Greg Krehbiel
Torturous papal infallibility
by Greg Krehbiel on 2 October 2006
The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible when he speaks as universal pastor on a matter of faith or morals. Ecumenical councils are also believed to be infallible.
Vatican II says this about torture.
Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; [...] all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. [...] they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. (Gaudium et Spes at 27.)
It’s not clear to me that Gaudium et Spes labels these acts as “intrinsically immoral,” but JPII says that’s what it means when he quotes that language in Veritatis Splendor at 80.
Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. [] The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts … [and then cites the language above].
[To be thorough, the English translation of Vatican II says "torments inflicted on body or mind" while the English translation of Veritatis Splendor cites it as "physical and mental torture."]
The trouble is that Innocent IV’s Bull “Ad exstirpanda” authorized the use of torture, and two subsequent popes confirmed the decree. (Go here and search for “ad exstirpanda”)
So what’s going on here? Does Vatican II say that Innocent et al. authorized — through a formal decree on morals — an “intrinsically immoral” act? Or did JPII mischaracterize what Vatican II said? (At the very least Vatican II called torture an “infamy.”)
No matter how Vatican II fits in with this, it seems clear that JPII is at odds with Innocent IV, Alexander IV and Clement IV.
This is, IMO, a tortured, tangled mess. Vatican II calls torture an “infamy,” thereby accusing three popes of formally approving infamy. Does that contradict the idea that popes are infallible on morals? Were they speaking as “universal pastor” when they approved of torture? (Call in the lawyers, historians and English professors. We need to make these words say the right things!)
Or, do we say that torture is well-established in Catholic tradition as an acceptable, moral option for the state (three popes approved it and the “ordinary Magisterium” doesn’t seem to have objected), and thereby condemn Vatican II as an errant council?
Or is it a matter of different definitions of torture?
Infallibility and the office of the papacy are often touted as the remedies for theological confusion. Sometimes that sounds like a bad joke.
2006-10-02 » Greg Krehbiel
3 October 2006 @ 11:44 am
This is a good example of why many people feel that Vatican II was not a “development’ but a reversal of doctrine, all the Catholic bloggers and apologists notwithstanding. There is a clear shift, where the contemporary Church has adjusted itself to the Modern spirit.
Hence torture and capital punishment are now seen as evil, when in centuries past they were certainly approved.
Biblical inerrancy is qualified and toned tone, whereas early popes endorsed full inerrancy emphatically.
Other religions are a way of salvation, whereas earlier, even non-Catholic Christians were destined for Hell.
And as for Hell, it used to be the likely destination of many, and now the Church ‘dares hope all may be saved.’ Converts talks of appreciating Catholicism’s profound emphasis on divine love versus a Baptist-like emphasis on God’s wrath. While the theologically-minded nitpick over what is and is not a mortal sin, the pope suggests that in the end things will work out alright for most everyone, even as mortal sins like missing mass and fornication are rampant.
Is it any wonder that progressives lobby actively for female priests and gays lobby for same-sex partnership recognition? It certainly appears that many if not most doctrines can be softened and bent if changes are predicated on the imperative that ‘God is Love.’
3 October 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Yes, I am understanding more and more why traditionally minded Catholics have their doubts about Vatican II.
(Note that there\’s a discussion of this post over on the theology board.)
4 October 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Those were juridical decisions, not teaching documents.
4 October 2006 @ 4:17 pm
And how is a “juridical decision” different from a decision on morals? Aren’t laws moral?
6 October 2006 @ 11:35 am
Try the Catholic Answers article on ‘Papal Infallibility’ on their website. Allowing torture, choosing W_____as archbishop of Milwaukee, refusing to eat with pagans when the ‘Judaizers’ were around–all were bad decisions and set a bad example, but none were ever considered exercises of infallibility. At Vatican I the Ultramontanists wanted the pope’s table talk and his designations of monsignori to be considered infallible, and they were considerably chastened by the limitations of the doctrine as defined.
6 October 2006 @ 11:41 am
Angus,
I\’ve read all that stuff 14 times to Sunday. I just don\’t buy it. The distinction between a \”juridical decree\” that directly affects morals and a \”teaching document\” is too fine a distinction to be believable or useful.
6 October 2006 @ 2:28 pm
Sorry.
7 October 2006 @ 9:17 pm
Besides, NO ONE confuses a Bishop’s appointment with a moral teaching. But when the Church says Usury or Torture or Capital Punishment is wrong, gee whiz if the faithful don’t take that as the authoritative posture. By theargument being pursued, what on earth beyonf the Creeds and two articles about Mary even qualify as infallible. Certainly not contraception or an all-male priesthood, neither of which Rome will decree ex cathedra.