A Question of Infallibility

The doctrine of infallibility--which holds that the Pope cannot be in error when he speaks ex cathedra ("from the throne") on matters of faith or morals --is both a cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church and an obnoxious obstacle to other Christians. That, and the question of papal authority in general, has been so non-negotiable for both Catholics and non-Catholics that until recently even serious discussion of the problem was ruled out by ecumenical etiquette. Now the papacy and its powers are being studied in official talks between Catholic and Lutheran theologians in the U.S. Within Catholicism itself, liberal theologians are subjecting the doctrine of infallibility to new and searching scrutiny.

One of the most daring scrutinizers is Father Hans Ku"ng, 43, a Swiss-born professor of theology at Tubingen University in West Germany. An acid-penned theological nonconformist, Ku"ng does more than re-examine the doctrine; he is the first important Catholic theologian to come right out and deny it. The Vatican is understandably unhappy, and for two months the sounds of its displeasure have thundered around Ku"ng's head; he has been under attack from the hierarchies of Germany, Italy and France. This week, with the American publication of his blunt book Infallible? An Inquiry (Doubleday; 262 pages; $5.95), English-speaking audiences will get a chance to see what the fuss is all about.

Ku"ng says that he is speaking out not only to keep ecumenism alive but because, since Vatican Council II, Rome has severely damaged "the unity and credibility of the Catholic Church." The system of Pope plus Curia, he charges "is still characterized by a spiritual absolutism, formalistic and frequently inhuman juridicism, and a traditionalism spelling death to genuine renewal that are really shocking to modern man." The charges seem a logical enough extension of Ku"ng's increasingly liberal theology. He has already argued for a lay and clerical role in the selection of bishops and has also suggested that procedures be adopted for deposing an incompetent Pope. His past positions have questioned papal traditions, but this time, however, he is challenging a fundamental claim of the papacy.

Ku"ng argues from both history and philosophy. He recites a syllabus of papal errors, from the famous fallibilities of St. Peter to the "high-handed" decrees of Pope Paul. The whole idea of papal authority, Ku"ng says, was ambiguous as late as Augustine and not absolute until Aquinas, who leaned unwittingly on forged quotations from Cyril's Book of Treasures and other false texts. Belief in infallibility evolved later, and has been defined dogma only since Vatican Council I a century ago (see box). Drawing on Catholic historians, Ku"ng claims that infallibility as propounded by Vatican I had less to do with the church's desire to preserve doctrine than Pius IX's desire to increase his authority at a time when he was blatantly lobbying to maintain a weakening grip on the Papal States.

Only God. For all the debate and bad feeling that papal infallibility has caused--several bishops at Vatican I walked out rather than approve it--it has been used formally only once since then, in the 1950 pronouncement that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven after her life on earth. In Ku"ng's view, reform-minded Vatican Council II actually made things worse. It not only reiterated Vatican I's teaching, but went on to extend infallibility to the entire hierarchy. That affirmation was drawn from the direct, exclusive succession of Catholic bishops in an unbroken line from the apostles--a doctrine that Ku"ng thinks has "feet of clay" because of its weak biblical and historical basis. The most dangerous consequence of infallibility, in Ku"ng's opinion, is the way it colors the "ordinary" teaching office of the church. Pope Paul VI's birth control encyclical of 1968, for example, though not made as an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement, is nonetheless considered certain and binding. Ku"ng believes that Paul actually wanted to issue a liberal decree but felt that he could not admit that there had been so major a longstanding error in church teaching.

Ku"ng's reading of church history serves only as preparation for his much more fundamental philosophical attack. He doubts if any infallible statements are possible, whether from Popes, councils or even the Bible. At this point the argument strikes home, not only for Rome but for traditionalists in all branches of Christendom. Only God is infallible, Ku"ng says; propositions of faith are not God's word but at best the divine message translated by man's words--often inadequate, open to misunderstanding and changeable in different languages or contexts. Because there are half-truths and errors containing elements of truth, Ku"ng believes, Christians must allow for errors in their creeds.

Does the introduction of doubt unglue Christianity? Unlike many of his critics, Ku"ng does not believe so. For the individual, he says, belief is not the acceptance of infallible propositions but a commitment to Jesus Christ and his message. For the church as an institution, says Ku"ng, the concept of service should be stressed rather than one of authority. In doctrine, he would replace the word infallibility with the less limiting but also traditional concept of "indefectibility"--a quality of permanence in the truth that is undisturbed, in Ku"ng's view, by individual errors.

Tepid Reproach. Ku"ng's challenge could hardly be ignored. The Vatican's doctrinal congregation sent reactions of its member cardinals off to the German bishops, who questioned Kung, then issued a tepid public reproach several weeks ago. Ku"ng boasted that they had skirted condemnation, leaving the way open to further debate. In Italy, Pope Paul's most intimate theological adviser, Bishop Carlo Colombo of Milan, helped write a statement for the Italian hierarchy declaring that it is impossible to support or spread Ku"ng's views "without separating oneself from the full communion of the church." More startlingly, Ku"ng's old friend and mentor, Jesuit Theologian Karl Rahner, doubted that a theologian with such opinions could still be considered a Catholic.

The Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica, often a channel for Vatican views, carried a dignified putdown arguing that the church remains "indefectible" only if it can affirm truth infallibly. A footnote pointedly said that when Britain's Charles Davis had problems of conscience, he quit the church. But Kung vows to stay and fight.

Under liberalized rules on doctrinal deviation (TIME, Feb. 15), the Vatican is counting on firm nation-by-nation repudiation of Ku"ng's ideas by bishops rather than a showdown in Rome. It hopes the discussion will be confined to theologians rather than becoming widespread a la birth control. But wide publication of the book--plus free publicity from church criticism--is bound to stir up other eddies of theological doubt in the Catholic world.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.