Jesuitical 'genius': when "development of doctrine" becomes a convenient pretext for revisionism

In a telling review of an article by Jesuit theologian, Thomas Rausch, S.J., which appeared in Civiltà Cattolica, entitled "Doctrine at the service of the pastoral mission of the Church," the irrepressible Christopher A. Ferrara writes:

In typical Modernist fashion, Rausch affirms a Catholic truth in order to deny it throughout the rest of the article. He quotes Saint Vincent of Lerins for the fundamental Catholic truth that legitimate development of Catholic doctrine leaves intact “the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import­” — precisely as the First Vatican Council affirmed — and that in the course of its legitimate development, meaning only its fuller expression, doctrine “becom[es] firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.” That is, there is no change in doctrine, either in content or understanding, but only strengthening and growth of expression. Hence St. Vincent’s famous formula: “We hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” There is no “God of surprises” in the thought of St. Vincent nor in the tradition of the Church.

Having affirmed this truth, however, Rausch promptly denies it, quoting his fellow Modernist Jesuit, Fr. Spadaro, for the following proposition:

"St. Vincent of Lèrins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the depositum fidei [deposit of faith], which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and, so too is human consciousness deepened. In this regard we could think of the time when slavery was considered acceptable, or the death penalty was applied without question. So, too, this is how we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the Church to mature in her own judgment. The other sciences and their development also help the Church in its growth in understanding. There are secondary ecclesiastical rules and precepts that at one time were effective, but now they have lost their value and meaning. The view that the Church’s teaching is a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong."

Note the stealthy non-sequitur smuggled in via the italicized phrases: from St. Vincent’s biological analogy regarding the growth and development of the same, unchanging doctrine in the Church, Rausch (citing only his fellow Modernist for authority) leaps to the conclusion that just as “human self-understanding changes with time” so the Church’s teaching is subject over time to “different understandings.” Of course, that is exactly the opposite of what Rausch affirmed only a few lines earlier: i.e., St. Vincent’s insistence on “the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import” down through the ages. God does not change His understanding of the truth, and neither does the Church change her understanding of faith and morals.

Ferrara goes on to point out that Rausch's references to slavery and the death penalty are red herrings, and the Church's nuanced positions on these issues do not represent any 'change' in the 'understanding' of doctrine. "The very essence of Modernism, he says, "is to deny what the Modernist appears to be affirming. Doubletalk is the language of Modernist theology."

Why 'progressive' and 'traditional' religion will never agree on some things

Rod Dreher again, in an excellent little article, "Progressive Religion, Orthodox Religion" (American Conservative, June 20, 2016), writes:

Richard Rodriguez is a gay California Catholic, and a very fine writer, even when I disagree with him (such as in this entry). His reaction to the Orlando massacrecaptures the core difference between left and right among the religious, and why we will never be able to agree on some things:

Here is the plain and dangerous truth facing the cosmopolitan world: In the opinion of many millions of Jews and Christians and Muslims, the Abrahamic God of the desert is a homophobe.

More:

The desert religions of Abraham — Judaism, Christianity, Islam — were shaped by an encounter with a God who revealed himself within an ecology of almost lunar desolation. In such a place, the call to belief was tribal, not individualistic. Sexuality was an expression of faith to increase the tribe. Allegiance to God and to one’s ancestors was fulfilled by giving birth.

Here’s the whole thing.

You see the logic: According to the holy writ of Abrahamic religion, God says gay sex is wrong. But we believe, in God, and we believe gay sex is not morally wrong. Therefore, God believes gay sex is not wrong. 

And he explains away a very deeply ingrained teaching of Abrahamic religion — one that, at least in Judaism and Christianity (I don’t know Islam well enough to say) by asserting that we’re more advanced than those desert savages.

This is not reasoning. This is rationalization.

There's a lot more to the article, but as the antithetical positions come down, according to Dreher, to this:

The orthodox says: “We can’t diverge too far from this map, or we’ll get lost.” 

The progressive says: “What? That map is way out of date. We’ll redraw it. It was just somebody’s opinion. We know better now.” 

The orthodox says: “What’s ‘better’? You have no way of knowing if your new coordinates are accurate. How do you know if they correspond to reality?” 

The progressive says: “Huh?” 

This is why we cannot resolve things between us.

[Hat tip to JM]

Fr. Perrone: Catholics sometimes "leave the Church" because the treasures they forfeit thereby are often hidden by dissent and confusion

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, June 19, 2016):

The word is sometimes heard from disaffected Catholics -- those who may have got their feelings hurt by something a priest told them, or who perhaps have been perpetually bored by the vacuous preaching and inane liturgical antics in their parish churches -- that they have decided to "leave the Catholic Church." (I wrote recently on this with regard to certain relatives of mine.) What these people probably do not know is that there is no other Church whither they may go. There is only one Church, and it must be the Catholic Church, the Church of the ages, the one that has apostolic lineage and belief. Never mind whatever alleged corruptions may ave entered into her over the centuries. As a body of humans, the Church cannot be without fault. But as a divine institution, the one created by Christ, she must be that of which Saint Paul wrote: holy, spotless and without wrinkle.

The unfortunate, ignorant defector from the Church may one day come to the realization that there is nothing good outside the Catholic Church that she herself has not always had, and that, to boot, other Christian groups came into existence on account of their departures from the true doctrines espoused by the only Church.

One would not get very far in saying the Apostles Creed to realize that without the Catholic Church there would be no certainty of what to believe about nearly anything. Let's see, for example: "I believe in God the Father almighty ..." How is one sure that in God there is paternity, and that He is limitless in power? (Note that this is only the first line of the creed.) One may attempt to answer by saying that Jesus taught the existence of the Father. But was this meant merely to be taken as a figure of speech, when He only meant to indicate divinity, pure and simple; or perhaps did Christ mean that there is indeed a distinct Person in God who is called the Father? This question in turn leads one to ask: Who is this Jesus to speak authoritatively, such that one is compelled to believe that there is a Father in God? Is this speaker, Christ the "Son" Himself God, or does He merely bear a relationship to this Father-God in a way like a human son to his dad? One might ask further whether this Father is truly "almighty" (in the creed) or whether He may be limited in some way: Can He do literally all things? (At one time there wre heretical Christians who denied this.) And finally: Is the teaching of Christ, upon which this opening phrase of the creed is derived, accurately reported in the bible? In other words: Is the bible itself a reliable record of what Christ said? Yet further: Who said that the bible ought to be the norm and measure by which we are to believe anything? Could it perhaps be merely a series of pious documents -- admirable perhaps -- but not binding on the prospective believer for his salvation?

None of these questions can be settled with certainty without the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church which has the guarantee of infallible truth. Should one depart from it, one must necessarily lose the stability, the footing upon which faith must depend. In such case, one would be set adrift in a sea of any number of alternative possibilities of what may be true about God and other spiritual realities. The Catholic Church is the "pillar and ground of truth," in the words of Saint Paul, who came to understand this, not from the bible (which then did not exist as such), but directly from Christ and from the apostles who proceeded him in the one truth Church. The Church then must be a supernatural reality and not a mere human institution (even though it is composed of men). The Church, in fact, is the body of Christ, an extension of Himself (its Head) into His members. When one leaves the true Church in search of anything other, he necessarily departs from Christ Himself. This he may do with little or even not culpability, depending on what he knew he was doing thereby, but the significance of taking leave of the Church is most serious.

I write this because I know there are Catholics who have no idea of what the Church is. They were badly catechized and were left substantially ignorant about it. Some of them, coming to an awakening of spiritual sensibilities, became dismayed over their local Catholic parish and its secular, silly, half-hearted religiosity, and left the true Church for some other exciting, interesting expression of Christian belief. Others became so bored by their spiritually lifeless parishes that they simply dropped out and bothered themselves no further with religion.

You, dear people, need to have at least a vague sense of appreciation of the necessity of the Church for your salvation. Without the one and only Church established by Christ you'd be literally astray, lost, and off the only track that can bring you to salvation. As I indicated, you cannot even profess the Creed, nor can you rely on the veracity of the bible, unless the authority of Christ's church were the foundation of those beliefs.

After this brief lesson in the foundation for even the most elementary truths of the faith, how would you ever be able to profess more complex expressions such as "consubstantial with the Father," or "begotten, not made;" or "proceeds from the Father and the Son;" -- unless you had the Church assuring you of their truth?

Outside the Catholic church there is only falsehood, and perhaps a simulation of truth, a semblance, a substitution for its truth -- what Plato called opinion, as opposed to truth. That you are a Catholic is due to the sheer benevolence of God. Your gratitude to Him should know no bounds.

Fr. Perrone

Fr. Perrone on grave implications of defecting from the true Church

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, May 22, 2016):

Another one bites the dust

What triggers the quotation of this well-worn, if abused, cliché indicating defeat? It's the knowledge that one more relative of mine has ceased to practice the Catholic faith and is now attending a non-Catholic "church." I didn't do a calculation to get an exact number of these family defectors, of those who have abandoned the faith, but it's a higher number than I'd like to admit. My reason for telling you this dark family secret is to give you that scant consolation of commiseration. These relatives of mine, only a few years ago, had been Catholics. Technically speaking, they are still Catholics: "once a Catholic, always a Catholic." However, these relatives do not regard themselves as being Catholics any longer, and this is a literal shame for me and a shame on them.

There's no greater misfortune that can befall man in this life than to be out of the true Church. It's a dogma of faith that there is no salvation outside the Church. Since there is only one Church, the one Christ founded, this amounts to saying that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church. A dogma means a necessary teaching, one that's demanded by the very nature of the Christian faith. While interpretations of this dogma are various (and I do not intend to delve into them there), my purpose in reviewing it is to indicate how grievous a sin it is to abandon the true Church for any other.

I don't know of any family where all the relatives have kept the Catholic faith. The widespread defection is symptomatic of this age of unbelief, but it's also the result of the gross negligence of irresponsible priests, catechists and parents for failing to teach the faith, for misleading and deceiving their charges about the real meaning of the Church's teachings, or else for trivializing the liturgy by their impiety. When people are left ignorant by vacuous religious instruction or scandalized by silly, irreverent liturgies, they may at some point come to a religious consciousness and ask themselves, Can this be the true Christian religion? Upon discovering the bible and sincere Christians of some sect or other, they may easily be swayed to league up with them and depart from the Church. In such cases, culpability for leaving the Catholic Church may be mitigated, or even be entirely non-existent due to the fault of others. God knows. But one should not err on that account in believing that though they have left the true Church, that at least they now love the Lord and are better off than had they remained non-practicing Catholics. Objectively speaking, to leave the true Church is a grave evil. Subjectively one may not be accountable for this, depending on circumstances, depending on circumstances, but this does not refute the substantive evil of defection from the faith. For the faithful, it is truly a suffering to learn that someone has converted to a sect. (I speak nothing here about apostates -- those who have left Christianity for a pagan religion or a cult: this is an even worse evil.)

Today is Trinity Sunday. The dogma of the Blessed Trinity is a truth revealed to us by the Church, not by the bible alone, which does not clearly specify this dogma. And so, the dogma of the Trinity is an example of the necessity of the Catholic Church to explicate and impose its divinely revealed teachings upon, us, without which we would be doctrinally sunk, unsure about anything supernatural were we made to rely solely upon the many and diverse interpretations of the bible.

Let us cherish the true, orthodox, Catholic faith in all its fullness. Let us pray never to be unfaithful to it, trembling upon recollection of our Lord's words, "When the Son of Man comes again, will He find faith left on earth?" We, unhappy witnesses of the disintegration of the Catholic faith and of a massive defection from the Church in our time, need to pray steadily for the return of lapsed Catholics and to show them the good example of our patience and love which may, in the end, prove most convincing of all proofs of the truth of our holy faith.

Next Sunday is Corpus Christi Sunday. After the noon orchestral Mass there will be a procession (outdoors, as possible) with the Holy Sacrament and adoration of the One whom we love and revere as true God and true Man. Following the Procession, food at a nominal cost will be made available by our trusty ushers.

Fr. Perrone

Fr. Perrone: candid thoughts when popes err

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, March 6, 2016):

The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. This is a dogmatic truth which no Catholic can deny and yet remain a Catholic, united to the one true Church. Yet it is evident that Pope Francis erred recently in speaking about an exceptional use of a contraceptive for married couples in order to avert a disease which may cause birth defects in pregnant women. (For the record: the context here was the use only within the marital relationship; outside of marriage, contraception is of no further moral consequence because the act is already sinful.) How we do reconcile papal infallibility with the lately publicized error?

With full cognisance of my inadequacy–nay incompetence–to speak either as a moral theologian or a critic of the vicar of Christ, I write humbly, with a filial love for the pope and a steadfast adherence to the Catholic faith. I have hitherto refrained from speaking or writing about things Pope Francis has said or done, things which have caused wonderment and confusion among many. The reason for this reluctance–besides those reasons already mentioned–is that prudence forbids hasty, knee-jerk reactions, especially when facts are uncertain and there may be the danger of giving scandal by speaking impiously when the utmost certainty and reverence are demanded. In the case of Pope Frances giving approval for married couples to employ a means of avoiding conception which is intrinsically evil (which is to say, evil under any conditions), there’s no doubt that he erred. Two disturbing things may then result: first, the scandal of a pope proposing moral error; second, the consequent questioning of papal infallibility.

Popes have not always been among ostensibly best choices for the office. Even the great Saint Peter’s somewhat mercurial and impulsive nature, would seem to disfavor his suitability over, let’s say, the ever-faithful apostle St. John. Some popes in our long history have been outright immoral men, yet the validity of the papal office established by Christ remains unaffected.

The pontificate of Pope Frances is manifestly unlike those of his immediate predecessors. John Paul II was a noted philosopher and an imposing world figure who restored a measure of stability in the Church after the shaky post-conciliar days. Pope Benedict XVI was a theologian, a teacher of considerable stature, and a repairer of the breech in restoring severed links to our Catholic tradition. Pope Francis’s contribution to the Church is as an embassador of the merciful Christ to the people of our time whose lives have been much scarred by sin, people who have felt hopeless in making their return to God. The Holy Father wants people to know that “the Lord’s mercy endures forever,” and that no one should be without the hope of reconciliation. This is much needed in our day since so many have gone very far from moral rectitude, committing the gravest of crimes with their consciences stinging from a guilt that has brought them to near despair (one of the devil’s greatest devices to secure eternal loss). As a sign of the open disposition of God to reconcile repentant sinners, the pope has made himself very approachable to people, mingling among the crowds, and speaking candidly–even off-handedly to avid and perhaps disingenuous media personnel to entrap him. Speaking off-the-cuff in such ways has not had good results. However one may decry a capricious manner of exercising the petrine ministry, one must recall that the pope is infallible only in his official teaching capacity and not in casual, spontaneous comments. He must speak ‘from the chair’ (ex cathedra), that is, with the intent of engaging his full apostolic authority, proclaiming a teaching to be held by all the faithful. A pope may  do this in an ordinary or an extraordinary way, but the binding force of such teaching must be evident by the manner and frequency of his statements on a given subject.


As it is, popes rarely employ this infallible charism of the papal office and, when they do, it is most often not in moral teaching but in matters of faith (as an example of the latter, in the papal definitions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary). Pope St. John Paul did bind Catholics in three areas of moral teaching: the intrinsic evil of abortion, and the same of contraception; and he forever repudiated the alleged capability of women as recipients of Holy Orders (that is, as possible priests).

What then to say of Pope Francis? First of all, he is a true, legitimate successor of Saint Peter and visible head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, whose essential duty is to preserve the deposit of faith, the apostolic inheritance: a conservating not a creative function. One need not like all that a pope does–history providing many, many examples of popes imprudent in their doings. The fact remains that the pope is the Holy Father, and like the father of a human family, deserves the respect of his God-appointed position. Should dads err, or even sin, they do not cease thereby to be fathers, nor lose their claim to respect and love. Similarly (as I’ve said before in sermons), the Church as our mother suffering (note the relational words, ‘father’ and ‘mother’) is no warrant for disowning or abandoning her. Pope and clergy–and Mother Church generally–demand our love and our prayers, now more than ever, even if we cannot as a matter of conscience agree with everything they do. Realize however that there is no alternative Church, nor Pope, nor legitimate hierarchy apart from what we are given.

My constant advice is to remain calm, prudent, prayerful, charitable–and unyieldingly in the orthodox profession of our faith. This is no easy accomplishment: it is a suffering from the conflicting inner tension of a reverent forbearance with the unrelenting imperative of orthodoxy in faith.

We are not living in ordinary times and cannot pretend to live in a time past when a greater observance of God’s moral laws and a more strict observance of the Catholic faith were prevalent. You are obligated to be faithful to Christ and to His Church in this age. God, for reasons of His own, made us to live not in some idyllic past but in this time of crisis and confusion.

Be true and valiant Catholics! Love the pope, practice the faith with exactitude, and join to your prayers the sacrifice of your sorrows and your daily works, so that the glory of Christ may be made manifest in the suffering members of His mystical body. Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us!

Fr. Perrone
 

Parting shots: 1. Our annual St. Joseph dinner will take place after the noon Mass next Sunday: don’t miss it! 2. Married couples should remember to meet in the school classroom today after 9:30 and noon Masses to watch and discuss a fine video presentation on marriage.

His Grace Abba Raphael on the Trinity

His Grace Abba Raphael of Cairo, Egypt, on the Holy Trinity, speaking in Arabic with English subtitles. Can you imagine a TV show here featuring rigorous and detailed discussion of Trinitarian theology sustained for a full hour?

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus tattoo?

Guy Noir wrote to say:  

I have always felt that "that those will be lost who are convinced that the Catholic religion is the true religion, and yet refuse to embrace it” would mean only the willfully rebellious, which in turn would mean if you are trying to be good, you will be saved.

Look! I am not the only one....! 

Elliot Bougis, "Más lío aquí, hombruh…" ["Whoever scorns small things ..."] (FideCogitActio, March 5, 2015), who writes:

Go to One Peter Five in order, if nothing else, to click back to this blog to re-review my ongoing hobby horse, namely, my Eastern Patristic florilegium about Roman supremacy.

I spent several hours tonight significantly revising and expanding the thing. If nothing else, pray over the following image, which I’m tempted to get tattooed on my shoulder blades.

Also interesting is Bougis's link to his Eastern Patristic florilegium about Roman supremacy.  I am sure we will be hearing from "Catholic Mission."

Regardless, Guy Noir appended the following comment by Tony Jokin to Bourgis's post:

Tony Jokin says:

March 5, 2015 at 13:39



I always found the line “that those will be lost who are convinced that the Catholic religion is the true religion, and yet refuse to embrace it” as missing key information.

Because taking that proposition as it is, I do not see how there is any need to preach the gospel at all. It would appear that our success in convincing someone of the truth of the Catholic religion is what leads one to damnation in some cases. I am thinking of cases where conversion is very inconvenient for a person but a “Catholic idiot” decided to explain how the Catholic Church is the true Church to someone.

If this were true, Christ shouldn’t have spoken about the fact that one would be hated by their family and loved ones for his name. He should have rather instructed the followers to refrain from preaching the good news lest it cause inconvenience and lead them to damnation.

So I believe that the key information missing in that proposition is that “often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.” (Lumen Gentium, 16). The key word being “often”.

I would say, practically speaking, it is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that someone who is outside of the Catholic Church will be saved. Since it is unlikely, no Catholic should use that proposition to define ones operating principles, especially with respect to missionary activity and fighting error.

Fr. Hunwicke: “Do not exaggerate, overestimate, what a Pope can do….”

Fr. Z writes (February 20, 2015):

The inimitable Fr. Hunwicke has a good reminder at his fine blog HERE about papal authority (my [Fr. Z's] emphases):

Two points. Despite the anxieties entertained by the Intellectuals on both sides of this question … the Traditionalists and the Tablettentendenz … I see no grounds for panic. I see no practical likelihood whatsoever that anything will happen to put into doubt our duty, in our day-by-day Christian life, to adhere obediently to the judgements of the Roman Pontiff. But … let’s be honest … there have been in history occasions when Roman Pontiffs have wobbled in their adherence to orthodoxy …. Liberius and all that. In these circumstances, there does have to be a duty to resist that wobble and to decline to give effect to edicts purporting to enact the wobble. But here is the Red Line: at Vatican I, a great deal of historical work was done to ensure that the Decree on the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was so worded as not to be vulnerable on such historical grounds. It is watertight. We can be sure that whatever a pope says ex cathedra is protected by the Holy Spirit from any error (but even here, we are not obliged to believe either that the decree concerned was necessary, or that it expressed things in the best of all possible ways). But it is not unknown for a papal decree which falls short of the ex cathedra status to be flawed. Of course, that cannot be a good position for the Church to be in. But it is not some sort of Ultimate Catastrophe! The Church survived Liberius! And so did the Papacy! And, to the end of time, both will survive!

t is very important to remember the limits of the Papal Magisterium. This is best done by a careful reading of the decree Pastor aeternus of Vatican I. That is the touchstone. Do not exaggerate, overestimate, what a pope can do, and then, when some pope or other goes a bit off the rails, or you think he has, start running around in a frantic fear that you have “lost your faith”. The pope is not an Absolute Monarch. B Pius IX made this very explicitly clear. Benedict XVI taught this with determined vigour. This is serious! The Pope is not some God-on-Earth who can never make a mistake! Not a few of them have made quite a lot. There is no reason why the same should not be true in the future. Learn not to fret! Learn to live with it, as so many Catholics in previous generations have done! And if you’re the sort of person who can laugh at it, laugh. In any case, sit yourself down comfortably, pour yourself a drink … and learn the following off by heart:

“The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter’s successors so that they should, by His revelation, disclose new teaching, but so that, with His assistance, they should devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the apostles, the Deposit of Faith.”

Popes make mistakes.  Popes are not infrequently wrong on a range of issues.  There is nothing new in this.

[Hat tip to L.S.]

For the canon lawyers: What does "papal infallibility" mean in the case of Pope John XXII?

Roberto de Mattei has written a study of Pope John XXII, who, he says, according to St. Robert Bellarmine (in De Romano Pontifice, Opera omnia, Venetiis 1599, Book. IV, chap. 14, coll. 841-844), fell into heresy in his ordinary magisterium (with the intention of imposing it as truth on the faithful) but was saved from undermining the principle of infallibility by dying before he could define the dogma. [Advisory: See Rules 7-9]

For the record: Roberto de Mattei on the 2014 Synod and Vatican I: the question of infallibility and the role of the faithful

Roberto de Mattei, "The 2014 Synod and Vatican I" (Corrispondenza Romana, November 5, 2014 - via Rorate Caeli). De Mattei ... always a learning experience.

Zmirak's "myth" of Catholic social teaching

Some readers may remember earlier discussions of Zmirak, such as "Integralism vs Liberty ('the god that failed')" (Musings, February 12, 2014), which referenced his piece on "Illiberal Catholicism" (Aleteia, December 31. 2013).

Whether you agree with him or not (I don't), Zmirak's articles are often "arresting," as one of my readers put it; and in relation to this piece, he added: "Of course, you do wonder where one line stops and another starts. Witness capital punishment, inerrancy, missions...."

John Zmirak, "The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching" (The Catholic Thing, August 30, 2014) [Advisory: Rules 7-9]:

Self-styled Catholic critics of the free market and “Americanism” have adopted the term “social Magisterium” to suggest that there is a coherent and morally binding body of papal teaching on politics and economics, from which we can derive specific policy initiatives and firmly condemn alternatives as “un-Catholic” or even (that dreaded word) “dissenting.”

Hence defenders of market economics, or opponents of mass immigration, can be tarred with the same brush as those who favor women’s ordination or homosexuality. Indeed, if we accept the premise of a “social magisterium,” we are led to believe that we can actually build up a detailed Catholic political economy that is a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, which bravely “cuts across” the lines dividing Left and Right, and between America’s political parties.

We can start, of course, with Belloc and Chesterton, who laid the groundwork for an officially Catholic system of economics, distributism. We can move forward bravely by reading the fruits of bishops’ conferences and statements by the Vatican’s various social justice officers. As we proceed, compiling divinely approved answers to each burning current question, we can fill in the empty spaces of politics and economics, then present it to a rudderless world like a completed crossword puzzle.

I won’t spend time here talking about the practical effects of such talk in Catholic circles. My hope is that it has none – that patriotic, prolife Catholics simply ignore the posturing that fills the blogosphere, the tortured statements that emerge from bishops’ conferences, the rants of leftist, anti-Semitic cardinals, and the questionably translated fruits of interviews with the pope.

I hope this not simply because I want people to vote against the persecutors of the Church, to whom the rise of illiberal Catholicism gives active aid and comfort, but for a much more important reason: the explosion of irrational and false political statements that carry some vague imprimatur of Church authority will undermine people’s faith: “If I have to believe that nonsense to really be Catholic….”

But there are smart, sincere people out there who struggle seriously with the idea that the papacy is a 2,000-year-old Delphic oracle, that a “spirit-led Magisterium” inspires and guards from error the statements of popes about economics and politics. Even if such statements are not infallible, we are obliged to grant them a docile “religious submission,” as we are to other non- ex cathedra assertions of Catholic teaching. Or so people say.

... But is it true? Is there a “spirit-led” “social Magisterium” that works by accretion over the centuries, gradually building up a coherent, defensible program of economics and politics, which can be drawn by simply reading what popes have said and fitting those statements together like Lego blocks, to construct a Catholic city? Is that what Jesus intended to give us when He founded the papacy?

If we really believe that, and expect every Catholic to form his views accordingly, then we should be able to survey papal statements over the centuries on economics and politics, and find in them the same exquisite consistency we see in papal teachings about the natures of Jesus Christ and the sacraments – the slow, organic unfolding of that divine revelation which ended with the death of St. John the Apostle.

If we found that this was not true, that papal social teaching did not exhibit the same crystalline integrity, we might be tempted to leave the Church – or else to descend into cognitive dissonance, in bad faith blocking out or distorting the inconvenient facts of history, to cling to a “faith” that has morphed into a modern-style ideology. I am not sure which of those two temptations would be more deadly, to abandon faith or to corrupt it.

But those are not the only choices. A third way is to see Catholic social teaching not as analogous to Eucharistic doctrine and Marian dogmas, but as something much more akin to the Catholic literary tradition – a treasure trove of often-brilliant insights and deep investigations into the best ways for men to live which claims our respectful attention.

... I will not catalog every assertion by any pope that makes modern Catholics cringe. Some quite liberal Catholics did compile a book like that: Rome Has Spoken. Its authors intended to minimize papal authority to a vanishing point, to remove it from faith and morals as well. Their case is overstated. But the statements they collected on politics and economics ought to give pause to anyone who asserts that Jesus meant to make the popes political and economic oracles. In attempting to discern God’s will from the evidence of history, these cases demand our candid reflection, not tortured, last-ditch defenses of preconceived ideas.

Here is a short (and non-exhaustive) list of issues on which, over the course of time, papal positions have made what can only be honestly called a 180-degree reversal. Entire scholarly books have been written to explain how and why – and sometimes to suggest that “development of doctrine” can be stretched to accommodate such reversals.

I do not have space here to argue why such rationalizations are unconvincing. Suffice it to say that the plain meaning of “development” suggests something organic, not a Hegelian dialectical leap from “A” to “the opposite of A,” not even one that happens gradually over centuries. When a tadpole turns into a Steinway grand piano, that’s not an organic development.

Zmirak procedes to itemize "reversals" of papal positions on lending at interest, slavery, religious liberty, and torture, and concludes by stating that our Lord "never meant to leave behind an oracle. When we invent one for our convenience, we are forging a golden calf."

Of course, in his own case, all of this just happens to be jolly convenient.

[Hat tip to JM]