Pay, Pray, and Obey is No Longer the Laity’s Paygrade

Last updated on: February 6, 2019 at 3:41 pm by D. G. Hart

Pay, Pray, and Obey is No Longer the Laity’s Paygrade 2019-02-06T15:41:19-04:00 D. G. Hart

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

One of the best books never read was Garry Wills’ Politics and Catholic Freedom. This was a 1964 book, written during the Second Vatican Council, that tried to put papal encyclicals in historical perspective. How binding were they? How many were there? What status did they have in the church’s teaching authority? These questions in some ways became obsolete once the bishops in Rome decided to update the church and gave the green light to the main assumptions of modern politics — religious freedom and popular consent. Before that, Wills and other lay Roman Catholics labored under relatively constant reminders that they were supposed to follow the teaching of the Vatican on church and state. If they did, they could not be good Americans. If they did not, they could not be good Roman Catholics. Here is one summary of the book:

In 1964 he wrote Politics and Catholic Freedom as a rebuttal to Paul Blanshard’s best-selling American Freedom and Catholic Power (1949), which had warned that Catholicism in America represents an authoritarian threat to democratic ideals. Wills countered that although some Catholics do perceive the Vatican’s word as law, the Church hierarchy is no longer invested with the authority to govern lay matters, and that there is nothing inherent in the Catholic faith that should be interpreted as prohibitive of free and open discussion.

No one read the book because Vatican II seemed to lift the older bans and removed the historic hostility between Rome’s conservatism and modern politics’ liberalism.

Except, that debate has not really gone away. Now the issue is how much Vatican II changed previous teaching. A related question is the degree to which earlier teaching was infallible or not. Lawrence King and Robert T. Miller recently tried to update a number of the dynamics that Wills addressed, this time by determining which papal teachings are actually infallible:

Pius IX, Leo XIII, and some other nineteenth-century popes taught that the ideal state was a confessional Catholic state, which may (and in many cases should) punish heresy among the baptized and suppress the false religious practices of non-Catholic religious groups. By contrast, Vatican II, as well as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, taught that every person has a natural right to be free from external coercion in religious matters—a right that extends to his acts of private worship, public worship, and testifying to others regarding his faith, including his acts as an individual and as part of a religious community, except insofar as his actions disrupt the public order. The contradiction is obvious. Doesn’t it fatally undermine the Church’s claim to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals?

No, it does not. The problem is easily solved once we recognize that not everything the Church teaches is taught infallibly. Indeed, Pius XII stated in Humani generis (1950) that the teachings of the popes in their encyclicals are not typically infallible ex cathedra pronouncements but only matters of doctrina catholica: teachings of lesser authority that are not irreformable and that can (and on rare occasions do) change. For example, Eugenius IV taught in Exultate Deo (1439) that the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders includes the chalice and paten, and this remained doctrina catholica for centuries, until Pius XII taught in Sacramentum ordinis (1947) that the laying on of hands is the sole matter of this sacrament. Hence, if the nineteenth century teachings on integralism are only doctrina catholica, then there is a natural and obvious solution to the apparent contradiction between these teachings and the later ones: the solution, advocated by Benedict XVI and others (see Benedict’s Christmas address to the Roman Curia in 2005), is to take all the documents at face value, candidly admit they contradict each other, and then explain that the older teachings, which were never infallible, were changed at the Second Vatican Council. One of us argued for this solution in Public Discourse back in July.

What ensues is a lengthy and complicated point by point argument about what popes said, when they said it, and what they meant when saying it.

And yet, King and Miller conclude with a happy-faced reassurance:

Christ gave his Church an infallible magisterium so that ordinary faithful Catholics can know, easily and reliably, what they need to know to be saved. Any theory that implies that only professional scholars can figure out what has been taught infallibly has to be wrong.

If that were true, then bishops would have written the article that King and Miller wrote. Back in the days of “pay, pray, obey,” the bishops and Vatican officials did not have to worry about many lay Roman Catholics with the sort of expertise that might lead to differences with the holy teachings of the church. But now with two to three generations of professional Roman Catholics, professors, lawyers, physicians know more about the matters about which popes pontificate than any successor to Peter.

Which is only to say that King and Miller have written a plausible defense of the papacy. But it has no more force than the Protestant who attends a Bible study and says “this, is what Scripture teaches.” In Roman Catholicism, the only ones with the authority to give authoritative interpretations of church dogma and canon law are the bishops. It’s the same dynamic as that between the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution. You and I may have very good ideas about what the founding documents mean, but you and I are not on the Court and so we are left with our opinions.

And that is all the definitive list of King and Miller adds up to — like their opinion, man.

Image

Previous Post

January 30, 2019

Civil Religion Is a Problem, but Will Biblical Religion Save U.S.?

Next Post

February 12, 2019 If Abraham Lincoln were Donald Trump

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2016 Presidential Election 2020 Presidential Election Apocalypse Bible in American Life Biblical authority Books and culture Calvinism Church Life Civil Religion Culture Wars Doctrine evangelicalism Gullibility Heaven and Hell Intellectual life Jesus Ministry modernity moralism Nationalism New Testament Old Testament Otherworldiness Otherworldliness Paul Peter Piety Popular culture Protestantism Psalms Puritans Race Roman Catholicism sacred/secular distinction Sex Shameless Self Promotion Sports Ten Commandments U.S. politics Uncategorized vulgarity worship

Select a Month January 2022 October 2021 August 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz