At the parish where I help as a deacon I was assisting at the recent Easter Vigil as five catechumens came into full communion with the Church. I noticed that as part of the rite the catechumens were asked if they believe and accept the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church. As I listened, the affirmation of belief that the group made got me thinking about that to which they were committing themselves.
There are different levels of teaching, also known as doctrine, in the Catholic Church. The most serious and demanding level of teaching is dogma. These are the infallible core teachings of the Church. Any of the teachings that you encounter in the Nicaean Creed every Sunday are Catholic dogma. These teachings demand assent of faith. It is these dogmatic teachings that go a long way in defining what it means to be Catholic and Christian. “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth…” You don’t get any more basic than that.
Dogma is revealed by God and passed down to us in the 21st century through Scripture and Tradition. Dogmatic teaching is infallible. It is important to remember that not everything the Church teaches or the pope proposes is infallible. For a teaching to be infallible it must deal with matters of faith or morals. It must be understood by the Pope and bishops to be infallible dogmatic teaching. It must be clearly proposed by the Pope as infallible teaching with no room left for doubt on that point.
The next level of teaching is referred to as authoritative doctrine. This level of teaching refers to long standing teaching, usually about matters of morals. For example, the opposition of the Church to abortion is long standing. The Didache is an instruction book for second century Christians on how to live out the Gospel teachings. This is one of the first Christian books ever written after Scripture and it specifically speaks of the evil of abortion. Since the Church’s teaching on abortion deals with morals, rather than foundational beliefs, it is considered authoritative doctrine (teaching) rather than dogma, even if its history goes back as far as the earliest Christian dogma. The Church’s teaching on divorce, remarriage and annulments is generally considered to be authoritative doctrine as well, since the current teaching was only definitively defined in the 13th century.
While dogma requires assent of faith, authoritative teaching requires obsequium. This means that the Catholic gives the teaching respect of intellect and will. The Catholic accepts the teaching as the authoritative teaching of the Church and is willing to give the teaching the benefit of the doubt and abide by that teaching, even if the person is unable to place their full faith in that teaching.
For example, the church’s prohibition on the use f birth control pills can be considered in this category. The basic theological principle is that among the essential properties of marriage is openness to children. This teaching goes back as far as St. Augustine and St. Ambrose in the 4th century. There is a long-standing teaching that the use of artificial contraceptives is contrary to this essential property of marriage. However, when it ws first developed the birth control pill was not an artificial contraceptive per se but a medication to regulate the menstrual cycle. It was effective enough in accomplishing this medical purpose that it could also be used to prevent pregnancies by suppressing ovulation. Church leaders debated whether it should be considered an artificial contraceptive and prohibited or a medication that could be used as needed. A theological commission was appointed to consider the matter and reported to Pope Paul VI that the birth control pill is best understood as a medication. In the end, Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae, in which he argued that the birth control pill could be understood as an artificial contraceptive when the intention behind its use was contraceptive. However, in accord with the moral principle of double effect, if the intention behind its use was medical, to regulate a problematic menstrual cycle, even though a secondary effect was the suppression of ovulation, its use was not contraceptive. It is the contraceptive intention that runs contrary to the principle of openness to children.
The Catholic doesn’t have to accept the teaching with assent of faith as revealed by God. Since this teaching was authoritatively presented as Church teaching however, the Catholic needs to accept it as Church teaching, to respect it and to do his or her best to follow the teaching.
The third level of Church teaching is referred to as prudential judgment. This is teaching directed to moral and social problems in the world and is usually an attempt to apply Christian moral principles to specific social problems. It falls short of the demands of dogma or even authoritative teaching but still requires a serious consideration by the faithful in applying these teachings to their lives. The faithful are called upon to have respect for and to adhere to these teachings, or at least avoid anything not in harmony with these teachings.
The various popes and episcopal conferences have published letters over the years speaking about the evils of war, lack of adequate wages and health care, capital punishment, rejection of refugees and the destruction of the environment. They have also offered teachings on economic development and the moral use of the economy. These teachings have direct moral consequences and are based on fundamental Christian dogma and long standing Christian moral principles, applying them to contemporary situations. These teachings are best understood in the category of prudential judgment.
The individual Catholic needs to respect these teachings. Since they are rooted in basic Catholic doctrine and moral principles. They are not just the opinions of a few ill-informed religious leaders but rooted firmly in what it means to be part of the Catholic tradition. The Catholic who does not accept these teachings is not a heretic by any means but he or she should seriously consider why he or she refuses to accept these teachings. Is this refusal because the person places an economic theory or political party before moral principles and Catholic teaching? Is it based on a different understanding of the priority of certain moral principles? On matters of prudential judgment, you are not obliged to accept the teaching of the Church on the matter but you are expected to understand why the Church teaches what it does.
