The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Sententia communis? Just ‘sententia communis’?

Many of the assertions hitherto listed by theologians with a surfeit of restraint as merely, say, “sententia communis” might, upon closer investigation in light of the criteria set out in Ad tuendam and its progeny, be found to enjoy infallible certitude.

The Bernini collonade of the Saint Peter Square in the Vatican. [Wikipedia/Dorieo]

My friend and colleague Dr. Robert Fastiggi recently replied to Dr. Edward Feser regarding Feser’s defense of capital punishment in capital cases. Feser holds that the moral liceity of the justly administered death penalty has been established with infallible certitude by the Magisterium of the Church and that a pope is not free to contradict that conclusion. I agree with Feser on his infallibility claim but my focus is now elsewhere.

While Fastiggi disagrees with Feser on the infallibility claim, he seems open to the possibility that Church teaching on the liceity of the death penalty bears the theological note of “sententia communis” which grants that the traditional view of the death penalty represents “common thinking” though it ultimately remains a matter of opinion. Because Fastiggi, in a long essay that proves many points that Feser would not dispute, thinks that “the odds are stacked against Feser” in determining what constitutes Church teaching, one should “stick with the pope” unless and until, one supposes, a later pope comes along to change the teaching again.

Of course Fastiggi, if ever faced with a pope he knew to be preparing to deny publicly an infallible Church teaching, would react to such a looming catastrophe as would Feser and I, by falling to his knees and imploring divine assistance against such a move. But, as Fastiggi does not think that Pope Francis is preparing to contradict something  infallibly asserted, a reaction more along the lines of sober academic curiosity suffices regarding Francis’ recent assertions that the death penalty itself is “contrary to the Gospel” and so on.

Hmmm. Let’s think about this.

Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Tan 1974) presents hundreds of doctrinal and theological assertions according to their “grade of certainty”, including dozens that Ott regards as “sententia communis”. The list includes:

• Christ’s sanctifying grace flows to his Mystical Body, 171;

• Christ’s atonement exceeds the debt of all human sins, 188;

• The Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, 294;

• The saints in heaven can help the souls in purgatory by intercession, 322; and,

• Dead people cannot receive sacraments, 344.

Now, taking just the last two examples of “sententia communis” claims, suppose a pope were to “announce” (to use a neutral term) that the intercession of the saints in heaven is useless to the souls in purgatory and that dead people can henceforth receive at least some sacraments. Suppose he threw in an expression of regret that even the Holy See, out of a mentality ‘more dogmatic than Christian’ had itself supported these views until recently.

Would it suffice to respond to such an announcement ‘Well, these views never were asserted infallibly’ so, yes, let’s rewrite the Catechism in regard to CCC 1259 (so that dead catechumens can be baptized anyway) or in regard to CCC 956 and 2683 (so as to make clear that Saints cannot pray for the Church suffering but only for the Church militant)?

I think not. I think Feser would think not. And I think Fastiggi would think not. But if not, why not?

Having asked the question, let me briefly propose an answer, one I suggest is latent in Fastiggi’s admirable deference to the magisterium (papal and otherwise), but one requiring more appreciation of the indicators that such magisterium has already been engaged.

Pope St. John Paul II in his landmark motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem (1998) filled a serious lacuna in canon law when he gave legal expression to the binding character of infallible assertions concerning (what specialists call) “secondary objects of infallibility”. See 1983 CIC 750 as revised, and the penal teeth given the new norm by Canon 1371 as revised. That papal document along with Cdl. Ratzinger’s “Doctrinal Commentary” on the new norms provide us, I think, new and valuable insights into the scope and qualities of infallible assertions that might have been long held in the Church but for which, until recently, we had only limited tools for recognizing as such, thus, prudently contenting ourselves with assigning them lesser theological claims of surety such as “sententia communis”, “theologice certa”, and so on.

It is, thus, my suggestion that many of the assertions hitherto listed by theologians with a surfeit of restraint as merely, say, “sententia communis” might, upon closer investigation in light of the criteria set out in Ad tuendam and its progeny, be found to enjoy infallible certitude, after all, as either primary or, as I think the liceity of the capital punishment qualifies, as secondary objects of infallibility.

In other words, cautious thinkers such as Fastiggi might, by applying Ad tuendam to a position they could already see as “sententia communis”, come to see in the Church’s long defense of the liceity of capital punishment the marks of infallible certitude as well.

And that conclusion, in turn, changes everything.

(This post originally appeared on the “In the Light of the Law” blog and is reposted here by kind permission of Dr. Peters.)

About Edward N. Peters 86 Articles

Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD has doctoral degrees in canon and common law. Since 2005 he has held the Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. His personal blog on canon law issues in the news may be accessed at the “In the Light of the Law” site.

7 Comments

  1. Of course.

    If this pope declares infallibly and changes the Catechism as he said it should be changed, there simply is no way to account for the previous Church history via the Ordinary Magisterium in its silent ignorance of a practice that is “intrinsically evil.”

  2. “And that conclusion, in turn, changes everything.”

    Which is why such such theologians as Fastiggi and Faggioli will resist it to the end.

    They have become so ultra-montane in the service of the present liberal theology of Pope Francis, that all of the Church’s theological past, except for the very few statements of the extraordinary magisterium, has become fungible to them. No longer do the voices matter of 265 Popes, the 20 or so Doctors of the Church who wrote on the subject, scores of saints who taught about it, etc. That was merely their opinions. Only the present Pontiff, whatever he says goes. He’s the Cappo, not them. The faith is whatever he says it is. Many of the comments on Fastiggi’s disingenuous CWR post captured this flaw in his approach.

    Needless to say, this line is not Roman Catholic teaching – yet theologians such as Fastiggi and Faggioli continue to hawk it as if it were directly from the mouth of … um, Bergoglio?

  3. Expect the following:

    1) Team Fastiggi-Faggioli rush posts onto the blogosphere on “12 reasons why Ad tuendam doesn’t apply in the way Dr. Peters naively proposes.”

    2) When these fail to be convincing, expect posts claiming that Dr Peters doesn’t understand the issue (being *only a Canonist*). These may degenerate into ad hominem detractions.

    3) After these fall flat, the will get people to complain to the Archbishop of Detroit, asking that Dr. Peters quit confusing and offending the faithful or be sacked. Giving up on rational practices, they will resort to Nietszchean means of power.

    We can only hope that the Archbishop of Detroit is a wiser man than the Archbishop of of Granada, Spain, who fired Professor Josef Seifert, a prominent Catholic philosopher, defender of life and a former member of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL).

    • Although both Prof. Faggioli and I have Italian surnames that begin with “F” and end in “i” (with some g’s in the middle), I don’t think we agree on everything. Prof. Faggioli follows the Bologna-Alberigo school of interpreting Vatican II while I would follow the way of Ratzinger and A. Marchetto. Also, my approach to the ordinary papal Magisterium might actually be the more “conservative.” It would correspond to the appoach of St. Ignatius of Loyola of the 16th century and of Opus Dei today.

  4. There is a new edition of the Catechism in Italian (Catechismo della Chiesa cattolica), that was published a few days ago for the 25h anniversary of the Catechism by the Vatican publishing house and San Paolo Edizioni. The text of the catechism itself is supposed to be unchanged, but it includes a new “theological-pastoral commentary” by R. Fisichella. It would be interesting to check the comments on the death penalty (besides the Amoris Laetitia-relevant sections, of course!)

  5. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful article. As you know, I am quite familiar with the text of Fr. Ludwig Ott. Perhaps some of the theses he recognizes as “sententia communis” might be definitive but not all. Each needs to be examined on its own merits. Probably the theological notes of “sententia certa” or “sententia fidei proxima” would be more likely candidates for definitive teachings. Also, some of Ott’s theological notes might be questioned. For example, he assigns the note “sententia certa” to the teaching that “every valid contract of Marriage between Christians is itself a sacrament.” I would think this might be “de fide.”

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Sententia communis? Just ‘sententia communis’? - Catholic Crossing
  2. Sententia communis? Just ‘sententia communis’? -
  3. Catholic theologians must set an example of intellectual honesty: A reply to Prof. Robert Fastiggi – Catholic World Report
  4. Catholic theologians must set an example of intellectual honesty: A reply to Prof. Robert Fastiggi -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*