Skip to content
Home

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Writings
August 30, 2014 Catholic Social Thought

Zmirak At It Again

Faithful Catholics owe John Zmirak a debt of gratitude. Not only did he put the term “illiberal Catholicism” into circulation, thus giving folks such as myself a convenient self-descriptor, he continues to serve as a shining example of what happens when you blend a superficial understanding of Catholicism and Christian history with an unabashed love for liberalism and all of its works. His latest, “The Myth of Catholic Social Teaching,” attempts no nuances nor dabbles in distinctions when it comes to rejecting Catholic Social Teaching (CST). He just does it. Unfortunately Zmirak’s “reasoning” is old hat. Starting from the (correct) premise that not everything a pope says or writes carries magisterial force, he then moves to the erroneous conclusion that nothing (or practically nothing) in CST requires assent — absolute, religious, or otherwise. CST is nothing more than the private opinions of certain popes which are subject to change over time. To help bolster his claim, Zmirak points to apparent shifts in papal teachings on usury, torture, and slavery without reflecting on the context from which those teachings — or changes in teaching — emerged. Indeed, Zmirak goes so far as to claim that Dignitatis Humanae overturned the Church’s previous teaching on religious liberty, thus demonstrating — whether he knows it or not — his acceptance of the “hermeneutic of rupture” thesis. I doubt that would bother Zmirak much. He, like most Catholic liberals, depends on rupture to give his socio-political ideology a jumpstart without being inconvenienced by any incongruities which might exist between it and the Church’s teachings on faith and morals.

There is a lot that could be said about the dubious claims that litter Zmirak’s piece, but I am not convinced faithful Catholics should invest a lot of resources into rebuking what amounts to an inflated act of trolling. Had Zmirak done a wee bit of due diligence, he would have discovered that other thoughtful writers, such as Tom Storck, has already discussed the sort of “evasion strategies” which Zmirak (and others) take up when it comes to CST. Moreover, Storck has written on the magisterial authority of CST, particular as it relates to “economic science.” Zmirak doesn’t deal with that stuff, perhaps because he can’t deal with it. For Zmirak and other liberals, Catholicism itself is a private set of beliefs which the individual, through an act of personal choice, can choose to adopt (or not). So long as this adherence doesn’t interfere with said individuals larger set of socio-political commitments ranging from reveling in “free markets” (whatever those are) to aligning with ideologues then there is no issue. Where an issue arises is when adherence to Catholicism and the belief that the Church has been entrusted by God to speak on matters of morals, then the problems begin. It’s not surprising, then, that Zmirak erects a concrete wall between infallible ex cathedra papal declarations and, well, everything else. According to that misaligned worldview, so long as a pope doesn’t exercise his authority to define infallibly, then everything else he says is just a matter of opinion.

Of course Zmirak could figure all of this out if he wanted to. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1998 commentary on Professio Fidei spells out the different “levels” of the magisterium. While there is ample room to debate which (if any) propositions of CST are infallibly taught under the Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium, it would seem that, at the very least, CST requires “a religious submission of will and intellect” in accordance with Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25. Such submission is decidedly absent from Zmirak’s dissent.

Share:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Updates and Improvements
Next Post →
A New Right Coming?
Gabriel S. Sanchez

You may also like

  1. Gregg Contra Corporatism

    October 20, 2022

  2. A Few More Thoughts on Edward Feser’s All One in Christ

    August 24, 2022

  3. Edward Feser’s All One in Christ: Initial Thoughts

    August 22, 2022

Categories

  • Autobiographical
  • Books
  • Catholic Social Thought
  • Church
  • Eastern Catholicism
  • Eastern Orthodox Church
  • Economics
  • Ephemera
  • Humor
  • Integralism
  • Law
  • Liturgy
  • Meta
  • Movies
  • Music
  • Orthodox Social Thought
  • Philosophy
  • Political Economy
  • Politics
  • Reading
  • Roman Catholic Church
  • Sale
  • Spirituality
  • Theology
  • Uncategorized
  • World
  • Wrestling
  • Year of 100 Books

Archives

  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • March 2022
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • December 2018
  • October 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
2025 © Opus PublicumTheme by SiteOrigin