Tuesday, April 22, 2025

The pope’s first duty

Let us pray for the repose of the soul of Pope Francis.  We ought to pray no less fervently that God in His mercy will bless His Church with a new pope of the kind she most needs at this time in her history.  As the cardinals begin to think about a successor, it is appropriate for them, and for us, to recall that the first duty of any pope is to preserve undiluted the deposit of faith.  It concerns sound doctrine even more than sound practice, because practice can be sound only when doctrine is sound.  This is something those electing a new pope should always keep first and foremost in mind.  But reminders are especially important today, when the Church faces greater doctrinal confusion than perhaps at any previous time.

The modern, liberal, secular world does not like to hear such reminders.  When a pope dies, the press will, predictably, praise his personal kindness and concern for the poor and marginalized.  In part, this is merely politeness of the kind appropriate when any person dies.  But it also seems to be what is emphasized in commentary on who a pope’s successor ought to be.  The liberal, secular world’s idea of a good pope is essentially a social worker with the personality of Mr. Rogers.  It is impatient with the idea that the main reason the papacy exists is to preserve the doctrine handed down to us by the Apostles, and to unite the faithful around that doctrine. 

This is, of course, in part because the modern world is hostile to many of the specifics of that doctrine.  But in part it is because liberal, secular modernity is founded on the idea that religious doctrine of any kind is a matter of subjective and idiosyncratic opinion that has only private significance.  The modern world cannot fathom how such mere opinion (as it sees it) could still seriously be thought the central concern of an office with the public visibility and influence of the papacy.  Hence it focuses its attention on the philanthropic activities of popes, which it finds more understandable and useful.

But the world’s priorities are not, and never should be, the Church’s.  She must always keep before her mind Christ’s Great Commission:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

And popes must always keep before their minds Christ’s words to St. Peter:

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. (Luke 22:31-32)

Christ’s command is to convert the world to his teaching, the deposit of faith.  Peter’s commission is to preserve that faith and confirm his brethren in it.  Naturally, that is not because doctrine is an end in itself.  As the Church’s Code of Canon Law famously emphasizes, the salvation of souls is her supreme law.  But the point is precisely that sound doctrine is the necessary prerequisite of the salvation of souls.  Christ’s commission was not “Go therefore and advance social justice in all nations.”  He did not say to Peter “I have prayed for you, that you may reach out to the marginalized.”  That is not because social justice and reaching out to the marginalized are not important.  It is because unless you get doctrine right, you are not going to understand what true social justice amounts to, and you are not going to know what you should be doing for the marginalized once you’ve reached out to them.

The priority of doctrine makes perfect sense when one properly understands the nature of the will and of the actions that flow from it.  As Pope Leo XIII taught, following St. Thomas Aquinas:

The will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the knowledge possessed by the intellect.  In other words, the good wished by the will is necessarily good in so far as it is known by the intellect; and this the more, because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given.  No sensible man can doubt that judgment is an act of reason, not of the will.  The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason.  (Libertas 5)

Action follows from the will, and the will pursues what the intellect judges to be good.  Hence we cannot will rightly, and our actions will not reliably be good in their effects, unless the intellect’s judgements are correct.  Modern people are used to thinking in clichés to the effect that what matters is not what you believe, but rather doing the right thing and having a good will.  But the reality is that if what you believe is false, your will cannot be aimed at what is actually good (even if you are not culpable for the fact), and what you do will not be the right thing except by accident.  Hence sound doctrine is crucial to willing and acting rightly.

This makes it intelligible why, though schism is a very grave sin, Aquinas teaches that heresy is even worse (Summa Theologiae II-II.39.2).  Catholics must remain in communion with the pope, but precisely because the pope’s job is to preserve sound doctrine.  It’s not that we must avoid heresy so that we will avoid schism; rather, the point of avoiding schism is to avoid heresy. 

It also makes it intelligible why papal infallibility concerns only doctrine, and not a pope’s personal moral character.  The Church does not say that a pope cannot do bad things, or that he cannot have a bad will.  It claims only that, when he formally defines a matter of doctrine ex cathedra, in a manner intended to be absolutely final and definitive, he will not err.

It is no surprise, then, that the duty of popes to preserve the deposit of faith has been repeatedly emphasized in Catholic tradition.  Here are several examples:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.  For it is impossible that the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” should not be verified.  (Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas)

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.  (First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4)

The living teaching office of the Church… is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit.  (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, Chapter II)

The mission of Peter and his successors is to establish and authoritatively confirm what the Church has received and believed from the beginning, what the apostles taught, what Sacred Scripture and Christian Tradition have determined as the object of faith and the Christian norm of life.  (Pope St. John Paul II, Catechesis of March 10, 1993)

The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law.  On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word.  He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism…  In his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have developed throughout the Church's pilgrimage.  Thus, his power is not being above, but at the service of, the Word of God.  It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this Word continues to be present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, so that it is not torn to pieces by continuous changes in usage.  (Pope Benedict XVI, Homily for the Mass of Possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome, May 7, 2005)

This last statement, from Benedict XVI, is especially eloquent.  And it reminds us that true humility in a pope entails a steadfast refusal to ignore or dilute or obfuscate the Church’s traditional teaching in any way, not even when others may delude themselves that doing so would be merciful or pastoral or better in line with the signs of the times.

May the cardinals take such reminders to heart as they deliberate.  May they elect a man willing to live by, and indeed if necessary even die for, these noble words from the tradition.  St. Peter, pray for us.

35 comments:

  1. Saint Sixtus II, pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously we pray that the next pope will be a combination of saint john Paul 2 and pope Benedict the 16th. For reasons known only to god we got pope Francis. But then again its long overdue for catholics to study and learn the faith instead of claiming to be confused because they need Rome to spoon feed them. Catholics will spend hours on Sunday watching sports and 45 minutes in church while their mind wanders and they watch everyone coming and going. We need to developed an interior life and forget about obsessions with sports and politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Benedict, JPII, and Francis were all modernists by Pope St. Pius X's standards. Francis was just the least filtered and unsophisticated of the three. The Popes from Pius XII and before would never do anything to put the Catholic Faith on the same level with pagans like JPII did at Assisi, or Francis did in fostering 'chrislam'. Benedict provided the rational for all of it when he prepared so much of Vatican II and its opening to the world (instead of teaching the Faith with the protection of infallibility which modernists like him and his mentor reject and refuse).

      Delete
    2. Which is exactly the problem: every faithful traditionalist is someone else's heretical modernist; it all depends on where you draw the arbitrary line in the sand.

      Delete
    3. Regrettable, but that is the inevitable consequence of the church abandoning the solemn duty to “confirm the brethren” and refusing to draw the line in the sand for us at all, or constantly erasing lines that have been long drawn firmly. The Church used to demark these lines with clarity and brevity, now instead we get fuzzy pseudo-lines (if any), characterized by ambiguity and verbosity.

      “Make of it what you will” seems to have pretty much replaced “not my will, but yours be done.”

      Delete
    4. The Popes and Saints who came before, who stood between us and Christ drew those lines; as was their duty before God.

      Delete
  3. Great post, Prof Feser. The fact that a timely reminder such as this is considered reasonably needed speaks volumes on the experiences of the past decade. By analogy, it would not have been necessary or relevant to define what a woman is had there been not instances of great confusion and departure from truth.

    We can only pray and the Holy Spirit continue to guide the Holy Mother Church and also commend our Cardinal-electors and all of the faithful to the care of the Blessed Mother.

    More power to you, Prof Feser. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a very thoughtful reflection Prof Feser.

    I would urge every cardinal should read this.

    I would also like to complement your magnanimity, Professor ,in soberly requesting prayers for the eternal repose of the Pope and not immediately rehashing your valid prior criticisms which I have often agreed with you on, despite the fact that many others have taken the opportunity to do so.

    I have seen atleast one very prominent commentator mention how he has been waiting for the "scourge of this papacy to end". I felt this was really distasteful because it seemed too close to his death,
    and it also seemed rather presumptuous given that we don't know who will be the next Pope.

    We can only hope and pray that the next Pope adheres to all the points you laid forth here. But even if it doesn't pan out that way, we will try to offer that suffering up to God in penitential spirit as you said on the Matt Fradd show. We should always realise that the ways of God are not known to man.

    I know people have a lot to say and you will also have a lot to say in the future as well but as moral theologian Father Thomas Petri in a post on twitter from a few weeks ago wrote:

    "Sometimes things should go unsaid. Sometimes it’s better to remain silent.
    That’s the virtue of prudence. Not only knowing the good thing to do, but doing it in the right way and at the right moment."

    https://x.com/PetriOP/status/1906187468736532746?t=ciBhNNzLzBe4HfZsEDYItQ&s=19

    To me if anyone has excercised the virtue of prudence, it's Dr Feser, in his firm criticisms at the appropriate junctures but also in his humility and respectfulness when required. I shall try to follow his example in my own life.

    May the Soul of Pope Francis rest in peace, Amen.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "Pope Francis showed no respect for the decorum of the Papacy, from the first informal “Brothers and Sisters Good Evening,” addressed from the loggia of St. Peter's on the day of his election, to his public appearance last April 9, when he appeared in the Basilica in his wheelchair, wearing a striped poncho-like blanket, without any sign of papal dignity."

      I am extremely sorry to post this clarification but Dr Feser recently shared this article online. I thought he and I were on the same page but it appears we are not unfortunately.

      I think it's fine to criticize the way in which Pope Francis governed and the doctrinal confusion that was caused as a result of it.

      But as Fr Peter Totleben shared recently

      "As for being dressed down, normal people with common sense can understand that this is okay in his situation."

      https://x.com/FrTotleben92742/status/1910740998092730398?t=iLTsndq1kmDO4NNwV8snPA&s=19

      I don't understand how people can pick on that.

      It's sad to see something like that. I continue to hold Prof in high regard but since people might see my post and think that the quoted criticism in the first paragraph is fine, I must issue this clarification.

      No offense intended.



      Delete
    2. Norm, I don't know precisely what you mean by saying Prof. Feser "shared this article online", as I don't inhabit twitter / X, but I suspect you mean he posted a link to the article, in which Prof. Roberto de Mattei said the sentence you quoted."

      I too think that sentence is poorly considered, and does not reflect well on Mattei. However, many other things in the article are valid and well-said, and that might be why Prof. Feser would link to it.

      And even as to that sentence, while I myself would not have said it, as in itself it points out at most a very trivial matter, I also understand why Mattei would make such a point: broadly speaking, a leader's individual trivial actions generally have little weight in evaluating the man, but when a large mass of them all tend in the same direction, and that direction is blameworthy in a serious way, some of the little trivial actions stand as pointers and illustrations of the larger fault. (We have seen this done with Trump, for example.) In the grand scheme of things, whether a pope wears all white is not important in itself. But given all the traditions around papal household and public papal persona, each of them alone trivial, a general refusal to be bound by such "traditions" might be indicative of a man who rejects tradition itself and the good that inherently lies in tradition. Coupled with actions on policy and teaching which also tear down tradition, Francis's behavior on the small matters of the papal household and public persona bear more weight than isolated incidents would, evidence of more than merely of his not feeling happy being bound by this or that particular constraint that former popes lived by.

      It was a poor example to choose, and at this time it was also in poor taste, but the motivation behind it is understandable.

      Delete
    3. Hi Tony

      Well yes, you got the article correct.

      Yes, obviously there are other things in the article that are correct but Prof usually puts out a disclaimer when he shares articles that he doesn't agree etc.

      Usually in this fashion

      https://x.com/FeserEdward/status/1887970591518638213?t=zH2HHOCB6KbSnJOdGeP51w&s=19

      https://x.com/FeserEdward/status/1901498831205978140?t=9DmYfPkgeE28K7kDU3TgHw&s=19

      As I said before, it's only that sentence which I felt was really distasteful. The way in which was phrased seemed like a deliberate attempt to make it stick with you.

      Thomistic theologians like Dr Taylor Patrick O Neil, on twitter, have agreed with the call to refrain from criticism.

      I myself think that criticism at this point of time is permissible. I think Archbishop Charles Chaput's piece was also well written.

      I just think that the specific line from the article was distasteful and should have been avoided.

      I think it's fine in general to criticize the approach to the papacy etc.

      But after we all saw how much he suffered in his last days, it felt really inappropriate.

      There are some old vatican documents on pain and anesthesia, I think they were written to the medical community, released under Pope Pius XII, on the obligation to bear suffering where Pope Pius XII notes that, it is always to be kept in mind that, immense suffering can lead to a person committing faults as well. He was guarding against the tendency to be too eager to embrace suffering and refuse pain killers.

      The point I am trying to make though, is that it's quite known that suffering can at times lead to us neglecting God.

      I can only hope and pray that when I face intense physical suffering that God gives me the fortitude and strength to look upwards towards him.

      So given all this context, that line really felt in bad taste to me and not in character for Dr Feser to share.

      I wouldn't have mentioned it, if I had not recommended Dr Feser's approach in the first place, I don't want to be policing, but since I did, I felt a clarification was in order, just to be on the safer side.

      If I happen to find myself one day, in a wheelchair, not able to dress to my usual standard as I visit my Church for one last time, I would hope that people don't attribute the worst of intentions to me, even if they are aware of my prior failings.

      I would hope that they encourage me to lay down my sufferings at the feet of the cross. Christ is our hope.

      No judgement intended though, Prof has had to put up with a lot of unjust attacks of being "blood thirsty" etc, which was no doubt, in part, caused by the misleading statements from the authorities. I still think that Cardinals should read this post by Dr Feser because it's brilliant laid out.





      Delete
  5. So well said. And per usual, so timely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tradition is a sieve these days. So, other than tradition, what now binds a Pope to the Deposit of Faith? The Papal Oath, which publicly affirmed that grave duty for a very long time, has not been taken since Paul VI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The claim that there was a papal oath that had long been taken by popes, but was abandoned after Paul VI, is a claim one seems online. It seems false, however, as explained here:
      https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/papal-coronation-oath-4617

      Delete
  7. Well. It seems to me, as non-Catholic, the Pope's first duty is to look Pontifical. Francis did that well, IMHN-CO. (in my humble non-Catholic opinion). Inasmuch as I do not worry anymore over the boundaries of souldom, the state of Francis' soul is not a concern, only and unless, we have doubt and uncertainty. As a self-professed philosopher, I have that, every minute.
    Francis' soul is free to do as it can and will.
    I have seen evidence of this more, since April 2, 2024.
    She was not a Pope. She was more important to me than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In saying that the pope's first duty is to look pontifical, you are basically saying that the Catholic Church is irrelevant and its leader is only pseudo-relevant, i.e. the fake "relevance" of seeming to lead an irrelevant institution.

      Thankfully, your non-Catholic opinion is much less relevant than the Church.

      May God bring his soul to heaven. And thank God he is no longer our leader - though I doubt the next will be much better.

      Delete
  8. Roberto de Mattei got it right (in his publication, Corrispondenza Romana) - the first Pope to deliberately give up the signs of papal office was Paul VI, not Pope Francis. And it was Paul VI who got going false ecumenism, and favoured the new notion (if we exclude Jansenism and Febronianism) of autonomous ordinary episcopal Jurisdiction, which Pope Francis only continued in his own funny way. When Cardinal Muller complained about the "synodal path", Francis rightly told him to button it because it was all there in germ in Vatican II.


    The cardinals will obviously want to elect somebody more predictable, more doctrinally stable. Let's hope the next Pope will rectify those mistaken tendencies in the letter of Vatican II and its reforms, as we as those of its spirit. The Church has done this before, rectifying and banishing from memory those tendencies at the Council of Constance which plagued the Church for two generations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the implication that "personal kindness and concern for the poor and marginalized" are values of the "modern, liberal, secular world" tells you just about all you need to know about the priorities of American conservative Catholicism. But, let's take this idea seriously for a moment. If the primary responsibility of the Pope is not (as it is for the rest of us) to love God and love his neighbor but rather to defend the unchanging apostolic deposit of the Church—let's assume for a moment that such a thing actually exists—then I have a proposal. Instead of electing a human to the Holy Office, why not train an artificial intelligence on data from the most conservative popes from the last century or so, then place His Holiness PiousGPT on the papal throne in perpetuity? Since the Pope's most important responsibility is to reassert what's already believed and guard the Church's unchanging and infallible Magisterium, there's really no reason for a human being—who can always indulge in dangerous doctrinal "developments" and scandalize the faithful by occasionally acting like a Christian—to take up such a heavy responsibility. Just run each question a few times to filter out hallucinations, and presto—you have the perfect pope. Hell will always be eternal, women will never be ordained, capital punishment will always be licit, and followers of other religions will go back to being utterly lost. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the implication that "personal kindness and concern for the poor and marginalized" are values of the "modern, liberal, secular world" ...

      Of course, that's not what I said.

      Delete
    2. That's not a totally silly suggestion actually, I think a Pope and all of our poor souls would benefit from having a trained AI assistant do a doctrine check before an encyclical or a speech, for example.
      Obviously, to reassert what's already believed is not at all a simple question of hermetically sealing all boundaries. Doctrine does develop, as new situations that require the Church to say something often need. It just can't contradict itself on what was previously said with doctrinal force.
      Otherwise, you could just train His Holiness PiousGPT to be whatever the world demands him to be. Good luck figuring that out.

      Delete
    3. Let's see you use AI as your magic 8 ball to sort out your life.

      Delete
    4. When a pope dies, the press will, predictably, praise his personal kindness and concern for the poor and marginalized.

      Personal kindness can be expressed in many different ways. You can feed a poor hungry person. Or you can open a restaurant to feed 10,000 poor hungry persons. Or you can eradicate the bad laws that make it impossible for employers to hire 5,000 of those poor hungry persons, whereby they can get jobs and feed themselves.

      The office of bishop of Rome is not defined simply in terms of feeding poor hungry people some food, it has other goods as primary focus. Just as a kind-hearted doctor might spend all his time feeding hungry people but not healing the sick and thus be kind-hearted but a poor doctor, so also a pope might be kind-hearted by feeding hungry people food but not fulfilling his office of pope and thus be a poor pope. Being kind-hearted in that particular way simply doesn't speak much to whether he acts well in his office.

      Delete
    5. The Great Thurible of Darkness is a nice joke!

      Delete
  10. https://dmnews.com/dan-tns-8-reasons-filipino-cardinal-tagle-could-make-history-as-the-first-asian-pope/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pope St.John Paul ll was called "the great. " He was a transformational pope. A vigorous strong man, highly intelligent, multi -lingual. He had tremendous influence and worked with Reagan to bring down the Soviet Union. I don't think we will see his like again for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Paul 2 was also a "great" supporter of Fr Marcial Maciel.......

      Delete
  12. Correct. Pope Benedict XVI and many other popes are not without blame.
    ttps://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/europe/pope-benedict-xvi-munich-abuse-report-catholic-church-intl/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am coming across comments on twitter to the effect of, "if so-so candidate is elected I will leave the Church".

    It's just preposterous to be honest. Ofcourse we have to hope and pray for someone who will guard the deposit of the faith, for someone who will not confuse doctrine.

    But there a lot of accounts on twitter that are fueling fear and terror that so and so might be elected.

    At some point we have to realise that the Catholic Church will endure, if it's a traditionalist Pope, Thank God, if it isn't, accept the suffering that God has permitted for some good reason.

    There is some good that God may have not been able to bring about without that suffering. Your suffering need not necessarily be for your own individual benefit but the common good of all of creation and ultimately the heavenly common good. God is not obligated to bring about the best possible world.

    Just be thankful that your suffering will be used by God for some good and remember that the Catholic Church will endure. Do not be afraid.

    I implore anyone who is reading this,do not leave the Catholic Church. God will eventually reveal the beauty of his plan to us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. soory, but the people are free, therefore they left the catholic church if they wanted to.

      Delete
  14. You want to be charitable; but it's hard reading this and to not view Pope Francis as being tantamount to a child who is trying to test his father's established boundaries. Doing so not in a brazen and direct manner, but in a sly and mischievous manner. And, when that child is reminded, chastised by his siblings that he's pushed the limits to the point of breaking the rules, he finds a way to silence them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You did such such a great job with this that even the protestants agree with you!

    https://x.com/DrFrankTurek/status/1916466740113920390
    https://x.com/DrFrankTurek/status/1919911659537109170

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think the first duty of any pope is to lead the flock to salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Dr. Feser,
    Coincidentally, I read a recent story that the first sermon given by the new pope specifically addressed a heresy. Namely, what the author calls the American Heresy: that in modern, advertising drenched society many Christians are functionally atheists, venerate a false civic history and have taken exceptionalism and manifest destiny to the level of being sacred, to the point of claiming salvation comes through faith or tribal identity alone with no works needed. They also claimed there are many apocalyptic and puritanical threads that combine to make it a moral disaster. The USA's status as a cultural hegemon has spread the heresy far beyond our borders and, according to the author, has reached a degree it must be challenged.

    ReplyDelete