Twice now I’ve run into a problem with quoting the wisdom of the Holy Fathers, on the issue of immigration, and now the issue of torture.
The problem is usually put this way: “well, there’s no official statement on this, it isn’t clear in the Catechism, it isn’t a part of the Magisterium, etc,.”
For instance, Pope John Paul II’s remarks on World Migration Day in 1996, which clearly call upon all Catholics to not only respect the ‘illegal immigrant’, to meet his human needs without preconditions, to even consider his burderns their own – all of this is brushed aside as nothing more than a ‘speech’. These specific remarks haven’t made their way into the Catechism, so, we are free to disregard them and by the tone some take, obliged to disagree.
On torture, I’ve been citing a speech given by Pope Benedict in 2007 where he quotes, verbatim, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: “I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances“
I’m waiting for similar reasons to disagree to start showing up. The debate over what constitutes torture may continue. But it is also evident that there are many who believe that things we can all agree are torture should still be used in order to gather information that might save lives or for some other serious reason.
Now is a good time to look at what at least one Catholic authority teaches about how to listen to the Popes when they speak. The document I am refering to is called “The Modern Catholic and the Magisterium of the Pope” by Cardinal Laurean Rugambwa.
The Cardinal begins by acknowledging the impulses of the modern Catholic in questioning what the Church teaches:
Modern man wants to see for himself, to be given proofs, to take his own decisions, to apply the rule of thumb of his own conscience and experience. Criticism is in the air and nothing escapes from it.
But this acknowledgment is far from approval. A little later on he describes the limits of freedom and the duty to listen:
An honest man will come to the conclusion, at times painfully acquired, that his freedom has its limits. He must be willing not only to express what he thinks, feels, or presumes is right, but also to listen. And this all the more so in matters revealed by God or linked up with revelation. We cannot just identify without further ado our own convictions with the word of God.
Is it ever really justifiable for a Catholic to casually dismiss what the Pope has said on an issue where there is not yet an absolutely clear statement in the Catechism or elsewhere? To snoop endlessly for loopholes and evasions instead of addressing, head on, what was actually said? The Cardinal say:
[T]he Catholic is obliged in conscience to make serious efforts to see what the Pope means, to discover the deeper motives animating a ruling, an encyclical, a reprimand. Too often he is ready to indulge in a wholesale rejection of all that comes from the top. This would denote a spirit of unwillingness to listen to Christ who said: “Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me” (Lk. 10, 1).
Criticism of the Church and even of the Pope is not discouraged, however. It may be done, but only with a certain approach, in a certian spirit:
A critical mind can be either a very good or a very bad thing… It can be and should be inspired by real love. Only then can there be question of truly constructive criticism.
Forgive me if I note that ‘love’ is not the first word that comes to my mind when reading objections to what the Popes have said on both sides of the political spectrum.
The Cardinal quotes Paul VI’s Lumen Gentium as well on the nature of ‘religious submission’ to the authorities of the Church and the Pope himself, even on matters that are not ex cathedra:
This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that this supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest will and mind. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking
I could go on, but I think I’ll stop there for now. I recommend that everyone read article by the good Cardinal. I don’t mean to single out conseravtive or right-leaning Catholics because there are many on the left side of the spectrum who have just as much disregard for the Holy Fathers. I used the examples I did because those are the ones I have personally encountered so far.
To conclude, we may not have absolute, authoritative statements on any number of issues, but we do have a duty and an obligation, as faithful Catholics, to study the speeches and writings of the Popes on the issue in question, to discren their meaning, to do so with an open and loving heart, and to maintain a submissive orientation towards their clearly expressed intention and will. It would be rather absurd to assume that some official statement in the future about torture is going to conflict with what Benedict said in 2007, or what John Paul II said much earlier, or what the Catechism clearly teaches now.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In