Fudging the Papal Job Description

This is a case of “Pope Francis” vs “Pope Leo XIII”.

Back in July, I cited Vatican I to the effect that “the Roman pontiff” is “the supreme judge of the faithful”. [This was with reference to “Pope Francis” having said “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?”]

While this is about the “who am I to judge?” quote, my comment for those Roman Catholics who are inclined to say that this pope is familiar with and has articulated Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality, that is not the point. The point is that we have two different popes here approaching “the job description of pope” in two different ways.

What’s the “principled distinction” by which the Roman Catholic lay person, with or without philosophical training, is to determine which pope has got the right interpretation of the papal job description? Does the job change with the times?

True as well, we are not dealing with ex cathedra dogma here, but as “Pope Pius XII” said, “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’; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

In my reading the other day, I came across a piece from “Pope Leo XIII” (1878-1903), the encyclical “Sapientiae Christianae”, or “On Christians as Citizens” [meaning, “on Roman Catholics as Citizens”, because this was prior to the time in which anyone but Roman Catholics were considered Christians – save the Eastern Orthodox, who were, at best, second-class citizens]:

In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see. And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles [he is referring specifically to the “teachings of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to faith and morals] have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.

A pope may judge one and find one innocent. But he must judge nevertheless. According to Leo, he may not abrogate the duty of judging. What we have here is a clear example that (a) “Pope Francis” does not know the teachings of his predecessor, or (b) “Pope Francis” is deliberately setting aside and even contradicting his predecessor.