Introduction: the pain that causes a parent to be hurt
It has been very painful to note, in recent weeks, numerous attacks, criticisms, and suspicions against Pope Francis, against Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and against the ordinary teaching profession. It is painful because the Pope, whoever he is, is the true successor of Saint Peter, and therefore, “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity.”[1] Cardinal Fernández, for his part, is nothing more and nothing less than the person in charge of the Dicastery most directly involved in promoting and protecting the integrity of the doctrine of faith and morals, based on the deposit of faith and seeking an understanding of this in the face of the new questions that contemporary culture offers.[2]
Likewise, it is painful to look at the attacks against Francisco because beyond definition, when a son sees that his father is hurt, humiliated, or attacked, he can only feel pain. This expression is not intended to be a mere rhetorical pose or more or less candid sentimentality. Pope Francis has shown the world an extraordinary fatherhood, showing by word and example that the mercy of Jesus is infinite and should not be conditioned by customs, but rather facilitated by pastors, who, without giving up on the truth, know well that , just as charity without truth becomes sentimentalism, truth without charity repels and destroys. Such fatherhood, which truly opens a path of healing for many wounded people, cannot but be grateful, loved and cared for with affection.
The circumstance of the recent animosity that flows in various media and in various social networks has been the publication of the Declaration “Fiducia supplians” which deals with the pastoral meaning of blessings, and in particular, about the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.
Critical reactions to this document are very diverse. The reaction of a schismatic bishop who no longer accepts the Second Vatican Council does not have the same accent as that of an emeritus Prefect who sees internal contradictions in the Declaration; that of a bishop who affirms that the “Fiducia supplicans” is not heretical but chaotic, that of another who affirms that the document is against natural law. If we immerse ourselves in the environments of lay groups, the critical reactions also embrace a very broad arc: some groups present legitimate doubts and perplexities, due to the lack of training and/or information on some topics, which, with patience and good will, they can eventually be resolved. Others, on the contrary, are groups that had already presented resistance and criticism to some aspects of the pontifical teaching, for example, in matters of marital morality (“Amoris laetitia”), indigenous pastoral care (“Querida Amazonia”), or social pastoral care. (“Fratelli tutti”, “Laudato si’”, “Laudate Deum”). Regarding these last groups, some of the most active groups in rejecting the “Fiducia Supplians” Declaration are precisely the environments that have allowed themselves to be seduced by some form of ultra-conservative political theology, and in which the distancing from social teaching of the Pope was incubating to now emerge in much more visible ways at the present moment.[3]
Is it legitimate for a Catholic to publicly express opposition to the ordinary teaching profession? Should fidelity to the Pope be conditioned by what I understand about the deposit of faith and ecclesial Tradition? Should I give in to the use of my own reason when accepting with faith the teaching of the magisterium or any pastoral provision within the Church? All of these questions are entirely legitimate. Not only because they respond to a contemporary sensitivity regarding the rights of conscience, but because they show the need to delve into a set of contents that are beyond the conventional clichés about what is “correct” or “incorrect” in the life of the Church.
In the following lines, unfortunately, we cannot address these questions in extenso. To do this, it will be necessary to study, with some pause, those chapters on the apostolic ministry, and in particular, on the ministry of Peter, which normally appear in robust studies of ecclesiology. Likewise, it will not hurt to become familiar with the bases of fundamental Theology, so that the articulation between the demands of reason and the experience of faith are understood with rigor and without simplifications.[4]
Our task, on this occasion, is much more modest: to offer, by way of opinion, some minimum elements that are worth taking into account when looking at the painful scenario of dissidence and bitterness against the Pope and against the Prefect of the Dicastery to the Doctrine of faith. These minimal elements simply outline a route that will undoubtedly require further investigation. However, in the opinion of the writer here, the elements that I note below cannot be ignored or put “in parentheses” as if they were mandatory for some and not for others. In other words, the teaching of the Church has already taught how the teaching itself should be received.
1. John XXIII: a more analytical and differentiated theological reading of the signs of the times
The Second Vatican Council was a true ecclesiastical “Kairós”. The passionate discussions, the various ecclesial tendencies that participated and debated, did not prevent the Holy Spirit from working and propelling the Church to a process of renewal, which has not yet concluded. The Second Vatican Council did not seek for the Church to become “fashionable” but rather to refresh its face by returning to the most original sources for its adequate reform. [5] At that time, there was no shortage of sectors that viewed any innovation as a surrender of the Church to the powers of the world. Pope Saint John XXIII was very aware of the existence of an entire ultra-conservative, anti-modern, “counter-revolutionary” mentality, full of fatal diagnoses that prophesied ecclesial fractures and endless crises. However, both he and the rest of the post-conciliar pontiffs achieved a theological reading of history that was more analytical and differentiated than the anti-modern one. In this way, among other things, we avoided falling into easy neo-Manichean simplifications, which were ultimately part of the ideological polarization that partially characterized the twentieth century. Let us look, for example, at how in the opening speech of the Council, Saint John XXIII stated forcefully:
“In the daily exercise of Our pastoral ministry, certain insinuations from some people who, even in their ardent zeal, lack the sense of discretion and measure, sometimes reach our ears, hurting them. They see in modern times nothing but prevarication and ruin; They are saying that our times, compared to the past, have been getting worse; and they behave as if they had learned nothing from history, which continues to be the teacher of life.” (…) “It seems fair to us to disagree with such prophets of calamities, accustomed to always announcing unfortunate events, as if the end of times were imminent. At the present historical moment, Providence is leading us to a new order of human relationships that, by the very work of men, but even more so above their own intentions, are aimed at the fulfillment of higher and unexpected plans; since everything, even human adversities, is arranged for the greater good of the Church.”[6]
This tight text, evidently, does not align with the modernist reading of history, which seeks to uncritically add the Church to the myth of indefinite progress. Nor does the text fall into the temptation of an anti-modern reading, so typical of the small groups that, full of fear, and rooted in a false idea of “Tradition”, sought to keep the Church within the “safety” zone defined by ultraconservative and fundamentalist thinking.[7] The “good Pope”, with great acuity, and without any naivety, knows that Providence is what guides History and takes us to a new order of things, on a personal, social and ecclesial level.
The Church has not given up on affirming the truth and correcting error. In fact, errors also swarmed within the conciliar debates. There was no shortage of voices that suggested the Pope assume an attitude of combat and condemnation of error in order not to fall into “ambiguity”, “confusion” and maintain a “clear” doctrine. Saint John XXIII, however, was convinced that the best way to correct error and sin is not in the form of combat or condemnation. The Second Vatican Council should not be a synthesis of condemnations, but a joyful affirmation of God’s mercy within history:
“The Church has always opposed these errors. She frequently condemned them with the greatest severity. In our time, however, the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. “She wants to come to meet current needs, showing the validity of her doctrine rather than renewing condemnations.”[8]
2. The Second Vatican Council: bishops “when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff”
Having these convictions well established in their minds and hearts, Saint John XXIII and, later, Saint Paul VI, led the Second Vatican Council, discerned its doctrine, and eventually came to the time of promulgating its documents. Among all of them, I want to highlight the Constitution on the Church, better known as “Lumen gentium”. In this important text, among other things, the essential foundations are laid to receive the Pontifical Magisterium in an adequate, truly ecclesial manner. To welcome it when I like it, and also when I don’t like it:
“The Bishops, when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff, must be respected by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; The faithful, for their part, in matters of faith and customs, must accept the judgment of their Bishop, given in the name of Christ, and must adhere to it with religious respect. This religious gift of will and understanding in a particular way must be given to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; in such a way that his supreme teaching is recognized with reverence and with sincerity adherence is given to the opinion expressed by him, according to his manifest mind and will, which is mainly inferred either from the nature of the documents or from the frequent proposition of the same doctrine, either by the way of saying it.”[9]
Indeed, the Second Vatican Council is very clear: bishops must be respected as witnesses of Catholic truth when they teach in communion with the Pope. The faithful, for our part, are called to an interior adhesion, to the “religious gift of will and understanding” in the face of the magisterium. This expression does not mean giving in to the vocation of reason or anything similar. It means learning to live in the spirit of faith – which is a rational assent to a revealed truth moved by grace – the teaching of the Church.
3. Legitimate questioning and detractors of the Pope
If, having done this, doubts and reservations still remain, questioning the teaching profession is legitimate when it is done privately, disciplicly seeking to find the truth, caring for communion and avoiding scandal. On the contrary, seeking to object to the teaching outside of this channel quickly leads to believing that the teaching only deserves respect when it coincides with one’s own opinion, which is often elevated, without realizing it, to the supreme criterion of interpretation of the faith. Furthermore, it is not strange to find on social networks discussions about the teaching of Pope Francis that seek to end when someone quotes Chesterton (“when I enter the Church, I take off my hat, not my head”) or Saint John Henry Newman, who in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk toasts first to conscience and then to the Pope. In both cases, the quotes usually ignore their true contexts, and seek to discredit the value of the contemporary Magisterium, when it does not coincide with one’s own worldview, often weighed down by a mixture of fragments of Catholic thought and conservative or neoconservative ideologies of various kinds.
Will it be possible to get out of this quagmire? Will there be any clue in the teaching of the Church from sources that are accepted by the main critics of Pope Francis that will illuminate these issues? From our point of view, it would be enough to study in depth the Constitution “Lumen Gentium” in the aforementioned section, to relocate things to their fundamental coordinates. Now, it is a fact that the orderly and well-founded study of the dogmatic Constitution on the Church is usually very scarce among the Pope’s detractors. The few who have studied this doctrine often do so without considering its complete background and subsequent developments. This is not the place to develop this question, which would lead us to considerations that far exceed this brief reflection.
However, it may be useful, at least in a didactic way, to observe how critics of the “Fiducia Supplians” Declaration, and in general, several of the sectors that feel uncomfortable with Pope Francis, and that tend to long for “clarity” and “precision” of the magisterium, for example, of Benedict XVI, they tend to forget that Cardinal Ratzinger himself, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the formal authorization of Saint John Paul II, had already laid the foundations to illuminate the arduous moments of contestation and questioning of the ordinary Magisterium, just like those that are happening today.
4. The Instruction “Donum veritatis” also applies to “non-progressive” critics
Indeed, the Instruction “Donum veritatis”, of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzigner, and which was used in the past by some as a battering ram to call “progressive” theological thought to order, applies also for the current “ultraconservative” response. There is no reason to think that this document of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church does not apply in its essence, when the person who objects comes from a “non-progressive” position.
Let’s look carefully at at least some decisive paragraphs. Firstly, “Fiducia supplicans”, as the Magisterium of the Church, is not a teaching extrinsic to Christian truth nor something superimposed on faith:
“The function of the Magisterium is not something extrinsic to Christian truth nor something superimposed on faith; rather, it is something that is born from the economy of faith itself, since the Magisterium, in its service to the word of God, is an institution positively willed by Christ as a constitutive element of the church. The service that the Magisterium provides to Christian truth is carried out in favor of all the people of God, called to be introduced into the freedom of the truth that God has revealed in Christ.”[10]
Obviously, there are various degrees and levels in the teaching of the Church. “Fiducia supplicans” does not incorporate any novelty in dogmatic or moral matters, but, in any case, its scope is pastoral, by introducing a relative disciplinary novelty in matters of blessings. Given this, it is necessary to say:
“Magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, although not guaranteed by the charisma of infallibility, are not devoid of divine assistance and require the adherence of the faithful.”[11]
5. The importance of pontifical approval and communion with the Successor of Peter
The Declaration “Fiducia supplicans” is not from “Tucho Fernández”, as some would like to trivialize it. It is a true Declaration of the Dicastery, signed by the Cardinal Prefect, and with explicit pontifical approval:
“The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the organizations of the Roman Curia, and in particular of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with regard to the doctrine on faith and morals. From which it follows that the documents of this Congregation, expressly approved by the Pope, participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.”[12]
The bishops who question the binding dimension of the Declaration, stating that it contradicts in one way or another the doctrine of the Church, seem to forget that a condition of the authenticity of episcopal teaching is to always exercise it in communion with the Successor of Peter:
“The teaching of each bishop, taken individually, is exercised in communion with that of the Roman Pontiff Pastor of the universal church and with the other bishops dispersed throughout the world or gathered in an ecumenical Council. This communion is a condition of its authenticity.”[13]
6. Prudential interventions in the Magisterium are not deprived of divine assistance
It is not strange to recognize that within the papal magisterium not all sentences deal with immutable principles, but many of them refer to “practical-practical” issues on which it is necessary to decide and eventually take risks. These types of interventions can mature and be modified over time, either through a greater understanding of the deposit of faith, or through a renewed understanding of the social or pastoral context that must be understood and attended to. However, in all cases, being aware of the imperfection of some evaluations and appreciations, and taking into account the contingent nature of some pastoral and disciplinary decisions, divine assistance to the Pope and the Church does not disappear or becomes intermittent:
“In this area of prudential interventions, it has happened that some magisterial documents were not exempt from deficiencies. Pastors have not always immediately perceived all aspects or all the complexity of a problem. But it would be contrary to the truth if, based on some specific cases, it were concluded that the Magisterium of the Church can habitually deceive itself in its prudential judgments, or does not enjoy divine assistance in the comprehensive exercise of its mission. [14]
It is worth insisting and redounding a little: the “prudential interventions” for the good pastoral governance of the Church may be more or less perfect. All the bishops in the world know it. They are the most common type of decisions. These decisions, in addition, in some cases, eventually admit different types of contextual implementation: the same criterion can be applied in a differentiated way, according to the culture-environment of each community.[15] These decisions, completely perfectible, are not outside the assistance promised by God to the successors of the apostles, and especially, to the Successor of Peter.
7. The use of the media
Now, as we have begun to say above, questioning, in conscience, a document of the ordinary Magisterium, whether in part or in its entirety, is possible. This question or objection must be expressed formally to the competent authority, without publicly mocking the Pope or seeking to enter a game of direct or indirect pressure. No one is asked to give in to the use of reason. However, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states:
“Although the doctrine of faith is not in question, the theologian should not present its opinions or hypotheses divergent from it, as if they were indisputable conclusions. This discretion is required by respect for the truth, as well as by respect for the people of God (cf. Rom 14, 1-15; 1 Cor 8, 10. 23-33). For these same reasons he must renounce an untimely public expression of them.”[16]
“The theologian will avoid resorting to the media instead of addressing the responsible authority, because it is not by exerting pressure on public opinion that he contributes to the clarification of doctrinal problems and serves the truth.” [17] ]
8. Dissent regarding the Magisterium does not have a merely “political” meaning
Ultimately, these and other indications seek to care for communion as a method for being and doing ecclesiastical work. Hurting communion with the Holy Father, either with direct challenges to his teaching, or with aggressive criticism of the Prefect in charge of making a magisterial Declaration, is something very serious, which must be avoided. And it should be avoided for the right reasons, that is, for a deep experience of ecclesial communion. It is necessary not to confuse communion with a kind of “complicity”, “lamebotism” or with a mere “grouping together” to protect a “power factor”. The ecclesial communion matures in charity, not in a politicized interpretation of a magisterial exercise. Believing that the issue, for example, in the Declaration “Fiducia supplicans” is one of mere power, believing that the underlying issue is “who is in charge here” when expanding the notion of “blessing”, and affirming it publicly, It is a serious mistake.
I immediately remember a monographic issue that “Ixtus” Magazine published 20 years ago with the title “Pedro’s vocation.” It contains a text by Hans Urs von Balthasar that is worth remembering:
Peter was taken where he did not want (…) Today the papacy is also taken where it does not want. But, I emphasize, this path perfects the promise made to Peter and, beyond giving him the final blessing, highlights the fundamental meaning of “authority” in this ministry and the perspective in which it can be exercised: that of last place, where the “servus servorum” is found by its very definition; the place of contempt and extreme mockery, where waste is discharged, where one is “a worm and not a man”; This place, which is always accepted against one’s own will, is the place of the ministry’s credibility, the greatest possible credibility and, finally, reconquered.[18]
I am convinced that Peter’s ministry is primarily a reality given in the mode of grace, not in the mode of logic of power.[19] Through the fragility of the Successor of Peter, and not in spite of it, grace acts and makes the Petrine ministry a true mystery and foundation for ecclesial communion. For this reason, dissent regarding the Magisterium has a different meaning than a mere “political dissent.” Cardinal Ratzinger points out in this regard:
“The Church is “like a sacrament or sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race.” Therefore, seeking concord and communion means increasing the strength of its testimony and credibility; To give in, however, to the temptation of dissent is to allow “ferments of infidelity to the Holy Spirit” to develop.”[20]
How easy it was to apply these and other similar texts to those who, from a “progressive” position, dissented from the Magisterium, for example, in the last decade of the 20th century! The ultra-conservative sectors did not hesitate to applaud the fact that the importance of due fidelity to the Holy Father and due respect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was pointed out “with complete clarity.” They did not hesitate to affirm with singular enthusiasm that adherence to the Magisterium was necessary and pertinent.
Why, then, is this magisterial teaching on the proper reception of the Magisterium not assumed by the current critics of the Holy Father? I can only think that in some of them a partial and tendentious reading of the Magisterium of Benedict XVI seems to prevail, somewhat similar to what also happened at the time with the teaching of Saint John Paul II. In other words, some, it seems, like to “learn” from the Magisterium of Cardinal Ratzinger and/or Benedict XVI, as if it were an “a la carte menu” and not in its proper organic understanding.
On the other hand, to this is added a subtle but no less important issue: on many occasions, implicitly or explicitly, the instructions of the Magisterium are thought to be “for others” but not “for us.”
9. By way of conclusion: with the Pope always
Since 2002 I began to participate in the theological accompaniment group that, from time to time, was convened by the presidency of CELAM. When, after the V General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (Aparecida), the “Theological Reflection Team” was formally reestablished, I continued to participate constantly until 2021. During all this time I had the opportunity to work with theologians of the most diverse sensitivities. Some of them were deeply hurt by the Instruction “Donum veritatis” of 1990. Cardinal Ratzinger, with the full support of Saint John Paul II, asked them to be ecclesiastical, not to generate scandal and to think in communion. It was not easy to receive that document. For some, it represented a restriction on academic freedom and conscience.
With sincere admiration, I can testify that, in practically all the members of the “Theological Reflection Team” over the years, communion, respect, and not publicly making statements that harmed ecclesial unity were privileged. Theologians who did not feel comfortable with some aspect of the Magisterium, little by little, discovered the via caritatis to continue exposing their research with great academic rigor, in the spaces created ad hoc for this, but without pretentiously challenging the See of Peter and /or to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. May God grant that, in the current controversies and disagreements, also the “non-progressive” sectors that feel affected by the contemporary Magisterium, learn to embrace, with the same availability and simplicity, the educational path to which Pope Francis providentially introduces us.
This is important, not only in the face of the present situation, which will eventually pass. If not in view of the pontificates of the future. A constitutive dimension of the Catholic faith consists of seeing in each Pope the providential gesture with which God takes care of his Church. How easy it is to try to correct the Pope in this or that! How difficult it is to allow yourself to be corrected and educated by him! The latter is only possible when one recognizes that one’s own ideas, one’s own convictions, need to be helped, purified, nuanced or corrected by another who makes me grow. The word “authority” precisely comes from the Latin verb “augere”, which means “to grow”. May God grant that by rediscovering the “authority” of the Pope’s Magisterium, as a service to our smallness and misery, we can all grow and learn to walk together, faithful to Christ, through Mary, in the Church, and with the Pope, always .
____
[1] Second Vatican Council, Constitution “Lumen gentium”, n. 23.
[2] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Constitution “Praedicate evengelium”, art. 69.
[3] For an introduction to the problems of political theologies, see: M. Borghesi, Critica della teologia politica. Da Agostino a Peterson: la fine dell’era costantiniana, Marietti, Rome 2013; From the same author: The Francisco challenge: from neoconservatism to the ‘field hospital‘, Encuentro, Madrid, 2022.
[4] Among the abundant literature, see as an introduction: E. Bueno de la Fuente, Eclesiología, BAC, Madrid, 1998; S. Pié-Ninot, Ecclesiology. The sacramentality of the Christian community, Follow me, Salamanca, 2007; From the same author: Fundamental Theology, Trinitarian Secretariat, Salamanca, 2001.
[5] Cf. K. Wojtyla, Renewal in its sources, BAC, Madrid, 1982.
[6] Saint John XXIII, Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council, October 11, 1962.
[7] For an introduction to “Catholic integralism”, see: E. Poulat, Intégrisme et catholicisme intégral, Casterman, Paris, 1969; Cf. G. Sale, La Civiltà Cattolica nella crisi modernista (1900-1907) fra political intransigentismo e integralismo dottrinale, Jaca Book, Milano 2001; J. M. Laboa, Integriism and intolerance in the Church, PPC, Madrid 2019.
[8] Saint John XXIII, op.cit.
[9] Second Vatican Council, Constitution “Lumen Gentium”, n. 25.
[10] Card. J. Ratzinger, Instruction “Donum veritatis”, n. 14.
[11] Ibidem, n. 17.
[12] Ibidem, n. 18.
[13] Ibidem, n. 19.
[14] Ibidem, n. 24.
[15] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Reactions to the “Fiducia supplicans”, January 4, 2024.
[16] J. Ratzinger, Instruction “Donum veritatis”, n. 27.
[17] Ibidem, n. 30.
[18] H. U. von Balthasar, “The Pope Today”, in The Calling of Peter, Ixtus, n. 47, 2004, p. 129.
[19] Cf. R. Guerra López, “Relearn unity”, in The Calling of Peter, Ixtus, n. 47, 2004, p.p. 98-106.
[20] J. Ratzinger, Instruction “Donum veritatis”, n. 40.
