What is Truth?

The Tragicomedy of Mike Lewis' theology of the Magisterium

Christ before Pilate by Mihály Munkácsy from the Déri Museum, Debrecen (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

What is truth? Perhaps the most damning indictment of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels is that, with Truth Himself standing before Him, he is blind to the truth. In Andrew Lloyd Webber’s creative adaptation of the passion narrative, Jesus Christ Superstar, Pilate adds to the question ‘What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? // We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?’ This line flashed through my head as I considered a recent article by Mike Lewis at ‘Where Peter Is’ entitled ‘False Orthodoxy and Fired Professors’¹ which he followed up with a flurry of tweets on X.

I usually avoid commenting on or engaging with Mike Lewis or his blog ‘Where Peter Is’ because, in general, the articles it features (especially those written by Lewis) are poorly written and overly ideological. In my opinion, the entire site is best avoided. However, something in this recent article and its accompanying tweets piqued my interest. The article begins by narrating the summary dismissal of three eminent professors from the Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, seemingly on ideological grounds. Lewis was quick to praise their dismissal, and (on X) to repeatedly double down on his description of all three as ‘heterodox’ ‘dissenters’ from the magisterium. This is partisan journalism and frankly not worth a response - there may or may not have been good reasons for dismissing three eminent professors in one weekend from a seminary weeks before the term began - I don’t know and can’t judge the individual circumstances. But in defending his position, Lewis shared a post on ‘Catholic Orthodoxy’ so egregiously wrong and so misleading as to the nature of the Church’s teaching office that it merits a thorough response:

Reading Lewis’ tweet led me to the longer article, which reiterates points he has made before in relation to other. Specifically, in 2023, in a Substack article in which he accused Cardinal Burke of heresy in regard to his approach to the magisterium.²

This response is, necessarily, long; it deals briefly with Lewis’ credibility as an interlocutor on these issues (specifically his theological credentials compared to those he criticises) before making a fuller response to his warped approach to the Magisterium and its relationship to Sacred Scripture, offering a summary of the Church’s own thought on this subject as a corrective.

To spare those who (like me) have a short attention span, the one-line summary of my argument is this: the Magisterium is the servant of a perennial truth given to the Church by Christ which we call the ‘Deposit of the Faith’ - it can explain, teach, and interpret the truth, but it cannot contradict the contents of that deposit. To Lewis’ argument I say Sed Contra: ‘This teaching office (Magisterium) 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’³ For those with time, and a long attention span, I commend the following article as my full and considered response.

1. The credibility of the interlocutor

Before we deal with the substance of his argument, one thing must be said about Lewis himself by way of clarification: he is utterly unqualified to be making these kinds of statements. Curiosity led me to his LinkedIn profile – he holds a BA in English Language and Literature from the University of Maryland, and a Masters in Publications Design from the University of Baltimore. He has no formal qualifications nor any evidence of advanced study in philosophy, theology, or Canon Law. Prior to becoming “managing editor” of a blog, he was a graphic designer.

Somehow, he feels qualified to sit in judgement over men and women who are significantly more qualified than he is and to charge them with heresy, schism, heterodoxy, etc. like some modern-day Spanish Inquisitor. However, as this would-be Torquemada lacks the machinery of the Inquisition to actually punish those he has judged, he resorts to sniping from his corner of the internet and gleefully gloating when those he has designated infidels are punished.⁴

It is worth noting at this juncture the qualifications of some of the eminent men he has accused of heterodoxy⁵: all hold Doctorates in theology, philosophy, or Canon Law, and licentiates in the same from Pontifical faculties, one is a Bishop and the others longstanding teachers in a Seminary (i.e. they have had a canonical mission from the Church). Whilst it is possible that even the most eminent scholars or bishops might stumble into error, even heresy, from time to time,⁶ nobody would entrust an unqualified lay commentator with nothing but an English degree to judge them: it is always entrusted to bona fide theologians with a canonical mission from the Church.

When someone without even an STB throws around accusations of heresy like confetti at a wedding, feel free to ignore them until a real theologian corroborates their interpretation and backs it up with substantial theological analysis of their arguments. Lewis is not qualified to be making these accusations, and the best thing he could do for the unity and health of the Church would be to either shut up entirely (preferable) or limit himself to ecclesial journalism and report only the facts without theological ‘spin.’

2. A faulty understanding of the Magisterium

Lewis rarely articulates himself clearly on how he understands the term Magisterium but often resorts to the duty of obedience to the magisterium in defending his attacks on Catholic scholars and hierarchs. He correctly highlights the religious submission of intellect and will which is owed to the ‘authentic magisterium’ of the Roman Pontiff, according to inter alia the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, which further orders that such reverence ‘must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.’⁷ Lewis adds a gloss to this paragraph ‘this leaves no room for devising creative interpretations that are more palatable.’ In Lewis’ understanding, the theologian owes submission to authentic Papal ‘Magisterium’ and any attempt to deny or to creatively reinterpret that ‘magisterium’ in such a way that it contradicts the ‘manifest mind and will’ of the Pontiff amounts to a heterodox dissent . If Lewis had a clear grasp on the nature of the Magisterium, specifically on what constituted ‘authentic magisterium,’ or the necessary and useful dialogue between the Church and theologians, this might be unproblematic. Regrettably, he makes two serious errors in this respect.

The first error is one of mis-ordering, which sets the Magisterium above Divine Revelation and the deposit of the Faith. What results is a positivistic ultramontanism in which the rule of faith is determined not by the unchanging revelation of Jesus Christ who is ‘the same yesterday and today and forever’⁸ but an ever-changing rule based on the will of the reigning Pontiff. This is clear from his characterisation of supposedly ‘dissenting’ theologians;

From their perspective, fidelity to the Catholic Church has more to do with holding to a list of doctrinal precepts deemed “traditional” and absolutely unchanging. It is static and rigid. Such Catholics have no capacity to accept correction from legitimate authority, because everything is already settled. Even the pope or a bishop or a synod or an ecumenical council is a threat to this worldview because such a thing can only disrupt the careful and unchanging order that they believe must be protected to save the Church.

This error is particularly egregious, because it inverts the relationship between the Magisterium and the truth – making it the master rather than the servant of divine revelation. In this view, the Magisterium constitutes the truth, a step far beyond its authentic role as teacher, interpreter, and guard of the truth given to the Church by Christ.

Lewis’ second error is a lack of clarity over the word ‘Magisterium’ itself – which he equates simply to ‘teaching.’ Thus, what Pope Francis taught, in whatever way he taught it, is to Lewis Magisterial by definition; ‘all the teachings by Pope Francis on faith and morals are, by definition, part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.’ Again, this is unproblematic at face value, the notion of ordinary magisterium is broader than solemn declarations. However, he takes an oversimplistic approach to magisterial teaching on matters of faith and morals – failing to recognise the internal hierarchy of such teachings, and their relationship to one another. This error follows immediately from his first, because it seems that his understanding of the hierarchy of magisterial teachings is based on the current occupant of the Chair of Peter: the more recent a Pope’s teachings the more authoritative they are.

Having never benefitted from a formal theological education, he does not approach the ‘Magisterium’ with the mind of a theologian but with the mind of a lawyer reading a new piece of legislation or a new court judgment which has the power to supersede what went before. In law and secular politics, where laws or judgments are diametrically opposed the newer law wins and the older is quashed. The pronouncements of the Church, and its ministers, do not work in the same way. There is a proper hierarchy of authority within and between these pronouncements such that the ‘authentic magisterium’ cannot be simplified unduly to ‘all teachings of the most recent Pontiff.’

It would be wrong of me to call Lewis a partisan hack who approaches the teachings of the Church in this manner in order to benefit a particular ‘side’ of ecclesial politics. I have no evidence of such malicious intent; he could very well believe his own mistaken theology. He is, however, being irresponsible in his writing which misrepresents the Church’s authentic ecclesiology. It is prime evidence of the proposition that non-theologians should not attempt to argue beyond their level of education or competence. Regardless, now they are out in the public domain, erroneous beliefs like these need to be systematically corrected.

3. An authentic understanding of the Magisterium

From the outset, it should be noted that ‘Magisterium’ is an equivocal term used in three senses. The first sense in which Magisterium is used refers to the ‘teaching office’ of the Church – the munus docendi (ministry of teaching) which is entrusted to the Church’s Pastors by Christ and in which office they benefit from the assistance of the Holy Spirit. In this first sense it refers to a gift of God given to the Church’s Pastors. The second sense in which we use the term Magisterium refers to the Pastors themselves exercising the munus docendi – so it is common to speak of ‘the Magisterium’ teaching on a particular point as a shorthand for the teachings of those to whom the office of teaching is entrusted. The third and final sense in which we use the term Magisterium refers to the teachings themselves which flow from this gift – the Magister (teacher) entrusted with Magistracy (the office of teaching) issues Magisterium (teachings). Another word which we could substitute for Magisterium in this third sense would be doctrine – or definitive teachings.

If we are to understand what authentic magisterium (or authentic doctrine) means, we need the context of the munus docendi because these are teachings which flow from human participation in a particular gift from God to and for the Church, not from the minds of men alone. Thus, it is necessary to first understand the gift, and the ones to whom it is entrusted, before we can understand the fruits of that gift.

3.1 The Munus Docendi – the ministry of teaching

In chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, the fathers of Vatican II set out to explain the episcopate (the office of Bishop) as successors to the college of Apostles who ‘govern the house of the living God.’⁹ The entire office of the Episcopate is summarised in a divine mission to teach the Gospel ‘you shall be witnesses for me… even to the very ends of the earth.’¹⁰ It is in this context that the fathers introduce the munus docendi¹¹ as the domain of the Bishops under two criteria.

The first criterion is that the munus docendi is not exercised in isolation but in Communion with one another through the Roman Pontiff (the Pope) who is head of the College of Bishops just as Peter is head of the College of Apostles.¹² The Council also reaffirms that the Roman Pontiff is the sine qua non of the Episcopal College, with the freedom to exercise the plenitude of the munus docendi either on his own or acting collegially with the other Bishops. Because he is the rock upon which the Church is built, the keeper of the keys, and the universal shepherd of the Church, it is through him, and never without him, that the college of Bishops teaches. He may also speak definitively for the entire college.¹³

The second criterion is that the munus docendi is bound to the Faith,

they are authentic teachers, [doctores authentici] that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice.¹⁴

This gift is not a gift of universal competence to teach on any subject, but a particular gift to teach the disciples of Christ what they are to believe (faith) and how they are to live what they believe (morals). The Bishops receive the assistance of the Holy Spirit in this ministry to ‘bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.’¹⁵ This same language is used in Donum Veritatis;

‘[the Magisterium] must protect God's People from the danger of deviations and confusion, guaranteeing them the objective possibility of professing the authentic faith free from error, at all times and in diverse situations.’ ¹⁶

Lumen Gentium, in describing the office of teaching in this twofold sense of making the Faith (which is believed and lived) bear fruit and of guarding it from error thus implies an objective rule of Faith to which the doctrina of the munus docendi is bound.

This implication is made explicit in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, which links the office of teaching to the rule of divine revelation;

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers, so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.¹⁷

The ‘Sacred Deposit of the word of God’ or ‘deposit of the Faith’¹⁸ is the ‘treasure house’ from which the Magisterium draws its teachings.

Within this second criterion there is an important point which must be noted; the Bishops receive the assistentia of the Holy Spirit but not divine inspiration – they are stewards of the Faith contained in revelation and handed on from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to the Church. Their ministry is bound to the deposit of the Faith such that they cannot be said to reveal the truth but instead hand on the truth which has already been revealed. Thus Dei Verbum speaks of the Magisterium as a servant

This teaching office (Magisterium) 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.¹⁹

Upon which Donum Veritatis expands;

the sense and the weight of the Magisterium's authority are only intelligible in relation to the truth of Christian doctrine and the preaching of the true Word. The function of the Magisterium is not, then, something extrinsic to Christian truth nor is it set above the faith. It arises directly from the economy of the faith itself…²⁰

Lumen Gentium likewise reiterates the role of the Magisterium as teacher of revelation and not as ‘revelator’ of a new truth;

The Roman Pontiff and the bishops… diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.²¹

Thus, when we speak of ‘authentic magisterium’ we are not merely speaking of the ‘authentic teacher teaching’ but the ‘authentic teacher teaching that which is within the realm of his competence and within the ambit of his authority.’ Authentic Magisterium can thus be defined as follows; an authoritative teaching of the Pope or the College of Bishops in Communion with Him on the Faith to be believed or on right morals derived from that Faith, with reference to the Faith as it has been revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, in order that the Faith might grow and bear fruit or that error may be refuted. Such definition captures all that has been said above regarding the nature of the Magisterium and its subjection to the rule of Faith.

3.2 Lewis’ inversion of the priority of Faith

This allows us to better understand and refute Lewis’ first error. There is an objective deposit of Faith from which the Church teaches with authority. The Magisterium is charged with exposing us to the truth, defending it against errors, explaining it more clearly, and explaining it in the light of changing circumstances. However, it does not have the authority to ‘define’ truth in any way which contradicts the Deposit from which it draws ‘everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.’²² To do so would not be an exercise of the authentic magisterium but a perversion of it. However, for Lewis, the sure rule of Faith is not revelation but the teaching of the Pope - an absurd proposition rejected in every recent magisterial document which has treated on the subject.

This division between Lewis and the mind of the Church on the limits of its authority is a stark one, cast in sharp relief by his comments on the ordination of women to the Presbyterate:

Lewis clarified, over the course of several posts, that this was only a hypothetical - he does not believe it will actually happen. However, supposing that it did happen, his argument based on his view of the Magisterium is this: the only guarantor of orthodoxy is the See of Peter, and the successor of Peter is not able to teach heresy, thus if a pope teaches something it must be orthodox. This touches on the second error, his failure to differentiate between different ‘levels’ of magisterial teaching, but it is primarily connected with his first error - that the Pope is the ultimate measure of orthodoxy and can determine the truth by fiat without reference to revelation or the consistent doctrine of the Magisterium. In relation to women’s ordination, this notion was implicitly rejected by St John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, when he stated ‘the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women’²³ with explicit reference to divine revelation (‘the constant and universal Tradition of the Church’)²⁴ and the firm teachings of the Magisterium.

Lewis’ further defence of his position is firmly rooted in the second error - that everything taught by a Pope is ‘Magisterium’ and is thus unchallangeable by any but a Pope, without reference to the differentiation and hierarchy which exists within and between the Church’s teachings. To respond to those arguments, we will establish the proper hierarchy of Magisterial teaching before addressing whether theologians may legitimately criticise or disagree with the Magisterium.

3.3 The Hierarchy of Magisterial Teaching

As we have already said, the exercise of the munus docendi is bound up with the Deposit of Faith, thus Donum Veritatis states the magisterial charism is ‘manifested when the Pastors propose a doctrine as contained in Revelation.’²⁵ As we have also already stated, such ‘doctrines’ come in two varieties – doctrines concerning that which is to be believed (those belonging to the ‘Faith’ properly speaking) and doctrines concerning how the Faith is to be lived (those belonging to the domain of ‘morality’). The essence of Magisterial teaching is a definitive proposition on a matter of Faith or Morals, to which the faithful are called to give their assent.

This obligation to assent is the basis for the hierarchy which exists within teachings of the Magisterium; there are some doctrines to which a greater degree of ‘assent’ is required, and some to which a lesser degree is required. This is governed by two questions; the matter of the proposition, and the authority with which it is proclaimed.

The ‘matter’ of the proposition is the subject on which the Church is pronouncing. The magisterium (properly speaking) makes such propositions on three subjects; (1) teachings on faith or morals contained in revelation, (2) teachings on faith or morals which are necessarily connected with revelation either logically or historically, and (3) teachings in the prudential order (pastoral directives, juridic acts which enunciate some truth of faith or morals indirectly) or based in things which are conjectural or contingent.

The authority with which a proposition is proclaimed concerns both the authority of the teacher and the means by which the teacher has proposed a doctrine.

The supreme teaching authority in the Church is the Roman Pontiff, who acts either solely or in communion with the Bishops. The Bishops, so long as they maintain Communion with Rome, possess a lesser authority – but within their own diocese a ‘proper’ authority as teachers of the Faith. The means by which the supreme authority exercises the office of teaching takes four forms; three of which are ‘definitive’ propositions, one is not.

The first two forms are called acts of the ‘Extraordinary Magisterium’ – that is, they are acts of the Roman Primacy exercising the teaching office entrusted by Christ to Peter solemnly proclaiming a doctrine in a definitive manner. The first form is when ‘the bishops in union with their visible head proclaim a doctrine by a collegial act, as is the case in an ecumenical council.’²⁶ The dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example, was solemnly proclaimed by the Pope and the Bishops at the Council of Trent. The second form is the solemn proclamation of a doctrine by a Pope ex Cathedra (lit. ‘from the throne’) such as the pronouncement of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX in the Bull ‘Ineffabilis Deus.’ The teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium are definitive, infallible, and per se irreformable.²⁷ There is no distinction of authority between these two forms – both are equally infallible and irreformable acts of the Magisterium.

The third form is a definitive exercise of the ‘Ordinary’ magisterium – the teaching of the Pope, or of the College of Bishops in Communion with Him ‘in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.’²⁸ Sometimes, outside of a Council or a pronouncement ex Cathedra, a definitive act of the Ordinary Magisterium possesses the charism of infallibility. Such definitive teachings may be proposed by the Pope, by a Synod of Bishops, (providing they maintain Communion with the Pope) or by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith when its teaching documents are approved by the Pope. These definitive acts may be infallible when they propose a teaching on faith or morals to be believed by all. Such was the case, for example, with the definitive teaching of St John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

‘in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.’²⁹

Such definitive acts are, like the Solemn pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium, definitive, infallible, and per se irreformable because the supreme authority of the Church has proposed them as ‘divinely revealed’ or intimately connected with divine revelation.

Below these definitive acts are the ordinary ‘teachings’ of the Pope and the Bishops which are not proclaimed by definitive acts. This is the broadest category of ‘Magisterial’ teaching because it encompasses the ordinary preaching and teaching of the Pope, the acts of Bishops and groups of Bishops, including juridical acts or acts in the ‘prudential’ order. Throughout the course of this teaching, the Pope and the College of Bishops do not explicitly propose truths to be believed but might do so implicitly or by example. That all Bishops and the Pope bow or genuflect before the tabernacle witnesses and teaches to the doctrine of the real presence without definitively proposing it. By teaching and governing in a particular way, the Pope and the Bishops can assist the faithful to understand revelation better. Within this kind of teaching ‘the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements.’³⁰ Thus, the Church does not claim the charism of infallibility for such teachings, but does maintain that even in the exercise of the magisterium at this level the Pope and the Bishops enjoy the assistentia of the Holy Spirit and thus cannot habitually err.³¹

Putting together these two hierarchies of matter and authority establishes the hierarchy of assent which is owed to acts of the Magisterium. When a teaching on faith or morals is definitively proposed by the supreme authority of the Church as being contained in Revelation (or intimately bound to it) it is to be believed de fide - as a matter of faith. The ‘assent of Faith’ is the highest obligation – owed to the definitive pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

When a teaching on faith or morals is definitively proposed by the supreme teaching authority on a matter of faith or morals, within the exercise of the ordinary magisterium, it is to be ‘firmly accepted and held.’³² This is less than the assent of faith and can be properly described as religious assent – that is, a true belief in the veracity of the proposition rooted in the religious authority of the Church. A proposition to which such assent is owed is likewise per se irreformable.

Finally, when the Pope or the College of Bishops make judgements or teach based on contingent or conjectural elements, where it intervenes in the prudential order, where a teaching is enacted in a practical way through juridic, administrative or personal acts, it does not claim the charism of infallibility, nor does it claim such a teaching or act to be per se irreformable. To such teachings the Church demands ‘religious submission of intellect and will.’ This submission is a docility towards such teachings, or a reverent willingness to accept them as true ‘under the impulse of obedience to the faith.’³³

The duty of religious submission notwithstanding, within this last category, the Church leaves open the possibility of error, such that ‘the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions’³⁴ may be legitimately called into question by a theologian. Thus, when it comes to acts of the Ordinary Magisterium, there is necessarily a careful discernment between definitive teachings on faith and morals and teachings which reflect the mind and will of the teacher but do not bind to the assent of faith or the assent of religion. The authority of such definitive teaching acts ‘becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.’³⁵ When a Pope forcefully insists, invoking his authority as teacher, that a proposition is true and to be held by all believers (like St John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) it can be ranked a definitive teaching, when he gives a pious reflection on the virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary which mentions new or uncommon Marian titles (as Leo XIII did in the encyclical Iucunda Semper Expectatione) it may not rank so highly, and may be open to question. There is a grey area between these examples, in which a teaching may or may not be definitive - this too is legitimate territory for theological dispute.

4. ‘Disagreement’ and ‘Dissent’ - Lewis’ second error

The crux of Lewis’ argument against the three dismissed professors, and others including Cardinal Burke, is in their response to the ordinary Magisterium of Pope Francis. He calls them ‘dissenters’³⁶ for their criticisms of the late Pope - ‘holding to a list of doctrinal precepts deemed “traditional” and absolutely unchanging.’³⁷ The failure to show religious submission of intellect and will to the late-Pope’s ordinary magisterium, out of perceived loyalty to the unchanging truths of the deposit of faith is, per Lewis, a warped ecclesiology and a ‘heretical’ ideology.

Should a theologian be censured for attempting to hold the Pastors of the Church accountable to the truth, or to clarify their teachings in light of Revelation or the consistent Magisterial teachings of the Church? Lewis, who seems to believe no Pope can authoritatively bind his successors, seems to think so. He seems to think that open criticism of a Pope or his teachings amounts to ‘dissent’ which violates the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity required of the clergy and seminary professors.

Unfortunately for Lewis, the Church disagrees. The role of the theologian is to teach and defend what is taught definitively and infallibly³⁸ and to collaborate with the Magisterium in clarifying and deepening those teachings which are unclear or not definitively taught.³⁹ When it comes to teachings which are not per se irreformable, the theologian is required to ‘assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions’⁴⁰ made by the Magisterium - to discern where in the hierarchy of Magisterial teachings they sit, and to strive to understand the ‘contents, arguments, and purposes’ of the intervention.⁴¹ If his difficulties persist, however, submission is not his only option. Far from it;

If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.⁴²

The theologian is a collaborator with the Magisterium in seeking after truth - where the truth seems obscured or unclear by some act of the Ordinary Magisterium, it is a duty to make known those issues so that the Church might more perfectly adhere to the truth. The theologian is especially bound to express his difficulties with such a teaching where the ‘communion of faith’ is endangered - i.e. where it seems that a Pope, or a Synod, is breaking from the truth as the Church has definitively expressed it. The principle to be applied in such cases is the ‘unity of truth’⁴³ - which is the principle that the unity of the Church is found in common adherence to the truth revealed in Christ Jesus. This is not dissent or obstinate rejection⁴⁴ but loyal disagreement in the spirit of pursuing the truth.

Whilst I accept that many of the late Pope’s most prominent critics were intemperate and imprudent in their criticisms (it is a scandal for any Bishop to openly call the sitting Pope a heretic) it cannot be the case that any criticism of a papal pronouncement amounts to a heretical dissent. ‘Dissent’ (per Donum Veritatis) is a Public Opposition to the Magisterium itself, which pits ‘Freedom of thought’ or public opinion against the authority of tradition,⁴⁵ or otherwise denies the binding quality of all non-infallible teaching⁴⁶ such that (without discernment) a theologian could freely deny it, or denies the Magisterium has any normative status at all.⁴⁷ Nor, is such disagreement Heresy, because heresy requires an ‘obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.’⁴⁸ Such cannot be the case where a theologian expresses a respectful disagreement with any teaching which is not defined as to be believed de fide. It is, frankly, slanderous to call any theologian a heretic unless they have openly and obstinately denied a truth of the Faith.

Conclusion

In the final analysis Lewis’ article, which has since been republished by the National Catholic Reporter, is theologically unsound. It plays into an oversimplified and reductive version of the Church’s relationship to the Truth. The current Pope, or the most recent Pope, is not the measure of orthodoxy but the servant of it. We join the prayer of Christ for Peter because the devil wants to sift him like wheat, trusting that His faith will not fail. But a responsible theologian must also sometimes question or even openly disagree with a Pope in order to clarify his teachings or hold them up to the perennial teaching of the Church. To do otherwise would be to abdicate the responsibility of theologians to collaborate with the Magisterium in discerning and proclaiming the truth.

Truth is not defined by the current occupant of the Chair of Peter. It is the person of Christ, whose Vicar he is, and the definitive revelation of Christ handed down from the Apostles safeguarded through twenty-and-a-quarter centuries of Church teaching. This truth admits a variety of different expressions, but it cannot admit contradictions. Where contradictions seem to arise, the theologian has a duty to speak, and the Magisterium has a duty to respond in a spirit of open and fruitful dialogue so that the unity of truth may be preserved and the faithful granted their right;‘the objective possibility of professing the authentic faith free from error, at all times and in diverse situations.’⁴⁹ Lewis’ misinformed theology would deny them that right in the name of servile submission to whoever sat upon the throne of Peter at any given moment. It would be funny, were it not such a tragic inversion of the relationship between truth and authority.

1. Mike Lewis ‘False Orthodoxy and Fired Professors’ (27 July 2025) in ‘Where Peter Is’ (blog) Ordinarily I would link to the article, but I do not want to drive any more traffic to that blog than it already gets. If you wish to read it, use Google.

2. Mike Lewis, ‘Cardinal Burke and the Magisterium’ (7 December 2023) in ‘Mike Lewis Extra’ Substack (blog).

3. Vatican II ‘Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum’ (18 November 1965) para. 10

4. Indeed, he has even suggested that he might provide a ‘list’ of names to go next to the metaphorical block.

5. inter alia Dr Ralph Martin, Dr Eduardo Echeverria, Edward Peters, Dr Edward Feser, and Raymond Cardinal Burke

6. Charles Curran, Hans Küng, Bernhard Häring, Josef Fuchs, Karl Rahner, Yves Cardinal Congar, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, and even Josef Ratzinger were among the most eminent scholars of their generations and all faced suspicion of heresy at one time or another. Some would be vindicated, others condemned, always by a competent authority.

7. Vatican II ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium’ (21 November 1964) para. 25

8. Hebrews 13:8 NRSVCE

9. ‘Lumen Gentium’ para. 18

10. Ibid. para.19 cit. Acts 1:8

11. ‘Episcopalis autem consecratio, cum munere sanctificandi, munera quoque confert docendi et regendi’ in ‘Lumen Gentium’ para. 21

12. Cf. ‘Lumen Gentium’ paras 21-22

13. Cf. Ibid. para. 22

14. Ibid. para. 25

15. Ibid.

16. CDF Instruction ‘Donum Veritatis’ (24 May 1990) para. 14

17. ‘Dei Verbum’ para. 10

18. St John Paul II, ‘Apostolic Constitution ‘Fidei Depositum’ on the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (Rome, 11 October 1992) citing St John XXIII ‘Opening Address to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’ AAS 54 (11 October 1962)

19. ‘Dei Verbum’ para. 10

20. ‘Donum Veritatis’ para. 14

21. ‘Lumen Gentium’ para. 25

22. ‘Dei Verbum’ para. 10

23. Pope St John Paul II, ‘Apostolic Letter ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ on reserving priestly ordination to men alone’ (22 May 1994) para. 4

24. Ibid.

25. ‘Donum Veritatis’ para.15

26. Ibid. para.15

27. Vatican I, ‘Dogmatic Constitution ‘Pastor Aeternus’ on the Church of Christ’ (18 July 1870) Cap. IV, para. 9

28. ‘Donum Veritatis’ para. 17

29. ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ para. 4 (emphasis my own)

30. ‘Donum Veritatis’ para. 24

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid. para. 23

33. Ibid. para. 23

34. Ibid. para. 24

35. Ibid. para.24

36. In fact, he often calls such ‘dissenters’ heretics and schismatics

37. Mike Lewis ‘False Orthodoxy and Fired Professors’ in Where Peter Is (blog) (27 July 2025)

38. Cf. ‘Donum Veritatis’ para. 22

39. Cf. Ibid. para. 25

40. Ibid. para. 24

41. Ibid. para. 29

42. Ibid. para. 30 emphasis my own

43. Ibid.

44. For which the Code of Canon Law (CIC §1371) imposes a ‘just penalty’

45. Ibid. para. 32

46. Cf. Ibid.

47. Cf. Ibid. para. 34

48. CIC §751

49. ‘Donum Veritatis’ para. 14