For full context: the
article to which I refer is located here. You should probably read it before continuing as, without that, my piece will make less sense.
Respondeo ad Doctorem Fastiggi
I
read Dr. Fastiggi’s article, “Pope Francis and Papal Authority under Attack,”
when it was recommended to me by a friend on Facebook as “setting the record
straight” on the whole papal correction issue. I was curious and excited to
read it as I had heard only good things about Dr. Fastiggi from friends who had
attended his classes at the seminary. However, as I read the article, I was
more and more surprised by statements of condemnation by a man who is held to
be a fair-minded scholar. That is not to say that Dr. Fastiggi does not make
some good points. I think that some of his comments about sensationalism and
how other churchmen should clarify their own points makes a good deal of sense.
However, I think there are other points in his article that are quite
problematic which I feel I ought to address. You should probably read it before continuing as without that, my piece will make less sense.
Among
his first lines is: “To be a Catholic is to be in communion with the Roman
Pontiff” To be pedantic…. To be Catholic is a bit more than simple communion
with the Pope. You must believe (and follow) the Church’s teachings and
practice the faith. Likely this is what was meant, but this can be easily
misconstrued.
“Catholics
are obliged to manifest reverence and obedience to the Roman Pontiff.” True,
but not to the point of blind obedience. We are created as rational beings; our
actions must be justified by our own rationality, not just because somebody
told us so. Acceptance of authority can be a part of it, but it cannot be the
entirety; that leads to Nuremburg.
I
would also add that charging all clerics to be in lock-step with the Holy
Father out of obedience is not healthy. We have had many saints in the past who
have not been in lock-step with anyone. They were, in fact, reviled by those
who saw them as “destructive,” but they were vindicated in the end. St. Catherine
of Sienna, St. Phillip Neri, St. John of the Cross, even St. Francis of Assisi
and St. Dominic are examples that come to mind.
“To
attack the person of the pope is to attack his office because the Roman Pontiff
is not merely an office holder.” While this is true in the sense that The Pope
is more than a politician or CEO, this appears to make the error of making the
man identical to the office of the Papacy, which, I would argue, simply doesn’t
make sense as we have had some fairly unworthy Popes in the past. I would also
point out that this assertion and how it is used precludes the correction
(which would be seen as an attack by supporters) of Popes such as Julius II,
Alexander VI, that early one whose name I can’t recall, and <insert your
least favorite pope here>. Either way, he appears to be begging the
question.
While
I agree that the Supreme Pontiff has the ordinary and immediate authority over
the Church, we must also take the principle of subsidiarity into account.
Otherwise, we fall into the error of Ultramontanism. I would also say that the
Pope is seen to be the “Vicar of Christ” or Christ’s steward. The example that
comes to mind is the Steward of Gondor in the Lord of the Rings. While the
steward has the authority of the king in every meaningful sense, he ought not
perform every action of which he has the right, for it is more proper for the
king to do it personally. And before you say that Christ always acts through
intermediaries and so cannot do anything personally, Christ can also act in
other ways if he so choses; who are we to limit God?
Regarding
prudential judgements versus otherwise. Outside of the modifications to the
catechism or the encyclicals, it is not clear to me what else would be
considered to be moral teaching. I think that the complaints about the Pope’s
“off-the-cuff” comments are legitimate as they are not stated under conditions
that make them authoritative statements. Besides, there are various points
within these documents that are (again, my opinion, I make no claim of being
the expert here) based on opinions formed from a certain political view (not
that it is wrong in its entirety, but its tendencies have not been proven to be
true). The question that is being raised is whether or not these statements or
changes are in continuity. This, I believe, is a legitimate concern. Is it
being blown out of proportion? Perhaps, but it is still a legitimate question.
Dr.
Fastiggi notes that Pope Francis has admitted mistakes in some areas. This is a
good point that many people gloss over. However, the Pope does not address
other things that people ask him to address. While I do not think that
authority figures need to bend over backwards to please everybody (that would
be unreasonable), I do think that there should be come concessions to commonly
held concerns, if only to allay them and say that it’s not what is being
assumed. Having read some of the documents (not all, I confess), I never got
the impression that the authors of the dubia and other corrections were being disrespectful,
simply that they were very passionate about the faith and desperately wanted an
answer. I also think that the strict interpretation of Lumen Gentium that Dr. Fastiggi mentions hampers our understanding
of fraternal correction. Fraternal correction is a venerable tradition that
ought to continue. The main scriptural example is when we see St. Paul
confronting and opposing Cephas to his face[1]
regarding some of the Judaizer tendencies.
“They
appear to trust their own judgments more than they trust the Holy Spirit’s
guidance of the successor of Peter.” This is an assumption based on judgements
of appearance. We cannot be certain of this, so this statement appears to
attempt to lead the reader into judgement of the hearts and minds of Francis’
critics. This is clearly a type of ad
hominem argument and is not only wrong, logically, but it is disingenuous
for a scholar claiming level-handedness.
While
I think Dr. Fastiggi’s observation that ciriticism of Pope Francis as ramped up
since Amoris Laetitia is accurate, I
must point out that this whole scenario of a Pope possibly being in error has
been a question in Catholic schools and seminaries for decades. Now we are just
seeing people act on it because they believe that they have reason to do so.
Another
thing that I must point out is that there were vociferous critics (Winters,
Martin SJ, etc.) of Benedict XVI and John Paul II who agree with Francis and
now demonize his critics. It works both ways. This is not a Francis-unique
problem. It’s just larger and more obvious.
“Catholic scholars
and prelates, however, have defended the orthodoxy of Amoris laetitia
and have found that the five dubia are based on misunderstandings of
the exhortation as a whole.” Some have and some haven’t; this is slightly
misleading. It is not wrong per se,
but it doesn’t hold as much water as the author would have us believe. Most of
the critical scholars, to my knowledge, only point out two or three paragraphs
out of the whole document as being problematic. This is not to be understood as
a blanket condemnation, just a seeking of clarification. In fact,
“clarification” is the language I have seen used in every instance of
“correction.” Contrasting the hermeneutic of continuity with the “hermeneutic
of suspicion” seems a bit disingenuous as this is not the contrast that Benedict
XVI used when addressing the hermeneutic of continuity. The opposite was
“rupture.” The continuity also needs to be in line with the rest of the
Magisterium of the Church, including historical understandings, not simply
being consistent with modern understandings.
Pointing
out that the authors have violated the rules for respectful theological discourse
also seems to be mildly hypocritical as this piece is not particularly
respectful of the authors with whom he disagrees. But, aside from that, there
is scriptural precedent for bringing errors out into the open when the alleged
sinner is being obstinate (Cf. Matthew 18:15-17). To say that the Pope cannot
be such a sinner who can be corrected according to the same rules is to ignore
the humanity of the man who occupies the office as “all have sinned and fallen
short of the glory of God.”[2]
In
his paragraph about the death penalty catechism controversy, Dr. Fastiggi seems
to assert that a monolithic approach exists, which is opposed to the few
critical scholars who are following their own interpretation. While I agree
that we cannot simply follow our own interpretation of Church teaching (that’s
one thing that separates us from the Protestants [no offense meant]), I think
it is misleading to say that there is univocal support for the change. There
are various scholars (such as Dr. Peters) who say that the previous wording of
the catechism was sufficient (and licit). It seems that the main issue is that
the catechism applies to all times, not just the present, so it invalidates any
action of any right-willing Christian ruler in the past. The contention also
stems from a belief that the change is due in part to the modern
misunderstanding of the distinction between personal morality and civil
morality (i.e. morality pertaining to
the actions of the state). It has been my understanding that part of the legitimacy
for the state’s authority was that it comes from God. If we say that it is
wrong to assert this, then we deny that a part of the authority is delegated to
states. This may seem good at first as modern governments are fairly corrupt,
but it makes me wonder about Jesus’ words to Pilate: “You
would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.”[3] It
seems to me that since Jesus submitted to the Romans, it implies that He saw
them as having authority, but was also reminding Pilate that authority over
life comes from God, not man. If we were to deny this, it would then
de-legitimize the Romans’ authority to put Jesus to death. You may not find
this problematic, but I do as it gives rise to multiple problems with the
relation of divine law to human law.
Regarding
Archbishop Viganó: Asserting that two authors have written, questioning
Viganó’s accuracy, does not prove his claims to be false. In fact, many of Viganó’s
claims have been confirmed as time has gone on, so this information is rather
pointless. Dr. Fastiggi also says that Pope Francis’ lifting of then-cardinal
McCarrick’s sanctions was an “alleged” action. I am a bit confused by the relevance
of this statement as we have known that Pope Francis lifted the sanctions
(though not the reasons) for the past several months. It is also odd that he
would say this shortly after McCarrick has been laicized for the things that
Viganó accused him of in his testimony.
When
he says that Cardinal Müller is implying that the ignorance of the faith among
the faithful has suddenly arisen under Francis, I believe that this is a
misleading statement because I don’t think this is what Müller is getting at. Dr.
Fastiggi points out this problem has been observed by various people, both lay
and cleric, for the past 15+ years. This is true, but I fail to see how that
observation then makes Müller be the one who is suddenly implying that Francis
is its cause. While I agree with Dr. Fastiggi that the tack of sensationalism
is reprehensible (as we are seeing more and more in our American media), I
don’t think that this is necessarily where Müller is going. And even if he
were, it doesn’t invalidate his points, it would just make them poorly stated. And
while the worry of silence as being a sign of apostasy is pretty clearly aimed
at Francis (especially in relation to his silence on the dubia), this
accusation can also be leveled at many ecclesial figures, so I don’t think it
is simple Francis-bashing, more of a lumping in with the other weak churchmen
of our day.
Another
thing that I noticed Dr. Fastiggi repeatedly returning to is the idea that
communion means obedience to someone. I would contest that it is possible to be
united in purpose and belief (i.e. in communion) and yet have some disagreement
over something important. My main source for this belief is the tradition of
fraternal correction that stems from the previously cited incident of St.
Paul’s correction of St. Peter in Galatians. While it can be argued that by
virtue of the disagreement, the two were no longer “in communion,” I would say
that there wasn’t an intention of rupture, but a desire for unity that supersedes
that claim.
I
believe it is fair when Dr. Fastiggi asserts that Cardinal Müller should
explain how his "manifesto" remains in union with Francis. Since Müller claims
that he remains in union with the Pope and multiple people question that, it
would be a good starting point for one cleric to be willing to clarify what he
means when there is confusion.
Regarding
the “attacks” over the joint document with Imam Al-Yayyib: I don’t think
anybody is really taking issue with the idea that God allows or even actively
wills that aspects of the truth be made manifest in other cultures as a sort of
preparation for the Gospel. The issue is that the wording is seemingly vague.
It leads me to wonder what is meant by the verb “willed” in relation to the
subject’s telos. If it is meant that God willed the other
religions to help lead others to the truth, then there is no issue. If it is
meant that God willed that other religions might be paths to salvation in
themselves, that would be false. For outside the Church there can be no
salvation. Of course, what precisely that means has been hotly debated for
quite some time, but that is where the issue lies, not that it questions the
teachings of the Second Vatican Council as Dr. Fastiggi claims. (Incidentally,
I think this claim is a straw man).
Dr.
Fastiggi’s claim that theologians and canonists using past criticism of
non-heretical popes as precedent for current critiques is unreasonable seems to
be a bit weak. As I’ve pointed out above, there is even scriptural precedent
for this. He also appears to claim that there is a “purely papal” ordinary
magisterium while affecting shock that one of his colleagues (Dr. Edward
Peters, a well-respected canonist) would argue that no such thing exists[4].
It has always been my understanding that the Pope teaches in consistency with
the ordinary Magisterium of the Church herself and aside from special
circumstances, like ex cathedra pronouncements,
he follows the same conditions as any teacher in the Church for infallibility. To
say otherwise, seems to set the Pope up as some sort of dictator who can
unilaterally change things of his own volition. I’m fairly certain that no one
is willing to entertain this as a serious alternative.
Dr.
Fastiggi also accuses the Pope’s critics of believing “that they know the
doctrine of the Church better than the pope.” First, I would point out that it
is logically possible for this situation to occur, so that is not a point that
offers much condemnation. Second, He further says that this mentality is
telling of the critics’ belief in the fifteenth century error of Conciliarism.
In my opinion, this is simply a red-herring and false analogy to paint the
critics in a heretical light. From my observations, the majority of the Pope’s
critics, while perhaps asserting that they know more of theology than he does,
never have said that they have executive or judicial authority over him. That is what constitutes Conciliarism
and I have not seen it in the approach taken by the men and women (who are not
clerics nor on a council) who have raised their concerns.
He
also says that there is a massive push on various media platforms to try to
manipulate the Pontiff because they have, at this point, taken a disliking to
him and so oppose him on everything. While I don’t deny that there are some
people who have this mindset, that doesn’t appear to be the majority, or, at
least, not the critics whom Dr. Fastiggi is criticizing. Besides, there are
also those on the other side who unquestioningly accept everything that Pope
Francis preaches and will defend him at any cost. It is simply the all or
nothing mentality of modern discourse (I would hesitate to call it dialogue).
Dr.
Fastiggi says that there is room for respectful and responsible criticisms of
prudential judgements by popes, but that difficulties with papal documents
should follow strict guidelines at set out in Donum Veritatis. He seems to want to imply that no one is being
respectful, even though he does admit that only some are guilty of this. Quoting
Donum Veritatis, he says: “This
document teaches that communications of difficulties with magisterial documents
must be done “in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve
the difficulties” (n. 30). It also warns against presenting one’s own opinions
“as though they were non-arguable conclusions” (n. 27)” I would argue that the
fact that the criticisms are mostly presented (especially in the case of the dubia)
as a desire for clarification, that there is more than enough evidence for a
desire to resolve difficulties. I would also point out that Dr. Fastiggi’s
constant disdain for the fact that Pope Francis’ critics express what they
consider to be the “correct teaching” on capital punishment and otherwise seems
to overlook the fact that most people only passionately argue about things
about which they do consider
themselves to be correct and which they believe very strongly; otherwise, there
would be no debate. Besides that, it is a common tendency in modern debates to
simply allow passions to rule the argument and resort to ad hominem attacks. He says that the critics’ attitude “completely
contradicts Donum veritatis, and … comes across as rash and presumptuous.”
Again, these are very strongly held opinions and the belief that they are
correct. It is not rash nor presumptuous, merely passionate argument.
“What
is clearly lacking in the papal critics is humility and trust in the Holy
Spirit’s guidance of the Roman Pontiff.” This statement presumes to know the
hearts and intentions of the men and women who question the Holy Father. While
I might be willing to concede that
they may not have as much trust in the Holy Spirit as they ought (this is,
unfortunately, a common modern malady), I cannot accept the assertion that they
are, therefore, lacking humility. My experience is that these questions are
raised by those who are aware of their own lack of knowledge and want affirmation
that what they have been believing isn’t false. I would also add that there are
some who prefer to appeal to the Holy Spirit as a sort of nebulous agent that
allows men to say that they are acting under his inspiration and are therefor
infallible. I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit does not act in this way. He
does. However, some use it as an excuse for poor judgement or as a reason why
people should listen to them without question.
Dr.
Fastiggi’s constant reference to the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Pope as
keeping the Pope from error, seems to follow the incorrect view of Papal
infallibility that Protestants usually level at Catholics as a point where we
are contrary to the faith. This view is that the Pope is kept from error of all
kinds. While Dr. Fastiggi does not endorse this view wholesale as he does point
out that the Pope can commit personal sin, but his insistence that the Holy
Spirit keeps the Pope from nearly all error, seems to be forgetting that there
are certain circumstances that the Pope must fulfill in order to be infallible.
This is not something that I have ever seen questioned until now. This claim
gives me the sense of a creeping fideism. Fideism is defined as ““exclusive or
basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of
reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious
truth.”[5] I
may be reading too much into this, but it brings the belief to mind and is thus
concerning.
In
the end of his article, Dr. Fastiggi quotes the CDF (using Cardinal Ratzinger
as an authoritative touchstone), where it points out that Peter was weak and
that that fact shows how Christ is the one who keeps the Church in existence
rather than human effort. While there is no issue with this claim, Dr. Fastiggi
appears to think that this quote shows that the Church and Papacy persists
because of the weakness of her popes. I would argue that the Church persists by
the power of Christ in spite of her
popes (at times). To make the claim that Dr. Fastiggi appears to be making
would mean that the historically bad popes were very good for the Church. I
would say that the Church may grow harder / stronger during those Popes, but
not necessarily growing in other ways. The “bad popes” are also potentially
damaging for the Church in terms of theological understanding, the moral
character of the hierarchy, and her relations to other faiths (and in modern
times, countries).
With
respect, I think Dr. Fastiggi has fallen prey to the unfortunately common
practice of a modern-day ultramontanism. As I described above, this is the
belief that most if not all difficulties or conflicts must be resolved by Rome.
While I do believe that Roma dixit, causa
finita holds, I don’t think it is healthy to appeal every single case to
the Pope as there can be cultural misunderstandings as the Pontiff is (for good
or ill) a product of the culture in which he was raised. It also tends to hold
that the Pope is right in every case of prudential judgement unless we can
prove beyond the shadow if a doubt that he is mistaken. I find this sort of
one-sided burden-of-proof to be unnecessary.
In
conclusion, I think that Dr. Fastiggi’s article does nothing to set the record
straight on attacks on papal authority. I believe it falls into the trap of
over-correcting a perceived flaw and trying to showcase character flaws in the
Pope’s critics rather than addressing the ideas head on and refuting their
reasoning. I find this problematic as it turns the piece into a primarily ad hominem work that begs the question
at multiple points all the while presenting itself as a reasonable, objective
look at the issue. In my opinion, Dr. Fastiggi’s article completely fails to
fulfill this goal of objectivity. The article also reveals a kind of hypocrisy where
Dr. Fastiggi attacks the credibility (and authority) of the Pope’s critics,
often treating them dismissively, all the while accusing these critics of doing
the exact same thing. While it is understandable that Dr. Fastiggi would do
such a thing as Pope Francis is – unfortunately – guilty of a similar practice
when he claims that his critics are tools or agents of the Devil,[6] it
does not make it an acceptable, nor moral tool to use. I can respect Dr.
Fastiggi’s desire to see the divisions in the Church come to a swift end; truly,
all Catholics should seek this. However, I do not find that his approach is
helpful; in fact, it appears to be more detrimental to the dialogue than
perhaps he expected.
[1]
Cf. Gal 2:11-14
[2]
Romans 3:23
[3] John
19:10b
[4] Dr.
Fastiggi links to Dr. Peter’s article, but does not mention him by name. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/16/the-death-penalty-debate-and-the-churchs-magisterium/
[5]
Plantinga, Alvin, 1983. “Reason and Belief in God,” in Alvin Plantinga and
Nicholas Wolterstorff (eds.), Faith and Rationality: Reason
and Belief in God, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
[6] I am
a little too lazy to dig through all of the homilies to find all of these quotes,
so here is a list that somebody else compiled. https://onepeterfive.com/revealing-the-great-accuser-pope-francis-fires-back-at-crictics-despite-pledge-of-silence/
