Sorting out claims of Church error

Most of the charges that the Church has erred can be handled very simply if one makes distinctions, and knows a few basic, simple principles.

First of all, we must carefully distinguish and keep separate three areas: (1) The teachings of the Church (doctrine); (2) the rules or commands of the Church (legislation); (3) the question of how

prudently the Church has acted in a given case.

As to the first, namely teaching, we saw that Christ, the Divine Messenger, promised to protect that teaching; so we believe. As to the second, that is legislation or commands, Christ gave authority to

rule to the Church; so we obey. But the third is different: There are no promises by Christ that the Church would always act prudently, and would do things in the best way. It is one thing to teach

truth or give binding laws and another to act in the best, most prudent way. On this third point, prudence, there are no promises of Christ nor any commission from Christ. So the Church does not

now claim, and never has claimed, assurance of prudence.

This distinction is of capital importance because many good people today find themselves unable to think that some new ways of doing things, for example, the ceremonies of the Mass, are very good ways compared to older ways. Often such people, not knowing the distinction we have just made,

mistakenly think that they are obliged to think the new rites are better, or are more conducive to devotion. Yet, they cannot force themselves really to think that way, so they fear they have broken

with the Church. Worse, since they do not know about the three areas we mentioned, they think that since they have broken once, they might as well break some more; and they wind up breaking

with the Church even in matters guaranteed by Christ, in matters of doctrine or legislation.

There is immense confusion, too, about the first area, doctrine. Many, even priests who should know better, take this attitude: If a matter is not covered by a solemn definition, we can take it or

leave it. But such is not and has never been the case. What of the centuries before 325 A.D., the first General Council, at Nicea? Was everything optional matter up to then? And, since after that,

only one point was defined, the divinity of Christ, could people doubt all else?

Vatican II, in the Constitution on the Church, clearly restated the traditional teaching of the Church on this matter. It said that there are three levels of teaching. The first two of them are infallible; the

third, not. We will look at each.

At the first level, the solemn definition is sufficiently familiar, yet there are some

misunderstandings. Vatican II taught that the relation between Pope and Bishops is parallel to that between Peter and the Apostles, so that the Pope and Bishops form a college of which the Pope is the head. This is called collegiality. This teaching is not really new. Most major decisions in all past

centuries have actually been made following this pattern.

However, the Pope does retain the right to act alone, even in defining. Vatican II taught: "His [the Pope's] definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly called irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, which was promised to him in blessed Peter. Therefore they need no approval of others, nor is there room for an appeal to

any other judgment."¹⁹³ If the Pope can even define alone, clearly he also can make lesser statements alone.

The second level seems to be overlooked by many Catholics, even theologians. On it, Vatican II said, "Although the individual Bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility, yet they can proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so even when they are scattered around the world, provided that, while keeping the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals, they agree that a particular teaching is

to be held definitively."¹⁹⁴ That is: The day-to-day teaching of the whole Church, in which the Church tells us certain things, are part of Catholic belief-such teaching is infallible.

Therefore, many doctrines are guaranteed in this way which are not defined, yet many people act as though they can be ignored. It is the decision of the Church which teachings meet these conditions. Yet, it would not seem rash to suppose that the existence of angels, for example, is such

a doctrine.

Thirdly, we meet with lesser, undefined teachings. Pius XII commented on such things in Humani generis in 1950: "Nor must it be thought that what is contained in Encyclical letters does not in itself require assent, on the pretext that in them the Popes are not using the supreme power of their

teaching authority [are not defining]. Rather, these teachings pertain to the ordinary teaching authority, about which it is also true to say: 'He who hears you, hears me.' ... If the Popes in their official acts deliberately pass judgment on a matter that has been debated up to then, it is clear to

all that the matter. .. cannot be considered any longer a question open for discussion among theologians."¹⁹⁵ Vatican II makes a similar statement: "Religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged

with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."¹⁹⁶

There follows a loud objection from those who say, "How can we be told to believe something which is admittedly not infallible?" At first, the objection seems valid. Yet when we stop to think, the answer is easy. There are many things in life for which there is no infallible guarantee, and yet we

believe them, and even stake our very lives on them. For example, suppose at dinner someone points to a dish of food and says, "Did that come from a can?" The answer is yes. "But was it sent

to a lab to be checked for botulism?" (Botulism is a deadly food poisoning that would not be detected in routine opening of cans). We answer, "No." The person then exclaims, "Do you expect

me to stake my life on the noninfallible assurance that this food is safe?" We look at him and think him very odd. Of course there is a chance of botulism, but that chance is very, very remote. The

normal person not only may, but probably should ignore it.

Another example is a criminal court in which the judge instructs the jury on a capital case. He tells the jurors that they must find the defendant proved guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" if they are to condemn him. But notice that the judge does not ask, nor does the jury guarantee, that all possible

doubt will be eliminated, only reasonable doubt.

Thus, in many areas of life we believe things when there is no infallible guarantee. In believing, we might or might not stop to realize that there is a remote possibility of a mistake. But whether we

think of it or not, we ignore the possibility.

So it is with the noninfallible teachings of the Church, except that with them the possibility of error is much more remote than is the chance with the canned food or the criminal court. Further, if there

were any mistake, the Divine Judge would never charge it against us if we had believed His Church.

But He would penalize us if we did not believe.

Still further, there is not one case in nearly two thousand years in which the Pope himself has erred in this noninfallible type of teaching. Only one case even came close, that of Galileo. There are, however, many charges that such errors have been committed in the past. In the following sections,

we will look at all of the most important of them.

3) Galileo

On February 19, 1616, two statements by Galileo were submitted to the Holy Office: (1) The sun is the center of the galaxy; (2) the earth is not the center.¹⁹⁷ On February 24, the Qualifiers (theological experts) of the Holy Office reported that this contradicted Scripture. Pope Paul V told Cardinal Bellarmine to warn Galileo to stop teaching his views as fact. He could consider them as a

hypothesis.

Galileo submitted; but in 1632, he was reported as going back on his agreement. So, on June 16, 1633, Pope Urban VIII ordered an interrogation in the Holy Office. The Holy Office decided that Galileo had made himself "vehemently suspected of heresy." We note he was only called suspected,

not flatly heretical.

So, did a Pope, on the noninfallible level, teach error here? Definitely not. Already in 1624, Pope Urban VIII stated about the theory that the earth went around the sun, that "the Holy Church had never, and would never, condemn it as heretical, but only as rash, though there was no danger that

anyone would ever demonstrate it to be necessarily true."¹⁹⁸ Accordingly, Pope Paul V did not personally teach what the experts of the Holy Office said.

Further, Galileo's idea was not really original nor new. The ancient Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos, in about 280 B.C. had taught the theory but received scant support from other astronomers

of his day or later, either. Copernicus (1473-1543) also taught it. Cardinal Bellarmine, who conducted the first investigation, did not consider Galileo's idea heretical. In a letter written in 1615

he said, "I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed, and does not revolve round the earth ... then it will be necessary to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which

appear to be contrary ..."¹⁹⁹

A considerable part of the trouble with Galileo was his unscientific presumption. His "proofs" did not impress even the astronomers of that day-nor would they impress astronomers today. Even though today we know that the earth goes around the sun, we do not know it because of Galileo's reasons.

First, he said he would prove the earth moved by the tides. But, we know tides are caused by the moon, not by the earth's movement. Second, he thought that the planets travel in circles. They

really travel in ellipses. Another astronomer, Kepler, had shown that Galileo's circles were implausible, but Galileo refused to consider Kepler's evidence. Third, not even with his telescope did

he find the stellar parallax, which his arguments presupposed.

We conclude that the incident was regrettable and a case of imprudence, but yet, no Pope taught error in it. We note that even the Holy Office just said Galileo was "vehemently suspected" of

heresy-not that he was strictly heretical.

In more recent times, in the middle of the 19th century, some scientists suffered more severely at the hands of other scientists. Pasteur and Lister met much opposition from their own ranks for their discoveries about germs. Still worse, Semmelweis, a Hungarian doctor who discovered the cause of puerperal fever and proved it by results with his patients, was railroaded by other doctors into an

insane asylum, where he remained for the rest of his life.