Principle #16

Principle #15 states that there can be seeming contradictions between magisterial statements. As an addendum to this, we have principle #16:

A magisterial statement cannot be judged false, erroneous, heretical, etc., simply because it appears to contradict a former magisterial statement.

This principle follows from principle #3, that the Magisterium has everything necessary to accomplish its purpose. For if principle #16 were false, every doctrine would have to be decided on the basis of private judgment, so that the Magisterium would be rendered pointless. This can be illustrated by an example. It has occasionally been argued that Pius XII taught heresy when he affirmed the moral liceity of natural family planning, on the grounds that Pius XI condemned the practice. But if this is possible, how do we know that it was not Pius XI who taught heresy, and that the teaching of Pius XII was not the true one? Someone might equally well argue that we know that Pius XI was a heretic because he contradicts the teaching of Pius XII.

There are two possible answers to this question. One might say, first, that it is in virtue of the content of the teaching that we know it was Pius XII, not Pius XI, who was the heretic. But in order to make such a judgment, we must first know which teaching is true, and therefore cannot depend on the Magisterium to educate us on this matter. According to this account, the Magisterium is useless.

On the other hand, one might say that it is because Pius XI’s teaching temporally preceded that of Pius XII that we know the former’s is the authoritative teaching. This reply has two problems. First, it violates principle #10, which states that later magisterial documents have greater weight than earlier ones, all other things being equal. This ultimately results in the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, since the only way we can be sure that a later teaching is not heretical is if it appears to us to agree with the earliest teaching of all; this too renders the Magisterium pointless. Second, if Pius XII was able to teach heresy, then so was Pius XI, and we are back to the initial problem of having to depend on our private judgment. This will be true unless one argues either that the temporal precedence of Pius XI causes his teaching to be true, or that a pope’s teaching is infallible only if he is the first pope to speak on the subject. Both claims are manifestly absurd.

Hence, the appropriate response to apparent contradictions in magisterial teaching is, first, suspension of judgment, and second, careful consideration of whether one’s interpretation of the earlier teaching might in fact be erroneous.

Principle #15

Adding to Principle #6 and Principle #7, we should spell out:

It is quite possible to have seeming contradictions even between infallible documents of the magisterium, and a fortiori between fallible documents.

This is due to the possibility of doctrinal development.  To cite yet again Donum Veritatis 24,

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.

Principle #14

Also from Donum Veritatis 24, and as a corollary to Principle # 3, we have the following:

The Church’s Magisterium cannot be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments.

This is opposed to those who maintain submission to the Church’s teachings but scoff at all the Church’s pastoral decisions over the past fifty years.  While this or that decision can be shortsighted, one cannot take the whole trend of the Church’s pastoral activity over an extended period of time as gravely mistaken.  This Principle is relevant to our blog inasmuch as many magisterial documents concern not doctrine but practice.

Principle #13

Our next principle is documented in Donum Veritatis 24:

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. Here 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.

This is clear from reason even without the support of this CDF statement.  The statement that teachings can have more or less authority can only mean that they override more or fewer difficulties; short of an infallible statement, it is always possible that some difficulty could arise so grave that the teaching cannot be maintained any longer.  However, the average Catholic does not know enough about his faith to judge whether a new statement is consonant with the faith, so he is not able to have the sort of difficulties mentioned in the previously quoted paragraph.  It is the theologian who may have a real ground for difficulty.

So Principle #13 is:

Theologians and laymen are not bound to respond in the same way to the same magisterial document.

Notice, of course, that “The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule,” and that the Theologian must use Principles #7, #8, and #9 before proceeding to raise questions.

Principle #12

A corollary of Principle #4 explains what might seem like a strange omission from Principles #7, #8, and #9:

The level of authority a magisterial document has is not determined by how correct its teaching is.

Many Catholics mistakenly judge, for example, that a magisterial document has no authority because it appears to them to contradict some number of earlier documents.  The fact is that a religious submission of mind and will is due to this teaching simply in virtue of the authority teaching and not in virtue of the truth of the statement–and yes, Catholics can find themselves bound to hold a position which later turns out to be false.  However, theologians and laymen find themselves in different situations in this regard; see Principle #13.

Principle #11

Because Principle #10 is open to abuse, we have to offer this:

Later magisterial documents must be interpreted as in continuity with earlier magisterial documents.

In other words, one never assumes a radical split with the past.  While a later document probably means to interpret the earlier ones, it may also presume the earlier ones as background knowledge for its own teaching.  This does not mean that the Magisterium is bound only to repeat earlier documents–progress in understanding is possible–but that any changes must be true developments rather than mutations.

Principle #10

This is meant as a nuance to Principle #8:

Given two documents of the Magisterium, the later document has more weight.

The reason for this is that, given earlier document A and later document B speaking about the same subject, it is impossible that A meant to interpret B but almost equally impossible that B did not mean to interpret A.  But we have to be careful:  this principle assumes the case of a document-to-document comparison and would obviously be nuanced in there were thirty earlier documents compared to one later text.  And we’ll need an additional principle…but see the next post.

Principle #9

To round out our theme:

The mind and will of the Magisterium can be known in part from the manner in which a doctrine is phrased.

This just means that, as you would expect, the Magisterium puts things more forcefully when it wants to give a teaching more authority.  Over time certain phrases have taken on a conventional meaning so that the Church will only use those phrases when she wants to invoke, for example, the charism of infallibility.  But those specifics will be covered in a later post.

Principle #8

Continuing the last topic:

The mind and will of the Magisterium may be known in part from the frequency with which the doctrine is repeated.

This means that something said once or only a few times is, considered from this perspective, less authoritative than something said many times.  Of course, this principle cannot be used independently of other the other ways of knowing the Magisterium’s mind and will.  Those violate this principle who latch onto one document, either the newest or the oldest, depending on their disposition, and treat it as the whole of the matter.

Principle #7

Just to have things spelled out properly, I want to list separately the items from Lumen Gentium 25, as per Principle #5:

The mind and will of the Magisterium may be known  in part from the character of the documents, that is, from the genre of the document.

So for example an apostolic letter as such does not have the same weight as an encyclical, and neither have the same weight as a dogmatic decree from an ecumenical council, and so on.  To this principle is opposed the habit of treating magisterial documents as if they were Scripture, with every line equally authoritative.