The final vote was accompanied by a violent thunderstorm over St. Peter's Basilica, darkness lit up only by frequent flashes of lightning and by a flaming taper brought in to enable the voting roll-call to be readout.

Nobody doubted that the storm was providential. Those in favour interpreted it as a celestial fireworks display; those against, as a sign of divine disapproval of ambition influencing doctrine. Who was right is still open to debate.

The objective of the Council was to strengthen the papacy in its teaching and governing roles. This was not stated openly, but Pope Pius IX put it beyond doubt through his actions.

The pope changes the agenda, ends the Council

When time was running out and the approaching heat of a Roman summer signalled a recess, the pope abandoned his early stance of neutrality on the twin issues of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. He made it known that he wanted them passed.

He changed the agenda abruptly, interrupting the discussion on the early chapters of Pastor Aeternus to bring forward a new Chapter IV, which dealt with his own office and which proposed to turn the two disputed theories into beliefs that would be essential for salvation.

When it became obvious that no such teaching could command the virtual unanimity traditional for major decisions at Councils, he put aside tradition and ruled that a simple majority would do.

On that basis the dogmas were adopted on July 18, 1870, and the Council broke up for the summer intending to meet again on November 11.

On October 20, however, Pius IX adjourned the council indefinitely because of the Franco-Prussian War and the loss of Rome to the forces unifying Italy. The suggestion that the Council should be reconvened at another venue was ignored.

Although the Council had completed only a small fraction of its original agenda, Pius never reconvened it. Nor did his successors.

Judged by its fruits, Vatican I was a disaster. It gave legal and moral endorsement to the administrative and doctrinal ambitions that had played such a crucial role in the East-West Schism and the Reformation.

Instead of resolving these divisions, as many of the attending bishops had hoped, the Council created greater obstacles to Christian unity. It broke with the very first Council of the Church at Jerusalem, which had adopted the principle of not burdening people's consciences unnecessarily.

This occasioned another schism, that of the Old Catholics of Utrecht who could not honestly profess the new dogma of papal infallibility.

The damage is done

Externally, at a social and political level, infallibility did permanent damage.

It provoked the Kulturkampf in Germany, a bitter 15-year struggle between the government of Chancellor Bismarck and the Church for control of institutions and of the appointment of clergy.

Anti-Church laws were enacted, schools and hospitals appropriated, and impossible conditions imposed on priests. Many went to jail or were deported. Jesuits, Redemptorists and Holy Ghost congregations were dissolved and expelled.

In the end, Bismarck had to back down but the pervasive Catholic influence in German culture has never fully recovered.

Similar reactions to the definition of infallibility, with less extreme effects, were encountered in Italy, Switzerland, Russia, Austria, and the United States. Venezuela confiscated Church property. Colombia did the same.

The reaction should have been foreseen. If the papal diplomats had issued any warnings, however, Pio Nono was not listening.

The Ultramontanists had been campaigning to give the pope an absolute infallibility.

This had created genuine apprehension among governments, pitting them strongly against the Church in advance of the Council. Those with significant Catholic populations were alarmed by the possible effect of an infallible edict on public order or national stability.

Prince Clodwig zu Hohenlohe had expressed the view that papal infallibility would elevate the power of the pope above that of princes and people, "to the detriment of both".

In the dogmatic definitions, the Ultramontanists did not get everything they were looking for. The wording of the dogma limited papal infallibility to issues of faith and morals. It also set some conditions.

At that stage, however, telling nervous politicians about the conditions was little use.

They knew better than most how easily authority could ignore or circumvent conditions, particularly when there is no avenue of appeal. No pope has incited citizens to rebellion since then, although some single-issue bishops have tried to tell Catholics how they ought to vote.

On religious issues, infallibility has been invoked officially on only one occasion - when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Our Lady.

The papacy, however, has not been above circumventing the conditions. The title alone produces a general aura of infallibility because nobody bothers with the small print. And the twin dogma of universal jurisdiction makes it impossible to challenge abuse.

Over the years more and more things have been presented as infallible, irreformable or irrevocable.

Pious churchmen use the term creeping infallibility, but that seems to credit it with some validity.

Teaching that does not meet the conditions are not infallible and should be more accurately termed pseudo-infallible. Continue reading

• The analysis or comments in this article do not necessarily reflect the view of CathNews.

He says maleness is "an indispensable element" of the priesthood and the Church is "bound" by Christ's decision only to choose male apostles.

Ladaria's opinion reflects a 1994 decree issued by St John Paul in which he said: "the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women."

St John Paul also said this teaching should be "definitively held" by all Catholics.

Some theologians argue this ruling is not considered infallible, as St John Paul did not proclaim the teaching " ex cathedra" (from the Chair of St Peter), as is required for popes when they make infallible pronouncements.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, for example, believes the question of female ordination need to be settled by a church council and not from the "desk of a Pope."

Ladaria holds the opposite view.

"Sowing these doubts creates serious confusion among the faithful not only about the sacrament of orders as part of the divine constitution of the church but also about how the ordinary magisterium can teach Catholic doctrine in an infallible way," he says.

He also points out infallible teaching is not only proclaimed by a council or a Pope speaking "ex cathedra," but is also proclaimed by bishops across the world who, in communion with the Pope, propose doctrine that should be "held definitively."

Ladaria says St John Paul II consulted with leaders of episcopal conferences about this matter. He did not wish to "work alone" but sought to ensure he was listening to an "uninterrupted and lived tradition."

Pope Francis endorsed this in 2015, saying it was after "long, long intense discussions" St John Paul had issued his ruling on women's ordination.

"He did not declare new dogma, but with the authority conferred on him as successor of Peter, he formally confirmed and made explicit - to remove any doubt - that which the ordinary and universal magisterium had considered as belonging to the deposit of faith throughout the history of the church," Ladaria says.

We Are Church International (WACI) this week strongly rejected Archbishop Ladaria's claim that the ban on ordaining women to Catholic priesthood has a "definitive character" and "is a truth belonging to the deposit of faith."

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• The Tablet
• The Tablet
• Image: Catholic Herald

But Fr Küng is refusing to release the text of a letter he said he received from Pope Francis on the subject last month.

The theologian cited the "confidentiality that I owe to the Pope".

Catholic media outlets The Tablet and the National Catholic Reporter have therefore been unable to verify that the letter exists.

On March 9, Fr Küng had issued what he called an "urgent appeal to Pope Francis to permit an open and impartial discussion on infallibility of Pope and bishops".

Now the theologian has issued a statement where he expresses his joy at receiving a "personal reply" from Pope Francis.

Fr Küng noted that the Pope had clearly read his infallibility appeal and had made a response himself, which the theologian saw as significant.

Fr Küng said the Pope is highly appreciative of the considerations that were listed in the appeal.

"Pope Francis has set no restrictions [on discussion]," Fr Küng added.

"I think it is now imperative to use this new freedom to push ahead with the clarification of the dogmatic definitions which are a ground for controversy within the Catholic Church and in its relationship to the other Christian churches," he said.

"I am deeply grateful to Pope Francis for this new freedom and combine my heartfelt thanks with the expectation that the bishops and theologians will unreservedly adopt this new spirit and join in this task in accordance with the scriptures and with our great church tradition."

Sources

• The Tablet
• National Catholic Reporter
• Image: Huffington Post

One of the most widely known memes of the last one-hundred-and-fifty years, it is also one of the most utterly misunderstood.

The media's reporting of two recent events illustrates the issue.

First, consider the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI. After Benedict's dramatic announcement, serious and respected commentators raised such questions as "Will a resigned pope continue to be infallible?" and "What will happen if an infallible Benedict is contradicted by an infallible successor?"

Questions like that may sell papers, but they show no evidence that the writers made the effort even to Google the term, "papal infallibility."

More recently, take the commentary on Pope Francis's Synod on the Family.

At the close of the synod's initial sessions, a columnist for the New York Times—an educated Catholic—blankly depicted the policy of denying Communion to civilly divorced-and-remarried Catholics as an unavoidable implication of infallible papal teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

The bishops who promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1869 would have shuddered at such cartoonish misrepresentations of their highly nuanced creation.

How egregious are those misrepresentation? Here is the original text of their decree:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. Continue reading

Sources

• Commonweal, from an article by George Wilson, SJ, a retired ecclesiologist living in Cincinnati.
• Image: pHimages

Many theologians - most in fact - believe he is and it is a commonly held and taught belief.

Vatican Insider discusses this with Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, a distinguished canonist and Adjunct Secretary of the Apostolic Signatura.

Is the Pope infallible when he proclaims a new saint?

"According to the prevailing doctrine of the Church, when the Pope canonizes a saint his judgment is infallible.

"As is known, canonization is the decree with which the Pope solemnly proclaims that the heavenly glory shines upon the Blessed and extends the cult of the new saint to the universal Church in a binding and definitive manner.

"There is no question then that canonization is an act carried out by the Petrine primate. At the same time, however, it should not be considered infallible according to the infallibility criteria set out in the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution "Pastor aeternus"."

So, according to you, this means the Pope can make a mistake when he proclaims someone a saint?
"That's not what I said. I am not denying that the decree issued for a canonization cause is definitive, so it would be rash and indeed unholy to state that the Pope can make a mistake.

"What I am saying, is that the proclamation of a person's sainthood is not a truth of faith because it is not a dogmatic definition and is not directly or explicitly linked to a truth of faith or a moral truth contained in the revelation, but is only indirectly linked to this.

"It is no coincidence that neither the Code of Canon Law of 1917 nor the one currently in force, nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church present the Church's doctrine regarding canonizations." Continue reading

Sources

• Vatican Insider
• Image: RTE News

In any society, organization or Church community, it is important to know who is ultimately responsible in decision making; otherwise, chaos or worse would prevail.

In an unprecedented (for a cardinal) cross examination in court last week, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney seemed confused about responsibility in the Sydney Church.

He was speaking for the Archdiocese of Sydney which he led from 2001 until his transfer to a job at the Vatican, appearing before the Royal Commission into child sex abuse in institutions, including the Church's, across Australia.

The Cardinal blamed various mistakes on his hand-picked lieutenants, "couldn't recall" the details of instructions being given on his behalf to his lawyers and claimed his legal representatives had gone beyond what was acceptable to any Christian in defending a case brought against the archdiocese by a child abuse victim, John Ellis.

The same was true at a global level in February when the Vatican's chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, ducked criticism from the United Nations committee investigating the Church's compliance with a UN protocol it signed on the rights of children.

No, the Vatican wasn't responsible for the oversight of the Church's 'best practice' in child protection. It was only responsible for the 32 children of employees in the Vatican City State. Accountability for the Church doesn't reside in Rome.

Loyalty to HQ: Rome

Cardinal Pell's confusions and the Vatican's dodges with the UN notwithstanding, accountability for the Church throughout the world has always belonged with Rome - despite attempted reforms at Vatican II. It is from Rome that the authority devolves to any bishop in the rest of the Catholic world. Every bishop on ordination makes a personal oath of loyalty to the Pope.

That reality has intensified in the last 30 years, disempowering local bishops who have become branch managers of a multinational enterprise, charged with repeating whatever the line from HQ happens to be.

And it has neutralized dioceses and groups of dioceses in bishops' conferences from assuming the authority and responsibility called for in Vatican II.

Perhaps the confusion at the Vatican reflects something - this way of organizing things doesn't work. The chaos that such a 'command and control' system of administration for a multinational community stretching across all the continents of the world and their diverse cultures reached the high point of its dysfunction with Benedict XVI.

The well documented chaos and mismanagement of that period underlines something well known outside the Church: Imperial government is unsustainable and has been for a century.

But the efforts of Rome to control all Catholic activities from headquarters, particularly while Joseph Ratzinger was cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and as reiterated by the current prefect, Cardinal Mueller, extended to the neutralizing of regional groups of bishops conferences.

In Asia as in the Americas - North and South - that meant that continental aggregations of bishops' conferences were told that their groups had no doctrinal footing and therefore little significance for anything but convening occasional topical meetings.

Decentralisation, consultation, synods

The situation appears to be changing with the emphasis of Pope Francis on decentralization, consultation and synods. He wants participation, consultation, devolution and decentralization.

As well, what the pope wants of bishops - or any pastor in the Church - points to deep cultural change as well: shepherds who have the smell of the sheep they tend to, who know and feel with their people rather than look over their shoulders to Rome.

But the desire for inclusiveness and participation runs into a very thick brick wall. At the moment, on most important matters, the pope takes full responsibility.

The overwhelming power of the pope reached its high point in Vatican I's 1870 definition of papal infallibility.

Not only did the council decree that the pope would be "free from error" in defining faith and morals. It also held that the pope had "primacy and immediacy of jurisdiction" in the Church.

The universal jurisdiction of the pope not only doesn't work, as displayed especially in the confused mismanagement of Benedict XVI's time as pontiff. It also represents a major obstacle to promoting Church unity.

Pope: Obstacle to unity

Both Paul VI and Blessed John Paul admitted that the biggest obstacle to building Church unity was in fact the pope.

Reform of his office is what Blessed John Paul sought in his 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint. While some responses followed, there was little substantial reaction.

The main sticking point for Orthodox Christians in their dealings with the papacy is their rejection of an overriding submission to the Bishop of Rome, not so much in doctrinal areas about which they mostly agree with the Romans.

It is more Rome's presumption of moral and disciplinary authority and the differing cultures and histories of theological emphasis that divide the Romans and the Orthodox.

This is a disciplinary requirement to which the Orthodox will never submit.

Having ultimate responsibility remain with the Vatican doesn't work for the good governance for a Church that stretches worldwide. And it actually works against something every Christian should know was Jesus Christ's hope - unity among his followers.

The Holy See hires and fires bishops and sets the general terms for the operations of the Catholic Church through various instruments - papal directives, administrative decrees for dioceses and religious congregations, and the code of Canon Law.

The Vatican and the pope can't have it both ways. It either has the authority that carries responsibility and liability or it doesn't. At the moment, by its own rules, it does; and that isn't working.

In fact it works against one of the main emphases of the post Vatican II Church. If it wants to change that and delegate authority and responsibility, it will need to revise Vatican I's decree.

Fr Michael Kelly SJ is the executive director www.ucanews.com.

Source: UCA News

Image: UCA News

On one side are critics of "creeping infallibility," meaning a steady expansion of the set of church teachings that lie beyond debate. On the other are those, including Benedict, worried about "theological positivism," meaning that there is such a sharp emphasis on formal declarations of infallibility that all other teachings, no matter how constantly or emphatically they've been defined, seem up for grabs.

Read John Allen's article in National Catholic Reporter

Image: World Catholicism Week