner, et al., Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, vol. 6 (New
York: Herder and Herder, 1970), s.v. “Theological Notes.”
Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed.,
vol. 1, (Northport, N.Y.: Costello Publishing, 1992).
James Gaffney, ed., Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine: Revolutionary Texts by
John Henry Cardinal Newman (New York: Image, 1992).
—, trans., ed., Roman Catholic Writings on Doctrinal Development by John Henry Newman (Kansas City,
Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1997).
P.G.W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume One: Christian Moral Principles (Quincy, Ill.:
Franciscan Press, 1997).
Fr. Brian Harrison, “Pius IX, Vatican II, and Religious Liberty,” online at catholicculture.org.
Holy See Press Office, “Communiqué: On Various Articles Regarding the ‘Third Secret of Fatima,’” May
21, 2016, online at press.vatican.va.
Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1896).
Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, vol. II: The First Sessions at Trent, 1545-1547 (New York:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961).
Daniel Kennedy in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), s.v.
“Sacraments.”
William Levada, Address at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm, “Dei Verbum—Forty Years Later,”
October 10, 2005.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1980).
International Theological Commission, Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past
(1999).
Walter Kasper, The Gospel of the Family (New York: Paulist Press, 2014).
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2012).
James Martin, S.J., “Father James Martin Answers 5 Common Questions about ‘Building a Bridge,’”
America, July 14, 2017, online at americamagazine.org.
J. Michael Miller, The Encyclicals of John Paul II (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2001).
Francis Morrisey, Papal and Curial Pronouncements: Their Canonical Significance in Light of the Code of
Canon Law, 2nd ed. (Ottawa: Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 1995).
Gerhard Muller, Catholic Dogmatics for the Study and Practice of Theology, vol. 1 (New York: Crossroad,
2017).
—, “Communion to the Remarried, Muller, ‘There Can Be Mitigating Factors in Guilt,’” online at
lastampa.it; translated from Cardinal Muller’s introduction to the book Risposte (Amichevoli) ai Critici di
Amoris Laetitia by Rocco Buttiglione (Milan: Edizione Ares, 2017).
James A. H. Murray, ed., A New English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), s.v. “Discipline,” 6b.
Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz Braña, “On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council,” L’Osservatore Romano,
December 2, 2011.
James T. O’Connor and Vincent Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of
Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986).
Origen, Origen: Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom, ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, trans.
John J. O’Meara, vol. 19, Ancient Christian Writers (New York, N.Y. and Mahwah, N.J.: Newman Press,
1954).
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957).
Rocco Palmo, “‘There Is No Turning Back Now’—In Historic Abuse Summit, Vatican Says Chilean Bench
to Face ‘Consequences,’” May 12, 2018, online at whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com.
Edward Peters, “A Non-Magisterial Magisterial Statement?,” December 15, 2015, online at
canonlawblog.wordpress.com.
—, “Do Footnotes Count?” January 27, 2017, online at canonlawblog.wordpress.com.
—, trans., The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001).
Karl Rahner, ed., Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi (New York: Seabury Press,
1975), s.v. “Dogma.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, 2nd ed., (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1988).
—, Foreword, in Michael Sharkey, ed., International Theological Commission, vol. 1: Texts and
Documents, 1969-1985.
—, The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today’s Debates, trans. Adrian
Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995).
—, Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes, May 5, 2003.
—, “Theology Is Not Private Idea of Theologian,” L’Osservatore Romano, English Weekly Edition, July 2,
1990.
Joseph Ratzinger and Christoph Schonborn, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (San
 Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994).
Joseph Ratzinger and Peter Seewald, God and the World: Believing and Living in Our Time: A
Conversation with Peter Seewald, trans. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002).
Thomas J. Reese, S.J., ed., Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical, and Theological Studies
(Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1989).
Fr. Regis Scanlon, “What History May Tell Us About Amoris Laetitia,” January 26, 2017, online at
crisismagazine.com.
Tim Staples, “Does the Catholic Church Teach We Are Gods?,” online at timstaples.com.
Leo F. Stelten, Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995).
Basil Studer, “Dogma, History Of,” ed., Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover, trans. Joseph T. Papa,
Erik A. Koenke, and Eric E. Hewett, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2014).
Francis J. Sullivan, S.J., Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (New
York: Paulist Press, 1996).
—, Matisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
2002).
—, “The Teaching Authority of Episcopal Conferences,” Theological Studies 63(2002):472-493, online at
TheologicalStudies.net.
R.S. Wallace and G.W. Bromiley, “Sacraments,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised,
ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988).
Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas B. Scannell, trans., A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s
“Dogmatik,” vol. II, 3rd ed., rev. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd., 1908).
Nicole Winfield, Associated Press, September 11, 2017, 9:55 A.M. EDT, online at www.apnews.com.
Zenit, “Cardinal Newman: Doctor of the Church? Father Ian Ker on the Priest’s Cause, Teachings,”
October 22, 2008, online at zenit.org.
—, “Pope to U.S. Christian Unity Event: Jesus Knows All Christians Are One, Doesn’t Care What Type,”
May 25, 2015, 9:34 A.M., online at zenit.org.
Glossary
Anathema: (Greek, “an offering, something cursed, a curse”): In magisterial documents, a form of major
excommunication. This penalty no longer exists but the phrase “let him be anathema” may indicate the
presence of an infallible definition (§§480-488).
Apostasy: (Greek, apostasia, “standing apart”): The total repudiation of the Christian faith (§§263, 265).
Authentic: In ecclesiastical documents, this frequently means “authoritative” rather than “genuine.”
“Authentic” teaching is authoritative teaching (§§14, 267).
Authorial intent: What an author intends to communicate in a work (§242).
Canon: (Greek, kanon, “rule”): (1) The canon of Scripture (i.e., the books that belong in the Bible), (2) a
provision in canon law, as found in the Code of Canon Law, (3) a rule issued by an ecumenical council,
sometimes using the formula “let him be anathema” (§318).
Censure: (1) A kind of punishment in canon law, (2) a negative theological note indicating the problematic
nature of an opinion (§§339-340).
Church document: As used in this book, a document that is issued by a Church official or agency, whether
or not it deals with doctrine or carries the approval needed to give it magisterial authority. Cf.
“Magisterial document.”
De fide: (Latin, “of the Faith”): Theological note applied to dogmas (§§337-338).
Define: (Latin, de-, “completely” and finis, “end”): To teach in a definitive way so that legitimate dispute is
completely ended. In contemporary theology, to define a teaching means to settle it infallibly (§§475,
489-495).
Definition: (1) The act of teaching definitively or (2) a statement that is definitively taught (§475).
Definitive assent: The response called for by infallible teachings that have not been proclaimed dogmas
(§346).
Definitive: The quality of being defined so that there can be no further legitimate dispute (§413).
Denzinger: The author of an influential collection of excerpts from Church documents. Alternately, the
collection itself (§§234-236).
Deposit of faith: The body of revelation that God gave to the Church through Christ and the apostles. It
includes the revelation given in the Old Testament era, which Jesus and the apostles endorsed (§١١٧).
Dicastery: (Greek, dikastērion, “court of law”): Any of the departments in the Roman Curia (§44).
Discipline: (Latin, disciplina, “instruction”): A custom that carries an obligation (§92).
Dissent: In American usage, disagreement. In Vatican documents, public opposition to the Magisterium of
the Church (§§268, 606-608).
Divine and catholic faith: Also called theological faith. The response called for by dogmas (§344).
Doctrinal development: The process by which Church doctrine develops over time—e.g., as the contents
of the deposit of faith come to be more clearly understood and expressed, under the impulse of the Holy
Spirit (§§552, 554-555).
Doctrine: (Latin, doctrina, “teaching”): Any authentic (authoritative) teaching of the Church, including but
not limited to dogmas (§85).
Dogma: (Greek, “opinion, belief”): A doctrine that is (1) divinely revealed and (2) infallibly taught by the
Magisterium as divinely revealed (§§85, 343-344). For the historical use of this term, see §271.
Dogmatic fact: A non-revealed truth capable of being defined due to its relationship with divine revelation
—e.g., that a particular council was ecumenical, that a particular man was a valid pope (§437).
Doubt: The refusal, as an act of the will, to assent to a teaching, either by suspending judgment on it or by
denying it outright. Not to be confused with feelings, e.g., a lack of confidence (§610).
Ecumenical council: Ideally, a council involving the worldwide episcopate; to be authoritative, its decrees
must be approved or at least accepted by the pope (§§40-41, 464).
Editio typica: (Latin, “typical edition”): The official, authoritative version of a document (§246).
Eisegesis: (Greek, eis, “into,” and “exegesis”): Reading into a work instead of interpreting it properly
 (§244).
Ex cathedra: (Latin, “from the chair”): Term used for statements in which the pope infallibly defines a
dogma (§§427, 470-471).
Exegesis: (Greek, ek, “out,” and hegeisthai, “guide”): The process of explanation or interpretation.
Alternately, an individual explanation or interpretation. The goal of exegesis is to determine authorial
intent (§243).
Extraordinary magisterium: The way the Church’s teaching authority is exercised (1) when the pope
issues an infallible definition or (2) when the bishops issue an infallible definition in an ecumenical
council (or when they teach when they are simply gathered in an ecumenical council) (§13).
Faith and morals: Matters the Church is capable of infallibly defining (§428). Note that “morals” indicates
a broader set of things than the English term suggests (§429).
Heresy: (Greek, hairesis, “opinion, choice”): The obstinate, post-baptismal doubt or denial of a teaching
that must be believed with divine and catholic faith (i.e., a dogma) (§§263-264). For the historical use of
this term, see §270.
Hermeneutic: (Greek, hermēneutēs = “interpreter”): The process of interpretation or an individual principle
of interpretation (§245).
Inerrant: The quality of not containing error (§141).
Infallible: The quality of not being able to make an error (in the case of humans, this means being protected
by God from making an error) (§142).
Inspired: The quality of being “breathed by God” so that God is the ultimate author of a statement, though
he may use a human agent. This term is applied to the books of Scripture but not to other documents
(§143).
Irreformable: Not capable of being changed. An older term for infallibly defined propositions. It is
uncommon today (§413).
Magisterial document: As used in this book, a document that carries magisterial authority. Cf. “Church
document.”
Magisterium: (Latin, magister, “teacher”): (1) The authority to teach, (2) those who have the authority to
teach (i.e., the bishops in union with the pope), (3) a body of authoritative teachings (§11).
Object of infallibility: Truths that the Church is capable of infallibly defining (§428). Cf. “Primary object
of infallibility,” “Secondary object of infallibility.”
Ordinary and universal magisterium: The teaching authority of the bishops in union with the Roman
pontiff when they (1) are not gathered in an ecumenical council but (2) are teaching for the whole of the
faithful. The ordinary and universal magisterium can teach infallibly (§457).
Ordinary magisterium: The way the Church’s teaching authority is normally exercised (e.g., by the
bishops dispersed throughout the world or by the pope when not making an infallible definition) (§13).
Particular magisterium: A synonym for “personal magisterium” (§12).
Personal magisterium: (1) The teaching authority possessed by an individual bishop or pope; (2) the body
of things taught by that bishop or pope (§12).
Primary object of infallibility: The primary truths God has given the Church the ability to infallibly define
(i.e., divine revelation, the truths in the deposit of faith) (§431).
Private revelation: Revelation given by God to particular people or groups. It is ongoing and does not
require divine faith, even when approved by the Church (§§118-123).
Public revelation: Revelation given by God and directed to the whole of humanity living after the coming
of Christ. It is finished and requires divine faith. Synonym: “the deposit of faith” (§116-117).
Reason: The divine gift that allows us to discover information without divine revelation (§110).
Reception: The process by which the Holy Spirit guides the faithful to accept the teachings of the Church.
Alternately, the response that this process produces (§596).
Religious submission of will and intellect: The response ordinarily called for by non-definitive magisterial
teachings (§349).
Revelation: Truths directly revealed by God through his words and actions (§§112-113).
Roman Curia: The group of dicasteries in Rome that assist the pope in governing the Church (§§43-45).
Schism: (Greek, skhisma, “division”): The refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion
with the members of the Church subject to him (§§263, 266).
Scripture: (Latin, scriptura, “writing”): The divinely inspired writings of the Bible (§135).
Secondary object of infallibility: Truths the Church has the ability to infallibly define because they are
necessary to properly guard or expound divine revelation (§§434-435).
Sensus fidei: (Latin, “sense of the Faith”): (1) The supernaturally guided understanding that the Church or
the individual believer has of the contents of the Faith, (2) the capacity to properly discern the Faith
(§596).
Sensus fidelium: (Latin, “the sense of the faithful”): The supernaturally guided understanding that the
faithful have of the contents of the Faith (§596).
Subject of infallibility: One who exercises the gift of infallibility (§§418-427). Cf. “Object of infallibility.”
Theologian: A specialist in theology who has a canonical mission to teach (§80).
Theological note: Also called a doctrinal note. A rank indicating the doctrinal weight of a view. Not
commonly used today. Typically, theological notes were unofficial and assigned by theologians rather
than the Magisterium (§§337-341).
Theological opinion: A view on theological subjects that is not mandated as a matter of Church doctrine
(§530).
Theology: (Greek, theos, “God,” and logia, “discussion”): The study of God, based on divine revelation
(§73). Theology is not the same as doctrine (§84).
Tradition: (Latin, trans-, “across,” and dare, “to give”): Something that is handed down in a community
(e.g., “This is one of our traditions”) or the entire body of things that are handed down (e.g., “This is part
of our tradition”) (§§126-127). When capitalized, “Tradition” signifies authoritative, divinely revealed
traditions (§§130-131).
Universal magisterium: (1) The worldwide body of bishops teaching in union with the pope; (2) teaching
directed to and binding on the worldwide Church (§12).