PART ONE - The theologian's opinion and the judgment of the Magisterium in doctrinal matters
Communiter veritatem quaerere
A challenging but fruitful common journey
The good relationship between theologians and the Magisterium, especially with the Supreme Pontiff, is one of the highest and most beneficial activities that characterize the Catholic Church, so that the faithful may "walk in the truth" (cf. 3 Jn 3) and know what and how many truths of faith there are, and know how to defend themselves against contrary errors, just as a living organism needs all its vital organs to live. Cardinal Kasper, saying that we do not know how many truths of faith there are, is like a doctor who says he does not know how many vital organs the human body has.
This certainly does not mean that we know it with the same precision with which we know how many teeth we have, but only in the sense that there are beliefs about which it is still not clear whether they are or are not pertaining to the faith's heritage. And for this reason, theologians discuss it because, in principle, they could reach two conclusions: either they are not of faith, and then they can be abandoned, as happened with the belief in "limbo," or they can be elevated to dogma, as some would hope for the doctrine of Mary's co-redemption.
However, due to human frailty and sometimes malice, this relationship between theologians and the Magisterium has not always been easygoing throughout the centuries, and there have also been ruptures with serious harm to scandalized, confused, divided, misled, and led into error and sin among the faithful.
Sometimes authority has turned a deaf ear to the appeals of theologians. Sometimes theologians have taken the initiative without permission from the authority. The theologians struggle to submit, while the authority tends to assert itself. On the other hand, there can also be repetitive theology either out of laziness or because of a strong need for security or fear of research and progress. Furthermore, there can be an excessively permissive authority that allows subversive theologians to go unchecked.
The theologian faces a twofold risk: either the presumption of acting as a master to the Pope or the inclination to condone the shortcomings of his pastoral leadership, thereby blocking reforms and the progress of theology and the Church. Likewise, the risk for the shepherd is twofold: either excessive severity and harshness in condemning errors and abuses, which indicates a lack of charity and mercy, or negligence, self-interest, laziness, negligence, reticence, opportunism, human respect, naivety, worldliness, where he fails to intervene to correct errors, punish the guilty, or reform customs.
Saint Catherine of Siena [1] offers valuable teachings in this field: on one hand, she provides excellent suggestions regarding the duties of a good shepherd and how he should propagate sound doctrine and eradicate errors, dedicating himself to the progress and reform of the Church, even at the risk of his own life. On the other hand, she reproaches the bad shepherds who remain silent to gain a reputation for mercy and liberality, but in reality, because they are involved in the same sins, they are hindered by their conscience or hope to gain advantages and power from those they should correct. Notably, Catherine, known for her courage and wisdom, even had the audacity to remind Pope Urban VI of his duties, threatening him with divine punishment.
As we know, the evangelical paradigm of the good shepherd is Jesus Christ Himself, who is both the "door" (Jn 10:7), meaning the one who keeps the conscience open and genuinely enters the sheepfold "through the door" (Jn 10:2), meaning He enters the conscience of the faithful.
The "watchman" (v.3) opens up to the good shepherd. The watchman is the good theologian who knows the shepherd well, i.e., the Bishop, and also knows the sheep, so that he can bring them into contact with the shepherd, who leads them out of the sheepfold to abundant pastures (v.3). The watchman ensures that the sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd, that they appreciate his sound doctrine, enabling them to follow him calmly and confidently (v.4).
[ Editor's Note: The cover logo of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (LEV, 1992) reproduces an image of pagan origin from the late 3rd century, which characterizes its Big Picture: the Good Shepherd Christ, who with His authority (the staff) leads and protects His faithful (the sheep), attracting them with the melodious symphony of truth (the flute) and making them rest in the shade of the "tree of life," His redeeming Cross, which opens the gates of Paradise.]
The Popes and good Bishops have always honorably carried out this, often thankless but necessary, duty. However, it must be acknowledged, as everyone knows, that in the past there existed on a large scale and officially, a practice of repressive and educational zeal, even among the holiest, with a harshness and haste that sometimes smacks of arrogance and a perhaps unconscious desire to assert one's own power.
This prevailing practice, with the exception of forerunners and particularly enlightened Saints [2], should not be attributed to some kind of clerical intolerance or oppression or lack of Christian love, according to the old polemical model of yesterday and today's Freemasonry narrative. As pointed out by Saint John Paul II, commemorating the 400th anniversary of Giordano Bruno's execution in 2000, it was motivated by a level of ecclesiastical evangelical and juridical conscience that, while today surpassed, was authentic and therefore honest for that time.
At the same time, throughout history, there is a continuous, gradual, often arduous, contested, and suffering deepening of the requirements of the Gospel within this collective conscience, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and subsequent, sometimes slow, approval by the Pope, following doubts, verifications, and resistances. Consequently, there emerges a corresponding doctrinal and moral progress, a new legal order, and therefore a new conception of the duties of the bishop and the Pope towards heretics.
The pioneers and prophets of this pastoral, doctrinal, and evangelical progress, that is, the reformers and innovators, sometimes appear as subversive and scandalous and may even seem heretical to some conservatives. These reformers can also be theologians who initiate a new relationship with the Magisterium, the terms and conditions of which may initially appear unclear to both parties. However, through the exercise of charity, humility, and prudence, bridging the gap between those who push too far and those who lag behind, relying on the common faith, under the guidance of the Pope and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, clarity emerges, leading to a subsequent reformulation of the legal and pastoral norms concerning the theologian-bishop relationship.
The Council Reform
The abandonment and overcoming of the aforementioned conception of the doctrinal ministry of the Bishop and the Pope, in favor of a better critical work, a more open approach to the partial truth in heretical doctrines, and greater attention to the human dignity of the heretic, as well as to facilitate their repentance, occurred, as is known, with the reform of the Dicastery of the Holy See responsible for safeguarding the doctrine of the faith. This reform was carried out by Pope Paul VI through the Motu Proprio "Integrae servandae" on December 7, 1965. To highlight the importance of the reform, the Pope changed the name of the Dicastery itself, which transitioned from the "Holy Office" to the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
The fundamental aspect of the reform consisted of the fact that, whereas before the office would receive reports of suspected heresy made by a Bishop or theologian and, by considering the accused as guilty of suspected heresy, would promptly initiate a canonical process by summoning them to defend themselves and demanding retraction to avoid punishment, now the office no longer classified the received information under the judicial title of denunciation or accusation, but as a mere report of suspected heresy. The office reserved the right to contact the author, informing them of what the Congregation had become aware of. Thus, taking into account the legitimate freedom of thought and legitimate theological pluralism, the Congregation conducts a preliminary investigation and interpretation of the author's intentions and language. Afterward, the author is not asked to defend himself but to explain the reasons or motives behind his position, potentially availing himself of the patronage of an expert.
After carefully examining the positions of the reported theologian, possibly with the consultation of experts, and having heard their explanation, the Congregation reserves the right to express a judgment. This judgment can either be a decision of no further action or, if there are indeed justified suspicions of heresy, the individual transitions from the status of a simple report to that of the offender or accused, and a regular canonical process is initiated against them. These provisions were confirmed and clarified in the Regulations for the Examination of Doctrines of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29, 1997.
The reform of Paul VI, like any reform dependent on human prudence, albeit assisted by the Holy Spirit, has its merits and flaws. And for this reason, the well-known saying, "Ecclesia semper reformanda" fits quite well here. If a reform were perfect, there would be no need to replace it with another at a certain point. Even the holy Pontiffs Saint Pius V and Saint Pius X did not escape these limitations or, shall we say, flaws, even though they were undoubtedly as saintly as Saint John XXIII and Saint Paul VI. Yet, what a difference!
Indeed, it should be kept in mind that even saints reflect the moral and legal conscience of their time, and their actions, however heroic and powerful, cannot overcome certain objective obstacles specific to a given ecclesiastical situation and a given historical climate, which they may have inherited from previous Popes. They are not to blame for these obstacles, but rather for their victims.
Furthermore, there is nothing preventing us from recognizing objective psychological and moral flaws even in saints, which they may be unaware of or not be responsible for due to their human limitations. This does not hinder the Church from proclaiming them as saints. "Si iniquitates observaveris, Domine, Domine, quis sustinebit?"(If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?) Even Jesus Christ Himself could not punish the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, and the chief priests for their unbelief, but, on the contrary, He became their victim.
The Problem of Rahnerism [3]
Something similar happened to Pope Paul VI with Rahner and Rahnerism. Considering things from a purely objective point of view, regardless of the historical context and the forgivable limitations of Paul VI, it is undeniable that Rahner's thought, while rich in positive elements, contains many philosophical errors, heresies, biblical errors, and contradictions with the Magisterium of the Church. These errors are sometimes explicit, more often insinuated or veiled, as if they were intended to be subtly spread under the guise of promoting the conciliar reform, advancing theology, and serving the Church according to the needs of our time.
Furthermore, as those who endure reading his writings know, Rahner often proceeds stylistically with lengthy sentences full of subordinate clauses that soften or even contradict the main clause, adopting a smooth and seemingly respectful and deferential tone, completely devoid of the furious attacks and insults of a Luther. However, there is also a popularized Rahnerism intended for ordinary believers, which is expressed in some simple principles, such as the idea that "everyone is saved," that "the Pope can err," or that "faith is not knowledge but an 'encounter,'" or that "concepts and values are relative," or that "the law depends on the situation," or that "sin does not exist," or that "all religions are equal," or that "Luther was right."
Nevertheless, Rahner's errors are no less dangerous than those of Luther, and sometimes they deviate even further from Catholic truth, following the line of Hegel and the modernists. For example, Rahner denies divine immutability, denies the existence of unchanging and definitive truth, equates human beings, knowledge, and freedom with the divine, understands human nature as the effect of one's own will, denies the existence of Hell and the expiatory value of Christ's sacrifice, conceives grace as the summit of the human, human as the becoming of the divine, relativizes the Christological dogma of Chalcedon, interprets the Trinity in a modalistic sense,
[ “Modalism was an early Trinitarian heresy that exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son (John 10:30). It was promoted by Sabellius in Rome during the early third century. In the infant Church, the first confession of faith concerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ was based on St. Peter's words: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ [Matt. 16:16] Early Christians worshipped and died for Jesus Christ based on this simple confession without thinking about what it actually implied. If Christ is God, then how does He relate to the God of the Old Testament? Is Christ another God, another Person, or just another manifestation distinct from the Father? In the early third century, a few Christians, who included Noetus, were speculating that the Father and the Son are only different aspects or modes of the one Divine Being. The Father became the Son after taking the flesh of Mary. This speculation developed further under Sabellius. The Sabellians (also called Monarchians or Modalists) claimed that since there is only one God, there is only one Person in the Godhead. There are no personal relationships between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The only distinguishing relationships were between God and man. The Trinity was not three Persons in one God, but three functional relationships with man. The Father is the mode that created man; the Son is the mode that redeemed man; the Holy Spirit is the mode that sanctified man. Pope Callistus condemned this heresy, but it continued to flourish in the East into the fifth century. Even today it makes a comeback with the formula: "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier." But what is the big difference between three Persons vs. three modes? God is love (1 John 4:8,16). The Son loves the Father (John 14:31; 15:10); however, true love can only be between distinct persons and not manifestations (modes). If there are no distinct personal relationships within the Godhead, then there is no love within the Godhead. God could only love after a man was created. This causes problems for the eternal, loving God.” Cf.: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55974/sabellianism ]
and denies the existence of angels and the devil. Not even Luther went so far!
Rahner began his theological production very promisingly in the 1930s. However, by the end of that decade, he started to show the first signs of aligning himself with Hegel, writing two books that claimed to interpret St. Thomas Aquinas as if he were a Hegelian [4]. In these works, Rahner presented the foundations of his gnoseological-metaphysical conception, tending towards idealism, which he would not abandon throughout his life, despite the criticisms he received just at the very beginning from illustrious pastors, theologians, and philosophers faithful to the Church, and this continues to the present day.
Efforts to intervene were in vain. On the contrary, Rahner's admirers began to emerge, deluded by Rahner's claims that he had found the deep spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas. Pope Pius XII limited his theological activity in relation to one of his writings against the Virgin Mary's virginity itself.
When St. John XXIII had the idea to convene the Council, through the intervention of Konrad Adenauer, the Pope lifted Rahner's censorship and admitted him as an expert at the Council. However, after the Council, Rahner began to manifest his Hegelian approach by propagating a modernist interpretation of the Council. He continued to do so, left free by ecclesiastical authority, and even with increasing success until his death in 1984.
The Behavior of Pope St. Paul VI
The question that arises at this point is as follows: why did Paul VI never publicly take into consideration those salutary critical interventions from theologians faithful to the Magisterium and sound philosophy, which pointed out the danger of Rahnerism? Could it be that the Pope favored Rahner? Such a thing is absolutely unthinkable and unprovable. It would be slanderous. Even Rahner's supporters did not have the audacity to claim such an enormity.
Paul VI never uttered a word in favor of Rahner's ideas, except to acknowledge, as was just and necessary, his merits at the Council. And Rahner, for his part, never gave the slightest indication of accepting, incorporating, and developing the teaching of Paul VI, as a good theologian should. On the contrary, he even dared to accuse him of error when the Pope published the famous encyclical Humanae Vitae, instead of defending him against the attacks of the heretics.
[ Ed.: Here are large excerpts of the Speech by His Eminence Cardinal Willelm Eijk at the Conference held in Brescia on June 9, 2018, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae by Blessed Pope Paul VI.
"Paul VI maintained the Roman Catholic tradition that rejects contraception. Both non-Catholic and Catholic media reacted angrily to the publication of the Encyclical. I still see my father, very indignant, standing by the fireplace with the newspaper, describing the encyclical as a text without love, and my father completely shared that view. Unfortunately, that indignation was also present among Catholics.
Elsewhere in the West, there was a furious reaction as well. Many episcopal conferences opposed the encyclical. Many priests and laypeople did the same. The furious reactions to the encyclical immensely intimidated Paul VI. He was so intimidated that he never published another encyclical...
Half a century after the publication of Humanae Vitae, the storm has calmed down. But over the decades, (St.) Paul VI was somewhat forgotten, being placed between two great Popes, St. John XXIII, and St. John Paul II. However, slowly, it can be observed that the esteem for him is growing. He is seen in a way as a martyr because he had to conclude the Council in difficult circumstances and implement its decisions.
He was a good man who, as you know, faced vehement opposition from both the left and the right (…)
When he was beatified on October 19, 2014, at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family initiated by Pope Francis, that esteem could be perceived. At the same time, his encyclical HV has been recognized over the years by several, though not all, as a document that was, in fact, prophetic, containing a truth that still shines today (…)
Malthus proposed birth control, not through contraception, which he saw as a violation of human dignity. For him, the positive means were the virtue of temperance, moral restraint, and marrying later, once financial means were secured to support a family. He recommended premarital celibacy and education for this purpose, as well as improving the quality of life for the lower classes.
History has shown that he was right, but the neo-Malthusian movement of the second quarter of the 19th century advocated the use of contraceptives, contrary to Malthus himself.
An important representative of this movement was the Dutchman Johannes Rutgers, born in 1850, first a Protestant pastor, then a doctor, after a personal crisis of faith. In collaboration with his second wife, he promoted contraception, which he considered a "liberation of modern humans from an unnatural morality."
(...)
He argued for prohibiting procreation for economically needy people. Furthermore, he considered birth control as a means to improve the human race and achieve medical, hygienic, and cultural progress. Among members of the Protestant Church, the use of contraception gained much ground.
The Anglican bishops declared at the Lambeth Conference of 1930 that total abstinence from sexual intercourse is the first means of birth control. According to those bishops, the primary purpose of procreation must sometimes yield to secondary purposes. In such cases, the use of contraceptives was morally justified.
However, Pope Pius XI did not remain silent that year. In the same year, he reacted to the viewpoint of the Anglican bishops in his famous encyclical "Casti Connubii." In this document, he stated that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage. The use of contraceptives is an intrinsic evil, an act against nature, indecent, and dishonest.
Pope Pius XII expressed the same view in a speech in 1958, on the occasion of the introduction of hormonal contraception (the “Pill”, really the first transhumanist weapon against humanity (Ed.))
Considered progressive, although he wasn't a progressive, Pope St. John XXIII reiterated in his encyclical "Mater et Magistra" that the disproportion between population growth and provisions should not be resolved through means contrary to reason, that is, for purposes that do not align with the social nature and plans of Providence. Instead, it should be addressed by improving food production and organizing economic, social, and political aspects of countries that do not ensure living conditions proportionate to population growth.
Pope John XXIII established the Commission to study ethical problems related to birth control, initially composed of six people, later expanded by Pope St. Paul VI to 75 members.
Catholic families remained large until the late 1950s because most Catholics remained faithful to the tradition and teachings of the Church. The percentage of Protestant and secular group families, however, remained much lower from the late 1800s and throughout the last century, while that of Catholics increased.
In the Netherlands, the percentage of Catholics increased to over 40% by the late 1950s. However, the availability of hormonal contraception would change this rapidly.
The media reports on Vatican II led to feverish but false expectations regarding possible changes in the Church's doctrine on contraception. This conclusion in the Netherlands was reinforced by a speech given by one of the Dutch bishops on a very popular television program on Saturday, March 21, 1963.
He said: a decision on family expansion was a matter of conscience for parents, which no one should interfere with, not even the priest. Later, he added that it should be a "well-formed conscience," responding to criticism from other bishops, including Cardinal Alfrik of Utrecht, whom he had neither informed nor consulted beforehand. However, many Catholics saw this speech as a justification for using the recently introduced birth control pill.
Nevertheless, the most significant problem was that, at the time hormonal contraception was launched in the market, one of the deepest crises of faith in the history of the Church was about to erupt. Already in the late 1940s, it became clear that the ties of Catholics with the Church, at least in the Netherlands, were weakening. They relied more on their sense of being part of the Church as a social community than on their faith in the context of the Church's doctrine.
Moreover, the rapid cultural changes of the 1960s added to this. Prosperity reached unprecedented levels in history. Suddenly, people had sufficient financial means to live quite independently from each other.
As a result, social cohesion weakened very quickly. And this process didn't just pass by the Church's door, as we all know very well. While the content of faith was no longer the cement of the Church, social bonds with the faith community also weakened. In this individualistic culture, individuals not only have the right but even the obligation to distinguish themselves from others regarding their philosophy of life, religious beliefs, and ethical values, which they must determine for themselves. Most people follow the mass media, social intermediaries, and the world of advertising without being aware of it.
Within this individualistic culture, it is practically inconceivable that norms, proposed by the (Catholic) Church for many centuries, including those regarding contraception, would be universally valid without exceptions. This implies that there are absolute norms prohibiting intrinsically evil acts. This is because the Creator, in creating human beings, marriage, and human sexuality, established it this way.
What is completely incomprehensible for this culture is that a higher leader in the Church, the Pope, not elected democratically but guided by the Holy Spirit, could explain and propose this order of creation and the moral norms derived from it with authority.
The student revolution of '68 represented the apex of these cultural developments. In every generation, a rebellious mentality could be observed, more so among young people than the elderly. However, it is significant that Pope St. Paul VI published his encyclical in that year. One could almost say that he could not have chosen a worse time.
Even before the Second Vatican Council, there was disagreement among bishops on the issue of contraception. The study commissions presented two reports with very different conclusions. Archbishop Dopfner of Munich had presented a majority report, signed by 64 members, which did not qualify birth control methods as intrinsically evil. The judgment on their use should be left to the spouses. On the contrary, Cardinal Ottaviani, the president, presented a minority report, signed by himself and three other commission members. According to them, the Church should maintain the traditional doctrine of contraception. Both reports were leaked to the media and published. The majority report fueled the expectation that a change in the Church's doctrine in this field was imminent. Therefore, many Catholics were horrified to learn that Pope St. Paul VI upheld in his encyclical what the Church had always taught about the use of contraception.
Against the backdrop of the demand for more democracy in those years, most people would have found it obvious if Pope St. Paul VI had followed the recommendations of the majority report. However, the Church is not a democracy; it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and this is most true in and for the Petrine ministry.
The Pope, as the visible head and vicar of Christ in this world, receives the highest gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially when it comes to the exposition of the deposit of faith. Speaking ex-cathedra, he can define the doctrine of faith and morality infallibly in the form of dogma. However, the doctrine that is not defined ex-cathedra in the form of a dogma can also be infallible and unchangeable. This has never happened with a specific moral norm.
When the Magisterium regularly and seriously proposes something over a long time, it is a sign that it is an infallible and unchangeable doctrine. In the case of contraception, the Roman Magisterium has consistently and continuously qualified the use of contraception for this purpose as an intrinsic evil.
The essential message and, at the same time, the stumbling block, at least for many, is found in paragraphs 11 and 12: "Any marital act must remain open to the transmission of life."
Before the Second Vatican Council, there was a tendency among moral theologians, including Catholics, to consider marital love and unity on one side and procreation on the other as the ends of the marital act, similar to Anglican bishops. They also justified contraception based on a balancing of these ends against each other.
The Second Vatican Council rejected this dualism. According to the Council, marital love and unity are not the ends of marriage but its essence, according to the order of Creation, in which the natural moral law is substantiated. The unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act are inseparably connected according to the divine will. Spouses cannot separate or break them of their own initiative.
One significant factor complicating the acceptance of Humanae Vitae (HV) was that in 1968, at the time of its publication, there had not yet been a developed philosophical or theological analysis of marriage or human sexuality that provided arguments for the norm, the philosophical framework of HV. HV only speaks of the creative plan (N.13). Pope St. John Paul II addressed this theologically, and Cardinal Carlo Caffarra addressed it from a philosophical perspective.
HV expresses Pope Paul VI's fear that the widespread availability of contraception could particularly seduce young people into pre or extra-marital sexual relationships and adultery. He also expressed concern that husbands might lose respect for their wives by demanding frequent sexual relations.
The sexual revolution of the late '60s showed that Pope Paul VI's fears were (absolutely, Ed.) not unfounded.
Furthermore, HV paved the way for the documents Donum Vitae in 1987 and Dignitas Personae in 2008, both issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). In both cases, the meanings of the marital act are not separated. If Pope Paul VI had succumbed to the pressure to change the Church's doctrine, the Church might have been forced to change its doctrine on artificial reproductive techniques as well.
Lastly, we are now facing the demographic consequences of the introduction of contraception over half a century ago. The rapid decline in births since the '60s has led to the current aging of the Western population, making healthcare increasingly unaffordable, particularly in the near future. There is a shortage of young people to care for the elderly, and migrants are sometimes needed to fill the gap. Many baby boomers are retiring, and Europeans are not prepared to replace them.
The risk is not imaginary that Western culture might be replaced by another culture in the not-so-distant future.
In conclusion, Pope Paul VI will be canonized this year in October 2018. This will be the canonization of one of the greatest prophets of our time, who has shone the light of truth like few others.]
(end part one of two)