The archbishop of Buenos Aires became the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church when he pronounced the word “accepto” — Latin for “I accept” — in the Sistine Chapel last week. From that moment, according to Catholic theology, Pope Francis had “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church.” Most notably, he was endowed with what the catechism calls “the charism of infallibility”: When the pope, in his role as the church’s supreme pastor and teacher, definitively proclaims “a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals,” he is incapable of error.
The dogma of papal infallibility, approved at the First Vatican Council in 1870, was fiercely challenged by Lord Acton, the celebrated English historian and champion of liberty. Though a devout lifelong Roman Catholic, Acton fervently opposed papal absolutism — so fervently that he traveled to Rome to organize a campaign against the infallibility doctrine, which he was convinced would be used to justify wrongdoing and suppress freedom of conscience. “The theory of infallibility . . . stands on a basis of fraud,” he wrote.
Comments
Thank you, Jeff, for a lovely essay on religious authority. Although I'm not Jewish, I prefer the Jewish emphasis on reason and debate over infallibility. How did Catholicism manage without this doctrine until 1870?
"Though I'm not a Christian . . ." let me give you my opinion on Catholic theology, says Mr. Jacoby. Though I'm not Jewish, I think that's what's called chutzpah. Or where I come from, brass b---s.
So only Catholics can comment on Catholicism? Then why is Mormonism under vicious attack by some commentators who don't belong to the LDS Church?
QuincyAdams, good point -- and it's good precisely because it is so wrong. In the new knowledge, internet age everyone will be able to think about, evaluate, and comment on anything and everything. And rightfully so. The fixed doctrines, dogma, rules, practices all now all out in the public square. The result will be very rapid change, and change for the better. Excellent article, by the way, Jeff.
This is very shoddy journalism. Please do a modicum of research before you pontificate on things. Infallibility is VERY rarely used. It is very recent as far as Catholic Church history goes (1870). It can only be used with the pope is speaking "ex cathedra", and aside from the harmless practice of proclaiming which dead people are saints, has only be used once, to decide on the Assumption of Mary. Basically the intent is to be used as a tie-breaking vote, similar to Biden in the Senate, when the bishops cannot agree on a point of doctrine and the fight is leading to the danger of schism.
Nice way to annoy your Catholic readers, but I'm sure in Boston, there aren't many of those.
Papal “infallibility” apologists interpret this doctrine in various ways depending on the circumstances at hand. Sometimes they limit it as applying only when the pope explicitly speaks “ex cathedra” (the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary being the only two examples so far). Yet very often they claim that infallibly applies to every papal encyclical and pronouncement on faith and morals (such as Paul VI’s ban on birth control, and papal pronouncements on same sex marriage) even when not spoken ex cathedra. The 1870 doctrine of papal infallibility is not nearly as innocuous as Cordgrass claims, for it further centralized Roman and curial domination of the Church, and insidiously spawned the cult of the pope being ‘implicitly’ infallible in all faith and moral matters. Lord Action is still right.
Anybody can be a papal "infallibility" apologist, what matters is the Church's view on the matter. Official Church teaching is not as you say. Infallibility is a very restricted power and does not apply in general to the pope.
I don't care whether it is in the religious sphere or the political sphere tell me you've got the truth, whether it is Catholic truth or Baptist truth or Jewish truth or Muslim truth or conservative truth or liberal truth and I am running away as fast as possible. People with a belief in their rightness are simply dangerous. Period.
Well said.
So we can assume that you hold no views which you believe to be true? No values? No strongly held beliefs? It's all just relative?
Do you feel that racial equality is a fact? That women are equal to men Or do you just run from these assertions as fast as you can? After all, people believe them to be true.
Your remarks are silly and don't show much depth.
Papal 'infallability' is not a state of being the pope possesses, it is a power he can exercise. Like stamping a document 'Top Secret', it simply makes a statement about authority. If you are an obediant RC believer it means something, otherwise, it means nothing. What always surprises me is how the words alone, absent any understanding what they actually signify, can get some people very worked up.
Happily Mr Jacoby has chosen today to pontificate on something completely irrelevant. But I suspect that a lot of his "base" won't like it.
Nice play on words there....Mr. Jacoby has chosen to "pontificate"....clever.
It has been said about me that I sometimes "pontificate", and I can't deny it. In fact, I recommend that everyone learn. It shows that you are thinking seriously about things and that your thoughts matter.
"...he pronounced the word "accepto", Latin for I accept..." Allow me to possibly be the first to utter my special Latin word, for the doctrine of infallability, and most of the other garbage The Catholic Church teaches - "rejecto".
The process for selecting the Pope is just the same as in any authoritarian, non-democratic regime. It's simply power games, behind closed doors. It would naturally appeal to a pro-corporate stooge like Jeffy.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
The history of Infallibility is hysterical. Pius IX (also called Pio NO NO) proposed it at a time when the Papal States were crumbling and the temporal power of the Bishop of Rome was dissolving. He was, in modern political terms, losing juice.
So he called this Coiuncil and proposed this dogma. It was initially DOA, but of course many of the attending bishops had to get home (and Al Italia had not yet arrived), a long voyage for most. So he kept the Council running until virtually all the opposition was gone and called for a vote.Done.
So Pio NO NO was more like LBJ than Jesus of Nazareth.
Jeff got all his facts right. I would only add three points. First, although Vatican I “overwhelmingly” approved the doctrine of papal infallibility, many bishops who opposed the doctrine were absent from the final vote. Some were strong-armed into leaving Rome before the vote; others were kept locked in their rooms, thus casting doubt on the validity of the vote. Second, the doctrine of papal infallibility was the brainchild of the dreadfully anti-Semitic Pope Pius IX, and must be seen in the context the end of the Papal States by the Italian unification of 1870. What Pius lost in temporal power, he quickly made up for by seizing unprecedented ecclesial power. Finally, this speech attributed to Bishop Joseph Strossmayer in 1870 (link below) presents an excellent summary of arguments as to why the doctrine of papal infallibility lacks support in Scripture and Tradition, historically, morally, and spiritually. http://www.theonemediator.com/Catholicism/Papal%20Infallibiliity%20and%20Supremacy/bishop_strossmayer_speech.pdf
Your history is correct but his facts are wrong. You describe how the doctrine came about. He described how it is used in practice today. He is quite wrong.
This comment has been removed.
My problem with Jeff Jacoby's article is that he is taking undue advantage of a one-way street. In today's America, when a member of the Hebrew faith constructively criticizes Catholicism, that's acceptable First Amendment. However, when a Christian constructively criticizes Israel or individual members of the Hebrew faith, well, that's considered unacceptable Anti-Semitism. How else do you explain that no American publisher will print “Two Hundred Years Together,” Aleksander Solzhenitsyn's scholarly foot-noted work describing the enthusiastic and massive participation of Russian Jews in the establishment of the Soviet Union and Communism? How else do you explain that only one Boston-area library has on its shelves another scholarly foot-noted work (“Behind the Balfour Declaration”) showing how British Prime Minister Llyod George worked with Zionists behind the scenes to get American Jews pro-actively to support an American declaration of war against Germany in 1917, in exchange for British support for a homeland for all the Jews in Palestine. Also, for forty years, I have unsuccessfully looked for one constructive criticism of the time (October, 1973) when Henry Kissinger brought us to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union in order to save Israel, then fighting the pro-Soviet Arabs in the Yom Kippur War; the Soviets stayed out of that war, but only after the American military went on a worldwide alert, ready for World War III. Final example: A man in 2005 put a sign on his house criticizing Israeli expansionist policies; the sign read, "Land-grabbing Israel is bleeding America." A local Rabbi and a Jewish newspaper as far away as Philadelphia called the sign Anti-Semitic, and a protest picketing of this man’s house was then organized. Why picket this man's home? The man was, after all, right – Muslims hate us because we support an Israel that is right now in the process of settling thousands of Israelis on Palestinian land in the so-called West Bank area there in Israel. Muslim terror is clearly wrong, but that doesn't mean Israeli territorial expansion at the expense of Palestinians is right. I do say, God bless all members of the Hebrew faith everywhere, but, I say also, First Amendments rights should be able to be exercised by all Americans, without pro-Israel, pro-Judaism advocates mis-labeling constructive criticism as anti-Semitic.
Good points, all. I would also add, and American Jews sometimes neglect the fact, that there is hardly a viewpoint on Israeli policy that non-Jews hold that is not also held by some Israeli Jews as well. In other words, the very arguments voiced by anyone against the Israeli policy of expansion are, and have been, held by Israelis since before the founding of the modern State of Israel itself.
Although I sincerely admire the attitude toward moral authority in the Jewish tradition (as described by Mr Jacoby), I don't think it serves any purpose to draw a comparison between Judaism and Roman Catholicism in this regard. How about a comparison between baptism and circumcision while we are at it? If presented with a choice (as a non-biased non believer) I would choose baptism and papal infallability over circumcision and rabincal fallibility. Papal infallibility and baptism are painless and leave no physical scars. But circumcision hurts and there is always something there to remind you about it (which is the whole point of the procedure, I'm told). Anyway, I find that most religions have patches of the good, the bad, and the ugly stiched together in a crazy quilt that seems bizarre to outsiders. To me, there seems no point in comparing one crazy quilt to another.
Alas, to the adherents with no sense of history, humour, or irony, their quilt always looks beautiful and rational, while others' quilts all look crazy.
Since most American males are circumcized, whatever their religion, I don't believe this is the proper forum for you to exhibit your prejudice against it.
I am a Catholic who believes in God Almighty..................MY big disappointment is the showcasing of GOLD in all services, while preaching "HELP for the POOR"
This comment has been removed.
To your point, I was raised and educated as a Catholic. The Jesus that I learned about would not approve of the splendor in which the successors to Peter have lived. Perhaps Francis will begin the process of changing that, but I doubt it.
How anyone can write a column like this one without mentioning Piux IX is beyond me. He was the longest serving of all the elected popes, 1846-1878. "Infalibility" was his, along with several other Catholic dogmas, and he called the First Vatican Council to make it official. Although some at the council and elsewhere in the church were opposed, there was no way that Pio Nono (in Italian) was not going to have his way.
In 1848 When Italian republicans, including Mazzini, set up the Roman Republic, Piux IX excommunicated anyone who participated. Later when Italy completed its unification by taking control of the Papal States in 1870, Pius excommunicated the King and the entire Italian government. Probably his most infamous action was creation of a Jewish ghetto in Rome. (Ghetto is an Italian word.)
To some people Pius IX is the greatest pope, to others he the opposite of that. If you're interested, do some research and decide for yourself.
It used to be considered inappropriate to comment on the religious beliefs of others, especially when one is not forced to adopt them or live by them. I'm not sure why Jeff Jacoby felt the need to tell us why Catholic belief is wrong the Jewish are better and smarter. No one is forcing him to abide by papal proclamations.
I agree that's the way it once was -- for me also. But I think it's better to talk about it and learn something about the beliefs of others.
The old way of silence led to government sponsorship of particular faiths, such as saying the Lord's Prayer in public schools, or even reading Bible verses. I think discussing religion openly allows people to better understand the differences and the reasons that the government should remain neutral.
Two days. That's the length of time between publishing this column and pulling any front page reference to it. Usually it's there until the next column is published.
PC police? The Boston diocese? Catholic Globe staffers?
This comment has been removed.