Q. Some time ago, you correctly quoted Ralph McInerny as stating on pages 14-15 of his book What Went Wrong with Vatican II (Sophia Institute Press) that “we are bound by the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.” Are you stating that the Council pronouncements are governed by the dogma of infallibility? Yes, if we wish to be true members of the Church, we must follow its pronouncements. In other words, we are surely not free to pick and choose as we wish, to suit ourselves. However, if we can see the pronouncements to contain error, we have a responsibility to reject such teachings, do we not? – K.M., Ontario, Canada

A. First of all, if a person takes it upon himself to decide that certain pronouncements of a general council of the Church are in error, is he not engaging in the very “pick-and-choose” brand of Catholicism that you correctly rejected in the previous sentence? Do individual Catholics have the authority to reject teachings that they believe to be in error? Isn’t this engaging in the same faulty exercise of private interpretation that has caused Protestantism to divide into thousands of quarreling factions?

Second, as Mr. McInerny pointed out in the rest of the quotation that we cited from his book, a faithful Catholic cannot choose one council’s teachings over another since it is the Pope who calls a council into session, monitors the work of the assembled bishops, promulgates the council’s documents, and makes them part of the teaching of the Church. “That which makes Vatican II valid is what made Vatican I, the Council of Trent, and every other council valid,” said McInerny. “To accept one council is to accept them all; to reject one council is to reject them all.”

Third, no we are not stating that the pronouncements of Vatican II were governed by the dogma of infallibility. But we are stating that Catholics are bound by those pronouncements whether they were infallibly promulgated or not. Technically speaking, Vatican II did not exercise its extraordinary Magisterium and proclaim any infallible doctrines. But it did reiterate truths that have long been infallibly transmitted by the Church, such as the illicitness of abortion, artificial contraception, infanticide, euthanasia, fornication, slavery, prostitution, polygamy, divorce, and other evils.

The key question in all of this, says McInerny, is, “Who is the ultimate authority on what Christ asks of us?” Is it dissenting theologians and critics of Vatican II, or is it the Magisterium of the Church, i.e., the Pope and those bishops in communion with him? The choice should be easy to make, he says, explaining:

“Should a Catholic accept the solemn, repeated teaching of the Magisterium and the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth, or should he accept the assurance of a theologian that he can safely ignore the repeated teaching of the Magisterium and the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth? It is as if someone next to you whispered that you could reject the Sermon on the Mount and still be a good Christian. It is as if someone said to you that for centuries the Church has been wrong and is still wrong in her constant teachings: ‘Trust me. Ignore them, and you’ll still be as Catholic as the Pope.’

“Of course, this is nonsense.”

McInerny says “the only permissible response of a Catholic to the Church’s teaching is to accept it. Not to accept it is to say that you can be a good Catholic while rejecting Christ’s Vicar on earth and the Magisterium that was divinely established in order that the Deposit of Faith might be transmitted from generation to generation in all its purity. But what kind of Catholic rejects the solemn teaching of Christ and His Church? It is one thing to fall short of Catholic teaching in our lives, to sin; and it is quite another to reject the measure of action that is proposed by the Church. Too many Catholics have set themselves up as rivals to the Magisterium” (pp. 146-147).