Case 8. The Roman Congregations

John, a Catholic layman learned in biblical studies, thought that the arguments of the critics had settled the question of the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch. After the responses issued by the Biblical Commission on June 27, 1906, he indeed wrote nothing publicly in defense of his opinion, which he nevertheless continued to retain, and openly indicated to his friends that, in his opinion, the Biblical Commission had erred. When John’s parish priest and confessor heard this, he asked how John—who maintained complete silence about this matter in confession—was to be treated. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the Sacred Roman Congregations, and what power do they have?

2. What force do the responses and decrees of the said Congregations have?

3. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. What are the Roman Congregations and what power have they?

The Roman Congregations are so many tribunals consisting of cardinals and officials designed to assist the Pope in the government of the Church, especially in the way of administration and discipline. Some few Congregations existed before the time of Sixtus V, but that Pope, by his constitution Immensa, Jan. 22, 1587, increased their number and defined the limits of their authority. In course of time, some new Congregations were added to those of Sixtus V, and difficulties arose as to their competence. Hence Pius X, by his constitution Sapienti Consilio, June 29, 1908, organized them afresh. According to this constitution there are thirteen Congregations, each of which has its appointed sphere of action. The Congregations are forbidden to transact any serious or unusual business without consulting the Pope, and their decrees require the Pope’s approbation, except those for which he has granted special faculties.

2. What force have the answers and decrees of the said Congregations? We must distinguish between various classes of decrees and answers. (a) Sometimes documents issue from the Holy See which, in form, are decrees of one of the Congregations, but which are specially approved in forma specifica, by the Pope. In this way the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, Ne temere, was issued Aug. 2, 1907. Such a decree is really a papal act and has the force of a pontifical law; the Pope uses the Congregation to issue a new law of his own. (b) Pius IX, in his letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863, declared that all Catholics are obliged to submit to doctrinal decisions which emanate from the Roman Congregations. The obligation of submission, in this case, is not satisfied by saying and doing nothing contrary to such decrees. Ordinarily, at least, there must also be an internal submission under pain of falling into the sin of temerity and pride, in preferring one’s own opinion to that of a competent authority which is empowered to decide such questions. But inasmuch as the Roman Congregations are not infallible, it may possibly happen that a particular decree of some Congregation is false, and a learned man may see good reason for thinking that it is false. Such a one is not bound to assent to what, with good reason, he thinks is false; he should not openly attack the decree, but he may propose his reasons to the Congregation whose decree is in question, and await the result. (c) Particular sentences and decisions given by the Roman Congregations, in particular cases, bind the parties in the case, as all admit. But opinion is divided as to whether such a decision binds others as well as the parties immediately concerned. Some hold that they do not, for want of due promulgation. Others hold that they do, inasmuch as they are merely authentic applications of the law.²

2 Génicot, vol. i, no. 135.

3. The case. John, a Catholic layman, and learned in Biblical studies, thought that the arguments of the critics against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch were decisive. The Biblical Commission, June 27, 1906, decided that they were not decisive. Although John did not publicly write against this decree, he nevertheless adhered to his opinion, and openly told friends that he thought the Commission had made a mistake. When his parish priest and confessor heard this, he was puzzled how to treat John, who said nothing about the matter in confession.

The confessor doubtless will remember that by the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae Sacrae, Nov. 18, 1907, the obligation to obey the decrees of the Biblical Commission is the same as the obligation to obey the doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations. The words of the Pope are: “Wherefore we see that this must be declared and enjoined, just as we declare at present and expressly enjoin, that each and every person is bound in conscience by the duty of submitting to the judgments of the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Matters, whether those already issued or those to be issued hereafter, in the same way as to decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those who by words or writings attack such judgments avoid the stigma both of refused obedience and of temerity, or therefore be free from grave fault; and this besides the scandal by which they offend and the other things for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously.”¹ John does not, indeed, impugn the decree of the Biblical Commission, but he openly says that in his opinion it is a mistake. Therefore he does not submit to it, and he can hardly be excused from a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal, especially as his friends doubtless look up to him as an authority on Biblical subjects. Yet John says nothing about this in the confessional. His confessor, who is also his parish priest, can not allow him to go on receiving the sacraments of the Church while openly refusing to accept her authoritative teaching. The confessor, therefore, must broach the matter to him, kindly but firmly, and admonish him of his obligations. If he refuses to submit, he must deny him absolution.

1 Lehmkuhl, vol. i, no. 304.