Are the Catholic Church Teachings Infallible? A Conversation

Disclaimer: This post is not intended to hurt anyone’s belief or faith. You might lose your cool halfway through your reading process. You might be confused by the time you reach the middle and might forget the beginning as you get to the end. Yet, if you feel like you are ready to see how a conversation ‘should not’ happen, read on.

It was the 18th of April 2020. It was a bright sunny day and as always it was a late start to my day. As the day passed, rather monotonously, I was scrolling through my WhatsApp and saw a statement posed by a Catholic YouTube vlogger. It said, “Do you know why the Bible and the Church Teaching Insist that Father is the spiritual head of the family? According to statistics,
When a Child is the first one to come to faith, their family comes to faith 8% of the time
When the mother is the first one to come to faith, her family comes to faith 17% of the time
When the Father is the first one to come to faith, his family comes to faith 95% of the time”[1]

I could not hold my horses and I dared to respond. As you read further, you will know why I used the word “dared”. I was expecting a healthy discussion from this person while I was typing my response. My response to this statistical data was, initially, my personal experience. I grew up in a family where women took up the role of spiritual leaders. I have seen my mother and my aunts instilling faith and catholic practices in their respective houses rather than the fathers. In households that I am familiar with, it is usually the mothers who take initiative to teach catechism, ensure that the children regularly go for mass, and make sure they abide by and live in Catholic faith. Hence, the idea of Father being the spiritual head of the family seemed displaced for me.

My second argument to the statement was the importance of women in the Holy Bible. For example, Mary of Magdalene was a devout follower for Jesus. According to the Bible, she travelled with him, witnessed his Crucifixion and was one of the first people to learn of his Resurrection.[2] All the apostles who were with Jesus during his lifetime and after, are given importance till date in the Catholic Church. What about Mary of Magdalene? I do agree that Catholic Church respects and venerates Mother Mary. What about Mary of Magdalene or any other women? My response to this person also had a mention of the apocryphal book called as ‘Gospel of Mary’ found in 1896 that could be supposedly put together by Mary of Magdalene or Mother Mary. But the books in the Bible are Vatican “approved”. My point was that for something to be approved, something has to be disapproved as well. Do we know what has been disapproved? Another line of argument was the cultural and social overtures two thousand years back. The role of women in Jewish society was very limited. Women in Ancient Rome did not have equal rights as men. I mentioned Ancient Rome because Israel was part of the Roman Empire. If Mary of Magdalene did play an instrumental role in Jesus’ life, it would have been undermined by societal norms and possibly patriarchy.

My last point was that even though mothers play a major role in the spiritual upbringing of the family, they themselves would not agree to that. They do all the work and give credit to the fathers. I am not against this either. Women find content in doing so and they do it. This as well, to me, is socially based.

After making all these points, I concluded that I feel Catholic church is patriarchal in nature. Points to be noted- I did mention ‘I feel’, I did not say it is good or bad and I stated my opinion based on views, experiences, and historical context.

What is interesting is from now on!
The response I got to this were questions and a statement saying that there are many factual errors in what I said. The questions asked were:
Is the Church Patriarchal? and my definition of Patriarchy. What is the issue with father being the spiritual leader? St Paul has said that the Man is the head of the family and if I am against that as well? and, Mary of Magdalene is canonised as a saint by the Catholic church. Now, this gave the hint that this conversation is not going to end well.

I had answers to these questions. But from these questions, I could not find ‘many’ factual errors.

My answer to the definition of the word Patriarchy was to refer the dictionary because I go by that. I mentioned that I did not have any issue with father being the spiritual leader. I added to this saying that mother can be spiritual leader too. The third statement, of my opposition to St Paul’s idea of the father being the head of the Family (Ephesians 5: 22-29) my argument was that the Holy Bible has gone through ages of translation. We stick to the English version of what each of us have in our hands. Any translation is never perfect. A text could have a near perfect translation and not a perfect translation. St Paul’s idea of an ideal family was for a society that existed over two thousand years ago. Would it fit into the modern world? (And, the discussion is about God and Church insisting on father being the ‘spiritual head’ and not ‘head’ of the family). Finally, Mary of Magdalene was canonised as saint in 1969. For over 1700 years, the Catholic Church had been promoting her as a prostitute. For all those years, Mary of Magdalene was a prostitute in the eyes of the Vatican and the Catholic Community.

“Mary Magdalene’s image became distorted when early church leaders bundled into her story those of several less distinguished women whom the Bible did not name or referred to without a last name. One is the “sinner” in Luke who bathes Jesus’ feet with her tears, dries them with her hair, kisses them and anoints them with ointment. “Her many sins have been forgiven, for she loved much,” he says. Others include Luke’s Mary of Bethany and a third, unnamed woman, both of whom anointed Jesus in one form or another. The mix-up was made official by Pope Gregory the Great in 591: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark,” Gregory declared in a sermon.”[3]

At this point, the discussion was getting furious. I was snowballed with a volley of question. Some of them being:
Why do I keep saying that church teaching change as though it changes every century? Mother Mary is venerated by the catholic church and why would church do that if church is patriarchal?

I got strong statements as responses as well. These were:
Man is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the church- This is catholic teaching! It is okay to call yourself as spiritual leader in your family, but if men call themselves as one, you call it patriarchal? And the strongest of all statements, quoting from the person, “You are not holding to any standard! We need a base to have these conversations. For me it’s the Catholic Church – what’s yours?”
At this point, I was astounded as to how it is twisted. I was trying to make healthy arguments based on my readings and I felt as though I was being put forth as blaspheming!

I continued to go by historical and factual evidences and the next thing I was confronted with was I should name at least one teaching that has changed. I sent across the link to a list of things.[4] I agree that the list I had sent across was not a good argument. It was merely a list of things that the Church had a different point of view and later changed their stand on it. The strands of connection between these views and teachings are thin, notwithstanding, that there are strands.

To this link that was sent across, the response was that these teachings are neither dogmatic nor doctrinal and I agreed to this. The question was raised again asking if I agree that I was wrong when I said church teachings change and I could not fully agree. The church teachings are essentially conclusions that are derived after many discussions and debates through many ecumenical councils, the first one being the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD. The declarations of the councils are infallible, and I agree with that. But the ideas that existed before and after every council could be subject to change.

To this argument of mine, the response was that there are no church teachings that have been dogmatically declared that has changed in the last 2000 years and will never change and that is why the church is called Infallible. I wanted to confirm whether our discussion has jumped from the infallibility of the church teachings to the infallibility of the church itself and I raised this question to confirm it. Yet again, to no surprise, the response was another question asking what I meant when I said that the Church teachings can change. Again, as clear as I could, I explained saying that the church teachings are dogmatically ‘declared’, which means that there could have been opposing views and a conclusion was agreed upon. The infallibility part comes after it is ‘declared’. Since this person was specific on selective reading and raising questions on the few words out of the long responses I gave, the discussion was not reaching anywhere.

If you as the reader is tired enough by now, imagine my situation!!!

We continued. I was bombarded with yet another new set of questions at this point. Firstly, I was asked what the whole thing that I just said even mean. Secondly, I was ‘enlightened’ about the fact that it is not like the church held an opposing view and the ecumenical council changed it (I was not even sure if this person even knew what the church is and what the ecumenical council is). He gave an example saying that it is not like the church had a question about if Mother Mary was a virgin and then the council sat down to discuss and declared that she was! After I read this example, I was almost certain that this person is clueless about what the ecumenical council deals with. The final statement was that we cannot pick and choose church teaching! Man is the head of the family whether we like it or not and Head means to serve. I was tempted to ask if women do not serve at all. I just did not ask. The last question was that there are more woman saints from India than men and how can I still call the church patriarchal? As far as I know, many Catholics, including priests agree that Church has a patriarchal nature to it and there is nothing wrong with it. I find it amusing to know that this particular person is offended by it. I must have hurt the ego; I do not know.

I was ready, despite the fruitless conversation, to give yet another long explanation. I went ahead typing… “I can give you a proper example of an issue discussed during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The first council resulted in the first uniform council, and one such doctrine was called as the Nicene creed. So, we can logically and safely conclude that there were several doctrines before the first uniform doctrine. One of the purposes of the council was to debate the nature of the Son in relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son has been begotten by the Father from his own being, and therefore have no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning. The council decided to take up the first position. Another purpose of the council was to decide on the date of Easter…”  I went ahead giving answers to everything asked. I also asked about when did we start discussing about the relationship between Patriarchy and Canonization?

Yet again, I was asked questions. I was asked what my point was, and if I am standing on two boats saying that the Church is infallible as well as that the church changes! I thought I was clearly saying “Church teachings” and not church itself. I responded saying that I thought my stand was quite clear from what I have written, and I have given evidences as well. Following this, it was statements and not questions, finally. I was suggested that as Catholics, it should not be my stand v/s your stand. The stand of the church should be our stand. It was clear that this person was comprehending things wrong from the act of just picking the word ‘stand’ and going by it. I thought I should explain myself further and I made it clear that I do not find any mistake in questioning what I feel is not right. Church makes mistakes. The infallibility of the dogmas and doctrines are also decided by the groups of humans, be it priests or bishops (the intervention of the Holy Spirit is a whole another area) and is ‘approved’ by the Pope. There is approval so that there is a clarity. I also mentioned that my faith is based on the understanding that there is God that is above the Holy Church and that I accept Church with all the flaws because it is run by humans, essentially.

To this response of mine, the one question I received was, “So why stand by a flawed church?” I was also enlightened that no dogma or doctrine is decided by humans, the Church formulates doctrine, does not invent! I took my time and quoted the definition of ecumenical council from the catholic encyclopaedia. I pointed out that I never used the word ‘invent’ and that there is a difference between ‘invent’ and ‘discuss and debate’. I suggested this person to read through what I have written, clearly, rather than focussing on words per say. I quoted this person and asked a clarity on what was meant when this was said, ‘No Doctrine or Dogma is decided by humans! The Church formulates it!”. I wanted to know who or what constitutes the Catholic Church, according to this person. Just curious. I also pointed out that just because the Catholic teachings are considered infallible does not mean that a Catholic (or anyone) should not think, contemplate, discuss, or debate about that. Doing so does not mean that one is going against the teachings of the church or is going against the doctrine or dogma. I also reminded this person that there is a difference between heresy and discussion.

And here we go again with another list of questions:
The first question was if I think that the church teachings on areas or morals and faith infallible and beyond debate? The second question was about which dogma or doctrine is flawed according to me? The third question was if I think The Ecumenical councils are making up doctrines based on discussions and debate? There was also a clause included which said that if I say no to the first question, there is no point in reciting the creed (a catholic prayer) during holy mass.

Though I was extremely worn-out by the unproductive conversation by now, I continued to give answers. To the first question, I recommended that this person go back to all my responses so far, read clearly and try to understand my stand. To the second question, I reminded that I have, nowhere mentioned that a doctrine or dogma is flawed and that all I have said so far is that dogmas and doctrines are subjected to debates and discussions. I respectfully encouraged this person not to twist my words. To the last question, all I had to say was that this question would not have been raised if this person read and understood the definition of ecumenical council.

The response had questions, yet again. This person asked me if I am, now, of the stand that Church is not flawed and hence what is the issue with father being the head of the family because that is what the church teaches! All I could suggest was to go read my answers again and I suggested to get back to me if my explained responses are not clear enough. I wonder if my suggestion was considered at all. Within two minutes, I got the response asking if I can concise all that I am saying in one line and I was also let known that I was inferring something and I immediately changed it as soon as a question was asked. To all the time and patience that I invested into this ‘discussion’, this is what I should hear! Without any delay, and not losing my patience, I dared to continue. I let the person know that it was not easy to give a one sentence answer on topics like these and that is the reason why I gave detailed explanations. To the statement that said that I had been inferring, I responded saying that I was not inferring, I was clear. I was also trying to give answers to all the questions asked irrespective of the person picking and choosing words and not trying to understand the rest of what had been written.

And here we are, in the most interesting part.
To all that I explained, I was asked to respond YES or NO to the statement, “Is Church Infallible or not”. I was insisted on giving a one-word answer, not to dodge it and I was let known that there is no requirement for a long answer. My response was yet again, to read whatever I said so far. I suggested that if an answer were always binary in nature, the church would not have had several ecumenical councils. I also stated that I have not dodged any of the questions so far notwithstanding the fact that all I had been receiving were questions and no answers whatsoever.

The response to this has to be quoted and here it goes, “Wow, you can’t say whether the church is infallible or not? Do you realise that’s what we say in the creed? I believe in the one, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church? Anyways let’s end this conversation here! As I told if the church is not the base, we can’t have a conversation about anything.”

I was more than happy to end the conversation. I did say that we could agree to disagree. As a closing statement, I mentioned that the creed was adopted by the first council of Nicaea in 325 AD and has undergone several revisions over the years. I also stated that I have read the different versions of the Creed, how it has evolved over the years. As a closing statement I added, “In all faith, I still recite the Creed saying I believe in One, Holy, Catholic ad Apostolic Church” and a happy smiley face. I had my assumptions that this is not going to be the last piece of conversation and here we go again. I was asked what were the revisions, did anything change, and which version of the creed do I recite? This is not the highlight. There was an assumption that stated, “Seems like you don’t believe in the church! That’s the impression I am getting.” As a reader, I do not know what you think. For me, I do not feel that it is a right gesture to assume the depth of one’s faith based on a discussion.

I did not lose my cool. I responded politely saying that there are way too many revisions and I do not see the point in typing all that down when there are enough and more resources online. About the ‘impression’ regarding my faith, all I had to say was that in what I believe in, I stand by it with conviction. I added that I am not interested in taking this conversation further because of the lack of information from the other end and the plethora of questions as a response and nothing else. I also remarked that questioning only gives better clarity and that, by no means, makes me a lesser catholic.

I did get another message. It said that a discussion cannot happen unless both the parties agree on the same foundation. This person mentioned that this is the reason why I was asked if the church is infallible and it seems that I kept dodging it without giving a simple yes or no answer. There was also a mention that this person is up for questioning and discussion. There was an FYI for me as well that there are only two creeds according to this person’s knowledge and an array of questions, “What do you mean by different version? Do those diff versions say diff things? I don’t understand what you are saying at all? Creed is what unites us as Catholics-So we can’t have diff versions of belief”. Quoting one last interesting piece from this person, “And ya by the way thank you being civil even though you could have avoided personal comments which does not help! Cool.”

And here goes the last bit of the conversation.
I said, “Again, I had not been dodging any questions. Not every answer in life is yes and no. Yet again, I am clear on what I had been talking until now. You cannot merely claim that my base is not Catholic Church just because I did not give you a yes or no answer. Answers come in many forms! But if you insist on saying that I am dodging, please feel free to stick with it. No issues whatsoever. ‘Of course, I am all for questioning and discussion’. These are your words. From the beginning I am the one answering and you are the one questioning. That, in my understanding, is not a discussion and that’s the reason why I am not interested to go forth with this.

I did not understand what you meant by personal comments. In the whole conversation, at no point have I questioned or doubted or assumed the base of your faith unlike what you did. That’s still okay because that’s how you preferred. I was polite, respectful and impersonal despite my faith and the relationship with the Catholic Church being put into question which is very personal.”

As the last bit, I did say “God bless and take care”.

Alas, I was so relived as it was finally over. There were no more messages though I expected another counter response. I took a deep breath, sat back and thought about why I even bothered to have this conversation at all. Though, for a fraction of a second, I blamed myself for putting the friendship I had with this person at stake just to get my point clear, it did not take me long to feel that there is nothing wrong with what I did (or I feel so). Being born and raised a Catholic, I used to ask a lot of questions regarding Catholic teachings, faith and practices. My mother was the one who took initiative in guiding me to people who knew the answers. This list included priests, deacons, nuns, Catechism teachers and theology professors. I was never counter questioned. These wonderful people took their time explaining, teaching and referring me to books that helped me immensely. If I was shooed away as a teenager because I asked questions, , I would have been one of the many people who left the Catholic church because they were told to mug up prayers and not to raise any questions even if in doubt. Blind faith is great. But questioning only makes one a better Catholic, not a lesser Catholic.

If you had the patience to read through this and have reached this point thinking what is the discussion really about, it is simple. The point of discussion was about the reason why God and the Catholic Church insist on father being the spiritual head of the family. I felt interested in having a healthy discussion and suggested that mothers could be spiritual leaders too. If you wonder or ask me how the conversation ended up at the point of questioning the infallibility of the Catholic Church, I have no idea.

Let what happened under the umbrella term ‘healthy discussion’ remain history and hence I documented it for future.

I really appreciate your patience if you managed to get here.

Peace be with you!

---

[1] The data was taking from the following website. I have not been able to verify its authenticity as it had no further references, but just the data. http://www.wacmm.org/Stats.html

[2]https://www.history.com/news/mary-magdalene-jesus-wife-prostitute-saint Accessed 19 Apr 2020

[3]Mary Magdelene: Saint or Sinner <http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,472868-2,00.html>Accessed 19 April 2020

[4] This is the link I had sent across : https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/11/01/the-list-the-catholic-churchs-biggest-reversals/