The Binding Force of Papal Teaching: A Pre-Vatican II Theologian Explains

Catholics must assent to what the Pope teaches – period.

The Binding Force of Papal Teaching:
A Pre-Vatican II Theologian Explains

Fr. John F. Cronin (1908-94) was an expert on Catholic social teaching

For about six decades now, many Catholics of good will have been subjected to great deception and falsehood from two angles: On the one hand, the Novus Ordo religion that emerged in the Vatican with the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and on the other hand, the good-faith but nevertheless often theologically-flawed attempts to resist that new religion while nevertheless recognizing the ‘Popes’ who have imposed it as legitimate Popes.

For instance, as the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium began introducing all kinds of novelties and errors against established Catholic doctrine, it became common for traditionalists to justify their rejection of these teachings on the grounds that the (supposed) Pope had not promulgated these new teachings infallibly, therefore one was free to dismiss them. Another similar idea that gained acceptance was that teachings or directives found in documents of lesser authority could not overturn prior teachings or directives in documents of greater authority. Thus, for instance, a [Novus Ordo] doctrine found in a papal encyclical would not be binding if it contradicted a [traditional] doctrine found in an apostolic constitution.

Such ideas became ingrained in the minds of those who were looking for some way to escape the defection of the Vatican II religion, and one can sympathize with the people who were only trying to make sense of an insane situation while remaining fully orthodox in their beliefs.

However, error is error, and neither sincerity nor compassion can make error into truth. If we are going to be servants of the truth, we must repudiate all error, even that which is perhaps at times quite convenient.

Here at Novus Ordo Watch, we have written about this matter a few times in the past; for example:

• What Are Catholics Bound to Believe?
• Do Catholics Have to Assent to Non-Infallible Church Teaching?
• Could Non-Infallible Papal Teaching be Heretical?
• A Challenge to Recognize-and-Resist Apologists: Is it a Mortal Sin to adhere to Francis’ Teachings?
• The Limits of Papal Power: Contrasting Traditional Catholic Teaching with Recognize-and-Resist Distortion
• Can we reject Magisterial Teaching if it wasn’t believed Always, Everywhere, and by All?

The idea that only infallible Church teaching requires the assent of the faithful did not start with the traditionalist response to Vatican II, however. It apparently took its origin at some point after the First Vatican Council (1870), which had defined papal infallibility. By 1930, Pope Pius XI had cause to warn:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)

Twenty years later, Pope Pius XII had to bring up the issue again and make clear:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20)

Pope Pius’ Humani Generis was published on Aug. 12, 1950. Earlier that same year, Fr. John Francis Cronin (1908-1994), a Sulpician priest and expert on Catholic social teaching, had released a monumental work entitled Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life. Unfortunately, the book is out of print now; however, it can be borrowed electronically for free here.

In this work, among many other things, Fr. Cronin addresses certain misconceptions about the binding nature of papal teaching, specifically in the context of the objection that the Church does not have the right to teach the faithful (and thereby bind their consciences) on economic matters, as these do not — so goes the objection — fall under the purview of Faith and morals. His treatment of the subject is so informative and succinct that we will reprint it here in full. Keep in mind that although the context is that of Catholic teaching on social and economic matters, the principles the theologian enunciates regarding the binding nature of the papal magisterium are not tied to these particulars but are of universal validity.

Binding Force of the Encyclicals. There has been considerable discussion among Catholics as to their religious obligations in regard to the social encyclicals. At first glance, it might seem to some that teachings on the social question would not come under the heading of faith, morals, or Church discipline. Actually, the Church has held that socioeconomic problems are in part moral and religious problems. To this extent they certainly are within the competence of Church teaching. This point was made clear earlier in the chapter. Once this is granted, however, there have been further objections on two grounds. It has been held that, because the social encyclicals are not infallible pronouncements, they may be accepted or rejected at will by Catholics. Others, not willing to go that far in defiance of papal authority, held that these encyclicals do not apply to American conditions. They maintained that the encyclicals, even though addressed to the entire world, were formulated in view of conditions which do not obtain here. Both these attitudes are in error. The first indicates serious misunderstanding as to the religious duties of Catholics. The second shows a basic misconception of the social encyclicals. They enunciate moral principles which are universal in application.

In the first place, the teaching mission of the Church is not confined to infallible pronouncements by the pope or ecumenical councils. Christ’s injunction to teach all nations was not limited by any qualifications. The Church has been commissioned by God to teach with authority on matters of faith and morals. It has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In rare cases, the fullness of this guidance is invoked in a solemn definition of an article of faith. But the great bulk of Church teaching is had through the normal channels of pronouncements by the popes, bishops, and theologians. In regard to the pope, the type of teaching varies in solemnity and urgency. At times, the pope instructs directly and formally. On some matters, he is content to speak through the Sacred Congregations. Again, positions may be urged as a matter of prudence, rather than faith. Thus, for a long period, the Church took a reserved attitude toward the use of “higher criticism” in explaining the Holy Scriptures. With the progress made in this field, Pope Pius XII decided that the use of such material was now opportune and desirable. But prior to this decision, Catholic writers were bound to give first place to the Vulgate text and traditional interpretations based on that text. Accordingly, a “minimist” attitude of accepting only infallible pronouncements is simply un-Catholic.

A careful perusal of the papal writings themselves will show the great authority attached by the popes to encyclicals and other documents. It is common practice for one pope to quote from the writings of another pontiff, and this in such a way as to indicate that these writings are considered binding upon the faithful. This is particularly noticeable during the pontificates of Popes Pius X and Benedict XV, both of whom referred frequently to the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII. The latter pontiff likewise has been often used as a source by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. In the famous letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 5, 1929, sent to the Bishop of Lille on the occasion of an industrial dispute in his diocese, the seven principles given as a basis for settlement were all buttressed by quotations from papal documents. Again, the instruction on interfaith meetings, issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under the date of December 20, 1949, notes the binding force of the encyclicals, even though “not all things are of faith.”

No Catholic who has examined the entirety of papal social literature from 1890 to the present date could hold that the bulk of these documents were other than binding teachings directed for world-wide use. This statement applies even when the original document was addressed to a particular country. Thus, in Quadragesimo Anno Pope Pius XI refers to Singulari Quadam, orginally addressed to the German bishops. Likewise, the present Holy Father [Pius XII] has referred in other contexts to Sertum Laetitiae, a letter to the bishops of the United States. Indeed, it has often been the practice of Pope Pius XII to use special occasions or audiences to particular groups as media for broad moral pronouncements.

As a second point, the form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. It is true that the very nature of an encyclical, addressed to the entire world, implies a certain solemnity. But a broadcast, a papal letter, an allocution, or even an address to a particular group may, under certain circumstances, involve important and binding teachings on some matters. The intention as manifested in context is more important than the external form of teaching. Thus, Pope Pius XI is frequently solemn and formal in his pronouncements given in Quadragesimo Anno. We may quote one passage as an illustration: “…the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only the social order but economic activities themselves” (No. 41). At other times, the pope may indicate that he merely counsels, not commands, a given line of action. An example of this is his judgment on the wage contract: “We consider it more advisable, however, in the present condition of human society that, so far as is possible, the work-contract be somewhat modified by a partnership-contract…” (No. 65). The italicized words show a form of qualification which indicates a desire rather than binding teaching.

In regard to the social encyclicals in particular, their historical context clearly shows their binding force. They are part of a series issued by Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII, to deal with the grave and urgent problems of the times. The issues were so serious that Rome felt constrained to give guidance and leadership to the faithful. Here both the external circumstances surrounding their issuance and the internal notes of solemnity and urgency indicate beyond doubt that the popes were commanding the faithful on important moral questions. This point was also stressed in the 1949 instruction of the Holy Office, concerning interfaith meetings. In discussing gatherings on the social question, the Congregation stated: “Even in these assemblies, as is evident, Catholics are not allowed to approve or concede anything that is not in accord with Divine revelation and with the Church’s teaching, including her teaching on the social question.”

Theologians all agree on the broad teaching authority of the pope. This point is well summarized by a French author: “In regard to directives given in an encyclical, while they are not infallible, they nevertheless oblige in conscience, because every Catholic owes an unrestricted and unreserved submission to the exercise of supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church. The Supreme Pontiffs, as is their right, have never used an ordinary encyclical to promulgate an absolute and definitive doctrinal decision. But it does not follow, may we repeat, that the encyclicals do not give directives binding in conscience. When the pope, in his position as supreme teacher and pastor of the universal Church, condemns, for example, the error of socialism and offers instead the social teaching of the Church, such teaching is binding upon the faithful. The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce with supreme authority the social teaching of the Church. ‘Respectful silence, which consists in neither rejecting nor criticizing the given teaching,’ is inadmissible in this matter.” The Sacred Congregation of the Council, in its letter of June 5, 1929, clearly defended the right of the Church to speak on socioeconomic matters, quoting both Rerum Novarum and Singulari Quadam (Pius X) in support of this position.

In the light of such authority, it is hardly possible for a Catholic to justify by-passing of the social encyclicals, much less rejection of their contents, on the grounds that they are not infallible. Where the pope is clearly teaching on a matter of divine revelation or natural law, he is acting under the general guidance of the Holy Spirit. His pronouncements may not be solemn definitions, yet it is the part of prudence to assume that this guidance has protected him from error. If a particular teaching appears difficult to accept, there is always the possibility that the reader may have misunderstood the pope. Expert interpretation by competent theologians may be necessary to clarify certain terms and to integrate a given text with other related teachings. Even on doctrinal matters, such theologians may seek to reopen questions which have not been defined in infallible pronouncements or their equivalent. But the average Catholic priest or layman should accept doctrinal and moral teachings of the popes.

The second objection of the “minimist,” that they do not apply to American conditions, has been answered in part in the preceding chapter. Some general principles on this point might be added here.

The social encyclicals and addresses contain various levels of teaching. At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures. From this source alone, it would be possible to derive broad principles for social life. Scripture references to justice, charity, and unworldliness; the condemnation of greed and avarice; and the stress upon the dignity of the human person give us the basic points of a social message. In addition, the popes make frequent allusions to matters contained in natural law. Conclusions derived from the nature of man and of society belong in this category. Again, we could formulate a social ethic from these points alone. Hence there are two levels of teaching in papal documents which by their very nature are universally binding.

On a third level, there are applications of these teachings to historical situations, either past or current at the time of writing. Numerous examples of this nature were given in the preceding chapter. In such cases, it would be legitimate to note that a given encyclical may not apply to this country or that certain sections are no longer applicable. This is purely a factual question. How- ever, as was noted before, it would be rash to conclude that there is no social problem in the United States. We are not yet ready to assume a pious mien and cast stones at others.

A fourth level of teaching involves prudential recommendations for reform of economic life. In such cases, the pope is usually clear as to the nature of his teaching. For example, he merely recommends a change from the wage contract to a form of partnership contract. He suggests that a firm which is unable to pay a living wage consider going out of business. But he asserts flatly the duty of such employers to support and promote institutions organized to prevent competition incompatible with fair treatment for the workers. He is no less solemn in his repeated insistance upon a form of social organization called in America “The Industry Council Plan.” At the same time, in making such prudential recommendations, the popes have stressed that they are not setting up a rigid framework or detailed blueprint. Rather they are issuing general moral directives, to be applied in each country according to conditions and circumstances prevailing there. In making such applications, Catholics may and do differ. But they differ within the framework of papal teaching, even on prudential matters. Should they, by chance, conclude after careful and prolonged study that a certain instruction would not be salutary for their country, the remedy would be a request to Rome for clarification, not a summary disregarding of the pope’s teaching. Such situations are highly improbable, given the flexibility and general nature of papal statements on prudential matters.

(Rev. John Fr. Cronin, Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life [Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1955], pp. 55-61. Imprimatur, 1950.)

Fr. Cronin’s treatment of the binding nature of papal teaching confirms once again that what we’ve been presenting on this web site and in our podcasts concerning the Papacy and the papal magisterium for years is simply the traditional, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic doctrine. These are not our ideas, nor are they some kind of hyper-uber-papalism; they are the true Catholic position.

By way of summary, then, we can state in light of the clear Catholic doctrine on the Papacy: Catholics must assent to what the Pope teaches because he teaches it — he who “holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians” (Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum, n. 16).

How many of these Francis-is-definitely-the-Pope traditionalists would dare assent to what Francis teaches because he — the ‘Pope’! 😉 — teaches it? To ask the question is to answer it.

Image source: composite with elements from findagrave.com and archive.org
Licenses: fair use