#infallibility

The editors of the National Catholic Reporter have asked that the cult of John Paul II be suppressed for his role in the appointment of Theodore McCarrick to be Archbishop of Washington, DC. This comes in the light of the “McCarrick report” last week. 

Some people think that the Church’s canonizations are infallible acts, declaring infallibly that the canonized is a saint in heaven. In which case, what the NCR editors are asking would be impossible. 

But that’s not actually the Church’s teaching. It is possible to remove a canonized saint’s public cult. However, the NCR editors haven’t come close to making that case. (Deep dive below the break.)

How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Our Teacher Should Be the Holy Spirit

Before I venture out to expound on how Biblical “inspiration” occurs, it’s important to first say a few words about who determines the “meaning” of a text. In other words, where should we get our “hermeneutic” from? Should we draw it from our personal responses? Or should we conform to what the scholars say? But isn’t that still speculation and conjecture either way? Yes, it is! And it could be totally wrong, even if it’s a long-held consensus held by leading scholars! So what determines the meaning of a text? Is it Bible-study tools? No because they only give us a partial understanding. The short answer is: the Holy Spirit! Just as the Holy Spirit is responsible for “inspiring” the Biblical authors, so it is also responsible for communicating the “meaning” to its “recipients.” However, its recipients are not just anyone. They are neither those who openly profess to be “reborn” Christians nor those who post Facebook memes, “Repent or Go to Hell.” Rather, they’re the true, authentic Christians who don’t show off and hardly ever talk about their status as saved believers. Unbeknownst to the Cessationists, they hear from God “directly.” And they can interpret the Bible not based on current theological trends or methods of exegesis but on the word of the Spirit! So, they are “in the know.” Ideally, this is where the meaning of Scripture should come from! Bible-study tools won’t reveal these meanings no matter how sophisticated they might be. Now, let’s get back to the concept of Biblical “inspiration.”

Can the Bible Limit What God Can and Cannot Do?

There are many modern Biblical interpreters who hold to a form of “Pelagianism.” In ancient times, the Pelagian heresy comprised the Christian theological position that the human will alone is capable of choosing the good without the assistance of grace or any divine aid. Even Jesus’ salvific atonement becomes ultimately irrelevant in this view. These people, and I have met quite a few of them, don’t believe that the Spirit plays any significant role in our salvation. According to them, all we need to do is to follow the external dictates of the Bible. In this view, the Bible replaces God and thus becomes God-like, so to speak. Besides contradicting large portions of the New Testament, this position is also heretical in another way because it presents a counterfeit Christianity; that is to say, it presents the exact opposite of what authentic salvation truly consists of. It rejects inward spiritual experiences that lead to true “union” with God and promotes only an external form of obedience to rules and regulations. Jesus himself explains that such people don’t know God; they have neither heard from him nor do they know his “word”:

“You have never heard his voice or seen his

form, and you do not have his word abiding

in you, because you do not believe him

whom he has sent” (Jn 5.27-38).

Jesus nails it. Their erroneous doctrine is based on disbelief. In essence, they don’t even believe in Jesus. He goes on to say:

“You search the Scriptures because you

think that in them you have eternal life; it is

these that testify about Me” (Jn 5.39).

So, for them, the Bible has supplanted the Godhead and has become their “god.” It’s no longer God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit who holds sway but rather the Bible per se and nothing but the Bible. That’s a form of idol-worship where “a means to an end” has suddenly become an end in itself! The King-James Only cult is a case in point!

The Dictation Theory

What is more, as far as Biblical inspiration is concerned, most modern scholars typically say that the Holy Spirit did not give the New Testament authors each and every word by dictation. To which I say, why not? They try desperately to fit in with the modern-secular, liberal culture that does not believe in supernatural phenomena and mocks all forms of divine communications. And yet, according to the Bible, these communications do exist (see 2 Tim. 3:16–17)!

The Bible stands or falls on the presence or absence of these divine communications. What ever happened to the Old Testament declaration: “Thus says the LORD”? Why water it down? Why dilute it to make it more palatable to the masses? Either God communicates with the human family or he doesn’t. In other words, either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t. It’s that simple. By comparison, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. There’s no in between. Either God directly spoke to Isaiah and to Jeremiah or he didn’t. If he did, the Bible is transcribing divine communications. If he didn’t, then the Bible is the word of man. But if God indeed spoke to Isaiah, why couldn’t he equally speak to the Biblical authors, giving them the precise words audibly? After all, the authors themselves claimed to have heard God speak, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3.17). Besides, Jesus himself openly declares:

“For I did not speak on my own, but the

Father who sent me commanded me to say

all that I have spoken” (Jn 12.49).

If God has spoken directly in Isaiah 6.7, Jeremiah 26.2, Ezek. 28.2, John 2.1, 8, and also through Jesus (Jn 12.49), why wouldn’t he speak directly to the Biblical authors as well? It’s akin to when “Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at Jeremiah's dictation all the words of the Lord that he had spoken to him” (Jer. 36.4).

The Dictation Theory Has Been Greatly Misunderstood

The reason most scholars don’t accept the dictation theory is because it seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit inscribed the words of Scripture through the agency of human authors who were somehow under God’s full control, in a state of passivity (perhaps in a trance), in which God dictated each and every word with perfect accuracy. In other words, scholars totally mischaracterize this communication process, as if they’re talking about zombies, automatons, people half-asleep, on sodium pentothal, under hypnosis, somnambulism, or the walking dead. In other words, the dictation theory has often been mistaken for the mechanical view of inspiration, such as automatic writing, and the like.

This mischaracterization and distortion stems from the fact that these scholars don’t yet fully understand what salvation really is, that is to say, what the relationship of the regenerated person to God consists of. Actually, by default, a regenerated person is already under the control of God, so that they don’t have to pass out or become an automaton in order to hear God’s voice. In other words, God communicates with them naturally, without restriction or interference, via a form of interpersonal communication while they are physically and cognitively stable, completely aware, and fully conscious! Therefore, the authentic, born-again Christians are already under God’s control and don’t need altered states of consciousness in order to hear God’s voice. Given that they are already sons of God (Jn 1.12-13), “born of the Spirit” of God (Jn 3.5-6), they hear God all the time (Jn 10.14, 27, 28)!

Stylistic Differences May Reflect the Source Rather Than the Authors

As for the argument pertaining to the stylistic differences between the New Testament authors, which suggests a variety of different personalities at work——consequently ruling out the possibility of verbatim-dictation from a single source——my reply is, why couldn’t the “stylistic differences” reflect the source rather than the authors? In other words, perhaps the texts reflect the Spirit itself——setting the context and content in various ways within the different compositions——rather than the individual personalities of the authors. After all, Heb. 1.1 says that “God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets.” That’s why we can find verbal agreements between disparate texts. For example, we read in the Old Testament narrative of Exodus 34.29 that Moses’ “face shone” (Hb. qaran; meaning “shine”) and then, lo and behold, we find the exact same equivalent words used in the Greek New Testament (Matthew 17.2) to say that Jesus’ “face shone” (Gk. ἔλαμψεν; meaning “shine”). Two completely different authors with completely different writing styles and languages, writing from two completely different time periods and locations, with over 1,000 years separating the two texts, and yet we find verbal agreements! Why? Same source; same Spirit dictating the exact same words through different languages and styles. Such verbal agreements and parallels abound in Scripture. Otherwise, if it was left up to each and every individual author to write whatever they wanted, then it would obviously be the word of man and should not be accepted as the word of God.

Biblical Interpretation Should Be Based Entirely on Biblical Inspiration

Furthermore, Biblical interpretation should be based entirely on the Spirit, not on guess-work. Being partly-right doesn’t cut it because it implies that we may also be partly-wrong. Either we know what’s going on or we don’t:

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide

you into all the truth; for he will not speak on

his own, but will speak whatever he hears,

and he will declare to you the things that

are to come [ἐρχόμενα]” (Jn 16.13).

In other words, those who are indwelt by the Spirit walk by the Spirit and are constantly informed by the Spirit who guides them “into all the truth.”

Conclusion

Therefore, based on the aforementioned reasons, it seems indisputable that the Spirit of God inspired the Biblical authors by giving them each and every word by dictation. Philo similarly wrote that the biblical authors were inspired, whose words seemed "as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter." For God speaks to us directly, but only those who belong to him can actually hear his voice. The following quote demonstrates that Scripture (which is almost entirely prophetic) was not left to the discretion of the individual authors but that the authors were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” when they “spoke from God”:

“for no prophecy was ever produced by the

will of man, but men carried along by the

Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1.21).

Republicans think America is perfect and always has been, while simultaneously believing that America is DOOMED and ON THE EDGE OF COLLAPSE at all times and want to bring us back to the Before Times™ when men were men and women were household appliances and minorities were someone else’s problem.  If you bring up a genuine critique of American culture or history they throw a pissbaby shit fit and start spewing nationalist platitudes, “America: Like It or Leave It!”  All their complaints stem from their perceived self-importance being eroded; they don’t like to realize that other people with differing opinions exist and should have their voices heard.  If a “brown” or a “black” or a “red” or a “yellow” is allowed to speak, that just means there’s one less space for a “white.”  All their complaints come from a slippery slope argument that if we don’t model our society after their specific cherrypicked interpretation of The Bible then we will degenerate into amoral savagery.

They say being gay is an abomination and allowing it will damn our children to hell; what they really think is that it’s gross and they don’t want to see things they think are gross.  There’s literally no good argument against marriage equality besides “I don’t personally like it.”  America is not a theocracy, so the belief system of Christianity should not be construed as the law of the land.  This stems from their belief that the Bible is infallible, “because the Bible says so.”  They don’t know and don’t want to know about the history behind it, nor the very contentious political landscapes at the times the books were written, nor the personal biases of the very human authors.  If the Bible is a literal textbook, then why?  What makes it so special?  By whose authority were its contents collated and designated THE Good Book?  If the Bible is literal, why not the works of Homer, or the Epic of Gilgamesh?  Just because the Bible says the Bible is right doesn’t make it so.  For the record, I am a Christian, and I think the Bible is just an old book.  I’m a Christian in that I follow the teachings of Christ, which can be summed up as “DON’T BE AN ASSHOLE.”  I live by that, and All the ChrINOs (Christians in Name Only) need to learn it.  Jesus would be ashamed of what he saw today.

They say that abortion is baby murder, on par with ritual human sacrifice and Satan worship. They don’t understand biology, they have a Sunday School understanding of philosophy, and live in a world so black and white that they can’t even imagine a reason someone would have an abortion besides that they’re a terrible person; a woman who would have an abortion is unfit to be a mother in their eyes because they see abortion as equivalent to smothering a baby with a pillow because you don’t want to take care of it anymore.  “He or she is alive, he or she has a heart beat!”  Well, at this point is is just a blob of tissue, not a living person; a heart beat alone does not make something alive or dead.  Your life comes from your brain, not your heart.  If someone is alive the moment their heart starts, then they must be dead the moment is stops, so CPR is necromancy.  A person isn’t considered dead until their brain is dead, so if they wanted to argue that life begins at brain activity they would have a stronger argument, though still weak because brain activity is not personhood either.  Patients in permanent vegetative states on life support may have some brain activity, but they are effectively dead.  There is no way a judge, appointed by senators elected by the people of the United States, can prove that not only do souls exist but that they are created the second a sperm fertilizes an egg.  If “souls” exist, they aren’t so much created as built up over time as we gain new experienced and our brains develop.  What we are is electricity in a ball of meat jelly in our skulls, and that comes to being at a point after which abortions are already banned.  Conservatives also just want to control women; Roe v. Wade isn’t explicitly about the right to an abortion, it is about the right to body autonomy.  Do women have the right to control their own bodies, or do they defer that right to their fathers and husbands?  Are women people or property?  Can a man make decisions on a woman’s behalf?  “You must forgive my daughter; as a simple minded woman she’s fallen into a stupor of female hysteria.  We’ll have the family doctor bring out the smelling salts and leaches.”

They say that certain vices are crimes against God, but only when some people do it.  Divorce is a sin because marriage is sacred, except when a conservative does it, then it’s totally justified because of such and such explanation.  Tattoos are the mark of the beast, worn by degenerates and lesbians, except when a conservative does it, then it’s just art and harmless self expression.  Marijuana is a gateway drug and we need to lock away its addicts and throw away the key, unless a conservative does it, then it’s just recreational, no big deal, we don’t want to ruin the [white] boy’s future because of it.  A black person who does cocaine is a criminal, a white person who does cocaine is a public figure (you’d be surprised how many actors and politicians regularly use coke; they have to have high energy 24/7 in case there are any cameras, so they need uppers to keep themselves presentable).  This all springs from the fundamental conservative philosophy of “it’s okay when WE do it, but not when YOU do it.”  That’s the long and short of it.  The in-group is allowed to do things, but the out-group isn’t.  It’s the Us vs Them mentality taken to the logical extreme; WE are people, THEY are monsters.  WE are allowed to have faults, THEY have to stay in line and follow all the rules.  OUR lives matter, THEIR lives are lesser.  When you strip away the showy bits and get down to the core of their beliefs, everything stems from their desire to hurt anyone who isn’t them.  They want power, they want to be special, they want the Good Guys™ to always prevail over the Bad Guys™, and they want to be the ones to decide who is good and who is bad.  Their opinions are the only ones that matter, everyone else is wrong because they’re not them.  Now, it’s not like you could solve every problem by opening up your mind to new opinions; there are some issues that are indeed black and white with objectively right and wrong answers, but they live in a world where they are incapable of being wrong.  They see personal growth as a betrayal of the self, that admitting a fault is terrible, that apologizing and learning from a mistake is traitorous.  No, they have to double down on every single one of their beliefs to re-instill it in their minds.  They can never doubt themselves, because God will punish them forever if they ever have doubt.  They can’t ask questions or look at things from other perspectives because that would be an admission that their perspectives are fallible.  They are afraid of changing their minds so much that they refuse to even listen when someone explains their opinions because they don’t want to have their minds co-opted by Satan’s LIES!  If they hear something convincing, it’s all over, their entire world collapses, everything they believe is a lie, they lose, they go to hell forever, The End.

That is the dichotomy under which Republicans live their lives.  Nothing matters but what they believe.  They don’t believe what they believe for logical reasons, so no amount of logic will ever make them not believe it.  They’re making up their own rules to win.  You’re playing Rock-Paper-Scissors and they throw Nuclear Bomb, which defeats all three, so you lose.  You say that’s not fair, they say tough.  You throw Nuclear Bomb, and they say they have a bomb proof shield, so the bomb doesn’t hurt them but kills you, so you lose.  You can’t even beat them at their own game because they’ve been playing it longer, and they cry foul when you stoop to their level, suddenly saying that you need to be the bigger person, walking right up to the line of admitting that what they do is wrong but not quite getting there, simply reverting to the complaint that you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.  “I can, but YOU can’t.”  That’s why it infuriates me when nobody ever calls out a Republican for their hypocrisy.  They do something, a Democrat does that exact same thing, they cry foul, but nobody ever says “well, you didn’t have a problem when you did it,” they just try to excuse their own actions rather than demand justification for theirs.  Democrats are always on the defensive, they always look like they’re losing even when they’re winning, so the Republicans can use that to build their base and rally together for the occasional victory (Democrats won 7 of the last 8 presidential elections; the last Republican to legitimately win the presidency was George H.W. Bush in 1988).

I don’t know how you’d even begin to fight someone who is this far down the rabbit hole of self denial.

Democrats self-reflect, Republicans self-deflect.

Democrats are progressive, Republicans are regressive.

Now I’m sure there are no Republicans reading this, but if there are they’ll make themselves known and “totally refute” everything I’ve said with some paper thin argument that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, but they don’t care because it stands up to them.  They only need to show one example of a Democrat failing to write off the entire party; they only need to show one black Republicans to deny the existence of racism; one gay Republican denies homophobia; one women denies sexism.  They are the party of tokenism.

They will point out the mote of dust in your eye and ignore the plank in their own.

Hey friend, thank you for the ask!

So there's definitely a couple of questions here, I'll grab them one at a time.

First question: my personal thoughts on the events of this past week regarding statements alleged to Pope Francis. I think there's just a lot of confusion going around about what was actually said. Some people are saying that it was a mistranslation and that he actually said something different, some people are saying that it was not as much of a mistranslation as others claim and that this has been Francis's position since before he became pope. You are correct in understanding that Catholic teaching considers sexual acts between two members of the same sex as a sin. In my personal opinion, what frustrates me is that this keeps happening, and that whenever it happens it feels like the Church splits into two camps: The Pope Is Ruining Everything versus There Are No Problems Right Now, and unfortunately it seems as though that the split occurs directly down political party lines. Now I get that perhaps people are only coming across that way because they are trying to address the falsehoods of the people on the other side of them. But really I think that a) the Pope is in a position where he has more information than us and he has been selected for this job, and therefore he may be making these decisions based on whatever information or contexts that we who criticize him do not have; b) the Pope is a person who is going to make mistakes, and he is operating in an age where he is under a particular type of scrutiny so we should be quick to forgive; c) at the same time this has shown itself to be a consistent pattern, and while it is a complex issue with many facets very much including the secular media, however there are a lot of other elements related to how he chooses to present himself and the nature of the follow-up from the Vatican, that this keeps happening tells me that there is definitely room for us to be criticizing the leadership in a spirit of charity. But I think in criticizing the Pope or defending the Pope on social media we really really need to be aware that we are indeed in a public and secular space, and that we are coming across as very divided and very disorganized. I've seen a lot of an apparent lack of charity from both sides. There's a lot more to say and it's definitely been something that has been on my heart.

Second question: whether or not same sex civil unions are okay by Catholic teaching. So the answer to this is yes and no. What I mean by this is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a non-marital legal union, for example if two siblings or two best friends of the same gender happen to be living together and plan to do so full time, there can be tax and other benefits for having their partnership recognized (e.g. many hospitals only allow immediate family to visit, depending, and so having a legal pairing can be useful). However, the Church does not endorse same-sex sexual relationships, and it is scandalous for the Church to advocate for laws that endorse same-sex sexual relationships. Now of course there's questions as to whether or not it makes sense to have a law that says "you can have same-sex civil unions unless you're in a sexual relationship" and all this. But that's a huge long topic and this post is already so long and I haven't answered all your questions yet.

As a note here which I think is always important to make given the current climate: a sexual orientation is not a person, it is an appetite. When we discuss sexuality in this context, we are talking specifically about acts/lifestyles, not the people who participate in them. People are people and deserve human rights. This is, I believe, more along the lines of what the Holy Father was talking about. That said, marriage and sex are actually not human rights (if they were, you could make a good case for laws requiring marry or have sex with someone who is otherwise unable to procure it on their own). That's not to say that this produces many struggles for people who experience different things, but again this is for another post.

Third question: papal infallibility. This again is a very complex topic and I'm by no means an expert on ecclesiology but I'll give a basic overview of what I understand. Basically, the Catholic Church (and, as I understand it, most religions) makes objective claims. Claims about reality. Either God exists or He doesn't, and that fact isn't changed by whether or not anyone believes it. When the pope, and the Magisterium in general, teaches, they're not changing reality- they're telling us something that is already true and has always been true. With this, we also know that the infallible authority of the Magisterium (that is, the bishops of the Catholic Church, all in direct lineage by ordination to the twelve apostles, of which the Pope is the shepherd) applies to teaching. The Church makes no infallible claims about anything else. Now within the teaching of the Catholic Church there are different levels of teaching. There's dogma, which we rarely change, but that the Pope does have the authority to change, but only has done so a very small number of times throughout history. These are like basic truths about what it means to be Catholic, such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Mary was always the Immaculate Conception, she didn't suddenly become it once the Pope proclaimed it ex cathedra. But we do trust that when the Pope speaks dogma, that he is guided by the holy spirit in doing so, and that what he says is true. The pope speaks infallibly elsewhere besides dogma, such as canonizing Saints - once someone is canonized, we know without a doubt that they are in heaven. But these things are already true, and the Pope just tells everyone that it is true. If the Pope says something that we already know to not be true, such as if he were to say that marriage can be between two men or two women, then that wouldn't become true and we wouldn't believe it. We actually have detailed guidelines on what constitutes the development of doctrine versus the corruption of doctrine. Check out St. John Henry Newman's book Grammar of Assent for more detailed info on that. (Someone please correct me if that's not the right book). The Pope / the Magisterium also has other roles, such as telling us how to practice our religion - it is objectively true that we need to keep holy the Sabbath day, however it is up to the Magisterium to determine what constitutes 'keeping holy the Sabbath day,' in this case, largely, going to Mass (and the Magisterium tells us what the Mass is and what if anything would invalidate the Mass). Also not eating meat on Fridays in lent, that's a thing for the Magisterium to decide about.