It would appear that Mr. Miller has replied to my previous note to him. It was much of what I expected, and I will get to that presently, but let my begin with a note of mea culpa. For in his only moment of correctness, Miller rightly points out that:

I was discussing the case of Father H, who we now know is Fr. Peter Hullermann. Yet Angilbert rebuts using an example of the American priest Fr. Lawrence Murphy. It’s ironic that the Church’s current predicament makes it difficult to figure out which potentially-Pope-linked pedophile we’re talking about.

I don’t know if it was the scale of the Church‘s predicament which is the issue here, except perhaps how it has been portrayed in the media. As noted in other articles on the site here, and by other bloggers elsewhere, the scope of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests is, objectively speaking, pitifully small in comparison to the rates of offense one can find both in other Christian denominations, other religions, and in secular institutions as well.

Yet a person could be forgiven, if he read only the newspapers and formed his opinions from those sources alone, that the scope and scale of the abuse scandal within the Church is much larger. Indeed, he could even be forgiven for (quite erroneously) concluding that almost every Catholic priest was a sexual predator waiting to explode (ahem). In fact, less than 2% of priests have ever been implicated in abuse scandals; it’s likely that fewer still are actually guilty.

But you wouldn’t know as much from reading (or watching) the news, in most cases. When you crunch the numbers, yeah, you see it for yourself…but does Joe Average bother to take matters into his own hands in that way, or does he just digest what the glowing box tells him and regard that as the whole truth? Does Mr. Miller do any different, I wonder?

(I should search Mr. Miller’s site for articles which antagonize e.g. teacher’s unions in the United States for their much more easily verifiable complicity in covering up sexual abuse of students perpetrated by teachers…at a rate that may well be as much as 100 times that of Catholic priests. Does the good reader suppose I will find even so much as one cursory comment on that matter? It seems doubtful.)

But to address Mr. Miller’s comment directly, I did in fact get confused, because I wanted to get back to playing Alpha Protocol and so did only a cursory Google search for “Father H”, and then linked to a couple of articles from sources known to me that came up in the results. This was hasty and sloppy, and as we can see led me in a wrong direction. I apologize for my haste and the error it led me to.

Let me also offer a few more links, all of which deal with Father Hullermann by name, and all of which basically point out the same conclusion: there’s really no logical, truthful way stain Pope Benedict XVI with the Peter Hullermann brush.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, it’s time to respond to Mr. Miller’s response to me. Mr. Miller begins with something that I intend to return to shortly; his next observation is:

To my mind, identifying the authority to investigate, punish, treat, and forgive is a “faith and morals” issue, as is the question of whether the principle sin in molesting adolescent boys is statutory rape or homosexuality.

Obviously, we’re not actually discussing Mr. Miller’s own opinions here, since they are irrelevant to what actually is, but I will note that he’s not entirely incorrect here. Obviously, the subjects listed above do touch on issues of faith and morals (faith and morals being, as we discussed previously, the necessary subject matter of any infallible pronouncement), since they do touch on the Church’s response to homosexuals and pedophiles, but it would be something of a stretch to call that the primary focus of the statements which Mr. Miller himself chose to highlight. The primary focus of those statements had to do with procedure and pastoral care.

Mr. Miller attempts to move beyond mere tu quoque, however, and goes on to note that:

Were these “procedural rules” not matters of faith and morals, much of the Catechism Angilbert uses to justify the “faith and morals” provision itself would not qualify as infallible.

In a sense, Mr. Miller is both right and wrong. The Catechism is the articulation of the Catholic faith, a rather lengthy expansion on every detail and profession contained in the Nicene Creed. Where it specifically addresses matters pertaining to infallible teachings (e.g. Marian dogma, Christology), it is indeed infallible. In regard to other ecclesial traditions and cultural applications, it is not infallible, and can change over time.

Of course, in saying as much, we should be careful to also note that just because a particular Catechetical teaching is not infallible does mean it’s completely optional. Though many of its statements fall below the de fide level of authority, all Catholics are, by act of self-identifying as Catholic, obligated to give them obedient assent.

We could argue that the same is true for things like papal encyclicals and pastoral letters from bishops or cardinals, and in fact many do. Again, it becomes a question of degree, or rather of the level of authority of the statements. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger‘s letters fall into this latter category: there is much in them which is true and reflective of the faith, and Catholics would in general do well to follow what has been outlined in them. Those statements are almost certainly not infallible, as we will presently discuss, nor are they statements which Catholics are obligated to give obedient assent to, except to the degree that they correctly address and articulate teachings which Catholics are supposed to give assent to.

Yes, this is a lot of…let’s call it gradiation. Welcome to the Catholic Church.

So in essence, I grant Mr. Miller’s statement, above…and also dismiss it. I didn’t claim that the Catechism was 100% infallible, but that doesn’t mean that at any given point in time it is not still the formal articulation of the Catholic faith in very granular detail.

Mr. Miller then attempts to bring out his shoehorn again:

…it is clearly a moral matter to ask: who has jurisdiction over criminal priests? Is it the Church, or is it the police?

As Robin Williams famously said: Really?

Ratzinger’s letter prescribed a course of pastoral action by which such sinners ought to be reconciled and preserved from temporal authority rather than isolated by secular punishment. Is this really a matter of outside of “faith and morals”? I think not, and I think I’ve justified my claims to the contrary.

Again, we’re not actually discussing Mr. Miller’s own opinions here, since they are irrelevant to what actually is. So: is it a matter of “faith and morals”, to raise the issue of what the proper legal, pastoral, and procedural approach is to dealing with a priest who has been accused of sexual abuse, or who has confessed thereto?

(I use the term “confessed” here in a decidedly non-sacramental sense, because dealing with a confessional admission of sexual abuse is a much more delicate subject. I will only remark, to that point, that Catholic doctrine does not permit a confessor to make the absolution granted to a penitent contingent upon the penitent turning himself over to the proper legal authorities to make redress for the crime he has confessed to committing. The seal of confession is what it is; better a priest be incarcerated or even martyred than let slip what sins he has heard confessed.)

Let’s not forget that, as Ruth Gledhill notes, “What is often forgotten is how little was known of paedophilia. It was believed it could be cured, and that penitence was tantamount to recovery.

The Church, in its ignorance of the recidivism of paedophiles, too often gave them a second, third or fourth chance, moving them to different parishes, or even different countries, where they just abused again. Children’s homes made the same mistake.”

Since the time of Benedict’s authorship of both letters that Mr. Miller raises issue with, both the Church’s understanding and the world at large’s understanding of pedophilia has grown by leaps and bounds. We understand now, and did not back then, that the sexual impetus to abuse children is separate from simply feeling sexual attraction to members of the same sex, or to members of the opposite sex. It is a clinical disorder, in addition to being a moral disorder, whereas homosexuality is solely a moral disorder.

Relatedly, Mr. Miller states that:

Strangely, Angilbert ducks the larger crime/sin question. He claims that molesting post-pubescent boys is homosexuality, not pedophilia, and that homosexuality is a reconcilable sin. While I don’t see the justification for calling homosexuality a sin (contra Aquinas, we see it in nature: this is a classic slippage between procedural and substantive) I do believe that non-consensual sex is a crime that must be punished, and that adolescent boys cannot give meaningful consent to adults.

To his point contra Aquinas, I might point out that dogs and other animal also occasionally eat their own feces, or the feces of others of their species. Yet strangely, most civilized nations have laws which come down quite harshly on those operators of eateries who allow fecal matter to come into contact with food to be served. The fact that sentient animals possessed only of irrational souls (creatures of instinct alone, in essence) do a thing does not mean that the thing is permissible to sapient human beings possessed of rational souls. Were Mr. Miller more learned in regard to the saint whom he so casually dismisses, he’d have known as much.

But let’s come back to the homosexuality/pedophilia point. It has taken Western society a long damn time to form its current understanding of homosexuality; then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s letters reflect an older way of thinking about the problem that was common to far more institutions and groups than just the Catholic Church. Varions non-Western societies, including many Islamic societies, haven’t even got the older memo yet; child marriage is common in many less civilized parts of the world, often justified because of the “example” of Muhammed (as though anything that man did is worthy of emulation).

Now, to be fair, I did not — as Mr. Miller notes — directly address “the crime/sin question”, because it was not my intent to do so. I was addressing the infallibility, and Mr. Miller’s quite incorrect understanding and use of the concept in his attempt to both smear the Pope and paint the Church into some manner of corner. (I have, however, addressed the crime/sin angle in other writings.)

As to my terming things in certain ways, Mr. Miller quite dishonestly represents me: I use the category of pedophilia to describe abuse of children, and I use the category of ephebophilia to describe the abuse of post-pubescent non-adults. These are established categories which need neither introduction nor further justification for their use.

As a separate, but not wholly un-related, layer, I then also factor in the matter of homosexuality. The vast majority (again: 85%) of abuses perpetrated by priests have been homosexual in nature. That’s an inescapable fact of this whole ugly mess.

So contra Mr. Miller’s characterization of my remarks, my stance is much more both/and: I acknowledge the molestation and the overwhelmingly homosexual elements thereto, but still treat each as being a separate issue. Which, unsurprisingly, they are. I should also point out that I regard both the sin of homosexuality and the sin of pedophilia as being reconcilable; there is only one sin (we are told) that is unforgivable, and neither homosexuality or pedophilia is it.

But let’s get to the meat of the matter, the issue that I was actually addressing before having to respond to all this other clutter:

Does the 1986 letter claim infallibility? Well, it’s based on the 1975 letter Sexual Personae, which Ratzinger didn’t write, and which does claim infallibility through the “constant teaching of the Magisterium and the moral sense of the Christian people.” The power and the problem with various attempts at infallibility is that they are transitive: what the ordinary and universal Magisterium proclaims in 1975 can be reproclaimed in 1986 or in 2001 with slight expansions while preserving the original infallibility. And thus “procedural” matters slowly become “substantive” matters.

The shoehorn is working overtime here, but ultimately fails in its task.

To understand why, we must ask: what is the scope and object of infallibility? “In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ’s teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affirmed by the Vatican Council when it says that “the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit.”

Which means that: “it is generally held, and may be said to be theologically certain, (a) that what are technically described as “theological conclusions,” i.e. inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason, fall under the scope of the Church’s infallible authority. (b) It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate, or a certain council ecumenical, or whether objective heresy or error is taught in a certain book or other published document. This last point in particular figured prominently in the Jansenist controversy, the heretics contending that, while the famous five propositions attributed to Jansenius were rightly condemned, they did not truly express the doctrine contained in his book “Augustinus”. Clement XI, in condemning this subterfuge merely reasserted the principle which had been followed by the fathers of Nicaea in condemning the “Thalia” of Arius, by the fathers of Ephesus in condemning the writings of Nestorius, and by the Second Council of Constantinople in condemning the Three Chapters. (c) It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, that is to say, when canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century. Mere beatification, however, as distinguished from canonization, is not held to be infallible, and in canonization itself the only fact that is infallibly determined is that the soul of the canonized saint departed in the state of grace and already enjoys the beatific vision. (d) As to moral precepts or laws as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral. It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection with the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required.”

(It is probably pedantic to remark, at this point, that just because faith and morals is the key criteria, it does not automatically follow that any and all Church statements pertaining to faith and morals are infallible. But just so we can be clear on that point, there it is.)

All of which is well and good, but how do the apply? What teachings are actually infallible? “As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ’s promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.”

And let’s also add one more important point: “In Catholic teaching, diocesan bishops do not in themselves possess the charism of infallibility (but do so when gathered in ecumenical council), leaving these early Church canonizations without certainty of infallibility.”

Now, it is true that Ratzinger’s 1975 letter does invoke the “constant teaching of the Magisterium and the moral sense of the Christian people”, but does this mean his letter is infallible? Actually, it doesn’t.

Though Cardinal Ratzinger does invoke, in a sense, the magisterium ordinarium, this alone is not enough to confer infallibility onto his statements, according to how the doctrine is actually defined. In part, this is due to the fact that the subject of his letter is not addressing directly matters of “faith and morals” (Mr. Miller’s own thoughts on the matter nonwithstanding), nor is his opinion being expressed in the context of an ecumenical, conciliar setting (and obviously, it’s also not a papal Bull). It is a letter by one man. Yes, that man may have been the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but so what?

Infallibility, even of the ordinarium, is a very strict, very narrow category which one man cannot ever legitimately claim simply by binding his statements, in writing, to the contstant teaching of the offices of the Church. And good thing too, or no doubt many a bishop would attempt to establish for himself a little fifedom with every pastoral letter he published in parish bulletins. Even papal Bulls which define infallible doctrine, like the Assumption of Mary, are not infallible in their entirety; only small portions thereof will be (though the rest will still make for good reading and sound teaching).

Now, had either or both of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s letters been recognized by valid ecumenical councils, parts of them could possibly be considered infallible. But unless Mr. Miller is sitting on a treasure trove of secret historical documents confirming councils of just that sort and subject…I’m afraid he’s just plain wrong.

Which is why, by the way, I reserved comment on Mr. Miller’s opening remark to me…

So far as I can tell, this is simply an argument from assertion: “This is not that.”

…until now. In a sense, he was right to observe as much, because I was indeed saying that what he thought he had was not what he thought it was. But equally, I would wonder at whether his attempt to catch me in this act he describes here is not a bit of projection on his part. His whole argument has very much been a grand, erroneous attempt to claim that “this (the Pope’s letter) is that (infallible)”. The difference, at least as far as I can see, is that whereas I can quite easily demonstrate, without the need for convoluted reasonings and selective quotes, that Ratzinger’s letters were not infallible, Mr. Miller has to perform quite a lot of mental-fu in order to shoehorn Ratzinger into the narrow category of the infallible…and even then does not succeed to any significant degree.

So perhaps I am simply arguing from assertion…but if so, then only in the sense that I am offering a correct assertion to counter an incorrect one.

Now, I began this article with the admission of an error that Mr. Miller rightly pointed out I had committed. I have now performed the same service for him, and pointed out his own error. I hope the good reader will join me in praying for Mr. Joshua A. Miller, in the hope that his heart will be moved, and that he will likewise admit to being wrong on the points here discussed.

Popularity: 3%

---

Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: Aberrant Sexuality - Catholicism - Crime and Punishment - Men and Women - Sex | Tags: Alpha Protocol, Assumption of Mary, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ephebophilia, Google, homosexuality, Islam, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Lawrence Murphy, Muhammed, Nicene Creed, pedophilia, Peter Hullermann, Pope Benedict XVI, Robin Williams, Ruth Gledhill, sexual abuse, the Church, United States