Is a Pope Beyond Criticism?

The history of opposing the Pope on non-infallible matters has a long history, from St Paul opposing St Peter 'to the face', through St Catherine of Siena, to the Filial Correction.

From Crisis

By Steve Ray

Since the Church claims that the pope has the special gift from Christ as the successor of St. Peter, we must ask what this infallibility consists of and if a pope is then beyond scrutiny and criticism?

The pope holds a unique position in all the world. No other existing religious or civic government has a leader of an office that has lasted for two thousand years like the Chair of St. Peter. No other religious leader represents over one billion people in a successive role founded by Jesus Christ Himself. What leader of such a longstanding organization with such massive global proportions and authority can rightfully claim to possess the charism of infallibility?

The successor of Peter uniquely fills a successive role founded by Jesus Christ Himself—to be the rock upon which the Church is built, to be the keeper of the kingdom’s keys (Matthew 16:17-19), to be the shepherd of God’s flock (John 21:15-17), and to be the visible source of unity and protector of the deposit of truth. The pope and the structure of the Church are ordained by God to maintain Christ’s visible presence and unity among the faithful.

Since the pope has the charism of infallibility, some feel that it is schismatic or heretical to question, challenge, or criticize the pope, even when he is not exercising that charism within the strictly defined conditions. Since the Church does claim that the pope has the special gift from Christ as the successor of St. Peter (CCC 891), we must ask what this infallibility consists of and if this pope, or any pope, is then beyond scrutiny and criticism?

Infallibility is a concept and power that must be defined. For example, it does not mean a pope is impeccable. Nor does it mean that everything he says or does is without error. He cannot predict baseball scores or next week’s weather. His charism of infallibility is carefully defined by the Church as to what it is and what it is not. 

According to the Catechism (citing Vatican I), 

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. (891) 

The conditions for infallibility are that 1) he acts freely as supreme pastor, speaking “ex cathedra,” or “from the chair”—not expressing his own personal opinion, 2) when he intends to specifically define a doctrine binding on the Universal Church and pertaining to the Church’s deposit of faith, and 3) when the definition pertains to and is in harmony with the Church’s constant tradition regarding faith and morals. This is a very high bar that has been invoked only rarely in Church history.

Of course, a pope may freely express his opinions and teach on any matter, but infallibility does not extend to areas extraneous to faith and morals—such as science, climate change, or immigration. When the pope teaches or speaks not “ex cathedra,” are the clergy and lay people able to analyze, scrutinize, and even criticize? The answer is yes—but, certainly, with all respect for the office and deference to the successor of Peter.
We read in Scripture that Paul, who was not the “keeper of the keys,” felt it necessary to publicly criticize Peter himself. Peter had taught the truth regarding circumcision and the full acceptance of uncircumcised gentiles into the Church. But Peter, though teaching the truth, was acting hypocritically, not living out the truth he had earlier proclaimed. St. Paul called him out: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11).

These are strong words indeed. St. Augustine, referring to this passage, says, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”

In like manner, Thomas Aquinas, referring to Galatians and the words of St. Augustine, wrote, “If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith.”

A classic example of a pope being criticized is found in Catherine of Siena, who severely reproved Pope Gregory XI and ultimately persuaded him to return the papacy from Avignon to Rome. Regarding St. Catherine’s bold admonishment, I have previously stated:

Can anyone imagine a fourteenth-century woman reproving the Pope, especially with such a severe tone? And imagine, she was not only canonized a saint, but she was declared a Doctor of the Church! So much for the Pope’s insulation from reproof and criticism. (Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church)

When Pope Benedict XVI published his three-volume Jesus of Nazareth in 2007, he said, right in the introduction of volume 1 (xxiii-xxiv), that people were free to criticize his work, since it was “in no way an exercise of the Magisterium.” 

On a plane interview on September 10, Pope Francis himself said, 

Regarding the case of the Pope [one may say]: “I don’t like this aspect of the Pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair…This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me.

Criticism of the pope should never arise out of a mere reaction to something he says or does. If possible, criticism should be informed by knowledge of the facts and from a position of respect—and communicated through proper ecclesiastical channels.

In the Catechism, we also read,

In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful. (907)

It seems clear that respect for the office and deference to its occupant is incumbent upon all the faithful; but blind obedience or obsequious submission is never required of believers. And though respectful criticism is within the purview of Catholics, especially of bishops and prelates of the Church, it should go without saying that denying the authority of the pope or his office, or causing or inciting divisions or schisms is strictly outside the bounds.

I have spoken more extensively on this issue. If you would like to hear more, you can watch my keynote address to the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre, Northwestern Lieutenancy: “How can a John Paul II Catholic Survive in a Pope Francis World.”