WHAT IS THIS THING SENSUS FIDELIUM THAT I KEEP REFERRING TO ON THIS BLOG?

Sensus fidelium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of sensus fidelium (also referred to as sensus fidei fidelium, and related to sensus fidei fidelis, which is also called sensus fidei or sensum fidei) in Roman Catholic teachings can be implicitly traced back to the early Fathers of the Church. In literal terms, sensus fidelium simply means the “sense of the faithful” and refers to doctrinal truth recognised (sensed) by the whole body of the faithful. Note that sensus fidei by itself as commonly used in theological dialogue, which literally means the “sense of the faith”, refers to this understanding as belonging to the individual believer within the community of the faithful.^[1]

While most Catholic doctrines and theological teachings either originate in scripture or are established by the higher levels of the Church hierarchy, sensus fidelium works from the ground up, from the beliefs of the masses of the faithful, not only as understood through the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible, but also as inspired by the Holy Spirit, which guides the faithful at large within the framework of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:

Christ . . . fulfills this prophetic office, not only by the hierarchy . . . but also by the laity. He accordingly both establishes them as witnesses and provides them with the sense of the faith [sensus fidei] and the grace of the word.^[2]

But sensus fidelium is not a basis for a democratic approach to determining the teachings of the Holy See. It stipulates that the concepts involved must be viewed under the guidance of the Magisterium. However, in his letter to the 1998 Inquisition Symposium, Pope John Paul II suggested that sensus fidei may also be used in the other direction, i.e. to reflect on the past actions of the Magisterium. He stated that:

One must appeal to the “sensus fidei” to find the criteria for a just judgment on the past of the life of the Church.^[3]

The pontiff then referred to the freedoms provided in the context of Dignitatis Humanae, stating that: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.”

Some theologians have commented critically on the Church’s failure to effectively listen to the sensum fidei, such as Donal Dorr, who has also noted a western and ethnocentric leaning in Catholic social teaching.^[4] There are opposing theologians, such as George Weigel, who believe that Catholic social doctrine is emerging as more liberal and attentive to this tendency in the community of the faithful.^[5]

A key example of the recent use of sensus fidelium was the development of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as defined by Pope Pius IX. It came about not so much because of proofs in scripture or ancient tradition, but due to a sensus fidelium shared by the faithful and the Magisterium.^[6] The Vatican quotes in this context the encyclical Fulgens Corona, where Pope Pius XII supported such a faith:

If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?^[7]

A related term is sensus Ecclesiæ’, or sense of the Church.

*********************************************************

An excellent brief article on the sensus fidelium appeared on the LaSalette Blog by Paul Anthony Melanson:

Monday, January 23, 2006

Funeral Rites Should be Denied to Publicly Pro-Abort Catholics: Vatican Official

Says Catholics also “should have the courage to look truth in the eye and call things by their common names”

TODAY’S HEADLINES |   SEND NEWS TIPS |   DONATE

SHARE:  E-MAIL PRINT

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an address to InsideCatholic.com’s 14th Annual Partnership Dinner Friday evening, Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura, said that funeral rites should not be given to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. He also defended the duty of Catholics to speak in charity against the scandal caused by such figures.

The archbishop said that, while “we must speak the truth in charity,” Catholics also “should have the courage to look truth in the eye and call things by their common names.”

“It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself in this manner,” he told the crowd of about 200 guests.

Burke hammered home his message of the need for fidelity to Church teaching on the part of Catholics in politics in his 50-minute speech. The archbishop, known for his unwavering and vocal defense of the Church’s teachings on life and family issues, was given a standing ovation at the conclusion of his address.

In what appeared to be a reference to the Kennedy funeral scandal, Burke said that “neither Holy Communion nor funeral rites should be administered to” politicians who support abortion or same-sex “marriage.”  “To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects,” he said.

Burke said that when a politician is associated “with greatly sinful acts about fundamental questions like abortion and marriage, his repentance must also be public.”

“Anyone who grasps the gravity of what he has done will understand the need to make it public,” said Burke.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, a staunch abortion and same-sex “marriage” supporter, was laid to rest in a highly publicized and laudatory Catholic funeral ceremony in Boston on August 29.  Catholic pro-life leaders had pleaded with Cardinal Sean O’Malley not to allow the public ceremony, but the cardinal ultimately presided over the rites.  In turn, other leaders in the Catholic community, most notably Fr. Thomas Rosica, the CEO of Canada’s Salt & Light television network, lambasted the pro-life response to the funeral as uncharitable.

About the pro-life leaders and activists who expressed concern about Kennedy’s funeral, Rosica wrote on his blog, “many so-called lovers of life and activists in the pro-life movement, as well as well-known colleagues in Catholic television broadcasting and media in North America, have revealed themselves to be not agents of life, but of division, destruction, hatred, vitriol, judgment and violence.”

Burke, however, defended those who spoke out against such scandal, pointing out that unity within the Church is ultimately based upon the truth.

“The Church’s unity is founded on speaking the truth in love,” he said.  “This does not destroy unity but helps to repair a breach in the life of the Church.”

*********************************************************************

Father Roger Landry, Editor of the Fall River Diocese diocesan newspaper had an excellent editorial in the September 11, 2009 edition of that newspaper.  His editorial and the comments which appeared on the Blog where it has been publshed together constitute another expression of the sensus fidelium on the subject of the impotence of the hierarchy in the United States to curb the spread of public dissent by Catholic pro-abortion politicians.

********************************************

Zero

Success of Bishops with Pro-abort Catholics

[Editor’s Note: the following editorial, written by Father Roger Landry, appeared in the September 11 edition of The Anchor from the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts.]

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=47894bf8-8bfc-466e-b1d6-e046aa97a7a4

Last week, our editorial argued that one of the most important lessons pastors of the Church in the United States need to draw from the history of interactions with Senator Ted Kennedy on the sanctity of human life is that a strategy of conscience-education-alone with “personally opposed, publicly pro-choice” Catholic politicians hasn’t worked. The attempt to engage, teach and help persuade such politicians to conversion didn’t succeed with Senator Kennedy and it hasn’t succeeded yet with other pro-choice Catholic legislators.

To say that it hasn’t succeeded, however, is really not strong enough. It’s possible, after all, to fail a test with a grade of 59; in such a case a student would be able to take some solace that, while there are some areas in need of improvement, he was close to minimal success. If a student fails a test with close to a zero, on the other hand, he obviously needs to make some radical changes if he ever hopes to succeed. And that is closer to the candid assessment that leaders of the Church need to make relative to the education-alone strategy during the past few decades.

Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durban, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction that pro-choice Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of personally opposed, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.

In the initial years after Roe vs. Wade, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators generally whispered their support for abortion. They displayed a palpable sense of shame, letting their abortion position out just enough so that it wouldn’t cost them the votes of abortion supporters. That discomfort began to dissipate after Governor Mario Cuomo’s 1984 pro-choice defense at Notre Dame. We’ve now come to a situation when pro-choice Catholic legislators vigorously curry the favor of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List; scores of Catholics in Congress have the chutzpah to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate almost every abortion restriction ever passed at the federal or state level; and 16 out of 25 Catholic Senators vote against conscience protections to prevent their fellow Catholics in the medical field from being forced to participate in abortions and sterilizations.

After looking at these facts, it seems clear that the education-alone strategy has failed even to deter many Catholics in Congress from becoming among the most radical supporters, defenders, and would-be public-funders of abortion on Capitol Hill.

Why has the education-alone strategy been such a colossal failure? There are several reasons, but one of the most important, and least noted, is that it shares many of the same flawed approaches as the “personally opposed, publicly pro-choice” position it seeks to remedy.

Today there are many “personally opposed, publicly pro-choice” Catholic legislators for whom this phrase seems to be just an empty slogan, because they give almost no evidence that they even have any personal opposition toward abortion. At least initially, however, there were some who sincerely held that irreconcilable position. These public figures had a deep personal repugnance for abortion but, for various reasons, were uncomfortable voting in favor of any laws that would prevent others from doing what they themselves maintain they would never personally do. Many hoped that women would not choose to abort their unborn sons or daughters. Some even spoke out on why they thought abortion was wrong and supported educational endeavors to help women in difficult pregnancies learn about fetal development.

No matter how much some politicians stressed education in the early days, however, it was trumped by the educational value and power of the law. The law taught forcefully that there was nothing wrong with abortion as long as a mother, and a mother alone, deemed it desirable for her physical or mental health. Even though the politicians held offices in which they could work to change what the law itself teaches about the morality of abortion, they did not exercise them; and even though they professionally were accustomed, in every piece of legislation, to imposing some notion of the good on those who disagree with them, with regard to the issue of abortion they left everything to the judgment, ill-informed or not, of the conscience of the mother. The essence of their position has been that, no matter how wrong they know abortion to be, the mother should have the right to do that wrong — a lethal, permanent wrong to her unborn child. They give the ill-informed conscience of the potential wrongdoer greater weight than the truth about abortion, the life of the unborn child, and the soul and psyche of the soon-to-be-forever-wounded mother combined.

When we examine the education-alone approach of pastors with respect to pro-choice politicians, we see that it has basically become a personally opposed, publicly pro-choice position as well. There’s obviously a clear personal repugnance on the part of pastors to the pro-choice Catholic politicians’ separation between faith and moral action, schizophrenia between private and public personality, and lip service to the Church’s teachings. Many pastors have sought to exercise their teaching office, stating forthrightly what abortion is and what the responsibilities of all legislators are with respect to it. All of their teaching, however, has been trumped by the weightier educational value of the de facto “law” that has left everything to the conscience, however ill-informed, of the pro-choice Catholic politicians. These men and women have learned over time that, regardless of what canon law says, they are at liberty to ignore the Church’s teachings on life. Even though the U.S. bishops have taught with one voice that pro-choice Catholic legislators should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion, if they pay no heed to that teaching and present themselves anyway, they have observed that in practice they will almost never be denied. With Senator Kennedy’s funeral, they have now grasped that even a 100% pro-abortion voting record will not only not prevent them from having a Catholic funeral, but will not even stop them from receiving possibly one of the most publicly panegyrical Catholic funerals in U.S. history.

The upshot — these smart men and women have concluded — is that the Church’s practice is essentially “pro-choice” with respect to “pro-choice” Catholic politicians. The politicians’ own determination in conscience, erroneous or not, is given greater weight than, combined, the truth proclaimed by the Church, the duty to protect the politicians’ souls from a potentially mortal wound, and the responsibility to do all that is possible according to one’s office to try to stop the killing. The education-alone approach has failed for the same reason that the personally opposed, publicly pro-choice position has led to massive abortion on demand: the nature of sin is that the easier it is to commit, and the fewer the consequences for doing it, the more sin we’ll have.

Jesus spoke of a different way in the Gospel (Mt 18:15-18). It involves not merely general educational statements that we hope offenders will apply to themselves in conscience, but the type of one-on-one instruction traditionally called fraternal correction. If that fails, and fails repeatedly, Jesus enjoined us to regard the offender as someone who no longer belongs to the community, who is no longer a member in good standing. This may seem harsh, but we should remember that Jesus always seeks nothing but the best for his Church and for individual sinners, even obstinate sinners. Implied in Jesus’ strategy is that education involves not just information, but formation, and that you can’t form disciples without discipline. This is a lesson that, after four decades of the undeniable failure of another approach, we need to consider anew.