Abstract
The Catholic Church emphasizes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and possesses an infallible teaching authority. However, history shows that the Church has undergone significant shifts in positions on social ethics, pastoral applications, and historical judgments.[1], [2] This article first examines the fallibility of the Church in non-core doctrinal areas by citing instances that the Church itself has revised or substantially adjusted. It then analyzes changes in papal encyclicals across different eras. Finally, it stresses that papal infallibility must be exercised with a high degree of caution and transparency in order to maintain the Church’s credibility.
Introduction
The Catholic Church has long claimed that its magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit and possesses infallible characteristics. However, as a human and historical institution, the Church has indeed made significant adjustments to its teachings in non-core doctrinal matters and practical applications. These phenomena not only reflect human limitations but also give rise to theological discussions regarding the tension between “development of doctrine” and “fallibility.” This article aims to objectively review relevant historical cases and offer prudent suggestions on the use of papal infallibility.
I. The Church is Fallible: Admitted and Revised Examples
While the Catholic Church asserts that it is never wrong on the core of faith, it has repeatedly made major adjustments to its past teachings in the areas of social ethics, historical judgments, and pastoral practice. The Church officially often explains these changes as “development of doctrine,” viewing them as a deeper understanding of the same truth. However, some scholars argue that certain adjustments are substantial enough to constitute real corrections.
Key examples are as follows:
The Death Penalty Issue: For centuries, multiple popes and earlier editions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognized the death penalty as a legitimate punishment under certain conditions.[3] However, in 2018, Pope Francis revised paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, explicitly declaring the death penalty “inadmissible” from a moral standpoint.[4] This change is regarded as a significant development at the level of principle, rather than a mere adjustment in application.
Religious Freedom: In 1864, Pope Pius IX issued the Syllabus of Errors, which strongly condemned religious freedom, the separation of church and state, and other modern ideas.[5], [6] In contrast, the Second Vatican Council in 1965 promulgated the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), which affirmed religious freedom as a fundamental human right.[7] Although the Church interprets this as “development of doctrine,” a clear tension remains between the two positions.
Other Historical Cases: The early Church took a relatively tolerant attitude toward slavery; in the Middle Ages, it strictly prohibited usury, but in modern times it has accepted the system of reasonable interest in contemporary finance.[8], [9] These shifts demonstrate that Church teaching is inevitably influenced by the knowledge, social conditions, and cultural context of its time.
The above examples indicate that the Church does have room for adjustment and correction in the area of prudential judgment.
II. Changes and Historical Limitations in Encyclicals
Encyclicals are the primary means by which the Pope exercises his ordinary magisterium. Although they deserve religious respect, they are written in response to specific crises of their era and often use relatively absolute language, making them susceptible to historical limitations.
Shifts in Attitude Toward Socialism: Early social encyclicals, such as Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891), adopted a wholly negative stance toward socialism, regarding its advocacy for the abolition of private property as contrary to natural law.[10] Later encyclicals gradually accepted workers’ rights and certain ideas of social welfare. John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus (1991) acknowledged some positive aspects of the market economy, while Pope Francis’s encyclicals further emphasize that the economy must serve the poor and creation.[11], [12] These developments show that earlier positions were clearly limited by the anti-socialist historical context of the 19th century.
Absolute Tone and Subsequent Adjustments: Pius IX’s Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors condemned liberalism and religious freedom in strong language. However, after the Second Vatican Council, the Church largely accepted these values. Although these changes are explained as a deepening of doctrine, they still reflect that ordinary teaching is affected by its historical context.[6]
The challenge with encyclicals lies in their tendency to rarely specify their scope of application and historical conditions, which can easily lead the faithful to question the stability of Church teachings.
III. Papal Infallibility Must Be Exercised with Extreme Caution
Papal infallibility applies only to extremely rare “ex cathedra” pronouncements. To date, only two such declarations are universally recognized: the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption of Mary in 1950.[13], [14] Although this charism aims to protect core faith, its irreformable nature requires that it be used with extreme caution.
Potential Risks: Excessive or inappropriate use may lead to doctrinal rigidity or intensify divisions within the Church (such as the Old Catholic schism following Vatican I). The fact that contemporary popes rarely invoke ex cathedra reflects awareness of this risk.
Transparency and Accountability: It is advisable for the Church to clearly distinguish between eternal principles and time-bound applications when issuing important teachings. If certain teachings are time-conditioned, their scope and conditions should be appropriately indicated so as to reduce confusion caused by later adjustments.
Fundamental Recommendation: Papal infallibility should be strictly limited to truths concerning the core of salvation, and should not be used as a tool to resolve immediate crises or strengthen institutional control. Only when exercised with caution, transparency, and humility can its true theological value be manifested.
Conclusion
The adjustability of the Church in the areas of application and social ethics has been repeatedly proven by history. The real challenge lies not in acknowledging that doctrine can develop, but in whether the Church is willing to exercise sufficient humility by clearly distinguishing between eternal core truths and time-conditioned prudential judgments.
For a long time, the Church has frequently presented teachings that are historically conditioned with absolute and eternal language. This practice not only creates confusion for later generations but also reflects a certain institutional lack of humility. When developments that could be understood as “a deeper penetration of the same truth” are instead presented as eternally correct and unchangeable from the very beginning, the Church misses the opportunity to demonstrate genuine honesty and transparency before the faithful.
Papal infallibility, as a rare and strictly limited charism, should serve the core of faith. However, when ordinary magisterium repeatedly employs near-absolute language, it risks blurring the boundary between the stability of truth and the dynamism of history. Only when the Church is willing to more humbly acknowledge the human and historical dimensions of its teachings, and to face the faithful with greater transparency, can it regain its moral authority and credibility in contemporary society.
True fidelity does not consist in insisting that every past formulation is eternally flawless, but in courageously renewing and deepening itself under the guidance of truth.
References
[1]: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2018). Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism. Vatican Press.
[2]: O’Connell, G. (2018). Pope Francis changes Catechism on death penalty. America Magazine.
[3]: Catholic Church. (1992). Catechism of the Catholic Church (original edition), No. 2267.
[4]: Francis. (2018). New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism. Vatican Press.
[5]: Pius IX. (1864). Quanta Cura.
[6]: Pius IX. (1864). Syllabus of Errors.
[7]: Vatican II. (1965). Dignitatis Humanae.
[8]: Noonan, J. T. (2005). A Church That Can and Cannot Change. University of Notre Dame Press.
[9]: Maxwell, J. F. (1975). Slavery and the Catholic Church.
[10]: Leo XIII. (1891). Rerum Novarum.
[11]: John Paul II. (1991). Centesimus Annus.
[12]: Francis. (2015). Laudato Si’; (2020). Fratelli Tutti.
[13]: Pius IX. (1854). Ineffabilis Deus.
[14]: Pius XII. (1950). Munificentissimus Deus.