Theological Censure

Theological Censure is a doctrinal judgment identifying how a proposition contradicts, endangers, distorts, or lacks due conformity with Catholic faith and teaching, expressed with a qualification proportioned to the proposition’s defect.

Authority level: Authoritative doctrine

Overview

In Roman Catholic theology, a theological censure is a doctrinal judgment (censure) by which the Catholic Church or Catholic theologians stigmatize(s) certain teachings or opinions as detrimental to faith or morals or both.^[1]

Theological censures have been described as the "negative corollaries" of theological notes;^[2] while theological notes qualify positively beliefs and doctrines, said beliefs and doctrines are qualified negatively by theological censures.^[3]

The theological censures' "enumeration, division and evaluation" vary between authors.^[4]

Theological censures are only directed at teachings or opinions; this distinguishes them from canonical censures which are spiritual punishments imposed on people.

Judgment upon a proposition

A theological censure is directed first to an intelligible proposition in a determinate sense. It does not begin as a verdict upon a person’s soul, motives, or subjective culpability. The question is what the statement asserts and how that assertion relates to revelation, definitive doctrine, authentic teaching, sound theological conclusion, or the safety of the faithful. Exact wording and context matter because an ambiguous sentence may bear an orthodox sense, an erroneous sense, or several materially different claims.

The Church has used censures to protect revealed truth, identify doctrinal boundaries, and warn against opinions that dispose minds toward error. Traditional vocabularies included heretical, erroneous, proximate to heresy, rash, offensive to pious ears, misleading, dangerous, and incapable of being safely taught. Lists and definitions varied across periods and theological schools. A historical censure must therefore be reported in the terms and scope of the competent act rather than translated into an invented timeless ladder.

Positive note and negative censure

A theological note states the positive standing of a proposition; a censure states the defect of a contrary or dangerous proposition. They correspond only imperfectly. Denial of a divinely revealed dogma can be heretical, rejection of a definitive connected truth opposes Catholic doctrine without necessarily being heresy strictly so called, and contradiction of non-definitive teaching can be erroneous or, for prudential matters, rash or dangerous. The exact object and authority govern the qualification.^[5]

Authority and kinds of qualification

A competent magisterial authority can condemn or qualify a proposition authoritatively. The Roman Pontiff and College of Bishops exercise the universal Magisterium; bishops guard faith and morals within their particular Churches in communion with the pope; the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith assists the Roman Pontiff according to the authority of its approved acts. A private theologian can argue that a proposition deserves a censure, but the argument does not become a magisterial judgment through technical vocabulary alone.^[6]

The Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio fidei supplies a controlling modern distinction. Contrary to first-paragraph revealed doctrine stands heresy when the canonical conditions are met. Rejection of a second-paragraph definitive doctrine rejects a truth of Catholic doctrine and breaks full adherence. A proposition opposed to third-paragraph authentic doctrine may be qualified as erroneous; where the teaching is prudential, the contrary may be rash or dangerous and therefore cannot safely be taught. These are not interchangeable accusations.^[7]

Doctrine, prudence, and danger

A judgment that an opinion is dangerous does not necessarily assert that every grammatical proposition in it is intrinsically false. It can mean that the opinion predictably weakens a required distinction, leads hearers toward error, or cannot be responsibly taught under present conditions. Conversely, a doctrinal error is not made harmless merely because its author intends pastoral good. The censure should identify whether the defect lies in contradiction, ambiguity, consequence, temerity, or practical danger.

Distinction from canonical censures and personal judgment

A theological censure is not the same as a canonical censure. In current canon law, excommunication, interdict, and suspension are medicinal penalties imposed or incurred under legal conditions. A doctrinal proposition can be censured without its author incurring a canonical penalty, and a person’s penal liability requires the elements and procedures of law. The word censure is also used for prior review of books, where an ecclesiastical censor examines conformity with faith and morals; that review is another distinct juridical institution.^[8]

Personal culpability requires separate moral and canonical evaluation. Ignorance, imprecise speech, coercion, correction after warning, public scandal, office, and obstinacy can affect responsibility without altering the objective truth or falsity of the proposition. Sound Catholic judgment therefore refuses both indiscriminate denunciation and the claim that charity forbids doctrinal condemnation. Charity serves persons by naming grave error truthfully and inviting correction within the Church’s communion.

Use in historical and contemporary writing

When recounting an older condemnation, the original proposition, authority, date, censure, and legal effects should be distinguished. Later magisterial clarification may explain its scope without making the earlier act unreal. In contemporary analysis, technical censures should be used only where evidence supports them. It is often more exact to say that a claim contradicts a named dogma, rejects a definitive doctrine, or conflicts with authentic teaching than to attach an unsupported scholastic epithet.^[9]

History

William of Ockham appears to have been the first medieval theologian to attempt to formally categorise the theological censure of his time.^[10]

Authority of the censures

"[T]he supreme organs for [theological] notes and censures (and exclusively so for infallible matters) are the Pope and the Ecumenical Councils. Limited competences attaches to the Roman Congregations, Provincial Synods (episcopal conferences) and the individual bishops and major superiors of religious orders. The whole people of God is charged with the safeguarding of the true faith. Theologians have a special responsibility and thus are especially qualified to give theological notes [and censures] [...] though their authority is not one of jurisdiction. Their notes [and censures] have the weight of 'professional' opinions and have often influenced the magisterium".^[11]

"If [a theological censure] be pronounced by the Teaching Authority of the Church it is an authoritative or judicial judgment (censura authentica or iudicialis). If it be pronounced by Theological Science it is a private doctrinal judgment (censura doctrinalis)".^[12]

Various classifications

Catholic Encyclopedia

Theological censures are divided into three groups by the Catholic Encyclopedia; this division is according to as the censures bear principally upon either 1) the degree, or 2) the expression, or 3) the consequences, of condemned propositions:^[13]

1) A proposition is heretical (Latin: hæretica) when it goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide; erroneous (erronea) when it contradicts only a certain (certa) theological conclusion (i.e., a truth clearly deduced from two premises, the first premises being an article of faith, the second being a natural certain reflexion).

2) A proposition is ambiguous (ambigua) when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious (captiosa) when acceptable words are made to express objectionable thoughts; evil-sounding (male sonans) when improper words are used to express otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith (piarum aurium offensiva, offensive to pious ears).

3) In the third category fall propositions subsannativa religionis (derisive of religion), decolorativa candoris ecclesiæ (defacing the beauty of the Church), subversiva hierarchiæ (subversive of the hierarchy), eversiva regnorum (destructive of governments), scandalosa, perniciosa, periculosa in moribus (scandalous, pernicious, dangerous to morals), blasphema, idolatra, superstitiosa, magica (blasphemous, leading to idolatry, superstition, sorcery), arrogans, acerba (arrogant, harsh), etc.

This enumeration, though incomplete, sufficiently draws the aim of the third group of censures; they are directed against such propositions as would imperil religion in general, the Church's sanctity, unity of government and hierarchy, civil society, morals in general, or the virtue of religion, Christian meekness, and humility in particular.

There are four degrees of heresy according to the Catholic Encyclopedia in another one of its articles:

Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Catholic Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree
If the doctrine in question has not been expressly defined or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Catholic Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy
Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology
Lastly, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens (scholarly heretic); that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy

Ludwig Ott

Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott describes the following censures, which he says are the most common theological censures:^[12]

Heretical proposition (Latin: propositio haeretica): "This signifies that the proposition is opposed to a formal dogma"
Proposition proximate to heresy (propositio haeresi proxima): "the proposition is opposed to a truth which is proximate to the Faith (sententia fidei proxima)"
Proposition savouring of, or suspect of, heresy (propositio haeresim sapiens or de haeresi suspecta)
Erroneous proposition (propositio erronea): "opposed to a truth which is proposed by the Church as a truth intrinsically connected with a revealed truth (error in fide ecclesiastica) or opposed to the common teaching of theologians (error theologicus)"
False proposition (propositio falsa): "contradicting a dogmatic fact"
Temerarious proposition (propositio temeraria): "deviating without reason from the general teaching"
Proposition offensive to pious ears (propositio piarum aurium offensiva): "offensive to religious feeling"
Proposition badly expressed (propositio male sonans): "subject to misunderstanding by reason of its method of expression"
Captious proposition (propositio captiosa): "reprehensible because of its intentional ambiguity"
Proposition exciting scandal (propositio scandalosa)

Sommaire de théologie dogmatique

The Sommaire de théologie dogmatique proposes the following degrees of theological censure:^[14]

Heretic: if the proposition "directly and immediately opposes a truth formally revealed and defined or proposed as such by the solemn or ordinary and universal Magisterium of the church"
Proximate to heresy: if the proposition "opposes a truth presented by the common teaching of [l'ensemble des] theologians as certain and soon to be defined". An example of one of those truths is the universal Mediation of the Virgin Mary
Scholarly heretic: if the proposition "can be interpreted in either a Catholic or heretical sense; but, juging by the circumstances, the latter sense prevails. Example: someone who is rightly suspected of Protestantism affirms insistently that faith alone justifies, and never affirms that works are also necessary for justification" (see Sola fide)
Erroneous: the proposition "opposes a strictly speaking theological conclusion". An example of erroneous proposition is: "each Bishop in his diocese is independent of the Sovereign Pontiff, since he [each Bishop] holds from Christ himself the powers necessary to govern his diocese"
Positively temerarious: the proposition "having for itself no probable reason, [...] opposes a doctrine universally received in the Church". An example of a positively temerarious proposition is: "there is no Limbo for children who died without baptism"
Negatively temerarious: the proposition "without probable foundation, [...] affirms a theological doctrine which has never been taught by the Church". An example of a negatively temerarious proposition is: "some more people other than the Holy Virgin have been exempted from the original sin"
Offensive to pious ears: "[w]hen the terms used go against the respect due to holy things"
Badly expressed [Mal sonnante]: "[i]f the words are improper and open to misinterpretation"
Scandalous, seducing: "[i]f the professed doctrine leads to evil"
Seditious: "[i]f the doctrine leads to rebellion against the legitimate Authority"
Schismatic: "[i]f it leads to separation from the Church"

John Hardon

Catholic theologian John Hardon states:^[15]

A heretical proposition is opposed to a revealed dogma; proximate to heresy is opposed to a truth commonly held to be revealed; erroneous is opposed to conclusions derived from revelation; false is opposed to dogmatic facts; temerarious deviates from the accepted teaching of the Church; badly expressed is subject to misunderstanding; captious is reprehensible because of its intentional ambiguity; and scandalous because it gives rise to error among the faithful.

References

Back to citation Hardon, John A. (1980). "THEOLOGICAL CENSURE.". Modern Catholic Dictionary. Internet Archive. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. p. 537. ISBN 978-0-385-12162-0; "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Theological Censures". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 2023-02-04; Ott, Ludwig (n.d.) [195X]. "INTRODUCTION — §9. Theological Censures". In Bastible, James (ed.). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Lynch, Patrick. Fort Collins, Colorado: Roman Catholic Books. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-929291-85-4. “By a theological censure is meant the judgment which characterises a proposition touching Catholic Faith or Moral Teaching as contrary to Faith or at least as doubtful.”
Back to citation Ernst, Harold (December 1, 2002). "The Theological Notes and the Interpretation of Doctrine" (PDF). Theological Studies. 63 (4): 813–825. doi:10.1177/004056390206300407.
Back to citation Finisterhölzl, Johann (1975). "Theological notes". In Rahner, Karl (ed.). Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Seabury Press. p. 1678. ISBN 978-0-86012-006-3.
Back to citation Finisterhölzl, Johann (1975). "Theological notes". In Rahner, Karl (ed.). Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Seabury Press. p. 1681. ISBN 978-0-86012-006-3.
Back to citation Code of Canon Law, canons 747–755 — The canonical obligations corresponding to divinely revealed doctrine, definitive teaching, and authentic non-definitive teaching, together with the duty to preserve communion with the Church.
Back to citation Humani generis, 18–21 — Pius XII on the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, the binding force of deliberate papal doctrinal judgments, and the limits placed upon theological discussion by ecclesial teaching.
Back to citation Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei — The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the three categories of doctrine, their distinct formal grounds, the assent each requires, and the doctrinal qualification of contrary propositions.
Back to citation Code of Canon Law, canons 1331–1335 and 1364–1369 — The current canonical meaning and effects of penal censures and the penalties attached to offences against faith, distinguishing juridical penalties from doctrinal qualifications of propositions.
Back to citation Donum veritatis, 13–31 — The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on magisterial authority, the forms of assent, the ecclesial vocation of theology, and the faithful handling of a serious difficulty with reformable teaching.
Back to citation Pierre Fraenkel (1961). "Chapter VIII: Quasi Censoriae Notae – The Terms of Censure". Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon. E. Droz. p. 308.
Back to citation Finisterhölzl, Johann (1975). "Theological notes". In Rahner, Karl (ed.). Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Seabury Press. p. 1682. ISBN 978-0-86012-006-3.
Back to citation occurrence 12.0 Back to citation occurrence 12.1 Ott, Ludwig (n.d.) [195X]. "INTRODUCTION — §9. Theological Censures". In Bastible, James (ed.). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Lynch, Patrick. Fort Collins, Colorado: Roman Catholic Books. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-929291-85-4.
Back to citation "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Theological Censures". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 2023-02-04.
Back to citation une Equipe de Théologiens Catholiques (1969). "Notes théologiques". In Panneton, Georges; Charlemagne, Bourgeois (eds.). Sommaire de théologie dogmatique [Summary of Dogmatic Theology] (in French). 21 July 1969 recommendation letter by Alfredo Ottaviani [as preamble]. Trois-Rivières: Les Éditions du Bien Public. pp. 19–20. OCLC 301544953.
Back to citation Hardon, John A. (1980). "THEOLOGICAL CENSURE.". Modern Catholic Dictionary. Internet Archive. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. p. 537. ISBN 978-0-385-12162-0.