What does it mean to give “religious assent”?

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • March 7, 2017 • Apologetics

San­dro Bot­ti­cel­li, “The Annun­ci­a­tion” (1490–1495)
L

umen Gen­tium; the Cat­e­chism of the Catholic Church; the Pro­fes­sion of Faith; and Canon Law: All tell us that Catholics owe their assent to the teach­ings of the authen­tic Mag­is­teri­um, even when they are not tech­ni­cal­ly infal­li­ble. Here, for exam­ple, is LG 25:

Bish­ops, teach­ing in com­mu­nion with the Roman Pon­tiff, are to be respect­ed by all as wit­ness­es to divine and Catholic truth. In mat­ters of faith and morals, the bish­ops speak in the name of Christ and the faith­ful are to accept their teach­ing and adhere to it with a reli­gious assent. This reli­gious sub­mis­sion of mind and will must be shown in a spe­cial way to the authen­tic mag­is­teri­um of the Roman Pon­tiff, even when he is not speak­ing ex cathe­dra.

I put up a post about all this on March 4; and that prompt­ed a few read­ers to ask: What does “reli­gious assent” mean?

The Church devel­ops the con­cept in Don­um Ver­i­tatis (here), as well as the Doc­tri­nal Com­men­tary on the Pro­fes­sion of Faith. The Pro­fes­sion refers to it as a “reli­gious sub­mis­sion of will and intel­lect,” which implies that Catholics must obey (will) as well as believe (intel­lect) the teach­ings of the authen­tic Mag­is­teri­um. They must do so whether those teach­ings are “infal­li­ble” or not. This means that a Catholic must think with the mind of the Church; he must con­form his intel­lect with what the Church pro­pos­es as true. One obeys Christ (for to obey the Church is to obey Christ her bride­groom) with the will, and also with the mind.

The CDF expands on this in Don­um Ver­i­tatis 23:

When the Mag­is­teri­um, not intend­ing to act “defin­i­tive­ly”, teach­es a doc­trine to aid a bet­ter under­stand­ing of Rev­e­la­tion and make explic­it its con­tents, or to recall how some teach­ing is in con­for­mi­ty with the truths of faith, or final­ly to guard against ideas that are incom­pat­i­ble with these truths, the response called for is that of the reli­gious sub­mis­sion of will and intel­lect. This kind of response can­not be sim­ply exte­ri­or or dis­ci­pli­nary but must be under­stood with­in the log­ic of faith and under the impulse of obe­di­ence to the faith.

A Catholic must believe all that the Mag­is­teri­um teach­es (whether infal­li­ble or not) “with­in the log­ic of faith” and “under the impulse of obe­di­ence to the faith.” It is not the same as an “assent of faith,” the Cat­e­chism says, but it is still “an exten­sion of it.” A Catholic can not sep­a­rate it from the faith he pro­fess­es. If you try to put it in some oth­er cat­e­go­ry of belief, your faith itself is rent in twain.

In §17 of Don­um Ver­i­tatis, the CDF explains the ratio­nale:

Divine assis­tance is also giv­en to the suc­ces­sors of the apos­tles teach­ing in com­mu­nion with the suc­ces­sor of Peter, and in a par­tic­u­lar way, to the Roman Pon­tiff as Pas­tor of the whole Church, when exer­cis­ing their ordi­nary Mag­is­teri­um, even should this not issue in an infal­li­ble def­i­n­i­tion or in a “defin­i­tive” pro­nounce­ment but in the pro­pos­al of some teach­ing which leads to a bet­ter under­stand­ing of Rev­e­la­tion in mat­ters of faith and morals and to moral direc­tives derived from such teach­ing.

Stop there. Mark that. All that the Mag­is­teri­um teach­es is under the pro­tec­tion of the Holy Spir­it. All of it; whether infal­li­ble or no. Thus to reject any­thing that a pope or bish­op teach­es is to reject the Holy Spir­it’s pro­tec­tion of the Church. It is to reject Christ. That’s a seri­ous mat­ter.

Who­ev­er hears you hears me. Who­ev­er rejects you rejects me. And who­ev­er rejects me rejects the one who sent me (Luke 10:16).

The CDF con­tin­ues:

One must there­fore take into account the prop­er char­ac­ter of every exer­cise of the Mag­is­teri­um, con­sid­er­ing the extent to which its author­i­ty is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Mag­is­teri­um derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His Peo­ple walk in the entire truth.

In oth­er words, if a Catholic were to with­draw his assent of will and intel­lect from a papal teach­ing, he would be with­draw­ing it from Christ. All papal teach­ings come from Christ.

The CDF con­tin­ues:

For this same rea­son, mag­is­te­r­i­al deci­sions in mat­ters of dis­ci­pline, even if they are not guar­an­teed by the charism of infal­li­bil­i­ty, are not with­out divine assis­tance and call for the adher­ence of the faith­ful.

Bot­tom line: “Reli­gious assent” is no dif­fer­ent from any oth­er assent you would give to Christ Him­self.

But is there any room for any kind of dis­sent? Is there any cor­ner in the mind that one may reserve for “non servi­am”?

The CDF says no:

The free­dom of the act of faith can­not jus­ti­fy a right to dis­sent. [There is no such right for a Catholic.] In fact this free­dom does not indi­cate at all free­dom with regard to the truth but sig­ni­fies the free self-deter­mi­na­tion of the per­son in con­for­mi­ty with his moral oblig­a­tion to accept the truth.

In oth­er words, “reli­gious assent” flows out of a Catholic’s “moral oblig­a­tion to accept the truth.” There is no free­dom to say “I accept x but not y.” Nor is there a free­dom to “accept with reser­va­tion.” Reli­gious assent does not mean a Catholic may say, “Maybe, but I attach an aster­isk to it.” No. Catholics are moral­ly oblig­at­ed to it.

Here is anoth­er way to put it. The Church affirms that “reli­gious assent” is dif­fer­ent than an “assent of faith.” But how so, if there is no room for dis­sent of any kind?

Sim­ply this. A Catholic must give an “assent of the faith” to all that is divine­ly revealed. What is divine­ly revealed is infal­li­ble; it is the con­tent of the faith itself.

A Catholic must give “reli­gious assent” to those truths that are not the con­tent of the faith itself, but nev­er­the­less flow from it. This is why the Church says that, though “reli­gious assent” is not an “assent of faith,” it is an “exten­sion” of it.

What dif­fers is not the degree of assent, but the object of the assent.

Any­one who says, “Okay, I only owe this reli­gious assent; I am there­fore going to main­tain some doubts; I won’t be too vocal about it; on Face­book I may say, “What­ev­er” or “Pfft”; pri­vate­ly I might say, “That pope can go buzz off”: That per­son is doing “reli­gious assent” wrong.

 


Discover more from To Give a Defense

Sub­scribe to get the lat­est posts sent to your email.