The Limits of the Keys
Can Authority Be Real Without Being Infallible?
Most find authority easy to accept when it is obviously right. The real test comes when a decision appears mistaken. If a Church authority imposes a penalty that seems unjust, must every disciplinary judgment be treated as infallible? Can authority remain real even when prudential decisions prove flawed?
The answer requires distinguishing authority from infallibility. The Church teaches that certain doctrinal definitions enjoy divine protection from error. She has never taught that every exercise of ecclesiastical governance enjoys the same protection.
This distinction matters because the Church governs through human beings. Popes, bishops, and tribunals possess real jurisdiction from Christ. Yet the exercise of that jurisdiction remains subject to the limits of evidence, knowledge, and prudence that accompany all human decision-making.
Authority and Infallibility
Not all authority is infallible. An excommunication is a juridical and penal act of governance, not a dogmatic definition. The distinction applies not only to the Pope but to every ecclesiastical authority exercising disciplinary power. Whether imposed by a pope, bishop, or tribunal, a canonical penalty belongs to the Church's governing office rather than her infallible teaching office.
St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this directly in the Summa Theologiae (Supplement, q. 21, a. 4), teaching that an excommunication can be unjust, whether through faulty evidence or error on the part of the superior, and yet still produce external effects. He explicitly acknowledges that a person may be excommunicated for a crime he did not commit if the accusation appears to be proven in the external forum.
The distinction is crucial. The Church judges visible facts according to the evidence available to her. God alone judges the soul.
Theologians and canonists distinguish between the external forum and the internal forum. The external forum concerns publicly verifiable acts, evidence, testimony, and juridical judgments. The internal forum concerns the state of conscience before God, including realities that may be known only to the individual and to God Himself.
A canonical sentence, therefore, may produce real juridical consequences while failing to correspond perfectly to the actual guilt of the accused. The external and internal forums, though related, are not identical.
Historical Precedents
Church history provides numerous examples of the principle.
The Cadaver Synod of 897 saw Pope Stephen VI condemn the deceased Pope Formosus. The proceedings became notorious, and the resulting censures were later annulled. The reversal demonstrated that judicial acts of governance could themselves be judged and corrected.
During the Arian crisis, Athanasius of Alexandria endured repeated ecclesiastical condemnations while defending Nicene orthodoxy. History ultimately vindicated the bishop who had been punished for defending the very doctrine the Church would continue to profess.
Joan of Arc was condemned by an ecclesiastical court and executed as a heretic. Decades later, the judgment was overturned. The Church not only corrected the sentence but also eventually canonized the woman who had been condemned.
These examples do not prove that disputed penalties are necessarily unjust. They demonstrate something more modest but more important: disciplinary judgments are real exercises of authority, yet they remain fallible human acts.
St. Paul publicly resisted St. Peter at Antioch because Peter's conduct caused scandal among the faithful (Gal 2:11). Peter did not teach error. He acted wrongly. The episode illustrates that authority and fallibility can coexist without contradiction.
Justice, Severity, and Leniency
The possibility of unjust penalties should never be confused with an argument against ecclesiastical discipline itself.
Justice is violated not only by disproportionate punishment but also by culpable leniency. In other words, authority can fail through excessive severity, but it can also fail through an unwillingness to punish when justice requires it.
The Church’s penal order exists for definite purposes. It repairs the disorder caused by wrongdoing, protects the common good of the faithful, and encourages the offender’s amendment. When ecclesiastical authorities refuse to act in the face of grave offenses, all three purposes are frustrated simultaneously.
The abuse crisis provides a painful illustration. A bishop who discovers that a priest has committed grave offenses and responds with administrative reassignment rather than juridical action has not chosen a more merciful path. He has chosen a different injustice. The faithful remain exposed to harm, the wound to justice remains unaddressed, and the offender is deprived of the corrective force that ecclesiastical discipline was intended to provide.
The same principle applies whenever public scandals are met only with private remedies. Private admonition has its place, but public scandal ordinarily requires public correction. The canonical tradition has long recognized that the public nature of the offense bears directly upon the nature of the remedy.
The Gregorian reformers confronted this problem on an institutional scale. Their struggle was not against excessive discipline but against the failure to apply discipline where justice demanded it. The lesson drawn by the Church was not that penalties had been too severe, but that negligence in enforcing them had produced grave corruption.
The principle, therefore, cuts both ways. A penalty is not automatically just because it exists. Neither is the refusal to impose one automatically merciful because it avoids conflict. Justice can fail by excess and by defect.
The Proper Response
The lesson is neither rebellion nor blind absolutism.
A Catholic need not assume that every ecclesiastical penalty is perfectly just simply because it exists. Neither may he dismiss every disciplinary action he dislikes as illegitimate. Both errors arise from the same failure to distinguish authority from infallibility.
The Church possesses real authority from Christ. Her pastors govern, judge, and discipline in His name. For that reason, Catholics owe genuine obedience to legitimate authority. Yet obedience does not require pretending that every disciplinary decision carries the certainty of a dogmatic definition. The Church herself has never claimed such a thing.
At the same time, fidelity to the Church requires resisting the opposite temptation that treats every exercise of discipline as inherently suspect. The possibility of abuse does not eliminate the need for authority, judgment, and correction.
The distinction protects both faith and reason. It permits the faithful to recognize how unjust penalties may occur without concluding that the Church’s divine constitution has failed, while also recognizing that failures to discipline grave wrongdoing can be injustices in their own right.
Ecclesiastical authority remains real even though its disciplinary judgments remain subject to the limits of human prudence. The possibility of error does not abolish the authority itself.
The keys were given for the salvation of souls, not for the transformation of every prudential judgment into an article of faith.
If you enjoyed this essay, consider subscribing to The Distant Shore so you don't miss future essays.
Editor’s Note: This essay concludes a four-part series on ecclesiastical penalties, authority, and obedience in the life of the Church.