Fantastic article, Paul! A delight to read and, if I’m being honest, quite liberating in its implications. You are precisely right regarding the importance of navigating the tension between personal conscience and Church authority with wisdom and discernment. It’s certainly no easy task and requires a combination of spiritual maturity, faith and, ultimately, divine grace. What an adventure!
Neither Leo XIII nor JPII appear to condemn all forms of slavery as intrinsically evil. For instance, neither of them seemed to have an intrinsic problem with prison labor, which meets every definition of slavery even by the standards of U.S. law. There's a difference between something being intrinsically evil, as opposed to something always being accidently evil wherever it arises. I would argue for the latter interpretation of the Church's condemnation of slavery.
Otherwise, if the Church really can overturn historic teachings, then anything is up for grabs- including doctrines concerning the dignity of the human person. If doctrine can change one way, it can certainly change the other way as well. Still waiting for dialogue sessions with racist Catholics who want to "develop" the teaching on loving our neighbors!
Unfortunately, he doesn't define precisely what he means by "slavery." That he was condemning the exception clause of the 13th amendment isn't by any means clear.
It doesn’t seem like a leap to interpret “slavery” as “all slavery.” I also don’t think arguments about which kinds of slavery aren’t evil are especially helpful
Maybe not a huge leap, but a leap nonetheless. If JPII wanted to condemn the U.S. for having an exception to its prohibition of slavery, he very well could have done that, but he didn't.
Not to mention, if no papal teaching is really definitive, then JPII's certainly isn't. One could just say he was wrong the way you'd say Nicholas V was wrong.
I'm just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. If "Church Teaching" can be reversed, and if it's legitimate to dissent from "Church Teaching" whenever one believes that they have a "Really Good" reason to do so, then there is no such thing as "Church Teaching." There's just the opinions of individual popes, and those who either agree or disagree with them on the basis of opinion. No faith to be found.
“Otherwise, if the Church really can overturn historic teachings, then anything is up for grabs- including doctrines concerning the dignity of the human person.”
To me, this statement betrays a lack of faith. It would seem that you are so afraid of moral relativism that you are willing to shackle Truth with a fallacy of the inerrancy and immutability of Church Magisterium. Such a position denies the Holy Spirit’s power in revealing God’s divine majesty and its role in guiding the Church in its understanding of beauty, goodness, and truth.
The reality that the Church can and does get things wrong, even when guided by the Spirit, is a reality that takes account of the Fall and human weakness at both the individual and institutional levels. Reckoning with this reality, rather than pretending it does not exist, is what true humility looks like.
If this somehow feels dangerous or threatening, that’s because it is. But we are not to let fear induce us into making idols of the Church, à la the golden calf. Our craving for the psychic comfort of settled “truths” is a sign that our soul seeks union with God, the ultimate source of all Truth. But we don’t attain that by denying God’s active role in the world and trying to fit ultimate Truth into a neat little box of Church magisterial teaching, as well-considered and helpful as it may be.
Spiritual maturity means being willing to grapple with difficult truth, including the reality that we can and do get things wrong. Perhaps the errors are also part of God’s unfolding plan, for He alone can reconcile all things to Himself.
The Gospel is meant to set us free, not to leave us in chains, however golden and comfortable. Have faith, brother.
Let me start by commending your desire to preserve the integrity of the act of faith. I can assure you that I share this desire, and it is, in fact, because of this mutual desire of ours that I believe one must reject your understanding of "faith" completely.
My desire to avoid what Newman would call a "doctrinal corruption," i.e. a "development" of doctrine that actually overturns what was once believed to be a divinely revealed truth, isn't a fear of moral relativism. Against certain presuppositionalist thinkers, I don't hold that one needs supernatural revelation or faith at all to avoid moral relativism. Reason alone is sufficient for discerning the natural law concerning things like the immorality of murder, theft, homosexuality, assault, lying, etc., and indeed grounding these in objective reality (i.e. nothing relative).
Instead, faith has to do with supernatural revelation, i.e. those things that aren't accessible by reason alone. Due to the fact that the supernatural lies beyond the limits of natural reason, the only basis upon which an act of faith can be made is the trustworthiness of God. The problem that I have with your scheme is that, if applied consistently, it would undermine this very trustworthiness of God, and therefore reduce all acts of faith to mere human opinion. In the end, it actually ends up destroying any basis for rational thought at all. Let me explain.
You note well Christ's promise to guide the Church "into all truth." You appeal to this promise in an attempt to argue that I shouldn't be "afraid" of what new truth the Spirit might be leading us into. However, the issue is precisely that, if doctrinal reversals are possible, then there is good reason to be afraid of where this "spirit" might lead us.
To illustrate this, let's consider the traditional belief that apostolic tradition, as it was originally delivered in both written and oral form in the 1st century A.D., is the one and only rule of divine and catholic faith, and that any deviations from this rule are corruptions to be rejected under pain of moral fault.
This was undoubtedly the belief of the apostles and their earliest successors. Indeed, this was the very basis upon which every heretic was ever cast out of the Church, i.e. that they were deviating from that which was revealed by Christ to His apostles in the 1st century A.D. This is likewise the "truth" that the "Spirit" led the Church into not only holding, but also defining and binding on the consciences of the faithful all the way until Vatican I (and even Vatican II).
However, if this view is mistaken, i.e. if it's the case that deviations from the apostolic rule of faith *aren't* always corruptions to be rejected, then this would mean that the "Spirit" led the Church into holding falsehood for nearly 2,000 years. Not only that, but the "Spirit" led the Church into enforcing this falsehood on the faithful under pain of eternal damnation. That's not just a minor mistake, that's a systematic corruption.
Here's the point: If the "Spirit" led the Church into believing a systematically flawed understanding of her own doctrine for the vast majority of history, then I have no rational basis upon which to believe He's not doing the same thing today. In other words, if God habitually permitted His Church to err in some of the most fundamental questions concerning the very nature of revelation and faith, then I have no reason to believe that He wouldn't allow her to likewise by fundamentally mistaken about the nature of divine truth today. In fact, it would be more plausible to suppose that our time isn’t especially privileged, and that if past ages were systematically deceived, then we are too.
Ultimately, if the Spirit "guiding us into all truth" means that at any given time the Church can be systematically mistaken, then it doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever in trusting something because it happens to be the Church’s opinion today. Once again, it actually gives me reason to doubt what the Church is teaching today.
Maybe God allows the Church to systematically err about human dignity. Maybe He allows the Church to err about the equality of men and women. Maybe He allows the Church to err about the nature of Christ or the Trinity- two doctrines that aren't directly accessible to my reason in the first place. I have no way of knowing on the basis of faith (i.e. trusting an authority because God has sanctioned them, not because I’ve scientifically judged them to be correct in their doctrines).
If God has a proven track record of allowing His Church to commit systematic errors, then it would actually be irrational to trust God. It would be irrational to make an act of faith in divine revelation, because that revelation could always be (and likely is) false. All that would be possible in this system is human or scientific opinion, not faith.
But of course, you run into bigger epistemic issues here. If God put His seal of approval on systematically flawed worldviews (viz. those expressed by the historical Jesus, His historical apostles, and His historic Church), then this means that God Himself is a deceiver. After all, God isn't dumb, He knew how ancient peoples would respond to a prophet or apostle saying "Thus says the Lord," and He accredited these people with visible signs that convinced their hearers. If God truly approved of those Christians claiming to be His messengers, but He allowed them to proclaim falsehood in His name, then He is the greatest deceiver of all. But the moment you posit an omnipotent deceiver, you fall into the trap of Cartesian skepticism from which there is no escape.
Apologies for the length, but hopefully I've made it clear why I believe that this isn't a matter of trivial fears of "moral relativism" or something. This debate gets to the very heart of religious faith itself.
Hi Benjamin, thank you for your considered response. It is not my intention to get into an academic debate on here with you. That being said, I do believe the effort you put into your response merits at least a cursory acknowledgement and response on my part.
It would appear that your argument rests on a false dilemma: either the Church possesses a practically infallible grasp of doctrine throughout history, or faith collapses into skepticism because God becomes a “deceiver.” But this ignores a third possibility: God faithfully guides the Church while permitting genuine growth, correction, and even significant error in human understanding. This remains so even when the errors in understanding are made by those (authorities or otherwise) who profess to speak “in God’s name.”
The central weakness in your position is that you treat any substantial doctrinal revision as equivalent to God deceiving His people. Yet Scripture itself presents a far more dynamic picture. The apostles repeatedly misunderstood Christ during His earthly ministry. The early Church wrestled with the inclusion of Gentiles, circumcision, and the application of Mosaic law. In Acts 15, the Church did not merely restate an already obvious truth; it discerned, through conflict and debate, that a previously accepted understanding needed correction. This was not divine deception. It was the Spirit leading finite human beings toward deeper understanding.
You also conflate trust in God with trust in every historical formulation produced by God's people. Faith is trust in God Himself, not confidence that every theological judgment made by ecclesiastical authorities is permanently immune from revision. We both know that the Bible is full of examples of God working through fallible institutions, prophets, kings, and disciples without thereby becoming a deceiver. Human error does not imply divine falsehood.
Moreover, your appeal to apostolic tradition assumes precisely what is under dispute: that the Church's historical understanding of tradition has remained essentially unchanged. This is an impossible standard to meet. And the history of doctrine is full of developments that would have appeared radical to earlier generations. The Church's positions on slavery, religious liberty, usury, relations with non-Christians, sexual relations and the death penalty have all undergone significant evolution. Whether one calls these "developments" or "corrections," the historical reality remains that the Church's understanding has changed.
Most importantly, your argument paradoxically places greater confidence in human formulations than in the Holy Spirit. If every meaningful revision threatens faith itself, then the Church's past interpretations become the ultimate standard rather than God. But the Spirit's promise was not that the Church would instantly possess exhaustive understanding. It was that the Spirit would continue guiding the Church into truth. Guidance, especially when free will is involved, is a process—not a guarantee that every stage of the journey is free from error. And while 2,000 years is a long time by human standards, it is nothing when measured against eternity.
The real question is not whether the Church can ever be mistaken. History makes that impossible to deny. The question is whether God's faithfulness is great enough to continue leading a fallible Church toward greater truth despite its mistakes. I believe that requires more faith in God, not less.
Feel free to respond in kind. I will surely read and consider your response, but am not going to take the time to respond again as I try to maintain a life outside of Substack. Wishing you all the best!
I appreciate your cordial response, and I definitely understand and respect the desire not to get into long-winded internet "debates." It's a rabbit hole I've fallen into many times, and it isn't very healthy. So in that same spirit I will attempt to keep my reply short (but will likely fail, so apologies in advance).
Let me begin by stating that my position is not that "the Church," understood as members of the Church (even those who have either ecclesial or moral authority), will never err on anything ever. You're correct that there have been eras in the Church in which mistaken, or incomplete, theological opinions were commonplace (I think in particular of early patristic beliefs about the sinlessness of Mary). And I don't actually denounce your "third possibility," rather I nuance it.
To illustrate how, let's look at your scriptural examples of God guiding His people. You're correct to point out that the disciples misunderstood many of our Lord's teachings, and that Acts 15 shows that the Church needed to discern the truth. However, here's what you appear to miss. I don't deny the process of discernment itself, which can certainly include members of the Church debating and disagreeing with each other for a time. Rather, I deny that the Church is incapable of *settling* a matter that is under dispute. I therefore likewise deny that, once a matter has been discerned and settled, it can possibly be "re-discerned" and "re-settled" in the opposite direction in the future. After all, if that's the case, then the issue was never really settled to begin with.
Consider Acts 15. If your position was correct, it wouldn't merely justify the discernment process of the Church itself. My position can likewise accommodate this process. Instead, it would open the door for later generations of the Church to *reexamine* what the apostles taught, and reverse their decisions if found necessary. Effectively, your position denies the Church's ability to resolve disputes in the name of the Holy Spirit, even though this is exactly what the apostles claimed to do in Acts 15.
This is where my epistemic skepticism concern rears its head. If the Holy Spirit has, in fact, stood behind those who spoke falsely in His name, then He is not trustworthy if one's goal is to acquire historically non-contingent truth. While God does work through fallible men, He empowers those men with infallibility when they claim to speak on His behalf. This is, once again, to protect God's own trustworthiness. There's a reason why false prophets were executed under the old law. A false prophecy is an assault on God's credibility. This logic is undeniably present in the Old Testament, and it is unquestioningly taken up by the historical Jesus of Nazareth, as John Wenham has decisively shown in his article, "Our Lord's View of the Old Testament."
On another note, you seem to have misunderstood my appeal to apostolic tradition. I wasn't assuming its truth, rather I was using that as an example of a matter that the Church has "discerned" and "resolved" in the past. The point was that, if the Church's "discernment" and "resolution" can lead to systematically flawed beliefs (such as, in your view, the belief that apostolic tradition is always unchanging), then there is no rational basis for trusting the Church's "discernment" process as a reliable means of obtaining true beliefs. While lipservice can be paid to "the Spirit's guidance," if that guidance has no intrinsic telos towards definitive truth, then it isn't relevant for those who are seeking definitive truth. They must look elsewhere, hence my claim that your view substitutes faith for scientific opinion.
You write, "The question is whether God's faithfulness is great enough to continue leading a fallible Church toward greater truth despite its mistakes." My answer to this question is that it's not. If "God's faithfulness" includes systematic errors, false beliefs about whether a matter has been resolved, not to mention errant moral and theological beliefs, then it isn't a reliable source of truth. As such, we must get our truth by relying on something other than "God's faithfulness," and since faith is, by definition, believing something on account of God's trustworthiness, this means that faith is irrational.
Once again, I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I do not expect you to write a full reply to this comment. However, I nonetheless maintain that liberal Catholicism is irrational in the true sense of that term: it leads to beliefs that contradict and undermine reason itself.
May the Lord bless you and guide you into His truth.
just a few chills. when this missive mentioned south carolina in the 1840's an alarm went off. my father's gggf jean hubert sassard was a slave holder and was a ship captain moving the slaves along our american south coast line from one state to another. i have copies of the shipping manifests. also he had relations with one of his female slaves and to this day, as the result of ancestry dna checks, i am in contact with the current day offspring related to that ship captain and his slave children. the UK had stopped cross oceanic transport of slaves but in the young united states, it was still a thing. and my family did participate. this article stating that the bishop in south carolina was opposed to slavery made me wonder about the thoughts that ran through jean hubert sassard. he was a french born naturalized us citizen as of 1823. a skilled ship captain ,and he made many of those transport trips. thought provoking
Fantastic article, Paul! A delight to read and, if I’m being honest, quite liberating in its implications. You are precisely right regarding the importance of navigating the tension between personal conscience and Church authority with wisdom and discernment. It’s certainly no easy task and requires a combination of spiritual maturity, faith and, ultimately, divine grace. What an adventure!
Paul, thank you for this thoughtful piece. God bless.
What a beautiful article. So many implications. Thanks for this.
Neither Leo XIII nor JPII appear to condemn all forms of slavery as intrinsically evil. For instance, neither of them seemed to have an intrinsic problem with prison labor, which meets every definition of slavery even by the standards of U.S. law. There's a difference between something being intrinsically evil, as opposed to something always being accidently evil wherever it arises. I would argue for the latter interpretation of the Church's condemnation of slavery.
Otherwise, if the Church really can overturn historic teachings, then anything is up for grabs- including doctrines concerning the dignity of the human person. If doctrine can change one way, it can certainly change the other way as well. Still waiting for dialogue sessions with racist Catholics who want to "develop" the teaching on loving our neighbors!
In Veritatis Splendor (80), John Paul II teaches that slavery is intrinsically evil
Unfortunately, he doesn't define precisely what he means by "slavery." That he was condemning the exception clause of the 13th amendment isn't by any means clear.
It doesn’t seem like a leap to interpret “slavery” as “all slavery.” I also don’t think arguments about which kinds of slavery aren’t evil are especially helpful
Maybe not a huge leap, but a leap nonetheless. If JPII wanted to condemn the U.S. for having an exception to its prohibition of slavery, he very well could have done that, but he didn't.
Not to mention, if no papal teaching is really definitive, then JPII's certainly isn't. One could just say he was wrong the way you'd say Nicholas V was wrong.
You don’t think Nicholas V was wrong here. That’s certainly a take one can have…
I'm just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. If "Church Teaching" can be reversed, and if it's legitimate to dissent from "Church Teaching" whenever one believes that they have a "Really Good" reason to do so, then there is no such thing as "Church Teaching." There's just the opinions of individual popes, and those who either agree or disagree with them on the basis of opinion. No faith to be found.
“Otherwise, if the Church really can overturn historic teachings, then anything is up for grabs- including doctrines concerning the dignity of the human person.”
To me, this statement betrays a lack of faith. It would seem that you are so afraid of moral relativism that you are willing to shackle Truth with a fallacy of the inerrancy and immutability of Church Magisterium. Such a position denies the Holy Spirit’s power in revealing God’s divine majesty and its role in guiding the Church in its understanding of beauty, goodness, and truth.
The reality that the Church can and does get things wrong, even when guided by the Spirit, is a reality that takes account of the Fall and human weakness at both the individual and institutional levels. Reckoning with this reality, rather than pretending it does not exist, is what true humility looks like.
If this somehow feels dangerous or threatening, that’s because it is. But we are not to let fear induce us into making idols of the Church, à la the golden calf. Our craving for the psychic comfort of settled “truths” is a sign that our soul seeks union with God, the ultimate source of all Truth. But we don’t attain that by denying God’s active role in the world and trying to fit ultimate Truth into a neat little box of Church magisterial teaching, as well-considered and helpful as it may be.
Spiritual maturity means being willing to grapple with difficult truth, including the reality that we can and do get things wrong. Perhaps the errors are also part of God’s unfolding plan, for He alone can reconcile all things to Himself.
The Gospel is meant to set us free, not to leave us in chains, however golden and comfortable. Have faith, brother.
Let me start by commending your desire to preserve the integrity of the act of faith. I can assure you that I share this desire, and it is, in fact, because of this mutual desire of ours that I believe one must reject your understanding of "faith" completely.
My desire to avoid what Newman would call a "doctrinal corruption," i.e. a "development" of doctrine that actually overturns what was once believed to be a divinely revealed truth, isn't a fear of moral relativism. Against certain presuppositionalist thinkers, I don't hold that one needs supernatural revelation or faith at all to avoid moral relativism. Reason alone is sufficient for discerning the natural law concerning things like the immorality of murder, theft, homosexuality, assault, lying, etc., and indeed grounding these in objective reality (i.e. nothing relative).
Instead, faith has to do with supernatural revelation, i.e. those things that aren't accessible by reason alone. Due to the fact that the supernatural lies beyond the limits of natural reason, the only basis upon which an act of faith can be made is the trustworthiness of God. The problem that I have with your scheme is that, if applied consistently, it would undermine this very trustworthiness of God, and therefore reduce all acts of faith to mere human opinion. In the end, it actually ends up destroying any basis for rational thought at all. Let me explain.
You note well Christ's promise to guide the Church "into all truth." You appeal to this promise in an attempt to argue that I shouldn't be "afraid" of what new truth the Spirit might be leading us into. However, the issue is precisely that, if doctrinal reversals are possible, then there is good reason to be afraid of where this "spirit" might lead us.
To illustrate this, let's consider the traditional belief that apostolic tradition, as it was originally delivered in both written and oral form in the 1st century A.D., is the one and only rule of divine and catholic faith, and that any deviations from this rule are corruptions to be rejected under pain of moral fault.
This was undoubtedly the belief of the apostles and their earliest successors. Indeed, this was the very basis upon which every heretic was ever cast out of the Church, i.e. that they were deviating from that which was revealed by Christ to His apostles in the 1st century A.D. This is likewise the "truth" that the "Spirit" led the Church into not only holding, but also defining and binding on the consciences of the faithful all the way until Vatican I (and even Vatican II).
However, if this view is mistaken, i.e. if it's the case that deviations from the apostolic rule of faith *aren't* always corruptions to be rejected, then this would mean that the "Spirit" led the Church into holding falsehood for nearly 2,000 years. Not only that, but the "Spirit" led the Church into enforcing this falsehood on the faithful under pain of eternal damnation. That's not just a minor mistake, that's a systematic corruption.
Here's the point: If the "Spirit" led the Church into believing a systematically flawed understanding of her own doctrine for the vast majority of history, then I have no rational basis upon which to believe He's not doing the same thing today. In other words, if God habitually permitted His Church to err in some of the most fundamental questions concerning the very nature of revelation and faith, then I have no reason to believe that He wouldn't allow her to likewise by fundamentally mistaken about the nature of divine truth today. In fact, it would be more plausible to suppose that our time isn’t especially privileged, and that if past ages were systematically deceived, then we are too.
Ultimately, if the Spirit "guiding us into all truth" means that at any given time the Church can be systematically mistaken, then it doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever in trusting something because it happens to be the Church’s opinion today. Once again, it actually gives me reason to doubt what the Church is teaching today.
Maybe God allows the Church to systematically err about human dignity. Maybe He allows the Church to err about the equality of men and women. Maybe He allows the Church to err about the nature of Christ or the Trinity- two doctrines that aren't directly accessible to my reason in the first place. I have no way of knowing on the basis of faith (i.e. trusting an authority because God has sanctioned them, not because I’ve scientifically judged them to be correct in their doctrines).
If God has a proven track record of allowing His Church to commit systematic errors, then it would actually be irrational to trust God. It would be irrational to make an act of faith in divine revelation, because that revelation could always be (and likely is) false. All that would be possible in this system is human or scientific opinion, not faith.
But of course, you run into bigger epistemic issues here. If God put His seal of approval on systematically flawed worldviews (viz. those expressed by the historical Jesus, His historical apostles, and His historic Church), then this means that God Himself is a deceiver. After all, God isn't dumb, He knew how ancient peoples would respond to a prophet or apostle saying "Thus says the Lord," and He accredited these people with visible signs that convinced their hearers. If God truly approved of those Christians claiming to be His messengers, but He allowed them to proclaim falsehood in His name, then He is the greatest deceiver of all. But the moment you posit an omnipotent deceiver, you fall into the trap of Cartesian skepticism from which there is no escape.
Apologies for the length, but hopefully I've made it clear why I believe that this isn't a matter of trivial fears of "moral relativism" or something. This debate gets to the very heart of religious faith itself.
Hi Benjamin, thank you for your considered response. It is not my intention to get into an academic debate on here with you. That being said, I do believe the effort you put into your response merits at least a cursory acknowledgement and response on my part.
It would appear that your argument rests on a false dilemma: either the Church possesses a practically infallible grasp of doctrine throughout history, or faith collapses into skepticism because God becomes a “deceiver.” But this ignores a third possibility: God faithfully guides the Church while permitting genuine growth, correction, and even significant error in human understanding. This remains so even when the errors in understanding are made by those (authorities or otherwise) who profess to speak “in God’s name.”
The central weakness in your position is that you treat any substantial doctrinal revision as equivalent to God deceiving His people. Yet Scripture itself presents a far more dynamic picture. The apostles repeatedly misunderstood Christ during His earthly ministry. The early Church wrestled with the inclusion of Gentiles, circumcision, and the application of Mosaic law. In Acts 15, the Church did not merely restate an already obvious truth; it discerned, through conflict and debate, that a previously accepted understanding needed correction. This was not divine deception. It was the Spirit leading finite human beings toward deeper understanding.
You also conflate trust in God with trust in every historical formulation produced by God's people. Faith is trust in God Himself, not confidence that every theological judgment made by ecclesiastical authorities is permanently immune from revision. We both know that the Bible is full of examples of God working through fallible institutions, prophets, kings, and disciples without thereby becoming a deceiver. Human error does not imply divine falsehood.
Moreover, your appeal to apostolic tradition assumes precisely what is under dispute: that the Church's historical understanding of tradition has remained essentially unchanged. This is an impossible standard to meet. And the history of doctrine is full of developments that would have appeared radical to earlier generations. The Church's positions on slavery, religious liberty, usury, relations with non-Christians, sexual relations and the death penalty have all undergone significant evolution. Whether one calls these "developments" or "corrections," the historical reality remains that the Church's understanding has changed.
Most importantly, your argument paradoxically places greater confidence in human formulations than in the Holy Spirit. If every meaningful revision threatens faith itself, then the Church's past interpretations become the ultimate standard rather than God. But the Spirit's promise was not that the Church would instantly possess exhaustive understanding. It was that the Spirit would continue guiding the Church into truth. Guidance, especially when free will is involved, is a process—not a guarantee that every stage of the journey is free from error. And while 2,000 years is a long time by human standards, it is nothing when measured against eternity.
The real question is not whether the Church can ever be mistaken. History makes that impossible to deny. The question is whether God's faithfulness is great enough to continue leading a fallible Church toward greater truth despite its mistakes. I believe that requires more faith in God, not less.
Feel free to respond in kind. I will surely read and consider your response, but am not going to take the time to respond again as I try to maintain a life outside of Substack. Wishing you all the best!
I appreciate your cordial response, and I definitely understand and respect the desire not to get into long-winded internet "debates." It's a rabbit hole I've fallen into many times, and it isn't very healthy. So in that same spirit I will attempt to keep my reply short (but will likely fail, so apologies in advance).
Let me begin by stating that my position is not that "the Church," understood as members of the Church (even those who have either ecclesial or moral authority), will never err on anything ever. You're correct that there have been eras in the Church in which mistaken, or incomplete, theological opinions were commonplace (I think in particular of early patristic beliefs about the sinlessness of Mary). And I don't actually denounce your "third possibility," rather I nuance it.
To illustrate how, let's look at your scriptural examples of God guiding His people. You're correct to point out that the disciples misunderstood many of our Lord's teachings, and that Acts 15 shows that the Church needed to discern the truth. However, here's what you appear to miss. I don't deny the process of discernment itself, which can certainly include members of the Church debating and disagreeing with each other for a time. Rather, I deny that the Church is incapable of *settling* a matter that is under dispute. I therefore likewise deny that, once a matter has been discerned and settled, it can possibly be "re-discerned" and "re-settled" in the opposite direction in the future. After all, if that's the case, then the issue was never really settled to begin with.
Consider Acts 15. If your position was correct, it wouldn't merely justify the discernment process of the Church itself. My position can likewise accommodate this process. Instead, it would open the door for later generations of the Church to *reexamine* what the apostles taught, and reverse their decisions if found necessary. Effectively, your position denies the Church's ability to resolve disputes in the name of the Holy Spirit, even though this is exactly what the apostles claimed to do in Acts 15.
This is where my epistemic skepticism concern rears its head. If the Holy Spirit has, in fact, stood behind those who spoke falsely in His name, then He is not trustworthy if one's goal is to acquire historically non-contingent truth. While God does work through fallible men, He empowers those men with infallibility when they claim to speak on His behalf. This is, once again, to protect God's own trustworthiness. There's a reason why false prophets were executed under the old law. A false prophecy is an assault on God's credibility. This logic is undeniably present in the Old Testament, and it is unquestioningly taken up by the historical Jesus of Nazareth, as John Wenham has decisively shown in his article, "Our Lord's View of the Old Testament."
On another note, you seem to have misunderstood my appeal to apostolic tradition. I wasn't assuming its truth, rather I was using that as an example of a matter that the Church has "discerned" and "resolved" in the past. The point was that, if the Church's "discernment" and "resolution" can lead to systematically flawed beliefs (such as, in your view, the belief that apostolic tradition is always unchanging), then there is no rational basis for trusting the Church's "discernment" process as a reliable means of obtaining true beliefs. While lipservice can be paid to "the Spirit's guidance," if that guidance has no intrinsic telos towards definitive truth, then it isn't relevant for those who are seeking definitive truth. They must look elsewhere, hence my claim that your view substitutes faith for scientific opinion.
You write, "The question is whether God's faithfulness is great enough to continue leading a fallible Church toward greater truth despite its mistakes." My answer to this question is that it's not. If "God's faithfulness" includes systematic errors, false beliefs about whether a matter has been resolved, not to mention errant moral and theological beliefs, then it isn't a reliable source of truth. As such, we must get our truth by relying on something other than "God's faithfulness," and since faith is, by definition, believing something on account of God's trustworthiness, this means that faith is irrational.
Once again, I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I do not expect you to write a full reply to this comment. However, I nonetheless maintain that liberal Catholicism is irrational in the true sense of that term: it leads to beliefs that contradict and undermine reason itself.
May the Lord bless you and guide you into His truth.
just a few chills. when this missive mentioned south carolina in the 1840's an alarm went off. my father's gggf jean hubert sassard was a slave holder and was a ship captain moving the slaves along our american south coast line from one state to another. i have copies of the shipping manifests. also he had relations with one of his female slaves and to this day, as the result of ancestry dna checks, i am in contact with the current day offspring related to that ship captain and his slave children. the UK had stopped cross oceanic transport of slaves but in the young united states, it was still a thing. and my family did participate. this article stating that the bishop in south carolina was opposed to slavery made me wonder about the thoughts that ran through jean hubert sassard. he was a french born naturalized us citizen as of 1823. a skilled ship captain ,and he made many of those transport trips. thought provoking
Thank you for sharing all of that!