Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
February 22, 2017
May
a Pope be publicly corrected for his reprehensible behaviour? Or should the
attitude of the faithful be that of unconditional obedience, until the point of
justifying anything the Pope’s says and does, even if openly scandalous? According to some, like
the Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli, it is possible to express “tète a
tète” one’s dissent to the Pope, without, however, manifesting it publicly.
This thesis nonetheless, contains an important admission. The Pope is not
infallible, unless he speaks ex cathedra.
Otherwise it would not be licit to dissent even privately and the path to
follow would only be that of religious silence. On the other hand, the Pope, who is not Christ,
but only his representative on earth, can sin and make mistakes. Yet, is it
true that he may only be corrected privately and never publicly?
To respond it is important to recall
the historical example par excellence
which offers us the golden rule to follow; the so-called “incident at Antioch”.
St. Paul records it in these terms in his Epistle to the Galatians, probably
written between 54 AD and 57 AD. “[...] when they had seen that to me was
committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the
circumcision. (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the
circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) And when they had known
the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be
pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should
go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: Only that we should be
mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do. But when Cephas
was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when
they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the
circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that
Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they
walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them
all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as
the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
Peter,
for fear of hurting the feelings of the Jews, with his behaviour, favoured the
“Judaizer’s” position, who believed that circumcision should apply to all
converted Christians along with other dispositions from the Mosaic law. St.
Paul says that St. Peter had been clearly wrong and therefore “he had withstood
him to his face”, that is publically, so that Peter would not be a scandal to
the Church over which he exercised supreme authority. Peter accepted Paul’s
correction, acknowledging his error with humility.
St.
Thomas Aquinas deals with this episode in many of his works. First of all, he
notes that “The Apostle opposes Peter in his exercise of authority and not in
his authority of government” (Super
Epistolam ad Galatas lectura, n. 77, tr. it. ESD, Bologna 2006). Paul recognized that Peter was the Head of
the Church, but he judged it legitimate to resist him, given the gravity of the
problem, which concerned the salvation of souls. “The manner of the reprimand
was appropriate as it was public and manifest” (Super Epistolam ad Galatas, n. 84).
This
episode, again notes the Angelic Doctor, contains as many teachings for
prelates as for their subjects: “To prelates (an example was given) of
humility, so they would not refuse to accept complaints on the part of their
inferiors and subjects; and to the subjects (was given) examples of zeal and
freedom so that they would not fear to correct their prelates, most of all when
the fault was public and abounded in danger for many” ( Super Epistulam ad Galatas, n. 77).
At Antioch, St. Peter showed profound humility, St.
Paul ardent charity. The Apostle to the Gentiles showed that he was not only
just but [also] merciful. Among the works of spiritual mercy there is the
correction of sinners, called by moralists “fraternal correction”. It is
private if the sin is private and public if the sin is public. Jesus Himself established the manner: “But if thy brother shall
offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall
hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with
thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not
hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to
you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and
whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Mat.
18, 15-18).”
We can imagine [then] that after
having tried to convince St. Peter privately, Paul did not hesitate in
admonishing him publically, but – says St. Thomas – “since St. Peter had sinned
in front of everyone, he had to be reproached in front of everyone” (In
4 Sententiarum, Dist. 19, q. 2, a. 3, tr. it., ESD, Bologna 1999).
Fraternal correction, as the
theologians teach, is a non-optional precept; it is obligatory, above all for
those who have offices of responsibility in the Church, since it derives from
the natural law and positive Divine law (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique,
vol. III, col. 1908). The admonishment can also come from inferiors directed to
their superiors, and from the laity towards prelates. To the question as to
whether it is important to correct a superior publically, St. Thomas in his Comment on the Sentences of Pietro Lombardo,
responds in the affirmative, making note however of the need to act always with
extreme respect. Therefore “prelates should not be corrected by their subjects
in front of everyone, but humbly, in private, unless there is impending danger
to the faith; then in fact the prelate would become the lesser, if he had
slipped into infidelity, and the subject would become the greater” ( In 4 Sententiarum, Dist. 19, q. 2, a.
2).
The
Angelic Doctor expresses himself in the same terms in the Summa Theologiae: “[...]if
the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.
Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the
imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine
says on Galatians 2-11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at
any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not
disdain to be reproved by their subjects (Summa Theologiae II-IIae, 33,
4, 2).
Cornelius a Lapide, summing up the
thought of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, writes: “[...] Superiors may
be corrected, with humility and charity by their inferiors, so that the faith
is defended; this is what is declared,
on the basis of this passage [Gal. 2,11], by St. Augustine (Epist. 19) St.
Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and others cited above. They teach clearly that St. Peter, despite being
superior, was corrected by St. Paul [...]. With good reason, therefore, St.
Gregory said (Homil. 18 in Ezech.): “Peter was silent, so that, being the first in the apostolic
hierarchy, he was also the first in humility.” And St. Augustine affirmed (Epis.
19 ad Hienonymum): “by teaching that superiors must not refuse permission
to their inferiors to correct them, St. Peter gave to posterity a most
exceptional and the holiest example in that of St. Paul, teaching that, in
defence of the truth, and in charity, to the lesser is given the boldness of
withstanding without fear against their greaters” (Ad Gal. 2, II, in Commentaria
in Scripturam Sacram, Vivès, Parigi 1876, tomo XVII).
Fraternal correction is an act of
charity. One of the gravest sins against
charity is schism, which is separation from the authority of the Church, Her laws,
uses and customs. Even a Pope can fall into schism, if he divides the Church,
as the theologian Suarez explains (De schismate in Opera omnia, vol. 12, pp. 733-734 e 736-737) and Cardinal Journet
confirms (L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné,
Desclée, Bruges 1962, vol. I, p. 596).
Confusion reigns in the Church today.
Some courageous cardinals have announced an eventual public correction of Pope
Bergoglio, whose initiatives are becoming more disturbing and divisive each day
that passes. The fact that he has neglected to respond to the cardinals’
“dubia” on Chapter 8 of the Exhortation Amoris
laetitia, accredits and encourages heretical or near heretical
interpretations on the matter of Holy Communion to the divorced and
remarried. Confusion, thus favoured, produces
tensions and internal fights, or rather a situation of religious contraposition
which foreshadows schism. An act of
public correction is [thus] rendered urgent and necessary.
Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana
