August 2002 Print

 
By Rev. Fr. Peter R. Scott

Q. Can Catherine of Siena and St. Therese of the Child Jesus be considered Doctors of the Church?

A. The term "Doctor of the Church" is a title of honor that was first attributed to those of the Fathers who were most eminent in the wisdom of their writings and the holiness of their lives. They were consequently extraordinary teachers of the Faith. The original or great Doctors were the four Western doctors, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory the Great, and the four Eastern doctors, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom.

Additional Doctors have been declared over the centuries, and it was Pope Benedict XIV who laid down the three conditions for such a proclamation: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio, that is eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity, and the express declaration of the Church, as Pope Pius XI reiterated at the time of the proclamation of St. John of the Cross as Doctor of the Universal Church in 1926 (Die Vicesima Septima). The theologians add that there is a fourth and presumed condition, namely the orthodoxy of faith (Cf. Zubizarreta, Vol. I, No. 692).

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about the conferring of the title Doctor of the Church before Vatican II:

In practice the procedure consists in extending to the Universal Church the use of the Office and Mass of a saint in which the title of Doctor is applied to him. The decree is issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope, after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint's writings. It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the list, since the Office and Mass are for Confessors. (Vol. V, p. 75)

It is not surprising that most of the early Doctors were bishops, since the bishops make up the Ecclesia docens, the teaching Church, whereas the rest of us make up the Ecclesia discens, the Church inasmuch as it is taught or instructed. The reason for this distinction is that the bishops alone have the official function to teach the deposit of the Faith, whereas the rest of us have the duty to learn and keep it. It is certainly understandable that the concept of Doctor would be enlarged to also include priests who were saints, for priests participate in the bishops' teaching role. Thus St. Jerome, a Father of the Church, is included, and also other priests such as St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bernard, and St. Anthony of Padua. It is also reasonable that St. Ephraem, who was a deacon, would also be included. All are Confessors, and the liturgical privileges of Doctors can be applied even to those who are not Pontiffs.

However, the post-Vatican II idea of including these very great women saints in the list of Doctors is a novelty. Liturgically they are not Confessors but Virgins, nor can they be treated as Confessors, for the public teaching of the Faith is not something that can be delegated to women, according to St. Paul:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church (I Cor 14:34, 35).

This being said, it is nevertheless manifestly obvious that the lives of these three great women fulfil all four conditions laid down for the proclamation of a Doctor of the Church, and that they played no less of a leadership role for the Universal Church than St. Joan of Arc did for France. No Catholic can doubt their orthodoxy nor their sanctity. Moreover if they did not have the eminent book learning of Sacred Theology that is generally associated with a Doctor of the Church, they most assuredly did have infused knowledge from God, allowing their words and writings to make a profound impact on the history and development of the Church.

Moreover, it must be remembered that there was nothing feminist about these great saints, whose every action defending the Church's magisterial teaching authority, whether it be St. Catherine of Siena, encouraging Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome, St. Teresa of Avila laying down the principles of the mystical life and the Carmelite reform for both men and women, or St. Therese of the Child Jesus, opening up to all souls the little way of childlike abandonment by the incredible story of her soul, thus becoming the patron of the missions.

We could legitimately ask the question why clergymen would feel the need to expand the notion of a Doctor to include women, and whether there is in this desire a deep-seated influence from the feminist egalitarianism that is one aspect of the post-conciliar revolution in the Church. It certainly seems that this is the real motivation. However, the right of the Church to extend the concept of "Doctor" in an analogical sense, to those who share the necessary qualities, but who are not actually Confessors, that is public teachers, but Virgins, cannot be denied. The term "Doctor" still retains a very real meaning, even if the differences, as in every analogy, are greater than the similarity.

This is what is meant by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter of October 19, 1997, Divini Amoris Scientia, which admits that "in the writings of Therese of Lisieux we do not find, perhaps, as in other Doctors, a scholarly presentation of the things of God" (§7), but nevertheless declares that the eminence of her teaching concerning the spiritual life is the basis for this honor:

From careful study of the writings of St. Therese of the Child Jesus and from the resonance they have had in the Church, salient aspects can be noted of her 'eminent doctrine', which is the fundamental element for conferring the title of Doctor of the Church (Ibid.).

He makes a comparison with the proclamation of St. Catherine of Siena as Doctor of the Church by Paul VI in 1970:

We can apply to Therese of Lisieux what my Predecessor, Paul VI, said of another young Saint and Doctor of the Church, Catherine of Siena: "What strikes us most about the Saint is her infused wisdom, that is to say, her lucid, profound and inebriating absorption of the divine truths and mysteries of faith..." (Ibid).

In conclusion, we can certainly accept the proclamation of these great saints as Doctors, for as John Paul II says of St. Therese, she "appears as an authentic teacher of faith and the Christian life" (op. cit. §8). However, we must be aware that we are not using this term in the same way as it is used to indicate Doctors who are Confessors, whether Pontiffs or not. When applied to a Doctor who is a Virgin it takes on an analogical and quite different sense to that which it has for a Doctor who is a Confessor. These holy Virgins taught despite themselves, moved by divine inspiration, without having any pretense of having the public function of doing so. Furthermore, these Doctor Virgins can clearly not be assimilated to Doctor Confessors in the texts of the Liturgy. However, it is in the liturgical offices that the practical consequences of the title of "Doctor" are most felt, hence the bizarreness of Doctor Virgins, for whom there is no place in the traditional Mass.

Q. Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?

A. It would certainly be valid to go to confession to a priest who still celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, provided that the penitent were assured of the doctrinal Orthodoxy of the priest, his intention of doing what; the Church does, and his use of the correct formula of absolution. It would furthermore be permissible in a state of necessity, such as when a person is dying and no traditional priest can be found.

However, it is not easy to have the assurance of a valid absolution, given the fact that the post-conciliar Church consistently downgrades the reality and gravity of mortal sin, the benefits of confessing venial sins, the graces to be obtained from frequent confession, and the necessity of doing penance. Very often souls who have felt the urgent need to go to a Novus Ordo priest have come to me afterwards in confession, doubting the validity of their confession to this priest, on account of his trivializing of their sins.

Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution. A penitent does not go to confession simply to receive the absolution of his sins. He has the desire to receive all the effects of the sacrament, including the direction, and if need be reprimand of the confessor, growth in the love of God and in sanctifying grace, a firmer purpose of amendment and the satisfaction of the temporal punishment due to his sins. All this is only possible if he sees in the confessor a judge, a teacher, and a physician. It is to guarantee these full effects of the sacrament of Penance that the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the faithful can ask any priest to hear their confessions, for any just reason (Canon 2261, §2, 1917 Code and  Canon 1335 of the 1983 Code).

Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.

Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one's soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted.