It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search "for the face of the Lord" (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.It is reasonable to assume that the same applies to an interview given to a journalist.
Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (n.25)speaks of a religious submission of mind and will which should be shown to the bishops teaching on matters of faith and morals in communion with the Roman Pontiff and says:
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.This religious submission of mind and will is not required when the Pope is engaging in a "personal search" or answering questions in an interview - since this is not an exercise of the magisterium.
Nevertheless, Catholic theology has the concept of a "probable opinion" and the Pope is a theologian in his own right. Therefore his opinion on a moral matter must be regarded as a probable one which it is legitimate for a person to follow. Other theologians may disagree and present a different opinion which may also be a probable opinion.
5 comments:
Father:
Presently we have Catholic commentators and journalists wilfully misinterpreting and distorting a Papal aside [on condoms being used to not aggravate and compound an already grave intrinsically morally disordered situation]
..into a position advocating the use of condoms in hiv serodiscordant marriages - an action which contravenes the fifth commandment and risks the health and lives of spouses !
This is a national ethical meltdown!
Please - for God's sake - speak out NOW!
Thank you, Father. I think the problem here is that the Holy Father is approaching this in his private capacity as theologian, which he has always enjoyed (and wanted to return to fulltime, but the previous Pope refused), but to do this as the person in the chair of St. Peter is a mistake, in my opinion. People these days, with the speed of modern communications, do no appreciate the difference. This is especially so with statements carrying the subtlety (and may I say, a hint of compromise) that the Pope's words convey. The modern word need to know teachings of certainty from the man who can give it - the successor of St. Peter - not theological speculations that can so easily be taken out of context.
David - I agree with you.
My interpretation would be resonant with that of Ite Ad Thomam.
I can only hope that this incident will be a painful reminder to "neo-conservatives" at First Things of how popes can err in private opinions and how papalatory is a view that makes us all look ridiculous.
I agree with David Joyce. As at Regensberg the Pope has allowed his professorial role to eclipse the episcopal. Bishops should shore up the faith of the less informed. Dr David Jenkins at Durham fell into the same trap. The nicities of theological debate should be confined to the walls of universities until a real conclusion can be prsented.
Post a Comment