What is Papal Infallibility?
Note: I have tried to
faithfully present Catholic teaching on this issue. If something sounds suspect, please look it
up in an authoritative Catholic source, and please let me know of my mistake if I have made one.
One of the
most misunderstood doctrines in the Church, among Catholics and non-Catholics
alike, is that of papal infallibility.
Some people mistake infallibility for impeccability, meaning that they
think Catholics believe the pope is perfect, without sin (we do not). Some people think Catholics look to the pope
to make every decision for them and that we believe that everything he says
comes directly from God, with the weight of Scripture (we do not). Archbishop Fulton Sheen told the story of a
person who claimed that Catholics believe the pope is inflammable (which I
suppose we do, but it has nothing to do with this doctrine).
So it seems
rather important, if we are going to clear up misunderstandings among
non-Catholics, and if we are going to understand our Faith ourselves, that we
be clear on what the Church does and does not teach regarding papal
infallibility.
First, we have
to recognize the importance of governance and authority in the Church. With all the wonderful things our Protestant
brethren have, one thing they lack is unity of doctrine. There are thousands of Protestant
denominations precisely because there is no authority that can define doctrine;
there is only the Scripture, which experience shows us can lend itself to
various interpretations, without a teaching Church.
There is also,
among Protestants, no visible principle of unity on the Earth, making
impossible Jesus’s prayer at the Last Supper “that they all be one” (Jn. 17:11). There’s a wealth of Scripture that
demonstrates the establishment of a hierarchical, authoritative Church, united
with Peter, but the point of this article is not a defense of the doctrine of
Papal Infallibility, but rather its explanation.
The first
thing to be understood is that papal infallibility is a negative charism, not a
positive one. What that means is that it
prevents the pope from teaching error (in certain circumstances – more on that
later); it does not ensure that he will always teach things completely or in
the most effective possible way. This is
a crucial distinction. We see over the
centuries a deepening understanding of the Mysteries of Christ, but nowhere can we find a
direct contradiction in the 2,000-year teaching of the Church.
There are
usually three popes (of the 266) that opponents like to cite to disprove papal
infallibility, but none of them do so when the charism is properly
understood. The most common is the case
of Pope Honorius, who failed to effectively condemn the Monothelitist heresy in
the seventh century.
Remember,
though, that papal infallibility is like a fence that keeps the pope from
venturing into error, it is not a springboard that propels him to heights of
wisdom. It does not guarantee that the
pope will do something that it seems he ought to do; it guarantees that he will
not do something, namely promulgate error.
The next thing
to understand is when the charism is effective.
The pope is only infallible when he teaches the whole Church, ex cathedra, on matters of faith and
morals. Therefore, he is never
infallible when discussing business, sports, or politics (unless they directly
pertain to faith and morals). He is
never infallible in personal correspondence or personal reflections. (This is probably why Pope John Paul II
wanted his personal notes and journals destroyed upon his death. He knew they could potentially contain error,
yet many Catholics would probably not understand that. Pope Honorius’s questionable statements were
in private letters, also not protected by infallibility.) The pope must be officially teaching the
whole Church regarding faith or morals.
Why is this so
important? Do we not need to know what
is true, what to believe? Jesus gave
Peter and his successors the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and this special
charism, so we would have a sure answer to the disputes that would arise over
the centuries over the meaning of Scripture and Tradition.
With the
resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis, there have
been other (silly) questions: Are two men infallible at the same time? Who will Catholics trust?
Papal
infallibility is a charism tied to the office of the papacy, not to a man. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Pope
Emeritus Benedict anymore.
One other area
must be spoken about: disciplinary matters about which the pope is not
infallible. The pope does govern the
Church (Christ, of course, is the Head; the pope is His vicar on Earth). Jesus told Peter, “What you bind on Earth
will be bound in Heaven” (Mt. 16:18).
There are
disciplinary laws which we are bound in obedience to follow, though they not be
matters of faith and morals, have nothing to do with infallibility, and may
potentially be changed.
An example is
the celibate clergy in the Roman rite.
This is a discipline of the Church.
It is not a dogma, and certainly is not an issue that has anything to do
with infallibility. As a disciplinary
matter, it could potentially be changed.
However, because it is currently in force, the clergy have made a
promise to obey it. Therefore, it would
be sinful for them to disobey without permission.
It is very
much like a parent with a child. If a
child willfully refuses to make his bed, for example, after being instructed to
do so by a parent, he sins; not because an unmade bed is objectively evil, not
because making one’s bed is a universal or infallible law, but because he has
willfully disobeyed a legitimate authority.
Catholics
occasionally try to see if a pronouncement is infallible as a way of finding a
loophole. Regardless of infallibility,
there is no loophole. Obedience is one
of the highest virtues. This means
obedience to Christ, and by extension, to His Church.
It should be noted that I am speaking here of the disciplines and laws of
the Church. If an individual priest, or
even the pope, told an individual to do something that was objectively sinful,
there would be no obligation to obey – in fact, there would be an obligation to
disobey.
